Sitting of 9 June 1992

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

    Rural Employment
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she proposes to promote more employment opportunities in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The Government work with a number of agencies such as the Rural Development Commission and Scottish Enterprise to promote enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas. Using the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils, we have a range of facilities and programmes for people in rural areas.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware of the locally derived initiative that Scottish Borders Enterprise has put together, called "Packaged Training", which is particularly appropriate for rural areas given the distances involved in getting people to training opportunities? Is he also aware that, this year, the budget of Scottish Borders Enterprise for that purpose has been cut from £530,000 to £380,000? Last year, 180 people were given an opportunity to retrain, but, sadly, that number will be cut because the budget for this year has already been used. Will the Minister attempt to find ways of providing extra funds so that such employment opportunities can continue to be provided in the future?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, we provide a range of facilities to help in rural areas. The points that the hon. Gentleman raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I shall ensure that they are brought to his attention.
    Mr. Moss: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the work of enterprise agencies, particularly those in rural areas such as the Fens Business Enterprise Trust in my constituency? Is he aware that in the current economic climate, funding for such enterprise agencies has become increasingly difficult to obtain? Will he give some consideration to providing more centralised funding to allow that good work to continue?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure that more centralised funding is the way to go about the problem. Perhaps a better way to proceed is to provide money to the TECs, as we have done in the past two years, so that they can make
    130
    their own decisions. That is probably preferable to the Government's making more centralised decisions. I shall. however, consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Youth Training
    2. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the quality and quantity of training places available to young people.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am satisfied that, across the country as a whole, the quality and quantity of youth training places are meeting the needs of young people and those of the economy.
    Mr. Davies: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment, but is she aware that when the chairmen of the north-west regional TECs sought a new Secretary of State, they did so because they wanted increased funds for training? What is her justification for the cuts in financial provision for each youth training place in Oldham and for the cuts in unit costs for training places throughout the north-west?
    Mrs. Shephard: I met the chairmen of the north-west TECs recently, and we discussed a number of matters, including funding and flexibility. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there has been an unjustifiable variation in the unit costs for youth training places—a variation of £30 per place—and I think that it was right to bring those costs closer together.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. What representations has she received from Labour Members about the youth training scheme?
    Mrs. Shephard: Very few, because my hon. Friend will know that Labour Members have consistently set their face against youth training; and I believe that the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors many Labour Members, voted to boycott youth training. That scandalous state of affairs has not been criticised by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Leighton: In welcoming the Secretary of State to her new duties, may I inquire whether she has read the excellent pamphlet published by Youth Aid, the Children's Society and 30 other organisations, entitled "A Broken Promise: A Failure of Youth Training Policy"? It makes it clear that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered and that right across the country, including my constituency, thousands of young people are leaving school with no jobs, no training places and no benefits? What will she do to improve youth training?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read that important report, and that of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I must set the concerns expressed in those reports in context; 300,000 young people are successfully engaged in youth training. The Government will ensure a guaranteed place for every young person and no TEC has been or will be prevented from meeting that guarantee by a lack of resources. However, if there is a problem in the machinery, we shall look into it.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I, as a Norfolk Member, also congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? Can she confirm that it is the Government's intention to ensure that every young person not in full-time education from the age of 16 has a training place? Will she visit Norwich at the earliest opportunity to check whether that policy is being carried out to the full?
    Mrs. Shephard: I confirm that there is a guaranteed place for every young person who needs one. I intend to visit Norwich shortly.
    Mr. Fatchett: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her appointment. Does she recognise that an equally important statistic is not the 300,000 young people on youth training places but the 100,000 who are struggling to find places? Is she also aware that the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the former Chairman of the Select Committee, showed that half the TECs were having difficulty meeting the youth guarantee? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has been misled by her civil servants, or that she is ignorant about what is happening to youth training—the simple fact being that the guarantee is not being delivered by the Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I repeat that the Government do and will ensure that there is a guaranteed place for every young person. I accept that there is some waiting for places, but that is to be expected, given the importance of placing young people in training that suits their needs. As I said, if there is a problem with machinery, I shall certainly look into it. The machinery should not fail young people.

    Disabled Employees
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about the employment of people with disabilities; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have received a number of representations about the help that we provide for people with disabilities, including the sheltered placement scheme, the new placing assessment and counselling teams and the training provision available through TECs.
    Mr. Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he make it one of his first priorities to examine closely why the public sector falls below the private sector in giving jobs to the disabled? Why does the BBC have one of the worst records of any public organisation, employing only 71 registered disabled among its 25,000 employees? Will he ask the BBC to give free television licences to the disabled until it starts to co-operate with his Department?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the BBC will have broadcast my hon. Friend's message, which I hope will be received. As for the differences in employment practice between the public and private sectors, it is true that, in general, the quotas are least well met by the public sector. But I should say, in defence of both sectors, that the number of people registered as disabled is about 1 per cent. of the work force and the quota is 3 per cent., making it a mathematical impossibility for employers to achieve their legal obligation.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does it not concern the Minister that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that there was not one disabled person working at No. 10 Downing street? Before the Government lecture the BBC or anybody else, will they put their own house in order?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister.

    EC Employment
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she has to promote employment for British people within the EC.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We are working to give our people better access to jobs in other EC countries by improving the system for exchanging job vacancies between member states, securing mutual recognition of qualifications and providing information about living and working elsewhere in the EC.
    Sir Michael Neubert: With British people keeping fitter and living longer, is it not against both the spirit of the times and natural justice that the European Commission should limit applicants to its posts to people aged 35 or under? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to root out that blatant example of Brussels ageism?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree. Indeed, the first speech that I made in my new post was on the subject of ageism. It is astonishing that the European Commission should be one of the worst practitioners of ageism. If one wants to apply for a job as a dishwasher or an administrator with the European Commission, one must be under the age of 35. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for pointing out that most of us in this Chamber would be considered too old for the job.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of ageism is not only undesirable but stupid. It diminishes the supply of talent to the economy throughout the Community, and I hope that efforts made to combat ageism will be taken on board by employers throughout the United Kingdom and by the European Commission.
    Mr. McLeish: I also welcome the Minister to his new position in the employment team. The whole of Scotland rejoices in the fact that he has now been moved from the Scottish Office. Unfortunately, however, he will now visit upon the unemployed and those who need training the right-wing policies that have done so much damage in Scotland.
    Is the Minister aware that, between September 1979 and September 1991, the number of people employed in Britain fell by 13,000? Why do the Government have the most appalling employment record in post-war Britain? Does he accept that, with fewer people working in this country, his policies have failed? We now need urgent action to tackle not only the growing problem of training but the scandal of rising unemployment and the reduction in employment.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the reasons for my moving from the Scottish Office, where I was responsible for education, to Employment were the same as the reasons

    133
    for the hon. Gentleman's move from Scottish spokesman on education to employment. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that both of us now enjoy a wider brief.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about unemployment in the European Community, surely he would agree with those of us who argue that as there are 15.5 million people unemployed in the Community, our first priority must be to ensure that there are measures to create jobs and get people back to work. What a pity that Opposition Members support so many of the highly damaging proposals coming out of Europe which would destroy jobs in Britain and throughout the Community.
    Mr. Rowe: I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about ageism. Does he agree that one of the great difficulties for many people trying to keep employment is the working of the pensions system., which makes it profitable for employers to get rid of people aged 50 and above, and makes it difficult for such people to find employment elsewhere?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to such difficulties. There are ways round those problems and we have asked managers and jobcentres, in discussion with employers, to draw to employers' attention the benefits of employing older workers and some of the ways round the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

    Sheffield TEC
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those participating in the Sheffield TEC programmes successfully find full-time employment.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In the Sheffield TEC area in the year to July 1991, some 65 per cent. of youth training leavers and 38 per cent. of employment training leavers who completed their training were in full-time employment.
    Mr. Michie: The Government have been claiming to have met the guarantee month after month. Will they wake up to the fact that those courses are inadequate and not available to most people, and that there is not enough fund money and grants for people to afford to take the training courses—let alone get a job at the end of them?
    Mr. McLoughlin: No. The Government will take no lectures from the Labour party on the provision of training, about which it did absolutely nothing when in government. This Government are committed to providing training a concept totally alien to the action taken by the Labour party when it was last in office.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that employment opportunities for people participating in the Sheffield training and enterprise council courses will be severely reduced if the 48-hour working week is imposed on British industry by the European Commission? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fight those proposals and that there will be no compromise?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue he has raised is in the forefront of our minds. Obviously, the proposals will be negotiated and discussions will take place at Community level. We hope to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the United Kingdom.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to reduce the level of unemployment; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government's role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and the battle against inflation can be won. We also wish to ensure that the Department's programmes give the highest priority to getting unemployed people back to work as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Worthington: Is the Secretary of State aware that today the voluntary organisation, the Strathclyde poverty alliance, has found that one in 10 of 16 and 17-year-olds in Strathclyde—5,500 young people—are not receiving the Government's youth guarantee? When will the Secretary of State open the books and let us have a full investigation of what is going on in the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies throughout the country? Does she agree that the Government have broken their promise?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said, there is a guarantee of a place for young people. If machinery is failing young people, we need to know about it. I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important contribution to the British economy made by part-time workers, particularly in the leisure and tourism industries in constituencies such as mine? Does she accept that it would be uniquely damaging to that industry were we to accept the part-time working directive supported by the Labour party, as it would cause untold damage to industries such as leisure and tourism?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I agree. A number of the policies supported by the Labour party would increase unemployment. In this country we need a flexible labour market, and opportunities for part-time work and women returners. We shall continue to fight for a flexible labour market.
    Ms. Estelle Morris: Is the Minister aware that my constituency of Birmingham, Yardley recently suffered the highest increase in unemployment of any of the 12 Birmingham constituencies—a most unfortunate first for my constituency, which is not a region of traditionally high unemployment? Does she agree that that statistic shows the depth of the Tory recession and the extent of the Government's attack on manufacturing jobs in the west midlands and Birmingham?
    Mrs. Shephard: Unemployment is certainly difficult for the individuals and families involved. Tackling unemployment and improving the skills and confidence of the work force are major elements in the Government's inner-city policy. I feel certain that the programmes provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will help the hon. Lady's constituents to return to work as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great enemies of employment is over-regulation of the labour market? Will she therefore

    135
    not only reiterate her opposition to the idea of a 48-hour maximum week and all the other rubbish from Brussels, but recommit herself to deregulation here in the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend well knows that the Government are committed to a deregulated labour market. We have made it clear from the outset that the damaging working time directive is unnecessary and has been produced on totally unjustifiable grounds as a health and safety measure.
    Mr. Blair: I wish the right hon. Lady every strength in her new position, especially in her relations with the Treasury, where I suspect she will need it most. Does she agree that the most pressing problem that she faces is rising unemployment? If urgent action is not taken, hundreds of thousands more people will face the dole this summer. I urge her to show that the change in her Department is one of substance as well of image. She should abandon the dismal failure of employment action, reverse the policy of running down training for the unemployed, and provide the job and training opportunities that the country would support and that the unemployed desperately need.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I wonder whether this is his last but one Question Time in his present position and whether before long he, too, will take advantage of retraining opportunities. I remind him that the Department offers almost 1 million places on employment and training programmes this year, an increase of 100,000 on last year. We are increasing spending on youth training; but, above all, it is the economic framework, to which we are committed and the hon. Gentleman's party is not, which will increase employment opportunities fast.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. I am sure that she will agree that women Members are doing pretty well. Will she bear it in mind that women and men with disabilities are more punctual and have fewer days off than men? Could that fact be drawn to the attention of those who seek to engage personnel?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for her good wishes. She is right to draw the attention of employers and others to people with disabilities. That is a particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who will be taking forward policies in that area.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of male unemployment in Grimsby (a) in 1982 and (b) at the latest available date.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In June 1983, the earliest date for which figures are available, on the unadjusted basis there were 8,380 men claiming unemployment-related benefits in the Grimsby travel-to-work area. There has been a reduction of 10.4 per cent., leaving a total of 7,507 in April 1992.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is it not disgraceful that in the second Government-induced recession unemployment is almost up to the level that it attained in the first Government-induced recession, at about one man in six in Grimsby? Is
    136
    it not also disgraceful that at such a time the Government are cutting spending on training? Instead of praying for a recovery, which cannot come at present interest rates, the Government should expand the economy and improve spending on training and the quality of its provision.
    Mr. McLoughlin: That is an obvious example of a hon. Member who prepared his supplementary before he heard the answer to his main question and stuck to it irrespective of the main answer. As I have said, there was a reduction of 10.4 per cent. in the year to April 1992, the year about which the hon. Gentleman asked. We really expect better of him.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment since 1979; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom rose by 1.607 million between April 1979 and April 1992. It is still about 430,000 less than at its peak in July 1986.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I remind the Secretary of State that, as a direct result of Government policy, about 20,000 mining-related jobs have been lost in the Wakefield district during that period. When will the RECHAR and European social fund programmes commence in mid-Yorkshire, and when will local authorities be advised of the details of the schemes that are to be included? What assessment has been made of the implications of Government proposals for the privatisation of coal in areas such as the Wakefield district, not just in terms of miners' jobs but for industries such as mining engineering?
    Mrs. Shephard: Jobs in manufacturing, as in all other sectors, have obviously been affected by the downturn in the economy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, manufacturing's share of GDP has declined under all Governments. The programmes that he mentions are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the United Kingdom population is in work and how that compares with our EC neighbours?
    Mrs. Shephard: The interesting thing is that 70 per cent. of people of working age in our population are in employment, which is higher than the EC average of 58 per cent.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that that is unhealthily complacent of the Government? Will she accept that it is not just a waste for individuals but a waste of resources to keep people unemployed, as it costs £8,600 for each person in loss of benefit and taxation? Will the Government introduce schemes that will put people back to work, build up our manufacturing base and help to achieve the Government's own programme of maintaining services and cutting taxes?
    Mrs. Shephard: There is no complacency in the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the best way to put people out of work is to pursue the sort of policies that he and his hon. Friends supported up to the election. The programmes in place and mounted by my Department, the Employment Service and employment

    137
    training, are the best possible ways of getting people back to work as quickly as possible. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that two thirds of all the newly unemployed leave unemployment within six months. It is down to the Employment Service to help them to achieve that.
    Mr. Jenkin: In seeking to create employment opportunities in the United Kingdom and in resisting, rightly, the European "shirking" hours directive, will my right hon. Friend consider using all means at her disposal and will she help the House to defy the European Court if necessary?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said, the United Kingdom has made it clear from the outset that we resist the directive and consider it to be unjustified. We believe that it will impose liabilities on our labour market that we do not need and do not want. I remind my hon. Friend that it is being brought forward, unjustifiably, under the qualified majority voting procedure. On legal challenge, I rule nothing in and nothing out at this stage.

    Employment Appeal Tribunals
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time taken for employment appeal tribunals to deal with cases.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The average length of time taken for a case to reach a hearing by the employment appeal tribunals is four months in Scotland and two years in England and Wales—(Interruption.] Like hon. Members, I am very concerned about the delays in England and Wales and we are taking action to help reduce them.
    Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Equal Opportunities Commission considered a case against Lloyds Bank. The case was heard in September 1989 and succeeded. Lloyds appealed and there was a hearing in February 1992. The parties are still awaiting the judgment. If, at the end of the day, the Equal Opportunities Commission succeeds, it will not even receive interest on the money to which it is entitled.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on specific cases. However, I agree that such delays and other current delays are unacceptable. We have made arrangements for additional judge time to be made available through my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. We will also be introducing legislative proposals to allow the employment appeal tribunals president to sit alone in certain cases. Also, additional court and administrative staff have been appointed.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend remind those who bring cases of their responsibilities? Is he aware that a firm in my constituency has twice within recent years been taken before a tribunal only to find that the appellant did not turn up? Considerable legal costs were incurred by the firm concerned.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on a specific case. It must be in the interests of good industrial relations and good practice if the EAT procedure operates smoothly and effectively. I am sure that there may be something to be learnt from experience north of the border.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister is going to review the scandalous waiting time of more than two years for appeals, will he consider reverting to what used to happen when people who had been in work for six months were allowed to appeal to an industrial tribunal instead of having to wait until they had been in work for two years? Do that as well.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, seems to be confusing two things. The question is on employment appeal tribunals, and I have given an assurance in that respect. He is tempting me to go into a wholly different area—a temptation which I shall resist.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what her policy is towards training and enterprise councils which build up reserves from their block grant.
    Mr. McLoughlin: TECs are able to earn surpluses from increased efficiency. They are required by their contract with us to use such surpluses to further the objectives set out in their corporate and business plans.
    Mr. Paice: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that, in some parts of the country, training providers experience difficulty in finding the workplace element of YT. They therefore keep trainees in workshops for longer, which costs more. Will he undertake to encourage TECs to recognise the extra costs on training providers, rather than using the money to build up sometimes unnecessarily large reserves?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I have received representations on this matter. The TECs' contracts make clear the priority that is attached to their training objectives. A significant part of their funding relates to trainees' achievements, which is an incentive to invest in improving the quality of their training provision. However, I shall seriously consider my hon. Friend's point.
    Ms. Coffey: Is the Minister aware that engineering training places for young people in Stockport are vacant because High Peak TEC cannot afford to fund them? Does he think that that reflects the Government's failure to provide proper training opportunities for young people and to provide them with the skills that they can invest in industry for the future?
    Mr. McLoughlin: A TEC must consider what is required in its area. I am not aware of the specific problem to which the hon. Lady refers, but I shall consider it. However, TECs are best suited to decide what is required in their area. No one would say that they should provide training places if people do not want to attend such courses.

    Employment Law
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how she will strengthen the rights of individuals, in the field of employment law, in accordance with citizens charter proposals.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We intend to introduce legislation to give individuals new rights to restrain unlawfully organised industrial action in the public and

    139
    private sectors. In addition, the legislation will ensure that individuals' consent is required before deductions for trades union subscriptions are made from their pay and will give individuals greater freedom to belong to the union of their choice.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment? In the light of the recent report in the Sunday Mirror, in which the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees made a statement to the Labour party —"No say, no pay"—does not he think it disgraceful that he should be able to threaten the future employment—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. We shall move on to the next question.

    Community Work
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for introducing a community work requirement for the payment of unemployment benefit.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have no such plans.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is she aware that many of the long-term unemployed are layabouts? They should have to do community work before receiving benefit. The taxpayers are sick and tired of financing these layabouts. Will she introduce new legislation so that for every year that these layabouts are on the dole one week's employment benefit is stopped? Will she introduce that legislation, because after the next election the lot opposite are going to be the new long-term unemployed?
    Mrs. Shephard: The taxpayers have every right to expect good value for money from programmes designed for unemployed people. I should like to reasssure my hon. Friend that we are already providing a wider variety of help than ever before through employment and training programmes to get long-term unemployed people back to work. That includes, of course, help for unemployed people to improve their skills on employment action, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Battle: Given that the Treasury today announced that it has revised the estimate of economic growth down to 0.5 per cent., is not the implication that at least 3.5 million real people will be unemployed by Christmas? Will not that be a drain on the nation's resources that none of her schemes will tackle?
    Mrs. Shephard: What is certain is that if the Labour party had been elected, with its wholly unrealistic economic policies, that total would have been reached and passed.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider the particular difficulty of people who left school at 16, went through training and into a job but who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves unemployed? There seems to be a gap in benefits for them.
    Mrs. Shephard: Entitlement to benefit, as my hon. Friend will know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the
    140
    Secretary of State for Social Security, but there are special arrangements for young people who find themselves in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

    Industrial Hazards
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments are required to register under the Control of Industrial Major Hazards Regulations 1989.
    Mr. McLoughlin: As at 31 December 1991, a total of 289 establishments had been notified to the Health and Safety Executive as "top-tier" sites under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that such sites could represent the highest potential risk to public safety? Will he also confirm that the Health and Safety Executive has been incredibly dilatory in assessing the real level of risk in those places? Does he intend to communicate directly with the HSE to ensure that a proper assessment is made and that public safety is assured?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct to mention the HSE's diligence in carrying out its duties under the regulations. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he can be sure that the Government will ensure that the HSE carries out its obligations.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate HSE inspectors around the country on their work with hazardous substances in very hazardous circumstances? Are they not worthy of the highest praise, rather than the criticism that we hear too often from the Opposition?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed they are. Most people who come into contact with the HSE and its inspectors are very impressed by the professional way in which they carry out their work.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient health and safety inspectors in post to ensure that all the major hazard sites—and, indeed, all the minor hazard sites—are inspected and properly assessed because, as he knows, many small factories are not inspected for many years at a time due to the grave shortage of qualified inspectors? Are the Government going to do something about that?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I go part of the way with the hon. Gentleman. It is right that some of the bigger sites have safety in mind in relation to their responsibilities to the community and to their employees and that care must be taken at some smaller sites. However, I am confident that there are enough inspectors to carry out the work.

    Women Workers
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to accommodate the special needs of women at work.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I will look at a range of issues relating to the needs of women at work with the help of the new working group which I announced on 20 May.
    Mrs. Gorman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that almost half the work force in Britain now comprises women and that in many areas of the country the new industries which are replacing the old industries are especially suitable for women? Does she agree with a publication out this week on equal opportunities, which states that women's criteria in working are often quite different from those of men? Women value part-time work and flexibility more than high wages and security of employment. It is, therefore, extremely important that we resist pressure from the European Community to make the conditions of work for men apply to women.
    Mrs. Shephard: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the report published yesterday by the Institute of Economic Affairs. I have not yet had time to consider that report. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the authors are mostly American and that their experiences and views may well be coloured by the American experience of positive discrimination legislation, which is unlawful in this country. However, I agree that women and men benefit from a flexible labour market and especially from the opportunity of job sharing, and part-time work in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour's spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government's aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not clone his homework?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend's statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year—an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994–95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid
    142
    to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?
    Mr. Newton: What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a waste of precious time.
    Mr. Newton: And—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.
    Mr. Newton: And the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?
    Mr. Newton: What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome: it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.
    Mr. Hattersley: Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?
    Mr. Newton: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Newton: I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week—this is acknowledged on all sides—to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Hattersley: It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hattersley: There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.
    Mr. Newton: There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for
    144
    Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government's position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country—this one—but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

    North Atlantic Treaty
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
    Dr. Godman: With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty's Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.

  Points of Order
  Madam Speaker: Before we move on to public business, I must hear a point of order from Mrs. Jackson.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you would advise the House whether it is in order for the Member of Parliament of a neighbouring constituency—Sheffield, Hallam in this case—to, in the words of my constituents,
  "be very involved and helpful"
  in advising them how to go about presenting a petition to the Prime Minister on Thursday without any reference to me as constituency Member of Parliament. He has done so to the extent that my constituents now understand that the only way to obtain a favourable decision from the Secretary of State for Education on an application for grant-maintained status or against the closure of a school is to have the petition presented by a Conservative Member.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady— [Interruption.] J Order. I have a point of order to answer, and that I am going to do. The hon. Lady knows that that it is not a question of order, but she also knows that it is a matter of the convention of the House. I say clearly that if, for any reason, a Member has cause to take up a matter that affects another Member's constituency, it is the established practice in the House to inform that Member.
  While I am on my feet, may I say this in general for the benefit of Members of long-standing and, in particular, for the benefit of new Members? In the heated atmosphere of this place, the common courtesies are far too often neglected. [Interruption.] Order; I am speaking. It is essential that the established courtesies be maintained for the sake of good working relationships in this Chamber and in the House in general. I hope that that is taken to heart by every Member, whether new or of long-standing. I shall now move on to public business.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an entirely different and uncontentious point of order. Today and yesterday prayers began at 2.29 pm. This may seem a small point. but sometimes those of us who are regular attenders at prayers time it to the last minute and we would have been excluded today and yesterday, and several times last week. Could the matter be looked into?
  Madam Speaker: If the hon. Lady is saying that occasionally I stride out too rapidly in the Speaker's procession, I will take it into consideration.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Question Time you will have heard the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) refer to unemployed people as "layabouts". You know that many millions of people in this country are unemployed and have no alternative but to watch television in the afternoon. They will have seen him make that statement and will be deeply distressed. Will you from the Chair refute that suggestion and make it clear that that is not the view of the majority of Members?
  Madam Speaker: That sounds like an extension of Question Time, and I shall certainly not allow the Chair to get involved in that. All Members are responsible for the
  146
  statements that they make, and I hope that in making them they will be guarded and courteous to each other and to people outside the House.
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order—
  Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Two hon. Members are on their feet at the same time. I call Mr. Winnick.
  Mr. Winnick: You spoke about common courtesy, Madam Speaker. The House has a responsibility for all citizens. People who find themselves unemployed and who are victims of Government policy—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Please come to the point for me.
  Mr. Winnick: If a section of the community has been attacked, and if a slur has been cast because an hon. Member has described them as "layabouts", can you, Madam Speaker, advise me on how we can defend people who are not in a position to defend themselves?
  Madam Speaker: I have already attempted to deal with that. By no means is the Chair getting involved.
  Mr. Barry Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I thank you for being clear about the common courtesies of the House and may I draw to your attention the fact that, during the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was mentioned twice by Opposition Members who did not acknowledge the normal courtesies of the House by notifying him that his name was to be mentioned in the Chamber? Could you reiterate that the normal courtesy is for hon. Members to notify one another when they intend to visit and to speak in their constituencies?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If a Member or his constituency is named in the House, he should he notified in advance. Of course it is also courteous to tell other Members when an official visit is to be made to their constituency.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Is it an extension of the last point of order?
  Mr. Banks: No.
  Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.
  Mr. Banks: Would you confirm that, under the Mental Health Acts, you have the power to section? Perhaps you would contemplate using that power.
  Madam Speaker: On that note, it is time for us to proceed with the business of the House.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the 15 motions on statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.
    That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    148
    That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Housing (Percentage of Approved Expense for Repairs Grants) (Lead Plumbing and Radon Gas Works) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    VETERINARY SURGEONS
    That the Veterinary Surgery (Epidural Anaesthesia) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 696) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY

    Ethnic Minorities
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the first speaker, I should say that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.37 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
    That this House, recognising that the ethnic minorities within British society receive less than their fair share of national resources and remain victims of discrimination and prejudice, calls upon the Government to introduce and implement policies which initially reduce and eventually eliminate the disadvantages which are suffered by these British citizens.
    The motion was intended to be uncontroversial between the parties. It contains no criticism of the Government's record or policy. It was drafted in the hope —a vain hope, as it turned out—that the House could unite in unanimous agreement about the need to take immediate, decisive action to reduce discrimination against ethnic minorities. The Government have chosen to table an amendment which manages to be simultaneously pious and partisan. It includes sentiments which sit uncomfortably alongside the statements and speeches made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) during the general election. We shall vote against the amendment because, in our view, the time for platitudes has passed and the time for action has come.
    In part, we chose this subject for debate because there is a new Home Secretary. We did so not simply to celebrate his appointment but to express the hope that, at least in this particular, he will do better than his immediate predecessors. It is even possible that we at last have a Conservative Home Secretary—I think, the first for 30 years—who represents a constituency which contains members of the ethnic minority community. If that is the case, he must know the extent of the disadvantage from which these British citizens suffer. It was our hope—it remains our hope, despite the amendment—that he will wish to take action that has previously been neglected but is urgently in the interests of this section of the British public.
    I emphasise that the motion, and the debate, concern British citizens who are denied the full rights of British citizenship. The facts are indisputable. We know, at one extreme of the social spectrum, that black defendants are denied bail in circumstances in which it would be granted to white suspects. At the other extreme, we know that highly qualified black and Asian job applicants are rejected for no other reason than their racial origins. These are facts which it is painful to repeat because of what they demonstrate about our society, but, unless we acknowledge the existence of the canker, we will not cut it out, and there is no doubt how great the infection is today.
    Parliamentary answers given on 22 May this year demonstrate the extent of one form of discrimination. From 1989 to 1991, the average rate of male unemployment was 8 per cent. For white males, it was 7 per cent. For ethnic minorities, it was almost twice that
    150
    figure, at 13 per cent. For men of Indian origin, it was 10 per cent. and for Afro-Caribbeans it was 15 per cent. For men of Bangladeshi and Pakistani stock, it was 21 per cent.
    That discrepancy in job opportunities did not result from the ethnic minorities being less motivated or less qualified than white workers. The truth is quite the opposite. The Commission for Racial Equality, reporting last month, analysed job seekers in the labour market and said:
    "The proportion of ethnic minorities with higher levels of qualification is slightly higher than the proportion of white people."
    Yet, for those in this group—the most highly qualified, the group in which ethnic minorities have superior qualifications to their white contemporaries—their prospects of getting a job are exactly the same, that is, about half that of a white man or woman applying for the same post.
    I do not believe that the Home Secretary will dispute that description, for the Government have acknowledged the existence of discrimination in employment. In February, they published a 10-point guide which they said would remedy what they coyly described as the
    "under representation of the ethnic minorities within the employed population".
    Nobody, not even the Government, believes that those guidelines will even scratch the surface of the problem. The question that faces the nation is whether we are prepared for such discrimination to continue or are willing and now ready to initiate decisive action. Timing is vital, because jobs are what the black and Asian British need most. Given a fair chance, given an equal opportunity, they would get their fair share of employment. At the moment, equal opportunity is not available to them.
    Highly motivated and unusually talented members of the ethnic minorities fight their way to success, but many of the others are caught in a cycle of double deprivation. They are disadvantaged because they are poor. They are either at the bottom of the earnings league or unemployed. Because of their race and their colour, they are unable to escape from their poverty.
    I do not seek to diminish the importance of other policies that are designed to eliminate discrimination. It is, for example, wholly unacceptable, at least to me, that although Catholics, Jews and Quakers can set up denominational schools, Muslims are denied that right. It also seems intolerable to me that some hospitals and some schools do not provide meals that respect the religious needs of their Muslim patients and pupils. However, nothing is so important as providing a chance to escape from poverty, and that requires a radical revision of our employment legislation.
    The present law is demonstrably inadequate because it is based on specific complaints by individuals, who have been denied employment or promotion because of their race. The onus should be shifted from isolated actions by victims of discrimination to a general obligation placed on employers. Whether that obligation is fulfilled cannot be calculated in terms of precise numbers. Quotas do not work and will not work, and we do not suggest them as a remedy.
    We should require that all employers use their best endeavours to employ a work force who are genuinely representative of their local population. A strengthened Commission for Racial Equality should be empowered to monitor and enforce that process. As the CRE makes clear, that involves monitoring. Unless we know which

    151
    companies employ a genuine cross-section of the population, we will not be able to ensure a fair distribution of resources.
    Ethnic monitoring has already been introduced into employment in parts of the health service, initially, I believe, when the the new Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Health. I therefore assume that that means that the Government are not opposed to ethnic monitoring in principle. Monitoring is essential if the ethnic minorities are to receive their fair share of jobs. I emphasise, because it is crucial to the debate, that it is a fair share of jobs that we demand. We do not ask for that form of positive discrimination that guarantees jobs to those who are not qualified to perform them or provides minorities with more than their proper share of national resources. All we ask is that action be taken to ensure that the black and Asian British receive what is rightly theirs—rightly theirs in terms of civil liberties and national resources.
    The Government should and could immediately announce that they will no longer enter into contracts with companies that cannot demonstrate that they operate fair employment policies. That policy of contract compliance, as it is called, is no doubt regarded in some parts of the House as a revolutionary assault on the free market, but in America, which I suppose those same parts of the House still regard as the home and haven of free enterprise, contract compliance by Government agencies is taken for granted.
    I have heard much talk of employers needing to choose the best employees available to them. I accept that without qualification, but statistics prove that the best candidate is often rejected because he or she is a member of the ethnic minorities. What is more, discrimination is often the product of ignorance rather than of outright prejudice. I am constantly being told that the black and Asian British are unemployed because they lack the necessary skills to obtain jobs. Again, statistics prove that that is palpable nonsense. The Government should encourage decent employers to search more diligently, and a decent Government would organise carefully targeted training programmes to fill the few gaps in the market that really exist.
    Yet the Government, who claim in their amendment a determination to promote a multiracial society, have acted to prevent local councils from insisting that their contractors operate fair employment practices. Birmingham city council instructed its contractors to recruit from the areas in which it was working and have on its payroll a proper racial balance. The Government legislated to make that instruction illegal, as a result of which thousands of jobs were denied to the ethnic minorities in the west midlands.
    Let no one suggest that in a free society we cannot impose pressures on employers that prevent them from engaging the employees of their absolute and unfettered choice. I have to tell the Home Secretary—I hope that I shall have the opportunity to tell him on many occasions as the next five years progress—that my Muslim and Sikh constituents are wholly unattracted by a theory of liberty that condemns them permanently to second-class status. If our theory of democracy ignores their basic needs, we should not be surprised if one day they reject our theory of democracy.
    152
    We need more positive employment policies because the ethnic minorities need jobs. We also need them to send a message to society. That essential message is easily described. The Government must demonstrate their abhorrence of prejudice and discrimination and their willingness to do more than just talk about such matters and to take action that will bring those evils to an end. The message we need to send out is that the black and Asian British are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and opportunities of that citizenship, not in theory but in practice. I repeat that the platitudes must be replaced by action.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I have absolutely no quarrel with the philosophy that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward—that we must treat all people in this country as equal citizens with equal opportunities. However, having listened carefully to what he said, I have a problem over how exactly he will persuade employers—unless he has some legal or governmental hacking or requirement—to tell the world whether they have the correct number of black or Asian employees compared with other employees unless employers use the criterion that they are now using, which is to employ the person who is best qualified for the job.
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady began her intervention so courteously and supportively that I regret to have to tell her that, although she said that she was listening carefully to what I said, she was clearly not listening carefully enough. I set out and described—I will not bore the House by repeating it—the system of contract compliance which enables, say, the CRE to tell a large company, "We wish to inspect your record to make sure that your payroll is genuinely representative of the area from which you recruit."
    I said that that required the ethnic monitoring to which the Home Secretary does not object in principle, since he allowed it at the Department of Health when he was a Minister there. It also requires the CRE to be able to say to a company that is not representative of the area from which it recruits, "Unless you use your best endeavours to recruit members of the ethnic minorities, you will certainly no longer qualify for Government contracts and you will be subject to the penalties that come from breaking the law that specifies fair employment practices." That happens in other countries. It is only because of the peculiar prejudices in this country that it has not been happening here for the last 20 years.
    Ms. Joan Walley: My right hon. Friend has described precisely the problem confronting my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent. It wishes to do what he outlined, but is prevented from doing so because of the lack of legislation.
    Mr. Hattersley: In my prejudiced way, I cited the example of Birmingham city council as an authority that has wanted to introduce certain policies and been prevented from doing so by the Government. Stoke is another example, and we know of other good local authorities that want to implement fair employment practices but have been prevented from carrying them out by the Government, who have had the nerve to table an amendment of undisguised piety on which we shall be required to vote at 7 o'clock.
    Mr. John Bowis: The right hon. Gentleman courteously said that he wants this to be a level debate. We should therefore look for ways in which everyone can sort out the problems of racial discrimination. He will know that some changes can be made without legislation. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out that racism needs to be eradicated from the Labour party. Precisely what will the right hon. Gentleman do on behalf of his party to eradicate racism from the party, while the Conservative party looks for ways to encourage the Government to do as much as they can?
    Mr. Hattersley: I suppose that I might just believe, in a moment of supreme charity, that that comment was intended to be constructive. But a more serious judgment would be that it was characteristically trivial. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I propose to say something worth saying.
    The time for platitudes has gone and the time for action has come. The time has gone, too, for the figure manipulation which appears, by implication, in the amendment and which will no doubt be developed by the Home Secretary when he speaks. He draws the attention of the House and, he hopes, the country to the specific grants that have been made available for areas in which ethnic minorities have congregated. He must know that, putting aside those grants—most of them very small and all of them introduced with enormous fanfares—the loss of funds going into inner cities has been enormous and overwhelming because of the reduction of central Government general grant to local authorities.
    As a result of that reduction, housing in central areas has deteriorated. School buildings have deteriorated and education committees have been unable to recruit extra teachers to teach English as a second language. Amenities in central areas have also deteriorated. The idea that the Government have put money at the disposal of local authorities that want to help in those matters is not simply untrue but the diametric opposite of the truth.
    The Government must decide in the next five years—I hope that they will feel calmer about making a decision in the knowledge that the general election is behind them —whether they believe in a multiracial society. In such a society, diversity is welcomed, not merely tolerated, and the culture, customs and religions of minority groups are respected. In such a society, laws accommodate minority religions and mores. Above all else, a multiracial society does not treat minorities as a problem.
    Nothing has done so much harm to community relations in this country as the idea encouraged, I fear, by Government policies, that black and Asian British are a liability. They are not. The idea that ethnic minorities are a problem, with all its damaging results, has been encouraged by successive Home Secretaries. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was civilised, patrician and courteous about it. The Lord Waddington was not. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley saw it as a political opportunity. However, in their different ways, each fostered the disastrous notion that black and Asian British were such a detriment to society that the Government must use every power at their disposal to prevent any more of them from entering the country, whatever their legitimate claim for entry.
    I believe quite the opposite because of my experience. I spend much of my time on the Stratford road in the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook and I see how that road has been rehabilitated by the ethnic minorities:
    154
    the shops are Asian; the restaurants are Kashmiri; the banks are Indian and Pakistani. They have rebuilt that heart in the centre of the community. Anyone who thinks that their entry into Birmingham is anything but an advantage is guided by pure, blind prejudice.
    I hope that there can be more positive understanding of that contribution. It must be related to our attitude towards immigration. These days when we speak of immigration we mean a process that is directly relevant to the lives of British citizens living in Britain. Primary immigration, whether or not it was right in the dying days of the empire, is now over for ever. The argument about immigration now involves British citizens living in Britain—
    the right of wives to be reunited with their husbands and the right of British citizens to be visited by their friends and relations—a right which is still too often denied to the black and Asian British.
    One of my constituents is, on the evidence of a great national hospital, dying of cancer. His son has been refused permission to visit him as the immigration service, while accepting the diagnosis—it could hardly have done otherwise—doubts the son's motives for wishing to visit this country. I do not believe that that man would have been excluded from this country had he been white, and I fear that the figures confirm that unhappy conclusion. Last year, one Canadian out of every 4,219 applicants was refused a visitor's permit, whereas one in 32 Jamaicans was refused a temporary visa. The difference was not in the applicants' intentions but in the reaction of the immigration service.
    If the Home Secretary truly intended to implement the high hopes of his amendment, he would send an immediate message to the immigration service, particularly those members serving in posts abroad. He would tell them that the Government do not expect them to use every means at their disposal to refuse application for entry, whatever the merits of the application. I have no doubt that the service believes that the present Government expect it positively to look for reasons why visa applications should be refused. That is the tone set by previous Home Secretaries, and by the Government appealing against a tribunal decision that judged a man to be improperly excluded. That impression was also given by the tone and character of the speeches made by the previous Home Secretary. The main reason for this debate is that the present Home Secretary has an opportunity to make it clear that he expects genuine applicants to be allowed entry into this country. I hope that he will say that in exact terms this afternoon.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case highlighted in The Independent of a citizen from the United States who came over here? There was no reason to suspect that he was other than a visitor; he was employed in the United States, where he had status and a home. However, he was refused entry and accused of being associated with the recent disturbances in America. There was no reason to disbelieve what he said, as he went out of the way to publicise his position. One can only conclude—as one of our former colleagues did in a letter to The Independent—that the man was refused entry because of his colour and had he been white there would have been absolutely no problem.
    Mr. Hattersley: The problem with such examples is that they are all too frequent and we can all add to them. I shall

    155
    take this opportunity to give another even more extraordinary example. A professor of economics who had been lecturing in Germany was flying back to Canada. On the aeroplane he met another professor of economics from this country. The English professor told him that he had a PhD student who specialised in a subject on which the Canadian professor had given his lecture.
    The Canadian professor was persuaded to get off the aircraft at Heathrow to talk to the PhD student. The professor was immediately arrested, retained at Heathrow for two days and put on an aeroplane back to Canada. All the information about the professor's qualifications was available, but unfortunately he was black. It gives me no pleasure, but only regret, to state that had the professor been a white Canadian, that would not have happened to him.
    I asked the Home Secretary to send a message to his officials, and I should like to hear him send a message to the rest of the public service, that its members should give equal treatment to all. We know—the evidence is depressingly extensive—that in social security offices all over Britain, black and Asian British are asked to prove their entitlement to benefit, whereas members of the majority community are not asked to do so. Evidence can also be provided to show that some officers refuse to issue national insurance numbers to members of ethnic minorities about to enter the labour market until they can prove that they are British by birth or registration. We believe that such practices are intolerable.
    The Government should also make it clear that public housing must not be allocated according to rules that in any way discriminate against one group in society. The Liberal council in Tower Hamlets simply refused to rehouse Bangladeshi residents and its action was ruled unlawful in the High Court. No doubt later in the debate we shall hear that council action condemned. Some councils still have qualifying regulations which, by coincidence or by design, discriminate against minorities. Such regulations should be prohibited by law.
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tower Hamlets council recently started to ask applicants who arrived at the homeless persons unit to prove their immigration status, thereby acting illegally as an immigration authority?
    Mr. Hattersley: That will have to be the final intervention, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the general point that there is a tendency by officialdom when confronted with a black, brown or yellow face to suspect that the person is not a genuine British citizen and to require him to prove his status. That should be prevented by law.
    Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the general election campaign some members of the Asian community in Rochdale were threatened and intimidated by some members of the Labour party? In one case, a man who was canvassing for the Liberal Democrats was told by a member of the Labour party that he would lose his grant unless he stopped such canvassing.
    Mr. Hattersley: If that happened, I condemn it without qualification. I say "If it happened." I have named the
    156
    Liberal council that discriminated openly and unlawfully against Bangladeshis and I hope that the hon. Lady or a more senior member of her party will condemn that action that she has described.
    Ms. Lynne rose—
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again, as I want to make some progress.
    There are still qualifying regulations in all areas which are imposed to require the black and Asian British to prove their status. That is wholly intolerable. The Government's belief that anything is justified in the name of immigration control was illustrated by one of the meanest acts in the history of British administration. Four years ago, some children who had been denied entry to this country, because the Government did not accept that they were related as claimed, proved through DNA tests that the Government were wrong. Those children who were still under 18 when the Government were confounded were allowed to enter Britain as the law required. However, the young men and women who had passed that age—the age at which admission is normally agreed—while undergoing the DNA tests to prove that the Government were in error were denied entry.
    The only conclusion to be drawn from such petty tyranny is that the Government believe that they must keep the numbers down at all costs, irrespective of the device that is necessary to achieve that aim. That attitude sends quite the wrong signals to the ethnic minorities and to the wider population.
    The second and even more damaging illustration of the official attitude to ethnic minorities concerns the reunion of husbands and wives. The immense suffering caused by that policy is, I fear, the product of the Government's failure to understand that marriage may be contracted in a variety of ways and still be lawful. In the official mind, the arranged marriage is confused with a bogus marriage. In a proper multiracial society the law would be able to accommodate marriage customs based on a variety of traditions.
    The primary-purpose rule by which applicants who wish to join their wives in Britain are judged is intellectually absurd and morally indefensible. A woman with British citizenship, who theoretically enjoys all the rights that such citizenship provides, is denied the right to live in this country with her lawful husband if, in the opinion of an immigration officer, the man's real object of coming here is to live in Great Britain. Simply stated, the immigration officer has the right in law to read an applicant's mind. Having formed a subjective opinion, the immigration authorities will allow entry only if on appeal the applicant can prove that the immigration officer misjudged and misread his mind. Normally and, I fear, intentionally that is an impossible task.
    The case history of this provision shows how squalid the process has become. I have read case note after case note and they all read in a similar way. The applicant is asked his opinion of the United Kingdom. He answers, no doubt with the hope of ingratiating himself with the officer, that he has always admired the United Kingdom and always wanted to live here. On the evidence of that answer it is judged that he contracted the marriage only to enable him to live and work in the United Kingdom, and a legitimate and genuine marriage is separated, almost for ever.

    157
    I emphasise that the marriages of which I speak are genuine. They have been contracted in ways to which hon. Members are not accustomed. However, it is the obligation of a multiracial society to accept and allow in law the mores of the minorites, rather than impose upon them the will and wishes of the majority. The genuine nature of the marriages is often demonstrated by years of separation and devotion.
    Six months ago I proposed that the primary-purpose rule should he replaced by a more objective test of a marriage's genuine status. One of the criteria against which I wanted applicants to be judged was the constancy of the partners. I have constituents who were married five or six years ago. The husbands have been forced to remain in Pakistan and have seen their wives during a couple of brief holidays since the wedding. The wives have given birth to one or two children. The husbands have supported their families as best they can with remittances. Yet, the immigration service persists in saying that those couples are not genuinely married.
    In the judgment in Kumar, the High Court required the Government to take into account what is described as intervening devotion. Some married couples have been reunited by taking the Government to court, obtaining judicial review and being brought together because of the judgment in Kumar. That is a long and often expensive process. It is time that the Government accepted that judgment from the beginning and applied it to all applicants who want to come and remain in this country.
    The European Court is now considering a second specific case—the application of Mr. Surinder Singh. If, as is widely assumed, it finds in his favour, it will be possible for a British citizen whose spouse has been denied entry into Great Britain to live with his wife or her husband for a brief period in France or Germany and then move, without let or hindrance, into the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that already an English woman of Kashmiri origin can move to Paris or Rome and use Community law to be reunited with her husband from Pakistan immediately and without any qualification. If, as seems likely. Europe is to make nonsense of the primary-purpose rule, it would be to the Government's credit to take the initiative and do away with the dreadful thing immediately.
    It is worth noting that the treatment thought appropriate to British women who marry foreign husbands is regarded by the European Community as unacceptable for citizens of other European countries. Britain is required to treat Community nationals better than we treat our own people. A French woman living in London who marries a citizen of what was once a French colony has the automatic and unfettered right to be joined in this country by her Moroccan or Algerian husband. A British woman does not have the same right to be joined in Britain by a Kenyan, Kashmiri or Indian husband. That is absurd as well as shameful. Nothing would so enhance the Home Secretary's reputation than for him to say today that he will bring that absurd shame to an immediate end.
    The defence of the primary-purpose rule is that to replace it with objective criteria would result in some bogus marriages slipping through the net and, although it is rarely admitted, 100, 200 or 300 more young men would thus be allowed into this country. I make my position clear. The Government are so obsessed with keeping the wrong applicants out that they are always casual and sometimes callous about making sure that the right
    158
    applicants get in. I am certainly prepared to accept the increase in numbers that would be involved in genuine marriages being reunited in this country in the way that they should be.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I suspect, forgets that the general election is over. Nevertheless, I shall let him make his point about numbers.
    Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and grateful to be here after the election. Will he clarify how he works out the figure of 300 extra people coming here if we abolish the primary-purpose rule? That is humbug. Perhaps he remembers that on 5 April, before the election, The People issued an Asian edition and an English one. The front page of the Asian issue was plastered with the right hon. Gentleman's promises. He promised everything under the sun, including abolition of the primary-purpose rule. The English edition did not mention a word. Does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman has no answers and is trying to give different messages to different audiences?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am open to all sorts of accusations this afternoon, one of which is going on for too long, but the accusation that I have been trying to hide the immigration policies that I support seems difficult to sustain. I believe, and the hon. Gentleman can put it in his election manifesto in four or five years' time, that we must allow the entry of those men who are genuinely married and are genuinely separated from wives with whom they should be reunited. If that involves an increase in numbers, so be it. That is the necessity and obligation of a civilised society.
    The test that the Government now face is their real belief in a multiracial society and, in consequence, their real belief in freedom. Sometimes, the ethnic minorities will wish to behave in a way that the majority population finds unnatural and uncomfortable. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise, for that is the nature of the multiracial society. I, for instance, am not an enthusiast for single-sex schools or for religious schools. I do not like the idea of single-sex secondary education or religious-based secondary education. The question is not whether we as individuals like or dislike a proposal but whether we are prepared to allow members of minorities to make decisions for themselves and to run their lives according to their traditions, religions and mores, as long as in doing so they do not damage the interests of the community as a whole.
    I fear that our willingness to allow that freedom to ethnic minorities is singularly absent from Government policy. I fear that we have neglected the interests of those citizens in a way that is to this country's shame and may, over the years, rebound enormously to our practical and material disadvantage.
    The motion demands that we accept that the black and Asian British are what they are—full and equal citizens of the United Kingdom, with all the rights that that implies and the share of resources that it should provide for them. Labour Members will go on proclaiming the necessity to change policy until that desirable situation is genuinely and fully brought about.
    4.17 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "commends the Government's determination to work towards a multi-racial society, to which all ethnic minority communities contribute fully and in which all enjoy equal opportunities, as evidenced by their policies for tackling racial discrimination and disadvantage and for promoting equal opportunities, and by expenditure programmes directed at the special needs of ethnic minorities."
    I am open to correction in my understanding of the timing of these matters, but I think that I am right in saying that this may be the last appearance at the Dispatch Box of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He shakes his head. I look forward to debating with him again. The world will change when that moment comes, because for as long as I have been a Member I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman make a speech from the Back Benches; he has always been a Front Bencher. I therefore thought that he might have planned his swansong on this subject, and I was going to pay tribute to him. If he is now promising me an onslaught on another subject in the near future, I will gladly give way to him.
    Mr. Hattersley: I was hoping that the Home Secretary would confirm that he will withdraw the representation of the people legislation that we are due to debate on Monday, when I hoped to debate with him again.
    Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that, which at least will be a more partisan discussion.
    The right hon. Gentleman rightly began by saying that I had puzzled over the motion before the House and wondered why he was raising ethnic minority issues when I thought that it might be his last speech, forgetting next Monday. I am now reassured that he wishes to make a speech on a matter about which he holds strong views, which, in principle, are not removed from mine.
    The right hon. Gentleman is fairly critical of the fact that I thought his motion was partisan and therefore tabled an amendment to it. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman, probably like myself, does not have a non-partisan reputation in the House. He may think that his motion was disingenuous and a statement of the obvious, but I shall seek to persuade him and the House that, whatever problems may face the ethnic minorities, it is not true that they receive less than their fair share of national resources. The House must correct that notion. It is not altogether non-partisan to call on the Government to introduce and implement policies to eliminate the disadvantages of such citizens because the implication is that we have not already been doing that vigorously.
    I shall seek to persuade the right hon. Gentleman and the House that not only is the Government amendment not merely a platitude—as he said—because its sentiments are eminently fair, but that it is a more accurate statement of the position because it commends the Government and congratulates them on what they are doing and on having such forceful policies to tackle racial discrimination and disadvantage.
    Nevertheless, it is important that we begin by putting on record what has not always been put on record either by the right hon. Gentleman or by other members of the Opposition. Hon. Members of all political persuasions are
    160
    by and large agreed on the principles that should govern a multiracial, multicultural society. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I frequently face attacks, from Labour politicians in particular, suggesting that the Government's policies are racially motivated and that we discriminate in the policies that we adopt, but that is not the case. When that is said in the heat of political debate, it does not do the slightest good to race relations by encouraging that belief among ethnic minority constituents.
    I think that the House agrees overwhelmingly on what should happen in a society such as ours. It should be acknowledged that we are talking about ways and means because we all agree that platitudes are not enough and that action is called for, as the right hon. Gentleman says. The Government's aim is to have a fair and integrated multiracial society. We are determined to stamp out racial discrimination so that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, can have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We are prepared to debate the methods by which we achieve that, and that is what this debate should be about.
    Mr. Max Madden: The Secretary of State will agree that it is most important to reconcile deeds with words, so will he reflect on the reduction of section 11 funding which has afflicted many parts of the country, including Bradford, and which has clearly adversely affected the disadvantaged, especially the ethnic minorities? Has he any plans to restore or, indeed, to increase the funding so that local authorities such as mine can actively assist ethnic minority communities?
    Mr. Clarke: If I may, I shall deal more fully with section 11 later if I do not succumb to the same temptation as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and give way too often. The total amount of section 11 funding has not been reduced, if one leaves aside an exceptional payment to clear some old ILEA claims, which was made, I think, two years ago. It is difficult to distribute the funding, but we have taken steps to target it better. I shall return to that matter in due course.
    Let me deal with one or two issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised with regard to specific actions. I do not want to spend too long on asylum and immigration matters because we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss them this Session when the Asylum Bill reappears before the House, which it will do shortly. [Interruption.] It will shortly, and the reason is not that which I heard the right hon. Gentleman give the other day. It is because we have a longer Session ahead of us and after the election we are taking a look at asylum and immigration matters to ensure that when we reintroduce the Bill we have the opportunity to tackle all the deficiencies in the immigration and asylum system. We are also reflecting a little on some debates, especially those in another place.
    I confirm that the guiding principle in dealing with immigration cases is that genuine cases whom this country is happy to admit, whether under the terms of our international obligations towards refugees or of our obligations to those who are entitled to come to this country as dependants, should be admitted. I should like them to be admitted in a more straightforward and less protracted way than is sometimes the case at present as a result of delays in the system which are inflicted on us by dealing with many less well-founded cases of people who are undoubtedly not entitled to come to this country.

    161
    We must, therefore, examine the system to ensure that it is effective and fair, that it delivers prompter decisions, thereby enabling us to deal properly with those whom we are happy to welcome to our shores, and that it deals fairly within the rule of law with those whom we are not happy to welcome.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way just twice more, after which, as I said that I would not talk about immigration, I will not give way again. We shall otherwise spend the whole time on the subject.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the delay in the introduction of the Asylum Bill is causing some concern to Conservative Members, despite the spurious objections by the Opposition? Will he confirm that the delay does not mean that the situation is worsening, and that it is actually rather better than it was when the Bill was introduced before the general election? Will he also confirm that he is confident that, when the Bill comes to the House, the situation will be more under control than it was in the earlier part of the year?
    Mr. Clarke: The situation is slightly better than it was when the Bill was introduced because the number of applicants has come down. However, that cannot be relied on and the Bill's provisions are still required. There will be no great delay; the Bill will be reintroduced. We are wholly committed to the policies we enunciated in the Bill before the election and we are taking the opportunity to look a little more widely to sec what other causes of delay in the system can be tackled when the Bill is reintroduced. I assure my hon. Friend and most people interested in seeing our obligations under the convention carried out properly that we propose to introduce a Bill that will enable us to deal more promptly with those who are entitled to asylum here, and to reject more clearly and more quickly those who are not. That is in everyone's interests, and that principle could be, and properly should be, applied across the area of applications for immigration and settlement.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Home Secretary agree with the general principle put forward by the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary and introduced the Immigration Bill? He said that good race relations in Britain depended on the maintenance of very strict and oppressive immigration controls. Does the Home Secretary also agree with the statement of his right hon. Friend on that occasion that the immigration service was providing a good customer service?
    Mr. Clarke: I am absolutely certain that a slight misquotation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took place there. My views on the matter and those of my right hon. Friend are almost identical. I believe that good race relations in this country depend on, the maintenance of a strict system of immigration control. They most definitely do not depend on an oppressive system. Reform, such as the Asylum Bill, is required to ensure that the system is not oppressive to the genuine cases because it is unable to cope with the non-genuine. That is the purpose of the reform.
    162
    I believe that the immigration service provides a good service. The difficulty in the House when individual cases are cited, as we experienced a few minutes ago, is that it is not the way to approach the whole question of immigration policy. There is a system, which we seek to improve, under which there are prompt appeal hearings for the cases that will, undoubtedly, go wrong. However. newspaper accounts and partial accounts by people who have been turned away of why they believe they were turned away often prove to he incorrect.
    The case quoted by the hon. Member for Walsall. North (Mr. Winnick) was answered by the head of the immigration service. The account of it in the newspapers was very partial and was given by a man who arrived with a huge collection of belongings, including his own car, for what he said was a short business visit.
    Mr. Winnick: Do I take it that the Home Secretary studied the whole case? I recognise that the Home Secretary and his Ministers cannot study individual cases all the time, and I do not suggest that they should do so. However, in view of the publicity that the case received and the way in which the response came from the immigration service, may I take it that all the papers were looked at, if not by the Home Secretary, by his Ministers? There remains a good deal of disquiet, not only about this case, but about others such as that quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). There is a feeling that not all people are treated alike and that the question of colour comes into it.
    Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that the case was examined very closely, because of the nature of the allegations. No Minister or member of the immigration service would accept a system of immigration control that worked unfairly and discriminately against someone purely because of that person's colour. That had been alleged, with the result that the case was examined carefully not only by the head of the immigration department but by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill (Mr. Wardle), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who now handles such matters and who took a close interest in the affair. I also considered it, to a slightly lesser extent; I kept in touch with my hon. Friend.
    We were entirely satisfied with the explanation that was given. If it is still contested, it will be open to the applicant to appeal. It is not helpful, however, to try to pour abuse on the whole system, relying on partial newspaper stories supplied by a journalist who listens to what the complainant says, but is not prepared to listen to explanations. We shall present legislation that will be fair to the genuine applicant—fair to everyone, indeed—but the system will be governed by the rule of law. We shall seek to get rid of the delays, the legalisms and some of the wilder allegations.
    The primary-purpose rule is subject to litigation at present, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has said. I know that he has always felt strongly about the issue, but I do not agree with what he said about the logic of the case. He challenged me to produce a logical justification. In my opinion, arguments about whether marriages are bogus are, to an extent, immaterial. It is not for me, or for any other Minister in this or any other Government, to express views about whether arranged marriages are a good or a bad thing; we all have our views on that, but it is not what lies behind the rule. People are

    163
    free to marry for whatever reason they choose. In my experience, people have married for a variety of reasons, not all of which have struck me as frightfully good—but that is the ultimate civil liberty, which is available to everyone regardless of background.
    It is perfectly logical for a country or a Parliament to object if two people from different countries marry and the main reason for the marriage—there may, of course, be others—has nothing to do with romantic or family attachment. If the marriage is intended to enable a man who otherwise would not be allowed to live here to enter the country for that purpose, surely there is nothing illogical in telling that man, "Of course you are free to marry, but that does not necessarily allow you to get around immigration controls that should apply to you."
    We can argue about individual cases. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, for instance, has said that he knows of cases in which the wrong decision was made. The argument, however, does not apply only to Indian men and arranged marriages; there are also the so-called mail-order brides, south-east Asian women who marry Englishmen. I do not consider it illogical to introduce a rule that allows people to enter into such marriages if they wish to do so, but makes it clear that it is not necessarily just for immigration rules to be "collapsed" so that someone whose principal purpose in marrying is to get around the immigration rules can gain admission. We shall wait to find out what the litigation produces, but I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's strong views in this regard.
    Mr. Hattersley: I assure the Home Secretary that there is no disagreement between us on one point. Anyone who marries simply in order to get into this country does not qualify for entry; the logical debate concerns how it is decided what the reason for the marriage was. What I have asked the Home Secretary to defend, in logic, is a system that allows one human being to judge the mind of another on wholly subjective evidence-not on the evidence presented to him, as I think the Minister is now pointing out, but on his own subjective judgment.
    As the Home Secretary clearly wishes to dispute such points of logic, will he explain the justice, as well as the rationality, of an immigration service that allows a Frenchwoman living in this country to bring in her Madagascan husband, but does not allow an Englishwoman living in this country to bring in her Pakistani husband? How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly justify that?
    Mr. Clarke: Let me deal with the first question. [Interruption.] The second is an anomaly—the first is easier to deal with—and does not derive from our rules.
    I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was close to agreeing with me. We are discussing whether a person has an overwhelming human right to come here—I paraphrase slightly, but this is not a court of law—if his main reason for marrying is to get around the immigration rules. There may be subsidiary reasons, but the main reason—they would not have married except for the fact—is that one wanted to remain here. That is the logical argument for the rules. The right hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no logical argument, and then he asked, "How do you judge that without trying to get into somebody's mind?"
    164
    Throughout the system of law and administration, trying on the evidence to judge somebody else's state of mind frequently has to be subjective.
    For example, let us consider the case of someone who says that he is coming here as a visitor. He may have some other reason for coming here. A person who asserts that he is coming here as a visitor is sometimes refused because, on the evidence available and in all the circumstances, the immigration officer says, "No. This chap may be coming here partly because he wants to visit English cathedrals or partly because he wants to visit his sick mother, but his main reason is that he does not want to go back when he is finished doing those things. He wishes to come here and settle."
    Nobody has ever argued that cases such as that should be refused. All such cases involve difficult judgments about what is someone's intention, in all the circumstances, not just what they say that their intentions are. That is why it is a sensitive matter in which we have to construct careful legislation and have an appeals system, which is what we should be talking about.
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have already given way far more often on immigration and the primary-purpose rule than I said I would.
    Going back to the first and most difficult issue, many points were raised. I reassert that, in the other matters to which I shall refer and steadily work through, my main aim in respect of race relations will be to build upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the second point?"] I obviously look forward to an enlivening and—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members know quite well that, if a Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seat.
    Mr. Clarke: I look forward to further debates on immigration. They will obviously be lively, but they make progress. In the past half hour, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has conceded that there is logic in the policy behind the primary-purpose rule, and he has at least stepped back to his second point—his lesser point, in my opinion—which is on the difficulties of applying it. We shall return to that matter in due course. We have agreed that the aim in this aspect of race relations is to build upon, help to strengthen further—
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may assist you and the House to know that our concern is that the Home Secretary has failed to answer the second part of a two-part question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will the Home Secretary now deal with the matter of a British woman seeking—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot judge how satisfactory a Minister's answers might be, otherwise our proceedings would be endless.
    Mr. Clarke: Given that, on the first point, the Opposition have been bowled middle stump, they seem to be extremely anxious to try to scratch around for another one which they know perfectly well derives from Community law and not from British law. I do not think

    165
    that most of the Opposition would wish to fall in line with French or Community practice in many of those race relations matters. They know perfectly well that British race relations law—British immigration law, I dare say —is superior in almost all respects to that on the continent.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No; I must move on.
    Mr. Turner rose—
    Mr. Clarke: No; I am moving on. The hon. Gentleman may ask me a question some other time, but I am moving on.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Home Secretary please give way?
    Mr. Clarke: On the question that was—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Secretary of State, would you resume your seat while I am standing, please? I have very recently made the point that if a Minister, or indeed any other hon. Member who has the floor, does not give way, it is his or her right so to do.
    Mr. Clarke: I apologise for not sitting down, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your rising is the only thing that gets the hon. Member for Wolverhampon, South-East (Mr. Turner) to sit down.
    The question of Muslim schools was also raised. It is simply not the case that education policy in any way discriminates against Muslim schools—of course it does not. I shall explain exactly what the position is. Voluntary-aided schools exist for denominational, confessional education. It is open to anyone who has such a school to maintain it and to anyone to apply to open a new one. In my opinion— I am sure that my opinion is indistinguishable from that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who speaks on education for the Opposition—it is right that we should defend the right of parents who wish to have access to denominational education, if it can be provided, be they Roman Catholic, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim or of any other religious denomination. That is applied throughout Britain, regardless of religious confession.
    It is difficult to open a new voluntary-aided school because of the rules which are applied to all such schools. There have been two Muslim applications in recent years. One was withdrawn. The only one that was turned down was the Islamia school in Brent in north London. It was turned down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who was Secretary of State for Education and Science before me. The criterion applied to that school were exactly the same as those applied to any other school.
    The first criteria is whether the school will follow the national curriculum. We must be candid. That is a question that has to be asked in a fair number of the Muslim applications. Although it does not apply to the Brent school, private Muslim schools have sailed near to teaching the female pupils domestic science, Koranic studies and not a lot of other things which should be taught under the national curriculum. It is not discriminatory to insist that the national curriculum should be applied.
    166
    Obviously, the usual judgments are made about whether the school is well run, but the key criterion is whether there is a demand for places in the education authority. For schools of all denominations it has been the practice of the Department of Education for many years to turn down applications for new school places, which would cause an extra burden on public funds and create extra school places, in boroughs or counties where there is already a surplus, which in some cases the local authority is trying to tackle. That is where the Islamia school went down. I will not say any more about it, because it is subject to litigation. I have missed it because the decision was taken before my time and the matter has been before the courts ever since. I have no doubt that my successor is contemplating the advice of the judges to look at the matter again.
    I know for a fact that the decision of my predecessor was not based on any rule which he would not apply to a Jewish, Catholic or Anglican school. We are talking about the relevance of the surplus places argument in the application for the Islamia school.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way on schools. Then I shall move on to some of the other matters raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
    Mr. Boateng: The Secretary of State outlined the vacant places criterion and said that Muslim schools or schools of any other denomination are permitted to open only where there are no vacant places. Does that same criterion apply to the imposition of city technology colleges on local education authorities? If not, why not?
    Mr. Clarke: That is pure education policy. It has nothing to do with ethnic minority policy. It applies because CTCs—[Interruption.] I will argue about city technology colleges if it is in order to do so. The criterion is applied because city technology colleges are a valuable acquisition of educational provision in areas, some of which are governed by Labour authorities, where the present level of provision is fairly appalling. CTCs take large numbers of ethnic minority pupils.
    To take an obvious example, in Nottingham the CTC is providing educational opportunities to people from deprived parts of that city and especially from ethnic minority families who would not have had those opportunities if the policy of the local Labour council to resist the opening of that CTC had been successful. To that extent, CTCs are relevant to this debate.
    It is wrong and positively unhelpful to good race relations for anyone to imply for political reasons, as a few did at the last election, that decisions on Muslim schools are taken according to some criteria which discriminate against Muslims. I gave the go-ahead to a new Jewish voluntary-aided school in north-east London shortly before the election.
    Mr. Vaz: Ah.
    Mr. Clarke: I will not comment on that "Ah" from the hon. Gentleman. We take the same view with Jews as with Muslims or Christians.
    Mr. Vaz: No.
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, we do. Our discussions on that school were about surplus places in that part of London. A great argument broke out. The applicants had to satisfy me that the school would not provide surplus places before the Jewish school was allowed to go ahead. That remains the rule. Undoubtedly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is reflecting on it in his new departmental responsibility in the light of what the judges had to say about the Brent case.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook rightly raised the issue of jobs, which I believe is at the core of the debate. Discrimination in job opportunities is the greatest handicap that can fall on any community. It can have wider consequences. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, both under the former Prime Minister and certainly under the present Prime Minister, believe in extending the fullest opportunity equally to every section of the community. We want to open to people from every background equal opportunity to enter any part of the labour market and go right to the top.
    I do not intend to spend too long on the arguments about finance, but that is one part of the Opposition motion which I challenge.
    Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No. I must get on.
    We undoubtedly spend a disproportionate amount of public finance on those parts of urban areas where the ethnic minorities are most strongly concentrated. A lot of that money goes to seeking to redress inequalities of opportunity. It goes further than that. I cannot understand the suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's motion that ethnic minorities do not receive a fair share of resources. I do not object to spending a slightly disproportionate share of resources in areas where the ethnic minorities tend to be concentrated.
    Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's basis for saying that the ethnic minorities receive less than their fair share of resources is the changes in local government finance. I strongly disagree. I find the details of local government finance one of the more tedious subjects to debate in the House, but I have to do it on occasions. However, his arguments on local government finance cannot be used on that limb.
    All our inner-city policies, which he dismissed as "specific grants", lead to huge sums of public money going to inner city areas, expressly to redress the disadvantages that we are discussing. I was involved in launching the action for cities programme a few years ago. I do not apologise for what the right hon. Gentleman called razzamatazz. We were trying to draw to the attention of the people intended to benefit from the programme what was available to them. We reckon that we have spent about £10 billion across Government Departments on urban and inner-city policies since 1985–86.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment calculates that across Departments expenditure now runs at £4 billion a year on projects of one sort or another. I helped to set up the task forces. We also have the much bigger city action teams. My Department has set up the safer cities programme and there are other initiatives to which I shall refer. We are spending a great deal on redressing the disadvantages.
    168
    To increase job opportunities we need information to identify the problems. Ethnic monitoring has been referred to. I most certainly approve of ethnic monitoring as a means of taking action on discrimination and, indeed, as part of any positive employment policy which a good employer should follow.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: When I have finished this part of my speech on ethnic monitoring.
    The Government have advocated ethnic monitoring to major employers through the Department of Employment as good practice for many years. I introduced ethnic monitoring into the collection of the unemployment statistics when I was at the Department of Employment in order to provide the statistics which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cited. I am glad that he approves of it because at the time there was tremendous opposition from black radical groups who thought that it was a racist measure to count the ethnic origin of the unemployed. We got through all that and people now realise that ethnic monitoring is a positive weapon. It does not give any answers. It does not necessarily say that discrimination is taking place or that disadvantage is suffered. But it causes people to ask the questions once one has monitored the incidence of people from ethnic minorities in different categories. I am in favour of it. Indeed, I introduced it into the Department of Employment and into the national health service. We continue to urge it.
    We disagree with the Opposition on the contract compliance which some Labour local authorities wish to write into their municipal contracts, in line with American experience. One could get into a technical debate. I have been involved in putting local labour clauses into inner city projects such as in Handsworth in the city of Birmingham of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. But I am not persuaded of the value of the American model of contract compliance. Undoubtedly the Commission for Racial Equality will come back later this year and make proposals. It is interested in the issue. I do not believe that the American experience is all one way. Most hon. Members will support what the right hon. Member and I have just said about the value of ethnic monitoring as a tool to ensure that one does not inadvertently discriminate and to ensure that one knows where one is with one's work force.
    It would be a more difficult and dangerous course to go beyond that and to make it a legal requirement to have a target number of people from ethnic backgrounds in the work force. Indeed, that could backfire, contrary to the intentions of those who propose it, because it is damaging to a company's race relations if the white work force believe that the black work force is only there because the law has required their admittance, regardless of suitability for the job, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said in her intervention. That is why I am not in favour of such contract compliance and the CRE will have to argue strongly to move the Government in that direction.
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended ethnic monitoring in the civil service, and that has been carried out to good effect. Equally, the Select Committee's study of the American

    169
    experience some years ago confirmed that, broadly speaking, their compliance measures did not work and that there was substantial and wilful evasion. That is why we did not recommend it for this country.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because his Select Committee is a respected cross-party committee. I also studied the situation in the United States again and came to the same conclusion. Some Labour councils—
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene and I am pleased to hear of his support for ethnic monitoring. Would he recommend it to the district authority that he represents? Can he explain to the House the experience of the black housing association which sought to tackle inner city inequalities by acquiring properties in his constituency? The leader of the housing committee there went on record as saying that he was opposed to the "dumping of dross" in his area. As a result of his interventions and the reallocation of nomination rights to the district housing authority—without ethnic monitoring—none of the families allocated to those properties by the council were black.
    Mr. Clarke: That matter is more suitable for an Adjournment debate, or for Nottingham city council or Rushcliffe borough council. The hon. Gentleman knows that I totally disagree with everything that he has just said. It is true that a Nottingham housing association acquired property in my constituency without notifying the local authority that it proposed to do so. The association failed to follow any housing corporation guidelines on how to behave in such a situation. As everyone with experience of inner cities or race relations policy knows, some organisations in the field—in this case it was a black housing association—simply accuse all critics of racialism when the organisation's incompetence, discourtesy and refusal to provide agreements is pointed out. I am glad to say that the matter was to some extent sorted out by the Housing Corporation, but we should not go further into our local battles.
    I shall move on to the subject of jobs and the position of ethnic minorities from top to bottom in the employment market. We need to create a society that aims for equality and opportunity. Whether by monitoring or by some other means, we need to consider the opportunities for people to be appointed to influential posts at the top of society.
    Mr. David Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not.
    I agree that our main aim must be to help to strengthen the positive contribution of ethnic minorities to British society, which is already important in business, the professions and many other walks of life. I welcome it and I am keen that that positive contribution should be increased. If we are to strengthen the position of ethnic minorities in this country, it is important for members of minorities to emerge in leading roles in private industry, public service and the professions.
    Mr. Trimble rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again.
    There is a large and successful Asian entrepreneurial and professional middle class. I have watched their emergence in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We need a stronger black middle class,
    170
    with more black business and professional people whom able black youngsters could identify with and seek to emulate. I am glad to say that more influential public bodies are including increasing numbers of ethnic minority members. We must increase those numbers, not as a token gesture but because of the personal contribution that the people appointed can make.
    The number of appointments of justices from the ethnic minority communities has exceeded their proportion in the population age groups from which appointments are usually made, especially in recent years. I am glad to be able to say that the first magistrate of Chinese origin in this country was recently appointed in my constituency.
    Many people from all minorities are rising in the professions. We welcome the few Members of Parliament from ethnic minorities, but we are agreed that there are not enough; all parties want their numbers to increase. Therefore, we must seek to encourage more able members of the ethnic minorities to climb to the top of the ladder, and I am sure that that will happen in time.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. I have given way far too often already, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having given way to an Ulster Member.
    Our aim must eventually be to achieve a position where we cease to comment on the numbers of people from ethnic minorities in leading roles in society because their presence is taken for granted and their influence is assured. Race has no real relevance to someone's position in the sort of society that we wish to be.
    We must look again at business and encourage the talent and entrepreneurial flair that exists within ethnic minority businesses, which must be allowed into the mainstream of the economy and encouraged to improve their access to business development services. Small businesses are vital to the growth of our economy and minority-led and other local enterprise agencies, funded under the Home Office ethnic minority business initiative, have shown that there is demand from the expanding ethnic minority business base for support services that acknowledge and are sensitive to their specific needs.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. The ethnic minority business programme, which is not strong in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is continuing. We must remove the obstacles which can prevent minority businesses from moving into the mainstream of commercial life.
    Also, we must continue to improve the targeting of other areas of public expenditure, aimed at addressing the special needs of people from ethnic minorities. That is important, given the large sums of money being spent. Large sums of public money are available, but ill-directed good intentions can pour some of it down the drain. Anyone involved in inner city programmes has seen that happen occasionally. I am not saying that that happens under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, but we are studying targeting in that area and shall continue to do so. Under section 11, £129 million will be made available to local authorities in 1992–93. That is not small money in such an area. We have already made progress in

    171
    revising the criteria for section 11 grants so that work is targeted and expenditure gives value for money. I am studying future policy on the better use of that money.
    We should find an opportunity at some time—I do not know when—to study the wording of section 11, which gets in the way of many things that people want. We all know that it is confined to local government staff and to the new Commonwealth. One cannot help Vietnamese minorities, for example. One day I hope to have the opportunity to do something about that.
    Good progress has been made in that area and in many others, but I am sure that barriers remain to full opportunity for people from ethnic minorities and to a fully integrated society. The most obvious and obnoxious barrier is racial discrimination, and the Government remain committed to eliminating its evils. We demonstrate our commitment by support of the law, and shall continue to do so. Our race relations laws are the most comprehensive in Europe. I do not think that it is xenophobic to say that they are undoubtedly the best in the European Community. As a Government, we work closely with the Commission for Racial Equality in enforcing the law and support it in all its work.
    We have done a great deal of work in combating racially targeted crime. Detailed guidance has been issued to the police and other agencies following the initiative of the inter-departmental racial attacks group. Police forces are urged to give priority to incidents of racially motivated crime. I believe that the big increase in the number of incidents reported to the police shows an increased confidence in the ability of the police to respond to those reports. Undoubtedly, we have to continue to attack such crime with vigour.
    We must also make sure that the community consultation engaged in by the police, which they now perform statutorily, extends to proper consultation with all those groups that it is most difficult to get involved, in particular young people but also people from the ethnic minorities with whom consultation is most important to improve the quality of police work. As I hope that everybody knows, we have been working extremely hard in support of the police authorities to improve recruitment from ethnic minorities. We still have a considerable way to go, but in the past year or two in particular there has been considerable activity to support the recruitment of ethnic minorities. I am glad to say that there are now more than 1,500 officers from the ethnic minorities in place, and we shall take every action that we can to ensure an increase in the number of good men and women from the ethnic minorities who enter the police service.
    I know that people are concerned about racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. A great deal of attention has been paid to the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people in prison, the disproportionate number who appear to he prosecuted rather than cautioned, and the disproportionately low numbers in place in the professions and in the administration of the courts. I believe that those statistics do not demonstrate racial bias in the system of administration of justice. Through most of the criminal justice system, there is a much higher proportion of people who are positively hostile to the idea of racial discrimination than there is among the general population.
    172
    There is no point in being complacent. I agree that many sensible people look at the statistics and are concerned that there appears to be discrimination. Therefore, we have done a lot of research. The figures that I could give to the House come out of work in which my Department has been involved, monitoring to ensure that we identify problem areas. This is an area in which I support, among other things, ethnic monitoring of the prison population and of the statistics of those cautioned and prosecuted, and then action to ensure that we do what is necessary.
    We shall have more information. Only last year, section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to publish regular information concerning the avoidance of discrimination. Those involved in the administration of criminal justice are already under a duty not to discriminate. The publication of information by the Secretary of State is intended to help them to perform this duty effectively. I confirm that the first statistics under section 95 will be published before the end of this year.
    Ms. Diane Abbott: I listened with interest to the Home Secretary's comments about the criminal justice system. If I understood him correctly, he said that he is aware of the figures that show that there is a disproportionate number of black people in prison, that they are more likely to have longer sentences and custodial sentences rather than fines, and so on. However, he said that, despite the evidence of the figures and the wonderful work done by the Home Office research department, he did not believe that those figures showed racial discrimination. If they do not demonstrate institutional racism, what do they demonstrate?
    Mr. Clarke: They demonstrate a higher level of contact between ethnic minority people and the legal system. There is more than one side to that problem, which the leaders in the ethnic minority communities must address with the rest of us. I can think of no clear explanation for why the statistics show that a higher proportion of people from the ethnic minorities elect, of their own free will, to go to the Crown court for trial and that a higher proportion of people from the ethnic minorities plead not guilty when they get to court. All these factors are being analysed, and we shall have more information about them. It is noticeable, on those partial statistics, that simply coming to the conclusion that this is all racial discrimination is not enough. and that we have to address ourselves to what other constraints can be placed on a population whose behaviour, sometimes among its younger members, brings it into contact with the law.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the research done by his Department that pinpoints even more closely where, if there is one, the problem may lie in this respect? The statistics show that females from the ethnic minorities are not involved. Predominantly, the problem is with males. It is only fair to the lady Members of the House to say that this problem is mirrored not just here but by research that has been done by a number of us in the United States, Canada and elsewhere to identify that, if there is a problem, it is among males rather than females. It is to that that we must address ourselves.
    Mr. Clarke: That is also true of crime in general. It is not exclusively a male preserve, but it is heavily a male activity.
    I apologise for the length of time that I have taken, but I have disappointed more Members by refusing to give way to them than I have pleased by acceding to such a request. I have been drawn, by the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by interventions, into debating a number of subjects that I had not planned to deal with, but that is a good feature of a debate rather than a bad one.
    We have not had a debate on this subject for a long time and this debate should help us all to underline the fact that the political system is committed to a good system of race relations. We are committed to action, as well as just speeches, to reduce the amount of racial discrimination and to improve the opportunities for those from ethnic minorities.
    We have a better record than almost any other equivalent country in the western world with a large ethnic minority population. Our political system is responding better to the pressures of this kind than, say, the political system in either France or Germany appears to be. There is no room for complacency. Action and attention to what needs to be done must be kept up. Government, society and the ethnic communities themselves must all take their share of the responsibility for working for positive, good community relations. I hope that our amendment and the debate have made it clear that the Government's commitment to racial opportunity and equal opportunity is beyond doubt and that we have a good record in taking positive steps to achieve that.
    5.6 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) decided, in what is apparently not his final, but perhaps his penultimate, performance as deputy leader of the Labour party, to choose a subject that is known to be close to his heart, both for constituency reasons and for reasons of principle and of intellectual application, shown over the years, to defending the interests of the ethnic minorities. I am bound to say that I did not expect it to be a bipartisan debate, certainly not as the right hon. Gentleman opened it, and he did not disappoint my expectations on that front.
    It is also a happy coincidence that the Home Secretary has been given an opportunity, so early in the lifetime of this Government, to show us the nature of the man when dealing with what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult and sensitive responsibilities that he will discharge as Home Secretary—relations with the ethnic minorities, the prospect for those who have suffered from discrimination and who are least favoured in too many cases because of their ethnic origin. I no more expected the Home Secretary to be partisan in his approach than I expected the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to be. It is a worthy aspiration for the House to approach these matters in a bipartisan way, for other countries that have not done so —the Home Secretary spoke, appropriately, of the experience of France and Germany—have found it extremely damaging to race relations.
    The Home Secretary's predecessor in that great office of state set an example that I hope that he will not follow.
    174
    Most particularly, during the general election, he gave voice to views about ethnic minorities and immigration that were plainly designed to support the most atavistic impulses in this country and to encourage the belief that only one party would prevent a flood tide of immigrants of black and other colours sweeping across the country.
    It was a discreditable feature of the general election and it cannot go unremarked in this debate, which follows so hard upon its heels. It was a discreditable fact that a number of newspapers with wide circulations played closely along with the then Home Secretary in that disgraceful campaign. It was disgraceful because of its intellectual dishonesty and because it completely misrepresented the views of the official Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. However, it was also disgraceful because it did nothing to still the anxieties—most of them misplaced—of those in areas where there is a sense that communities are being taken over by people of a different cultural background from that long-established in those communities.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is not in the Chamber, so I feel constrained to rise to his defence. I have been checking my recollections with the Minister of State, Home Office and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), and we cannot remember the outrageous remarks that my right hon. Friend was supposed to have made during the election. Before history is rewritten, it is my clear recollection that the Asylum Bill hardly featured in the election campaign from beginning to end, and nor did the issues of immigration and race relations.
    Mr. Maclennan: I do not expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid very close attention to what the then Home Secretary said during the election campaign. Let me quote the former Home Secretary. On 5 April, he spoke of the dramatic rise in the vote for the fascist Die Republikaner party in Germany. He said that it was due to one issue:
    "That issue was the flood of migrants and would-be asylum seekers whose continuing numbers have aroused public concern. I have warned for many months about this rising tide."
    He also spoke of fascists marching in Europe and gave a terrible warning about similar matters. In the context of the headlines that were appearing in many of the newspapers with larger circulations, it is clear from the former Home Secretary's speech, made four days before the election, that he does not view such matters in the same way as, I suspect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would prefer. I believe that the new Home Secretary is more sensitive about those matters, and that he is a man of rather better taste than his predecessor. His defence of his right hon. Friend is in stark contrast to the stab in the back just delivered by the former Home Secretary to his former Cabinet colleagues on the issue of Maastricht. However, that is not a subject for this debate.
    I am also glad that the Home Secretary reaffirmed that there is broad agreement in the House about the principle, at least, of how we should seek to govern a multiracial society. He focused his comments on ways and means. It is inevitable that there will be differences about the ways and means of ensuring that we do not create a society that

    175
    encourages or allows discrimination to take place. If we are able to minimise those differences, we will perform a great service.
    I agree with the Home Secretary that the heart of the debate should be about employment. From the figures that he and his Department, in one of its incarnations, produced on employment, we can see what a stark disadvantage it appears to be to belong to an ethnic minority if one is seeking to get ahead. It is not a matter only of inner-city deprivation, although it is right to mention what is being done about that. Discrimination also applies to those people who have the qualifications, but who are not preferred for jobs for which they are suitable. The figures show that twice as many people from ethnic minorities who have attained higher education are unemployed as those from the ethnic majority. That difference requires the consideration of ways and means.
    Employment opportunity is not necessarily a matter of public expenditure. If the Home Secretary rejects the contract-compliance suggestions put forward in a number of circles—not only by the official Opposition—it is incumbent upon him to say how he would hope to see changes come about. He spoke convincingly and sincerely about his wish to see important positions in society held by those from ethnic minorities. No doubt he had in mind appointments such as judges or members of quangos. Many of those appointments may be made by members of the Government, and even his Department has in its hand a substantial element of patronage. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use it positively to achieve the ends he outlined to ensure that change takes place.
    I was interested in what the Home Secretary said about the criminal justice system and his belief, repeated in his response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), that the figures do not suggest that racial discrimination exists within the system. I acknowledge that the requirement of the law, which he says he supports, as outlined in section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, is to produce statistical information which may help us to make up our minds on that matter. That requirement has not been on the statute book for very long and it would he difficult for any of us, in the present circumstances, to assert a contrary proposition to that of the Home Secretary. However, I hope that he will have an open mind and that he will not be too firm in his view that there is no evidence of racial discrimination within the criminal justice system.
    Many people who have been involved in that system for many years and who have not had the benefit of the statistics that will he forthcoming from his Department feel that racial discrimination exists. There have been ugly incidents—they are well-known in some policing circles —that were clearly racial. I know that the picture is patchy and that some police forces have done a great deal to root out racially-motivated attacks. However, in some areas such attacks are too common, and the figures show that the number is increasing. It is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats have suggested that there should he a specially dedicated squad of policemen to tackle the problem in those areas where it is perceived to be a serious threat.
    176
    The monitoring to be undertaken by the Home Office will be highly important. I am glad that the production of such figures is to be a matter of law, but what the Home Secretary chooses to publish will be a matter for him. We could, therefore, have rather more or less informative figures, depending upon the way in which he approaches the matter. In the spirit of open government, which we have been promised by the Prime Minister, I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us as soon as possible, not necessarily the results of the monitoring, but exactly what will be monitored, so that we can evaluate, even now, whether the process is going along on the right lines.
    There are some other matters that I wish to raise briefly in my short speech—it must be short because this is a short debate. There is serious concern about housing for ethnic minorities in some parts of the country. The homeless are disproportionately drawn from ethnic minority communities. In the wind-up speech, will the Minister of State tell us how he believes that that problem can best be tackled?
    I do not disagree with the Home Secretary's comments on education. I share his philosophical view, and that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that there should be freedom of choice in education. Indeed, the issue is governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. While we can differ on what is desirable for this country, there is a broadly bipartisan view about that.
    I should comment on the attack on my party made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he referred to Tower Hamlets. He knows my political history and is aware that 1 have never allowed party to stand in the way of judgment about the rights and wrongs of an issue, to the point at which I was driven to leave the Labour party, of which he is a member. So I am not embarrassed by the question he asked, although he thought that I might be. I am exceedingly unhappy about what happened in that case. That local authority suffered appalling pressures, imposed on it by the very policies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in respect of local government finance.
    Mr. Hattersley: If I misjudged the hon. Gentleman's willingness to make that honourable statement, I hope that he will forgive me. I plead in mitigation the fact that since, on a local government results programme, the leader of his party refused to condemn what happened, I assumed that he would do the same.
    Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am my own man. I am not in any way criticising what I have not heard. My party is seeking to incorporate into the law of the land the European Convention on Human Rights—a move which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has steadfastly resisted—and, now, a wider Bill of Rights which would specifically and explicitly protect ethnic minority citizens from discrimination by public authorities, including local authorities.
    I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman retires from his current responsibilities, he will feel rather more supportive of those objectives, which are designed to eliminate practices by local authorities of which he disapproves. It is no good taking a holier-than-thou attitude to local authorities which are under massive pressure because of central Government finance policy without providing the means to remedy matters.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will provide hon. Members with opportunities in Government time to

    177
    discuss issues relating to immigration. It is right that this debate should not focus on that subject, as we are likely to have a debate in the next six months on the question of asylum. I was interested to learn that the Home Secretary is looking not just at the urgency of the case for asylum seekers' claims being considered more expeditiously—despite a substantial drop in the number of asylum seekers in the first quarter of this year—but that there appears to be a backlog of about 60,000 claims in his Department. despite the increase in expenditure this year to about £10 million.
    I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to review such matters as the primary-purpose rule. I do not necessarily expect him to come up with a different answer, but the fact that he is at least proposing to review it is pleasing. I hope that, in the process of that review, he will recognise the great advantage there would be in calling to his office not only those with statutory responsibilities for race relations—I am sure that he will do that in any case—but those with experience of race matters in their constituencies. They should include hon. Members with such experience in all parts of the House.
    If we could come up with a policy for immigration which commanded respect and agreement across the Floor, that would prove an immensely valuable prize. It would take the issue out of future general elections, bearing in mind the ugly way in which it surfaced during the last election, and would strengthen the Government's stated objectives of bringing about greater harmony in such matters. Will the Home Secretary have cross-party discussions and treat the issue in an exceptional way, remembering that it is an exceptional problem?
    I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the whole question of imprisonment. The prison system is under immense pressure. There are many more black and ethnic minority inmates than there are proportionately from other communities. It is difficult to say why that should be, and perhaps the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will shed some light on the matter. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not simply rely on the easy nostrum that people get into trouble because they are bad. There is much more to the problem. He should look again at the sentencing policy of the courts. The issue has baffled successive Secretaries of State. While it may not be an easy matter, he should come to terms with it. The ethnic minorities will greatly benefit if he can come up with some answers.
    Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the problems in Germany, I commend to him the sentencing policies being pursued there by a Government who, in relation to sentencing, are not totally dissimilar in political complexion to Her Majesty's Government. There, substantial reductions in sentences do not appear to have led to an increase in offending or in recidivism. Such an exercise might repay study and, in the process, improve race relations.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House for the first time. In doing so, I confess that I am somewhat nervous lest I follow the fate of one of my predecessors, Benjamin Disraeli, a man whose literary talents I admire, indeed
    178
    envy, but whose maiden speech proved one of the disasters of parliamentary performance. A contemporary describing that event summed it up by saying that Disraeli
    "began with fluid assurance, speedily degenerating into ludicrous absurdity and being at last put down with inextinguishable shouts of laughter."
    I have the honour to represent the constituency of Aylesbury. It stretches from the Hertfordshire border of Buckinghamshire near Aston Clinton, down through the Chiltern Hills and the edge of the Vale of Aylesbury to the town of Stokenchurch and the village of Ibstone, on either side of the M40 motorway.
    We have in the constituency such great institutions as Chequers, Stoke Mandeville hospital and, perhaps dear to the hearts of many English men and women, our national home of rest for horses. About half the population of my constituency lives in Aylesbury town, formerly a small, rather quaint market town but now a fast-growing business, commercial and industrial centre, as well as the county town of Buckinghamshire. The remaining half of my constituents live in smaller towns such as Wendover, Princess Risborough and Great Missenden, as well as in many smaller villages and hamlets which I shall not name individually.
    It is an awesome experience to follow a distinguished line of parliamentarians who have represented, not just in recent years but over the centuries, the boroughs of Aylesbury and Wendover and the county of Buckinghamshire. The most illustrious was John Hampden, whose statue stands to this day in Aylesbury marketplace and whose patriotism, championship of liberty and independence of spirit in the face of the Government of his day are still remembered and honoured by my constituents.
    At the other end of the scale, perhaps the most notorious representative of Aylesbury was John Wilkes in the 18th century. His house stands nigh St. Mary's church in the centre of the town. He was an enthusiastic member of the Hell Fire club and was expelled from the House of Commons almost as many times as he was elected to it. His political and public 1career was summed up by Edward Gibbon, who said that Wilkes was
    "A thorough profligate in principle as in practice …His life stained with every vice and his conversation full of blasphemy and bawdy."
    Recent examples may give a happier precedent on which to draw for my own hopes of representing my constituency.
    Senior members of this House will remember the service of Sir Spencer Summers, the hon. Member for Aylesbury until 1970. It would be fair to refer in passing to my constituents in Prestwood and Great Missenden who were represented for a time by Sir Ian—now Lord—Gilmour and my constituents of Risborough and Stokenchurch, who still remember with great affection the time when they were represented by the late Sir John Hall.
    I pay special tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Timothy Raison, who represented Aylesbury with great distinction and dedication from 1970 until the recent general election. Whether as a Minister or a Back Bencher, Tim Raison tried to put principle and his constituency first. As the candidate and now the Member of Parliament going around Aylesbury, I find it striking how men and women of all political persuasions and of none speak of Tim Raison with affection and great respect. If, in my time in the House, I can win for myself a fraction of the reputation that he earned over 20 years, 1 shall consider myself fortunate.

    179
    This debate is an apposite subject on which to make a maiden speech, partly because my immediate predecessor was greatly interested in, and concerned about, those important issues, but also because roughly 5 per cent. of my constituents come from the various ethnic minorities. Issues of race and community relations concern not only inner cities and great conurbations but many small and medium sized towns.
    I am glad to say that, in general, race relations in Aylesbury are extremely good, due to two facts. First, the majority of our citizens genuinely recognise—perhaps as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wishes to see more generally in this country —that the various ethnic minorities in our town have much to offer and contribute to our community. Secondly, that feeling is reciprocated by the fact that the minorities wish not to lock themselves away in little ghettos but rather, while cherishing their traditions and customs, to play an important and increasing part in the economic, cultural and commercial life of their town and country. That is a fruitful example for other areas to follow in seeking to create good race and community relations.
    The principle of which I have spoken can be seen at work in the organisation in Aylesbury. Within the Aylesbury Council for Racial Equality, representatives of all the major political parties work hard together in support of a common aim. It can be seen when visiting our newly opened multicultural centre, built in the heart of Aylesbury and opened by Tim Raison earlier this year. The building acts both as a home for the ethnic minorities —where they can celebrate their traditions and festivals —and as a place that can act as a showcase where they can welcome representatives from the majority community in the town and explain to them why those traditions are important and why they help to enrich the lives of everybody living in Aylesbury.
    As I wish to leave plenty of time for others to contribute to the debate, I shall simply touch on two subjects mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. They are important if we are to secure good race relations in the future. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the first of those two subjects—racial attacks. We have relatively few such problems in Aylesbury, but last year 1 was made aware of the shock and fear caused by what may seem a relatively minor crime—acts of criminal damage committed against Aylesbury mosque, instigated and encouraged by members of the self-styled British National party. No hon. Member would wish to excuse or explain such action. I discovered at first hand what even the breaking of a window and daubing graffiti meant in terms of that minority community's fear. Their status and acceptance as citizens of Aylesbury was under threat. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to press the police constantly to ensure that they give adequate priority to the detection of offenders who perpetrate racial attacks. Although I know that power over court sentences is not in his hands, I hope that he will consult my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and use the opportunity of meetings with the magistracy to ask that deterrents and exemplary sentences be imposed when such culprits are brought to trial and convicted.
    My second point concerns the teaching of English in schools. No child or adult who lacks a firm grasp of the
    180
    English language. both written and spoken, will be able to grasp the opportunities that we are trying to make available to them. I welcomed what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say today about the greater targeting of section 11 grants and the review that is under way to see whether the scope of those grants and how they are made available can be improved. However, to my knowledge, a review of section 11 grants has been under way in the Home Office for at least three years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask his diligent officials to treat that subject with the urgency and importance that it deserves? All hon. Members should consider themselves fortunate that, at least so far, this country has not experienced the lamentable upsurge of racist and neo-fascist sentiment that is now disfiguring political life in many western European countries. It is incumbent on all of us, whatever our party, to ensure that such sentiments, such extreme philosophies and policies, are never accorded any respect or given the opportunity to gain political support in Britain.
    Racial problems are difficult to resolve. The challenges are not for the Government alone, but for voluntary societies and individuals—the mainstay of British cultural and social life. The prize that we should seek to gain is great. I wish to help, as far as I am able, to build a society in which any man or woman, whatever his or her colour, racial origin or ethnic background can feel at home in the United Kingdom and has a willing affection and loyalty to the institutions, history and traditions of this nation. I also wish them to feel that their contribution to our mainstream national life is valued and welcomed by others with different traditions.
    I know that it is not within the power of any Government to attain such a goal overnight, but I believe that the policies that my right hon. and learned Friend outlined this afternoon will take us closer to that goal. In implementing them, he will have my wholehearted and enthusiastic support.
    5.42 pm
    Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made some good comments—she said that she could tell that the hon. Gentleman was new to the House. I hope that he continues to make such speeches.
    I welcome the debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on raising the subject. It is long overdue for discussion and is raised in the Chamber once in a blue moon. It is a subject which the Opposition have to put on the agenda, as the Government will not. The Government have no policy on racial discrimination. To correct myself, the Government have one policy: they believe that if they control immigration, everything else will work out. They think that by keeping the numbers down they will ensure that there is not too much trouble in the country. I do not agree, and I believe that the Government are storing up trouble for the future.
    The Government's policy appeases racists, but, unfortunately, racists are only appeased for a short period, and are now on the move. Unemployment has caused more racial attacks on black and minority ethnic groups

    181
    than any other issue. Racists use unemployment and other such excuses. I urge the Government to come up with positive policies to deal with the problem.
    The Government are also storing up resentment among black people due to the treatment that those people receive. Visitors who come to this country from places like Jamaica are treated almost like scum; they are strip searched and abused. We heard today about the case of a black person from America whose experiences here left a lot to be desired.
    Mr. Vaz: Does not my hon. Friend think that now is the time for the Government to abolish the rules which they introduced in 1989 and which they term as guidelines for Members of Parliament when making representations on behalf of visitors to this country? I know that he and his constituency officer deal with many cases in which they have to bargain with junior immigration officers at Heathrow and Gatwick so that constituents' friends who want to make visits or even attend funerals may enter. Genuine cases are rejected and people who have spent much money travelling halfway across the world to visit friends and relatives in this country are sent back, even though their cases are genuine.
    Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is right. When I entered Parliament in 1987, as he did, Members of Parliament were able to put a stop to the removal of visitors from this country. The Government moved quickly to outlaw that privilege for Members of Parliament who, as a result. were forced into bargaining with low-level immigration officers to try to get visitors a stay of one or two days while the Members of Parliament sought to contact the Minister responsible. That is most unsatisfactory, and I agree that the Government should abolish that requirement as soon as possible.
    Much resentment is being built up among black people due to the treatment of visitors. People are worried that a white British man can go to the Philippines, buy a bride and return to this country without any problem, while a black person—man or woman—has great difficulty entering the country. One reason for that involves the questions asked of people trying to bring spouses into the country.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that many of my white constituents who have left the country, not to buy a bride in the Philippines or Thailand, but to contract genuine marriages, have had to wait 18 months to two years and have even produced children, before being allowed to enter this country. While my hon. Friend has a strong argument, it is not true to say that white people can walk in and out of this country with brides as they choose. The Government are much too discriminatory, especially when non-white brides are being brought in.
    Mr. Grant: 1, too, have no wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend, but I have never had to deal with such a case, and I look forward to the day when one comes before me. I have known of many cases affecting black people, but if the Government are also stopping white people from bringing brides or husbands over here, that is also to be deplored.
    I am concerned that a number of key issues are causing difficulties for people in black and minority ethnic communities. One such issue is unemployment, which is at
    182
    its highest in the inner cities where most blacks live. I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say today that figures are collected in unemployment exchanges on the basis of ethnicity. I have never been able to obtain any figures on the ethnic breakdown of unemployment. However, I have conducted surveys in my constituency, and I know that 60 per cent. of young black people in Tottenham are unemployed and are unlikely to gain employment in the next year or so. Some 300 school leavers who left schools in my constituency last year have been unable to obtain a place on any Government training scheme.
    In my constituency, 11,238 people were unemployed in April, a rise of 23.3 per cent. according to Government calculations. That is an increase of 24 per cent. over the past 12 months and of 70 per cent. over the past two years. Tottenham jobcentre has 116 vacancies, which means that 100 people are chasing every job. According to the unemployment unit index, which is much more accurate than Government figures, 15,990 people are unemployed. That is 33.2 per cent. of Tottenham's working population. There has been an increase of 120 per cent. in long-term unemployment in the past two years, but long-term youth unemployment has risen by some 500 per cent. over the same period. Unemployment and what the Government do about it are matters of grave concern to my constituents.
    Despite the extremely high unemployment in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment in London and the fourth highest in the country, Haringey council has decided to cut the youth service by 70 per cent. That service tries to ensure that young people have some place to go. There are now only two main youth centres in Tottenham, and the whole of north and south Tottenham are not covered by the service at all. There are no detached youth worker teams and only one detached youth worker in the whole borough. As a result, young people have nowhere to go and concentrate in clusters in the shopping centres. Many young people spend the whole day in betting shops, and fights are taking place between groups of young people on Duckett's common. The groups consist of youths of a particular ethnic background. Asian young people fight Turkish Cypriots, with African and Caribbean youths and so on. That is happening because there is no provision for young people.
    Haringey council, like other local authorities, has been threatened with poll-tax capping. Clearly, the Government's refusal properly to fund local authorities in the past few years must be taken into account. However, the local authority is not playing its full part in providing for young people, especially those from black and minority ethnic communities.
    Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, traditionally, the health service has been a large employer of black people and people from ethnic communities, especially in the big cities? Since 1945, black nurses have in some ways been the unsung heroines in the building of the British health service. The drive towards privatisation and trust hospitals means that the job security and job status of many black workers, and especially women, are seriously threatened. If the Government are serious about black employment and about helping ethnic groups, they should look to their own role and that of the health authorities as employers and to the employment role of the trusts.
    Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. In my area, many black auxiliary nurses and porters have recently been dismissed for various reasons, one of which is that some of the services have been privatised. My hon. Friend is right in what she says about cuts in the health service.
    Because there is no proper youth provision in my constituency, youths are turning to drug trafficking. Youth workers tell me that crack cocaine is on the increase because of the money that young people can make from trafficking. They engage in that because there is no alternative employment. The youth workers also tell me that there is tension on the streets and that youths are planning a Los Angeles-style riot or disturbance in my area. They say that unless something is done, especially during the summer months, we can expect trouble. I believe the youth workers. We should take action and I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to make money available to ensure that young people are off the streets and doing something positive during the summer.
    There are also difficulties in education and training. The North London tech has not been responding to applications from the Turkish youth association and the Asian action group in my constituency and no reasons have been given for non-acceptance. One youth worker told me that the youth are Thatcher's children. They are under pressure to drive fast cars and, as a consequence, they are forced to live above their means. As a result, they are driven into the hands of the drug pushers. I hope that we can do something to help young people, especially those in inner cities and those from black minority and ethnic groups.
    Much attention has been focused on the Maastricht treaty, but the Single European Act, which comes into force on 1 January, will create problems for people from black and ethnic minority communities. The Act is supposed to allow free movement of people, but we know that, because of racism, people are not being allowed to move freely around Europe. They are being stopped on the borders and on the streets of European cities and asked to produce documents, purely on the basis of the colour of their skin. There is no other reason whatever.
    We must look seriously at the way in which racism and fascism have risen in Europe. For example, in Belgium, where there is little or no race legislation, blacks can be excluded from pubs. They cannot live in certain areas in Brussels and people can discriminate against them in a variety of ways. Racial attacks are increasing. When people hear about attacks on refugees and asylum seekers they say that all such people are being attacked in western Europe. But the ones who are being injured and killed are the black ones. That is the difference. A Yugoslav or a Czech can melt into the population in a European country and, unless he is questioned. he can get away with it. However, because of the visibility of colour, racists and fascists can go on a spree and it does not matter whether the victim is a citizen, a migrant or a refugee.
    I went to a recent conference in Berlin called by the Immigrants Political Forum in Germany and some of the horror stories told there must be repeated. There were people there from Denmark, Spain and Germany. The Danish representative said that 20 refugee centres had been burnt down in Sweden and that a sniper operating in Denmark is shooting at black people. Recently 15 people have been shot and one has been killed, but there has been
    184
    no attempt by the police to ensure that people are caught and tried. Bombs have been set off in Copenhagen and in Norway.
    Police violence against migrants in Paris is enormous. Gangs of white youths roam the streets looking for black people and coloured people generally to attack. In working-class areas, people with black neighbours were told to shoot them if they acted in any way which their white neighbours considered anti-social.
    Spain is the nearest European country to Africa and Africans are being shot as they cross the sea to that country. Bodies riddled with bullets have been washed up on Spain's beaches and the outlook for those who have been admitted as genuine asylum seekers and refugees is grim. No Government provision is made for them, although they are legal asylum seekers. People have to sleep in the park and are often moved on. They have no housing, no money and have to fend for themselves.
    It is ironic that in July this year black athletes will be shaking the hand of the President of Spain when they receive their gold medals, while that same person is responsible for the depredations facing black citizens and black asylum-seekers in that country. Black athletes should make some sort of protest, perhaps by boycotting the opening or closing ceremony, to let people know that they disagree with the way in which black people are being treated in Spain. I shall be approaching a number of people asking that some sort of protest be lodged along those lines.
    In Portugal, people are working illegally on building sites. Employers are using such people, who are often called clandestines, because they are cheap labour. Many of them are killed and injured because employers do not have to worry about safety measures. Such issues are important and must be looked at.
    We were told by the Germans of a situation in a town in Germany called Hoyerswerda. In September last year about 250 migrants were set upon, originally by skinheads, but eventually by almost the entire town. The skinheads attacked one of the refugee hostels and the people had to run up to the roof. They stayed there for three days and they had only the food that they could take with them. One of those involved said:
    "We all, Mozambicans and Vietnamese ran into the house and took refuge in the upper floors. The Skins were joy-dancing, uncorking bottles of brandy or gin, drinking shouting 'Foreigners out', 'Germany for Germans' … Later on more and more bystanders began arriving on the premises, so that at the end it was all clogged up with people. After 1.5 hours they started pelting our windows with stones. Whenever one of them would hit their target the spectators-bystanders would clap their hands. This meant for us 'Right on, you are dead right now, well done'. And the policemen, 12 of them who were there—did not do anything to arrest the people concerned."
    The person went on:
    "On the following day it all started again at 3 pm. This time there were also some schoolchildren among the mob, not only skinheads. Children came accompanied by their parents. The parents gave their children stones to throw them at our window panes. As the glasses broke into pieces they began clapping their hands, children and parents. There were only a very few parents, perhaps only four families, who dragged their children out of the riot with the subsequent scolding."
    Those involved went on to say that they were bussed into another small town where they were also attacked. The position in Europe must be deplored and the Government must do something about it.

    185
    From 1 July the Government will hold the presidency of the European Community. Some time ago I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the Government would ensure that race equality legislation was brought into the treaty of Rome and discussed within the European Commission. He said that there was no competence to deal with race equality in the treaty of Rome.
    Now that Maastricht seems to have been done away with—I welcome that—and I heard the Prime Minister talking about intergovernmental co-operation and taking a different road, there is no impediment to him raising this issue with other Governments. We need racial equality legislation throughout Europe so that those who travel through or visit Europe, whether on business or whatever, can do so without discrimination and without the stigma attached to being a person of colour.
    I hope that when the Minister replies he will talk about that aspect, because this is a unique opportunity for Britain to act. The Government always claim that we are at the top of race equality legislation. Let us do something about it and ensure that the legislation that we claim is so great is duplicated throughout Europe.
    Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is talking about race relations legislation that operates in Great Britain. I am sure that he is aware that that legislation does not apply to all United Kingdom citizens. Does he agree that that is an omission and that the human rights of even very small minorities should be protected? Does he support the extension of race relations legislation to all parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Grant: I am being treated kindly this evening. I have agreed with the points of all those who have intervened. The area represented by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) certainly has a clear need for such legislation. As a matter of fact, Haringey council accepted that Irish people were also a minority ethnic group in Britain and that view has played a part in the local legislation that we have passed. I agree that the legislation should be extended throughout Britain.
    Over the past few months we have seen the rise of political racism. A number of parties of the right have come forward. There is the Republikaner party in Germany with its leader Schöenhuber and there is the MS1 in Italy. There is the Vlams Blok party in Belgium, which is opposed not only to foreigners but to French being spoken. It wants Flemish to be the language spoken in Belgium. There is opposition in Belgium and young people have formed a counter organisation which they call the Blokbusters. It hopes to start an arm of that organisation in Britain and I shall support it. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will also be able to support it if they are called upon to do so. Everyone knows how the obnoxious Front Nationale party in France has grown. Also, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, the British National party has been responsible for the death of Rolan Adams. It has an obnoxious headquarters in the Bexley area and we hope that the police, the Home Office and so on will be able to ensure that that racist organisation and its headquarters is closed down. There have been severe attacks in Britain. The political thrust behind the racist attacks must be tackled and I hope that the Government are prepared to do that.
    A number of things need to be done. First, the Race Relations Act 1976 is long overdue for renewal. Certain
    186
    sections of the Act need beefing up and I hope that the Minister will tell us what he intends to do about that. The Commission for Racial Equality has been underfunded for many years. Not everyone supports the CRE in what it does, but in its ability to tackle the law and set legal precedents it is second to none. It has been prevented from taking up all the cases that it would like to because of a lack of funds. If the Government are keen to act, they must ensure that the CRE is adequately funded so that it can tackle its important job.
    I agree with what has been said about the criminal justice system, but there are ways in which we can tackle that. The issue of all-white juries is being tackled in America by people of colour and it is beginning to be pushed in Britain. All-white juries sitting in judgment on people of colour must be stopped. I hope that the Government will consider that.
    The issue of positive action needs to be raised once again. Since the Los Angeles riots, academics and others have decried positive action and have said, "That is where positive action gets you." In the past five or six years, positive action programmes in the United States have been discontinued by Presidents Reagan and Bush. The United States supreme court outlawed set-asides and other programmes that allowed black people and black businesses to win Government contracts. Poverty programmes and positive-action programmes were cut, but when the conflagration occurred people said, "The positive action programmes are no good." Those programmes were not given a fair run. The points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made about contract compliance and a number of other matters should be considered. The Government must put their money where their mouth is.
    I want to give some advice to the new Secretary of State.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Where is he? He should be here.
    Mr. Grant: He should be here, but he can read Hansard tomorrow. I give him this advice. He has a reputation for being off the cuff and casual and for making flippant remarks. This is not the subject for him to practise those skills or non-skills, because people are extremely sensitive about it. He strayed into areas that he did not know much about. I advise him to be extremely cautious about what he says on these issues if he wants to keep his job for a long time.
    We need money in certain areas. The Secretary of State said that £4 billion had been spent on inner-city schemes and tried to give the impression that the money had reached black people and minorities suffering in inner-city areas. None of that money reached black people and minority groups in my area. We should like to know who benefited from that £4 billion, if it was spent.
    My constituents from black and minority ethnic communities need policies to reduce unemployment and to combat poor training. We need proper jobs for young people. Further and higher education provision must ensure that our young people have education opportunities. Meetings were held with young people after the Broadwater farm disturbances in 1985. Councillors said, "We have some nice apprenticeships for you. You can be a carpenter, an electrician or a nurse." The youths said, "We are not interested." One of them said, "I want to be a test pilot." Another said, "I want to be a brain surgeon."

    187
    It was automatically assumed that because of their colour they should be limited to particular jobs. That idea must disappear from our career services, our training places and from Government.
    We hope that we are entering a new era. The Prime Minister talks about a classless society.
    Mr. Vaz: He lived in Brixton.
    Mr. Grant: He lived in Brixton. He grew up in a house that had many races and I appreciate that his heart may be in the right place, but he needs the advice and support of Ministers and civil servants to ensure that these issues, some of which I have raised today, are given a proper hearing, that we set an example for the rest of Europe and that racism is no more in our society.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Jim Lester: Whenever the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) speaks as the authentic voice of many in the ethnic minorities, he should be listened to with great care. However, I wish that his speech had been shorter, as it has not left much time for anybody else.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned £4 billion being spent on inner cities. I remember contract money being spent in Nottingham, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I come from, and particularly in the Radford area. Much time and trouble was spent on ensuring special provision for employing local people, even to the extent that contracts were switched from the lowest tender so that the local community felt that the money was spent for its benefit.
    I should like to start where my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary finished and where my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) started and finished. All of us are committed to a multi-ethnic community and freedom before the law. We shall accept nothing less.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury on his speech. I am sure that he will not be diverted from the principles that he expressed. He succeeds an honourable friend of mine, Tim Raison, with whom I worked closely in debates such as these and on refugees. I appreciated what my hon. Friend said about his predecessor and the speech that he made.
    I support what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about the rights of British citizens in Europe. British citizenship is a great and cherished right, and it has considerable historical freedoms. It should protect anyone who has it. I am concerned that when some of my constituents take a holiday abroad, particularly in the European Community, they are not treated as well as one would expect a British citizen to be treated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will ensure that European Ministers who are responsible for the police and for the other services with which British citizens come into contact understand that, once citizenship has been established, British citizens who were originally from an ethnic minority or who are second generation should be treated the same. I support what the hon. Member for Tottenham said, because we want to ensure that being a British citizen means something throughout the European Community and wherever a British citizen travels.
    188
    I understand the difficulties of those who must interview entrants who are seeking to enter this country for family reasons. In my experience, different standards apply. I am aware of many cases where people made what I regarded as a perfectly normal request for a relative to attend, for instance, a wedding. Constituents of mine have even held the weddings of their two children at the same time to minimise the problems of families attending. I experienced considerable difficulty in getting their relatives here. I felt that I had to apologise to my constituent because I could not justify the reason why only one member of the family—an older brother—was turned down.
    In such cases, I suggest—and I try to do this in the House and through the system—that one should carefully consider the person who issued the invitation. My constituents who have offered invitations are well-substantiated citizens who are a credit to, and offer much to, their local communities and are in work. They have no reason to do anything other than organise a family reunion within the law. When such invitations are sent, I often arrange for a letter to accompany it saying that the person who has issued it is a long-standing constituent of mine. Such letters could be used during the interviews in some countries when people apply for visas.
    Finally, I wish to deal with the vexed question of the attitude of the police. When my eldest son was just 18, he was a fairly hairy specimen of his generation. He had a mass of hair, wore trendy clothes and necklaces. He is also a decent, fine man—he is now nearly 40, but I am talking about when he was 18. Being a generous and liberal father, I used to let him use my car, a reasonably expensive and new Rover 2000 TC. He was convinced that the police had it in for him because of the number of times he was stopped or approached as he went to get into the car. I remember trying to talk it through with him and with the police.
    The principal point that emerged was that if the police were courteous in asking why he was in my car or about to get into my car, there could be little objection because, obviously, young people who looked like my son did at the time had no particular reason to be driving such a car on their own merit. If the police were courteous and if my son was able to be courteous in response, it was perfectly respectable. But if they were ill mannered, assumed that he had stolen the car and treated him in an unacceptable way, it was also unacceptable to me. That example should be borne in mind by the police forces when they approach people from the ethnic minorities.
    The most useful way in which we can see the values that we have all expressed come about is to observe the way in which—certainly in the city of Nottingham and the surrounding area—the ethnic communities, which I remember first arrived in 1956, have been integrated into our society. However, we also want them to be integrated especially in the police force. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said about the numbers now in the force, but we want more in the magistracy and as barristers and judges and at all levels of our legal system. In that way we can have the assurance that we all seek that to be a British citizen and to live in this country is a special privilege. It should exercise all of us to ensure that that privilege is given to all, regardless of race, colour or creed.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: I understand that Disraeli was once asked to determine the difference between a calamity and a disaster. I think he said that if Gladstone fell into the Thames it would be a calamity and that if someone pulled him out it would be a disaster. As a successor to Gladstone, I add my congratulations to Mr. Disraeli's successor, and I agree especially with his drawing attention to racial attacks in his constituency. He highlighted the connection between such attacks and the British National party.
    My constituency borders on Bexley, which is the home of the British National party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) referred to Rolan Adams who would have become one of my constituents had he not been brutally murdered in a racist attack a few hundred yards from my home and not too far from the headquarters of the British National party.
    In a debate on the position of black people in British society, it is right to draw attention in a predominantly white House to the daily experience of many black citizens who are subject to harassment, abuse and often violent attacks. I want to raise the connection that I see between the increase in racial attacks in my area and the presence of the British National party. Earlier this year, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the Prime Minister said that literature had been seized from its headquarters and referred to the Crown prosecution service. It is time to ask what was the result of the investigation into the literature that was seized. There is no doubt in my mind that literature emanating from the British National party headquarters in Welling is racially inflammatory and is an incitement to racial hatred. We have a right to demand to be told when the Attorney-General will take action against it.
    I also want to mention legislation to the new Home Secretary in relation to provocative marches which incite racial hatred in sensitive areas. When the British National party proposed to march through Woolwich and Thamesmead recently, questions were asked by the local council and local churches, community groups and black organisations who feared the consequences of that march. The local police also wanted the march to be halted, but, for that to be done, it would have been necessary for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tell the Home Secretary that, despite all the resources at the disposal of the Metropolitan police, he could not cope with the civil disorder that might arise from the march. Clearly, it would have been very difficult for the commissioner to say that. He should have been able to tell the Home Secretary that he feared the effects on local community relations if the march went ahead and that, on that basis, the Home Secretary should ban it. I hope that the new Home Secretary will review the ways in which such provocative, racist marches can be stopped.
    Other hon. Members have mentioned a speech made during the election by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). From what was said to me on the doorstep after that speech had been made, it is clear that it incited racism and inflamed feelings in my constituency. The former deputy Prime Minister, Lord Whitelaw, was quick to dissociate himself from a Tory Member in
    190
    Scotland. I regret only that the Prime Minister did not distance himself from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley.
    When speaking to an annual meeting of a racial equality council, my predecessor referred to two types of racism—the direct racism of physical attacks and abuse and direct discrimination and what he described as the "kid glove" racism of the immigration Acts. I disagree with him because there is nothing "kid glove" about the way in which immigration rules have separated families and stopped visitors attending marriages and funerals. Hon. Members of all parties have made a similar point.
    Although I disagree profoundly with the Immigration Act 1971, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I am sure that he had no intention of its being used to stop genuine visitors coming to this country to see friends and relatives or to attend weddings and funerals.
    The Home Secretary mentioned the issue of equality in the provision of services. He appeared to suggest that there was a fault in the Opposition's motion which suggested that black people do not have equality of access to services. Every survey that has ever been carried out, whether of Government services, local authority services or of health services, shows that black people and other ethnic minorities do not have equal access, whether because of the inappropriateness of the service, the way in which it is delivered or because of direct discrimination. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that fact and that he will support measures to deal with it.
    Other hon. Members have mentioned penal services and the criminal justice system. There is ample evidence to show that black people are disadvantaged by the way in which the system operates. I am sorry that some of the Home Secretary's remarks seemed almost to suggest the criminalisation of young black people. I hope that he will make an effort later to distance himself from such a suggestion. He seemed to suggest that one problem was that so many black young people declared themselves not guilty and wanted to go to the Crown court Rather than suggesting that that is perverse, he should consider an alternative suggestion—that many more young black people who are innocent get picked up and charged because of the way in which the system operates.
    Many statistics relating to the criminal justice system have been mentioned. I believe that the mental health services are also an area in which there appears to be clear evidence of the operation of institutional racism. Why is it, for example, that black people are four times as likely as white people to reach a mental hospital through the involvement of the police, and twice as likely to have been sent to hospital from prison? Why are they twice as likely to be detained in hospital under mental health legislation? Why are psychotic black patients twice as likely as white patients, including white immigrants, to be detained involuntarily in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1984? There is adequate evidence to show that there is discrimination both in the diagnosis and treatment of black people within the mental health services. That area is ripe for a Government inquiry.
    Much has been said about the need for ethnic monitoring in employment. I welcome Ministers' support for ethnic monitoring as an essential tool in employment practice to deliver equal opportunities. Regrettably, Ministers stop short of the necessary legislation to bring that about. Government Departments and local

    191
    authorities are prevented, for example, from using their commercial power through contract compliance to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in employment among those who tender for contracts for local authority services.
    The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the fact that anti-discrimination legislation on race did not extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. However, there is legislation in Northern Ireland which deals with religious discrimination. I do not suggest that that legislation should be extended to Great Britain, although I believe that we may draw some positive lessons from certain elements of the fair employment legislation. In the White Paper "Fair Employment in Northern Ireland", which was published in 1988, the Government say:
    "The legislative measures detailed in this White Paper are strong; they are also fair. They require best employment equality practice from employers, including compulsory monitoring and affirmative action measures where necessary; they provide for strengthened enforcement powers through the criminal and the civil law; and they use the Government's economic strength to support good practice."
    If best employment equality practice is right in Northern Ireland, why should we have second-best employment equality practice in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    I hope, therefore, that in considering the second comprehensive review of the Race Relations Act 1976 which has been carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality—there was no formal response to the first review—the new Home Secretary will respond formally and positively. I hope that he will take a step along the road to providing equal access and equal opportunity to all our citizens.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. John Bowis (Battersea): I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and especially to his point about marches. He spoke about the balance needed between the right to march and the right not to have one's civil rights interfered with by such marches. I hope that he will return to that matter.
    I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), who said that everyone agreed with him. I certainly agreed with one particular point. He referred to the Irish dimension and I join him, if I heard him aright, in suggesting that Home Office Ministers might consider the discrimination—if one calls it that—of the Irish being excluded from section 11 grants. The hon. Gentleman also gave some horrendous examples of what is happening in Europe and he was right to do so, even if it went a little beyond the terms of the motion. I am sure that we need to consider those problems as we take on the presidency in Europe.
    As the hon. Gentleman spoke, it struck me that the more I listened to him, the more I realised how fortunate we are not to have such circumstances in this country. The more one thinks about that, the more one realises that the reason why we do not have such circumstances is that we have a firm view of the kind expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in his excellent maiden speech. He proved himself to be a true inheritor of Disraeli's seat and of Disraeli's philosophy on these
    192
    matters. I hope that we shall hear him putting that view on many occasions. Such views are the surest way in which we shall have good race relations in this country.
    I could not be here without the support of many people of many ethnic and racial origins. Some 25 per cent. of my constituents come from other parts of the world, especially from black countries, whether in Africa or in the Caribbean, and from the Asian communities. I am scarcely conscious nowadays of the colour of my constituents. We have become far more colour blind. They are people, they are constituents, they have problems and they show me the opportunities they have seized. I have worked happily with them. I hope that increasingly we shall not need debates such as this, as people from different backgrounds or from different parts of the world who have come to live here feel themselves part of our United Kingdom.
    I remember that great Conservative candidate Lurleen Champagne saying—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear Opposition cheers. Her great statement was that she was black, she was British, she was Conservative—and she was proud of all three. We can be proud of that as well.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bowis: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must hasten through my speech.
    The debate has raised a number of issues, including the central issue of jobs. I welcome what has been said about jobs, and I welcome what the Government are doing about job opportunities and the way in which they seek to end any discrimination that there may be. The solution is linked with education and training, and with providing opportunities there.
    We must also ensure that there are opportunities in appointments. I want to see more role models from different communities among our police and our magistrates so that people see the opportunities and feel that those in authority are as much their people as anybody's.
    We need to consider the whole question of tolerance in our society, and religious tolerance is part of that. We can find ways in which to make religious practice more possible. It is a two-way movement. I have done what I can to ensure, for example, that my Muslim community has adequate burial grounds of the type needed for its religious practice. I am entitled to ask those Muslims to ensure that the Muslim community responds, not least in those Muslim countries where religious tolerance is not the norm. In that way, we can get a better understanding round the world.
    I have touched on Muslim issues and there are a number that we should study carefully. Early in the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to voluntary-aided schools. He is right in suggesting that there is no discrimination in the way in which the Muslim communities have been unable to obtain voluntary-aided schools to date. However, there are obstacles which I should like to see removed. If one obstacle is the definition of "available places", we must try to find a better way to define that term. The same is true of single-sex schools. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acknowledge that the Labour party's policy on single-sex schools may be changing so that there could be the opportunity for such schools, and for hospitals for women.

    193
    One of the most important issues, from the Muslim point of view, is the need to consider the antidiscrimination law. Following the 1991 Sheffield judgment, it is felt that the law should be clarified and possibly amended. The Muslim community feel that they have been excluded from protection measures that apply to Christians, Jews, Sikhs and others.
    Let me also ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to discuss with his colleagues ways in which we can help people in this country when disasters occur elsewhere in the world. When a natural disaster took place in Bangladesh, involving floods, death and destruction, many people in this country were affected because they were related to the victims. In such cases, relatives often do not know what is happening. I believe that we could help them by providing a more efficient source of information, and by recognising the need for counselling, especially bereavement counselling.
    I hope that the policy so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—and, earlier, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary— will continue. It is a "one-nation" policy. Many peoples have come to this nation: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Romans, Normans, Huguenots and Jews; more recently, Jamaicans, Bengalis and Ghanaians, among others; and, more recently still, the Somalis and Ethiopians who have come to my constituency. I hope that we can continue to prove to the world that we can provide a one-nation society that sets an example to the rest of the world, demonstrating how people from different backgrounds can preserve their own identity while nevertheless integrating in a happy and forward-looking society.
    6.41 pm
    Mr. Alistair Darling: This has been a short debate—perhaps too short. We have heard only one maiden speech, from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I enjoyed the tour of his constituency that he provided: in common with many other Scottish Members, I have flown over it often enough, waiting to land at Heathrow, and I was interested to learn about what goes on beneath the clouds. I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about racial attacks, too. He will be pleased to learn that, judging by the Minister's expression— which, of course, he could not see at the time —his criticism of the Home Office delays in dealing with the section 11 review struck home.
    The Tory attitude to this issue is interesting. The Government amendment, and the Home Secretary's speech, sit very ill with what the Tory party does in practice—especially before general elections. Before the election, the Asylum Bill was said to be desperately needed. Where is it now? Immediately before the election, the former Home Secretary made what I can only describe as a very grubby speech in which he attempted to equate immigration with proportional representation. He spoke of "a pact with the devil". He must feel very hard done by, finding himself on the Back Benches again, although many Conservative Members owe their presence in the House to what he said before the election. I am sorry to note that not one of the signatories to the Government amendment has ever seen fit to repudiate what he—and, indeed, other Conservative Members—said then.
    Racism and fascism are, of course, completely independent of the electoral system. The riots in Los
    194
    Angeles, for example, took place in a town where—as far as I am aware—everyone is elected under the first-past-the-post system. Racism and fascism are on the increase in Europe because the ingredients on which they feed are present: unemployment, poor housing and poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) pointed out, such elements have little to do with immigration controls, which are entirely independent of those who feed on people's fears and turn understandable concern into prejudice by pandering to the worst of those fears. That is happening all over Europe.
    Moreover, more and more people throughout Europe are becoming disillusioned with their Governments, because those Governments are not tackling the problems that they are experiencing. They feel that Governments do not care for them, and that they have no chance of bettering their position. That sense of injustice, frustration and powerlessness is not helped by such remarks as that made by the Home Secretary, who said, when discussing criminal justice in this country, that the statistics did not show racial bias. They certainly seem to show something. We can all see that black and Asian defendants are treated differently from white defendants, and I feel that the Home Secretary owes it to the House and to our citizens to pay attention to the injustices in our criminal system rather than dismissing them as a statistical aberration.
    The Government know that there are problems, and they ignore those problems at their peril. Must we really wait for unrest before anything is done? Cannot the Government realise that, if the problems are not tackled as a matter of urgency, we shall experience difficulties that we have not experienced for years?
    The Government seem to dismiss the question of contract compliance. The Prime Minister says that he wants to live in a classless society—a society that is at ease with itself. Surely, if that is true, the Government should examine the imbalances in employment law. Companies operating in areas where there is a mixed population are employing a preponderance of one part of that population —and it is not just a question of ethnic monitoring. It is sometimes helpful to examine a company's total work force, and we find all too often that ethnic minorities are doing the unskilled jobs at the lower end of the employment scale. There are not all that many managing directors from the ethnic minorities.
    The Government seem to have accepted that something must be done about the gender imbalance, but they are apparently not prepared to take the same positive action to deal with the ethnic imbalance. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), they have tackled the problem in Northern Ireland, but they do not seem to be willing to do the same for race relations in mainland Britain.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made an important point. He said that we must not ignore the influence of local authority funding: in many instances, local authorities are taking the lead in trying to redress imbalances in employment, but time and again cuts and capping deprive them of funds to tackle the problems.
    Other hon. Members have mentioned the Commission for Racial Equality and its proposals for the overhaul of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Act is in need of overhaul, and it is no great secret that the CRE held off from making proposals during the premiership of Lady Thatcher—as she now is—because it suspected that the Government would take the opportunity to undermine the

    195
    Act. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will tell us the Government's responses to the CRE's constructive proposals—in particular, its proposals to increase its power to investigate discrimination. We have heard about discrimination in regard to housing and social security. I believe that the CRE should be given powers to instigate investigations on its own account, rather than having to wait until it receives an individual complaint. That sometimes leads to difficulties.
    The Home Secretary hinted at a review of section I I funding. If the Government are indeed to embark on such a review, will the Minister tell us whether section 11 funding will be extended to Scotland, where it has never yet been provided? We live in a United Kingdom, and many areas in Scotland could benefit from such funding.
    The situation in Europe has also been mentioned. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) pointed out that many of our constituents face considerable difficulties in travelling in Europe, and will continue to do so after 1993, when the barriers come down in continental Europe and people are more liable to be stopped and asked to account for themselves. We believe that black and Asian people will be especially affected. Unless protection is provided across Europe for the rights of our constituents and all other ethnic minorities, discrimination will continue.
    As has been said, the Government could take the opportunity during their presidency of the Commission to promote a directive against racial discrimination. I am afraid that the Home Secretary is right to some extent: no matter how deficient the legislation is in this country, few European countries have legislation anywhere near as strong. If the Government are serious about promoting good race relations—not just in this country—they should raise with other member states the possibility of a directive to strike against racial discrimination across Europe. It is badly needed.
    If we are moving into a Europe that has no frontiers, the need for citizens to have rights that they can exercise not just in their own country but in every country in the EC becomes more important. and nowhere more so than a directive striking against racial discrimination. That and a Bill of Rights that we could use throughout Europe would be a significant step forward in redressing the balance between the citizen and the state, not just in this country but in the European Community as a whole. A Bill of Rights would go some way to redressing the problems that are now occurring in the practice and operation of our immigration rules.
    This debate is not about immigration, but it is difficult to discuss the difficulties that are being faced by many of our citizens without mentioning the immigration rules. All of us know that, whether it is intended or not—it does not matter how it came about—very few white people ever have any difficulty with immigration authorities in this country. Invariably we find—I found them when I visited Heathrow and spoke to the immigration officials—attitudes that are quite clearly conditioned by an ethos in the immigration and nationality department which tells them that black and Asian people are different. I heard it said by one immigration officer, "You know what these people are like—sir," he added, remembering that some respect had to be shown for a Member of Parliament.
    196
    It is interesting that the Home Secretary had no defence at all to the anomaly that was raised when we discussed the primary-purpose rule. Why is it that a French citizen can come into this country with his non-EC spouse and their dependants without let or hindrance, yet if a British citizen wishes to contract a marriage with someone who is not an EC citizen, especially someone who is black or Asian and is not an EC citizen, he or she must pass the primary-purpose rule? Getting their children to join them presents even greater difficulties. That is a double standard, and it is absurd. The Government will have to tackle it whether they like it or not. It might be better if the Government themselves were to tackle it rather than wait for the European Court to tell them that they have to scrap the rule. The primary-purpose rule is indefensible and it needs to be tackled.
    I also agree with my hon. Friends that, especially following the scrapping of hon. Members' rights to make representations, the lack of any effective right of review of the operation of the immigration rules means that decisions are becoming increasingly absurd and increasingly open to challenge because immigration officers know that there is no effective challenge to their decisions. It is no use saying to somebody, "Go back 3,000 or 4,000 miles and appeal," because very often the reason for the visit may have passed by that time.
    The Government must accept that the immigration rules are discriminatory. To some extent, all immigration rules are discriminatory, by their very nature, but unless the Government address the injustices, the sense of frustration that many of our citizens feel is likely to increase.
    If the Government want a classless society that is at ease with itself, they must too realise that many of our citizens feel that they are not wanted and are forgotten by the Government. Yes, it is all very well to put fine words in the amendment and for an emollient speech to be made by the Home Secretary, but the people of this country see what the Government did, what their spokespeople did before the election, and what they did in practice. Unfortunately, Government action is very different from the words of the debate. I very much hope that, when we return to the subject, which will not be in the too-distant future, the Government will at least have some concrete and positive proposals to put before the House.
    6.52 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I have listened to the debate with interest and close attention.
    As my time is very short, and as I may not otherwise refer to him, I should particularly like to single out the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He made a first-rate maiden speech. He displayed that informed good judgment that is to be expected from a former political adviser to the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and an admirable anger and disgust at racial attacks. The House will also have warmed to his remarks about his predecessors, particularly his tribute to Tim Raison, who is much liked and much respected on both sides of the Chamber. Hon. Members look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend again.
    The debate has properly ranged widely, as race relations bear on most aspects of our national life. It has

    197
    occasioned strong feelings as well. That is natural as discrimination can have a powerful impact on the lives of those in minority communities. I have no quarrel with hon. Members who draw attention to the discrimination that undoubtedly exists. That is why the Government are pursuing vigorously policies designed to end racial discrimination and disadvantage and to promote equal opportunity.
    However, it is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should argue, as he did and as his party does in the motion, that ethnic minorities receive less than their fair share of national resources when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reminded the House, vast programmes are directed to the inner cities where the great majority of ethnic minority communities live. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, those programmes amount to about £4 billion a year.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sought to justify that remark by saying that resources had been withdrawn from local government. But local government spending has continued to rise, and the Government's contribution to that expenditure is distributed fairly across the country by the rate grant formula that was agreed with local authorities. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook simply did not make out his case on resources, hence our amendment. I had much more sympathy with some of the other points that he made.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about discrimination in jobs and the higher ratio of unemployment suffered by ethnic minorities. He was right to do so, although he was wrong to ascribe, if I heard him correctly, all the problems to discrimination. He felt that the anti-discrimination law, which impinges only indirectly on individual cases, was inadequate, but he forgets that the CRE has effectively used certain cases to open negotiations with companies and organisations to change their recruitment and promotion policies for the better. British Rail is a successful case in point. The CRE has also helped the police to develop their policies, too. We can see the benefits of that. Persuasion, backed by the law, is the right way.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to ethnic monitoring, as did several hon. Members. It has a useful role. We have it in the police, the prison service and the probation service, and, through the Criminal Justice Act 1991, we have a statutory obligation to monitor the impact of the criminal justice system on minorities. That will both illumine the right hon. Gentleman's point and show the way to the solution of problems such as bail, which he mentioned.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the desire of ethnic minorities to be visited by their non-resident relatives, and he spoke as though the natural wish is constantly being thwarted. It is not. [Interruption.] Each year, from the Indian sub-continent, for example, come more than 200,000 short-term visitors. They get their visas within 24 hours of applying. For the most part, they apply for them in new purpose-built visa sections that are designed to make visa applications more comfortable and efficient. Far from discouraging bona fide visitors, we welcome them. Alas, a proportion are not bona fide visitors; entry clearance officers refuse up to 16 per cent. of visa applicants from the ISC—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way.
    They are refused because the ECOs are not satisfied that they intend just to visit rather than stay. The overwhelming number of applicants are given visas. Alas, of that number, a sizeable proportion overstay. Last year, one in 12 Pakistani visitors with a visa applied for asylum at the end of their visit in order to remain here. In the light of those facts, I just do not believe that entry clearance officers are generally ready to say no when they should say yes. They might say no when they should say yes at times; but it is equally clear that they say yes when they should say no.
    I have only a few moments left, although I have many points to cover. I conclude by saying that none of us wants any member of our ethnic minorities to be denied the opportunities that Britain has to offer. Discrimination and disadvantage have no place in British society. We are seeking with thoroughness and determination to root them out. That is why I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 311.

    Division No. 25]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainger, Nicholas

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clelland, David

    Allen, Graham

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Alton, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Connarty, Michael

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Austin-Walker, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Cox, Tom

    Battle, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cummings, John

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beith, A. J.

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Bell, Stuart

    Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dafis, Cynog

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benton, Joe

    Darling, Alistair

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Betts, Clive

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blair, Tony

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

    Blunkett, David

    Denham, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Dewar, Donald

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Dixon, Don

    Boyes, Roland

    Dobson, Frank

    Bradley, Keith

    Donohoe, Brian

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Burden, Richard

    Eastham, Ken

    Byers, Stephen

    Enright, Derek

    Caborn, Richard

    Etherington, William

    Callaghan, Jim

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fisher, Mark

    Cann, James

    Flynn, Paul

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foster, Donald (Bath)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foulkes, George

    199

    Fraser, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Fyfe, Maria

    Maxton, John

    Galloway, George

    Meacher, Michael

    Gapes, Michael

    Meale, Alan

    George, Bruce

    Michael, Alun

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Milburn, Alan

    Godsiff, Roger

    Miller, Andrew

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Graham, Thomas

    Morley, Elliot

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Hara, Edward

    Heppell, John

    Olner, William

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hoey, Kate

    Parry, Robert

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Patchett, Terry

    Home Robertson, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Hood, Jimmy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hoon, Geoff

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hutton, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Ingram, Adam

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jamieson, David

    Redmond, Martin

    Janner, Greville

    Reid, Dr John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Richardson, Jo

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Roche, Ms Barbara

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Rooney, Terry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Keen, Alan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

    Salmond, Alex

    Khabra, Piara

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Leighton, Ron

    Short, Clare

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Simpson, Alan

    Lewis, Terry

    Skinnner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Snape, Peter

    Loyden, Eddie

    Spearing, Nigel

    McCartney, Ian

    Squire, Rachael (Dunfermline W)

    McFall, John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McKelvey, William

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Stevenson, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Stott, Roger

    Maclennan, Robert

    Strang, Gavin

    McMaster, Gordon

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McWilliam, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Madden, Max

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mahon, Alice

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mallon, Seamus

    Turner, Dennis

    Mandelson, Peter

    Tyler, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Vaz, Keith

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wallace, James

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Walley, Joan

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    200

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wise, Audrey

    Watson, Mike

    Worthington, Tony

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wright, Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Cran, James

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Alexander, Richard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Day, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Amess, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Ancram, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dicks, Terry

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ashby, David

    Dover, Den

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Duncan, Alan

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baldry, Tony

    Eggar, Tim

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Elletson, Harold

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bates, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Beggs, Roy

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Evennett, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Faber, David

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Booth, Hartley

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Forth, Eric

    Bowis, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Freeman, Roger

    Bright, Graham

    French, Douglas

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gallie, Phil

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Garnier, Edward

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Gillan, Ms Cheryl

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Butcher, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butterfill, John

    Gorst, John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Cash, William

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Chaplin, Mrs Judith

    Hague, William

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Churchill, Mr

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clappison, James

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Harris, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawkins, Nicholas

    Congdon, David

    Hawksley, Warren

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hendry, Charles

    Cormack, Patrick

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Hicks, Robert

    201

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Merchant, Piers

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Horam, John

    Mills, Iain

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Moate, Roger

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hunter, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Norris, Steve

    Key, Robert

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Kilfedder, James

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ottaway, Richard

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Page, Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Paice, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Knox, David

    Pawsey, James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Pickles, Eric

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Legg, Barry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Redwood, John

    Lidington, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Riddick, Graham

    Lord, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Luff, Peter

    Robathan, Andrew

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    MacKay, Andrew

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Madel, David

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Mans, Keith

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Marland, Paul

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Marlow, Tony

    Sackville, Tom

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    202

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shersby, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Sims, Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trend, Michael

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Trimble, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Trotter, Neville

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Speed, Keith

    Viggers, Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waller, Gary

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Ward, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sproat, Iain

    Waterson, Nigel

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Watts, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wells, Bowen

    Stephen, Michael

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Stern, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Streeter, Gary

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sumberg, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Willetts, David

    Sykes, John

    Wilshire, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Yeo, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomason, Roy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. Timothy Boswell.

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government's determination to work towards a multi-racial society, to which all ethnic minority communities contribute fully and in which all enjoy equal opportunities, as evidenced by their policies for tackling racial discrimination and disadvantage and for promoting equal opportunities, and by expenditure programmes directed at the special needs of ethnic minorities.

  Maxwell Pensioners
  [Relevant document: Second report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1991–92 (HC61-II) on the Operation of Pension Funds.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, whilst supporting the Government's initiative to recover from the banks, financial institutions and the Maxwell family the pension fund assets which were stolen, notes the Government's responsibility both because the Department of Trade and Industry gave an investment licence to two Maxwell companies which he used as a channel to steal the pension monies, and because of the deep flaws in the current supervisory system; considers that the new committee to review pension law should not have to take a year to complete its work. and believes that emergency measures to protect occupational pension fund members should be taken without delay; and calls upon the Government to provide a more realistic sum than £2.5 million to underwrite the pensions of current and deferred Maxwell pensioners, some of whom have already suffered major losses through no fault of their own.
  The purpose of the debate and of our motion is to test the adequacy of the commitments given by the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday to the Maxwell pensioners. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday:
  "It is certainly our intention that those who are not being paid pensions and those threatened with a cut in pensions should receive and maintain pension fund payments."
  Our motion is designed to probe whether that commitment is as copper-bottomed and complete as it might appear at first glance.
  The Secretary of State's case is that his £2.5 million is a short-term emergency fund, until the £100 million locked in the common investment fund can be allocated to the nine different Maxwell schemes by a court ruling. That is his short-term solution and he was careful to distinguish it from a long-term solution
  "to resolve the long-term problem; that will be done through the return of stolen assets, and the securing of contributions to the trust fund from those who feel obliged and willing to contribute."
  Those are the Secretary of State's words and that was the Government's case. The Opposition believe that that case is misconceived, unreal and manifestly inadequate, and I shall set out the grounds for that view.
  First, and most important, a denial of any Government responsibility towards the Maxwell pensioners was inherent in everything that the Secretary of State said yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to insist, several times, that—to quote just one occasion—
  "No Government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings."
  Mr. Win Griffiths: He said that several times.
  Mr. Meacher: Yes, he did. Later, he also said:
  "nor is there any question of Government accepting responsibility."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992: Vol. 209, c. 20-29.]
  But the Government are responsible in general and in the particular. They are responsible in general because it was no ordinary fraud; it was theft from a pension fund set up as a result of a tax by Government. Pension contributions are not voluntary investments at will. Until 1988, the
  204
  Government forced every employee to contribute to an occupational pension fund if they were not in the state earnings-related pension scheme. Therefore, the Government are ultimately responsible for those moneys, as they are for the secure and efficient use of other tax moneys.
  I submit that the Government are also responsible in the particular because, as is well known, the Department of Trade and Industry granted a licence, before the independent regulatory organisation came into force, to London and Bishopsgate Investments and to another Maxwell company, which Maxwell then used as a channel to steal pensioners' money. The significance of that concession was well understood by one of Maxwell's closest associates, Mr. Larry Trachtenberg, who wrote at the end of a memorandum to Kevin Maxwell—one of the directors of LBI—
  "The most significant aspect of this approval is the way in which it should strengthen LBI's IMRO application. Historically, the approval from the DTI for a Principals Licence was never easy to obtain and the fact that LBI managed to do so, so near the end of the old regime's life, is thought to be a very good sign."
  In other words, it is clear that the DTI originally sold the pass.
  The Government are responsible in the particular on other grounds. The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation was clearly flawed in its supervision. One of the Maxwell companies was not visited for nearly two years after IMRO authorised it, and then it gave LBI a clean bill of health, even when it found "no formal record" of transactions considered to be an essential control. In that context, we would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Securities and Investments Board report on IMRO will be published. I would be happy to give way if he wishes to intervene now to give such an assurance. On top of that, the Government failed to comply with the EEC directive 80/987, which required European member states to introduce legislation to protect the pay and pensions of employees in the event of their employers' insolvency.
  For all these reasons, there is no question but that the Government are responsible, both in general and in the particular circumstances of this Maxwell scandal. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State the question that I put to him yesterday at Question Time, but that he evaded. As he is responsible, will he accept the proposal from the Maxwell pensioners action group that their pension rights be assigned to him, that he pays their pensions and that he then recovers the costs by pursuing the banks? That is what the Government did in the case of Barlow Clowes shareholders, for whom the Government had far less responsibility. I think that I am right in saying that they had far less responsibility. I think that I am right in saying that the Government have now clawed back £100 million of the £160 million that they originally paid out in that case.
  I ask again, directly to the Secretary of State, what I asked him yesterday. If the Government were right to do that in the Barlow Clowes case, why is it not right for them to do so in the case of the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving? I would be happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene to answer that question, which is the central question in the debate. I am asking him to comment directly on that question, of which I gave him notice 24 hours ago. It is not a question that I am popping at him now.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I am hoping to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, and I shall be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman's speech in the normal way.
  Mr. Meacher: That is fine, as long as we have an answer to this question—the central question in the debate. It is not acceptable that the only responsibility that the Government acknowledge in this whole wretched business is payment of the guaranteed minimum pension. I have been sent two examples by the action group of what this will mean in practice. The first of these concerns Mr. Cliff Jubb of Sheffield, who worked for the engineering firm Newton Chambers for 49 years and had been enjoying a pension of £300 a month. He is 74 years old and his guaranteed minimum pension will now be £6.72. Another pensioner aged 68, Mr. John Breadmore, enjoyed a pension of £10,000 a year and has now been informed that his guaranteed minimum pension will be £201.68 a year. That is slightly under £4 a week.
  Are those the kind of consequences that the Secretary of State thinks it right and proper for pensioners to be left with if, as so many people believe—not only in the House but outside—the £2.5 million proves to be totally inadequate? Is he aware that those would be the consequences. and does he accept them?
  Mr. Stephen Day: I have the privilege of serving on the Social Security Select Committee and I am member of the all-party group formed to look after the interests of the Maxwell pensioners, to which I am committed. Up till now, when the Opposition Front Bench team has become involved, the pensioners' interests have been looked after on an all-party basis motivated by commitment to dealing with the issues rather than scoring cheap political points and trying to point the finger at the Government. If the hon. Gentleman were serious about helping the Maxwell pensioners, as I know that both the all-party group and the Social Security Select Committee are, he would not turn this issue into a party political football.
  Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up into such an artificial lather. I am one of those—he may have been another—who spoke to many of the Maxwell pensioners after the Secretary of State's statement yesterday. I got the strong impression from all to whom I spoke—both the leaders and the individual members—that they were thoroughly dissatisfied with the content of that statement and with the uncertainty of the outcome with which they are presented. It is that to which I am speaking today.
  Let me return to the Government's strategy, as outlined by the Secretary of State yesterday. Even if we leave aside the fundamental question of the Government's responsibility in this matter, there is one huge flaw in the approach that the right hon. Gentleman is adopting. It is that his is a voluntary scheme. Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to the outcome. It is literally all a wish and a prayer. Here are some quotations from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. In his statement he. said:
  "the institutions involved may well feel some moral obligation to assist the pensioners".
  Later, in reply to a question, he said:
  "I hope that much more money will come from the City".
  Dr. Keith Hampson: It probably will.
  Mr. Meacher: We shall see. The Secretary of State also
  said:
  "there is also a moral question, which we invite the banks and other financial institutions to answer."
  My last, and perhaps most important, quotation is this:
  "the onus is on those who had dealings with Maxwell in the past to examine their consciences and to see whether they should share the profits that they made in the past with those who suffered a great loss at the hands of Maxwell."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 19-24.]
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I have been quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words, so I would be glad to allow him to intervene.
  Mr. Lilley: The motion before the House urges the Government to underwrite the pensions of existing and future pensioners. Is it not the case that, if we did so, the chance of anyone contributing to pensions or returning a single stolen security voluntarily and ahead of time would be zero?
  Mr. Meacher: I am coming on to exactly that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that that is often used to evade the issue—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Read Lord Williams and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is out of order.
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has come to the core of the matter. He is keeping down the Government's contribution so as to ensure that others will still have an incentive to make a contribution. If they do not, we shall have the disadvantages of both worlds—no contributions and a tiny Government commitment. As I made clear in Question Time yesterday, I believe that the Government should underwrite those pensions and then use the powers at their disposal to ensure that they get the money back from the banks and institutions.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I want to move on, and I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. I may give way later on.
  Mr. Lilley: By definition, the legal powers are already available. We are asking people to go beyond their legal obligations to their moral obligations. In those circumstances, if the moral obligations have already been underwritten by the Government, what possibility is there of anybody fulfilling his moral obligations? What powers does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I should take to force people to meet their moral obligations?
  Mr. Meacher: I am about to deal with that exact issue. The right hon. Gentleman will then see that he does have the powers; the problem is that he does not want to use them because he wants to keep the scheme voluntary so that the City might be prepared to give the odd contribution if it chooses. If the right hon. Gentleman really believes his comments of yesterday, which I quoted, he is more naive than I thought. The City is about as conscious-stricken as Maxwell was law-abiding.
  It could not be clearer that the Government have one law for the City and another for the trade unions. The

  207
  National Union of Mineworkers was pursued by an army of lawyers, and its funds were sequestrated because it failed to hold a ballot. The banks, which are holding on to £200 million in stolen assets, are given a limp slap on the wrist and then told to examine their consciences.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said again today that he has no powers to force the banks' hands, but he has those powers and I shall tell him what they are. For the banks to operate, their banking licence must be reviewed regularly. I submit to the Secretary of State that it would be perfectly proper to threaten to refuse to renew the licence of any bank which is knowingly holding on to stolen assets and which refuses to hand them back. If he or his colleagues have those powers, why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to use them? They could secure the outcome that we all want to see. That is the question he must answer.
  There is another reason why the right hon. Gentleman should take a much tougher line. It is frankly deeply offensive to the Maxwell pensioners, living on the edge of poverty, to be offered a few pounds to keep them going while those who perpetrated the scandal are still living openly and legally in the lap of luxury. Not only does Kevin Maxwell still live in a £1.5 million Chelsea home, but he and his brother are allowed by the liquidators to draw a weekly living allowance of £1,500 from their otherwise frozen bank accounts. Apparently, they even have the money to consider establishing a new media empire. We are told that Mr. Larry Trachtenberg still has the free use of a £350,000 bonus that he received from London and Bishopsgate holdings for services rendered. What are the Government doing when, nine months later, the guilty still enjoy all the trappings of wealth while the victims are fobbed off with an average of £18 a week each, if they get anything at all?
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the two Maxwell brothers showed total contempt for the House of Commons when they refused to answer questions before the Select Committee on Social Security? They carry on with their millionaire lifestyle and show contempt for the victims, but, as my hon. Friend said, the Government show no concern whatsoever. It will be interesting to learn whether the Attorney-General will make a statement to the House—he should make it as quickly as possible—on when criminal prosecutions will occur.
  Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Members of the Select Committee on Social Security were extremely upset, to say the least, when the Maxwell brothers came to us and said that they wanted a right of silence. We took extensive advice about that from within the House of Commons. At least one statement made yesterday about the Maxwell brothers might prejudice a fair trial, so will you advise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be helpful if all hon. Members did not seek to make cheap points at the expense of a fair trial?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter is not sub judice.
  Mr. Meacher: I now turn to the question of the £2.5 million. It is a tiny amount precisely because of the Government's voluntary approach, which the Secretary of State made clear a few moments ago. He admitted that his rescue package must be small, otherwise it would let the
  208
  banks and the other financial institutions off the hook from having to contribute. That means that the Maxwell pensioners will be left in the middle between the hard-nosed meanness in the City and the feebleness of the right hon. Gentleman in failing to enforce reimbursement. Instead of shilly-shallying with appeals to consciences and for discretionary contributions, the right hon. Gentleman should be underwriting the pensions in full and using every legal means and every other lawful pressure to make certain that the banks and the other institutions repay. That is the gap in the rescue package.
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith rose—
  Mr. Dickens rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).
  Mr. Dickens: As we are examining our consciences, does my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend because he represents a seat in Oldham—recall the way in which Labour Members, at each party conference, fought their way through the picket line of printers to get to Maxwell's champagne? Will the Labour party return to the pension funds the contributions that it received from Robert Maxwell? Labour Members are frightened of the Minister asking for people to examine their consciences because that means that the Labour party must start to examine its own.
  Mr. Meacher: As usual, the red-faced hon. Gentleman brings a serious issue into contempt.
  The fact is that the Government's figures do not add up. The Secretary of State's case is that the £2.5 million is enough to keep the pension funds afloat until the £100 million is released from the common investment board in about six months' time. Even then, that will leave a shortfall of £458 million. The Government hope that the banks will repay £217 million of that, and they hope, perhaps dream would be more appropriate, that the remaining £241 million will be covered by voluntary contributions. That is about as likely as Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister again. I know that is something that the right hon. Gentleman devoutly desires, but it will not happen.
  As everyone can surely see, at the end of the day, there will be a huge hole in the Maxwell finances. It is perfectly clear that, after all the political hoo-hah has died down, as the Government hope, it will be the deferred pensioners —those who intend to retire in 10 to 20 years time—who will draw the short straw. Such is the cynical calculation that the Government have made and it is one that the rest of us, who have any belief in justice, must stop by making sure that the issue does not go away.
  The right hon. Gentleman's rescue package is a huge con. It is designed to give cover to 6,000 pensioners only, when, with the wind-down of the Maxwell Media Corporation staff scheme and AGB funds, more than 12,000 are likely to require support in the next few months. There is no guarantee of a 100 per cent. top-up and the scheme will last only until the common investment fund is divided up. As I said, that is not the end of the problem. After a temporary respite, we shall be left with a much more serious long-term problem.

  209
  The provision of only £2.5 million to Maxwell pensioners is an insult when compared to the £160 million that was made available to the Barlow Clowes offshore speculators. Even the belated implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990, for which I am glad, will do almost nothing for the Maxwell pensioners unless they are made preferential creditors. I strongly press that course on the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage. Until he takes powers that are adequate to the scale of the problem and recognises that hawking his begging bowl round the City is not only undignified but no answer to the scale of the crisis, the rescue package will remain a charade. We have tabled our motion to test the seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's purpose.
  7.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "shares a deep concern for the distress pensioners face as a result of the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell; applauds the initiative taken by the Government to provide temporary, emergency funding to help those schemes which have a particularly acute short term problem; and, while welcoming the decision to initiate a thorough review of the framework of pension scheme law, notes with approval the important part that occupational pensions continue to play in ensuring increasing prosperity among the retired population of this country."
  It is a pleasure, on our second encounter, to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), although I shall not be following him along his customary route, which is to go straight over the top, as he did again today.
  Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman lambasted the Government response to the Maxwell affair. But he has misunderstood the problem, misrepresented the facts and misjudged the mood of the House. The House recognises that this is not an area for glib statements, easy solutions or partisan attacks. Most hon. Members support the carefully constructed package of measures that I announced yesterday. They have certainly been welcomed across a wide spectrum of opinion outside the House. The Times and The Independent both recognise that it would be wrong for the Government to underwrite the deficit left by
  Maxwell's theft. So does The Guardian. Its leader said that
  "it would have been wrong—as the all-party social security select committee has noted—for the Government simply to bale out the bankrupt pension schemes. A much more subtle approach is needed … The Government's strategy is both clear and sensible … Mr. Lilley had a balance to strike yesterday between short-term pressure and long-term reconstruction … the initial balance is there."
  I hope that by quoting The Guardian I have not discouraged the paper from supporting me again.
  Dr. Hampson: There was an aspect of yesterday's welcome package that I hope my right hon. Friend will clarify. It concerns those Leeds pensioners who have lost their pensions for two months. There was no clear commitment yesterday that those payments would be paid retrospectively. Can my right hon. Friend relieve them of their anxiety?
  Mr. Lilley: I cannot ensure that—[Interruption.]—but it is certainly the intention that payment will be made henceforth and that the grant will enable that payment to be made. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.
  210
  Before dealing further with the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the all-party group on occupational pensions and the members of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament. It is a longstanding convention that occupants of this Bench, when presenting welcome proposals, present them as if they were entirely their own ideas, immaculately conceived and produced without any outside influence. I believe that the package that I announced yesterday would have been developed in direct response to the plight of pensioners without any outside prompting, but it is only fair to admit that the efforts of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) made its arrival all the more certain. I am grateful to them, to members of the all-party group and to members of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament. All of them were rowing in the same direction and we have all converged on similar ideas.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Many welcome the fact that there is to be a committee of inquiry, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, into the structure of pension funds. But does he accept that the disaster of the Maxwell pension fund was, in a sense, a disaster waiting to happen because of the inadequacy of the legal framework surrounding the ownership and control of pension funds and the degree of self-regulation that exists in the City? While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's need for a committee of inquiry, does he not think that 12 months is too long in this matter and that we need action more urgently to protect all the other pension funds and contributors to pension funds throughout the country from the kind of appalling scandal that we, through the Select Committee, have uncovered in the case of the Maxwell empire?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I would not accept that it was inevitable that the Maxwell fraud would be perpetrated. To the extent that it, or the questions that have been raised following it, suggests that there should be changes in the pensions framework—the law and regulation of pensions—we see that we need seriously to consider those changes rather than to jump precipitately into changes without giving the issues proper consideration. I shall return to that matter later.
  Mr. John Greenway: It is worth the House taking note of the fact that we are talking about two separate animals in terms of pension rules and regulations. There are large self-administered schemes, such as the Maxwell scheme, and it is right that, for compensation, people should look first and foremost to those who ran that scheme rather than to the Government. But a large number of occupational pension schemes in Britain are insured schemes and are subject to much more rigorous regulation. The pensioners in those cases are protected by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. Many people would like reassurance from my right hon. Friend that their pensions are safe because of the protection given to them by that Act.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend, who is a leading expert on pension matters, is absolutely right. It is wrong to suggest that, because of this terrible crime, everybody should be going about in fear and trembling, particularly if they are in the sort of schemes to which my hon. Friend referred.

  211
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West and I agree that the Maxwell pensioners have been the innocent victims of a vile and unprecedented crime. But the Maxwell pensioners and the House do not want the undeliverable promises of the hon. Member for Oldham, West; they want a considered package of measures that will help to give them peace of mind about their immediate financial future, to secure the assets that will pay their pensions in the years ahead and to ensure that a similar crime can never happen again.
  Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress before giving way further.
  That is why, in my statement yesterday, I announced a package of five measures to deal with the short, medium and long-term issues raised by Maxwell. In the short term, we need to ease the acute pressures while assets are unlocked from the central fund. That is why I announced temporary, emergency funding to help schemes restore and maintain pension payments. That should give pensioners greater peace of mind about their immediate financial future.
  Mr. David Madel rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress.
  In the medium term, we must secure the return of stolen assets and any other funds to help pay pensions in the years ahead. To that end, I have established a special unit in my Department. It will work alongside the pension scheme trustees and others to secure the return of assets and their fair distribution between funds. The unit began work in embryo today.
  I must tell the House that even if one was as successful as the hon. Member for Oldham, West believes it would be possible to be, deploying an array of powers that probably do not exist, in securing the return of all the stolen assets that were used as collateral for loans, that would still leave a considerable deficit. We expect the unit to establish a trust fund to mobilise support from those who recognise a moral obligation towards the Maxwell pensioners or who have an interest in maintaining faith in the integrity of the pensions industry.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I wish to make some progress, and I am outlining the measures. I will then come to matters that will give an opportunity for hon. Members to raise any points that they wish to put.
  In addition to the fund, I announced the implementation of regulations under the Social Security Act 1990 which will have the effect of making Maxwell pension schemes ordinary creditors of their employer companies, though I emphasised that the financial benefits likely to flow from that were limited. Parliament did not grant power to the Minister to make regulations that would have made pension funds preferential creditors, rather than ordinary creditors, of the employer companies.
  For the long term, we need a framework of law that will prevent such a crime ever recurring and which will provide
  212
  a firm basis for the pensions industry to grow. That is why I announced a wide-ranging review under Professor Goode.
  Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I am anxious, before giving way further, to finish outlining the measures that I announced yesterday.
  The basic mistake of the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that he simply does not understand the problem. He fails to recognise that the acute short-term problem is distinct from the longer-term problem of restoring or replacing lost assets.
  The Maxwell pension funds have some £230 million of assets safe in their hands, but £100 million of it is in the common investment fund that handles part of their investments, while the remainder is in individual schemes. It has not been possible to agree how much of that £100 million is attributable to each scheme. The trustees have therefore agreed to submit to a court ruling the allocation of that £100 million. But that will take a few months and, until then, that sum is frozen. Our repayable grant is designed simply to cope with the acute short-term pressures faced by the schemes while that situation persists. It will also enable progress to be made in securing the return of some of the stolen assets and obtaining other funds.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West and others ask, "Why £2.5 million?" That figure is based on my official experts' assessment of the position of the various schemes. They are better placed than anyone else to make such an assessment and have also taken into account the possibility that the court ruling may be later rather than sooner. So I am confident that the sum allocated is sufficient for the purpose.
  As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has no direct information about the state of Maxwell pension schemes. Yet his motion calls on the Government to provide "a more realistic sum". It is not clear why the hon. Gentleman feels that he is a good judge of what is realistic. Among the many admirable qualities that one associates with the hon. Gentleman, realism is not high on the list. I assume that he is demanding more on the principle of "never knowingly overbid". Indeed, his bids have been constantly rising. At the beginning of May, he called on the Government to mount a huge rescue operation, which he said that we could afford, costing £156 million. At the end of May, he called on the Government to meet the shortfall, which he then put at between £200 million and £300 million. His motion today calls for us to underwrite all the pension liabilities, which means accepting a current deficiency of £350 million. When the hon. Gentleman is comparing our £2.5 million with a £350 million deficiency, he is comparing apples with pears. The sum that we are making available is purely to deal with acute short-term pressures while frozen funds are being released. The longer-term deficiency can be resolved only by the return of assets and by securing other funds.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of yesterday, which is now at the heart of this debate, was there ever before a scheme for the loan of a lifebelt that was at once cash limited and time limited? What happens if and when the time limit runs out?
  Mr. Lilley: I am confident that we have provided enough money, even assuming that the court takes longer

  213
  than it may to reach a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a loan. Technically, it is a repayable grant. In other words, we expect the schemes to repay only if they are successful in getting back their assets and are able to do so without detriment to the pensioners. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no question of individual pensioners having to repay any sum of money. That is out of the question.
  Mr. Madel: My right hon. Friend referred to short-term measures and peace of mind. I refer to the Maxwell Communication works pension fund and possible difficulties after 1 July. Can he assure me that, because of the Government's short-term relief, individual pensioners will not have to fill in forms or contact people but that from 1 July their 100 per cent. pensions will come through automatically?
  Mr. Lilley: I confirm that that is so. An arrangement between those handling the grant that we have made available and the scheme trustees, who will discuss how the money should be allocated, will enable the hardest-hit schemes to resume or maintain payment.
  Mr. Meacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, from the beginning, I have consistently asked that the Government should treat the Maxwell pensioners in the same way as the Barlow Clowes speculators? He has still not answered that question. Although it was clear yesterday that he did not know how the £2.5 million was calculated, will he confirm that that sum is to provide protection for the Leeds pensioners and the MCC staff scheme only, and that if the AGB scheme and the MCC works scheme have problems in the next few months, it will not cover them?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. It has always been clear that Barlow Clowes is not a precedent. I shall ignore his contemptible description of those investors as "speculators". The £2.5 million grant is not limited to a specific fund, but we believe that it will be sufficient to help the funds maintain and resume pensions over that period.
  Mr. George Mudie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little progress, because there was an opportunity at yesterday's statement for the normal process of question and answer.
  I must not be too hard on the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The Opposition motion bears many signs of hasty redrafting. I understand that, prior to my statement, the Opposition were planning to table an uncharacteristically moderate motion calling for short-term help, while pressure was put on the financial institutions to help with the long-term shortfall. But now that it is precisely what we have done, so the hon. Gentleman has had to revert to form. He has gone back over the top and tabled a motion calling for us
  "to underwrite the pensions of current and deferred Maxwell pensioners"
  in their entirety.
  No Government could, in effect, agree to reimburse everyone who has their savings stolen. The whole House knows that. Moreover, if any Government did underwrite all the pension schemes, they would, at a stroke, remove the pressure on banks and others to release stolen assets rapidly or to contribute to the fund that we are
  214
  establishing. The Opposition cannot deny that their motion would mean that not a penny would be contributed to the trust fund, and not a share certificate would be returned voluntarily early. The taxpayer would end up paying the whole of the largest possible bill.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a distinction between the general Maxwell pension funds and British International Helicopters Limited? His speech has made quite a play on moral obligations to people in the City and banks, and I wholly agree with him about that. However, does he accept that, as the Government owned British Airways when British Airways sold the helicopter company to Maxwell, they therefore have a moral obligation to those pensioners?
  Mr. Lilley: That does not follow, but I hope that those pensioners can reach an accommodation with MGN. Obviously, I shall look closely at that.
  Another question that was raised yesterday, which may lie behind many of the points that hon. Members wish to raise today, is why the Government are not offering a clear guarantee that all pensions will be paid in full—100 per cent.—in the coming months. We certainly intend to ease the position of pension schemes so that they can restore or maintain payment of pensions while frozen funds are being released, but we cannot offer an open-ended guarantee. Moreover, some schemes have resources just sufficient to continue paying part, but not all, of the pension. It will then be a matter of negotiation how much the scheme pays and how much is met by our grant. Clearly, it would be impossible to negotiate while offering to guarantee a 100 per cent. payment, but I am confident that the position of all Maxwell pensioners over the next few months is substantially safeguarded and vastly more secure than it would be without this scheme.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I speak on behalf of the AGB pensioner scheme. Is the Secretary of State aware how difficult it is for pensioners on low incomes to plan anything months ahead? Even on the basis of what the Secretary of State has said, such pensioners cannot plan this year's summer holiday or what to do for Christmas. On those pensioners' behalf, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he will ensure that they are not left waiting until the last day of the last week of the last month before being told whether they will receive their next payment. Such insecurity is absolutely intolerable.
  Mr. Lilley: I recognise that one of the legacies of Mr. Maxwell is the element of insecurity felt about the longer term. All I have been able to do is to try to ease the pressures, anguish and insecurity of the pensioners over this acute short-term period when schemes' funds cannot be allocated to pensioners as those funds are frozen. I do not pretend that we have relieved the longer-term anguish, which is a legacy of Mr. Maxwell.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West is keen to blame the Government for the pensioners' problems. As I said yesterday, crime is caused by criminals and in this case we know who the central villain was. It is nonsense to argue that, because a crime happened, the Government are to blame and so are liable to compensate the victims.
  When a burglary occurs, we do not say that the police and property laws for which the Government are responsible have failed, so the Government are to blame

  215
  and must reimburse every householder. Of course, we must keep under constant review our systems for preventing fraud and theft from pension schemes. If we find sectors where improvements are needed, that cannot be held as an admission of responsibility for crimes that have not been prevented.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I have followed everything said by my right hon. Friend and agreed with him until he apparently said that there was only one person responsible for the crime and we could all blame Mr. Maxwell. In my view, all the directors of Mirror Group Newspapers and everyone connected with Maxwell who have had their fingers in the till for so long should have resigned months ago. Does not my right hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Lilley: I said that the central villain was Robert Maxwell. I am not making any judgment on whether any other people were involved. That is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office to establish.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State answer fully the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)? The Secretary of State is basically saying that in 1986 the Government handed over British Airways' helicopter division to the central criminal figure in the scandal. As he said yesterday in response to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Government knew that Maxwell had been reported as unfit to run a public company. Does not the Secretary of State think that, at the very least, the Government have a moral obligation to those British International Helicopter pensioners?
  Mr. Lilley: Many of the companies in the Maxwell group were bought from other people. I do not believe that many people would think that previous owners have a moral responsibility for what the subsequent owners do. The helicopter division was bought from British Airways, and British Airways was not required to seek Government approval for that sale.
  To return to the issue of blame, the hon. Member for Oldham, West asked specifically about the report of the Securities and Investments Board, and I promised to respond. It is up to the SIB to state whether it intends to publish the report. I understand—although I only have it second hand—that the SIB intends to publish its findings.
  The review of pension law was a major aspect of yesterday's announcement. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that 12 months was too long a period for the review of pensions. I agree that the need is urgent. The House will recall that I have not only asked Professor Goode to report within 12 months, but said that if his committee finds changes that should be implemented urgently, it should report to me sooner. The committee needs time to invite evidence from all interested parties, and it will hold a number of public hearings.
  I was interested to note that Sue Ward, a leading pensions expert, said on the Radio 4 PM programme yesterday that the review team would have to work hard to complete its task in 12 months. She said:
  "Twelve months was certainly not too long a time."
  The Opposition motion states that
  "because of the deep flaws in the current supervisory system"
  the House
  216
  "considers that the new committee to review pension law should not have to take a year to complete its work."
  I think that most people would consider that, before changes are made to rectify deep flaws, there should be deep reflection.
  In his article in The Times, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) states that he wants the review to consider reforms to make pension contributors holders of their own contributions. We have given the review deliberately wide terms of reference to look at the status and ownership of occupational pension funds. We have not ruled out consideration of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—far from it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's ideas are sufficiently attractive to warrant others considering them if the review team feels that they are not relevant to its work.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: This debate is principally centred on the Maxwell pension scandal, but the Secretary of State should be aware that pension funds are in deep difficulties. The Oakwood pension plan affects my constituents. It appears that a director of the employers took the major decisions related to the pension plan against the advice of the actuary. Will Professor Goode consider such aspects, as well as considering what went wrong with the Maxwell pension scheme?
  Mr. Lilley: Very much so—I am sure that Professor Goode will want to look at any evidence of deficiencies and problems. It would be quite right to do so if we are to change the law and regulate to ensure that such crimes do not recur. I shall draw the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman to Professor Goode's attention.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with the help of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, British Coal officials have just awarded themselves another pension holiday? What does he think about that in view of the scandal that has come to light? When I met some of the Daily Mirror pensioners yesterday, I bumped into some Daily Express pensioners. They told me that a few years ago the Daily Express changed its pension fund and as a result they do not receive year-on-year increases. The Daily Express officials fiddled the fund and created a new one for the current employees, but those who worked for the paper for 30 or 40 years will not get a penny piece. The Maxwell scandal has highlighted the fact that, across the board, pension managers and organisations such as British Coal and the Daily Express have been fiddling funds and depriving pensioners of their proper entitlement. What is the Secretary of State's view on that?
  Mr. Lilley: The Maxwell case was certainly a terrible scandal, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sees capitalist plots, scandals and conspiracies everywhere. If he intervenes too many times in my speech and his hon. Friends see the names Lilley and Skinner linked together in the pages of the Official Report, they will think that he is part of a major capitalist enterprise—[Interruption.] I never thought that I should see the hon. Member for Bolsover lost for words—
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Those listening to the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Bolsover would think that occupational pension schemes were disastrous and that all occupational pensioners were at risk of fraud. People

  217
  listening to the debate will realise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has a hidden agenda to abolish private pension arrangements and replace them with an expanded state earnings-related pension scheme. The hon. Gentleman is doubly mistaken.
  Occupational pension schemes have largely been a great success and 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners now receive an occupational pension. That compares with just 54 per cent. in 1979. Average incomes from occupational pensions almost doubled between 1979 and 1988, the last year for which we have figures. Moreover, they increased the volume of long-term savings available for long-term investment in industry. There is no way in which public finances could accommodate the sort of expanded SERPS that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would like and appears to have in mind. Future generations could not possibly cope with the level of debt that would be stored up. The success of occupational pensions is matched by personal pensions which now extend to 4.5 million people.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Occupational pension schemes may have been extremely successful in recent years. However, does the Secretary of State agree that the profits from those investments, which are nothing less than the deferred earnings of the occupational pensioner, should be redirected in the interests of members of pension schemes and nobody else?
  Mr. Lilley: I have explicitly made it possible for Professor Goode to consider that issue in his review.
  Personal pensions have dramatically widened the range of people with their own pension to supplement the state pension. They have also increased the volume of committed long-term savings available for investment in industry as well as giving millions of people greater flexibility and mobility. I accept that not just the private sector but the state has a role to play. The Government have ensured that total expenditure on benefits to the elderly has increased since 1979 by one third in real terms.
  We have met our commitment to maintain the value of the basic pension and will continue to do so. We have provided systematically for real increases in pensioner premiums by directing money to the poorer pensioners. Overall pensioners' incomes have increased by 34 per cent. since we came to office. That is five times faster than under Labour, not least because under the last Labour Government pensioners lost heavily as a result of inflation. I am not in the mood to listen to self-righteous lectures from the Opposition on protecting pensions.
  Mr. Meacher rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman had his say.
  The Government recognise and share the real concerns expressed by hon. Members and by people outside about Maxwell pensioners. We also share the revulsion at the crime that was committed. We shall give the Maxwell pensioners as much peace of mind as possible about the immediate financial future. We shall help to unlock and to secure the return of assets that will pay the pensions in the months and years ahead. Through the review that we have established we shall do all that we can to ensure that similar crimes can never happen again. We are taking real and practical steps in a highly complex area and I commend them to the House.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief because many hon. Members with constituency interests wish to take part in the debate.
  I hope that the debate will send out three clear messages. The first is that the House welcomes the Government's rescue package. At this stage we are not especially interested in the amount of money or in where the idea for the amount came from. The House is anxious to ensure that in the short term every pensioner who was not receiving a pension and all those who were at risk of receiving a reduced pension will receive a full pension. We leave it to the Government to ensure that the funds are adequate to meet that important immediate objective.
  The second message which I hope will go out is that the Secretary of State realises the extent of support from all hon. Members for his measures not only to retrieve the funds that were clearly misappropriated, but to reach those people who did well during the Maxwell years and who could make substantial contributions. We shall examine with interest the size of those contributions. I hope that the Secretary of State will not ignore the support in the House and that he will mobilise it if the need arises.
  The third message is about the very long term. The Secretary of State rightly said that if he suggested that the taxpayer should foot the bill, few contributions would be forthcoming. He must realise what the feelings of his own hon. Friends and Opposition Members would be if his strategy failed or partially failed. The mood of the House is for him to press on urgently to get the contributions. We shall not be satisfied if at the end of the day those contributions are inadequate. The Secretary of State said that such statements might damage his efforts to regain assets and contributions for the scheme. I think not. Most matters that we deal with depend on the striking of a balance. Jimmy Thomas once said that if one could not ride two horses at once one should not be part of the circus. The Secretary of State must be aware that if his efforts to gain contributions are unsuccessful and he says that there is no help for these pensioners, the mood of the House will not be as easy-going as that of a circus.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Stephen Day: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on an issue that greatly concerns all hon. Members, and especially those of us who met pensioners yesterday. I am sure that all hon. Members have constituents who are affected. In my constituency, 40 to 50 pensioners are affected. I am sure that those who came to see me, and especially those who had been told that they had received their last cheque, will be well pleased with the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday.
  Of course the announcement is no solution to the ultimate problems and the traumas that undoubtedly face pensioners. They have been placed in this situation not by the Government—although to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) one would think that it was all the Government's fault—but by those who certainly should have known better and whose actions were no credit to themselves or to the human race.
  Whatever our political viewpoint, we are all totally committed, as are the Government, to justice for the pensioners. We must ensure that Maxwell pensioners have long-term security, and the Secretary of State's

  219
  announcement yesterday goes some way towards providing that. The Government can only give a lead and they have accepted their responsibility by ensuring that short-term security is provided. That was one of the specific aims of the all-party group on which it specifically campaigned. I pay tribute to the hon. Members on that group who saw the issue to its conclusion.
  I am distressed at what I heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke. He spoke for me and, I suspect, for many hon. Members in that he encapsulated what I believe to be the true interests of the Maxwell pensioners. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, as I tried to intimate in my intervention during his speech, angered me enormously and did no service to the Maxwell pensioners. The worst possible scenario for the pensioners would be for those of us in the Chamber to start trying to score political points from the suffering of others.
  Mr. Graham Allen: That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing now.
  Mr. Day: I am making the very points that I have maintained throughout my interest in this subject on the Select Committee and as a member of the all-party group.
  Quite rightly, the Select Committee was involved in this matter for some time during the previous Parliament. When we were debating and investigating the issue, we acted on an all-party basis. In fact, there was no division when the report was written as it was supported unanimously. That is the position that I am determined to defend, despite the attempts of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to destroy that consensus. I hope that hon. Members will remember the words of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and those of us who support his stance. If, like myself, he is honoured to be reappointed to the Select Committee and continues as its Chairman, that will be the best thing for the interests of the Maxwell pensioners, as I know that he and most other hon. Members have their interests at heart.
  I commend what the Government have done in the short term. I hope. that they will pursue the banks, which have a moral obligation to return the Maxwell pensioners' money that is in their hands because of the illegal action of others. I hope that the House will reject the motion and the intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad that the debate is taking place, although not in every case is it being pursued in a way that is likely to achieve the best result. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) acknowledged, there are probably very few hon. Members who do not have some constituents who are affected. Some of us have substantially more than the hon. Gentleman. I have the operational headquarters of British International Helicopters in my constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has its northern base. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is our representative on the all-party committee and is pushing the case for compensation. He has a substantial number of affected pensioners in his constituency, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member
  220
  for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who intervened during the statement yesterday, also has a considerable number affected. I wish to speak on the general principles on behalf of all my hon. Friends.
  I accept to some extent the Secretary of State's argument that, simply because people have broken the law, the Government should not be held fully responsible. However, we must acknowledge that what has arisen in many ordinary people's minds is surprise and shock that it should be possible for people to be able to get their hands on pension fund money in this way. To that extent, the House must welcome an urgent review to try to ensure that we plug that loophole as well as securing compensation for those who have suffered from the fact that the law is not up to scratch now.
  It may be a naive question, but millions of people outside the House will probably want to know how it is possible for companies to get their hands on pension funds, which are the payments of employees and which are supposed to be held in trust and run by trustees. Is it right that pension funds should be able to invest in their own companies, given the conflict of interest that arises? Millions of people probably did not realise that that was possible and are surprised to know that it is. I hope that that will be taken into account in the review.
  The pensioners have had a long and anxious wait and yesterday's announcement, although welcome, is not the end of the road. I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the argument about the sum of money is really irrelevant. The important issue, as was said yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is to seek the assurance that for the period designated by the Secretary of State every pensioner who would not be getting a pension because of the parlous state of the pension fund will receive their pension in full. That is the simple assurance that everybody is looking for. The Secretary of State has made progress on that, although I hope that in the reply the Minister will make it absolutely and unequivocally clear that that is the case.
  It is inevitable that parallels will be drawn with the Barlow Clowes affair. However. I accept that it is not exactly the same thing. I accept the Secretary of State's argument that to suggest that those who invested in Barlow Clowes were wild speculators is absurd. Nevertheless, there is a recognised distinction in that those people decided to invest in something that was giving a better-than-average return. They were taking a risk and should have appreciated that. However, they did so in the belief that the company was properly regulated by a Government agency. Clearly, the ombudsman took the view that they had some justification for that faith, that the agency had failed and that there was at least a moral responsibility. As a result, the Government put up £180 million as a rescue package.
  Pensioners who have deducted at source a percentage of their salary to be invested through trustees to provide them with an income after retirement expect to have a regime that protects the pension fund. They will inevitably make comparisons if they do not secure full compensation. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the Secretary of State that pressure of every kind must be brought to bear on the banks and the City financial institutions to make a full and proper contribution to the rescue fund. Many questions will be asked and people will want to know under what sort of morality or business

  221
  practice banks are prepared to hang on to stolen money when its return would save some of their other customers from personal bankruptcy. People will believe, rightly, that the banking profession is in grave danger of bringing itself into disrepute if it does not release that money and contribute to the refunding of the pension fund.
  The City institutions must think about this, too. It is important to put it on record that the vast majority of pension funds run by the City of London are honestly and well-managed and achieve substantial capital growth in relation to the contributions made. After all, that is the City's unique reputation in both the national and international market. However, that reputation could be seriously tarnished if this scandal is not resolved in a way that gives honour, satisfaction and comfort to the innocent victims who are very ordinary people.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is not the point stronger than that? The pension schemes kept saying that everything was safe and those of us who raised questions about safety and reform were told by the bigwigs in the pension industry that we were creating trouble. It is their moral responsibility to make a large contribution to this scheme.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes the case extremely well. I hope that when the institutions outside the House read this debate they will understand the strength of feeling behind it.
  Those institutions should consider an additional point. In the early part of the previous Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We investigated the implications of the single market for the financial services industry in Britain. The Committee visited many of the main financial centres in Europe, notably, and most importantly, Frankfurt. We pressed the German Government to recognise the expertise that exists in the City of London and the important opportunity for German consumers to gain access to such expertise.
  The House will be aware that the Germans thought that the City of London's practices were risky. They did not like the way in which moneys could be mixed without absolute guarantees and security for pensioners. The net result is that German pension funds are more expensive than ours but are more securely guaranteed, or at least that will be the German perception. If City institutions do not contribute, they will severely damage their ability to sell their expertise in the single market as it is established in the next few years. Even if they are not prepared to accept the moral strictures of the House, that fact should be taken into account. It is bad business.
  I should like finally to deal with my interest in British International Helicopters. The Secretary of State will be aware that I and others believe that the company is different from others in the Maxwell group, for reasons that were partially explained in my intervention. I am grateful for his agreeing to meet the separate all-party group that has been established, when we will have an opportunity to press our case in more detail.
  British International Helicopters was the helicopter company of British Airways when it was a nationalised industry. Its main operational base is at Aberdeen airport in my constituency. It has bases in Sumburgh in Shetland and covering the Scilly isles in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The company's
  222
  southern access to the North sea is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), and its head office is in Oxford.
  Since the early days of the North sea, the company has provided taxi services to and from the rigs and platforms. Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, conducted a strenuous campaign to ensure that the Nott assurances—that British Airways should be privatised as a single entity—were honoured. As part of the campaign, myself, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and the then hon. Member for Banff and Buchan were invited to present ourselves—I cannot put it another way—at a public meeting in my constituency, which most of the employees attended. Before several hundred people, we were invited to give categorical assurances that we would support the campaign to privatise British Airways as a single entity.' Not surprisingly, faced with so many constituents, we agreed to do so.
  Before the privatisation took place, British Airways sold the company. It tried to sell it to a business man—I remember blowing the whistle on him at Prime Minister's Question Time—who certainly was not fit to run it. It was subsequently sold to Mr. Maxwell, 15 years after the Department of Trade and Industry certified him as not being a fit person to take over a public company. In those circumstances, it is not acceptable for the Secretary of State to take the stance of lecturing City institutions and bankers about the moral position—which I support—while denying the moral pressure that is on the Government for having acceded to the sale.
  At the time of the sale, I was told that pension rights would be secured because pensioners would continue to be members of the British Airways pension fund. Later, they were offered inducements and sweeteners to transfer to the Maxwell pension fund, which they were assured—I have the notice here—was a better fund to which British Airways was making a transitional contribution.
  Mr. David Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it was a condition of employment with British International Helicopters that pensions be transferred to the Maxwell pension fund? I met two people yesterday who retained partial pension rights in British Airways' pension fund because, they told me, they did not trust Maxwell, but from then on they had to be members of what turned out to be Mirror Group Newspapers. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, at the time of the Maxwell bid, the bid of the management of British International Helicopters was rejected? Presumably, the Government had a considerable hand in its rejection. Those are two extra reasons why many hon. Members who represent British International Helicopters staff, past and present, feel that there is a special case to be made.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He offers a degree of all-party solidarity to the point that I am making. The terms on which employees could retain their British Airways pension rights were disadvantageous. There was little incentive for anybody to retain those rights, and thereafter they all switched to the Mirror group in circumstances that offered them no real choice. The situation, therefore, is different from that of other companies.
  We have never really got to the bottom of who paid what. I wrote to British Airways this year and received a reply from Lord King, who is adept at writing letters that

  223
  tell one something but not enough. He pointed out that the company that bought British International Helicopters paid more than £12 million—less than the in-house bid. He neglected to say that British Airways subsequently made a payment of £9.5 million to transfer contributions to the pension fund. It is extremely difficult to determine whether Mr. Maxwell's offer was a better net offer to the taxpayer than the in-house offer. Perhaps we shall never know. It is the firm view of the current management of British International Helicopters
  "that at the time of the sale the British Airways Board consulted the then Secretary of State for Transport, John Moore, about the provisional sale agreement with the company owned jointly by the Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail and Robert Maxwell. He saw no objection to it and the sale was completed."
  That shows that, although the Government may not have authorised it, they raised no objections. I repeat what the Secretary of State said yesterday:
  "the warning was made in public for all to see and those who dealt with Maxwell did so potentially knowingly."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 26.]
  That includes the Government, and they have a moral obligation.
  The Secretary of State said earlier that he was treating pensioners as part of the Mirror group pension fund. The Mirror group has thrown them out of the pension fund unilaterally, having kicked out the trustee some time previously. They are not part of the Mirror group pension fund but are standing on their own. In those circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the position of British International Helicopters is different from that of any other company. If anyone is entitled to full compensation, its employees are. All those who trusted the City, the banks and the regulatory regime have every reason to believe that they should get not only a short-term rescue package that eases their immediate problems but a full-scale rescue package to which all those who have benefited from Maxwell in the past make a full and positive contribution.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many right hon. Members hope to speak. Short speeches will enable hon. Members to catch my eye; lengthy interventions do not help.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for asking me to speak for the first time in this debate, in which I have a constituency interest.
  My immediate predecessor as Member for Hertfordshire, North was Sir Ian Stewart, who came to the House in 1974. He was an expert in economic affairs and finance and was known as a numismatist—an expert on coinage. He started as PPS to Sir Geoffrey Howe, became a Treasury Minister and subsequently was Minister for the Armed Forces and Northern Ireland security Minister. I know that all hon. Members will be sad that he had to retire through ill-health. In the constituency, he is remembered for his vigorous efforts on behalf of his constituents. His immediate predecessor was Shirley Williams who is remembered as a hard-working
  224
  constituency Member of Parliament, although she did not always attend events on time. Of course, she also had a notable ministerial career, so I have a lot to live up to.
  North Hertfordshire covers the towns of Royston, Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin and three ancient market towns. Letchworth was the first garden city, set up by Ebenezer Howard in 1903. It has recently reached the size originally intended for it—30,000 people—and is a city concept that has been followed the world over. It has many imitators as far away as Japan.
  Because of the time restriction, I shall not mention all the interests in north Hertfordshire in the traditional way. We want to protect the local environment, we want roads but we do not want them to spoil the villages and, in addition, we have lost many defence jobs. North Hertfordshire is presently applying for EC periphera funding to ease the change to employment in other industries, which should be successful.
  The issue that has dominated my post bag since I arrived in the House has been that of the Maxwell pensioners. BDC Technical Services Ltd. of Baldock is a member of the AGB pension fund, and there has been considerable anxiety and distress among many of my constituents. I give two examples. I quote from a letter by a 63-year-old man who recently retired because of heart disease. He wrote:
  "I am now informed that my pension will not be paid after June 1992. I always assumed that the pension scheme was as safe as the Bank of England. I am very concerned about my future."
  I also received a letter from a 78-year-old woman, who wrote:
  "My pension payment is £59 per month, a relatively small amount, but quite important to me as apart from my old age pension, it is my only other income."
  Therefore, when I heard that there was an all-party group of hon. Members fighting on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners, the first thing that I did was join it. The words that we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were exactly those that he used at the first meeting of the group and on which we all agreed and which, I believe, have had a powerful effect on the Government.
  When I explained to the Maxwell pensioners in north Hertfordshire what was proposed by the all-party group, they were more than satisfied with the fight being put up on their behalf. They were here yesterday to lobby, and I spoke to them shortly after the statement. They were relieved and content that the payments were to be continued with the life-belt funding for which we had argued.
  I believe that the spectacle of major banks holding on to securities stolen from the pension funds is disgraceful. They should give back the assets. As a lawyer, I appreciate that there might be nice legal arguments to be employed by the banks. It might be that the argument that the banks' licences should be withdrawn is a complete non-starter because there are legal arguments that can be employed by the banks.
  However, the case that must be made is the moral one. A second-hand shop that buys stolen goods expects to give them back if it is later discovered that they were stolen. For major banks—for example, National Westminster—to refuse to return the securities is a disgrace, and it is right that moral pressure should be applied. Legal pressure would possibly not work, but I am sure that the moral pressures that the House can bring to bear have every

  225
  chance of success. That is why I welcomed the Government's statement. It seemed that what was being said was that the drip-feed funding would enable pensioners to have peace of mind while the institutions were approached seriously and to be made to meet their responsibilities.
  With regard to the deliberations of the Goode committee, there are three aspects that I hope will be considered. It will take a year for a major aspect of law such as this to be considered because the complexities—and I am a lawyer—seem to be marked. Let as first consider trust law. For years, ever since they began, occupational pension funds have been governed by the principles of trust law. The great advantage of trusts has always been their flexibility—that for generation after generation they can meet modern conditions—but what seems to have gone wrong with occupational pension funds which are self-managed is that that flexibility has been used by the employer to dominate the fund and to put himself in a position in which, if he is dishonest, he can take advantage of the trust in a way which no lawyer would condone and which now needs serious consideration.
  It seems that trust law is no longer adequate for the purpose of dealing with the large occupational pension funds and that what needs to be considered is a system of regulation akin to the Companies Acts which requires regular accounts and statements to beneficiaries, the possibility of annual pensioners' meetings and penalties for non-compliance. The type of regulation required is so wide-ranging—one has only to think of what the Companies Acts requires—that it will take at least a year to put together a proper system.
  Every share certificate or document of title in respect of a pension fund asset should have it clearly marked on the document, and the register of shareholdings kept at Companies house should be annotated to that effect. There are numerous registers in the legal world including the land registry and many others, all of which are capable of having such an annotation system imposed on them. It has worked extremely well with the class F land charge which applies in matrimonial proceedings and protects wives in respect of houses. There is no reason why the same principle in this aspect of law should not be applied to ensure that shareholdings are protected equally.
  Another matter that I hope will be considered is a permanent compensation scheme to help the victims of pension fraud with reference to occupational pensions. It should be funded by a levy across the pensions industry. It could start in the way outlined yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and could become a settled part of a new pensions Act, giving peace of mind to occupational pensioners.
  I believe in occupational pensions and in the remarkable change which they have wrought in British society in the past 20 or 30 years. Pensioners as a group are now the fastest rising income group in society, largely due to the confidence they have had in occupational pensions and, of course, in the private schemes which have already been mentioned. It is absolutely right that they should have a copper-bottomed guarantee that their pensions are safe so that the hope of my constituents is met by pensions being as safe as the Bank of England.
  8.47pm
  Ms. Janet Anderson: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on an excellent maiden speech. His experience on the soap box at Speakers' corner will obviously stand him in good stead in his future career in the House.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, a constituency which embraces five proud, separate and independent towns—Darwen, Haslingden, Rawtenstall, Bacup and Whitworth—and which has previously been represented by the late Tony Greenwood—later Lord Greenwood of Rossendale—and Mike Noble, both of whom are still remembered with great affection by many of their former constituents.
  I am also fortunate to have the honour to represent a constituency which must rank among those with the greatest areas of natural beauty. When I am able to enjoy the rare opportunities for recreation which hon. Members have with their families, walking along the Rossendale way, through Sunnyhurst woods to Darwen tower, or across the west Pennine moors, stopping when we can for refreshment at the Strawbury Duck in Entwistle, or to watch the Britannia Coconutters at Rawtenstall station on the recently reopened east Lancashire line, I count myself very lucky indeed.
  It was, therefore, appropriate that my predecessor should have served in the previous Government as Minister for the Countryside and that he should have represented a truly northern constituency. The recently knighted former hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, David Trippier, will surely be remembered as the Mr. Green and the Mr. North of the Conservative Benches. Not only was he one of few Conservative Members to have been born north of Watford, but he displayed a real understanding of the needs of the northern region. I take this opportunity of congratulating Sir David on his newly acquired status, and I wish him well in his chosen new career.
  It is also apt that I should have the opportunity to speak in a debate on the protection of pensioners and their rights. Almost one in five of my constituents are of pensionable age. The majority of them have toiled for years in the shoe factories and the textile mills, often for meagre wages. During the past 13 years, too many of them have lost their jobs, time and again, yet they have struggled to retrain, to bounce back and to do their best for their families. It has come as a great shock to some of them to find that years of contributions to pension funds have left them with little.
  We are here tonight to talk about the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, and I will come to that as there are many of them in my constituency. However, I must tell the House that a similar plight has befallen my constituents who worked in shoe and textile factories which have gone to the wall and who have then found that their pensions are no longer secure. It is essential that the Government introduce measures to give greater protection to all members of occupational pension schemes.
  One example illustrates the problem clearly. One of my constituents is a current pensioner of AGB Research, a company that has already been mentioned in the debate. It was one of many companies privately owned by Robert Maxwell. My constituent worked from 1925 until 1972 for the Newton Chambers group of companies. A mandatory

  227
  condition of his employment was the joining of the company's pension scheme to which he contributed for no fewer than 47 years.
  At present, he has a pension of £1,157 a year from the Maxwell-owned Headington group pension, formerly Pergamon. Through a series of takeovers, the Newton Chambers pension fund finally landed in the hands of the Maxwell group. My constituent has now been informed that his pension fund is being wound up.
  My constituent is 83 years old and his wife is 73. His current works pension helps to pay his poll tax liability, and his electricity, gas and water bills—charges which, as the House is only too well aware, continue their relentless increase. If my constituent loses his pension, he will not only have difficulty in meeting those bills, but he and his wife will also have to sell their small car, which is essential at their age for shopping and local journeys.
  I cannot help wondering whether, as Mrs. Maxwell languishes in her French chateau and the younger Maxwells continue to enjoy their apparently opulent lifestyle, they ever give a thought to my constituent who, any day now, may no longer be able to depend on the little extra which enables him and his wife to do their shopping, to visit the doctor, to see family and friends with reasonable ease, and to maintain dignity and independence.
  Of course, my constituent is not alone in his plight; thousands are similarly affected. The Government have a moral responsibility to all those whose pensions have been stolen by an unscrupulous employer. The reason why the Government should accept that they have that responsibility is that the money, the deferred earnings of ordinary working people, was taken from them by virtue of a bad law. A number of guilty parties are involved—the Government, the banks and the regulators—but the one group who are entirely innocent are the pensioners.
  The problem is one of loose law. Pension funds are covered only in part by the Financial Services Act 1986; they are mainly covered by trust law. Under that, regulation is looser and the position of trustees under the law is unclear. Both the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and the Securities and Investments Board warned the Department of Trade and Industry on a number of occasions of the problems that would arise because of the discrepancy between trust law and the Financial Services Act. Indeed, the Hayton report, commissioned and published by IMRO and the SIB, made that point.
  We must ask why the Department did not heed the warnings. In the short term, we need proper compensation for the pensioners whose pensions have been stopped or reduced. The Government conceded the principle of compensation for the Barlow Clowes victims. Those investors had at least made a conscious decision to make a financial risk investment. The pensioners whom we are considering tonight believed that they were taking no risk and that their futures were secure. Moreover, for many of them, contributions to the pension scheme were a mandatory condition of their employment. They had no choice.
  There must be a considerable extension of the rights of pensioners in all occupational pension schemes. They must have information about their pensions, such as where they
  228
  are being invested and their on-going values. The Government must guarantee that no pensioner will suffer as a result of this fraud.
  An urgent review of the legislation is essential. Pensioners must be treated as preferential creditors of pension funds, increasing their protection and their right to compensation. The review must include a statutory compensation scheme. The discrepancy between trust law and the Financial Services Act must be resolved and the law must ensure the independence of trustees from employers.
  This is a sad and sorry episode out of which none of the parties—the Government, the banks or the regulators—emerges with credit. They should all accept their responsibilities now, and they should do so with good grace.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: We have just heard two excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on his maiden speech, which displayed considerable knowledge about his constituents and their problems, especially in relation to the Maxwell affair. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on her maiden speech. I predict early promotion for her to the Opposition Front Bench as I noted that the whole House enjoyed listening to her. I also believe that the whole House enjoyed listening to her fulsome and appropriate comments about her predecessor, who was much loved by all hon. Members, especially Conservative Members. David Trippier co-ordinated the Royal Marines group of Members in the House as well as carrying out extensive ministerial duties on environment issues. He also took a strong interest in small businesses. I am delighted that the Queen has made him a knight of the realm.
  The debate is about the Government measures that were announced yesterday to protect the Maxwell pensioners and about other issues. Those measures were right and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done well in extracting help for the Maxwell pensioners from the Treasury at a time when there are many competing demands on the social security expenditure budget.
  Those Government measures should meet the immediate needs of the 5,000 Maxwell Communication Corporation works pensioners who face reduced pensions from this month and the 240 people in the Headington pension plan whose pensions have been stopped.
  The measures are a welcome start while the recovery of the money takes place with a view to ensuring that the pension funds are fully, or almost fully, restored to what they were. That is why the implementation by the Government of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 and the setting up of a recovery unit in the Department of Social Security are most helpful. Those actions should result in much of the money being recovered.
  This tragedy, which has brought misery to 32,000 people, is a disgrace. It is a disgrace which reflects very badly on the regulator, the banks and the financial institutions that had dealings with Mr. Maxwell. Yes, Mr. Maxwell may have committed the frauds, but the banks, financial institutions and bad regulation made it possible for him to do so.

  229
  Regretfully, I must say that IMRO is first in line. I say "regretfully" because I believe that the IMRO representatives who appeared before the Select Committee were honest and well meaning. I do not believe, however, that they and their colleagues had the necessary skills and support to deal with the problems that they faced. There were failures in authorisation on the part of IMRO: neither Bishopsgate Investment Management nor LBI should have been authorised. The implications of the Liechtenstein connection were not understood by IMRO.
  IMRO should have realised, first, that no recovery of money can occur if fraud takes place in a Liechtenstein operation; secondly, that no up-to-date financial information will ever be available for a Liechtenstein-controlled operation; and, thirdly, that Mr. Maxwell—who was in absolute control—was likely to trade fraudulently in the end, because honest United Kingdom businesses do not need to operate from Liechtenstein. There was obviously bad regulation by IMRO of the two Maxwell companies. Accounting weaknesses were found; there was no adequate separation of duties within the companies; Maxwell controlled absolutely everything, and IMRO staff were too junior and too inexperienced to handle a man like Maxwell.
  I find it strange that, even as I speak, at least £6 billion of United Kingdom investors' money is still controlled from Liechtenstein. GT Fund Management Group, a United Kingdom company, was taken over by the Bank of Liechtenstein in 1991, and IMRO is its regulator. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Who will pay up when the collapse occurs, as it surely will one day? The City regulators seem afraid to act, because the bank is controlled by the Prince of Liechtenstein. What does he know about fund management that Robert Maxwell did not know?
  It is, however, the banks, in their many different roles, that are to blame for most of the losses incurred by the pension funds. Those banks range from the simple London clearing bank to some of the most sophisticated investment banks in the world. The position is not straightforward; what is clear and simple is the fact that they all failed to act properly, either because of incompetence, weak accounting and weak internal control systems or because of greed, recklessness or even criminal intent—I believe that that applies to at least one case.
  In my view, the lending banks were negligent or reckless. They did not ask for consolidated accounts; it seems that they did not even ask for accounts of the entity to which they were lending. They did not check the gearing—the debt-to-equity ratio—of Mr. Maxwell's empire, or the cash flow of the group or of individual companies. Warnings in the media went unheeded by the bankers. On 5 November 1988, for instance, the Financial Times Lex column commented:
  "Again the need to degear now makes Mr. Maxwell something of a forced seller."
  He was indeed a forced seller, but a forced seller of the pensioners' assets rather than his own.
  The investment banks that dealt in MCC shares have a heavy responsibility for the losses that were incurred. Their option arrangements were—if not illegal—devious. Moreover, MCC share purchases through Liechtenstein were clearly designed to avoid City rules and Companies Act disclosures. When one of the smartest investment banks in the world says that it did not know that Mr. Maxwell was behind the Liechtenstein purchases of MCC
  230
  shares, the position is unbelievable. If an investment hank is as stupid as that, it is not fit to be in business and its banking licence should be withdrawn.
  At least one investment banker in New York knew enough to be suspicious. He should have refused to carry out the share transactions; instead, he asked Mr. Maxwell the simplest of questions, and Mr. Maxwell told that sophisticated investment banker the simplest of lies.
  The MCC share transactions carried out by that banker were designed to circumvent the voluntary code under which the City operates. There is no point in self-regulation if investment bankers can get away with hundreds of millions of pounds in shady deals without so much as a fine from the body that is responsible for their regulation. The Bank of England must show that it is prepared to withdraw banking licences; the stock exchange must show that it is prepared to withdraw authorisation to deal.
  If the Bank of England and the stock exchange have neither the teeth nor the inclination to regulate the banks in regard to the Maxwell affair—given that the banks have so blatantly disregarded the principles behind the stock exchange's rules and regulations, and company law—we must all ask what is the point of self-regulation. So far, the Maxwell affair has shown it to be a fraudster's paradise, in which only the little man loses.
  If the Bank of England and the stock exchange cannot police the United States investment banks, I hope that Members of Parliament will take the Maxwell pensioners' case to our friends in the United States Congress, as well as those in the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They, at least, can police the United States investment banks, and they have the teeth and the inclination to do it.
  What of the custodian banks? They pride themselves on looking after mutual funds and pension fund assets. Some £38 million of Maxwell pensioners' investments were passed by the Bank of America to Credit Suisse for use by the Maxwell family in transactions not authorised by the full trustees of the pension funds. I hope that those banks will speedily arrange to replace the lost investments. Those banks must realise that their credibility as custodians and lending institutions is being called into question by Members of Parliament and the public. That will damage their future business in this country and abroad.
  What of the fund management companies which lent shares, often registered with pension fund ownership marked clearly on the share certificates, back to Mr. Maxwell on the signature of Kevin Maxwell? About £38.5 million and £11.5 million respectively were removed from Capel Cure Myers and Invesco MIM fund management by complex stock lending fiddles involving the Maxwells, and again without the authorisation or knowledge of the pension fund trustees. Those investment houses must make good that shortfall, and soon. We should make it clear that those banks and investment institutions that hold back until the matter goes to court will not be popular, and I hope that that is an understatement.
  I wish to make two brief points about Liechtenstein and the other tax havens. How can the Government go on allowing tax havens such as Liechtenstein to help in robbing our citizens? In the past 10 years, at least nine Department of Trade and Industry investigations have found fraud or wrongdoing and have named Switzerland or Liechtenstein. When will the Government act to prevent that from happening again? The Treasury and the

  231
  Department of Trade and Industry must surely be at risk of being accused of negligence if they do not take action to protect our citizens from Liechtenstein and other tax havens which are robbing many of our citizens.
  I have been told by the DTI that the Financial Services Act 1986 powers to trace and recover assets cannot be used in Liechtenstein or even outside the United Kingdom. That is not good enough. We must have changes to make sure that we have the powers to do so.
  The motion implies that the Government are to blame. That is clearly wrong. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that the DTI wrongly licensed LBI in 1988, although, of course, there is an argument that the legislation that allowed LBI to be registered was inadequate, but that legislation was supported by three Labour Governments. If anyone is to blame, it is a number of close Labour party friends who were responsible for pensioners' money. Indeed, one man in the House of Lords is sitting on £0.5 million of pensioners' assets.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is out of order to criticise a Member of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Shaw: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw any comment about the member of the House of Lords, other than the fact that I hope that any man who benefited to the tune of £0.5 million from LBI would want to repay that money as soon as possible.
  I am disappointed also to know that, apparently, the Serious Fraud Office may yet have to go through another 12 months' work before charges might be brought. I hope that Ministers will ensure that the Serious Fraud Office has every possible support to bring early charges. We must find a better way of bringing to justice people who have taken pensioners' money by criminal acts.
  Although responsibility for the Maxwell affair must rest with the financial institutions, the Government have a role. They must protect the small man against the big institutions which, in this case, acted out of self-interest and not their real customers' interest. Ultimately, the Government must ensure that no Maxwell pensioner loses his home or goes hungry through the failings of our financial institutions.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: We have been privileged to hear remarkable maiden speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) and by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I am sure that the House will want to hear from them again very soon.
  Before I came to the House, I worked as a printer on the Maxwell publications, although that was before Maxwell owned them. As a result, I know a large number of Maxwell pensioners. I worked with them, and I know them to be honest, decent, responsible and prudent people who always paid in for their pensions. They regarded their pensions as their most important and valuable asset, perhaps after their house—the foundation of their lives in retirement. They put their trust in the pensions industry and the financial houses. After all, the financial houses were all led by people who were Sirs or Lords, people who were always mentioned in the honours list. The employees thought that they lived in a law-governed society. All the
  232
  firms were licensed by the Government and therefore they thought that their pensions were as safe as the Bank of England.
  Then came along Mr. Maxwell. He took over companies such as the Mirror Group and others. There was immediate fear and unease among members of pension schemes. I received a deputation in the House from the Daily Mirror led by Mr. Joe Lynch, who told me that Maxwell was taking over the Daily Mirror only to get his hands on the pension fund. He told me that if Mr. Maxwell could get the pension fund, which was worth about £500 million, he would get the Daily Mirror for nothing. I was told by the workers in that firm that that was what it was all about.
  The members of the deputation asked me what protection they had in law. I am not an expert in the law but I looked into the matter. It seemed to me that they had precious little protection. In Britain the protection of the law for pension funds is inadequate.
  I arranged a meeting for the Daily Mirror employees with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who at that time was Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on the subject. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the changes that a Labour Government would need to make. Unfortunately, the Labour Government was not to be.
  The first thing that Maxwell did when he went into the Mirror Group was to arrange a pensions holiday. He stopped paying any money into the pension fund. He was interested only in taking money out. Of course, he then took over many other firms and their pension funds and systematically robbed them. Can the House imagine and understand the pain, anguish, suffering and misery of the law-abiding citizens who had done everything right, acted prudently and religiously paid in their moneys only to find that their greatest asset, rightfully theirs, the foundation of their future life, had been stolen? They were robbed not by a burglar with a mask but by the chairmen of companies and City gents. The Maxwell pensioners came to me and asked how it was possible in this country of ours that such a thing could happen under the law and under the rules of the City.
  We in the House must start asking ourselves a few questions about banks. I believe that the banks are serving us badly. They are letting us down. We all used to believe that the banks gave us great benefits in terms of the balance of payments. We believed that we gained great benefit from the City and its invisible exports. We were all in awe of the City. We are no longer. The City and its short-termism is perhaps the major cause of our problems. It makes one appalling mistake after another with our money.
  For example, when the Reichmann brothers got off the aeroplane, the banks immediately offered them bundles and bundles of used fivers and tenners. Now the firm has gone bust. The same thing happened with Maxwell. A Department of Trade and Industry report said that he was not a fit man to run a company. Yet the banks of this country fell over themselves to give him large loans. Did not they understand what sort of man they were dealing with? Did they know what day of the week it was?
  The banks took the pension assets as collateral. Were they naive? Were they born yesterday? Did the banks, the people whom we have always been told to look up to, have the slightest clue what they were doing? They got it madly wrong. If the banks got it madly wrong, it is down to them.

  233
  It is their fault. They are now in possession of stolen property. They have the pension assets which were stolen. What do other people do when they have stolen property? If you or I had stolen property, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what would we have to do? We must say that Parliament expects the banks to hand back that stolen property. Yesterday, both Opposition and Conservative Members and in particular the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made that point.
  The second matter that my old workmates, the Maxwell pensioners, drew to my attention was that the Maxwell empire appears to be bust, as it has no money to pay them. In that case, they ask, how can the Maxwell family have such a lavish, millionaire lifestyle? Someone said that the Maxwell brothers are allowed £1,600 per week—I had thought that it was £1,500. We have heard about their large and expensive houses. I have been asked how that is possible or justifiable if there is no money. I do not know. Perhaps we shall find out this evening.
  Maxwell was not alone—it was not possible for one man to commit such crimes—but was aided and abetted by many professional people in the City and elsewhere. What about the law? I have been asked whether it is legal to do that sort of thing. What will happen to all those people who aided and abetted him? Why have there been no prosecutions and no convictions? Why have all the crooks and criminals so far gone scot-free?
  The Maxwell brothers did not answer the questions when they were brought before the Select Committee. Their expensive lawyers said that they did not answer because they were liable to prosecution, but where are the prosecutions? There have not been any. Why not? If there are not to be any, the brothers should be brought back before the Select Committee and the House so that we can deal with them.
  The last question that my old workmates asked me concerns the regulatory structure. They think that they live in a law-governed society. They asked how it could happen. We have laws and regulatory authorities, but it is clear that those authorities have proved totally inadequate.
  The Department of Trade and Industry issued a licence, under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, to London and Bishopsgate Investments' management—a Maxwell company—on 26 April 1988. It is true that Robert Maxwell was not originally a director, but Kevin Maxwell was and everybody knew it. Could the DTI not have put two and two together? Is that asking too much? Did it not understand that Kevin Maxwell did everything that his father told him and was not an independent person? Why did the DTI not look into a company in which Kevin Maxwell was a director? Three days later, on 29 April, IMRO, gave its approval and shortly after Robert Maxwell lent his name to the company.
  The sole purpose of London and Bishopsgate Investments and its sister company was to divert £500 million of pension money into untouchable Liechtenstein accounts—to rob the pension funds of their money.
  What is the truth that the House must cope with and explain to the pensioners? The DTI and IMRO granted a licence to plunder and pillage the pension funds of thousands of innocent people. The authorities were culpable and negligent and the pensioners were victims not only of fraud but of the official regulatory bodies which failed to protect them. The analogy has been made with Barlow Clowes. It was explained in that case that the
  234
  authorities were negligent, and the Government put up £160 million to rescue them, although investors in that company knowingly invested offshore for a higher dividend and were taking a risk. The pensioners in the Maxwell empire took no risks. They were honourable and innocent. They were the misused victims of negligence and crime. Whoever should pay, it should not be the pensioners.
  After many months, the Government—at long last, tardily, reluctantly, as a result of the pressure of the lobby that we saw yesterday and this debate—have accepted some responsibility. They have realised that they cannot pass by on the other side, but their promise of £2.5 million is inadequate. The fears and the worries of the pensioners whom I met yesterday have not been assuaged. The Government should underwrite the pensions. They should ensure that pensioners get 100 per cent. of that to which they are entitled. However, this should not be achieved solely through the use of taxpayers' money. They should get the cash from the Maxwell companies, from the banks and from the £300 billion-rich pension industry, all of which ought to pick up the tab. There should be some convictions. People should be punished for these crimes, which were committed by others besides Maxwell. What the Government have done so far is inadequate.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to contribute to the debate, but I must begin by adding to the congratulations on the two maiden speeches, which were first class both in brevity, bearing in mind the pressure of the debate, and in substance. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) refer to his predecessor, Sir Ian Stewart, as he was a good friend of mine. As my hon. Friend said, he has a good reputation to maintain.
  We are debating an exceptional fraud. Maxwell appeared as a character larger than life to all who knew him and to all who knew of him. In death he has turned out to be a criminal of quite staggering proportions, a man without scruple, determined to the end to get his own way whatever the cost to anyone else.
  The members of his family still have the opportunity to recover something of their shattered reputation by co-operating with the investigation to recover the stolen assets of these pension funds. They should do so now. The country has had enough of their blocking tactics, and so has Parliament. As many hon. Members have said in this debate tonight, we must also take into account the advisers to the Maxwells and the many others who were involved and should be assisting in the restitution of these funds, instead of keeping their heads down and avoiding the difficulties that they should face.
  I have a number of Maxwell pensioners in my constituency and I speak for them today, but I have a broader interest in the good standing of all company pension funds and the good name of the City of London, where I worked in the personnel field for many years. Employers usually have no option but to contribute to their company funds and all of us would regard a company's contributions to its employees' pension funds as part of a total earnings package, part of the contract of employment. That is exactly what it is.

  235
  No reasonable person can possibly disagree with the contention that the Maxwell pensioners are the innocent victims of a massive fraud and if ever individuals deserved to have a wrong fully righted, it is these men and women. Righting of the wrong must involve several sources—all have a part to play.
  I welcome the Government's initiative. It is essential, it is timely and it deals with the immediate difficulties. Yesterday my right hon. Friend gave the news to the House in the expectation that—he confirmed this today—it would meet the immediate needs of all pensioners. If it does not meet that expectation, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that many hon. Members from both sides of the House will ask for more. As of now, I am satisfied with the action as a first step.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said yesterday that the amount provided was derisory, but I cannot agree with that. He was considering the sum against the total figure, not against the immediate needs that it is designed to meet. The Secretary of State has confirmed today, in a key phrase, that the objective of the immediate rescue package is that the funds should he able to resume or maintain payment to their members.
  I also welcome the decision to set up a special unit. However, will the number and quality of people working in that unit be adequate? Will they have the necessary clout to give Government weight to solving and investigating the problems? They will be dealing with many heavyweight people, who will not readily forward the information that they should. Therefore, it is important that the unit has strong personnel.
  I agree with the point that has been made many times in the debate that those banks—we must not include all banks in such strictures—that lent to Maxwell against the assets of his pension funds have a clear moral, as well as a legal, obligation. Further to the moral obligation, I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) who focused on the business standing of those banks. Surely good banking judgment is about making sure that the assets against which one lends are sound. In the Maxwell case, the assets have been found not only to be unsound, but stolen. Therefore, the banks involved remain as shining examples of bad bankers to all the world. It is in those banks' interests to return the funds as rapidly as possible. We look to them to take that action.
  I believe that it is absolutely proper for the Secretary of State to set up a fund to accept contributions to help deal with the problem of the pensioners. I look to the pension industry, which has no insurance system at this stage, to give serious consideration to whether it should ensure its future standing and the sense of security of members of pension funds all over Britain by making some contribution to meet the shortfall.
  Certainly, the review of pension schemes is essential. I do not disagree with the time limit of a year. We always knew that, whenever such a review took place, it would be complicated and would require a great amount of consultation. However, the review should take no longer than a year. I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State today that he will act upon some of the urgent recommendations that may be part of the review before the end of that year.
  236
  We live in a capitalist society. The takeover of companies always causes major worries for their employees. The Maxwell example has shown that a takeover can put the soundest of pension schemes at extreme risk. Therefore, the whole business of takeovers, when linked to that type of example, is put into a bad light. So the City as a whole—the regulatory bodies, the Bank of England, the banks involved and the pensions industry—has a strong moral obligation as well as self-interest to see the Maxwell pensioners right in the long term.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate, and I promise not to exceed the time allocated for speeches. As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament, I shall make only a few points and not go over those made by other hon. Members. If the House is seized of the matters which deserve urgent action, some early decisions must be taken.
  I congratulate the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, because without the motion the Government would not have provided time to debate this and interrelated issues. The Government should have agreed some time ago, because of the seriousness of the matter, to provide time for a wide-ranging debate. It should not have been left to the Opposition to find time for what must be inadequate consideration of this important matter.
  The Secretary of State paid credit yesterday and today to the work of the Select Committee. I do not say that just because I was a member of it. Members of the Committee from both sides agreed when we discussed the case that our recommendations would be driven by the evidence that we collated, and by no other means. So our recommendations present the Government with an ideal method of dealing with the issue in the short and long term.
  The Government business managers should give a clear assurance at business questions this week that time will be provided before the summer recess to debate the Select Committee's report. It contains five pages of recommendations, yet the Secretary of State has to date accepted only one recommendation. If he is really serious about doing something over the scandal, for the pensions industry and for the future security of pensioners, he will ensure that the House has ample opportunity to debate those five pages of recommendations.
  Both Front Benches must give urgent consideration to the fact that the Select Committee on Social Security will not be re-established before the summer recess. Only by reconstituting it will there be adequate opportunity to debate all the issues. If its re-establishment is delayed until the autumn, it will take until March of next year before the Committee continues to deal with the issues that were before it prior to the general election.
  That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the business managers on both sides must explain why the appropriate orders for the establishment of the Select Committee have not been laid before the House. It is not good enough to say that it must wait until after the shadow Cabinet election or other matters relating to Opposition business have been settled. The work of the Select Committee is too important to be left to the indecision of business managers. I hope that, without delay, orders will be placed before the House to enable the Committee to start its work before the summer recess.
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Mr. McCartney: I will not give way because I have only a few minutes in which to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to speak on the subject in the Select Committee before the summer recess.
  I have a suggestion for the Government if they think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was churlish in his remarks about their lifebelt proposals. There was almost unanimous support from both sides of the House for the principle set out in the Minister's statement. I am not prepared to say something in private to the Select Committee and then stand on the Back Benches in public and say something different. The concepts contained in the Minister's statement yesterday were the very concepts that were unanimously agreed by the Select Committee. I stand by that.
  However, doubt is being expressed both inside and outside the House about the adequacy of the proposals. So far, the debate has shown good will to the Select Committee and the all-party group, and I suggest that arrangements are made for regular contact between both Front Benches and the all-party group to take cognisance of whether it will be necessary at some stage to provide further resources. The Minister could then have no objection to the involvement of the Opposition Front Bench in considering the adequacy of the proposals put forward yesterday.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government's offer yesterday was regarded as derisory because it amounted to little more than the loan of "half a Gazza" when Maxwell pensioners' demands were for the whole of the Lazio team? Many of the Maxwell pensioners see the only prospect of getting those funds through the strategy set down in the early-day motion that I submitted today, which asks the Government
  "to use its full powers of sequestration against the banks, investment institutions, individuals and foreign-based companies to recover all the monies stolen from the Maxwell pensioners".
  If the Government would not hesitate to do so against the miners in 1984, they should not hesitate to do so against the bankers today.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is why I have been arguing that the House should make time to debate the consequences of the Select Committee report and should make regulations to allow that Committee's work to continue. Before the general election we were considering how we could provide for the return of the assets and deal with the difficulties of international law in returning assets from Liechtenstein and other places. The Select Committee must be allowed to continue that work.
  The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was being rather kind, to say the least, to those who came before the Select Committee for IMRO. In reality, they were totally inadequate for the job that they were trying to perform. Moreover, they were inexperienced in the role and work of the City. What was wrong was the self-regulatory basis of IMRO, which was ill-prepared and unprepared to take action at the outset in respect of the Maxwell companies. Had they taken that action, many of the problems that have arisen as a result of the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of assets would not have arisen.
  238
  The Government should, at an early stage, make it clear what Professor Goode has been asked to do in respect of self-regulation. Will his committee look at the wider aspect of the role of IMRO and at whether, under the new arrangements for his committee, the Occupational Pensions Board is adequate to cope with the increasing demands in that growing sector of financial institutions in the City?
  Mr. John Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the IMRO regulations provide for directors of IMRO companies to supply a quarterly return, which they must sign, saying that they know of no failure under the regulations and nothing that could give rise to or constitute a complaint from any customer? As all the directors of IMRO companies, of which I am one, must sign such a document, and as it is filled in every quarter, is it not clear that all the directors of IMRO companies have been signing such documents apparently unaware of the theft from the funds? Does not that mean that self-regulation has failed dismally and that those company directors have been prepared to sign, knowingly or unknowingly? May I show a Christmas card that Robert Maxwell—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let me try to help the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). An intervention must be precise, particularly at this time of the evening when we are waiting for the wind-up speeches.
  Mr. Gunnell: My apologies, Madam Speaker, but I thought that the card was a precise example of hypocrisy on a major scale.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) had me there, and I shall keep a close eye on him in future debates. His suggestion to look at the Select Committee report and what it says about IMRO is valid.
  I want a commitment from both the Labour and the Government Front-Bench teams that they will initiate, in Government time, a debate on the Social Security Committee's report and regulations and will set up a Select Committee before the summer recess.
  9.41 pm
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I congratulate the two hon. Members who made excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) gave a clear and precise presentation that demonstrated his barrister background. Having listened to his maiden speech, I think that his experience of Speakers' corner will come in useful, as he will not be heard in as much silence as he was today. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) gave a clear, fluent, committed speech. As many of us know, she has worked hard for many Members of Parliament and for the Labour party behind the scenes for many years. We are pleased to see her here in her own right; our party's loss is her constituents' gain.
  In view of the time left, I shall briefly pick up on a number of issues raised, starting with one mentioned by the Secretary of State. He said that he was convinced that his proposals had been welcomed by a wide spectrum of opinion outside the House. Let us consider the response of some of the action groups to his comments.
  The Maxwell pensioners action group said:

  239
  "It's a long way short of what we want, and we shall campaign on."
  The BIH pensioners action committee said:
  "The £2.5 million was a little like a student loan ie. giving a little to people with nothing—hoping they would be repaid in the future."
  The MCC works plan said that it was
  "A step up the ladder, a scratch on the surface."
  It is worried about the frequency with which the Secretary of State used the word "may". Therefore, to say that the proposals were greeted with overwhelming approval is a slight overstatement.
  I wish to concentrate on the issue on which the Secretary of State laid stress: the special unit that he has set up in his Department, and the trust fund designed to encourage City institutions to contribute to the Maxwell pensioners' funds. He said a number of times, both yesterday and today, that the long-term problems could be solved only if assets were unfrozen and other contributions were made. He said that he was waiting to see how the institutions in the City of London reacted to their moral conscience.
  I tried to help the Secretary of State this afternoon by phoning around as many financial institutions in the City as I could to find out where they stood on the issue. I am pleased to be able to help him with a number of comments from those institutions. The chairman of one of the clearing banks said:
  "The failure in the system is the failure to control a government-regulated company—Bishopsgate. As far as we know—no stolen shares passed through our hands—we find the suggestion of a moral obligation to pay worrying. A way has to be found to recompense the pensioners, but for us, charity begins at home."
  The chairman of another clearing bank said:
  "We are squeaky clean on Maxwell".
  When asked about whether he would contribute to the Secretary of State's fund, the chairman said:
  "That's going a bit far. I don't think my shareholders would appreciate that."
  The National Association of Pension Funds, an organisation which represents many pension funds throughout the country, states that it has no money and does not believe that it should contribute. When asked whether it would advise pension fund members to contribute at its council meeting tomorrow, its representatives said that it did not consider that relevant. The Secretary of State must be aware that it would be ultra vires, in terms of the fiduciary principle, for many pension schemes to contribute to his pension fund.
  The Secretary of State has not received a positive response from European and American banks that hold collateral linked to the Maxwell pensioners. When asked whether it would contribute, Shearson Lehman representatives said:
  "We entered into transactions in good faith. We intend to pursue our own position in the courts."
  Most of the other banks were not willing to talk about conscience. Banque Nationale de Paris had no comment and Credit Suisse and Swiss Volksbank were unable under Swiss law to make any statement.
  I spoke to people in Goldman Sachs and other banks in the United States. Those bankers consider themselves to be people of good will, but they do not consider a statement in support of the trust fund to be of any value. One of them said:
  240
  "I don't know what kind of show you are running over there. Every time the Government runs into a regulatory problem they come round the City with a begging bowl."
  We accept that the banks have a responsibility and we would like to see them contribute. How do the Government propose to bring alive the small conscience in the City institutions?
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Ms. Mowlam: The Secretary of State had a good session. There will be plenty of time to sum up and the right hon. Gentleman can confer with his colleague. I will not give way. The Minister can share his view with his colleague who can present it in winding up.
  The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) spoke about the future of the City of London. If the European federal bank comes to London, will it have to worry about the begging bowl every time there is a problem? I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that we must consider that serious problem.
  The Secretary of State generously acknowledged that the Select Committee and the all-party group had been crucial in helping him to reach his decision. It would have been helpful if he had said that the idea for this kind of fund had been circulating in the City for many weeks and openly discussed. As I am sure he knows from the report in yesterday's issue of The Independent, the National Westminster bank has been discussing for some time what it calls a men of good will fund—to which we shall not have to contribute—to help pensioners in great distress until the legal question about a call on shares is answered. The head of the bank's risk department has been exploring avenues for some time in trying to respond to the problem, and the National Westminster felt fairly aggrieved when the Secretary of State found out and decided to pre-empt the scheme.
  The Secretary of State said several times that he wanted to put Maxwell pensioners' minds at rest and then made contradictory statements. When asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about retrospective payments for members of the Headington pension fund, the Secretary of State said that he would have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. But in answer to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) the Secretary of State gave a 100 per cent. guarantee about all the pensioners in that scheme. That can be checked in tomorow's Hansard.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who asked about AGB pensioners, the Secretary of State gave no guarantee and no straight answer. The right hon. Gentleman's statements have not created the peace of mind that he and the Opposition are eager to welcome. In many ways, he has done the opposite. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made clear, we welcome the changes to section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990. As the Minister made clear, that will make the Maxwell pensioners unsecured creditors. We must be straight with the Maxwell pensioners and tell them that, as unsecured creditors, they will be similar to other trading partners and will receive very little, if any, money from the liquidation.
  The Secretary of State was asked yesterday when he would introduce the social security changes and he said, "I shall do that at an early date." What did he mean? When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry he could

  241
  have set up the inquiry into MGN, but we had to wait for the present Secretary of State to announce that inquiry. Understandably we have some doubt about the right hon. Gentleman's ability to act quickly on announcements.
  One would have thought that the problem over the Maxwell pensioners would have stimulated the Government into responding to weaknesses in the regulatory regime. Many hon. Members have spoken about that. I hope that that issue, which relates to the Treasury, will he answered in the winding-up speech. The Government have said that they will not respond to the issue other than through the review of pension legislation. Hon. Members have spoken about IMRO, international controls and Liechtenstein. All those matters deserve an international response. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a press release on the Treasury taking over responsibility for the Financial Services Act 1986. It said that for the time being
  "No changes are proposed in the way financial services are to be regulated."
  We have £270 million in Liechtenstein and it would be useful if that was returned. After the events at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and following other procedures, it would be useful if the Government acknowledged that it would be helpful to have an international response. Perhaps the Minister will mention that today.
  Similarly, there is a report on IMRO on the desk of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The report states that in future IMRO should move to a one wholesale and one retail regulator. That report has been on his desk for some months, but there has been no response to the weaknesses at IMRO. I hope that the Minister will accept that that report suggests changes and that it is something to which the Government could respond. That would be better than the Chancellor's statement that no action is to be taken.
  The position of the Maxwell pensioners is pitiable. Although we welcome the Government's response, it is insufficient and we are worried that in the months ahead the Maxwell pensioners will suffer as a result of the Government's weakness.
  9.51 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): During this debate the House has spoken with one voice about the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. Nobody listening to the debate could go away unaware of the great sympathy that has been expressed by all hon. Members who have contributed and those who have tried to contribute. I hope that they will have other opportunities to express their views.
  One aspect of the plight of Maxwell pensioners that has been given insufficient attention is the uncertainty involved. They are worried not just about the amount of money involved but about when and whether they will get it. For many elderly people of limited means and with an expected standard of life, that uncertainty keeps them awake at night and visits a particular sort of distress upon them. I am aware of that and it is the Government's awareness of that which led to the proposal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made yesterday and again today. In the short time available, I shall do my best to acknowledge and respond to the many contributions that have been made.
  242
  I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on an outstanding maiden speech in the great tradition of the House. He spoke with warmth about his predecessor, Sir Ian Stewart, whom we all remember with gratitude and admiration. He mentioned the plight of his AGB pensioner constituents and I took that on board. They will be among those whom it is intended will benefit from this package of measures. He made some interesting points about the remit of the review. He proposed that consideration should be given to a register of assets and that perhaps a compensation scheme was needed. He and other hon. Members rightly pointed out that 12 months is probably an adequate period given that the Government will come forward sooner if more immediate measures are needed. We must remember that we are dealing with an enormous number of beneficiaries of occupational pension schemes and it is important that we get it right.
  When in the past the House has looked at the problems in pensions, insurance, investments and banking, time and again we have looked at the deficiencies of past legislation and the latest incidence of collapse. What we must try to do—it is more difficult—is look forward to the next problem that might arise. We should spend more time trying to secure the horses in their stable than locking the doors of those that have already bolted. As I have said, that is difficult, but it will take the time and attention of the review.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) supported the amendment, for which I am grateful. He deplored the party-political stance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who, I agree, introduced an unnecessary partisan approach.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) welcomed the review and asked, rightly, how funds could be diverted so badly. The review must consider that, and the banks and City institutions must contribute to the trust fund that has been set up.
  The hon. Member for Gordon and others referred to the problem of British International Helicopters Limited scheme members. To date, all pensions have been paid in full and will be until the end of July. Money is available to pay after July, and the unit will discuss with trustees how to continue pensions in the short term.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on an outstanding maiden speech. She spoke warmly about our colleague, Sir David Trippier, whom we miss very much, but we welcome her to the House. I was impressed by her comments about textile workers, whom I know something about. She mentioned the problems and concern of her constituents who are affected by the Maxwell collapses and called for an assessment—this is an important point—of trust law and pension law. That was considered by the professor to whom she referred, but I did not draw the same conclusions from the report as her. She spelt out the case for a statutory compensation scheme.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) spoke about Headington. It is intended that the package of £2.5 million will restore payments, including the May and June payments, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West asked. The trustees must decide how to allocate resources, but he asked whether, in assessing the

  243
  sum liable to be paid, they included an assessment for back payments of sums due. The answer is that we intend, as far as possible, that they should.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also spoke about the problems of getting assets out of Liechtenstein. I share his frustration, but there is a limited amount that one can do to make another sovereign state disgorge assets. However, there is a prospect that, under the Basle negotiations on international banking regulation, countries that do not subscribe to international standards of banking prudence may have authorisation withdrawn for subsidiaries or branches in particular countries, so some pressure could be brought to bear in that way. He asked for a tougher line to be taken, and I am sure that that will be noted.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked whether the banks knew with whom they were dealing and referred to the 1971 Department of Trade and Industry report. Many of them must have known, although with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to be critical. He asked whether the Maxwells will be prosecuted. That is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. The assets are a matter for the liquidators, who are investigating. He said that the Department of Trade and Industry should not have licensed LBI, but under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 it was extremely difficult for it to be denied approval, even for those few days.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) welcomed the assurances that have been given, but said that if funds proved inadequate he and the House would be back for more. We hope that they will be adequate. I assure him that the manning of the unit will be adequate. We shall ensure that it is staffed with people who are thoroughly able to do the job. I noted what he said about pension funds and banks contributing to the-trust that has been set up.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to the report of the Select Committee on Social Security. I pay tribute to its work. Its central recommendation was that there should be a review, and that recommendation has been accepted in full. I believe that there were about 60 recommendations, six of which were implemented immediately. It is the Government's intention to respond formally to the Select Committee by the end of this month. The hon. Gentleman criticised IMRO and asked whether it was competent, but that is a matter for SIB.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) did not get much change out of the City, which is hardly surprising—it is hardly likely to say to her, "What a good idea. I'll certainly put £5 million into the kitty." These issues are very sensitive. [Interruption.] Well, it is not going to say that. I predict that we shall have a much better success rate.
  Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 315.

  Division No. 26]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Enright, Derek

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Etherington, William

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Alton, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Battle, John

  Foulkes, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fraser, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Galloway, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gapes, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Gilbert Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Graham, Thomas

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, James

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoff

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

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

  Khabra, Piara

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Loyden, Eddie

  245

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Redmond, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Richardson, Jo

  McFall, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McKelvey, William

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wallace, James

  O'Hara, Edward

  Walley, Joan

  Olner, William

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Parry, Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Patchett, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pope, Greg

  Wilson, Brian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Beggs, Roy

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Andrew

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Bates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  246

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  247

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Needham, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Nelson, Anthony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Streeter, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trimble, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trotter, Neville

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walden, George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ward, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House shares a deep concern for the distress pensioners face as a result of the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell; applauds the initiative taken by the Government to provide temporary, emergency funding to help those schemes which have a particularly acute short term problem; and, while welcoming the decision to initiate a thorough review of the framework of pension scheme law, notes with approval the important part that occupational pensions continue to play in ensuring increasing prosperity among the retired population of this country.

  Maxwell Pensioners

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, relating to Standing Order No. 130 on Select Committees. I raise the matter because it has become clear to hon. Members on both sides—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly and not hold their meetings here? [Interruption.] Order. An hon. Member is on his feet.
    Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for standing up for the little people in the House.
    Madam Speaker: Order. They may be small people, but there is a lot of personality there.
    Mr. McCartney: I am lost for words, Madam Speaker—for once.
    Standing Order No. 130 relates to the setting up of Select Committees. It has become clear to hon. Members on both sides who served on Select Committees in the previous Parliament, in particular Committees whose current investigations were suspended because of the general election, that no effort has been made by the authorities of the House, through the usual channels, to bring forward appropriate measures for those Select Committees to be set up. In particular, the Social Services Select Committee has been left in limbo while people laugh all the way to Liechtenstein with people's resources from the Maxwell pension funds. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your good offices in the appropriate quarters to bring before the House orders for that Select Committee to be set up before the summer recess.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must seek that information from the Committee of Selection and not from the Chair.
    Mr. Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that Front-Bench Members heard Opposition support for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
    Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would do your best to draw to the attention of Front-Bench Members the answer which I received today to my question on the cost to public funds of members of the Department of the Clerk of the House who currently have nothing to do because the departmental Select Committees have not been set-up. The cost of the Clerks is £175,862 a month. If the departmental Select Committees are not set up until October, the cost to public funds in the Clerk's Department will, by my calculation, be more than £1 million.
    Madam Speaker: I protect Back Benchers as much as I protect Officers of the House who cannot answer for themselves. I am using my good offices to see that progress

    249
    is made in setting up the Select Committees. I am sure that what I have said has been heard in all quarters of the House and especially on the two Front Benches.
    Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not prolonging the point of order unnecessarily. Is it a different point of order?
    Mr. Ross: As you are using your good offices to ensure that the Select Committees are set up, will you go further and ensure that there is a Select Committee for Northern Ireland?
    Madam Speaker: I have gone as far as I intend to go this evening. We now move on to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  10.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
  Inevitably, this is a narrow debate. It is not about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is about the consideration of the Bill, for the motion is purely procedural. As Standing Order No. 86 is referred to in the motion, it may be helpful to give a brief outline of its main requirements.
  With certain exceptions, Standing Order No. 86 requires that
  "the Committee of Selection shall nominate not fewer than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill".
  It requires the Committee of Selection to have regard to
  "the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
  There is a further proviso which states:
  "for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales."
  There is clearly an inconsistency in the Standing Order. There cannot be a Standing Committee which reflects the composition of the House, is limited to 50 members and is made up of the Members for all constituencies in Wales. A Committee meeting all those requirements has not been constituted for some considerable time, irrespective of the party in power. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Welsh Language Act 1967, the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983 and the Caldey Island Act 1990 all had Standing Committee membership other than as specified in Standing Order No. 86.
  In turn, none of the motions to set up the membership of those Standing Committees, which were similar to the one that we are considering this evening, was opposed. I suspect that the only reason why the Standing Order has not been amended is the relative infrequency of legislation that relates exclusively to Wales.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Minister has quoted precedents to the House. When did a private Bill last become a public Bill?
  Mr. Jones: We are dealing with the motion before the House. Proceedings on the Bill have gone on for a long time. I should be out of order if I strayed into considering the Bill itself. Many of us feel that the Bill has been more debated than anything else. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we confine ourselves to the procedural motion.
  The Government are doing what has often been done before by tabling the motion.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is misleading the House.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will retract what he has just said and rephrase his comments.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister is inadvertently misleading the House.
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is perfectly all right to use the word inadvertently.
  Mr. Rogers: He is inadvertently misleading the House. The Bill has never been discussed, as it is a new Government Bill which has been introduced to replace a private Bill. The Minister is correct in saying that the issues have been discussed fairly well, but the Bill is new.
  Madam Speaker: That does not seem to be a point of order for me. This is a technical motion relating to a Standing Order.
  Mr. Jones: By tabling the motion, the Government are merely doing what has often been done before.
  The motion will allow the Committee of Selection to nominate a Standing Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill which reflects the composition of the House and ensures substantial representation by Members with Welsh constituencies. Of course, it remains for the House to decide what it will do on future occasions.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister has quoted several precedents. Will he confirm that there is an important difference between them and the situation that we face tonight? In the precedents that he quoted, a Labour Government altered the order to facilitate the position for a Conservative Opposition. Tonight, a Conservative Government are disadvantaging the Labour Opposition.
  Mr. Jones: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not correct. If he refers back to all the examples from 1967 to the present, he will find that those in 1983 and 1990 were under a Conservative Government. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that none of the motions involved in setting up the Committee stages in those examples was opposed.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: In April 1907, the then President of the Board of Education, and my direct predecessor as Member for Torfaen, Mr. Reginald McKenna, spoke in the House on behalf of the Government and in support of Standing Order No. 86, which the Government, in their arrogance, are proposing to abandon. The House believed 85 years ago—and made that belief resolute by a Division—that Welsh Members should have the same rights and privileges as their Scottish counterparts when dealing with exclusively Welsh legislation. All those years ago Members believed that that argument was right, and we do not believe that it has changed with the passage of time.
  It is ironic that only last week the Scottish Grand Committee dealt with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, as a move for a greater say by Scottish Members of Parliament in dealing with Scottish legislation.
  I believe that the rule has served the test of time. The Minister said that the Standing Order has been set aside on a number of occasions. It was set aside on two occasions under a Labour Government: in June 1975, for the Welsh Development Agency Bill; and in July 1976, for the Development of Rural Wales Bill.
  252
  However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, the circumstances then were different. They were completely separate. The move was not challenged. The Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill were supported by both sides of the House and both the bodies involved are today regarded as successful agencies by the Government. There was never any question of the Government having to bring in extra troop reinforcements from England to get the legislation through. Wales then, as now, produced more Labour Members than Members of any other party, and there was a Labour Government. Also, the proportion of Welsh Members on the Committees was different from the proportion proposed today. Today, the Government are proposing that, out of 20 members of the Committee, only 12 should be from Welsh constituencies, but in the two cases that I have quoted, 14 out of 16 were Members of Parliament, at a time when many Welsh Members were Ministers in a Labour Government. The comparison is not a good one, and the House should be looking at these matters in a different way.
  The Government accept the wider membership of Committees when it suits them. Only two weeks ago, the House dealt with all stages of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill on the Floor of the House. Two years ago, two days were set aside so that what was then the Development Board for Rural Wales Bill could be dealt with by all hon. Members.
  I agree with the Minister about one thing. The debate is not whether we are for or against the plan for the Cardiff bay barrage. It is about the principle of changing the Standing Order. However, many of us believe that it is essential that membership of the Committee that scrutinises the details of the Bill is as wide as possible, and includes all Welsh Members of Parliament. That is for one reason, and the reason that makes this example different from those that the Minister gave. It is that the Bill has aroused great controversy among those on both sides of the argument. It is proper that those involved in the debates on the Bill should be able properly to scrutinise its details.
  The Bill deals not with any old town but with the capital city of Wales, any inevitably that is of great interest to all Welsh Members. It has serious implications for the environment of the Cardiff bay area, as the Minister, who represents part of Cardiff, knows only too well himself. It is of great interest also to many Welsh Members who do not represent Cardiff, but who have a deep interest in environmental matters. It must be of interest to us all because of the tens of millions of pounds that will be spent out of the public purse on Cardiff bay. If that money is to be spent, the very nature of the spending needs to be scrutinised by all Welsh Members of Parliament.
  The reality is that the Government want a small Committee because they are not sure of victory in that forum. The official record of the debate 85 years ago shows that the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Ashford put quite well the case for the Minister today. He said:
  "The Members for Wales were generally of the opposite way of thinking to the Unionist Party"—
  that is, the Conservative party, and things have not changed too much—
  "and it would be impossible for a Unionist Government to entrust legislation to Grand Committees … because no

  253
  Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority."—[Official Report, 15 April 1907; Vol. 172, c. 671-720.]
  That is why the Government wish to change the Standing Order—simply because they cannot guarantee success. Are the Government so unsure of the benefits to the bay? Are they so uncertain of the merits of the Bill that they cannot trust Welsh Members of Parliament to scrutinise the proposals? After all, that is what they are doing. The Second Reading debate, which judged the principles of the Bill, has long since gone. The Committee will deal. with safeguards, protections and details, so all Welsh Members should be allowed to take part in the proceedings.
  I am glad to see the Secretary of State present because during and before the general election, when he attacked the principle of the Welsh Assembly and devolution, he always said that one of the reasons why it was unnecessary to have a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff was that the procedures and the institutions of the House of Commons were such that they safeguarded the interests of Welsh people. He said that there was nothing better than Welsh Question Time, the setting up of the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh day debate. Yet, tonight, the Government want to take away one of the most important parts of the procedure that deals with Welsh business, which has been established for nearly a century. At the same time, however, the Government have conceded that Members representing Scotland should be allowed to deal with local matters in their way. We should be allowed to do the same.
  Many of us feel great dismay and unease about the erosion of the democratic process in Wales. By the time of the next election, Wales will have been subjected to two decades of unwanted Tory rule, but in election after election—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was quite clear about the meaning of the motion, but he now seems to be straying from it. Will he now address his remarks to the motion?
  Dr. John Marek: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will reflect carefully upon this debate, because it is no more than a gerrymander. The Tories cannot get their way with the current procedures, so they are changing them—gerrymandering them—to get their way. I think that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) were right and in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but he is challenging the Chair. If he wishes to catch my eye, I do not imagine that he will continue on that theme.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, on reflection, you will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was not challenging your ruling in any way. I am also sure that my hon. Friend would not regard your latter comment as a threat. It is important to point out that the motion that we accepted at 10 pm allows for the debate to continue until the business is finished. There is no discretion resting in the Chair as to whether my hon. Friend speaks in the debate. I ask you to reflect carefully on your recent comments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for about as long as me. He knows full well that many hon. Members wish to speak tonight. They all have to catch my eye and I must use my judgment. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comment and I take it in the spirit in which it was made.
  Mr. Murphy: The Government want to change the Standing Order and the nature of the way in which Welsh business is dealt with in the Chamber. Many of us believe that that is part of a general process by which the Welsh people have been deprived of their democratic rights. It is important that the proposed change is seen in the wider context of Welsh democracy.
  In the next few months the Secretary of State will make great changes to local government in Wales with the result that we shall have fewer elected representatives than we have ever had. We must couple those changes and the motive behind tonight's debate with the fact that many non-elected public bodies in Wales are stuffed with the Secretary of State's placemen. Is it any wonder that Wales is fast becoming the least democratic nation in western Europe?
  The Government have the power to impose their will on the House and the Welsh people, but they certainly do not have the right.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The motion is totally unacceptable to everyone in Wales who has any feeling for democracy in our country.
  The Cardiff barrage is an eminently local issue. First and foremost, it deals with Cardiff, but it has implications for all of Wales because it has implications for the budget of the Welsh Office. Hon. Members representing all parts of Wales have the right to contribute to the arguments that must be pursued when the issue is dealt with in detail. The way in which we deal with Welsh legislation here, under Conservative Governments who have been in power for the last 13 years and who will run for at least another five, shows that it is not possible for us to achieve decisions in line with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservatives being in power for at least another five years. Is his arithmetic right?
  Mr. Wigley: We do not know what the outcome will be at the next general election. Perhaps I should have said that the present Government have a maximum of five years, although one does not know how the rules will be changed— [Interruption.] We can only imagine the course that the Government will pursue, considering that they are willing to change the rules in the respect we are discussing tonight, by which they are taking away rights that Welsh hon. Members have had since the beginning of this century.
  It is not possible for Wales to expect democracy from this institution by virtue of the procedures that are being followed by the Government in this instance. It is not possible, within the institutions of the House of Commons or, for that matter, of the House of Lords— [interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am standing. May we have a little more hush so that we can hear what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is saying?
  Mr. Wigley: Clearly, we are all enjoying it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no faith in this House. Does he have more faith in the House of Lords, now that it is occupied by, among others, Lord Trawsfynydd B?
  Mr. Wigley: When I think of the long row of former Labour Members, ex-Labour candidates and ex-Labour local government leaders in Wales who are in another place, I begin to wonder. Decisions that must be taken at central Government level, especially when legislation is involved, should be taken in line with the wishes of the people of Wales. To the extent that we do not have an all-Wales elected body in which such decisions can be taken, they must be taken through hon. Members here.
  There are 38 constituencies in Wales. The Government returned after the last election with six Welsh seats, compared with eight at the 1987 election. Six out of 38 apparently gives them a mandate to rule. What we are seeing with tonight's proposal is the same sort of direction as we see in the context of the Welsh Grand Committee when we debate other issues. That Committee, which handles legislation of this sort when it is passed to it, cannot take any meaningful decisions. We can only report back that we have considered, say, health, education or housing in Wales.
  We are not allowed to take a decision because in that body there is, of necessity, a majority of hon. Members who represent parties other than the Government. For the past 120 years we have witnessed in the political body of Wales a situation in which there has never been a majority of Conservative MPs. In some elections, not one Conservative Member has been returned. The 1905 election was a case in point, when Wales was overwhelmingly Liberal. Keir Hardie was then the first Labour Member.
  Although there has never been a majority of Conservatives, for two thirds of that time we have been governed by Conservative Governments who have had no mandate from Wales and who have been totally out of line with the social and economic aspirations of the people of Wales.
  We may have to suffer that as the price of being part of the United Kingdom. But for local decisions that do not affect any other part of the nation, why is it not possible for us to have a modicum of democracy so that the Welsh people can take decisions in line with the views of their elected representatives in this House? If it is not possible for the House to live with that small degree of rights for the people of Wales, is that not a reflection of the bankruptcy of this system of government in affording any sort of democracy to the people of Wales?
  Although the message may not come home in this Government's term of office because they insist on their majority in the United Kingdom, sooner or later the message will come home that the only way for the people of Wales to take decisions on this and other issues that go further, in line with their values and aspirations, will be
  256
  when we have our own state answerable to the Welsh people and our own Parliament in Cardiff and are not ruled by Conservative Governments in London.
  10.45 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing your eye to catch me seeking to contribute to the debate!
  Sitting on the Government Benches is the Under-Secretary of State, who scraped by in the last general election with a majority of a few thousand; next to him is the Minister of State, who got 30 per cent. of the vote—two people voted against him for every person who voted for him; and, on his left-hand side is the Secretary of State for Wales, who does not even represent a seat in the Principality. That sums up the state of the Conservative party today.
  Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that 23 Opposition Members elected in Wales, but only two Conservative Members from Wales, are in the Chamber? The Conservative party cannot even muster its four Back Benchers from Wales into the Chamber, yet the 23 Welsh Opposition Members who are interested in this matter are here. Where are the Conservatives?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. It is amazing that Conservative Members with seats in Wales are not here, yet we see clearly that there is intense interest in this measure from Opposition Members and that there is a full house of Welsh Opposition Members.
  The measure is nothing more than a gross gerrymander. It is worse than that, because the Government could have chosen a Committee with an odd number of members and they would then have had a majority of only one. But they have chosen a Committee with an even number of members, thus giving them a majority of two over all other parties. Naturally, the Committee's membership should reflect the membership of the House, so on a Committee of 20 they should not even have a majority of one. Therefore, they have not only been insulting to the people of Wales but have tried to achieve as large a majority in the House as they dare.
  During the general election, 50 per cent. of people voted Labour and only 28 per cent. of the Welsh electorate voted Conservative. So the Government have no mandate whatever. They cannot get their Back Benchers from Wales to attend this debate and the Minister makes a perfunctory speech, trying to kid us that the motion is technical and that we should consider nothing but the technicalities. The motion is important because it shows the naked truth of Tory colonial government in the Principality. The' Government know well that Welsh Members are intensely interested in what happens in our capital city. This was a private Bill about which the Government took no view either way. But behind the scenes, they wanted the Bill and they have now brought it forward as a Conservative party measure.
  The measure may have had the support of hon. Members in Committee—I make no judgment about that. Some of us were against it and others were for it. Some hon. Members had qualms or reservations about parts of it and were prepared to see what we could do to get those parts changed, but were in favour of other parts of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Bill, is he?
  Dr. Marek: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wanted to be clear that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the motion on the Order Paper.
  Dr. Marek: I am certainly doing so, and if I was not in order, I hope to be in order now.
  There were Welsh Members who had different views on the Bill, about which they were knowledgeable and to which they wanted to contribute. The Bill might well have been passed; I think that it would have been. But the Government have tabled today's motion, thus denying most of us the opportunity to contribute towards the government of Wales, and Cardiff, its capital city.
  I very much regret that fact. I cannot do anything more about it, as we are governed by the rules of the House, but I hope that we will divide on the motion and that as many of my hon. Friends—whether they support or oppose the Bill—will vote with me. We must show clearly that the motion is a manifestation of the jackboot tactics of the Conservative Government who have no roots or representation within the Principality and are foisting their will on Wales and its representatives, who are Opposition Members, as its representatives have been for the past 60, 70 and 80 years.
  If the Government have a shred of integrity, they should rethink, withdraw the motion and consult through the usual channels to see whether agreement can be obtained so that we have a meaningful Committee. Its members should not be English Members of Parliament—probably sitting in south-east constituencies—with one qualification: no interest in Cardiff hay, the barrage or the Bill. Hon. Members who are interested in the Cardiff bay barrage should be able to participate in the debate in Committee. I think that that is the earnest wish of Opposition Members, and I hope that the Government will consider the position carefully before we vote on the motion.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Since 1282 Wales has had—[Interruption.] I thought that that might raise a cheer from immediately behind me. I shall start again: since 1282 Wales has had few distinctive constitutional rights. Tonight the Government have challenged one of those few remaining rights.
  Of course, the Government have the perfect right to table the motion, and to seek to have a Committee that includes Members from outside Wales and does not reflect the political balance in Wales. But my understanding is that this is the first time, at least in modern times, that the Government have sought to force through such a motion. As the Minister said, in the past such motions have been passed, but I believe that they have been passed as a result of agreement through the usual channels. Therefore, tonight there has been an important constitutional departure for Wales, and with it a diminution of the constitutional rights of the Welsh people.
  It is not important if uncontroversial Bills are discussed in Standing Committees that do not reflect the political balance of Wales. But when considering a controversial
  258
  measure such as the Bill before us, surely it must be a fundamental presumption that the Bill should follow the well laid down constitutional procedure. The presumption should be that controversial Bills go to the Welsh Grand Committee and the Government should take the risk of losing controversial Bills if that is the will of the Welsh people.
  There is only one way in which the will of the Welsh people is represented in the House: through Members who represent Welsh constituencies. There is only one forum that gathers together Members who represent Welsh constituencies: the Welsh Grand Committee, which is the sum total of the Welsh constitution in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about the Welsh Grand Committee. I was the Chairman of that Committee when it conducted the Second Reading of the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill which became an Act in 1983. Why can the same procedure not apply now?
  Mr. Carlile: We are dealing with a motion which is slightly different in procedural terms. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  If, as I have suggested, there is a presumption that controversial Welsh legislation in constitutional, legal terms should be dealt with by the Welsh Grand Committee, surely we are entitled to hear some evidence from the Minister to rebut that presumption. The Minister's speech was an extraordinarily small tunnel dug between the cell in which he is trapped and the outside world to enable him to try to escape from giving such evidence. The Minister is a nice man, but his speech was an insult to the House because he did not try to present a case for taking this controversial Welsh Bill before a Committee which would be dominated by the Government Whips. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members find Welsh business uninteresting. It would be polite for them to go to the Smoking Room, which is where they belong at this time of night. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) smiles. I am willing to give way to him if he wishes to share the joke. Conservatives seem to have an extraordinary, cavalier attitude to this important piece of Welsh legislation. That attitude is depicted by the loutish element below the Gangway.
  The Government's attitude is extremely disreputable. This week they are paying lip service to world environmental problems. The proposal for the Cardiff barrage has raised tremendous environmental debate in Wales. The procedural motion seeks to brush aside the democratically expressed environmental concerns of Welsh Members. Those concerns can be expressed democratically only in the Welsh Grand Committee, and in tabling the motion the Government are treating the people of Wales with contempt.
  The Secretary of State for Wales occasionally shows quite a degree of sensitivity—perhaps because he is not a Welsh Member—to the wishes of the people of Wales. He has often tried to keep Wales sweet, perhaps by going a little too far in the other direction and by consulting and obtaining opinion from as wide a spectrum as possible. Therefore, it is surprising that he should think it right to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Wales.

  259
  The Secretary of State is, or was once if he will forgive me putting it that way, a distinguished lawyer in private practice. He should reflect for a moment on the dangerous
  260
  constitutional principle that he is setting. That principle will enable the Government at will to push aside a long-standing major protection for the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will see that they have made a serious error and will say at the end of the debate that they have decided to think again.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall speak briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), in an eloquent and powerful speech from the Opposition Front Bench, advanced the general case against the motion.
  The great tradition of this place, even in the unreformed House, was that when it came to considering Bills that affected interests, the names of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber were called out. That procedure was followed by an important and significant addition, which was that those who also had interests, whether they be Members representing constituencies in Wales, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire, should be added to the Committee. They, too, had voices. The unreformed House of Commons observed the principle that Members who had a particular interest could become members or the relevant Committee.
  In my intervention I asked the Minister when a private Bill was last turned into a public Bill. The Bill that is the subject of the motion began life as a private Bill, and over the centuries Bills have been brought before the House that reflected private interests. As I have said, in the past any Member who represented an interest was entitled to serve in Committee. As a private Bill has become a public Bill, we should observe that fundamental principle. It should be considered in addition to the powerful arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has advanced on the general issues.
  When last did we convert a private Bill into a public Bill? The Minister failed to answer the question earlier. The Bill is different from the examples that he quoted, for he referred to Bills that were public from the start. They were agreed to by both sides of the House and, therefore, the procedure was agreed. In this instance the Government have decided to introduce a controversial motion which affects consideration of a controversial Bill. As I have said, it started its passage as a private Bill, not a public Bill.
  It becomes clear on flicking through the journals of even the unreformed House of Commons that any Member who felt that he had an interest in legislation was entitled to join the relevant Committee and make his case. As the Bill that is the subject of the motion was originally private legislation, it should surely be considered by a Committee that reflects the widest spread of interests in the House. That means that every Welsh voice should be heard in Committee.
  I understand the inconvenience that the Government face. Imagine what they would be presented with in Committee. There would be 38 Welsh Members, of whom only six would be firm Government supporters. I understand, of course, that in this instance there are cross-party views. That means that every Government supporter would have to suffer the indignity, as it were, of attending the sittings of the Committee.
  The Government should be taught an important lesson. For 13 years they have driven legislation through the House for which they have not had to sweat. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is a piece of proposed legislation for which they should sweat, irrespective of where individual Members stand on the issue. If the Government want the Bill to pass through the House, they should accept a Committee of 38 Members. They could add however many Members they might wish to create a theoretical majority. It would be a large Committee, and during the proceedings
  262
  there could well be changes of view that would be contrary to the wishes of the Government Front Bench. The Bill would then be considered on Report, when the whole House would have to examine the arguments. The Government Whips would then have a role, and no doubt they would try to reverse any changes that had been made in Committee.
  At least the Government would have to go through the hoop of attrition during the consideration of proposed legislation. For a long time the Government have not had to face the attrition that is involved in enacting legislation with a comparatively small majority. They must learn a lesson or two, and there is no harm in starting now. Over the past 13 years—
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Government have the power to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants. Instead of diminishing the Welsh role they could change the maximum Committee membership of 50. They could increase the maximum to 60, 70 or 80. If they want a majority, why do they not change the maximum Committee membership and allow every Welsh Member to examine the Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. We await the Minister's reply with interest. It will be terribly inconvenient to drag in many Conservative Back Benchers to overrule the wishes of the Committee and of Welsh Members.
  Labour Members want the Committee to be established, because we want to expose the significance and character of such behaviour. The Government are entitled to reintroduce the Bill and to use Whips to carry the legislation, but I do not see why we should accept the gerrymandering of the Committee stage of a Bill that should be subject to genuine debate and cross-party and internal party debate in Committee.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The motion seeks to determine the membership of the Committee that will consider the detail of a Bill which is of major importance to my constituents.
  I have supported the Bill and have sought to improve it at every stage of its passage in its present incarnation as a hybrid Bill and in its previous form as a private Bill. Because I want no misunderstanding in the House or, more important, among my constituents, I wish briefly to explain my view.
  Tonight's debate is not about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said. Hon. Friends who supported the Bill with me are among those who are most concerned about what the Government are seeking to do and will therefore vote against the motion. A vote against the motion and against the exception to the Standing Order is, therefore, in no sense a vote against the Bill.
  Perhaps it should not be necessary to spell out such an obvious point, but the House should be aware that attempts have been made in the past, sometimes by opponents of the Bill and sometimes by adherents of the Conservative party, to misrepresent votes cast on previous occasions. Let us have no nonsense on that account in regard to tonight's vote.
  Tonight's debate is about the way in which Wales is governed. The Standing Order, the importance of which

  263
  was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, enunciates an important principle: that issues wholly to the interest of the people of Wales should be decided by those elected by the people of Wales. Although there are precedents for the motion, most were set by a Labour Government who enjoyed majority support by the electors of Wales.
  I am keen to see proper scrutiny of the Bill and proper consideration of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen on behalf of the Opposition. I therefore see some value in a smaller Committee than is dictated by the Standing Order, but the implications of the issues before us are much wider.
  Until now, the one view on which we have all been united is that the procedures under which the Bill and its predecessors have been considered are complicated, obscure and unhelpful. Tonight's debate addresses the constitutional point of a democratic deficit resulting from the wide powers available to the Government to ignore the views of the people of Wales, who did not vote for a Conservative Government. They certainly did not vote for a Liberal or nationalist Government either; they voted for a Labour Government.
  I have faith that an elected assembly, such as that proposed by the Labour party, would, given full consideration of all the issues, have supported the measure that the Committee will consider, just as the Labour-controlled county of South Glamorgan has supported and promoted the barrage throughout.
  That is my personal view. Others may differ, but that is not the issue before us. What is before us is not support or opposition to the barrage Bill but the simple question whether the principle established when the Standing Order was first implemented should be cast aside or diminished. Even more important—this is my final and most crucial point—it should be upheld when the House considers the Welsh language Bill, which the Government will, at long last, introduce shortly, and the reform of local government, which has such important implications for every part of Wales.
  I hope that the Minister will consider that last point very seriously and address it in his response to the debate. I am surprised, indeed, that he did not do so in his introduction to the debate. It is crucial to consideration of the motion that he should give us a cast-iron promise on behalf of the Government that the principle in the Standing Order will be respected without interference in respect of those two Bills and similar Bills of wide interest to Wales that are brought before the House in the future.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is deluding himself if he believes that he will get that assurance from the Minister. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he dealt with that issue and I drew two conclusions.
  First, if there is logic in what the Government are doing on this occasion and if they are empowered to set aside the Standing Orders, logic will allow them to do exactly the same in future when it suits them. I hardly think that the Minister will give a guarantee. Secondly, if one reads the Minister's comments in Hansard one will see that he said
  264
  that it is for the House on a future occasion to decide what its view will be. I have been here long enough to know what that means—it means that the Government want to restrict tonight's debate to the particular motion, but it is as clear as can be that if there is a recurrence of the situation in which the Government do not have a mandate or majority for legislation referring specifically to Wales, they will reintroduce the order.
  I have no doubt that when we come to debate local government reorganisation or the Welsh language Bill—precisely the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—we shall again be in the same position. I am not being derogatory, but we shall face an English Minister and English Tory Members of Parliament driving through the House legislation which will deny the right of Welsh Members of Parliament to sit in on a Committee stage that will shape the future of local government in their communities.
  That is a travesty of democracy and it is precisely because I believe that the Minister understands that it is a travesty that he was so casual and cursory in opening the debate. He made no attempt at justification or to explain the rationale. He tried to skip over the debate by saying that it was not about the Bill. Of course the debate is not about the Bill, but the Bill is at the heart of the dilemma now facing the Government.
  If the Bill was non-controversial, we would not be in this position. If it were non-controversial like the legislation on Caldey island and the Conwy crossing, it would have gone through. The fact that the Bill is controversial means that it should be subject to democratic scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, that opportunity will exist on Report but the Government are denying us the right to have a considered and informed debate in Committee. It is a shame that the Government should be in such a position.
  The motion will undoubtedly be passed. We are told that it is a matter for the House and that every hon. Member will be free to vote as he or she wishes, but we know that that is not true. The Secretary of State failed when he tried to impose a whip when the legislation was a private Bill. This time, the Government Whips are out in force and they will ensure that there is a majority for the motion. That will mean that the voice of the people of Wales as expressed in the ballot box at the election will be set aside.
  The people of Wales elected 27 Labour members of Parliament. For the record, they elected six Tory Members of Parliament. With the exception of the two conscripts on the Front Bench, we have not seen those six. There can be no justification for that. The Minister and his colleagues can preach the sanctity of the United Kingdom, but they must recognise that Wales is a nation with its own institutions and political structures. For 80 years the very Standing Order that the Government are setting aside has been part of the bedrock of our Welsh nationhood.
  The Government must think carefully about the consequences of what they are doing, especially when it is being done in the teeth of united opposition. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth spoke as he did. Let Ministers have no doubt that it is not a question of those who oppose the Cardiff bay barrage opposing the motion. Every Welsh Opposition

  265
  Member of Parliament is involved, including those from the Labour party and from Plaid Cymru. The solitary Liberal Democrat has also added his voice.
  We are united in telling the Government that what they are about to do is a folly because they are setting aside the verdict of the people of Wales. What the Government sow tonight they will reap in the not-too-distant future.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have prompted me to speak in the debate, although I had not intended to do so.
  There has been considerable discussion in my party about a Welsh assembly and about the proper government of Wales. Unlike most of my colleagues, I have never believed that there should be a Welsh assembly because the Welsh assembly is envisaged by my party and by other people as being an assembly that would take powers from local government. I cannot imagine this House giving up its powers to an assembly in Wales. That is why I have always been committed to the concept of a Welsh parliament with legislative and revenue powers. I am not likely to join Plaid Cymru in pursuing my case. If I ever spoke in a Welsh parliament, I know that I would never have to call on a Liberal Democrat because no Liberal Democrat would be elected to a Welsh parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has put his finger on the issue. The Government are planting a seed in Wales and they will rue the day they take this action. They are feeding the nationalist movement in Wales as represented by the hon. Members sitting behind me, who were elected by 8 per cent. of the electorate.
  For the slight advantage of getting the Bill on the statute book sooner rather than later, which is all that the motion will achieve, the Government are acting in a way that will constitutionally destroy politics in Wales as we know them today. The Government do not realise what they are doing.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: May I prevail on the Secretary of State to take a more reasonable view of how he deals with the situation? One well understands that the Government feel that they must get their legislation through, although many of us do not regard the measure as an appropriate Government Bill. There is an alternative which I have already tried to intimate. If there were no alternative, one could understand the Secretary of State coming here and riding roughshod over Welsh Members and over the Standing Orders.
  The Minister has quoted precedents which do not bear examination. When the Labour Government were in power and they took the action proposed today, they reduced their representation on the Standing Committee to give the Opposition a better opportunity to present a balanced view. On the other hand, we should examine the later precedents quoted which occurred in the 1980s under this Government. The Conservatives introduced similar measures without opposition by Labour because the Opposition agreed that, for the Bills involved, not all Members representing Welsh seats would wish to be members of the Committee. This is the first time since 1907 that the Opposition have said that they will not support
  266
  such a change because they think that every Welsh Member should have the freedom to participate in debates.
  There is a way by which the objectives of both sides could be reconciled. It may not meet with the wishes of my hon. Friends; I have not had a chance to consult them. The Opposition's right to sustain the freedom of every Welsh Member to take part in discussions on the Bill could be sustained, and the Government's majority maintained, if instead of altering this Standing Order the Government chose to alter the earlier Standing Order that sets a ceiling on the number of members of the Committee. If that ceiling were raised from 50 to 65, every Welsh Member could take part and the Government could have their majority. Honour would be satisfied on both sides of the House.
  This is a test of the reasonableness of the Secretary of State. He can go away and consider our proposition this evening, discuss it through certain channels, and establish whether we can reach some agreed arrangement; or he can do something that would be grossly offensive not just to Opposition Members, but to the people of Wales. Given the depletion in the number of Conservative Back Benchers, the right hon. Gentleman can force a vote on a motion that he need not push—for reasons that I have explained. He can call on the English Back Benchers in the Tea Room and other rooms in the House and use them to bulldoze his wishes through against the wishes of Welsh Members.
  Let me appeal to the Secretary of State, even at this late stage. We need not waste much time; if the usual channels agreed the matter, it could go through on the nod. I cannot give a commitment to that effect, but it is an option. I realise that neither of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues is in a position to make such a policy change without his consideration. I therefore ask him to use his power to protect the rights of Welsh Members, and the Welsh electorate, by giving just a week's consideration to my proposal.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: All my hon. Friends have spoken briefly, and I want to speak briefly as well. I simply want to ensure that our views have been put on record, in a way that appeals to what used to be thought of as the better nature of Ministers. I ask them not to use the Whip, and a procedural device in Standing Committee, to ram through the legislation, and then to repeat the exercise when other Welsh legislation is dealt with later in the Session. I hope that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and Government business managers will respond to that appeal. It is rare for three exclusively Welsh Bills to arise in a single, if long, Session of Parliament.
  The Prime Minister has spoken of his wish to "take stock"—I use his phrase—of the need to examine the constitutional relationship between an overwhelmingly Tory England and an overwhelmingly Labour Scotland, but he has not expressed a similar wish to deal with the relationship between a largely Tory England and an overwhelmingly Labour Wales.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: During the Committee stage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Members called for a ruling. The Chairman ruled that Standing Order No. 86 should apply in consideration

  267
  of the Bill, which is very controversial and will affect hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. Perhaps his decision to adhere to Standing Orders was a move in the right direction. Why have not the Government taken the same view in this instance?
  Mr. Morgan: I very much welcome that display of Celtic solidarity from my Scottish colleague. It is no more than I would have expected from a new Scottish colleague, because we are equally interested in seeing how we can keep the United Kingdom united. To do that, the largely English majority of the Tory Government should not abuse the power to treat sensitively the issue of how to handle the fact that Scotland and Wales are nowhere as big as England. England has 82 per cent. of the population and 82 per cent. of the membership of the House.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Wôn): Can the hon. Gentleman point to an example of the Government being sensitive to the needs of Wales?
  Mr. Morgan: Not so far—absolutely not. I have said that they have made some intimation that they intend to be sensitive to the needs of Scotland. They appear tonight to be going in the opposite direction in regard to Wales. That is what is so disappointing. At the same time as they are at least trying to make the first moves towards redefining the relationship with Scotland to confer greater powers of control—although that has not yet happened, but there have been early intimations of it—we in Wales are getting the mucky end of the stick. There is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the addition of another member of the Government on the Front Bench, who may want to intervene to talk about a family matter known as the elective dictatorship, which we are experiencing tonight?
  Mr. Morgan: The elective dictatorship is the problem, but the problem is also the shape of the United Kingdom. Scotland has 10 per cent. of the population, Wales has 5 per cent., and Northern Ireland has 3 per cent. Altogether that is about 18 per cent., but 82 per cent. remains to England. That relationship must be dealt with sensitively. So far, we are moving in the wrong direction. We want the Government to undertake to take back the matter and consider it and the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends.
  The Government should redefine the way in which they are approaching exclusively Welsh legislation, given that they now have three measures coming up. Whereas it used to be one Welsh Bill every two years, we have three in a year and a half of this long Session. The Government should try to start in the way they mean to continue. So far, the Minister has said absolutely nothing about what will happen with the Welsh language Bill. Will he say that he will not use the Standing Orders to curtail Welsh Members' rights to participate in proceedings on the Welsh language Bill or the Welsh local government reform Bill, which was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but we have since been promised it? Will he say, "Well, we won't do that with the Welsh local government reform Bill," or is this the thin end of the wedge? We do not know.
  I hope that the Minister will say something. If he is not willing to say something, we shall fear the worst. The
  268
  people of Wales, as has been said by three Opposition parties, will be very angry and will perceive that the Tory party is using the jackboot and importing Tory Back Benchers for the sole purpose of ramming through the legislation.
  Sheep-like English Back Benchers will not even think about the issues. They will not even know the names of the places that are referred to. They will simply follow in the time-honoured manner and be compared unfavourably with Sainsbury's shopping trolleys in respect of having minds of their own. They will vote how Government Whips tell them without even being aware of what they are voting on, simply to create an artificial majority by the importation of carpetbagging English Back-Bench Members to make up the majority that the Government cannot win of their own accord by democratic vote in Wales.
  Let us remember that this is not the first time that this procedure has been applied to the Bill. It was applied just before the general election. On 9 March, one of the worst examples of Government business in shambles in the past 10 years was displayed in the House by Nicholas Bennett, the Minister's predecessor. We all remember it. Nicholas Bennett was an hon. Member, never to be a right hon. Member, and probably will never be an hon. Member again. He was in charge of that supreme shambles. The Bill was bounced straight into Standing Committee less than a week before Parliament was due to rise. At the last minute, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the day before the Bill was to be considered in Standing Committee, the Clerks discovered that the exemption for Welsh legislation from the normal rules of the House states that the Government's majority must be reflected in Committee and that hon. Members who played a prominent role on Second Reading should be on the Committee.
  Upstairs the Government discovered all of a sudden, "Ah, this is Welsh legislation. What are we going to do?" The postcards were sent round in a hurry saying to hon. Members, "Can you be there tomorrow?" Of course, we all turned up in large numbers because we do our work. We expect to have to turn up when Welsh business is discussed, in order to earn our salaries at the end of the month.
  But Conservative Back-Bench Members—there are only half a dozen of them—have not even bothered to turn up tonight. I do not know what they are doing. How can they ask the people of Wales to elect them when they do not show any interest in Welsh business when they have the chance? It is an absolute disgrace. They are not even as good as Sainsbury's shopping trolleys which they have been for five years. I am disgusted by the lack of interest among the four new Welsh Conservative Back-Bench Members—the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans).
  When the Standing Order was applied to keep the Committee to 20, the people of Wales were given the opportunity to express their democratic verdict on what they thought about Tory Governments and their measures. What did they say? Before the election Labour had 26 Members and the Conservatives had six. After the election we have finished up with 27 Members and the Government still have six. They are now in an even smaller

  269
  minority than before. The people of Wales had their chance to express a view on a raft of Government measures and gave their verdict.
  Who should determine who should sit on Standing Committees to deal with exclusively Welsh legislation? The Opposition say that, through their votes at general elections, the people of Wales should decide. They had the chance to do it. A plebiscite was held on 9 April. In Wales the Labour party did three or four times as well as the Conservative party. The Government say, "We do not care about that. We have to get our business through. We do not care if we are in a tiny minority." They simply ram the legislation through by bringing in English Tory Members of Parliament.
  Is that the sort of message that we want to send to the people of eastern Europe and the trouble-torn peoples of the Balkans? Do we want to say, "Well, this is the way we do it in the Mother of Parliaments. We do not give a damn about small nations on the periphery of the United Kingdom"? Is that what we wish to say to the people of Yugoslavia as we attempt to send in peace missions and tell them how to organise themselves and keep themselves apart? Are we so insensitive to the demands and rights of peripheral parts of the United Kingdom which have had rights laid down in the Standing Orders of the House for 85 years?
  The Government are going in the wrong direction and had better rethink. This is the second time that they have taken such a measure in respect of this Bill at exactly the same stage. We have had a general election in between times and I do not want them to be so foolish as to create further anger in Wales on the issue.
  We had the Danish referendum last week. It is the same issue again. Peripheral countries do not want to be pushed around by the big countries. It is exactly the same issue. the Government must now take note of the Danish referendum result. They will also have to take note of the verdict of the Welsh people on 9 April. It is all part of the treatment of minorities within a wider democracy. I hope that the Government arc getting the message clearly.
  We are not discussing the merits or demerits of the barrage. That is not the point at issue tonight. The point at issue is the way in which the Government treat minorities in the House and how we can express the rights that we have had for 85 years. The Minister did not give an accurate picture of the clash at the heart of the motion between the Government's desire to have a majority on the Bill, which is expressed in hidden terms, and the rights of minorities. He skipped through the introduction to the Bill. He referred to the fact the Government have to have majorities on Standing Committees. Standing Order No. 86 does not say that, but merely hints at it.
  It is custom and practice in the House for the Government to have a majority. Standing Order No. 86 states:
  "shall have regard … to the composition of the House".
  It does not state that there must be a majority. That is simply hinted at. It is also a custom and practice of the House that hon. Members who played a major part in the Second Reading debate should be on the Standing Committee. That is not actually stated in the Standing Order, but it is hinted at. One has to read between the lines. That is what we normally assume is the meaning of
  "shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated".
  270
  That does not actually state that those hon. Members should be the people who played a major part in the Second Reading debate.
  However, the exemption about Welsh business is not a matter of hints or reading between the lines. The point is made in black and white. If the legislation is Welsh legislation—and the Clerks have ruled that this is—one exempts from it the provisions about reflecting the Government's majority. That is clear in mathematical print and there can be no doubt about it. All Welsh legislation is exempt from the rule that states that one shall preserve in the Standing Committee the balance of the majority of the House.
  In a skimpy dish-rag of an opening speech, the Minister tried to imply that those two great issues clashed and therefore the Government had to decide how to resolve the clash. There is no clash. Welsh legislation is exempt from the first principle. That is absolutely plain in Standing Order No. 86. If it is exempt from the principle, less than two months after the general election, the Government should have regard for the views of the Welsh people. The people of Wales should decide who goes on Standing Committees that deal with exclusively Welsh legislation and not the Tory majority elected outside Wales.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had a very good, short and generally good-natured debate. Even some of the stronger comments fall within the good nature in which we generally manage to conduct all Welsh affairs. Happily, we managed to stay almost entirely within the remit of the motion and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had very seldom to call us to order. I will try to deal with any unanswered questions that have arisen in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), in a brief contribution, presented a fascinating history of past ways of considering such measures. I am afraid I do not have the information readily available to answer his question about when a private Bill was last turned into a public Bill. I will try to find out for the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept that I will write to him with that information.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made several references to the Welsh Grand Committee. However, that is not included in Standing Order No. 86. While there are references to the Scottish Grand Committee, there is no suggestion that Welsh legislation should be directed towards the Welsh Grand Committee.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), from the Opposition Front Bench, cited the examples—
  Mr. Morgan: The beginning of Standing Order No. 86 states:
  "Save in the case of—

  (a) the Scottish Grand Committee,

  (b) the Welsh Grand Committee, and

  (c) a standing committee for the consideration of a bill on report".

  I am sure that the Minister did not mean to say that there was no mention of the Welsh Grand Committee in Standing Order No. 86. Unless he has a different version of the Standing Order from mine, he is not correct.
  Mr. Jones: I will reflect on that point if necessary. However, I have a copy of the Standing Order and the most important point, which I quoted earlier, states:

  271
  "for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales."
  I think that that is the point that we must address this evening, and that is the point that we have been addressing. We should have made progress on it.
  Mr. Morgan: My point is that I believe that the Minister said in error that there was no reference to the Welsh Grand Committee in Standing Order No. 86. I was anxious to correct him because we Whitchurch grammar school boys have got to stick together.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When he waves the old school tie at me, I have to concede. Yes, there is reference at the beginning of the Standing Order to
  "Save in the case of—…
  (b) the Welsh Grand Committee".
  However, we must direct our attention to the latter part of Standing Order No. 86 and the proviso to which I have already referred and which is the basis of our discussion this evening.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen cited the examples from 1975 and 1976, when there was a Labour Government. I cited those examples, and others from 1983 and 1990 when there was a Conservative Government. In 1983, when we dealt with the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill, there was an unopposed motion to limit the Standing Committee to 17 members, including not fewer than 12 Members sitting for constituencies in Wales. That is exactly what we seek to do through this motion. The 1990 example of the Caldey Island Bill, which was referred to a Standing Committee for Second Reading, was dealt with by a Committee consisting of only 10 Members representing Welsh constituencies.
  Mr. Murphy: I was fortunate enough to be one of those 10 Members who dealt with the Caldey Island Bill, but that measure did not arouse controversy in Wales. Will the Minister answer our point that we are disputing the motion because this is the only time that such a controversial Bill hs been considered in this way?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right. By my recollection, more controversy has surrounded the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill than was felt about the Caldey Island Bill, or even with the Bill dealing with the Conwy tunnel. Nevertheless, we are dealing with a procedural motion, and we must confine ourselves to that.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The House would be grateful if the Minister could cite any opposed motion of this sort. Is it not true that, whenever a motion such as this has been passed, it has dealt with unopposed Bills? Therefore, does he accept that the Government are taking an exceptional course?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being somewhat premature. We have not yet got to the vote on the motion, and I sincerely hope that my poor eloquence at the Dispatch Box will persuade and convince him not to oppose the motion.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) suggested that the ceiling on membership of a Standing Committee should be raised to 65. I doubt whether there is any precedence for such a suggestion. It
  272
  would move us towards an unwieldy Committee, which must be contrary to the spirit of Standing Order No. 86 under which a Committee shall have not more than 50 members.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I consulted the Clerk of the House before making that proposal, and he agreed that there is nothing to stop the House making such a rule if it so wished. The advantage of the system is that it retains the requirement to which the Minister referred—that, where possible, every Welsh Member should be able to take part.
  Mr. Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I doubt whether there is any precedent for doing it. The House can do what it wants. I feel that it would be at variance with the way in which things have been done before to have such a large Committee. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for one thing. He was the first speaker, apart from me, to acknowledge that there is a serious inconsistency in Standing Order No. 86 that has to be dealt with. That is what the motion will achieve.
  Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to assert that the Standing Orders of the House have an inherent contradiction within them that makes them inoperable?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems to me to be a double negative. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rethink his point.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was concerned about the precedents that the debate was establishing. I do not regard what we are doing as setting a precedent. I cannot do anything that will bind the House in the future. Whatever we choose to do is entirely a matter for the House of Commons. I can say no more or less.
  Mr. Michael: I must make it clear that I was asking the hon. Gentleman, not to bind the House, but to bind the Government in relation to the important Bills on the Welsh language and the reorganisation of local government structure in Wales. The Minister comes to the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government and I ask him to bind them, not the House.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not catch my earlier remarks, but I know that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) did. It always remains for the House to decide what it will do on future occasions. I can say no more and no less than that. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Caerphilly echoed the concern expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
  Mr. Michael: If the Minister had the authority to do so, he could say that neither he nor his ministerial colleagues would seek to exempt the application of the Standing Order to the Committee stage of the Bills on the Welsh language and Welsh local government. That would greatly assist the House. Surely the Government can give that assurance now. If the Government wish to show respect to the House and accept the important points of principle that we raised about those two Bills, it is open to the Minister to offer that assurance on their behalf.
  Mr. Jones: I have been clear and concise. Whatever the legislation, I cannot commit the House. It will be for the House to consider the issue as and when specific legislation is discussed.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister should think again about my suggestion. He rejected it, but he accepted that, according to the advice of the Clerks, it is procedurally possible and appropriate. Can he quote any precedent for what the Government are now doing by forcing through a change against the wishes of the Welsh Members?
  Mr. Jones: I have already dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that we can proceed on an unopposed basis; that is what I am seeking to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to do.
  Finally, I must refer to my old school chum, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I should congratulate him on making his shortest and most concise contribution to date on the Bill. I even detected a note of sympathy in his speech, as he conceded that we must find the best way forward. However, I do not accept his argument that the motion represents in the Standing Order that I cannot see. His sum case was for the preservation of an inconsistency—in itself an inconsistency that should not be allowed.
  The motion represents the best way forward and the best response to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West it is a far better answer than that which he proposed. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 86.

  Division No. 27]

  [11.48 pm

  Ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Colvin, Michael

  Amess, David

  Congdon, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Devlin, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Graham

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Roger

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gallie, Phil

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardiner, Sir George

  274

  Garnier, Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gorst, John

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Hague, William

  Porter, Davie (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Richards, Rod

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Harris, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hendry, Charles

  Speed, Keith

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stern, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Stewart, Allan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sykes, John

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kilfedder, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thomason, Roy

  Knapman, Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Tracey, Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Trend, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Legg, Barry

  Viggers, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Walden, George

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Lidington, David

  Waller, Gary

  Lightbown, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Watts, John

  Lord, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Luff, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wilkinson, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Willetts, David

  Mans, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Marlow, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Wood, Timothy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Merchant, Piers

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Moss, Malcolm

  NOES

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  275

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Miller, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hain, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hall, Mike

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hanson, David

  Prescott, John

  Heppell, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hutton, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lewis, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Watson, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McCartney, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wise, Audrey

  Mahon, Alice

  Wright, Tony

  Marek, Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michael, Alun

  Mr. Ted Rowlands and

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Mr. Win Griffiths.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

  Employment and Training
  11.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February, in the last Session of Parliament be approved.
  The proposals seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to raise a levy on employers in the engineering construction industry to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals provide for a levy based on the payroll of employers and their use of subcontract labour. They cover both the site and head office employment and also provide protection for smaller employers. The proposals have the support of the employers—as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982—and the full support of the board.
  The engineering construction industry has characteristics that create peculiar training problems. The mobile nature of the work of the industry and its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontractors and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances in that sector of the engineering industry. For those reasons, the industry argued strongly for the need to retain statutory arrangements, including the power to impose a levy on employers. They argued that that was the best way of ensuring that sufficient numbers of new entrants were trained and brought into the industry, and that the skills of existing workers were kept up to date.
  We were persuaded to accept those arguments, and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board was established in its own right in the middle of last year. At the same time, the engineering manufacturing sector opted to set up its own independent arrangements, and was taken out of the statutory system. I am happy to say that the ECITB has worked hard, in partnership with the industry, to meet the manpower and skill needs of that important sector of the economy. Employers in the industry remain firm in their support for the board. That fact will be taken into account when the next review takes place in 1994.
  We were concerned to ensure that statutory burdens on firms were kept to a minimum, and that firms that trained appropriately were rewarded. In the proposals, the small firms threshold has been raised for both head offices and sites. In addition, the exemption scheme has been replaced by a grant scheme designed to reward those employers who train in key skill areas and those who seek investors in people awards. Our preference remains for independent employer-led sector training arrangements, but we accept there are strong arguments for the exceptions to continue. I expect to lay before the House shortly an order to wind up the Road Transport Board.
  Industry training organisations are a vital component of the national training framework, complementing the work of training and enterprise councils at local level, and the Government well recognise the value of their contribution individually, and collectively through their national council. The order will secure the continuation of effective training arrangements in the small but important engineering construction sector as part of the network of sector training arrangements. I commend it to the House.
  12.3 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: We have no intention of dividing the House, but we will take this opportunity to express our concerns about some of the Government's work in the training sector. The order relating to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is moved every year, and another order is moved for the Construction Industry Training Board.
  It is a tragedy that what started as an impressive infrastructure of skills training in the early part of the 1980s has been reduced from 23 boards to two. The key worry about the Government's policies is that this may be one of the last times that an order is moved. The Government are considering reducing the final two boards to what they euphemistically describe as a voluntary situation. We take exception to that and I want to highlight the continuing crisis in skills in Britain and the Government's failure to face up to the reality of that crisis, and to describe some of the deficiencies in Government policies.
  Nearly 100,000 young people are currently without a youth training place. For two reasons, that is a scandal. First, young people have neither training nor a job and, secondly, they have no benefit. The Government can dismiss that by saying that it is a matter for social security, but Britain is now the only country in Europe in which nearly 100,000 young people are not offered training, a job, or benefit. Consequently, they have no hope of securing a place in a society that is still dominated by the work ethic. In this decade the Government have led us to believe that there was an economic miracle. The recently published labour force survey for 1991 shows that there was a fall in the number of people in training in Britain. How can that be when the Government have told us—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the engineering construction board. He must relate at least part of his speech to that.
  Mr. McLeish: The engineering industry has the most impressive record of all industries in training young people. The labour force survey, which I mentioned, includes people of all ages who are training in all industries, including engineering. My speech is germane not only to the engineering industry but to the wider skills crisis that the Government are ignoring. I shall deal with our specific worries about that industry's future.
  The proportion of people in training has gone down from 15.4 per cent. of the population in 1990 to 14.9 per cent. The Government cannot take any comfort from that, because it suggests that, setting aside the quality and qualification issues, there is a volume problem in that the number of people in training is falling. The situation has been dramatically worsened by cuts over the past few years. There is press speculation that the Department of Employment may be forced to make further cuts at a time when the need for skills is great and the need for training for the unemployed is significant. That sets the general context in which any debate on skills should be set.
  The Government response will be, "What about TECs and their local delivery of training?" The innovation of TECs has been warmly welcomed by all hon. Members. The Government have invested in them as a flagship policy, but TECs can function properly only if they have a clearly focused policy and the right resources to
  278
  undertake their tasks. One of those tasks is much better and more effective co-ordination with sector organisations such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.
  The Government have invested a great deal of time and resources in TECs, but have given no time whatever to the development of sector policy which is important in other European countries. They have simply tinkered with the problems surrounding the skills crisis. Voluntarism is a euphemism for the market model, and it is failing Britain, young people, our skilled engineering sectors and the unemployed. At a time of economic crisis the Government will make matters worse by further cuts in training expenditure. Why will the Department of Employment and the Government not look at the deep-seated, long-term structural problems that Britain faces? It is not a partisan issue. Compared with every competitor country in Europe and the Pacific rim and with America and Japan, we lag behind on the key indicator of skills.
  Many hoped that after 13 years of Conservative Government—like many other parties, the Conservative party has extolled the virtues of training—we would see a closing of the gap that has opened between Britain and its European and worldwide competitors. It is sad that that has not happened. The Opposition contend that the wrong agenda is being pursued. If there is any doubt about Britain's position in the 1990s, and there is, we must compete, produce and improve our economic performance by ensuring that along with our TECs, which are good for local delivery and which tackle a wide range of issues, we have strong, responsive and well-funded sector initiatives. There are real fears among members of the CITB, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and the newly established Employment Training Authority that the Government are not interested in and committed to seeing through the fundamental changes that will improve our competitive position. I shall quote from the CITB news release of 2 June. The chairman of the board, Sir Clifford Chetwood was talking to the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicans when he said:
  "Without a statutory levy the board would not be able to afford to pay grants to employers using approved courses."
  That is not a socialist speaking. Sir Clifford has a wide knowledge of the construction industry. He has constantly lectured the Government on the wisdom of having a statutory framework, and up to now the Government have accepted that argument.
  The argument that the Government have used to support the CITB has been deployed to support the existence of the ECITB, and that is the need for a statutory framework that provides a levy. Two reviews are taking place of the future of the boards and it is against that background that I say categorically that if the membership of the boards and the employers within the industry want to continue with the statutory framework, they should be allowed to do so. I hope that the Minister will respond to that when he replies to the debate, for the issue is crucial to confidence for the future. I hope that the Minister is taking notes as he laughs his way through. We are facing a crisis and the level of debate from the Government Front Bench is pathetic, as is the support that is being given to important boards that are trying to do important work.
  I shall mention some of the achievements of the ECITB. Despite the recession, it is undertaking 26 per cent. more training this year than in the previous year. It has concerns

  279
  about the future, however, because of the Government's menacing approach to anything that smacks of statutory provision. When will the Minister start to put the skills needs of the nation above the political dogmas of his party? Unlike Germany, France, Japan and Korea, we have a Government who are not committed to the policies that Britain and its economy need. That is sad.
  Reviews are being undertaken and I hope that the Government will listen and not lecture. I hope also that they will acknowledge experts who are at the frontiers of new provision, who are doing an excellent job and who are in a better position to tell the Government what is happening than the Government are to tell the experts what they should be doing. It is fundamental that we should have a commitment to allow the boards to continue, if they so wish, with a statutory framework.
  It is clear that training is a market failure. Anyone who has examined the history of Britain's economy over the century, or over a longer period, will readily admit that training is a market failure. Against that background, it seems ludicrous that the responses have not overcome the failure but have reinforced it by rejecting a statutory framework and introducing voluntarism regardless of the consequences.
  Twenty-three training boards became seven and now there are two, both of which are faced with an uncertain future. There is a crisis of confidence within the boards, which the Government could easily alleviate by making it clear that they intend to listen, as I have suggested.
  It is tragic that we can debate such issues only on a order continuing the levy. I challenge the Government to hold a debate on the wider issues that affect skills training which we cannot consider this evening.
  I want to suggest a number of key issues that should start to shape Government policy. The first is the rejection of voluntarism, which is not working. Every statistic suggests that we have a gender gap, a regional gap and a widening gap between ourselves and our international competitors. When will the Government realise that the market failure in training must be treated with a combination of the marvellous response that we see from private and public employers and from a Government who are willing to invest their time and energy in providing a statutory framework, which our more successful competitor countries have?
  The second issue is public investment. It is a measure of Britain in the 1990s that we are still having a debate on public investment. All the signs are that the public expenditure round, which is under way, will be tough on training. Given the crisis in skills, the Government cannot run away from their responsibilities by pretending that the Treasury is holding a pistol to their head and is saying that they will have to shave off further expenditure on YT, ET or TECs. It simply does not add up. I challenge the Government to say that in the public investment round the Secretary of State for Employment will not only fight her corner but will seek extra resources in a key area for Britain's success in the 1990s.
  My third point is that, despite the market rhetoric of the Government, the key to success is the individual. The Government have failed to empower the individual to take advantage of training. They have talked and talked—a bit like their attitude to child care: they talk a lot but action
  280
  is limited. Why do not they accept that unless we can motivate and empower individuals we shall make little impact on skills problems?
  Mr. Phil Gallie: We have heard many words from the hon. Gentleman, but on what facts are they based? Until recently, I worked in engineering and in industry. I found the standards of our young people exceptionally high. I had little problem in finding the skills that were required. Employers are increasingly putting cash and resources into training. What we are hearing from the hon. Member is nothing but words.
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has strayed quite wide. I have been rather tolerant, considering what the Chairman of Ways and Means said earlier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to the narrow subject of the motion.
  Mr. McLeish: I shall, and I hope to respond to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Training impacts on engineering and construction, yet the Government never want to discuss training. The impact on engineering and construction should be discussed widely, even under an apparently limited order.
  I could give the hon. Member for Ayr volumes of statistics from the CITB—the Government's labour force—from Europe and from the Employment Gazette contradicting his argument. Britain is not producing enough volume. It certainly is not producing enough quality and, although engineering is doing extremely well in the recession, it is not enough to narrow the skills gap between ourselves and Europe in intermediate qualifications, in the training of young people and in the reskilling of old people. There is no dispute—the statistics show that the Government face a crisis, but they are doing nothing about it.
  The fourth issue is that of intermediate qualifications. The key in any sector, whether engineering or construction, is to have more and more people with what in this country we call A-level and equivalent qualifications. In the engineering and construction sectors we must have more people at that intermediate stage because that is the area in which the Japanese, for example, invest. They know that the extra 0.5 per cent. added to value means that the economy and production are enhanced in terms not only of volume but of quality.
  I have no hesitation in saying that the main message to the Government is that voluntarism is not working. They should listen carefully to the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board before embarking on a review based on the dogma of the Conservative party rather than on the skill needs of the nation. That is crucial, and I look forward to the Government finding a day of their own time for us to debate the issues so that hon. Members can debate them more fully than we have been able to do this evening.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) accused me of treating the subject lightly, but that is not the case. If anyone is taking it lightly, it is the Labour party, as shown by its massive attendance.

  281
  Before we take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he should look behind him at the great level of support he has. We certainly do not take lightly the training of young people in industry. We take it seriously, which is why we are giving more money than has ever been given before; but, of course, discussions will take place in the usual expenditure round.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I have no intention of pre-empting the reviews that are under way, but I can say that the Government are not being dogmatic about the way to proceed. We are looking to independent training organisations in industry where that is the best solution. As I have made clear, where that is not the best way to proceed we are open to representations. We shall be listening very carefully during the reviews. The statutory system has not worked properly so it is right to look for new methods. If they are the best way forward we shall accept them. We shall not be stuck to dogma like the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was correct. We regularly hear the Labour party whinge.
  The order has general support and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February. in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Employment and Training

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Mike Hall be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Boswell.]

  Mr. Michael Cook
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Boswell.]
  12.23 am
  Dr. Robert Spink: Rachel, a 9-year-old girl, was murdered by strangulation in a car on the Algarve in Portugal in November 1990. Michael Cook, a friend of Rachel's family, was convicted of the murder in February this year and sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment. He was tried by three local judges without a jury. The House will hear that the conviction is unsafe.
  I must start with every possible word of sympathy for Rachel and her family. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) is here because of his concern for his constituent, the victim's mother.
  There can be no greater evil than such a crime. I would not defend in any way a child murderer, but I will defend my constituent's right to a fair trial. My responsibility and my job tonight is to highlight the possibility that my constituent may be the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. Some say that Cook is innocent; some say that the police investigation was inadequate. Some say that the trial verdict was so lacking supporting evidence as to be incredible. Some say that Cook has been tortured and mistreated. Those are not questions which the House can or should decide. In truth, I do not know whether Cook is innocent or guilty. What I do know is that many questions are raised by the case which have the most serious implications, not only for Michael Cook, but for all British subjects travelling abroad.
  Let us review some of the evidence. There was, understandably, immense local pressure to clear up this horrible crime. An unsolved child murder would frighten away tourists. An elderly Portuguese gardener said that he saw the murderer and the murder car. He said that the car was red with foreign plates. Cook had such a car. It was alleged that Cook's car tyre marks were found where the body was discovered, and on that prime tyre mark evidence Cook was arrested. It was claimed by the police that Cook had a child-molesting record and that he had confessed to the crime: they had their man. The public furore and the subsequent relief at Cook's arrest were surpassed only by the total outrage against him.
  Let us examine the initial key facts. After nine months in gaol, Cook got two good lawyers and it was quickly discovered that the prime—indeed the only—hard evidence linking Cook to the murder was bogus. The tyre marks were of an entirely different type from those of Cook's car. It is also claimed that Cook's car does not have the ground clearance needed for the area where Rachel was found.
  Similarly, no confession was ever presented at the trial. It had been claimed by police that two officers heard the confession. One remembered it clearly; the second denied all recollection of it. One would not expect to forget such a thing easily.
  Cook appeared in court, with black eyes and a missing tooth, and he was deeply bruised. It is claimed that Cook was hung from an upstairs window by his feet, that his feet were beaten until he could not stand, that he was tied to a chair and beaten, that he was deprived of sleep, and that a revolver was forced into his mouth and the trigger pulled in a mock execution. Cook's lawyers were said to be pushing for the release of a television video report which

  283
  allegedly showed police beating Cook. Those lawyers were involved in a tragic accident involving a front tyre blow-out which, incidentally, it is claimed has never been properly investigated by the police. In that untimely accident, Dr. da Silva was killed and Dr. Coelho was severely injured.
  What of the final piece of the early evidence—Cook's record as a child molester? It too is quite bogus. At the trial, the police tried to rescue some credibility on the point. An officer said that Cook had been seen abusing a child a few weeks before Rachel's murder. One might wonder why that was not mentioned at the time. Nevertheless, the judge asked the officer how he knew that. The officer replied that someone, unnamed, had told him. The judge accepted that so-called "evidence" as clear and unequivocal. I must inform the House that I know of no evidence that Cook has ever posed any threat to children.
  I do know of evidence suggesting that Cook is safe and trustworthy with children. I am not aware of any conspiracy and I make no allegations. However, it must be said that Cook was a good target to be "fitted up". He has a minor criminal record and he was working unregistered on the Algarve in the motor trade. Indeed, he may have hung himself as his initial account to the police of his movements could have been inconsistent because he thought that he was being questioned about a petty crime.
  Let me return to the old gardener—there is always an old gardener in such tales. He changed his story at least twice; his memory, it seems, was greatly assisted by the police. The car was indeed red and foreign, he said; but so was Rachel's stepfather's car, and many others in the area. He also saw Cook talking to Rachel. Cook was, he said, wearing sunglasses, although it would have been almost dark at the time.
  The gardener had no difficulty, however, in picking out Cook from an identification parade—at least, not after the police had specifically pointed Cook out to him, asking, "Is that the man?" Not that that was necessary; Cook was a white, 5-ft-tall, slightly built Englishman, while the rest of the parade consisted of burly, dark, Portuguese policemen who were obviously of Mediterranean origin.
  Hon. Members may be horrified to learn that, much earlier than that parade—indeed, the day after the body was found—Cook was shown to the gardener by the local police, and the gardener said that Cook was not the man whom he had seen on the fateful day in question. He changed his story. Clearly, the police case needed boosting, so the most incredible thing happened: a reconstruction of the crime was forced on Cook.
  The police said that, in the reconstruction, Cook had shown them the exact positions in which they had found Rachel's school bag and shoes. They said that those items had been thrown by Cook from a fast-moving car over many kilometres on a country road down which he can seldom have been before, some weeks after the alleged event. Even the police blushed when they told that one in court.
  Let me now review the harrowing scene of the crime. Again, I sincerely apologise to the victim's family, but this has to be done. A pathologist stated that Rachel struggled furiously for her life in the front passenger seat of a car; it
  284
  took four to eight minutes to kill her by strangulation. Rachel naturally fought hard, and had the blood of her murderer under her fingernails.
  No sophisticated DNA or type matching of the samples was ever presented to court. No evidence was ever presented even to show the simple blood group of the murderer. Such basic blood-group evidence could not have proved that Cook was the murderer, but it could most assuredly have proved his innocence. Hon. Members may feel very uncomfortable about the fact that that evidence was lost, and we should ask why it was lost—or, worse, why it was not used.
  What, then, of the other forensic evidence? We can all imagine the horrific struggle—that frantic four or eight minutes. Surely the car would exhibit many clues; law experts feel that that must be so. Incredibly, however, not a single link was found between Cook's car and Rachel, or her clothes. The Sunday Times stated:
  "Not a single hair, fibre, bloodstain or sign of damage was found in Cook's car. And Police did not find it unusual that Cook had not cleaned the entire car in an effort to erase prints … When the body was found, no forensic search was made of the area and no tests were carried out on a bloodstain seen under a fingernail. The body was cremated within days and without extensive forensic examination."
  Therefore, the defence was denied the possibility of conducting the necessary independent tests. Is not that beyond belief?
  Let me now turn to the pathologist's evidence, starting with the astonishing point that the report was tampered with. It has lost—for ever, it seems—its important front page, which gave, among other information, the time of death. The pathologist, apparently, is now unavailable.
  The Sunday Times reported:
  "Such post mortem work that was done was minimal".
  However, a pathologist hired by the defence who examined Rachel's organs said that she might have been killed 24 or 30 hours before her body was discovered, which apparently indicates that she may have been held alive by her murderer for up to two days. She was discovered four days after she disappeared. Cook was first in police hands the day after she disappeared.
  That brings us to the alibi evidence and suggests that Cook had the best possible alibi—he was in very close contact with or in the custody of the police, but the judges dismissed that, the pathologist's evidence. Moreover, there was the condition of Rachel and her clothes when found. They were clean and dry. That is consistent with the defence pathologist's findings. The weather had been dry the day Rachel was found, but the previous days had been wet, thus suggesting that Rachel had been dumped only the day she was found.
  That evidence was also disallowed by the judges. They chose, as they can under Portuguese law, to refuse to hear some evidence. In a trivial case, that may have been justified, but, in the circumstances, hon. Members may feel that that was an extraordinary piece of selectivity. What is even more remarkable, though, is that the person who found Rachel's body was never called to give evidence, and therefore his evidence was denied to the defence.
  Additional alibi evidence comes from Cook's workmates, who saw him a maximum of 10 minutes after he was said to be seen by the man on the horse at the place of the body. The times were precise and checked, but the distance of the two sightings put them a minimum of 12 minutes

  285
  apart, with no allowance for any other activity at all. That would have been impossible to achieve. That evidence was also rejected.
  According to the pathologist, Rachel was strangled with a nylon rope. A nylon rope, a jumper matching the one Rachel was wearing and a blanket which was covered with pine needles, as was Rachel's body, were all seen in a car, but not Cook's car. They were seen in Rachel's stepfather's red foreign car. The police did not investigate or use that evidence.
  The stepfather certainly had a violent nature at times. Rachel's mother was said by a neighbour sometimes to flee to her home for sanctuary with the neigbour and to stay there with her overnight out of fear of her stepfather's violence. Several people say that they saw scratch marks on the side of the stepfather's face and his arm the day after Rachel disappeared. Some have pointed a finger at the stepfather, but the House cannot and must not assume anything—that would be quite wrong. In a further twist, the stepfather died tragically precisely one year to the day after Rachel was killed, the third death in this story. Therefore, his confession cannot be tested. I raise those points not to incriminate in any way Rachel's stepfather but only to illustrate, as is my clear duty, the late evening shadow of doubt which is cast over the conviction of my constituent.
  I now refer briefly to the trial and verdict. We have seen that there was no jury and that the three judges were local. They were inexperienced in trying such an unusual case. In Portugal, judges arc able to dictate entirely what evidence they will admit and what they will refuse even to hear. With so much evidence lost, destroyed or refused by the judges, Cook's trial was fatally flawed.
  The basis of the judges' verdict was made clear in their summing-up. There was a total lack of hard forensic evidence, but sadly there was no lack of hearsay. For instance, members of the Portuguese Institute of Fingerprints told the court the judges said "with conviction", that Cook's way of life and his friendship with Rachel's family indicated that he was the murderer. Sadly, those fingerprints experts produced no fingerprint evidence.
  The judges implied that no motive whatsoever was found, and Cook was not accused of any particular motive. There was no sexual interference of any kind with Rachel. In Portuguese law, first-degree murder requires a motive and premeditation, I understand. They seemed curiously absent. The judges said nothing of substance that I can find in the translation of their summary, except that, as Cook knew the family, he must be the murderer. I turn, briefly, to the appeal. The hearing may not take place until June 1993. That delay, would be intolerable. The appeal cannot question the evidence produced at the trial. That evidence, such as it is, with all its flaws, is considered to be irrefutable. For instance, the police evidence that Cook was a child molester cannot be questioned. Yet we know that it should be.
  In the appeal lawyers may question only the admissibility of the evidence under Portuguese law. That raises yet a further grave misgiving because incredibly Cook and his lawyers are not allowed to attend the appeal. Those in the House who believe that justice should be seen to be done may be staggered by that revelation. As my predecessor Sir Bernard Braine wrote:
  "There is little likelihood that even by the Appeal justice will be done".
  286
  Presumably the matter can be argued in the European Court later. Meanwhile, I have three objectives for the debate. First, I wish to bring pressure on the Portuguese authorities about the possible miscarriage of justice and to allow the earliest possible appeal consistent with a fair and safe hearing. Secondly, I wish to prevent any torture or mistreatment of Cook and to signal to all nations that human rights must be upheld. Thirdly, I wish to thank the Foreign Office for its help and advice so far, which has been professional and appropriate—no blame can lie with it—and I ask the Minister to provide a monthly written report from the British consular staff on Cook's physical and mental condition. In addition to those three things, I seek a general review of the help which consular staff give to British citizens arrested abroad.
  In summary, there are substantial grounds to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. First, the conduct of the police investigation is in question. Secondly, the conduct of the trial and the basis of the verdict are in question. Thirdly, I place full trust in the Portuguese justice system to ensure that the appeal is fair. Fourthly, there are grounds to question the physical and mental treatment of Cook. Fifthly, the European Court and the European human rights body may eventually need to intervene if the appeal cannot answer the many questions raised. But I trust that that will not be necessary.
  I understand that Cook is considering starting a hunger strike. That would hamper my efforts and I most strongly urge him not to do so, particularly in his poor physical condition. We are told that he is prematurely grey. His bodyweight is down to seven stones. He is skeletal. He has three ulcers. His remaining teeth are rotted. He is withdrawn and paranoid. As a child murderer he has suffered many attacks in prison. He bears two knife scars and many burns scars to prove it. He is alone in a foreign gaol, unable to speak the language. He needs our help. But I stress again that we cannot judge the case from our position here.
  I sincerely thank the Minister for his advice and support so far, which is also much appreciated by the family. All British citizens must know that, when their back is against the wall and all seems lost and they feel that the world has deserted them, there is a place—this honourable House—where their basic human rights will be upheld and that there are men and women who will fight for their rights, including their right to a fair trial. My fight does not end here tonight. Here, indeed, it begins.
  12.43 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for bringing this important case to its attention. I note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who represents his constituent, the mother of Rachel Charles.
  I should like to outline the action taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Michael Cook and his family since his arrest. On 5 December 1990 the British consulate in Portimao was informed that Michael Cook had been arrested the previous day for the murder of Rachel Charles. The consulate was told that he had confessed and would be taken before a judge on 6 December to be formally charged. The Portimao consul visited him on 6 December. On that occasion he said that

  287
  he was being well treated and had no complaints. A Portuguese police officer was present throughout that meeting.
  On 10 December the Portimao consul had a private meeting with Michael Cook. On that occasion Mr. Cook said that he had been beaten twice: once when detained for questioning on 22 November and subsequently after his arrest on 4 December. He said that he had confessed under duress. He claimed to have been beaten on the chest and feet; this, he said, explained why there were no signs of ill treatment.
  On the following day, at the consul's insistence, Michael Cook was asked by the prison staff whether he wished to see a doctor so that a formal complaint about his mistreatment could be made. He declined to do so. Also on 11 December the British consul in Lisbon told Mr. Cook's Portuguese lawyer that the embassy would make a formal complaint if Mr. Cook wished. The offer was not taken up either by the lawyer or by Mr. Cook during subsequent visits by the Portimao consul. Thus, no medical examination to substantiate the allegations or otherwise took place.
  From 11 December 1990 to 30 January 1992 when his trial began, Michael Cook was visited seven more times by consular officials. He complained once, in February 1991, of having been threatened verbally by other inmates, but said that the threats had ceased. Twice he complained of suffering from mental stress and three times from ulcer problems. The British consul on those occasions sought and received assurances from the prison governor that Mr. Cook would receive the necessary treatment.
  The consuls from Lisbon and Portimao attended the first day of Michael Cook's trial, and the Portimao consul attended the last day, 7 February 1992.
  On 19 February Michael Cook's brother, Colin Cook, rang the embassy in Lisbon to say that he had heard that Michael Cook had been stabbed in prison in Faro. The embassy immediately made inquiries. It was assured that Michael Cook had not been stabbed, although he had been involved in an argument over cigarettes with another prisoner.
  The following day the vice-consul from Lisbon visited Mr. Cook. Although physically all right, he was understandably extremely upset over the trial verdict. The prison governor gave assurances for M r. Cook's safety. On 4 March 1992, Michael Cook was transferred to Coimbra high security prison, about 110 miles north of Lisbon.
  During that month, the consul and vice-consul drew the attention of officials at the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the great degree of British ministerial, official and public concern about Michael Cook's case. On 8 March The Sunday Times published an article reporting that Mr. Cook had been ill treated at the hands of other prisoners. The pro-consul in Lisbon looked into those allegations without delay. He contacted the prison governor on 10 March to register the embassy's concern for Michael Cook's safety and welfare. He was assured that there was no evidence of ill-treatment.
  Later that day, the vice-consul spoke to Mr. Cook by telephone. Mr. Cook said that one inmate—not a cellmate—had uttered a verbal threat, but that he had not been physically attacked. He mentioned that he was suffering from a stomach ulcer and had dental problems. In
  288
  response to this, the vice-consul said that the embassy would write to the prison governor about these problems. A letter was sent on 13 March.
  On 6 April Coimbra prison confirmed to the embassy that Michael Cook had been given a full-time job in the prison car paint workshop. It also confirmed that he had seen a doctor about his ulcer and had been put on a special diet. He had also seen a dentist.
  On 16 April, the consul visited Michael Cook for two hours in a private room. Mr. Cook confirmed that he had gained some weight as a result of his special diet, and did not wish to have any matter raised with the prison authorities.
  Michael Cook recently told his parents that he had been taken to see a psychiatrist. He was under the impression that the prison was trying to have him committed to a mental home, which would make it even more difficult for him to prove his innocence. Coimbra prison has told the consul that Michael Cook did not in fact see a psychiatrist. He was taken to see a specialist about his stomach ulcer. Unfortunately, it appears that the prison mistakenly translated "specialist" for "psychiatrist" when talking to Mr. Cook. The consul will visit Mr. Cook again on 19 June.
  I have described the full support given by the consuls in Portimao and Lisbon. Prisoners Abroad, an admirable organisation run by our former colleague in the House, Keith Best, has been in regular contact with Michael Cook and is giving him full support.
  I know that Michael Cook, his family and others believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I can well understand their concern, but, whatever we may think, it would be wrong for me to express an opinion on the conduct of the trial while an appeal is pending. If the lawyers believe that the case has not been dealt with in accordance with Portuguese law, it is their responsibility to take appropriate steps. Portuguese law provides for this and, indeed, the lawyers have submitted an appeal on Michael Cook's behalf. They have told the British embassy that the Portuguese supreme court has accepted the appeal and that, in their view, the appeal process is proceeding satisfactorily.
  On 19 February Colin Cook complained to the British consul in Lisbon that the trial violated article 6 of the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. On examination, he agreed that the European convention can be brought into play only when all local remedies have been exhausted. We are keeping in close touch with Mr. Cook's lawyers and the Portuguese authorities. We are asking them to do what they can to ensure that Michael Cook's appeal is heard by the supreme court with the minimum delay. Our ambassador in Lisbon wrote to the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 3 June to press this point, and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend as soon as I have a reply.
  I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this case, but I hope that he will understand from what I have said that we cannot intervene until the Portuguese legal process has taken its course. Until then we shall, through our consular officials, continue to visit Mr. Cook regularly and to offer him and his family all the support that we properly can. I shall continue to keep my hon. Friend fully informed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Rudolf Hess
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will now place in the Library a copy of the Jones report into the alleged irregularities surrounding the death of Rudolf Hess in Spandau gaol in August 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The document which the hon. Member refers to as the Jones report is a report submitted by the Metropolitan police to the Director of Public Prosecutions setting out the result of a police investigation into an alleged criminal offence. Such reports are confidential.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Small Shops
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet OPEN, the small shops group.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am considering whether it may be mutually helpful to meet representatives of OPEN later this year.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will undertake to set out the Government's proposed reforms of the Shops Act 1950 before the end of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) whether he has any plans to publish, in broad terms, the reforms he would favour in the Shops Act 1950; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We certainly hope to be able to fulfil before the end of this year our commitment to publishing proposals for reform of the Shops Act 1950 once the legal position is clear. Judgment by the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of the current law on Sunday trading in England and Wales with Community law is at present expected in the early autumn.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners and remand prisoners at Durham prison were transferred to the care of hospitals in each month of the last two years; how many of such prisoners required(a) physical restraint such as handcuffs and (b) constant supervision by local police; what recompense has been made by the prison authorities as a health care purchaser to the providing hospitals; and what is the scale of charges that forms the basis of recompense.
  76
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of prisoners at Durham prison transferred to hospitals in each month of the year 1991–92 is as follows. Figures are not available for the previous year.

  1991–92

  Number

  April

  9

  May

  6

  June

  10

  July

  6

  August

  9

  September

  9

  October

  14

  November

  8

  December

  6

  January

  6

  February

  8

  March

  6

  Total

  97

  All such prisoners were handcuffed to staff on the journey to hospital except where the medical conditions precluded this. None of thse prisoners required constant supervision by the police. Where patient care is provided to prisoners in national health service facilities, the costs are a matter for the prisoner's district health authority of origin.

  Intelligence Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) if he will place the specification of the computer for the national criminal intelligence service in the Library;

  (2) if he will describe each separate index of personal data stored on the computer for the national criminal intelligence service; how many items of data are stored under each index; what is the number of entries in each index; and how many accesses to each index are expected over the coming year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The computer system to support the national criminal intelligence service is still being developed and the functional specification has not yet been finalised.

  Nuclear Weapons Convoys (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to how senior fire officers are being currently trained to deal with an accident involving a nuclear weapons road convoy; and what future training is being considered.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Training for senior officers of fire brigades in contingency planning and co-ordination of the emergency services' action continues to be provided by the Ministry of Defence and at the Fire Service college, which supplements the training in brigades to deal with incidents involving radioactivity.

  Attacks on Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to bring forward proposals to strengthen legislation to punish those who attack and injure policemen carrying out their duties.

  Mr. Jack
  No. The courts already have strong powers to deal with those who attack and injure police officers and
  77
  the Court of Appeal has made it clear that they should use them. The results of a survey of sentences imposed in the last six months of 1991 for assaults on the police demonstrated that the courts recognise that such assaults are despicable and deserve to be punished severely. Immediate custody was imposed for a significantly higher proportion of the assaults on the police covered in the survey than for assaults on all victims in 1990.

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from Mr. David Yallop concerning a posthumous pardon to Derek Bentley: and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Jack
  Mr. Yallop wrote on 14 August 1991 referring to his book "To Encourage The Others" on the case of Derek Bentley and requesting an independent, public inquiry into the case. He was told that the contents of his book would be taken into account and that once inquiries were completed, the Secretary of State would be in a position to decide whether any further action on his part was necessary.

  Mr. Yallop wrote on 21 May inquiring when the outcome of our consideration of the case would be announced. He has been informed that, in addition to the contents of his book, careful consideration is being given to a great deal of other material, including a letter and dossier received on 1 June from solicitors acting for Miss Iris Bentley. He has been advised that an announcement will be made as soon as the Secretary of State is in a position to decide whether any action on his part is justified.

  County Council Elections
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting the postponement or cancellation of county council elections due to be held in Wales in May 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such representations have been received by me. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been approached by both local authority associations in Wales. Decisions on this matter have not yet been made.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is considering instituting the necessary parliamentary action to postpone or cancel the county council elections due to be held in Wales in May 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No decisions have yet been taken in this matter.

  Urban Crime Fund
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the level of funding provided to the Northumbria police force for the urban crime fund initiative.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the original level of funding indicated to the Northumbria police force for the urban crime fund initiative; and what was the figure finally approved.
  78
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  When the urban crime fund initiative was launched on 26 November, it was announced that the three police authorities to benefit would each be eligible for additional funding of up to £3.66 million.

  At the request of the three police authorities concerned, it has been agreed that £3.9 million, £1.3 million for each authority, of the total of £11 million revenue provision may be used for capital projects. The total Exchequer contribution remains unchanged at £11 million.

  Immigration Office, Glasgow
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Glasgow immigration office will be reopened.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Glasgow immigration public inquiry office will be reopened as soon as possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to enable a more flexible transition from temporary immigration permission for the purpose of unpaid child minder for close relatives on compassionate grounds to working holiday visa and vice versa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A person who wishes to come to the United Kingdom for a short period to care for a sick or elderly relative may be admitted as a visitor under the Immigration Rules provided that the immigration officer is satisfied among other things that it will not constitute employment, paid or unpaid, and that the passenger is genuinely seeking entry for the period of the visit as stated. A person who has been admitted as a visitor may qualify to stay on in the United Kingdom as a working holidaymaker if he or she is a young Commonwealth citizen aged 17 to 27 inclusive and meets the other requirements of the rules relating to the working holidaymaker scheme, and vice versa.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter from Stuart Bower sent to his Department on 10 February.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A reply to Mr. Bower's letter has now been sent by my officials. I apologise to Mr. Bower for the delay in replying.

  International Fraud
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise with his counterparts in other European Community and OECD countries the case for binding international agreements to allow investigation of bank accounts in the course of inquiries into international financial fraud.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: We already have arrangements to allow our investigators to pursue financial inquiries overseas. The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 enables us to provide full mutual legal assistance to other countries, including evidence concerning bank accounts, and to obtain such assistance from overseas. In addition, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the director

  79
  of the Serious Fraud Office have powers of their own to investigate international frauds. And we shall shortly be introducing new legislation to extend the jurisdiction of our courts in relation to fraud committed across national boundaries.

  We accept, both in principle and in practice, that bank secrecy should be lifted to allow the investigation of criminal offences. We have argued at the international level, most recently through our membership of the financial action task force on money laundering, against the use of hank secrecy to inhibit action against international criminal activity including money laundering and financial fraud.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Guinness Trials
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much legal aid has been paid to the defendants in the Guinness trials.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To date, over £1.3 million has been paid out of legal aid towards the Crown court costs of the defence in the Guinness trials. However, not all of the expected claims for costs from legal aid or central funds have yet been received by the court and the final amount is yet to be determined.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if a defendant has disposed of the proceeds of the sale of his home, how this affects his eligibility for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal aid regulations provide that if it appears that an applicant for legal aid has deprived himself of or converted any resources in order to reduce the amount of his disposable capital, whether to reduce his liability to pay a contribution towards legal aid or otherwise, these resources shall be treated as part of his resources. Consequently, the applicant may be found to be ineligible for legal aid on financial grounds or any contribution to be paid will he based on the total resources he is deemed to have.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Banks (Audits)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals for legislation under which all banks operating in the United Kingdom would be required to have(a) independent audit committees and (b) internal audit departments.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England's "Banking Act Report 1987–88", laid before the House on 18 May 1988, and the bank's "Statement of Principles" make it clear that the bank is committed to United Kingdom-based banking groups having independent audit committees where this is feasible. The hank also reviews the value of internal audit arrangements when assessing a bank's control and management systems.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the domestic valuations submitted by estate agents for the new council tax have been rejected by the Inland Revenue Valuation Office.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Private contractors are required to value band domestic properties issued in batches and, as at 29 May 1992, 6.3 per cent. of all batches returned to the Valuation Office agency had been rejected.

  Passenger Transport (VAT)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to maintain the zero-rating of value added tax on passenger transport after 1997.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government have maintained, during the single market negotiations, our right to retain the coverage of our current zero rates including domestic passenger transport. The present agreement reached by Finance Ministers covers the period until 1997 without prejudice to what happens thereafter.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a statement on the recoverability of advance corporation tax; how many companies have sought clearance before the payment of a group dividend with advance corporation tax attaching; how many are awaiting clearance; and what is the average waiting time for clearance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Advance corporation tax—ACT—paid by a company in respect of a dividend or other qualifying distribution made in an accounting period may, up to a limit, be set against the company's liability to corporation tax for the accounting period. Where a company has paid more ACT than it can set off in an accounting period, it may carry back the surplus to set against its liability to corporation tax in the previous six years, which may give rise to a repayment of corporation tax for those years. Surplus ACT may also be carried forward indefinitely against future liability to corporation tax.

  Special rules exist to counteract artificial tax advantages, including payment of a tax credit, or non-paymnent of ACT attaching to a dividend, when certain transactions in securities are involved. Companies can seek a clearance from the Inland Revenue that these rules do not apply. In the year to 31 March 1992, the Inland Revenue received about 3,500 such applications, of which less than 10 per cent. involved dividends paid within a group of companies. The average number of all cases awaiting clearance at any time in the six months to 31 March 1992 was 157, most of which did not involve dividends. All cases are processed within 30 days.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the reasons for treating the recovery of advance corporation tax by subsidiaries of group companies differently from the treatment of group companies as one taxpayer.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Companies paying dividends within a group may elect not to pay advance corporation tax on them. Where, however, a parent company pays a dividend,
  81
  it must account for ACT. The parent may either set that ACT against its own liability to corporation tax, or may surrender it to a subsidiary, to be set off against the subsidiary's liability. This may lead to a repayment of corporation tax. Companies within groups may also be entitled to a credit for ACT suffered on the dividend income they receive.

  Within a group, these provisions enable ACT to be paid only by the parent company and for that ACT to be set off against corporation tax within the group.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the interest paid to premium bond holders over the next three years.

  Mr. Nelson
  The general level of interest rates has fallen substantially over the last 18 months. Against that background, I have no plans to increase the rate of interest used for the premium bond prize fund.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those business organisations he has consulted about the new aggregate sales listings for VAT and indicate their concerns.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise consulted businesses very widely. A list is currently being prepared and I shall write to my hon. Friend when it is complete.

  The concerns expressed related to compliance costs and burdens on businesses, and the potential for abuse of commercially sensitive information. These were taken fully into account in EC negotiations, where some significant simplifications were achieved; and in the measures to implement these arrangements in the United Kingdom.

  Intelligence Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the 22 Departments and non-departmental agencies that use the Government data network interchange personal data between themselves via the GDN; and how many of these interchanges are a consequence of using the GDN.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sixteen arrangements for interdepartmental transfer of personal data have been authorised. All are exchanges of staff pay and personnel information between Chessington computer centre and customer departments and use GDN as a means of meeting established requirements. Twenty-nine departments or non-departmental bodies now have access agreements with Racal Data Networks Limited to use GDN.

  Cheques Act 1992
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what publicity he is arranging on the effect of the Cheques Act 1992(a) generally, (b) in cattle auctions, (c) in furniture and art auctions and (d) in motor trade auctions.

  Mr. Nelson
  A press release explaining the effects of the Cheques Act 1992 will be issued on 16 June when the Act comes into effect three months after Royal Assent was given.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and the Crown Estate, in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury has no such responsibilities or duties.

  Where the Crown Estate is the owner of the sea-bed or foreshore in inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land, it fulfils its responsibilities and duties set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961. It also has certain regulatory functions in respect of marine aggregate extraction and fish farming.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have yet received from Lord Justice Bingham a copy of or extracts from his report on BCCI.

  Mr. Nelson
  Lord Justice Bingham has not yet completed his report into the inquiry. Her Majesty's Treasury has received from the inquiry, in accordance with its stated procedures, draft factual passages which are relevant to the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to set up a fund to retire debts owed to commercial banks by lower income countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 15 May, at column 223.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has a data protection co-ordinator responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984. That officer maintains appropriate contact with the office of the Data Protection Registrar in all matters relating to the Act.

  Mersey Tunnel
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was rebated last year to self-employed people claiming against their use of the Mersey tunnel; and what plans there are to extend rebates to all people in employment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much to date has been paid by Peter Clowes and Pamela Clowes on account of damages payable to his Department: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  A court order for interim payment of damages of £6 million was made on 13 April 1992 against Mr. and Mrs. Clowes. Enforcement has been stayed pending any appeal.

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of a carbon tax upon employment prospects.

  Sir John Cope
  The impact of a carbon tax on employment prospects is highly uncertain and would depend on a range of factors. These include the precise nature of the tax and the use made of the additional revenues. However the net impact may well be small, with job losses in some energy-intensive industries offset by gains in other industries which use less energy.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office executive agency for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  1 have set the following key targets for the agency in 1992–93.

  Operational Targets
  Non-domestic rates: to clear 302,000 appeals against the 1990 List of rating valuations and to deal with 222,000 reassessment cases arising because properties have undergone physical changes.
  Council Tax: to complete the valuation banding of domestic properties. The Agency will undertake 4.3 million valuations directly and supervise private sector contractors in the valuation of a further 4.8 million properties.
  Direct Taxes: to undertake 120,000 valuation cases for the Inland Revenue concerning Inheritance and Capital Gains Taxes and Stamp Duty.
  Other: to undertake 135,000 property and land valuations for other Government Departments, public bodies and local authorities.

  Financial Performance and Cost Efficiency
  to limit the Agency's net expenditure to its Main Estimates figure of £1.365 million; to achieve efficiency savings of approximately 2.5 per cent. on its gross expenditure; and to rationalise the number of its local offices from 121 to 113.

  Citizens' Charter
  to reply to 90 per cent. of all correspondence within 28 days of receipt; to publish a supplement to the Taxpayers' Charter to cover all Valuation Office work; and by June 1992 to complete a trial extension of local office opening hours.

  Further details of the performance measures and targets are set out in the agency's business plan for 1992–93, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Relocation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the terms on which civil servants are moved in the public interest.
  84
  Mr. Dorrell
  At present civil servants moving home in the public interest are entitled to a wide range of financial assistance. This package will be improved for those small number of staff who find, as a result of their move, that the proceeds of the sale of their old property are not sufficient to repay their mortgage. Departments and agencies will have the freedom to offer such staff loans, at commercial rates of interest, repayable on the same terms as the existing scheme for making advances of salary for house purchases. Departments and agencies will also, in particularly difficult cases, be free to offer advances of salary to meet mortgage shortfalls, on the same terms as the advances of salary offered to meet bridging loan shortfalls.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Staff Salaries
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) of 20 May,Official Report, column 143, what is the total monthly cost of the salaries and other costs to public funds of the staff in the Clerk's Department employed on duties principally related to departmental Select Committees.

  Mr. Beith
  The total monthly cost to public funds of the salaries and other expenses of staff in the Clerk's Department employed on duties principally related to departmental Select Committees is estimated to be £175,862. This figure includes superannuation and employer's national insurance contributions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list(a) the number of officials by rank and grade and (b) the number of consultants attending the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, giving details of their class of travel and the total budgeted cost of the delegation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom delegation will consist of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister for Overseas Development, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, and 25 officials from DOE, FCO, ODA, DTI, and the Forestry Commission. Official gradings are:

  Number

  Senior Grade

  8

  Counsellor/equivalent

  5

  First Secretary/equivalent

  11

  Third Secretary

  1

  In addition, there are five members of the delegation attached to our diplomatic posts in Brazil. Their gradings are:

  85

  Number

  Senior Grade

  1

  Counsellor

  1

  First Secretary

  1

  Second Secretary

  2

  Eight junior support staff will also attend the conference, as well as 12 non-governmental organisation—NGO—observers who will form part of the United Kingdom delegation.

  The staff involved will be needed to service not only the plenary sessions of the conference but the specialised sectoral working groups that will be set up and where much of the detailed negotiating will be done. So far, eight informal working groups have been convened and others will be assembled if necessary. Other staff are required to provide office support facilities and to liaise with the local authorities over such matters as transport and security.

  Ministers, their private secretaries and the ambassador to the United Nations will travel first class, all other delegates will travel club class. The estimated cost of the delegation's travel and subsistence, including hotel costs, will be about £190,000. NGOs will he responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.

  The estimated total administrative cost of the conference, including office facilities, transport and communications, and so on will be about £500,000.

  Albania
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has given the Albanian Government with regard to setting up a legal system and the establishment of a legal profession.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office paid the travel costs and expenses for a delegation from the British Albanian Legal Association to visit Tirana in April 1992 to hold seminars on the theory and practice of running a legal profession.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will extend the know how fund to Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is under active consideration.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the entertainment budget of the British ambassador in Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of —12,628 per annum.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much annual expenditure is incurred in respect of the British embassy in Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The latest confirmed figure, for 1990–91, is £1,345,935.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of vehicles owned by Her Majesty's Government or hired by Her Majesty's Government situated at the British embassy in Abu Dhabi.
  86
  Mr. Goodlad
  There are five official vehicles at the British embassy in Abu Dhabi, three owned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and two by the Ministry of Defence. Vehicles are hired to replace one of these only in the event of breakdown.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik David Aptecman and his family of Moscow.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of David Aptecman and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no direct responsibility for United Kingdom coastal policy, but provides advice to other Government Departments on the international implications of Her Majesty's Government's maritime policy and monitors the policy of other governments, particularly in relation to the law of the sea.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989; and if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Antarctica.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are fully committed to implementation of the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty. Ratification of the protocol and repeal of the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 will depend on the introduction of legislation to give effect to the provisions of the protocol.

  We shall introduce legislation when the business of the House permits.

  Croatia
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to establish diplomatic relations with Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is under active consideration.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the Maastricht agreement have been made available to members of the public; and whether a charge was made for each copy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  While the treaty on European union was being prepared for publication more than 1,000
  87
  copies of the text were made available to Parliament. Copies were also made available free of charge to members of the public on request from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Some 100 copies were sent out.

  The treaty was published as a Command Paper—Cm 1934—on 7 May and is available from HMSO at a cost of £13.30. A total of 2,500 copies have been printed, of which 400 were sent to Parliament.

  Yugoslav Assets
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to freeze assets of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, now controlled by Serbia, held in the United Kingom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Treasury took action to block Serbian and Montenegran assets held in the United Kingdom with effect from 1 June. Directions were made under the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964.

  An Order in Council was made on 4 June which implements the full range of sanctions under United Nations Security Council resolution 757 and includes provisions covering the assets freeze secured by the Treasury directions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making further visits to many parts of the country and hopes to include different parts of London among them.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gavria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his assessment of the likely outcome of the Earth summit in Rio.

  The Prime Minister
  I am committed to the success of the Earth summit and will attend the meeting with other world leaders.

  We shall sign the framework convention on climate change and have joined with other members of the European Community in urging all countries to sign and ratify it as soon as possible thereafter. This convention will be a significant first step in tackling the global problems of climate change.
  88
  We shall also sign the convention on biodiversity, which should provide an initial step in protecting natural habitats and the range of species throughout the world. This will be subject to satisfactory arrangements that take full account of our concern about financial commitments.

  We have already announced that we will provide new and additional financial resources through the global environment facility to assist developing countries in meeting the incremental costs of their commitments under the convention.

  We hope that an effective statement of principles on the sustainable development of the world's forests will be agreed and a process to follow the principles up.

  Agenda 21 provides a coherent framework for action by all to achieve more sustainable types of development and growth. We attach great importance to its agreement at the meeting. We hope that it will contain a declaration of basic principles and that stronger machinery will be established to carry forward work at a national and international level.

EDUCATION

  International Education Programme
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has about the international educational programme which places students from abroad in United Kingdom schools.

  Mr. Forman
  The Intercultural Educational Programme—IEP—is a registered charity which promotes intercultural learning through exchange programmes for students, workers, teachers, families and youth groups throughout the world. IEP is the United Kingdom national office of AFS Intercultural Programs, an American based exchange organisation which has offices throughout the world.

  As part of its activities, IEP organises placements which enable 15 to 18-year-old pupils from abroad to spend a period, usually one academic year, living with a British family and attending a local school. Similar placements are also organised for United Kingdom pupils abroad.

  Dysentery
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement concerning the recent cases of dysentery at the school in Seaham in 1991 and the schools in Easington in 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I understand, however, that there is no evidence to suggest that the reported cases originated at the schools attended by the children.

  Ealing Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce his decision on the schools' reorganisation proposals put to him by Ealing council and the churches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend proposes to reach a decision on the outstanding proposals in respect of the county and voluntary schools as soon as possible after his
  89
  decision on the statutory proposals from the grant-maintained secondary schools to change their age of admission from 12 to 11. He hopes that will be in the course of the summer.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will establish a quality audit of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government are committed to ensuring that effective quality assurance arrangements exist in higher education. One element, in line with the policy set out in Cm 1561, will be a United Kingdom-wide higher education quality council established by higher education institutions collectively. This will have three units, devoted to quality audit, quality enhancement and credit and access. The council has been developed in discussion with my Department. I am confident that it will do a good job.

  European Cultural Commissioner
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what draft directives affecting what may be taught in schools are being considered by the Cultural Commissioner of the EEC.

  Mr. Forman
  None.

  Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the aggregate number of students by full-time equivalent by college studying in further education colleges for the academic years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The table gives the full-time equivalent student numbers for further education colleges which responded to the "Further Education Statistical Record" at November 1990. This information is not yet available for the academic year 1991–92.

  Table showing full-time equivalent student numbers (FTEs) for each English further education college at November 1990

  Number

  Kingsway Princeton College

  1,969

  Woolwich College

  1,529

  Cordwainers College

  189

  Hackney College

  2,366

  Hammersmith and West London College

  2,893

  City and East London College

  1,903

  North London College

  1,446

  Brixton College of Further Education

  1,147

  Vauxhall College of Building and Further Education

  1,700

  South London College

  1,496

  Lewisham College

  3,072

  Southwark College

  1,963

  Tower Hamlets College

  1,175

  South Thames College

  2,378

  Westminster College

  2,699

  City of Westminster College

  2,371

  Barking College of Technology

  2,390

  Barnet College

  2,817

  Hendon College of Further Education

  2,064

  Erith College of Technology

  2,073

  Kilburn College of Further Education

  1,430

  Willesden College of Technology

  2,042

  Bromley College of Technology

  1,395

  90

  Number

  Orpington College of Further Education

  1,126

  Croydon College

  4,720

  Acton Technical College

  1,387

  Southall College of Technology

  1,428

  Norwood Hall Institute of Horticultural Education

  69

  Southgate College

  2,275

  Enfield College

  2,112

  Capel Manor Institute of Horticultural and Environmental Control

  148

  College of North East London

  2,701

  Elm Park Tertiary College

  1,698

  Green Hill Tertiary College

  2,127

  Weald Tertiary College

  2,025

  Havering Technical College

  3,196

  Uxbridge Technical College

  1,746

  Hounslow Borough College

  2,166

  Kingston College of Further Education

  2,723

  Merton College

  1,357

  Wimbledon School of Art

  489

  Newham Community College

  4,580

  Redbridge Technical College

  1,303

  Richmond Upon Thames College

  3,246

  Carshalton College of Further Education

  1,267

  Waltham Forest College

  3,157

  Bournville College of Further Education

  1,620

  Brooklyn College

  1,254

  Hall Green College

  2,075

  East Birmingham College

  1,559

  Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and C. S.

  2,070

  Matthew Boulton College

  2,858

  Handsworth College

  1,745

  Sutton Coldfield College of Further Education

  2,905

  Coventry Technical College

  2,302

  Henley College

  1,644

  Tile Hill College of Further Education

  1,860

  Dudley College of Technology

  4,335

  Halesowen College

  2,313

  Stourbridge College of Technology and Art

  1,846

  Sandwell College of Further and Higher Education

  5,743

  Solihull College of Technology

  3,491

  Walsall College of Technology

  2,594

  Walsall College of Art

  418

  Wulfrun College of Further Education

  1,822

  Bilston Community College

  2,253

  Knowsley Community College

  2,395

  Millbrook College

  2,535

  South Mersey College

  1,871

  Sandown College

  2,171

  City College of Further Education

  2,242

  The St. Helens College

  4,355

  Hugh Baird College of Technology

  2,269

  Southport College of Art and Technology

  2,594

  Wirral Metropolitan College

  5,859

  Bolton Metropolitan College

  3,066

  Bury Metropolitan College

  2,866

  Manchester College of Art and Technology

  5,539

  South Manchester College

  3,390

  Oldham College of Technology

  2,185

  Hopwood Hall Tertiary College

  3,444

  Salford College of Further Education

  4,477

  Stockport College of Technology

  4,059

  Tameside College of Technology

  3,630

  South Trafford College of Further Education

  1,998

  North Trafford College

  2,048

  Wigan College of Technology

  4,002

  Leigh College

  2,303

  Barnsley College

  3,683

  Doncaster College

  5,727

  Rotherham College of Arts and Technology

  2,450

  Rother Valley College of Further Education

  1,401

  Rockingham College of Further Education

  836

  Castle Tertiary College

  1,846

  Stradbroke Tertiary College

  1,659

  Parkwood Tertiary College

  2,000

  Loxley Tertiary College

  1,933

  Norton Tertiary College

  2,416

  Parson Cross Tertiary College

  1,542

  Keighley College

  1,120

  91

  Number

  Brafford and Ilkely Community College

  6,969

  Shipley College

  988

  Calderdale College

  2,640

  Dewsbury College

  2,568

  Huddersfield Technical College

  4,348

  Kitson College of Technology

  1,735

  Park Lane College

  3,253

  Leeds College of Building

  1,264

  Airedale and Wharfedale College

  1,386

  Thomas Danby College

  1,503

  City of Leeds College of Music

  477

  Joseph Priestley Institute of Further Education

  811

  Jacob Kramer College

  693

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  71

  Wakefield District College

  4,099

  Gateshead Technical College

  2,050

  Newcastle College

  4,563

  North Tyneside College of Further Education

  2,915

  South Tyneside College

  4,083

  Monkwearmouth College of Further Education

  2,602

  Wearside College of Further Education

  2,330

  Nursery Nurses College of Further Education

  392

  South Bristol Technical College

  2,041

  Brunel College of Technology

  3,167

  City of Bath College of Further Education

  2,660

  Filton Technical College

  2,330

  Soundell Technical College of Further Education

  1,456

  Weston-Super-Mare College of Further Education

  2,229

  Norton Radstock College of Further Education

  744

  Bedford College of Higher Education

  3,287

  Dunstable College

  1,611

  The Barnfield College

  2,039

  Reading College of Technology

  2,919

  Newbury College

  1,879

  Windsor and Maidenhead College

  2,400

  Bracknell College

  2,102

  Langley College of Further Education

  1,932

  Berkshire College of Art and Design

  644

  Berkshire College of Agriculture

  337

  Aylesbury College

  1,682

  Amersham College of Further Education, Art and Design

  2,314

  Milton Keynes College

  1,801

  Cambridge College of Further Education

  2,769

  Isle College

  1,209

  The Huntingdonshire College

  1,178

  Peterborough Regional College

  2,828

  Cambridgeshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  163

  North Cheshire College

  2,942

  West Cheshire College of Further Education

  3,032

  South Cheshire College of Further Education

  2,360

  Mid-Cheshire College of Further Education

  1,829

  Macclesfield College Further Education

  1,455

  Halton College of Further Education

  2,255

  Cheshire College of Agriculture

  606

  Hartlepool College of Further Education

  1,436

  Kirby College of Further Education

  1,766

  Longlands College of Further Education

  1,488

  Cleveland Technical College

  1,114

  Stockton-Billingham Technical College

  1,605

  Cleveland College of Art and Design

  809

  Guisborough Agricultural Centre

  111

  Cornwall College of Further and Higher Education

  3,191

  Mid-Cornwall College of Further Education

  2,025

  Penwith Sixth Form College

  706

  Kendal College of Further Education

  565

  West Cumbria College

  1,456

  Barrow-in-Furness College of Further Education

  1,436

  Carlisle Technical College

  1,588

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  472

  Cumbria College of Agriculture and Forestry

  329

  Chesterfield College of Technology and Arts

  2,859

  North East Derbyshire College of Further Education

  1,589

  South East Derbyshire College

  2,301

  High Peak College of Further Education

  1,406

  Wilmorton Tertiary College

  2,967

  Mackworth Tertiary College

  2,076

  92

  Number

  Derbyshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  217

  Exeter College

  3,549

  North Devon College

  2,212

  East Devon College of Further Education

  1,062

  South Devon College of Art and Technology

  3,411

  Plymouth College of Further Education

  3,324

  Plymouth College of Art and Design

  490

  Bicton College of Agriculture

  633

  Bournemouth and Poole College of Further Education

  4,099

  Weymouth College

  2,069

  Bournemouth and Poole College of Art and Design

  992

  Dorset College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  318

  Darlington College of Technology

  2,132

  Bishop Auckland Technical College

  745

  Derwentside College

  1,089

  New College, Durham

  3,221

  Peterlee College

  1,155

  Durham College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  237

  Brighton College of Technology

  3,185

  Lewes College

  1,377

  Hastings College of Arts and Technology

  2,185

  Eastbourne College of Arts and Technology

  2,039

  Plumpton College

  364

  South East Essex College of Technology

  2,712

  Braintree College of Further Education

  964

  Colchester Institute

  3,587

  Thurrock Technical College

  2,051

  Harlow College

  2,891

  Loughto College of Further Education

  2,531

  Basildon College of Further Education

  1,217

  Chelmsford College of Further Education

  2,184

  Writtle Agricultural College

  554

  Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology

  4,793

  Royal Forest of Dean College

  1,167

  Stroud College of Further Education

  1,854

  Hartpury College

  142

  Basingstoke Technical College

  2,050

  Farnborough College of Technology

  2,961

  Brockenhurst College

  1,348

  Alton College

  1,117

  Eastleigh College of Further Education

  1,887

  The Tertiary College, Fareham

  2,067

  Cricklade College

  1,260

  South Downs College of Further Education

  2,105

  Southampton Technical College

  2,622

  Highbury College of Technology

  3,214

  Portsmouth College of Art, Design and Further Education

  553

  Sparsholt College

  1,198

  Evesham College of Further Education

  782

  Herefordshire Technical College

  2,028

  Kidderminster College of Further Education

  1,354

  Worcester Technical College

  2,891

  North East Worcestershire College

  2,924

  Herefordshire College of Art and Design

  372

  Pershore College of Horticulture

  371

  Herefordshire College of Agriculture

  138

  Worcestershire College of Agriculture

  121

  Ware College

  1,653

  North Hertfordshire College

  2,656

  Cassio College

  2,240

  Watford College

  2,253

  de Havilland College

  2,278

  East Hertfordshire College

  1,315

  Stevenage College

  1,771

  Dacorum College

  707

  City College, St. Albans

  3,191

  Hertfordshire College Art and Design

  465

  Hertfordshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  295

  Hull College of Further Education

  5,398

  Grimsby College of Technology and Arts

  2,932

  Beverley College of Further Education

  793

  East Yorkshire College of Further Education

  1,315

  North Lindsey College of Technology

  2,204

  Bishop Burton College of Agriculture

  938

  Isle of Wight College of Art and Technology

  2,059

  North-West Kent College of Technology

  1,409

  Mid Kent College of Higher and Further Education

  3,557

  93

  Number

  West Kent College of Further Education

  3,413

  Thanet Technical College

  1,933

  Kent College Careers Service

  77

  South Kent College of Technology

  2,632

  Canterbury College of Technology

  2,327

  Hadlow College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  388

  Accrington and Rossendale College

  3,646

  Burnley College of Art and Technology

  2,254

  Blackburn College

  5,199

  Lancaster and Morecambe College of Further Education

  2,125

  Nelson and Colne College

  2,095

  Blackpool and Fylde College of Higher and Further Education

  6,445

  W. R. Tuson College

  4,971

  Runshaw College

  2,425

  Skelmersdale College

  2,053

  Lancashire College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  715

  Coalville Technical College

  985

  Hinckley College of Further Education

  863

  Loughborough College

  1,985

  Melton Mowbray College of Further Education

  885

  Wigston College of Further Education

  766

  Charles Keene College of Further Education

  2,289

  South Fields College of Further Education

  2,147

  Brooksby Agricultural College

  343

  Grantham College of Further Education

  1,211

  Stamford College

  983

  Boston College

  1,406

  North Lincolnshire College

  2,852

  Lincolnshire College of Art and Design

  637

  Lincolnshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  595

  Norfolk College of Art and Technology

  2,890

  Norwich City College of Further and Higher Education

  4,662

  Great Yarmouth College of Further Education

  1,260

  Norfolk Institute of Art and Design

  662

  Norfolk College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  233

  Scarborough Technical College

  1,928

  York College of Art and Technology

  3,516

  Harrogate College of Art and Technology

  1,794

  Craven College

  768

  Selby College

  1,085

  Askham Bryan College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  699

  Bedale Agriculture Centre

  138

  Pickering Agriculture Centre

  105

  Easingwood Agriculture Centre

  58

  Harrogate Agriculture Centre

  76

  Tresham College

  2,629

  The Wellingborough College

  959

  Northampton College

  2,178

  Daventry Tertiary College

  646

  Moulton College

  207

  Northumberland College of Art and Technology

  2,086

  Northumberland College of Agriculture

  65

  Broxtowe College of Further Education

  2,089

  Clarendon College of Further Education

  2,851

  West Nottinghamshire College of Further Education

  2,462

  Newark Technical College

  1,305

  North Nottinghamshire College of Further Education

  1,877

  People's College of Further Education

  1,947

  Arnold and Carlton College of Further Education

  1,792

  Basford Hall College of Further Education

  2,681

  South Nottinghamshire College of Further Education

  2,056

  Brackenhurst College

  299

  North Oxfordshire Technical College and School of Art

  1,259

  The Henley College

  1,726

  Rycotewood College

  291

  West Oxfordshire Technical College

  1,090

  Oxford College of Further Education

  3,243

  Abingdon College of Further Education

  1,202

  Telford College of Arts and Technology

  1,872

  Oswestry College

  1,340

  Shrewsbury College of Art and Technology

  2,469

  Bridgnorth and South Shropshire College of Further Education

  691

  Walford College of Agriculture

  242

  94

  Number

  Bridgwater College

  1,722

  Frome College

  279

  Somerset College of Art and Technology

  2,902

  Yeovil College

  2,534

  Strode College

  1,183

  Somerset College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  511

  Stoke-on-Trent Cauldon College of Further and Higher Education

  3,359

  Stoke-on-Trent Technical College

  1,188

  Burton on Trent Technical College

  2,442

  Cannock Chase Technical College

  1,331

  Leek College of Further Education and School of Art

  727

  Newcastle under Lyme College

  1,866

  Stafford College

  3,160

  Tamworth College

  1,174

  Staffordshire College of Agriculture

  402

  West Suffolk College of Further Education

  1,824

  Lowestoft College

  2,300

  Suffolk College of Higher and Further Education

  4,657

  Otley College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  388

  North East Surrey College of Technolgy

  3,130

  Guildford County College of Technology

  3,186

  East Surrey College

  1,850

  Brooklands Technical College

  2,375

  Epsom School of Art and Design

  567

  Merrist Wood Agriculture College

  421

  Mid-Warwickshire College of Further Education

  2,829

  North Warwickshire College of Technology and Art

  2,645

  South Warwickshire College of Further Education

  1,144

  East Warwickshire College of Further Education

  1,530

  Warwickshire College of Agriculture

  435

  Crawley College of Technology

  2,322

  Northbrook College of Design and Technology

  2,749

  Chichester College of Technology

  2,504

  West Sussex College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  405

  Chippenham Technical College

  1,541

  Salisbury College of Technology

  1,972

  Swindon College

  4,444

  Trowbridge Technical College

  1,951

  The New College, Swindon

  1,070

  Salisbury College of Art

  351

  Lackham College of Art

  354

  TOTAL FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES

  718,739

DEFENCE

  Navigational Markers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those fairways, harbours and creeks in the United Kingdom which the Royal Navy administers or provides navigational markers where there is no Royal Naval presence or regular naval activity; and if he will set out the policy reasons for retaining these.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are four such areas other than those which lie within dockyard ports: the Thames estuary, Benbecula, St Kilda and Cope channel. Markers are maintained in these areas to indicate safe navigation or to mark hazards such as wrecks.

  Solent (Navy Administration)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out those creeks and harbours outside of Portsmouth harbour for which Her Majesty's harbour master has administrative responsibility in the Solent; and if he will set out the policy reasons for the Royal Navy's administration of each of them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are three creeks and harbours in this category: Hillhead harbour, Ryde
  95
  Harbour and Wootton creek. We are considering whether it remains appropriate for the Queen's harbour master to exercise waterspace management and administration in these areas.

  Dredging
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas where the Royal Navy or Ministry of Defence procures dredging.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The three main geographical areas where the Royal Navy procures dredging are as follows:

  Scotland

  Rosyth

  RNAD Crombie

  Invergordon

  Greenock

  Faslane

  RNAD Coulport

  Portsmouth

  Main harbour

  HMS Nelson (Gunwharf) HMS Dolphin

  Gosport oil fuel depot RNAD

  Royal Clarence yard

  Harbour mooring areas Entrance channel

  Devonport

  Royal William yard basin

  Shallow dock entrance

  Ernesettle jetty

  Main approach channel

  Submarines (The Minches)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and duration of submarine exercises in the Minches since 1985.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Military Bridging System
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the origins, purpose and state of progress of the bridging for the 1990s military bridging system; which elements of the system will be(a) wheeled or (b) tracked; which equipment it is proposed to replace; how much has been (i) spent and (ii) committed to date; which units, based in which country, will receive the proposed equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  "Bridging for the 90s" (BR90) is needed to replace in-service bridging as it comes to the end of its planned life. The purpose of BR90 is to enhance the mobility of armoured formations. The system will enable longer bridges to be built faster with less manpower.

  BR90 is a modular system. Most of its elements can be launched and recovered by bridge-laying and by wheeled bridge-laying vehicles. Some 60 per cent. of the bridges are intended to be tank launched. The tank launched bridges have completed contractor trials and are now undergoing user trials with a British Army unit. The truck launched system has commenced contractor trials.

  BR90 will replace the No 8 and 9 tank bridges and Crusader tank bridge transporters. Some medium girder bridges will also be replaced.
  96
  Payments to date total £26.4 million, and a further £7.9 million is committed to the completion of the development phase. We have recently committed £15.3 million to preparation for production.

  The BR90 system will be deployed with Royal Engineer units in both Germany and United Kingdom.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the number of European fighter aircraft which will be required by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Aitken
  The current planning assumption is that the RAF will require 250 European fighter aircraft. Final EFA numbers are, however, still subject to study.

  Anti-air Warfare Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for an anti-air warfare in-board radar simulator.

  Mr. Aitken
  Current plans are to place a contract at the end of 1992.

  Air Defence System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for a very short range air defence system for surface ships.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is currently considering a proposal for a collaborative feasibility study with Italy to provide an affordable autonomous ship-borne weapon system for very short range air defence. This would provide protection against future anti-surface ship missiles and would enter service early in the next decade. Subject to satisfactory progress in negotiations, we hope to place a contract for the study early next year, following a competition.

  Attack Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the programme for the procurement of the attack helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  Later this year we intend to issue to industry a request for proposals for the supply of an attack helicopter. Following assessment of the responses we receive, we intend to place a contract through a prime contractor which would allow the chosen aircraft to enter service with the British Army before the end of the decade.

  Local Area Missile System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the intention of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the multinational programme for the development of the next generation local area missile system.

  Mr. Aitken
  No Sir.

  HMS Turbulent
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report of the investigation of the fire aboard HMS Turbulent.
  97
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 2 June,Official Report, column 540.

  Menwith Hill
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part of the United States military operates from Menwith hill, north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from all four United States armed services are employed at Menwith hill.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed at Menwith hill, north Yorkshire by(a) the National Security Agency and (b) the British Government.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently some 1,200 United States department of defence personnel and 560 United Kingdom nationals are employed at Menwith hill.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the past, present and future role of the base at Menwith hill, north Yorkshire;

  (2) what is the purpose of the underground operations at Menwith hill, north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States communications facility at Menwith hill is located on a Ministry of Defence site made available to the United States department of defence. It is an integral part of the world wide department of defence communications network but I am not prepared to comment further on its operational role. It operates with the full knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Government.

  Vigilante Forces
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to prevent former British service men from providing military expertise and support for extreme right vigilante forces in South Africa and other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Officers may require prior approval from the Ministry of Defence before taking up certain business appointments within two years of leaving the armed forces, but it would be impractical, and an undue restriction on the freedom of individuals, to impose wider restrictions on the employment taken up by former service personnel.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra provisions Her Majesty's Government have made for drought relief in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Most recently we have allocated £4 million for drought-related activities in Malawi, these funds being derived from those parts of the regular aid which were suspended last month because of Malawi's human rights record. We are considering urgently with the relevant relief agencies and the Malawi authorities how 98
  best these funds might be used. This latest allocation is in addition to the 5,000 tonnes of cereals provided earlier this year for Mozambican refugees in Malawi; and the £1 million contribution to the World Food Programme's targeted feeding programme for vulnerable groups among Malawi's own population.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's current policy on bilateral aid to Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 20 May, at column 166.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of measures being taken by Her Majesty's Government to monitor the distribution of humanitarian aid in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In accordance with our normal practice, primary responsibility for monitoring humanitarian aid provided by Her Majesty's Government will rest with those international organisations and nongovernmental organisations through which the aid is channelled. Reports on the utilisation of multilateral contributions through the World Food Programme will be made to its governing body, the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes, in due course.

  Promotion of Democracy
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will identify the budget authorisation within the current or past expenditure of the European Economic Community concerning the promotion of democracy or democratic systems or institutions; what past and current sums have been or are allocated in ECU at sterling equivalents; where lists of grants made can be obtained; what groups or organisations in the United Kingdom have obtained grants; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As a result of the November 1991 Development Council resolution on human rights, democracy and development, the promotion of democracy now forms an integral part of the aid relationship between the EC and developing countries. To consolidate Community action in this area two new budget lines were established in 1991; B7-5052 for the promotion of human rights and democracy in developing countries; and B7-5078 for the support of democratisation in Latin America, both with an allocation of 10 million ecu, about £7 million, for 1992. No projects have yet been fully implemented, but we would expect detailed information about lists of grants and recipients to be made available in due course. A 5 million ecu, £3.5 million, project for support of democracy in eastern Europe—B7-6000—has recently been approved under the PHARE programme.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by his Department to assist countries to(a) assemble stocks of crop plants likely to be more suitable to possible climate changes, (b) review irrigation schemes in the light of climate changes and (c) develop guidance to farmers and village communities on the likely impact of climate change.
  99
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration is funding research to predict the influence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on the growth and yield of crops such as sorghum and groundnut. Through contributions to centres in the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, Britain is a major contributor to the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Under its renewable natural resources research strategy the ODA supports research into crop physiology and the development of new species which will be better suited to changing environmental conditions, particularly the environmental stresses of drought and salinity.

  The ODA also provides support for genetic resources conservation of crop plants and their wild host relatives at international agricultural research centres and is funding research projects in the Sahel and in the middle east.

  The ODA is funding two studies on the impact of climate change for the Governments of Ghana and Kenya. This work includes specialist exploration of the potential effects of climate change on agricultural practices, including irrigation. The studies will present policy options for Governments and will address the institutional means by which these could be implemented, including the need for extension programmes to provide guidance to local communities.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is currently given by the Overseas Development Administration to assist with technology transfer for countries seeking regional conventions on the prevention of trans-boundary air pollution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such projects, linked specifically to prospective regional conventions, are being supported currently from bilateral aid funds. We do not have available sufficiently detailed information to indicate whether aid made available through multilateral channels is used for the activities specified.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money is allocated by his Department towards family planning services; and if he has any plans to increase the allocation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Aid programme spending on direct population activities totalled over £26 million in 1991, which represents a 55 per cent. increase over the last two years. Population is a priority in the aid programme, and we hope to continue to increase our bilateral support to population programmes and reproductive health services in Africa and Asia, to the United Nations Population Fund, and to non-governmental organisations active in this area.

  Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses on the financial commitments advocated by the 100
  World bank and the International Monetary Fund to ameliorate environmental degradation and pollution in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The "World Development Report 1992", published by the World bank in May on development and the environment has been placed in the Library of the House. Chapter 9 of the report sets out the World bank's broad estimates of the costs for key sectors of implementing policies and programmes for accelerating environmentally responsible development.

  The International Monetary Fund provides resources to enable countries pursuing economic reform to cope with balance of payments problems. It does not produce information on the costs of environmental policy measures.

  Local Health Services
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money is being allocated by his Department towards(a) the creation of facilities in villages and urban neighbourhoods using paramedical personnel, (b) expanding health outreach support to individual households and (c) encouraging health promotion through localised organisations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration spent some £61 million in bilateral health sector assistance in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available. This amount includes support to projects, including non-governmental organisations, active in these three areas, but allocations are not broken down in a form that allows us to identify expenditure in this particular way.

  Aid Targeting
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Overseas Development Agency funds are targeted(a) through non-governmental organisation projects and (b) through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1990–91, the latest statistics available, Overseas Development Administration funds administered through non-governmental organisations represented 5.2 per cent. of the gross aid programme, and the funds channelled through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank 10.2 per cent. of the gross aid programme.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is currently allocated by his Department to protect vulnerable low-lying coastal areas from the possible effects of climate changes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration is funding three studies of the impact of climate change, including sea level rise at a total cost of £362,500, three projects on coastal zone management at a cost of £1,850,000 and a research project on the use of artificial reef blocks costing £245,000. The details of these projects are as follows:
  101

  Country

  Project

  Value £

  Dates

  Kenya

  Study on the impacts of climate change

  175,000

  1991–92

  Ghana

  Study on the impacts of climate change

  175,000

  1991–92

  Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

  Preliminary study of Sea Level Rise

  12,500

  1991

  Maldives

  Support for the development of coastal management and conservation strategies

  450,000

  1989–94

  Indonesia

  Coastal zone management and shrimp culture

  1,300,000

  1990–94

  British Virgin Islands

  Production of coastal zone atlas

  100,000

  1992

  Maldives

  Research into the rehabilitation of degraded reefs using artificial reef blocks

  245,000

  1989–93

  Climate change is one of the key areas for which funding is available for developing countries from the global environment facility—GEF. Britain has committed £40.3 million to the initial funding of the GEF.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider establishing a know-how fund for Vietnam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have already made provision for a modest technical co-operation programme with Vietnam and have agreed with the Government of Vietnam that the priority for the transfer of know-how under this programme should be the management of economic reform. We are discussing a project that will provide training in this area to four or five key Vietnamese institutions.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy of promoting the interests of biodiversity in rain forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA publication "Biodiversity and Developing Countries—Issues and Options" explains the priority the ODA gives to promoting biodiversity conservation, including in rain forests. Bilateral aid projects, both on a country to country basis and through British NGOs, are supported. Research is supported through ODA's natural resources programmes including the forestry research programme managed by the Oxford Forestry Institute. The ODA contributes to a variety of multilateral agencies whose programmes also include biodiversity conservation. In addition biodiversity is one of the key areas for which funding to cover certain agreed costs is available for developing countries from the global environment facility. Britain has already committed £40.3 million to the initial financing of the GEF.

  Substances Abuse
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held between the Government and representatives of the United Kingdom drinks industry relating to
  102
  the programme on substance abuse of the World Health Organisation, particularly as it affects alcohol advertising and marketing in third-world countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such discussions have been held.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the British financial contribution to the programme on substance abuse of the World Health Organisation in the current financial year; and what are the projected contributions for the next two years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have contributed £200,000 since the programme was established in September 1990. Our financial contribution in the current financial year has not yet been finalised and projections for subsequent years are not available.

  Kenya
  Mr. Matthew Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges appeal for assistance to refugees in Kenya; and what aid Her Majesty's Government are providing for drought-stricken areas of Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 5 June my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a pledge of £1 million to the UNHCR appeal. A further £1 million is being given to WFP and CARE to help supply, transport, distribute and monitor food for 500,000 Kenyans in the most seriously affected districts of northern Kenya.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lobsters
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he is making to the EC about the proposals on lobster sizes.

  Mr. Curry
  With effect from 1 June 1992 the definition of minimum landing size of lobsters was revised to remove ambiguity in the legal text of the relevant EC Regulation in certain of the languages of the Community. The United
  103
  Kingdom industry was consulted about this change last June and informed of the Council's decision in October 1991. However, in response to very recently expressed concerns we are considering the matter urgently.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of(a) businesses, (b) employees and (c) self-employed persons who will be affected by the delay in making arrangements for the carrying out of sampling of shellfish in readiness for the necessity to comply with EEC directive 91/492/EEC and 91/493/EEC.

  Mr. Curry
  I expect to publish a preliminary classification this summer for comment, and to have the classification in operation from 1 January 1993 as required.

  Habitats
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce new legislation as a result of the provisions relating to the marine environment in the EC habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We are still at an early stage in considering the implementation of the EC Habitats Directive, which was adopted on 21 May. We shall announce proposals in due course.

  Seismic Surveys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the compensation requirements for oil companies to pay(a) fishermen for (i) fixed gear and (ii) lobster pots and (b) net and line fishermen for damage to gear and for suspension of fishing during seismic surveys.

  Mr. Curry
  Any payment by oil companies to fishermen whose activities are affected by seismic surveys is entirely a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned.

  Mink
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gives to establishments, licensed under the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, on the avoidance of spread of diseases of mink between establishments and to other wild species.

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 22 establishments licensed under the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 to keep mink for fur-bearing purposes in England, and over 38,000 individual mink are kept under these arrangements. In the last 12 months there have been no reports of escapes received by the Ministry. No mink farms currently operate in Wales.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the information sought by the Veterinary Products Committee from the manufacturers and distributors of organophosphorous sheep dips 104
  includes the results of tests on humans before the products were licensed; whether this data was verified by an independent assessor; and when he expects to publish this information.

  Mr. Soames
  Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 prohibits the disclosure of information received in support of an application for a product licence. However, the Veterinary Products Committee has noted, as part of its current review of sheep dip licences, that certain aspects of the products and conditions of use need further evaluation, including studies of farm operators, including blood tests and details of protective clothing worn as well as studies to show which areas of the bodies of operators are most exposed. The companies concerned have been asked to provide additional data by the end of 1992.

  The conclusions of the review will be published once it has been completed.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will suspend the use of organophosphorous sheep dips and the compulsory sheep scab eradication scheme until the Veterinary Products Committee's evaluation of the health side effects on operators is complete.

  Mr. Soames
  The independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has recently advised that, at present, there is no clear evidence that licensed organophosphorous sheep dips cause any unacceptable level of health risk to humans when used in accordance with the label instructions. On the basis of this advice I do not propose to suspend the licences for these products.

  With regard to the compulsory sheep scab eradication scheme I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 8 June at col. 12.

  Pesticide Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the number of pesticide poisoning incidents involving birds or animals for the years ended 31 March 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of confirmed incidents in England and Wales involving birds or animals were as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  89

  1990–91

  100

  1991–92

  1111

  1Subject to some outstanding analyses.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those incidents of poisoning involving vertebrate wildlife in each of the last four years indicating the number of incidents investigated and the number in which pesticides were identified as the likely cause of death.

  Mr. Curry
  The numbers of incidents in Great Britain involving vertebrate wildlife were as follows:
  105

  Year

  Vertebrate wildlife incidents investigated

  Pesticides identified as likely cause of poisoning

  1988

  277

  72

  1989

  343

  96

  1990

  373

  82

  1991

  372

  72

  Further information is published in the annual "Pesticide Poisoning of Animals" report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Cereals
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the revised intervention prices for cereals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 recently decided by the Council of Ministers of £93, £86 and £80, respectively, will apply to feed-quality cereals.

  Mr. Curry
  The agreement reached by the Council of Ministers on 21 May 1992 included a request to the Commission to submit proposals to the Council on the standard qualities to which prices should apply.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the development of detection tests for irradiated food.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's food science laboratory today published a report in the "Food Analysis" series, a methodology for the detection of irradiated herbs and spices, using a technique called thermoluminescence.

  The test has been validated internationally and recently was the subject of a successful collaborative trial in European laboratories co-ordinated by the Community bureau of reference (BCR). A summary of the BCR results appears in the report.

  Seismic Surveys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will suspend the licence to Elf to undertake a seismic survey until after the summer fishing and yachting season.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The licensee, now Elf Enterprise (Caledonia) Ltd, was granted a licence in 1991 to explore for and to produce oil and gas lying under block 98-112. No separate licence or permission is needed by the licensee to carry out the seismic survey. The company carried out consultations prior to beginning the survey, and I understand adjusted its plans as a consequence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Associations (Grants)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list details of grants and loans made to each unregistered housing association in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992.
  106
  Mr. Atkins
  The Chairman of the Housing Executive has advised me that there were no loans made to unregistered housing associations between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992. However, the following grants were made during this period:

  £

  Glenall housing co-operative

  7,500

  Victoria estates

  405

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list details of grants and loans made to each housing association in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am informed by the Chairman of the Housing Executive that no grants or loans were made to registered housing associations in this period. Government funding of registered housing associations is channelled through the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The amount of capital funding provided by the Department to each association in this period is as follows:

  Housing association

  Capital funding £

  Abbeyfield

  449,240

  Ballymacarrett

  nil

  Ballynafeigh

  779,040

  Baptist Union of Ireland

  301,277

  Belfast Community

  37,679

  Belfast Improved Houses Ltd

  2,977,617

  Ben Madigan

  283,285

  Botanic

  72,010

  Broadway

  729,008

  James Butcher

  3,500,123

  Church of Ireland

  309,369

  Clonard

  217,483

  Coral Crescent

  nil

  Connswater

  120,461

  Covenanter

  8,712

  Craigavon and District

  578,586

  Craigowen

  28,829

  Derry

  2,210,788

  Donacloney

  58,379

  Down and Connor

  521,375

  Dungannon and District

  410,202

  Flax

  779,530

  Fold

  3,678,886

  Gosford

  64,596

  Grove

  52,361

  Habinteg

  1,366,561

  Hearth

  194,452

  Latharna

  438,105

  Lisnagarvey

  543,000

  Malone

  8,716

  Masonic

  309,453

  McGarel

  497

  Newington

  78,590

  NIH

  4,586,502

  Northern Ireland Co-ownership

  6,442,900

  North Belfast Mission

  8,356

  Open Door

  1,131,536

  Presbyterian

  559,265

  Royal British Legion

  1,410,188

  St. Matthews

  1,336

  Students

  2,033,656

  Tennent Street and District

  321,878

  Triangle

  808,867

  Ulidia

  270,962

  Willowfield

  31,825

  Woodvale and Shankhill

  1,563,505

  Hotel Inspections
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inspections of hotels are carried out each year by the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, the board carries out an annual statutory inspection of hotels to ensure that premises meet minimum standards and, as necessary, in response to complaints. In addition, under a voluntary scheme annual inspections are carried out to determine the classification and grading of hotels.

  Teachers (Retirement)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 440-41 whether he will publish the guidance issued by the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools relating to the enhancement of pensions of teachers taking early retirement;

  (2) whether he will state the number of teachers in controlled schools that each of the education and library boards decided should be permitted to take early retirement and the number of teachers in Catholic maintained schools that the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools decided should be permitted to take early retirement in each of the last three financial years, showing in each case the number that were awarded pension enhancement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will arrange for the guidance issued by the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Schools to be placed in the Library.

  For the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, the education and library boards and the boards of governors of Catholic maintained schools decided on the number of teachers to be released under the premature retirement scheme in the controlled and Catholic maintained schools respectively; only cases relating to the efficient discharge of the employers' function being subject to Department of Education approval. These same bodies also decided on the level of enhancement.

  Under the arrangements introduced in the 1991–92 financial year, decisions on premature retirement, including enhancement, have been taken by the boards of governors of controlled and maintained schools which have fully delegated budgets. In the case of special schools and schools with partially delegated budgets, these decisions have been taken by the education and library boards in respect of the controlled school and by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in respect of Catholic maintained schools.

  The number of premature retirements on grounds of redundancy and of efficient discharge, and the number awarded enhancement in each of the last three financial years, are as follows:

  Board

  Controlled

  Maintained

  1989–901

  Belfast education and library board

  25

  17

  Western education and library board

  28

  15

  North Eastern education and library board

  47

  33

  South Eastern education and library board

  30

  17

  108

  Board

  Controlled

  Maintained

  Southern education and library board

  35

  18

  Total

  165

  100

  1990–91

  Belfast education and library board

  24

  23

  Western education and library board

  38

  25

  North Eastern education and library board

  252

  25

  South Eastern education and library board

  30

  10

  Southern education and library board

  48

  16

  Total

  192

  99

  1991–92

  Belfast education and library board

  218

  23

  Western education and library board

  228

  235

  North Eastern education and library board

  248

  22

  South Eastern education and library board

  233

  11

  Southern education and library board

  343

  36

  Total

  170

  127

  1 All with enhancement.

  2 One without enhancement.

  3 Five without enhancement.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 441-42, if he will state the person or body by whom each member of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council was first nominated or proposed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The members of the Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland were nominated by the following bodies:The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland nominated Jimmy Armstrong, Pat Jess, John Kelly, Aideen McGinley, Patsy McShane and Malcom Woods.
  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside nominated Robert Hanna.
  The Rural Community Network nominated Mark Conway, John Donaghy, Paul McAllister and John McGrady.
  District Councils nominated John Fee, Warren Loane and Malachy McSparran.
  The Ulster Farmers' Union nominated Hugh Linehan.
  The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association nominated Wilfred Mitchell.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 441-42, (1) if he will list the wards and townlands in addition to those mentioned in his answer in which the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development established that pockets of deprivation existed;

  (2) if he will state the other criteria in addition to geographic and social isolation, high unemployment, demographic imbalances, declining services and poor facilities that were used to select the most deprived rural areas for the purpose of the rural development initiative and give the definitions of geographic isolation and social isolation employed by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development;

  (3) if he will state (a) the precise level of unemployment employed by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development in selecting the most deprived rural areas for

  109
  the purpose of the rural development initiative and (b) what demographic imbalances and services and facilities were taken into account.

  Mr. Hanley
  My reply of 2 June,Official Report, columns 441-42, named five main areas which were identified by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development (IDCRD) as representing concentrations of the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. The IDCRD also agreed that pockets of deprivation could be isolated in most rural areas on a ward or townland basis but that attempts to be too geographically definitive could be unnecessarily restrictive. Accordingly no list of such wards and townlands has been prepared. Rural community groups from outside the primary target areas are not excluded from applying to the Rural Development Council for advice and assistance.

  All the criteria used to select the most deprived rural areas can be subsumed within the list included in the question. Geographical isolation was defined on the basis of the absence of car ownership and the close conformity between areas of above average deprivation and the location of marginal or disadvantaged agricultural land.

  The principal measure of unemployment was derived from the 1981 census of population and was defined as the percentage of economically active males not in employment. This was used in combination with other measures of deprivation also taken from the census of population to develop an index of multiple deprivation.

  In its wide-ranging consultations with rural interests the IDCRD was advised of the problem of the emigration of young people from rural areas and that the elderly were forming an increasing proportion of rural populations. The IDCRD was made aware of limitations of public transport and of high levels of unfit dwellings in rural areas.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 286, under what statutory authority the Northern Ireland Housing Executive suspended the statutory scheme for housing grants; and when the scheme will be reinstated.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chairman of the Housing Executive has advised me that the statutory grants scheme has not been suspended.

  It is anticipated that a new renovation grants scheme will be introduced later this year and the executive decided to concentrate its efforts in completing all existing formal detailed applications, to enable processes to be completed before the new scheme comes into operation. In that context, the executive decided not to accept new preliminary applications after 28 February 1992. Applications for special grants and grants dealing with statutory notices such as public health orders continue to be accepted, and from 14 May, the Executive has been prepared again to accept preliminary applications for certain grants relating to the disabled.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping Registration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Dutch trawlers were registered at British ports, by port, in 1989, 1990, 1991 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Norris
  Details of registered vessels are not kept by type of vessel. The following table is therefore not limited to trawlers but is in respect of all Dutch vessels on the British fishing vessel register.

  Port

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Total

  Aberdeen

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Brixham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Fleetwood

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Grimsby

  —

  1

  5

  2

  8

  Hull

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Lerwick

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Rochester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  15 June.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 189, if he will list the numbers of (a) Spanish and (b) Dutch fishing vessels registered as British at each port where such vessels are registered.

  Mr. Norris
  The information as at 5 June for wholly or mainly Spanish or Dutch-owned vessels is as follows:

  Port

  Spanish

  Dutch

  Aberdeen

  7

  1

  Ayr

  1

  —

  Banff

  1

  —

  Brixham

  9

  1

  Buckie

  1

  —

  Falmouth

  6

  —

  Fleetwood

  1

  3

  Grimsby

  —

  8

  Hull

  2

  2

  Lerwick

  —

  1

  Lowestoft

  6

  —

  Milford Haven

  11

  —

  North Shields

  1

  —

  Penzance

  7

  —

  Plymouth

  3

  —

  Rochester

  —

  1

  Women Passengers (Safety)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are currently provided by his Department to transport planners and providers concerning the provision of public transport which is safer for women passengers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such guidelines have been issued. However, the Department co-sponsored the passenger guidance leaflet published by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, "Travel Safely by Public Transport". The Department's working group on violence to road passenger transport staff has recommended, among other things, that bus operators install radios and video cameras in their vehicles to protect employees. These measures also help all passengers to travel more safely.

  Vehicle Towing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study he has made of the incidence of accidents on motorways arising from the presence of vehicles being towed by others which are not specifically designed for towing; and under what circumstances it is permissible for such vehicles to enter the motorway system.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In 1990 there were 32 casualty accidents involving a vehicle towing another vehicle on a motorway. This is approximately 0.5 per cent. of motorway accidents and one in 8,000 of all accidents. Information is not collected on whether the towing vehicle was designed for the purpose.

  A vehicle being towed in such a manner constitutes a trailer and as such is prohibited from the right hand lane of three or more lane motorways.

  Distress Watch
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the policy reasons for BT to provide distress watch arrangements on 2182 kHz but not channel 16;

  (2) if he will set out the policy reasons for coastguard stations to maintain a continuous listening watch on channel 16 but not on 2182 kHz.

  Mr. Norris
  Her Majesty's Coastguard keeps watch on VHF channel 16 because not only is it the designated VHF distress channel, it is also the normal calling channel for VHF traffic. It is essential for the Coastguard to monitor and use this channel for them to carry out their functions of maintaining an effective search and rescue organisation. It would make no sense for the distress watch on channel 16 to be separated from Her Majesty's Coastguard's other functions. VHF is used by most fishing and pleasure craft in United Kingdom waters, few of which have MF transmitters. Most radio distress calls requiring immediate response by the Coastguard are made on channel 16. Since 1978 Her Majesty's Coastguard has put in place 120 remote radio sites linked to its 21 rescue centres which are manned 24 hours a day. This is a more comprehensive VHF cover than is now provided by BT.

  The distress watch on 500 kHz and 2182 kHz has continued with BT because it has the necessary sites, equipment and, for morse on 500 kHz, trained operators; it would not be worthwhile duplicating these for Her Majesty's Coastguard, especially given the international plan to end the use of 500 kHz as a distress frequency by 1999.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of the contribution VHF direct calling could make to a cost reduction in the BT distress watch contract.

  Mr. Norris
  No such specific studies have been made. Use of VHF digital selective calling (VHF/DSC) would considerably increase the costs of distress watch since much new equipment would be required both at sea and ashore. The cost of this equipment would not be justified by gains in effectiveness.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sources of his advice for the review on cost savings on the BT distress watch contract.
  112
  Mr. Norris
  The review into the cost of the provision of the BT distress watch service is an internal one to be undertaken by the Department's marine emergency organisation, of which HM Coastguard forms an integral part.

  A595
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give his latest traffic flow figures, including those for heavy goods vehicles, for the A595 road between Grizebeck service station and Broughton in Furness, together with those between Grizebeck service station and Soutergate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Cumbria county council's transport policies and programme document for 1992–93 published in 1991 shows that on the trunk road between Grizebeck service station and Broughton in Furness the annual average daily traffic is 5,500 with 5 per cent. being heavy goods vehicles. Comparable figures for the local road between Grizebeck service station and Soutergate are 4,600 and 8 per cent.

  Clifton Bypass
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the date upon which the A453 (Clifton bypass) public inquiry is to be held.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The draft orders for the A453 Clifton lane improvement are expected to be published next year and it is likely that public inquiries will then follow early in 1994.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the terms of reference for the A453 (Clifton bypass) inquiry will include(a) the need for a bypass around the Clifton estate, as opposed to through it, and (b) the wider traffic implications for the Nottingham transport infrastructure.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The public inquiries will consider all objections made to draft orders published under the Highways Act 1980 together with suggested alternative routes, and will be held by an independent inspector appointed on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor. The inspector, who is responsible for the conduct of the inquiries, will wish to hear all relevant evidence before preparing his report and recommendations for submission to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport.

  M3 Extension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the letting of the main contract for construction of the M3 extension: what will be the process whereby tenders are invited; whether he intends to await the outcome of European Commission legal proceedings relating to the environmental impact assessment directive before inviting tenders for the construction contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Preparations for the implementation of this important scheme are proceeding. Tenders have been invited for the main works and are due for return towards the end of August. In accordance with usual practice, an announcement will be made when a contract is let.

  Traffic, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of traffic accidents, identifying separately accidents to pedestrians and accidents resulting in fatalities, occurring in the Greenwich town centre area in each of the last 10 years.

  Injury accidents, and casualties by road user type and severity: Greenwich town centre1: 1982 to 1990.

  Number

  Casualties

  Vehicle users

  Pedestrians

  Year

  Injury accidents

  killed

  injured

  killed

  injured

  1982

  21

  —

  19

  —

  5

  1983

  17

  1

  14

  —

  7

  1984

  20

  —

  16

  —

  10

  1985

  18

  —

  16

  —

  5

  1986

  17

  —

  15

  —

  7

  1987

  15

  —

  6

  —

  10

  1988

  25

  —

  16

  —

  10

  1989

  28

  —

  23

  —

  9

  1990

  25

  —

  18

  —

  8

  1 The one-way system where Creek road, Romney road and Greenwich high road meet, together with the adjacent section of Greenwich high road.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the volume of traffic, broken down between different categories of vehicles, passing through Greenwich town centre in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest estimates are as follows:

  Estimated daily vehicle flows through Greenwich town centre1: 1990

  Number

  Pedal cycles

  550

  Motorcycles

  1,300

  Cars and taxis

  26,000

  Buses and coaches

  940

  Light goods

  3,500

  Heavy goods

  3,900

  Total

  36,000

  1 Flow through the one-way system from High road, Creek road and Romney road.

  The Department's surveys do not permit annual changes in traffic volume to be estimated for small areas.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available to his Department on the average speed of vehicles passing through the Greenwich town centre area at different times of the day, on weekdays and at weekends.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest available estimates are as follows:

  Average vehicle speeds, Greenwich town centre1: Weekdays

  1988 (mph)

  Morning peak

  11.3

  Day-time off-peak

  11.5

  Evening peak

  10.6

  1 The main one-way system and adjacent sections of High road, Creek road and Romney road.

  No information is available for weekends.
  114
  Mr. Norris
  The table shows the number of road traffic accidents involving personal injury in the Greenwich town centre area notified to the Department, and a breakdown of the resulting casualties. Data are shown for the years 1982 to 1990. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Trans-Pennine Motorways
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in connection with consideration of additional trans-Pennine motorway crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I hope to be in a position to be able to make a statement shortly about the findings and recommendations of the consultant's report on trans-Pennine road crossings.

  A19
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to install emergency phones along the length of the A19 through the constituency of Easington.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no proposals to install emergency telephones on the Al9 trunk road at present.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to install roadway lighting alongside the section of the A19 which runs through Peterlee.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no plans at present to light the section of the A19 at Peterlee.

  Train Doors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Health and Safety Executive will take action against the current and past chairmen and executive directors of British Rail in respect of causing the deaths of passengers by their neglect in respect of design and maintenance of carriage doors.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive has not yet completed its full report. I expect the Health and Safety Commission to submit the report to the Secretary of State with its advice later in the summer. It is for the executive to consider what further action may be appropriate.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the projected route of the new motorway spur road that would link the M25 to the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The possible route of the spur road depends on enhancement of the M25 in this sector. We expect to show the Department's proposals for this to the public shortly. It will then be for British Airports Authority to come forward with proposals for the spur road.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the last session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on Coastal Zone Protection and Planning, Volume II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the privacy implications arising from the commercial use of personal data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and obtained via statute, and the disclosure to police computers of digitised photographs on the driving licence.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Consideration is being given to the eventual use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's database for commercial purposes. The concerns of individuals receiving third party mail have been recognised. Any decision will take these and the requirements of the Data Protection Act into account.

  The police have access to the driver licensing records for law enforcement purposes under the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This removes any data protection restriction on such statutory disclosure. Photographs of drivers will eventually form part of those records and the Data Protection Registrar will be consulted on the implications.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the introduction of a mandatory minimum fuel efficiency standard for vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 3 June at column 522.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he gives to local authorities regarding the provision of secure parking places for cycles.
  116
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Advice on providing secure, safe and convenient cycle parking is contained in Chapter 6 of the Department's Local Transport Note 1/89 (HMSO), "Making Way for Cyclists". This is one in our series of local transport note publications which offer local authorities detailed guidance on providing for cyclists.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to alter the route of the channel tunnel rail link as announced by his predecessor last October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No. The Government remain committed to their preferred route corridor announced last October, approaching London from the east along the lines proposed by Ove Arup, with a terminus at King's Cross. We have no intention of reconsidering other options rejected at that time. We have asked British Rail to define a route along our preferred corridor and expect firm proposals from them by the end of the year. Once we have considered the British Rail proposals, we will announce a detailed route for public consultation, and a full environmental impact assessment will be undertaken.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning current progress of the Leeds/Bradford electrification scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have given the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority credit approvals for the infrastructure. The Government has exceptionally agreed that the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive should acquire the rolling stock by means of an operating lease.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those services which British Rail may contract out to the private sector under existing legislation, the services which have been so contracted and the services which cannot be contracted out pending amendment to existing legislation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under existing legislation, British Rail may contract out to the private sector any of its support services provided that, in so doing, it acts in a financially prudent manner and discharges adequately its statutory duties. BR has already made significant progress in contracting out of such activities, including: all manufacture and some heavy repair of locomotives and rolling stock; all train catering on Network SouthEast and regional railways; Red Star's road collection and delivery service for parcels; design and supply of signalling systems; track weedkilling and reballasting services; train cleaning and station maintenance; and station car park management. BR does not consider that it is empowered to contract out passenger train and track signalling operations under existing legislation, but I have asked BR to consider what further non-core activities might be contracted out.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent he expects officials of British Rail to consult local authorities about the provision of rail services.
  117
  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail regularly consults the transport users' consultative committees and, for the London area, the London regional passengers' committee which are the statutory bodies for representing consumer interests.

  Where services are supported by a passenger transport executive the level of service is specified by the constituent local authorities of the passenger transport authority. Elsewhere, the extent of consultation between BR and local authorities is for them to agree. However, I understand that BR consults a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the aggregate level of subsidy to company car owners for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]The benefit of the private use of a company car is taxed by reference to fixed scale charges. But the value of private use to any particular employee depends on a wide range of factors. Information about these is not available, so it is not possible to provide an estimate of the aggregate extent to which company car owners may be subsidised through the tax treatment of the benefit of a company car.

  Railway Costs
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the percentage to total railway costs, including capital costs, which is financed from(a) revenue and (b) investment for each of the EC member states, Sweden, Norway and Finland for each year since 1979.

  Grants paid to British Rail 1979—1991–92

  £ million at 1991–92 prices

  Year

  PSO Grant

  Level Crossing Grant

  PTE Grant

  Total

  Estimated Passenger Miles (Million)

  Subsidy/PM at 1991–92 prices (Pence)

  1979

  1,101.0

  31.8

  126.4

  1,259.2

  19.1

  7

  1980

  1,111.4

  32.0

  131.4

  1,274.8

  18.8

  7

  1981

  1,328.1

  32.8

  120.4

  1,481.3

  18.5

  8

  1982

  1,336.2

  32.8

  125.2

  1,494.2

  216.9

  9

  1983

  1,337.0

  32.4

  130.1

  1,499.5

  18.3

  8

  1984–851

  1,590.4

  36.0

  157.1

  1,783.5

  22.6

  8

  1985–86

  1,161.4

  29.2

  110.8

  1,301.4

  18.8

  7

  1986–87

  944.8

  27.5

  101.3

  1,073.6

  19.2

  6

  1987–88

  989.2

  30.0

  102.8

  1,122.0

  20.6

  5

  1988–89

  647.9

  27.9

  93.8

  769.6

  21.3

  4

  1989–90

  568.2

  29.8

  106.0

  704.0

  20.9

  3

  1990–91

  642.0

  30.9

  107.2

  780.1

  20.6

  4

  1991–92

  900.0

  29.2

  —

  929.2

  19.9

  5

  115 months ended March 1985.

  2Passenger miles affected by strikes.

WALES

  Income Support
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners were dependent on income support in Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of those aged 60 years and over and either in receipt of income support or partners of recipients are given in the following table:
  118
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of Government financial support given to the railways expressed(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product for each of the EC member states, Sweden, Norway and Finland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of capital expenditure per train kilometre which is spent on railways in each of the EC member states, Sweden, Norway and Finland, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the level of subsidy provided per mile to(a) company car owners and (b) rail passengers for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: It is not possible to give an estimate of the subsidy per passenger mile to company car owners.

  For rail passengers, the following is the information on subsidy per passenger mile requested:

  Thousands

  In receipt of weekly payment on 31 May

  Claimants and partners

  11988

  1989

  1990

  (a) Male

  N/a

  24

  29

  (b) Female

  N/a

  79

  81

  TOTAL

  112

  103

  110

  1 in 1988 there were 28,000 male and 71,000 female claimants of income support in Wales. Separate figures for male and female partners are not available.

  119
  Source:

  Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries, 1988, 1989, 1990.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what appointments he has made of chairmen for the training and enterprise councils in Wales; what indication he has given of the length of time to be served by these chairmen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I set eligibility criteria for chairmen of training and enterprise councils, but I do not appoint them. The chairmen are elected by their respective boards for periods which they determine.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for(a) the treatment centre for ophthalmology at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, (b) the treatment centre for ophthalmology at Bridgend general hospital, (c) the treatment centre for hernias and varicose veins at Bridgend general hospital and (d) the treatment centre for major joint surgery at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, Cardiff, (i) the number of operations contracted by the Welsh Office for the current financial year, (ii) the percentage of (i) that will come from outside the health authority in which the treatment centre is located, (iii) the numbers coming from each health authority where the patients have their residence, separately distinguishing referrals from general practitioners and consultants and (iv) the number of patients who have been referred to date to each centre.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of operations to be contracted by the Welsh Office in the current financial year are as follows:Surgical treatment centre Bridgend general hospital—1,000 hernias and varicose veins.
  Orthopaedic treatment centre Rhydlafar hospital—255 hip and knee Joint replacements and other orthopaedic operations
  Ophthalmic treatment centre Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor—300 cataracts
  Ophthalmic treatment centre Bridgend general hospital—850 cataracts
  Activity levels and associated funding at the Bangor treatment centre will be reviewed in November.

  The allocation of centrally funded capacity between district health authorities is currently being finalised, based on bids received from the authorities and their waiting list problems. I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House. The centres are free to negotiate additional contracts with district health authorities should any spare capacity remain.

  Comprehensive data on specific sources of referral is not currently available.

  The total number of patients treated at each treatment centre from their different start dates to 31 March 1992 is as follows:

  Surgical treatment centre

  Bridgend general—opened April 1990–1,980 (procedures)

  Ophthalmic treatment centre

  Bridgend general—opened October 1991–419

  Orthopaedic treatment centre

  Rhydlafar hospital—opened December 1989–647

  Ophthalmic treatment centre

  Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor—opened July 1990–692

  Local Plans
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action he is intending to take against local authorities which have no local plan in place;

  (2) if he will publish those local authorities in Wales which have not yet produced local plans.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", reaffirmed the Government's belief in an effective development plan system and set out proposals for its improvement.

  Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) makes preparation of statutory local plans for all areas mandatory and, as indicated in Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 'Development Plans and Strategic Planning Guidance in Wales' (February 1992), my right hon. Friend expects local plan coverage in Wales to be substantially complete within five years.

  The new arrangements came into operation on 10 February 1992. No authority has yet completed local plan procedures under the new system.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available in Welsh the 1992 DES leaflets, "How is Your Child Doing at School", and "A Parent's Guide to Tests and Reports for 7 and 14 year olds".

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Separate bilingual booklets for Wales have already been published by the Welsh Office. Parents can obtain copies through schools or directly from the Welsh Office Education Department. I have arranged for copies to be made available to all Members of Parliament in Wales.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current numbers of physiotherapists in each health authority in Wales; and what steps are being taken to provide training places to increase those numbers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of physiotherapists employed by health authorities in Wales as at 30 September 1991 was as follows:

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Clwyd

  127

  94.4

  East Dyfed

  53

  44.0

  Gwent

  104

  85.3

  Gwynedd

  72

  54.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  102

  85.7

  Pembrokeshire

  24

  20.5

  Powys

  49

  29.7

  South Glamorgan

  198

  155.2

  West Glamorgan

  93

  81.2

  WALES

  822

  650.3

  Current staffing levels in this and other staff groups in the NHS in Wales are monitored annually under the manpower resource planning exercise which was initiated in 1987. Forecasts are also made of staffing requirements for the next five years. These data are used to inform decisions on funding training activity, etc., within the various professions.
  121
  Physiotherapy has been identified as one of four "shortage professions", along with occupational therapy, speech therapy and clinical psychology. Increased training in these professions has been funded through student sponsorships under arrangements which have operated since 1990–91. Over £100,000 has been allocated to train 12 student physiotherapists.

  Other initiatives for remedying these shortages are being examined, including possible overseas recruitment. More generally, recruitment and retention considerations also influenced the Government's decision to accept in full the review body's recommendation for an average 6.4 per cent. increase in the pay of professions allied to medicine from I April 1992.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to consult regularly with bodies representing physiotherapists to discuss matters affecting their profession.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office enjoys close links with the various professional bodies which represent both physiotherapists and other health care professions. Consultation with these bodies is routinely undertaken as necessary.

  County Council Elections
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has taken such steps as are necessary to cancel or delay the county council elections due to be held in Wales in 1993 in the light of his proposed reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave on 5 June 1992 at col.662.

  Recycling
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to introduce a ring-fenced credit approved scheme for local authorities in Wales to encourage investment in waste re-cycling schemes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no proposals to alter the current formula based arrangements for the distribution of local authority capital resources, which are supported by the local authority associations.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the acquisition of alternative feeding grounds for wading birds displaced by the Cardiff bay barrage proposal; what progress he has made in negotiations; and when he expects a conclusion on(a) taking an option on and (b) acquisition of any such land area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials are continuing constructive discussions with interested parties, including the Countryside Council for Wales and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, about measures to compensate for the loss of the existing feeding grounds in Cardiff bay. However, it would be premature to estimate the timing of any land acquisition at this stage.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the strict control applied to sites of special scientific interest, including ancient woodland, will prevent any destruction by quarrying of Carmel woods in the Gwenlais valley, Dyfed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Policy on planning controls over sites of special scientific interest was published most recently in Welsh Office circular 1/92. Any application for planning permission affecting the site mentioned must be determined on its own merits in the light of that policy. However, an application for registration of an old mining permission under schedule 2 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 is currently being considered by the Minerals Planning Authority.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state for Wales the number of redundancies by standard industrial classification for the latest available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The provisional figures for the period 1 May 1991 to 30 April 1992 are as follows:

  SIC

  Number

  0: Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  22

  1: Energy and water supply industries

  654

  2: Ore/mineral extraction (other than fuels); manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals

  942

  3: Metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries

  3,486

  4: Other manufacturing industries

  1,961

  5: Construction

  458

  6: Distribution, hotels and catering, repairs

  265

  7: Transport and communication

  410

  8: Banking, finance, insurance, business services, leasing

  183

  9: Other services

  1,538

  Total

  9,919

  Source: Department of Employment.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for consultation with the chairman of Tai Cymru to set up an advisory panel with representation from appropriate professional bodies, housing associations and tenant and resident associations to regulate the inflation-related annual increases in the level of service charges by Welsh housing associations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Garth Angharad Hospital
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of Garth Angharad hospital on the whole of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Initially, it is for health authorities to assess the implications of individual closure proposals in the light of prevailing circumstances and to consult on any such proposals.

  Gwynedd health authority is currently considering the future of Garth Angharad within the local as well as the all-Wales context.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women in employment received employment training in Wales in the last year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on numbers of people training under employment training (ET) who have employed status is available on a quarterly basis. The latest information available shows that on 29 March 1992, there were 1,367 people with employed status receiving training under ET in Wales. This information is not collected by gender.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest available figures showing the average duration of employment training courses for (a) women and (b) men in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest available figures cover the period from July 1990 to June 1991 and show that the average duration of employment training courses in Wales was 29.7 weeks. This information is not collected by gender.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state, by county and for Wales as a whole, the number of people covered by(a) employment training, (b) the enterprise allowance scheme and (c) the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not available in the exact form requested, as it is not collected on a county basis. Figures are compiled by training and enterprise councils (TECs) area, and those for 29 March 1992 are set out in the following table:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  TEC

  In employment training

  In enterprise training

  In youth training

  Gwent

  1,883

  403

  2,974

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,419

  430

  3,600

  North East Wales

  769

  150

  1,417

  North West Wales

  951

  392

  2,090

  Powys

  556

  152

  620

  South Glamorgan

  1,111

  252

  1,787

  West Wales

  2,761

  977

  4,055

  WALES TOTALS

  10,450

  2,756

  16,543

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responsibilities his Department has that apply in Scotland; and what responsibilities have been transferred to his Department from the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Key
  The responsibilities of the Secretary of State for National Heritage that apply in Scotland broadly follow the territorial division of responsibilities which existed before the creation of the Department of National Heritage. Responsibilities of the Secretary of State which extend to Scotland include: sponsorship of the national heritage memorial fund; the work of the advisory committee on historic wreck sites; the Great Britain Sports 124
  Council and the international promotion of British sport; British Screen Finance; European co-production fund; Audio Visual Eureka; film certification; the UK Film Commission; the MEDIA programme; the national film and television school; the British Film Institute; the work of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art; broadcasting; the British Library and the performing arts. He liaises closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters where appropriate.

  No responsibilities have been transferred to the Department of National Heritage from the Scottish Office.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the employment implications of a national lottery, particularly in the Greater Liverpool area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The effect of a national lottery on overall levels of employment is one of the matters which the Government will be considering in the light of the views expressed in response to the White Paper, "A National Lottery, Raising Money for Good Causes", Cm 1861.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether the effectiveness of the guidance contained in the planning policy guidance note on archaeology and planning—PPG16—which was issued in November 1990 has been reviewed.

  Mr. Key
  Yes. English Heritage was invited to review the effectiveness of PPG 16 one year after it had been published and commissioned a firm of consultants, Pagoda Projects, to undertake the work. In order to assess the impact of the PPG, consultations were carried out with developers, archaeologists working for or advising planning authorities, archaeologists working for or advising developers and other interested bodies. The report of the review was submitted at the end of January 1992 and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I am pleased to report that the consultants' main conclusions are encouraging. They indicate that the advice given in PPG 16 has been adopted by every local planning authority in England, and that the archaeological significance of planning applications is now much more fully considered. The PPG is also starting to produce a more consistent approach to archaeology in the planning process. This, and the greater certainty for developers which results from addressing archaeological issues at an early stage, is beneficial both for developers and for the heritage. In the light of the report's findings we are satisfied that the guidance is proving valuable to all parties who may become involved with archaeology and the planning system.

  However, the report indicated some matters which need to be kept under review, including ways of bringing the PPG to the attention of smaller developers. My Department and English Heritage will be following these up with the relevant bodies shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single Market
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the short title of each of the remaining Acts for which European Community member states must take national implementing measures to implement the completion of the single European market, and in each such case the Community member or members which must still take action.

  Mr. Needham
  Every six months the Commission produces a comprehensive report for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the implementation of White Paper measures for completing the single market. This shows implementation by each member state. The sixth report covering up to 10 December 1991, published in February 1992, is the latest available; a copy is in the Library—document 4527/92 of 19 December 1991; explanatory memorandum 6 March 1992.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 332, if his officials have had any further meetings with the liquidators of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International concerning the convening of a creditors meeting.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 138, what matters he is considering regarding the Renewable Energy Advisory Group; when he expects to complete his consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I are considering carefully how the work of the group can be best completed. I will announce our decision on this as soon as possible.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Select Committee of this House in the last session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

  Following changes in Departmental responsibilities since the memorandum was written, the responsibilities and duties of the Department of Energy now fall to my Department.

  Coal
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions with respect to European Community moves towards a European reference price for coal and its implications for the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Commission has put forward preliminary ideas on reference prices for coal as a device to restrain excessive levels of subsidies for coal mining in some member states. There is no suggestion that the Commission intend to subsidise Community coal production so that it is all sold at a reference price level. We support the Commission's aim of reducing unjustifiable subsidies.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list current levels of subsidy given to coal producers within European Community member states.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of subsidy for current coal production in 1990 for relevant European Community member states was as follows:

  £ per tonne

  Belgium

  55.19

  France

  10.99

  Germany

  39.23

  Spain

  18.83

  United Kingdom

  —

  Source: European Commission.

  European Community policy is to have subsidies for current production by all member states phased out, and the Government fully support this aim.

  Astra Holdings plc
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department's report on Astra Holdings plc will be completed; and when he will publish it.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I cannot say, although the inspectors are well advanced in their inquiries. A decision on publication will be taken when their report has been received and its contents considered. However, it is the normal practice to publish reports on public companies.

  Research
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total research budget of the Department of Energy for each of the past five years; and what is his Department's research budget for the next year on the energy potential of(a) fossil fuels, (b) nuclear fuels and (c) renewable sources of energy.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total research figures for each of the past five years are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  172.3

  1988–89

  187.3

  1989–90

  140.3

  1990–91

  175.9

  1991–92

  124.2

  —1987–88 and 1988–89 figures are taken from the "Annual Review of Government Funded R&D". These figures relate essentially to

  127
  Frascati R&D and take no account of technology transfer expenditure.
  —1989–90 and 1990–91 are final outturn and do include technology transfer expenditure.
  —1991–92 figure is taken from Main Supply Estimates and also includes technology transfer expenditure.
  —The figures do not include energy efficiency research which is now the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

  The 1992–93 research budget for each of the energy technologies is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) fossil fuels

  7.6

  (b) nuclear fuels

  84.3

  (c) renewables

  24.3

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government will now undertake a review of the assisted areas map; and if there will be a period of public consultation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The assisted areas map was last drawn in 1984. In consultation with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, my right hon. Friend and I have decided to review it. The revised map will in due course have to be cleared with the European Commission and I plan to put proposals to it later in the year.

  A consultation paper on the arrangements for the review and the criteria which will be taken into account in considering changes to the map has been prepared. I have placed copies in the Library and copies are also available from my Department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  The problems and needs of all areas will be carefully considered in the review. There will be a period of public consultation. Local organisations and other bodies wishing to make representations should send these either to the appropriate DTI regional office for areas in England or to the Scottish or Welsh Offices before the end of September 1992.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Select Committee for Energy in its second report. 1991–92 on the consequences of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government welcome the Committee's thorough and wide ranging investigation into the consequences of electricity privatisation. A memorandum, setting out the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations, has been placed in the Library of the House. A further memorandum, setting out the response of the Direct General of Electricity Supply, has also been placed in the Library.

  Landward Licensing Round
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the results of the fifth landward licensing round.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today announced the conditional award of 26 new exploration licences for blocks in England, Wales and Scotland. The licences allow companies to search and drill for petroleum, subject to the requirements of the planning system and the technical approval of my Department.
  128
  Details of the awards have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I am encouraged by the interest shown in onshore petroleum operations which contributes both to our knowledge of our oil and gas reserves and to their development.

  This round was notable for the presence of companies new to the onshore petroleum exploration scene. Onshore exploration can offer significant opportunities to the smaller companies to gain experience in the petroleum business as well as contributing to the general development of the industry.

  In 13 of the new licences, the licensees are primarily interested in the potential for the exploitation of methane gas which occurs in and around coal seams. I am very encouraged by this continuing interest. This is a relatively new venture in Great Britain. The first licences to explore the potential for coal bed methane were awarded in the fourth round. Although it is early days yet to make any forecasts on the potential for the exploitation of this resource in the United Kingdom, we remain confident that it could represent a valuable addition to our future energy supplies.

  Japanese-owned Companies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 105, if he will give such information relating to the number of employees and the location of Japanese-owned companies as is available to him.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The Department of Trade and Industry's invest in Britain bureau (IBB) has information only on Japanese companies manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Copies of the IBB's list of Japanese manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom has been placed in the Library. This gives information on the location of Japanese manufacturers in the United Kingdom and the employment created at the time of the announcement of the project.

  British Standards Institution
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current legal and financial basis of the British Standards Institution; and what charges he expects to be made in it when the single market is complete.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The British Standards Institution (BSI) is an independent body, incorporated by royal charter. It is not part of Government and its legal basis is therefore not a matter for the Government.

  The Government's financial involvement with BSI is limited to a grant contribution, to the income of BSI Standards. The institution also comprises two other operating divisions, BSI quality assurance and BSI testing, which are run on a purely commercial basis without Government grants.

  Generating Plants
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received and are outstanding for the construction of gas-fired power generating plants.
  129
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: Thirteen.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many applications have been received and are outstanding for the construction of non-fossil fuel power generating plants;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy concerning the approval of new non-fossil fuel generating plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: One application is outstanding. Each application for consent is considered on its merits.

  DNA Sequencing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to the legal position of job and insurance applications, in relation to DNA sequencing; and what consideration he is giving to laws on codes of practice to prevent misuse of information.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: DNA screening should be carried out only with the consent of the individual concerned. The results of these tests are subject to the same degree of confidentiality as apply to other personal health information. Such information should not be provided for purposes other than those for which the individual has given consent. The Government are aware of the concern about the potential impact of information gained via genetic screening and are keeping a close watch on developments in human genetics.

  The United Kingdom insurance industry does not intend to seek mass screening for genetic information within the foreseeable future, but when individuals have had a specific genetic test as part of their medical treatment these tests may fall into the same category as other medical tests and will need to be declared on proposal forms. It is only by obtaining relevant information and by careful judgment by the underwriters that risks can he properly assessed and premiums appropriate to the risk charged.

  With regard to job applications, employers are free to attach whatever conditions they consider appropriate to an offer of employment, including conditions relating to health or medical capability, provided that they do not discriminate unlawfully, for example on grounds of sex or race. The terms on which employers offer jobs and on which applicants accept them are in general a matter for the parties concerned, and it would be neither desirable nor practicable for the Government to intervene.

  Hunterprint
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what printing contracts the company Hunterprint had, or has outstanding, for work associated with privatisations by the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Energy since 1979; and if he will give the dates and the privatisation in question for each contract.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: Hunterprint has not been the main contract printers for any privatisations by the Department of Trade and Industry or the former Department of Energy. Comprehensive information on minor printing contracts is not held centrally. However, Hunterprint did print two brochures which were part of the electricity privatisation marketing campaign: one on the offer of shares in the regional
  130
  electricity companies, issued in August 1990, and the second on the offer of shares in the generating companies, issued in November 1990.

  Anti-dumping Measures
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current anti-dumping controls in shoe and other fast fashion industries.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: It is for the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of anti-dumping measures. In the shoe and fast fashion industries, espadrilles from China are the only goods on which EC anti-dumping remedies are currently in force.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will support the EC proposals to apply quotas in value terms on imports of footwear from China from 1 July and demand backing for this from other EC countries.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: In common with a number of other member states, the Government have pressed the Commission to present a proper economic case in support of their proposal for an EC-wide quota regime. We shall then weigh the evidence, taking into account not only the United Kingdom footwear industry's support for the measure but also the opposition to it from some United Kingdom importers and retailers.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to prevent the unfair dumping of shoes from China into the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: It is for the industry concerned in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the European Community to make a case to the European Commission about alleged dumping of goods from third countries and for the Commission to investigate it. I am not aware of any recent complaints about dumping of shoes from China.

  Defence Industry (Decline)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be submitting an application for funds from the European Commission programme for areas affected by the decline of the defence industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Applications for grants have been submitted under the European Community PERIFRA programme, which is intended, among other objectives, to aid regions facing major structural change because of arms industry conversion to civil production.

  PERIFRA is one of a number of programmes in the 1992 European Commuity budget for which there is no underlying legal authority for expenditure. We place considerable importance on ensuring that the requirements of budget discipline apply to all Community spending, in order to protect the interests of taxpayers.

  The United Kingdom intends to continue its dialogue with the Commission, Council colleagues and the

  131
  European Parliament with a view to ensuring that the treaty and budgetary decisions are respected. In the meantime, applications under PERIFRA will proceed.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Personal Files
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on increasing access by individuals to personal files kept on them by Government Departments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is already extensive access to computer records under the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Government are willing in principle to extend individuals' access to personal information held on them by Departments where it is practicable and in the public interest to do so.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responsibilities and duties the Duchy has in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster owns areas of foreshore, tidal rivers and beds of creeks within the boundaries of the County Palatine. The Duchy also owns ponds, lakes and rivers which are not tidal.

  The Duchy manages and controls its interests in these areas in the same manner as any other landowner and it is Duchy practice to ensure that any statutory duties are observed.

  The Duchy has no responsibility for the sea bed on the seaward side of the line of low tide.

  Science (Advisory Structure)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his consultations within the scientific community to see whether changes should be made to the advisory structure.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology, I shall be considering the full range of the office's responsibilities as well as the structures needed to discharge them effectively. I am always ready to listen to the views of the scientific community on the advisory structures as on all other relevant matters.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research is currently being carried out into toxic shock syndrome.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which the Government support medical research in this country. While not at present supporting any research specifically into toxic shock syndrome, the Medical Research Council is supporting some basic research in staphylococcus which may have some relevance to it. The Medical Research Council is 132
  always willing to consider soundly based research proposals in competition with other applications. Information is not collected centrally on relevant publicly funded research which may be being carried out by universities, medical schools or health authorities, nor on research by charities.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the cost of funding public bodies in 1979, 1985, 1990 and currently; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number of public bodies existing in 1979, 1985, 1990 and currently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These details are shown in "Public Bodies 1991", published in December 1991. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Sheriff Ewan Stewart
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take on the findings of the inquiry into the conduct of Sheriff Ewan Stewart carried out by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following initial consideration of the report submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, Sheriff Ewan Stewart was invited to comment on its findings. The conclusions of the report and the sheriffs comments which have now been received are being carefully examined and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision as soon as possible.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prescription of(a) evening primrose oil and (b) other homeopathic medicines by the national health service.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  One evening primrose oil product is licensed by the licensing authority for the treatment of atopic eczema and is prescribable on the NHS for that purpose. No evening primrose oil preparation has satisfied the licensing requirements of safety and efficacy for any other medical condition.

  The Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances advises the Health Departments as to the circumstances in which unlicensed products may be regarded as drugs and has considered the unlicensed evening primrose oil products, which are generally regarded as food supplements, but has not been satisfied that they have any therapeutic use. They have therefore been prohibited for prescription on the NHS. Evening primrose oil is not a homeopathic medicine.

  The use of homeopathic treatments is a matter for decision by individual doctors. Doctors in contract with the national health service can provide these treatments for their patients in the same way as with allopathic medicines.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) name, (b) city, town or village of residence and (c) occupation of the chairman, vice-chairman and each member of Argyll and Clyde health board.

  Name

  Position

  Area of Residence

  Occupation

  Mr. R. R. Reid

  Chairman

  Rothesay

  Farmer

  Dr. J. Moffat

  Non-executive member (vice chairman)

  Greenock

  Retired consultant psychiatrist

  Mr. N. M. Faccenda

  Non-executive member

  Connel

  Business man

  Mrs. M. A. Foggie

  Non-executive member

  Greenock

  Housewife, former solicitor

  Mrs. E. S. Lander

  Non-executive member

  Kilmacolm

  Company director

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux

  Non-executive member

  Dunoon

  Housewife

  Mr. C. H. Parker

  Non-executive member

  Kilmacolm

  Company managing director

  Mr. K. Brewer

  Executive member

  Paisley

  Director of finance

  Dr. A. A. Reid

  Executive member

  Glasgow

  Director of public health

  Mr. I. C. Smith

  Executive member

  Barrhead

  General manager

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to make appointments to or dismissals from the membership of Argyll and Clyde health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend expects to make appointments early in 1993 to fill vacancies which will arise on 31 March 1993 in the membership of Argyll and Clyde health board. Appropriate consultation will be carried out before the appointments are made.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the, development of the credit union movement in Scotland.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Based on the annual returns from credit unions to the Registry of Friendly Societies, there were 57 credit unions in Scotland at the end of 1990 with aggregate assets of £5,051,000, equivalent to nearly 30 per cent. of the total assets of the movement in Great Britain. Those 57 unions together had over 19,000 members, representing 35 per cent. of the total in Great Britain. Currently, there are 70 Scottish unions on the register which represent 20 per cent. of the total number of credit unions in Great Britain.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about changes affecting the area of ancient semi-natural woodland since 1962.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The Government's broadleaves policy and the changes introduced in 1984 to the criteria for granting felling licences and in 1985 to the volume of timber which may be felled without a licence have done much to slow the decline of ancient semi-natural woodland in Scotland. Further measures to remove the remaining causes of decline are being considered.
  134
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest information known to us is as follows:

  The Government have also introduced measures to encourage the management of existing ancient semi-natural woodlands and the creation of new native woodlands. Early indications are that these measures are proving a success.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to double the planting of native broadleaf species in those counties which have lost more than one third of their ancient woodland since 1930.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The area of broadleaves planted in Britain has quadrupled over the last decade. Some 7,500 hectares of broadleaves have, on average, been planted each year during the last five years, as compared with an average of 1,800 hectares during the previous seven years. Nearly all the planting was carried out with native species.

  The Government's policy is that there should be a continuing expansion of the area of native woodland in Britain.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 369, he will make a statement about the number of hectares of non-native species and native broadleaf species that have been planted in each year since 1984.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: Information in this detail is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make extra money for out-of-school care available to LECs in Scotland on the same basis as to training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: Our manifesto made it clear that we would introduce a new grant to help employers, voluntary groups or schools to set up after-school care and holiday arrangements for the

  135
  children of working mothers and that this would be paid through local enterprise companies. We shall take the need to resource such grants into account in our planning of future public expenditure provision for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of members of disability appeal tribunals are also members of social security appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for the recruitment of people to serve as members of disability appeal tribunals lies with the president of the Independent Tribunals Service, his honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Young Persons (Benefit)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to a young person with a permanent home who is not on a youth training scheme.

  Mr. Burt
  Young people may be entitled to the following benefits subject to meeting the qualifying conditions:

  Non-contributory Benefits

  Child Benefit

  Community Charge Benefit

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Family Credit

  Guardian's Allowance

  Housing Benefit

  Income Support

  Invalid Care Allowance

  One Parent Benefit

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Social Fund payments

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Contributory Benefits

  Invalidity Benefit

  Maternity Allowance

  Sickness Benefit

  Unemployment Benefit

  Widows Payment

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  Resettlement
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency; and what was the result of the meeting.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have met the chief executive on many occasions to discuss the whole range of the agency's business. The last occasion was on 5 March 1992. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, expects to meet the chief executive in the near future.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances it may be necessary for persons in receipt of income support to pay class 3 national 136
  insurance contributions in order to protect their future pension rights; and whether he will amend the income support regulations to enable such contributions to he taken into account in assessing their benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Burt
  Many people receiving income support have national insurance contributions credited to their account in order to protect their future pension rights, for example, where they are receiving a contributory social security benefit or they are registered as unemployed. Others may have their pension rights protected by home responsibility protection (HRP) which applies to people who are unable to work regularly because they are required to stay at home to look after a child or sick or disabled person.

  Where there is no entitlement to credits or HRP and any earnings from part-time employment are below the lower earnings limit at which liability for class 1 contributions commences, people may choose to pay voluntary class 3 contributions to the level required to make a tax year a qualifying one for pension purposes.

  There are no plans to change the income support regulations to take such payments into account.

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on work-related upper limb disorders; and how soon he will act upon the findings.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 21 May at column 241.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to determine an application for the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will distinguish the living support, housing and care elements in income support for residential care; what studies he has undertaken to distinguish these elements; and whether he will place the results of these studies in the Library.

  Mr. Burt
  The income support limits do not include separate amounts for specific items of expenditure.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentage of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants which were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for the Doncaster area; and what were the comparable national figures for the financial years (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1991–92 and (iv) 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the
  137
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Community Care Grants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what revision of priorities he has undertaken in respect of those claiming social fund community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary of State's and local guidance on priorities regarding community care grants is kept under regular review; any necessary adjustments are published in the "Social Fund Officer's Guide"; up to date copies of the guide are available in the Library.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the 1991–92 allocation for social fund community care grants, benefit agency by benefit agency, and the allocation for 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give as a percentage figure the budget increase for 1992–93 over 1991–92 for social fund community care grant allocations and the percentage increase in the number of claimants for the social fund community care grant for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Figures on social fund applicants are not available in the precise form requested; but information concerning budget allocations and the number of community care grant applications is available in the Library.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the social fund community care grant to meet the needs of claimants in Stoke on Trent; what targets have been set; and if he will give a breakdown of the levels of outstanding claims; and if he will make a statement.

  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 with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for 1991-92 in respect of the Stoke on Trent benefits agency in percentage terms the numbers of (i) homeless and (ii) other categories of claimant who(a) qualified for social fund community care grants and (b) received social fund community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the objectives which the social fund community care grants are required to meet and list those client groups entitled to social fund community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The objectives of community care grants are set out in the Secretary of State's directions, and guidance 138
  on their interpretation is set out in the "Social Fund Officer's Guide", copies of which are available in the Library. This includes details of client groups.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the implications for those seeking a social fund community care grant of his decision to limit the budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Research into the operation of the fund, including community care grants, has already been commissioned from the social policy research unit of York university and is due to be published shortly. We will be looking at the results carefully.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the rate of interest to be charged on national insurance contributions underpaid under SI 1992 No. 632; and what publicity he has given to small businesses about these new penalties.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Interest on late paid national insurance contributions will be charged at the same rate as that charged by the Inland Revenue on late paid tax (currently 10 per cent.). The charges will apply from 19 April 1993 in respect of payments due in the 1992–93 tax year; they are being publicised by the Inland Revenue, and will be explained in DSS guidance to employers.

  Expatriate Pensioners
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to pay expatriate pensioners living in Commonwealth countries their full qualified and annually adjusted pensions, on the same basis as paid to expatriate pensioners living in European Community countries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  United Kingdom pensioners living in the following Commonwealth countries receive annual uprating increases to their state retirement and widows pensions: Barbados, Cyprus, Jamaica, Malta and Mauritius. We have no plans to extend payment of such increases to pensioners living in other Commonwealth countries.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to provide entitlement to additional income support for parents with children subject to residence orders under the Children Act 1989, comparable with the entitlement applying under care orders prior to the enactment of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Burt
  A parent who receives child benefit for a child who is the subject of a residence order, is already entitled to the child personal allowance in any calculation of income support.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the rights to claim income support and other benefits in addition to the basic single person's allowance, for those parents who are separated from their children by a residence order under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, but are subsequently given access rights to their children by court order for parts of the day or week, including(a) overnight stays and (b) shorter periods.
  139
  Mr. Burt
  Under the income support scheme child personal allowances are payable to the parent who is adjudged to have primary responsibility for the child. We have no plans for change.

  Students
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid to students in the 1991 summer vacation following the decision to restore 10 per cent. of access funding to students facing hardship; what plans he has to take similar steps this year; how much was saved by his Department over the past year following the abolition of benefits previously paid to students; how much has been allocated in 1992 for access funds; how many claimants previously qualifed for and claimed benefits; and how many are in receipt of access funds.

  Mr. Burt
  Changes to the benefit arrangements for students were introduced alongside the enhanced support available through the educational maintenance system.

  The reduction in expenditure on income support and housing benefit was estimated to be £91 million for the 1990–91 academic year.

  There were some 135,000 claims for income support from students during the summer vacation in 1989, the most recent date for which information is available. Data for August 1990 indicate that 19,000 students were in receipt of housing benefit during the summer vacation immediately before the benefit changes were introduced.

  Matters relating to access funds are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  Sources: Special Exercise to record all student claims for Income Support during the 1989 summer vacation.
  The Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System quarterly stock count for August 1990.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions she has had with TEC chairmen about adequate funding for TECs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has already met TEC chairmen on a number of occasions and will do so on a regular basis. The purpose of those meetings is to ensure that TECs continue to play an effective part in meeting our training and enterprise objectives.

  Durham TEC
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of funding has been made available to Durham training and enterprise council this year compared to the last financial year for delivering employment training and youth training programmes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  County Durham TEC's budgets for 1992–93 are £12,986,767 for YT and £16,731,143 for ET. This compares to £15,719,999 and £20,808,873 respectively for 1991–92.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she next plans to meet her European counterparts to discuss unemployment in the EC.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall next be meeting European Community Employment Ministers at the Social Affairs Council later this month. Whenever I meet my counterparts I emphasise to them the importance of avoiding action which will cost jobs in the Community. The promotion of employment growth, enterprise and help for unemployed people will be a top priority for the United Kingdom Presidency.

  Essex TEC
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the performance of the Essex TEC.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Last year Essex TEC provided a total of 4,585 places in youth training, 3,588 in employment training, and 424 people participated in the business start-up programme.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of health and safety inspectors currently employed; and what is the current number of vacancies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On I May 1992, there were 1,491 inspectors in post in the Health and Safety Executive. HSE aims to have a further 101 inspectors in post by 1 April 1993.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in unemployment in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the 12 months to April 1992, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom, rose by 528,700 or 24 per cent.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her current estimate of the total of people who are engaged in more than one job and thus counted more than once in the employment totals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available.

  However, the labour force survey estimated that 737,000 people held a second job as an employee in the spring of 1991.

  Inner-city Unemployment
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help is offered to the unemployed in inner-city areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department, through the Employment Service and the network of training and enterprise councils, currently offers unemployed people a
  141
  wider range of help than ever before in finding jobs or gaining the skills they need to compete for jobs. Many of our programmes are focused on long-term unemployed people and are, therefore, of particular benefit to inner city areas. We have sought to ensure that inner city residents and people from the ethnic minorities have access to these programmes by employing many specialists and outreach staff and by publishing literature in a number of minority languages. Training opportunities and jobs are one of the central features of the city challenge programme.

  Engineering Skills
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment what plans she has for increasing the number of training places available in Stockport for young people to learn engineering skills.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have given training and enterprise councils the responsibility and resources to plan and deliver training which is most appropriate to meet local needs.

  The Stockport area is covered by Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council and we are satisfied that it has adequate training places available for the young people in its area who wish to enter the engineering industry.

  In addition the training and enterprise council plans to increase its engineering provision with the introduction of a new course leading to the achievement of a national vocational qualification level three in two years.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost due to industrial action in(a) 1979, (b) 1991 and (c) the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There were just 0.7 million working days lost through industrial action in the 12 months to March 1992, the latest available period, and 0.8 million working days lost in the whole of 1991. These compare with 29 million working days lost in 1979.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning achieving equality of outcome in employment for minority groups.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are fully committed to ensuring equality of opportunity in the labour market for all.

  The Department takes every opportunity to encourage employers to recognise the value—to themselves as well as to the community—of sound equal opportunities policies and practices in the workplace, and where necessary to provide practical help and advice. A recent example is the Department's 10-point plan pack for employers. Offering practical guidance on the developlment of appropriate policies, the pack underlines the message that the pursuit of equal opportunities is not only in the interests of minority groups. It also makes good business sense for employers to make the best possible use of all the human resources available to them.

  The Government's commitment to equal opportunities in employment is also applied through training and
  142
  enterprise councils and the Employment Service, in the delivery of their programmes and services and by the Government as an employer itself.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will name the members of the small high level working group which will advise her on issues relevant to women's opportunities in the workplace and beyond.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The first members are as follows:

  LADY HOWE

  Chairman

  Business in the Community's Women's Economic Development Team.

  Responsible for Opportunity 2000 (and former Deputy Chairman Equal Opportunities Commission).

  JOANNA FOSTER

  Chairman

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  SUE SLIPMAN

  Director

  National Council for One Parent Families

  BARONESS DENTON
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Trade and Industry and Government Co-chair, Women's National Commission

  SUE RORSTAD

  Chairman and Managing Director

  Poppies UK Ltd.

  PETER DAVIES

  Chief Executive

  Reed International Plc

  KAY COLEMAN

  Chief Executive

  Harveys & Co. (clothing) Ltd.

  GRAHAM MILLAR

  Managing Director

  Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionary Ltd.

  DR. SUSAN MCRAE

  Senior Fellow

  Policy Studies Institute

  SIR BRYAN NICHOLSON

  Chairman,
  Post Office
  Chairman,
  National Council for Vocational Qualifications; Former Chairman, Manpower Services Commission

  MARGARET SEYMOUR

  Managing Director

  Seymour Swimming Pool Engineers

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on the matter of the working time directive; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am determined through constructive discussions with our Community partners to continue to protect employers and employees in the United Kingdom against arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions.

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds in the Sheffield area are not at present on youth training programmes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Exact figures are not available, but I understand that the Sheffield TEC considers that the YT guarantee is being met.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances citizens from other European Community countries may participate in youth or employment training or in other employment and training schemes financed by the Employment Department; once having entered a programme whether they are entitled to complete it; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Non-United Kingdom European Community nationals are generally eligible to participate in the full range of employment and training services and

  Young people on Government sponsored schemes in Great Britain

  March 1979

  March 1982

  March 1987

  2March 1992

  Programme

  YOP

  YOP

  YTS

  YT

  On Scheme

  68,200

  197,800

  303,800

  295,800

  Receiving Training1

  8,900

  25,700

  ALL

  ALL

  Notes: 1 YOP was initially set up to provide work experience opportunities, training formed only a small part of some of the YOP programmes. The numbers are estimates only.

  2 Estimated figures.

  Sources of information: YOP: YOP Management Information System.

  YTS: 'Spectrum' YTS Management Information System.

  YT: OSMOSIS and Financial Management Information systems.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to be the earliest opportunity for the introduction of legislation to enable appropriate additional jurisdiction to be conferred on industrial tribunals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expects to make provision to extend the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals in a Bill that she will be presenting in the current session of Parliament.

  Teesside TEC
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the firms and training organisations to which the Teesside TEC has overpaid grants in the last financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Contracts between TECs and their training providers are confidential matters for the parties involved. I am unable, therefore, to disclose the information requested.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will introduce legislation to reduce or to remove Crown immunity against prosecutions for offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The citizens charter recognised that Government activities should not be immune from
  144
  programmes funded by the Employment Department through the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils. This is conditional, however, on their meeting the relevant eligibility criteria for the programmes and services in question which apply to United Kingdom nationals. Having entered a programme, non-United Kingdom European Community nationals have a full entitlement to complete it.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on youth training schemes; what were the numbers in comparable schemes five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest estimates for the number of young people on YT or receiving training credits is 295,800 at March 1992. Before 1978–79, Government-sponsored schemes were not aimed specifically at providing training for young people comparable with YTS/YT and thus there are no separate figures for 15 years ago. The table gives the number of young people for the other periods asked for.

  inspection and enforcement on matters such as health and safety regulations. The Crown is already required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and the relevant statutory provisions. Crown bodies are inspected to that end, and there is provision for a Crown notice procedure. The Crown remains immune from criminal prosecution and there are no plans to change that position. However, the adequacy of the current Crown notice procedure is under review, in line with the principles outlined in the citizens charter.

  EC Social Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the experts her Department consults on European Community proposals pertaining to social matters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment consults widely on European Community proposals in the employment and social field. Employers and their organisations, professional associations and other interested bodies, trades unions and specialists are consulted as appropriate. The precise list of consultees depends on the nature of the proposal in question. In matters relating to health and safety at work, the Secretary of State is advised by the Health and Safety Commission.

  Interwork Programme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the allocation for 1991–92 and 1992–93 for the interwork programme; how many disabled
  145
  people were budgeted for under this programme in 1991–92 and for 1992–93; and of those how many disabled people are benefiting from the programme in Stoke on Trent.

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

  Social Charter
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to meet her EC colleagues to discuss developments relating to the social charter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be meeting European Community ministers later this month at the Social Affairs Council when a number of proposals from the European Commission's social action programme are due to be discussed.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for the introduction of maximum weekly working hours in compliance with the draft European Community directive; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government see no justification for general and compulsory limits on the working week. Negotiations are continuing on the European Community proposals on working hours to seek to protect employers and employees in the United Kingdom from arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she has any plans to improve the treatment of women at work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Within the new machinery of government changes that I announced on 20 May, I shall be seeking to identify particular areas where further action would be appropriate to help advance women's opportunities at work.

ENVIRONMENT

  New Policies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by date, any new policies he has announced since his appointment in either media interviews or at other public events.

  Mr. Howard
  Since my appointment, and before it became possible to make announcements to the House, I announced the following new policies by way of press announcements: the provision of up to SI million to help rescue the non-governmental organisations' Global Forum taking place in Rio this month—press notice 295, dated 3 May; a 25 per cent. increase in recycling investment-press notice 283, dated 27 April; the United Kingdom's signature of the agreement to protect small cetaceans in the North and Baltic seas-press notice 298, dated 5 May.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support is currently offered by the Government to assist lower income countries to introduce substitutes for chemicals, eliminated by the revised Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. The Government have offered a contribution of up to $15 million to the Montreal protocol funding mechanism to assist developing country parties to the protocol comply with its controls.

  Building Design
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to offer guidelines to building designers to ensure that buildings designed for public use take women's safety needs fully into account.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Where it is considered appropriate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make regulations with respect to building design with the aim of securing the safety of persons in or about buildings.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take measures to ban the transportation of all toxic and radioactive waste to and from the United Kingdom: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations are in progress on a draft EC Regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The Regulation will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the UNEP Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The Government believe that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in final disposal of waste, and is pressing for the regulation to include controls to that effect. The Government consider that imports of hazardous waste should continue from developing countries which are unable to deal safely with such waste. Under the current draft of the regulation no exports for final disposal would be allowed from the Community, except to EFTA countries. The Government also consider that international movements of waste for recovery should continue subject to appropriate environmental controls, such as those included in the recent OECD Decision on this subject.

  No radioactive waste is imported into the United Kingdom. Spent nuclear fuel is imported but this is a resource which can be reprocessed. Since 1976, British Nuclear Fuels Limited's contracts have contained options for the return of wastes arising from reprocessing nuclear fuel. The Government intend that reprocessing contracts with overseas customers should continue to contain such options, and that these options will be exercised and wastes returned.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list(a) the number of officials by rank and grade and (b) the number of

  147
  consultants attending the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, giving details of their class of travel and the total budgeted cost of the delegation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom delegation will consist of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister for Overseas Development, myself, and 25 officials from DOE, FCO, ODA, DTI. and the Forestry Commission. Official gradings are:

  Number

  Senior grade

  8

  Counsellor/equivalent

  5

  First secretary/equivalent

  11

  Third secretary

  1

  In addition, there are five members of the delegation attached to our diplomatic posts in Brazil. Their gradings are:

  Number

  Senior grade

  1

  Counsellor

  1

  First secretary

  1

  Second secretary

  2

  Eight junior support staff will also attend the conference, as well as 12 NGO observers who will form part of the United Kingdom delegation.

  The staff involved will he needed to service not only the plenary sessions of the conference but also the specialised sectoral working groups that will be set up and where much of the detailed negotiating will be done. So far eight informal working groups have been convened and others will be assembled if' necessary. Other staff are required to provide office support facilities and to liaise wih the local authorities over such matters as transport and security.

  Ministers, their private secretaries and the ambassadors to the United Nations and to Brazil will travel first class; all other delegates will travel club class. The estimated cost of the delegation's travel and subsistence, including hotel costs will be about £190,000. NGOs will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.

  The estimated total administrative cost of the
  conference, inlcuding office facilities, transport and communications will be about £500,000.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the approximate percentage of potable public water supplies in England and Wales leaving service reservoirs which is used for(a) industrial or manufacturing processes, (b) non-domestic cleaning, (c) personal washing and domestic cleansing, including clothes, (d) domestic and public water closets, (e) garden watering, (f) wastage and (g) any other major category of use.

  Mr. Maclean
  We shall include the best obtainable information on the subject in the consultation paper on water conservation which my right hon. Friend has said he will publish shortly. The statistics readily available do not. use the same set of categories as the hon. Member has listed.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the National Rivers Authority will continue its sampling for salmonella and viruses of designated bathing beaches during the current bathing season.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority will monitor for salmonella at all identified bathing waters and for enteroviruses at bathing waters which failed the coliform standards last season.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department in the implementation of the recommendations of the international environmental education programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  As non-members of UNESCO we have no plans to make a contribution to this programme. This Government's commitment to environmental education was set out in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" published in 1990 and in subsequent follow up reports.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households are in arrears with mortgages by six months or more(a) now, (b) a year ago and (c) two years ago.

  Mr. Baldry
  Annual information on mortgage arrears for the years 1980–91 is published in the May issue of the Council of Mortgage Lenders' quarterly publication, "Housing Finance", which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Relocation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of requests from the different regions of the United Kingdom offering locations for redeployed civil servants from Marsham street.

  Mr. Howard
  Since the announcement by my predecessor on 6 February that No. 2 Marsham street was to be demolished, my Department has received representations on behalf of Nottinghamshire, Pembrokeshire, Plymouth, Sheffield, Tyne and Wear, York and the Wirral. The Department of Transport, who also occupy No. 2 Marsham street, have received approaches in respect of east Kent, Nottinghamshire and York.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria on which he based the decision to relocate civil servants from his Department to Canary Wharf.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria(a) previously used and (b) proposed to be used by his Department in assessing the value for money of alternative locations for the staff he proposes to move from Marsham street.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided to move staff of my Department to Docklands; Canary Wharf is only one of
  149
  the properties being considered. The posts which are being relocated need to remain within London because they carry out work which requires regular contact with Ministers. I have decided on a move to Docklands because the advice I have received is that the best value for money which is currently available is to be found there. Some 2,000 posts will relocate to Docklands, provided that we secure fully commercial terms giving value for money to the taxpayer. In deciding between properties in Docklands I shall consider non-financial factors (such as the quality of the working environment; the efficiency, accessibility and environmental standards of the buildings; and the convenience and safety of staff) as well as financial ones.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future location of the 3,000 civil servants from his Department who are not to be transferred to Canary Wharf.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided to move staff of my Department to docklands; Canary Wharf is only one of the properties being considered. Other staff will continue to be located elsewhere in London, including Westminster, or in their existing locations outside. A large number of posts have already been moved out of London over recent years, and some 40 per cent. of my staff now work outside London. Those who remain in the capital are those with a need for regular contact with Ministers.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish the full terms of any lease taken on premises in docklands to accommodate staff of his Department moved from Marsham street.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Any lease taken for premises in docklands will be the result of a commercial negotiation and as such will be confidential to the Department and the developer concerned in accordance with long-established policy in these matters.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to bus in staff relocated to docklands.

  Mr. Howard
  I have undertaken to put in place arrangements to help to minimise the effects of a move to docklands on the staff of my Department. The details have yet to be settled.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of redundancies arising from the demolition of the Marsham street offices and the relocation in docklands.

  Mr. Howard
  Staff in non-mobile grades who choose not to move to docklands will be eligible for redundancy.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the office rentals available in docklands in the first(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 20 years compared with those available in (i) Sheffield and (ii) elsewhere outside London.

  Mr. Baldry
  Current rents and terms now on offer in docklands compare favourably with other parts of the United Kingdom.

  The possibility of the large rental increases in the future has been foreseen and my officials are considering how
  150
  best that risk can be minimised in the negotiations referred to in the Secretary of State's statement of 2 June on this matter.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the alternative sites he considered as possible locations for staff to be transferred from Marsham street; and if he will give the reasons in each case why such sites have been rejected.

  Mr. Howard:
  My Department's advisers identified four locations as best meeting the Department's needs for relocation within London, all of them in docklands. I have ruled out one of those four, Thomas More square, Wapping, because it is very much more expensive than the other three. Three—Harbour Exchange, Canary Wharf and East India Dock—remain under consideration.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of office sites in Sheffield as a potential destination for staff relocated from Marsham street; and if he will list the criteria which caused a site in docklands to be preferred.

  Mr. Howard
  The staff of my Department who are to be relocated to docklands need to be in London because they need to have regular contacts with Ministers. The question of assessing sites in Sheffield does not arise.

  Drought
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure the continuity of water supply in times of drought.

  Mr. Maclean
  Primary responsibility for maintaining public water supplies rests with the water companies. The National Rivers Authority (NRA) also have a general statutory responsibility for conserving, redistributing and augmenting water resources and securing their proper use. My Department has for some months been holding regular meetings with the NRA, the Office of Water Services and the water companies to ensure necessary liaison and that we are aware of action (such as the consideration of applications for drought orders) that will be needed by the Department.

  I have written to all Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend, in the areas which may be affected by water shortages this summer to explain the situation in greater detail. My right hon. Friend proposes to issue a consultation paper on water conservation shortly.

  Methane
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is currently being allocated by his Department to research institutions to develop ways of reducing methane emissions.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has responsibility for controlling methane emissions from landfill sites. Currently we are funding projects on the design of landfill gas flaring systems and on optimising methane oxidation in landfill cover soils. These projects have a total value of £200,000.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been allocated by his Department for the forthcoming year to undertake publicity campaigns to promote more efficient energy use in homes, offices, industry and transport.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has allocated £6.3 million for publicity and information promotion on energy efficiency during 1992–93.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of sums allocated to cover the cost of enterprise zones(a) by individual enterprise zone. (b) in total for the United Kingdom and (c) including sums which would have accrued from changes in rateable values or increases in capital values over the period of the life of the enterprise zone.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table shows outturn costs for rate revenue forgone in United Kingdom enterprise zones up to 31 March 1990. No comparable figures are available for other enterprise zone allowances.

  Compensation for rates revenue forgone up to 31 March 1990

  Enterprise zone

  £ million

  England

  Allerdale

  2.721

  Corby

  20.964

  Dudley

  26.087

  Glanford

  1.124

  Hartlepool

  5.193

  Isle of Dogs

  37.593

  Middlesbrough

  4.264

  North East Lancashire

  6.370

  North West Kent

  14.046

  Rotherham

  8.135

  Salford/Trafford

  36.678

  Scunthorpe

  9.737

  Speke

  14.522

  Telford

  10.958

  Tyneside

  55.588

  Wakefield

  8.495

  Wellingborough

  7.131

  Wales

  Delyn

  3.549

  Milford Haven

  3.149

  Swansea

  15.817

  Scotland

  Clydebank

  120.381

  Inverclyde

  120.381

  Invergordon

  0.769

  Tayside

  5.454

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  9.899

  Londonderry

  4.240

  UNITED KINGDOM TOTAL

  332.865

  1 Not available separately.

  It is not possible to say how much of the above total has resulted from changes in rateable values.

  Water Meters
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on increasing the use of water meters.
  152
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 2 June 1992 to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)Official Report, column 383.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information the Office of Water Services has on how many water meters are installed in each water authority area.

  Mr. Maclean
  About 0.5 million domestic properties and 1.1 million commercial and industrial properties in England and Wales receive water on a metered supply. Details of the number of metered properties in each water company area are contained in OFWAT publication entitled "The UK Water Industry—Charges for water services 1992–93", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information OFWAT has on what changes in the consumption of water have been brought about where water meters have been installed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information from the national water metering trials funded by DOE and the water industry indicates that in the large scale Isle of Wight trial the amount of water put into supply has fallen by 11.1 per cent., of which it is estimated that 5.9 per cent. was the result of reductions in leakage. In the small scale trials demand has reduced on average by 13.1 per cent. although the effect in individual trials ranged from - 29.6 per cent. to +2.3 per cent. In these trials, it is estimated that reductions in leakage accounted for 5.1 per cent. of the average reduction.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment OFWAT has made of whether average water bills have increased or decreased in areas where water meters have been introduced.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information from the national water metering trial areas indicates that about 65 per cent. of customers paid the same as or less than they would have paid on a rateable value basis. About 20 per cent. of customers paid over 20 per cent. more.

  National Water Grid
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans to establish a national water grid.

  Mr. Maclean
  Bulk supplies of water are already transferred over considerable distances in a number of cases. The National Rivers Authority (NRA) considers further possible schemes in its consultation paper "Water Resources Development Strategy" published in March. It will be for the National Rivers Authority and the water companies to decide whether they believe any such scheme should be promoted.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current statutory regulations used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of Pollution in respect of waste or sewage incinerators both individually and severally; and what are the comparable standards adopted by France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, respectively.
  153
  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) controls those processes involving the incineration of waste or sewage sludge which are described in "The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 (SI 472) and The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (SI 614) issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These require each process to be individually authorised and for the best available technologies not entailing excessive cost to be used by the operator to prevent or reduce emissions from the process.

  To provide guidance on the standards to be applied, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution issues guidance notes to its inspectors relating to the processes it controls. These provide a sound framework within which Inspectors can assess applications for the authorisation of new processes and existing processes. The notes are also publicly available for the benefit of operators and other interested parties.

  I recently announced (Official Report, 21 May, column 197), the publication of those notes relating to processes in the waste disposal and recycling sector which includes these three incineration processes.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the question of how the standards applied in England and Wales compare with those of the four countries cited.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the incentives currently available to encourage the development of more energy-efficient processes and vehicles by industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The energy efficiency office promotes detailed technical and economic advice to industry on energy efficient processes through its best practice. The EEO also supports consultancy help in the management of energy efficiency investments in smaller industrial companies.

  Energy efficiency in transport is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport to a question by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 2 June at column 522.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average value of properties sold to tenants under the pilot rents-to-mortgages schemes in Basildon and Milton Keynes; what was the average initial payment made by tenants under the schemes; and what proportion of sales have been flats.

  Mr. Baldry
  Most of the houses sold in Milton Keynes were worth £40,000 to £50,000; in Basildon, most were worth over £50,000. Information on the initial payment made is at present available only for Milton Keynes, where more than half the tenants paid between £15,000 and £20,000. Four out of the 103 properties sold have been flats.

  North Tyneside (Urban Programme)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for each year since its inception the amount of funding under the urban programme allocated to the North Tyneside area at(a) cash prices and (b) 1991–92 prices.

  Mr. Squire
  Figures for urban programme allocations to North Tyneside are only available in the Department from 1979–80 when the programme was transferred from the Home Office. The information is as follows:

  (a) At cash prices

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  1.400

  1980–81

  2.749

  1981–82

  2.335

  1982–83

  2.940

  1983–84

  3.437

  1984–85

  3.155

  1985–86

  3.245

  1986–87

  3.605

  1987–88

  3.555

  1988–89

  3.442

  1989–90

  3.400

  1990–91

  3.625

  1991–92

  3.560

  1992–93

  3.371

  (b) At 1991–92 prices

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  3.255

  1980–81

  5.401

  1981–82

  4.184

  1982–83

  4.918

  1983–84

  5.495

  1984–85

  4.803

  1985–86

  4.682

  1986–87

  5.036

  1987–88

  4.710

  1988–89

  4.255

  1989–90

  3.946

  1990–91

  3.879

  1991–92

  3.560

  1992–93

  3.233

  Traffic, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his Department to measure the extent of atomospheric pollution attributable to emissions from motor vehicles in the Greenwich area; and what information is available on this matter.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department commissioned a study of nitrogen dioxide levels throughout the United Kingdom using diffusion tubes during 1991. As part of this survey, levels of this pollutant of which the major source is motor traffic were measured in the Greenwich area. The report of this study was published last month by Warren Spring laboratory and is available in the Library of the House.

  Black smoke concentrations have been rising over the last few years in the Greenwich area. This increase is thought to be due to increasing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in the locality.

  Mineral Planning Authority
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment who are the members of the mineral planning authority covering the Kirklees area; when they were appointed to this authority; and by whom.

  Mr. Baldry
  I regret that this information is not held by the Department.

  Hunterprint
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what printing contracts the company Hunterprint had, or has outstanding with his Department related to(a) water privatisation and (b) any other matters; and if he will give the dates and details of the nature and the subject matter of the printed material for each contract.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The company Hunterprint was contracted by my Department, following competitive tender, to print the flotation brochure included in the information pack for the launch of the sale of the water companies of England and Wales in 1989. Some 3 million copies were produced in English and 250,000 copies in Welsh.

  No other contracts with this firm are recorded.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent applications his Department has received from the Australian Government supporting the plans of the Australian companies Carpentaria and Brambles, Australia, respectively, to import toxic waste into the United Kingdom from Australia for treatment; and what response has been made.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The Australian Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories has written to my Department to seek a bilateral agreement under article 11 of the United Nations Environment Programme Basle convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. This would allow Australia to ship such waste to the United Kingdom for disposal. I have decided not to agree to the request, and we are replying accordingly.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 369–70, whether sites of special scientific interest will, in future, be protected from any depradation by agriculture, quarrying or any other activity.

  G5

  G7

  SEO

  HEO

  E0

  AO

  AA

  Salary cost £

  FLT

  1

  3

  3

  4.5

  7

  8

  4

  604,000

  FLG

  1

  3

  —

  4

  7

  2

  1

  392,000

  FLGR

  1

  3

  —

  2

  3

  2

  —

  248,000

  FLER

  1

  4

  1

  3

  2

  3

  1

  191,000

  FLC

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  3

  1

  224,000

  FLAS

  1

  5

  3

  4

  8

  10

  1

  598,000

  PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

  For the purposes of MINIS the Directorate's declared objectives and proposed tasks are compared with what has been achieved during the year, taking into account all relevant factors including the resources used.
  156
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 9 June 1992:] Development proposals in or near sites of special scientific interest are strictly controlled either through the measures set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, or the planning system.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the branches of the local government finance policy division of his Department(a) the total number of staff, analysed by grade, (b) the total salary costs, (c) the policy responsibilities and (d) the measurements of policy outcomes used to appraise the branch for the purposes of MINIS and the branch's achievements in the most recent MINIS report.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The information is as follows:

  POLICY RESPONSIBILITIES

  Finance Local Taxation Division (FLT)
  Monitoring and operation of the Community Charge; monitoring and operation of non-domestic rates, including payments for Valuation Office Agency services and planning for the 1995 non-domestic revaluation; oversight of Valuation Tribunals; preparation for Council Tax.

  Finance Local Authority Grants Division (FLG)
  Annual local government finance settlement; collection and payment of non-domestic rates and grant; PES and Vote management; sponsorship of the Audit Commission; commutation.

  Finance Local Authority Grants and Revenue Division (FLGR)
  Standard Spending Assessments and Revenue Support Grant.

  Finance Local Authority Expenditure and Revenues Division (FLER)
  Local Authority accounting advice; council tax and community charge setting, precepting, levying, capping and funds.

  Finance Local Capital Division (FLC)
  Capital allocations to authorities; monitoring operation of capital finance system; local authority financial prudence.

  Finance Local Authority Statistics Division (FLAS)
  Collection and analysis of data; forecasting and briefing.

  STAFF AND SALARY COSTS

  Staff numbers at 31 March 1992.

  Salary costs for year ending 31 March 1992.

  157
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regulations still to be made under the Local Government Finance Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The following regulations arising from the Local Government Finance Act 1992 have still to be made for England:

  Appeals

  The Council Tax (Alteration of List) Regulations

  Valuation Tribunals Regulations

  Valuation

  The Domestic Property (Definition) Regulations

  Tax Setting, Precepting, Levying and Funds

  Collection Fund Regulations

  Levying Body Regulations

  Anticipation of Precepts Regulations

  Information for Tax Setting Purposes Regulations

  Council Tax Benefit and Transitional Arrangements

  Council Tax Benefit Regulations [to he made by the Department of Social Security]

  The Council Tax (Reduction Scheme) (England) Regulations

  Administration and Enforcement

  The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations

  Miscellaneous

  Commencement Orders (Consequential Amendments and Repeals)

  Consequential Amendments. Repeals etc Order

  Netting Off Regulations

  National Non-Domestic Rate

  Duty to consult Ratepayers Regulations

  Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (Final Adjustments) Regulations

  Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (England) (Amendment) Regulations

  Non-Domestic Rating Interest (Amendment) Regulations

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the capping criteria for Cheltenham borough council and Gloucester city council for 1992–93 were adjusted to take into account the misallocation of grant to these councils in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what account was taken of boundary changes in fixing grant allocations to local authorities in Gloucestershire for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will visit Cheltenham to discuss his 1992–93 grant allocation with councillors and other residents' representatives.

  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The boundary changes affecting Gloucestershire districts occurred too late to be taken into account in 1991–92 standard spending assessments and hence in revenue support grant distribution. Instead, compensating payments were made between the authorities concerned.

  Allowance is made for these boundary changes in the 1992–93 SSAs in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 12 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England), which was approved by the House of Commons on 4 February 1992. In the circumstances, I believe that it would not be appropriate to visit Cheltenham to discuss the 1992–93 RSG distribution.
  158
  SSAs are central to the capping criteria for 1992–93; hence we consider the criteria we have adopted make appropriate allowance for the effect of the boundary changes.

  Gloucester's total SSA for 1992–93 is 13.1 per cent. higher than for 1991–92. That of Cheltenham is 16.7 per cent. higher. These increases in large part reflect the boundary changes.

HEALTH

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's plans on implementation of the findings of(a) the Howe inquiry and (b) the report by Sir William Utting.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 5 June at column 670. Implementation of the recommendations in Sir William Utting's report is being coordinated by a group chaired by the Department and including local authority, professional, voluntary sector and other Government Department interests.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on those recommendations of the Howe inquiry which give an emphasis on training; and what assessment she has made of the inclusion in the diploma in social work course of enhanced training specifically on residential care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall he giving careful consideration to all the recommendations of the Howe inquiry which are relevant to our responsibilities.

  The Government are strongly committed to improving social work training; this commitment is embodied in the training strategy for the personal social services which we announced last year. Particularly, we are assisting local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities for training staff through the Department's training support programme, central grant for which has been increased from £24.8 million to £29 million in 1992–93. Approximately 140,000 local authority staff are expected to benefit from training under this programme this year, nearly half of whom work in residential care. Funds have been reserved from the grant this year specifically to boost the output of qualifying training for residential child care staff. Further funds have been provided to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to provide grants for qualifying training for heads of voluntary children's homes.

  The Department has also funded an expert group to look at the content of diploma in social work courses for residential child care staff. This report is expected very shortly.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide extra funds to local authorities to cover extra training for staff working in residential care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is already providing extra funds to local authorities for training through the training support programme specific grant. The grant was introduced in 1988–89 at a level of £7 million and has been increased year on year to its current level of £29 million. Approximately half of the 140,000 staff expected to benefit from training under the programme work in residential care.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of distinction awards paid to national health service consultants in England over the period 1982–1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Distinction awards: Analysis by type of award, specialty and percentage distribution at 31 December 1991 — England and Wales The Secretariat. Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards, Department of Health, 426 Portland Court, 158-176 Great Portland Street, London WIN 5TB

  Award holders

  Eligible practitioners

  Total

  A+

  A

  B

  C

  Non-award holders

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  All specialties: Total

  17,182

  100.0

  5,930

  34.5

  194

  1.1

  674

  3.9

  1,526

  8.9

  3,536

  20.6

  11,252

  65.5

  Accident and Emergency

  218

  1.3

  44

  20.2

  —

  —

  3

  1.4

  8

  3.7

  33

  15.1

  174

  79.8

  Anaesthetics

  2,217

  12.9

  644

  29.0

  23

  1.0

  40

  1.8

  156

  7.0

  425

  19.2

  1,573

  71.0

  Cardiology

  187

  1.1

  89

  47.6

  4

  2.1

  19

  10.2

  22

  11.8

  44

  23.5

  98

  52.4

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  130

  0.8

  61

  46.9

  3

  2.3

  10

  7.7

  21

  16.2

  27

  20.8

  69

  53.1

  Clinical neurological physiology

  62

  0.4

  21

  33.9

  —

  —

  2

  3.2

  3

  4.8

  16

  25.8

  41

  66.1

  Oral surgery

  264

  1.5

  118

  44.7

  3

  1.1

  17

  6.4

  29

  11.0

  69

  26.1

  146

  55.3

  Orthodontics

  155

  0.9

  53

  34.2

  1

  0.6

  4

  2.6

  11

  7.1

  37

  23.9

  102

  65.8

  Restorative dentistry

  108

  0.6

  36

  33.3

  1

  0.9

  7

  6.5

  8

  7.4

  20

  18.5

  72

  66.7

  Public health dentistry

  7

  —

  2

  28.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  28.6

  5

  71.4

  Dermatology

  253

  1.5

  84

  33.2

  —

  —

  14

  5.5

  20

  7.9

  50

  19.8

  169

  66.8

  Diseases of the chest

  116

  0.7

  61

  52.6

  1

  0.9

  7

  6.0

  12

  10.3

  41

  35.3

  55

  47.4

  General medicine

  1,534

  8.9

  742

  48.4

  28

  1.8

  114

  7.4

  201

  13.1

  399

  26.0

  792

  51.6

  General surgery

  1,241

  7.2

  566

  45.6

  24

  1.9

  70

  5.6

  149

  12.0

  323

  26.0

  675

  54.4

  Genito-urinary medicine

  170

  1.0

  34

  20.0

  —

  —

  4

  2.4

  5

  2.9

  25

  14.7

  136

  80.0

  Geriatric medicine

  576

  3.4

  130

  22.6

  1

  0.2

  10

  1.7

  26

  4.5

  93

  16.1

  446

  77.4

  Infectious diseases

  39

  0.2

  18

  46.2

  1

  2.6

  2

  5.1

  3

  7.7

  12

  30.8

  21

  53.8

  Mental illness

  1,298

  7.6

  371

  28.6

  11

  0.8

  36

  2.8

  93

  7.2

  231

  17.8

  927

  71.4

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  370

  2.2

  79

  21.4

  3

  0.8

  4

  1.1

  17

  4.6

  55

  14.9

  291

  78.6

  Forensic psychiatry

  77

  0.4

  20

  26.0

  1

  1.3

  2

  2.6

  4

  5.2

  13

  16.9

  57

  74.0

  Mental handicap

  173

  1.0

  29

  16.8

  —

  —

  4

  2.3

  4

  2.3

  21

  12.1

  144

  83.2

  Psychotherapy

  102

  0.6

  22

  21.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  7.8

  14

  13.7

  80

  78.4

  Neurology

  208

  1.2

  107

  51.4

  4

  1.9

  19

  9.1

  39

  18.8

  45

  21.6

  101

  48.6

  Neurosurgery

  106

  0.6

  62

  58.5

  4

  3.8

  13

  12.3

  24

  22.6

  21

  19.8

  44

  41.5

  Nuclear medicine

  31

  0.2

  16

  51.6

  1

  3.2

  5

  16.1

  8

  25.8

  2

  6.5

  15

  48.4

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  851

  5.0

  328

  38.5

  15

  1.8

  30

  3.5

  72

  8.5

  211

  24.8

  523

  61.5

  Occupational medicine

  25

  0.1

  3

  12.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4.0

  2

  8.0

  22

  88.0

  Ophthalmology

  453

  2.6

  156

  34.4

  3

  0.7

  19

  4.2

  42

  9.3

  92

  20.3

  297

  65.6

  Orthopaedic surgery

  790

  4.6

  284

  35.9

  8

  1.0

  23

  2.9

  61

  7.7

  192

  24.3

  506

  64.1

  Otolaryngology

  406

  2.4

  150

  36.9

  1

  0.2

  12

  3.0

  30

  7.4

  107

  26.4

  256

  63.1

  Paediatrics

  856

  5.0

  307

  35.9

  12

  1.4

  31

  3.6

  84

  9.8

  180

  21.0

  549

  64.1

  Paediatric surgery

  52

  0.3

  23

  44.2

  —

  —

  5

  9.6

  12

  23.1

  6

  11.5

  29

  55.8

  Pathology: general

  8

  —

  3

  37.5

  —

  —

  1

  12.5

  1

  12.5

  1

  12.5

  5

  62.5

  Blood transfusion

  32

  0.2

  11

  34.4

  1

  3.1

  2

  6.2

  4

  12.5

  4

  12.5

  21

  65.6

  Chemical pathology

  184

  1.1

  63

  34.2

  3

  1.6

  10

  5.4

  18

  9.8

  32

  17.4

  121

  65.8

  Haematology

  407

  2.4

  143

  35.1

  3

  0.7

  23

  5.7

  35

  8.6

  82

  20.1

  264

  64.9

  Histopathology

  645

  3.8

  199

  30.9

  7

  1.1

  22

  3.4

  61

  9.5

  109

  16.9

  446

  69.1

  Immunopathology

  46

  0.3

  27

  58.7

  2

  4.3

  7

  15.2

  12

  26.1

  6

  13.0

  19

  41.3

  Medical microbiology

  330

  1.9

  118

  35.8

  3

  0.9

  16

  4.8

  37

  11.2

  62

  18.8

  212

  64.2

  Neuro-pathology

  41

  0.2

  16

  39.0

  —

  —

  3

  7.3

  5

  12.2

  8

  19.5

  25

  61.0

  PHLS only

  32

  0.2

  11

  34.4

  —

  —

  3

  9.4

  3

  9.4

  5

  15.6

  21

  65.6

  Public health medicine

  535

  3.1

  157

  29.3

  8

  1.5

  16

  3.0

  41

  7.7

  92

  17.2

  378

  70.7

  Plastic surgery

  124

  0.7

  43

  34.7

  —

  —

  4

  3.2

  15

  12.1

  24

  19.4

  81

  65.3

  Radiology

  1,212

  7.1

  309

  25.5

  9

  0.7

  25

  2.1

  82

  6.8

  193

  15.9

  903

  74.5

  Radiotherapy

  223

  1.3

  84

  37.7

  4

  1.8

  8

  3.6

  18

  8.1

  54

  24.2

  139

  62.3

  Rheumatology and rehabilitation

  288

  1.7

  86

  29.9

  1

  0.3

  8

  2.8

  21

  7.3

  56

  19.4

  202

  70.1

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number of cases over the last five years of tampon-related toxic shock syndrome; and how many of these have resulted in death.

  Mr. Sackville
  Statistics from the public health laboratory service indicate that in recent years cases of tampon-related toxic shock syndrome average around 15 per year with one or two deaths for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  160
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of national health service consultants in each specialty get distinction awards, A +, A, B and C; and of these what proportion do private practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The distribution of distinction awards for England including special health authorities and Wales by specialty at 31 December 1991, the latest date for which information is available, is set out in the table.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of award holders undertaking private practice.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average number of patients per general practitioner in the Durham area in 1979 and 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 October 1979, the average number of patients on general medical practitioner lists in the Durham family health services authority area was 2,461 and at 1 October 1991, this has reduced by 19 per cent. to 1,989.

  Community Care
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on community care assessments.

  Mr. Yeo
  From April 1993, when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is fully implemented, local authorities will take lead responsibility for assessing individuals' needs for care and arranging packages of care services whether in a person's own home or in a residential care or nursing home. Assessments and the provision of services will often require contributions from other agencies. Assessment of individuals' care needs underpins our proposals and will ensure services are tailored to need.

  Homeopathic Medicines
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the prescription of(a) evening primrose oil and (b) other homeopathic medicines by the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two evening primrose oil preparations have been granted product licences by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), and are available on national health service prescripton for the conditions for which they are licensed. A number of other preparations have been considered by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, but the committee considers that they have no therapeutic use in the treatment of disease in the community. They are therefore included in the list of products that cannot be prescribed on the national health service.

  General practitioners can prescribe any product which they consider necessary for the treatment of their national health service patients provided it is not included in that list, and provided that they are prepared to justify their prescribing, if challenged, to their family health services authority.

  National Health Service Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual regional distribution of distinction awards, A +, A, B and C, paid to national health service consultants by specialty over the period 1982 to 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am arranging for tables showing the distribution of distinction awards, by grade of award, within each specialty for each region, the special health authorities and Wales, for the years ended 31 December 1982 to 1991 inclusive to be placed in the Library.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she has any plans to arrange for volunteers to feed patients who cannot feed themselves; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We welcome the valuable contribution that volunteers make in helping patients in hospital, including, where appropriate, helping those who cannot feed themselves. The extent to which volunteers are used is essentially a local issue which must be decided by the hospital, patient and volunteer concerned.

  Imigran
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the drug Imigran used for relief to migraine sufferers, is available on prescription in its(a) injection form and (b) tablet form; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Both Imigran tablets and injections have been licensed and are available as prescription-only medicines.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish the latest figures available showing(a) the average charge for private sight tests and (b) the uptake of private sight tests by the over-60s since restrictions on NHS tests were introduced;

  (2) if she will conduct a survey to find out the total number of private sight tests carried out for each year since restrictions on national health service tests were introduced; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department collects information on national health service sight tests only. Other sight tests are private transactions. The optical profession conducts regular surveys on the total number of sight tests, both national health service and private. Their findings indicate that the number of sight tests has returned to 1987 levels—the last typical year before changes in the sight-testing arrangements were announced.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the proceedings of the board of the London ambulance service to be made public.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proceedings of the London Ambulance Service Board are not made public. Accountability is exercised through the South West Thames regional health authority whose proceedings are subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation she is proposing on the loss of wards in the Royal Northern hospital in Islington and Bloomsbury health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Bloomsbury and Islington health authority consulted interested parties on its proposals to centralise the acute services in Islington on the Archway and St. Mary's sites of the Whittington hospital. Following Islington community health council (CHC) opposition to those proposals the matter was referred to Ministers.

  The hon. Member, together with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the CHC, met with my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 5 February to discuss those proposals.

  I subsequently wrote to the chairman of Bloomsbury and Islington health authority on 1 June, copying the letter to the hon. Member, stating that it would not be right in this case for Ministers to intervene to overturn the decision by local management.

  Chiropodists
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reconsider allowing privately trained and qualified chiropodists to work within the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All people employed as chiropodists in the national health service must be state registered, whether or not they were privately trained. There are no plans to change this arrangement.
  164
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will initiate a new comparison in the qualifications and working practices of private and national health service practising chiropodists; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. This would be a matter for the profession.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
Several Lords Several Lords— Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Immigrants Advisory Service: Future
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are not satisfied with the way in which the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service's executive committee and general council have overseen the organisation. We are considering the future arrangements for non-asylum cases. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that it might have been imprudent to have given that organisation, weak as it was, a monopoly—a decision which might have caused its collapse?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that it collapsed because it was a monopoly but because there was turmoil in the general council.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the light of the Answer the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I should like to ask this question. Will he tell the House who under the new circumstances will take over the functions which were assigned to the UKIAS under the old Asylum Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a new refugee unit which will deal with the problems of the refugees. As I explained in my original Answer, the alterations to the UKIAS are being decided and have not yet been announced. In other words, we are deciding what the alternatives to the UKIAS will be.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the whole sorry saga of the UKIAS over the past 12 months which has involved not just this country and the Home Office but the rest of the world, have the Government consulted the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? At one point, it allegedly threatened to withdraw its support. If the Government did so, what advice did they receive; and, if not, why not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has paid £250,000 towards the work of the UKIAS. It continues to pay money into the new refugee unit.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply; but it was a
1186
reply to a question that I did not ask. I asked whether the Government, in the past year, consulted the high commission.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are always in touch with the high commission.

Thailand: Recent Events
2.40 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Thailand about the recent events in that country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have repeatedly registered our serious anxieties about the recent events in Thailand.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the many of us who know Thailand were numbed by the horror of the slaughter of the innocents? Therefore we are greatly encouraged by the fact that the Government, in keeping with their commitment to human rights, have suspended the aid programme. What pre-conditions will be insisted upon before aid is resumed? In particular, will the Government insist upon an inquiry into the atrocity and the punishment of those found to be guilty?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are consulting our EC partners on the appropriate response to recent events. However, we see nothing to be gained from taking measures which hurt the Thai people and have no effect upon those responsible for the outrages in Bangkok.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in the important part of his question my noble friend Lord Judd asked: what will we do to ensure that the terrible things that have happened are not repeated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is a little difficult to answer that question. There is overwhelming support in the Thai Parliament for constitutional amendments. That is an encouraging first step towards a peaceful and democratic solution of the crisis. Our view is that it is important that an effective government emerges as soon as possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, everyone in the House has been appalled by the dreadful occurrences under the oppressive military regime in Thailand. It will be of great interest to the House if the noble Baroness can say whether Her Majesty's Government believe that parliamentary government has been restored in Thailand. Can she also tell us whether those responsible for the killings have been or are being brought to justice?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question is that it is a matter for the Thai Government. As regards the first part, unless the parliamentary opposition can attract one or more parties from the government coalition to

1187
form a new coalition, the only way in which to resolve the present deadlock may be the dissolution of parliament and the holding of new elections.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is any prospect of new elections taking place?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I cannot. Again, it is a matter for the Thai Government. On 3rd June, the constitutional tribunal decided that the amnesty which had been created was constitutional, although that amnesty may still be debated in parliament. The situation in Thailand is fluid, although the violence is over.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these matters are entirely the concern of that country? We may deplore or regret; but beyond that, there is not a great deal we can do about it. We should also applaud the great assistance that the monitors gave in trying to bring sense to bear on the unfortunate affairs of Thailand.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is important that we register our feelings strongly, and not only with the Thai ambassador in this country. In a press statement on 19th May, we also called on the Thai Government and the army to show maximum restraint in their handling of the situation and to avoid further casualties. However, forming a government is a matter for the country concerned.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the Government received a great deal of international respect when they went powerfully on the record and said that in future their aid programmes would take fully into account human rights considerations? Therefore, the Government will have nothing but support from the House if they are intransigent in their position that those guilty must be brought to justice in Thailand before full aid programmes can be resumed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, our regular aid programme is worth £1.4 million and it is focused mainly on technical training and the teaching of the English language. It is administered largely by the British Council, and it seems to me that it would be a pity to cut it off.

EC Budget: Fraud Allegations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the European Council of Finance Ministers to deal with the matters referred to in the Report of the Court of Auditors No. 2692 published in OJ C 101 of 22nd April 1992.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government take very seriously allegations of fraud against the Community budget. We shall seek to ensure proper
1188
examination of the issues raised in the Court of Auditors' report by the ECOFIN Council. The court's report highlights failure by the Commission and member states to take responsibility for sound management of Community finances. Our objective must be to ensure that this responsibility is given proper effect.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Unfortunately, it lacks the information that I require. What action will the Government take? Is the noble Earl aware that the report of the Court of Auditors gives a sample of the audit board's investigation of export refunds? It gives 11 instances in which frauds totalling over £3.5 million are revealed. The report also reveals the apparent inability of the French Government to co-operate with the Court of Auditors in certain important respects. Is this not a matter which ought to be raised in the Council of Ministers? Or will the Council of Ministers be perpetually somnolent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will agree that I answered the Question he put on the Order Paper. That is, I said that we would raise the matter of the Court of Auditors' report in the ECOFIN Council. We want it properly debated because the report raises important issues. Your Lordships will wish to know that there is an explanatory memorandum in the Library of the House.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider publishing a list of those countries which will not co-operate with the Court of Auditors on important matters where money is going astray through corruption and other devious methods?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that matter is more properly addressed to the Commission. However, we wish to see the problem dealt with because, when it comes to producing the accounts, it is right that the Commission should be satisfied that any moneys paid have been accounted for in the proper way and that the proper procedures have been used.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that unless the matter is taken seriously, the Mafia will increasingly spread its tentacles throughout the Community and demand and receive its rake-off?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we do take it seriously. That is why I know that the noble Lord— who also takes it seriously—will be in strong support of the Maastricht Treaty which gives added powers to the Court of Auditors.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if the report of the Court of Auditors is debated by the Council of Ministers and its findings are confirmed, what action can be taken? What sanctions has anyone against a nation which is included in the report from the Court of Auditors?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand the situation, if it is proved that there is fault by a

1189
company or group of companies acting in a way to defraud, the Commission can withhold the payments due. That would be a severe embarrassment to the company.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned Maastricht. I shall refrain from rising to that fly. Can he enlighten us? I am a little lost as to why, if there is fraud, it is a matter for governments. Why are there no criminal proceedings in courts of law or similar procedures? Can the noble Earl tell us exactly what happens? There appear to be widespread allegations of fraud plus, as my noble friend said, actual evidence, but there seem to be no court cases.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the report of the Court of Auditors drew attention to a number of irregularities, some due to lax implementation by member states of the existing rules, others due to systems which were deficient and yet others due to the fact that the regulations themselves were deficient. The Court of Auditors suggested that a separate unit should be established to cover those issues. All these issues are properly items for member states, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would support rather than a central unit. However, we need to discuss the whole issue within ECOFIN so that the report of the Court of Auditors is taken note of and member states implement the procedures in the proper way.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend entirely satisfied that other members of the Community and indeed ourselves have taken seriously the recommendations of the report of the Court of Auditors?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we certainly take the recommendations seriously as, I hope, do the other member states. We shall draw the matter to the attention of the Commission. The Court of Auditors must have the appropriate powers. The Commission must also have the appropriate powers to ensure that member states take note of the report.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister explain the difference between irregularity and fraud?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not perhaps the best person to explain that difference. However, an irregularity may be something that is done unintentionally whereas fraud may be considered a deliberate act.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom has a good record of bringing to book those people or companies convicted of fraud against the Community? No blame can be attached to the United Kingdom in that regard. Is he further aware that we greatly appreciate the fact that on 16th March last the Council of Ministers requested an opinion—on its own initiative remarkably enough —from the Court of Auditors as regards the efficiency of the Community's financial system over the past few years? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the report of the Court of Auditors in response to the council's request is published whether or not the Commission likes that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take careful note of what the noble Lord said and I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friend. The report which is the subject of the Question does not mention companies in Britain. We come out of the report well. But there is never room for complacency. We continue to consider all our systems. The report referred to company A in country A and company B in country B.

Earth Summit: Progress
2.53 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio (the "Earth Summit") especially regarding the conventions on climate change and biodiversity and the statement on the principles of forest management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the conventions on climate change and on biological diversity were opened for signature on 4th and 5th June 1992 respectively at the Earth Summit in Rio. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will sign the climate change convention later this week and hopes also to be able to sign the biodiversity convention. We hope to agree a statement of principles for sustainable management of all types of forest as a basis for negotiations on a legally binding framework convention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that full reply. We shall look forward to receiving a full report from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she returns. While some of us will have appreciated her criticism of the Pope's rather dogmatic views on family planning, is that not something of a deviation from the central issue: the transfer of technology from the North to the South? Are the Government fully aware that to carry out even the relatively watered down items decided at the UN conference, UNCED, will require investment, and that market forces alone as suggested by Michael Howard, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on Sunday will not provide the resources required in either the quality or the quantity needed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord has grossly misunderstood the Government's position on this matter. We believe in providing new and additional resources to help developing countries; but we also consider that there is a great requirement for increased trade and investment. That will be provided by the private sector.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the Government's attitude is to Agenda 21 and in particular to the part of that agenda which requires signatories to aim at a target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP to finance the third world's efforts to develop a technology which does not pollute?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have discussed this matter time and time again. The noble Lord knows that we agree with the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP as an aid target. However, future levels of aid will depend on our economic circumstances and on other calls on public expenditure. I have no problems with that statement as we have already shown our willingness to secure the success of the conference by providing £40 million to the global environment facility.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister repeat what he said? As I understand the position, the target of 0.7 per cent. is a part of Agenda 21. The British delegation has so far refused to accept that target. Is the noble Lord now saying that is a target? If so, I am afraid he is contradicting the Members of the Government who are now opposing that in Rio despite the fact that countries such as France, Italy and the Netherlands have all agreed that target.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is unfortunately confused on this matter. This Government argue that the resources for Agenda 21 must come from resetting national spending priorities and from mainstream aid.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope I may ask a humble question. So that we may be seen to be making a small contribution to environmental matters, will the staff of this House revert to their former pattern of providing us with recycled envelopes rather than the massive cellophane wrappers that now deluge us?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that point will be considered by the House authorities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that this kind of conference is the best way forward? It seems to many people that a great deal of heat has been generated, and indeed to some degree a great deal of hate has been generated. That would be most unfortunate as regards the objectives that we all share and wish to see attained.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct when he says that much heat has been generated by the conference and expectations have been raised. The view of this Government has always been that the Earth Summit is the beginning of a process and not the end. It is on that basis that we hope to sign the conventions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I believe there is a little confusion here. Some of us were greatly encouraged to read in the press today that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is very much in favour of allocating increased resources to the third world in order to help with environmental management. Does the Minister accept that this House will give her full support in that endeavour? As regards the conventions, will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister's signature will be unconditional? Will the Minister also assure us that pressure has been brought to bear on the United
1192
States to sign the climate convention in view of the fact that 25 per cent. of the carbon dioxide which is causing global warming comes from the United States?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can confirm that we shall sign the climate change convention. That has already been announced. We are still in a position where we hope to be able to sign the biodiversity convention. I accept that the whole House supports the views of my noble friend Lady Chalker as regards transferring greater resources to help underdeveloped countries. In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I explained how much money we were giving for that purpose.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if the sums released by the ending of the Cold War, known as the peace dividend, were invested and technology transferred to the South—and the Overseas Development Administration knows how to do that effectively—we should be on the way to solving the problem and at the same time to achieving the 0.7 per cent. of our national income, which is the United Nations recommendation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that the Cold War or the peace dividend have anything to do with the noble Lord's original Question.

Business of the House
3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Monday 15th June and the Non-Domestic Rating Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday 18th June.—(Lord Wakehant.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask whether, notwithstanding the fact that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill is intended to go through all its stages on Monday 15th June, the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill will remain the first order after Questions on that day.
Secondly, it is unusual, is it not, for a Bill to be put down for Second Reading and then a Motion introduced to take all stages of the Bill in one day? It is a little early to be taking all stages of Bills in one day. I hope that we shall not do that with the Finance Bill: it has been in the other place for long enough and will require a little attention here. Besides, my dogs will be waiting on Thursday 18th June and I hope that passing the Non-Domestic Rating Bill through all its stages will not keep dogs muzzled and on a lead for too long.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to the question which the noble Lord raised. The Motion was put down for what I believed to be the convenience of the whole House, after discussion.

1193
However, I shall certainly look at the point which the noble Lord raised and if there is any problem I shall see whether I can find a solution to it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, which I believe is a not wholly uncontroversial measure, is being treated in that way? Is there any particular hurry over it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that there is some hurry because the relief will arrive to those people who pay the non-domestic rate as soon as we get the Bill through. Therefore, there is some anxiety to get it through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I beg to move that this Rill be now read a second time.
My intention with the Bill is to provide that the Crown, whether or not negligent, shall be liable to compensate a member of the Armed Forces if such member suffers an obvious and serious personal injury in the circumstances outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Under Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 servicemen were prevented from seeking damages at law for serious personal injury received in the course of their duties or if injured while not on duty on Crown land. That was changed by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.
Today, servicemen who are seriously injured are able to sue the Ministry of Defence for proper compensation provided they can prove negligence. For the most part it is an extremely difficult process. The Ministry of Defence is not helpful. It is not prepared to provide either the servicemen or their solicitors with the information they need to pursue a successful case, often hiding behind national security as the reason for not producing the requisite information. As a general rule it is not willing to provide full reports for boards of inquiry, usually only producing summaries which are rarely worth the paper they are written on.
The senior officers who order boards of inquiry are attempting to find out what happened in order that steps may be taken to prevent similar accidents occurring in the future. That is right and proper. I understand that boards of inquiry are not always required to look at the question of negligence. They are certainly not looking at the accident from the point of view of the serviceman, who may wish and indeed may need to seek compensation at a later date.
Probably the best known case is that of three members of the Grenadier Guards who were seriously injured while training in Canada. Another example is that of a Royal Marine seriously injured in training. At the time he was on a cliff climbing exercise and out of sight of his instructor when the instructor loosened, or possibly even cut, the rope by which he was suspended while learning to abseil. Consequently,
1194
when he next pushed back he fell to the bottom of the cliff. He is now a paraplegic and will never walk again. He still awaits proper compensation. I understand that there are considerable numbers of claims still waiting to be dealt with by the Ministry.
I now turn to the Bill in detail. Clause 1 is the core. Clause 1(1) seeks, as I said, to provide that the Crown, whether or not negligent, shall be liable to compensate a member of the Armed Forces if that member suffers an obvious and serious personal injury. Clause 1(2) states when and where the Bill is to apply. Clause 2 provides for the Bill not to apply in certain circumstances certified by the Secretary of State. In that respect most people who join the Armed Forces expect to undergo certain risks if they are in a warlike situation. That is the risk they accept. Clause 3 is an interpretation clause and Clause 4 is the usual clause providing for the citation and extent of the Bill and when it shall come into effect.
The Bill could well he the first step towards a charter for members of the Armed Forces. It is a much needed move towards justice for seriously injured servicemen, removing the David and Goliath aspect of so many cases. It simplifies the administration of the situation for the Crown. It will enable officials to reach conclusions and make settlements on the basis of speed and economy—cheapness to the Crown—rather than becoming bogged down with detailed work and waiting to see how far the other side is prepared to go in pursuit of its case.
Above all the Bill will restore the good employer relationship which the repeal of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 failed fully to do. The Ministry of Defence will he seen as dispensing justice to its servants rather than as an adversary forcing them to risk their all on expensive legal processes.
The Bill may well have defects in drafting and need amendment during later stages. That I am quite happy to entertain; your Lordships are renowned for the way in which you improve Bills passing through this House.
Finally, the Bill, and the principle behind it, is supported by many organisations, among them SSAFA, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, RADAR, the Royal British Legion, both the Army and the Royal Air Force Benevolent Funds, the Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Society, the National Association for Limbless Disabled and others. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Swinfen.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, there is no doubt that the case which has provoked the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to move this Bill was a sorry story which showed up the Ministry of Defence at its bureaucratic worst; and that it is important to ensure that similar cases do not occur again.
I fully appreciate the need for the Ministry of Defence to be cautious in such matters, not so much just to protect the public purse as to avoid setting precedents which could result in anomalies and unfairness between the treatment of one member of

1195
the Armed Forces and another. It causes justified resentment when that occurs. It already has done so as the result of differences in financial compensation between casualties in Northern Ireland and those incurred elsewhere.
The Ministry of Defence is right to set its face against encouraging litigation every time a serviceman or woman is injured on duty. One must bear in mind that duty encompasses a great deal of what is called "recognised sport" in which injuries are more frequent than they are on training. It would be intolerable if casualties on active service were to be the subject of such a process. I deplore the current tendency to seek someone to blame and to demand financial compensation for every misfortune of life.
However, the Bill is very limited and is carefully worded to allay those justified anxieties of the Ministry of Defence. It would apply only to "obvious and serious injury" which is limited to that defined in Clause 3; and it specifically excludes active service, aid to the civil power and UN peacekeeping.
It seems to me intolerable that a private soldier should have to carry the burden of proof that the Ministry of Defence had been negligent before he can obtain the compensation which his civilian counterpart could expect in similar circumstances from any responsible employer. The Ministry surely does not expect a recruit on joining to take out an insurance policy to cover himself against such an event. If it does, it should make it clear to potential recruits, few of whom would then sign on.
I strongly support the Bill and urge the Government to accept it as doing something which they themselves should have done already.
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I believe that there lingers in the air a faint echo from the bad old days in which it was said by Kipling:
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot".
I do not believe that that represents the attitude of the British public towards their armed servicemen. It probably never did, but the impression has grown up that that was so. The responsibility for that rests firmly nowadays with the Ministry of Defence. There are perfectly good reasons why litigation on the part of servicemen should be resisted, as the noble and gallant Lord has just stated. But it is a principle of all operations guided by or directed from the Treasury that claims of any kind should be resisted or at least kept to the minimum.
Why is the emphasis on negligence? The Bill does not refer to malice or any plot against the Crown. That particular fault on the part of the authority has been singled out as a factor that the soldier has had to prove in the past. One might argue that there is no question of negligence in any case or that there is negligence in every case. Both arguments are valid. In my opinion they are both irrelevant.
When those three guardsmen had their legs blown off on the battery range in Canada, had someone been
1196
negligent or not? It is not an ordinary procedure for the army to leave anti-tank shells unburied and then to ask soldiers to dig and be blown up by them. Someone must have been negligent, must they not? Why should it be proved? It should be taken for granted that there was negligence. Negligence is in fact irrelevant. An offence had been committed by someone and any inquiry would be directed at finding out who it was. In my submission it was the responsibility of the Army, or whatever service was involved, to accept the blame for that event. It was a service-generated event. It resulted in a service casualty who ought to be compensated, in principle automatically. I say, "in principle automatically" because the blame should be accepted in principle but of course subject to the rigours of an inquiry.
With those provisos, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, unfortunately, I begin with an apology which I owe to the House for being late in my place. It was entirely due to the late arrival of a train.
I am very much in favour of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord for having introduced it. I very much hope that it will proceed to a Committee stage. There are one or two aspects which clearly need the examination of the House.
I have always been interested in this subject since I experienced two incidents in a war: a wound in action, which undoubtedly resulted in a pension; and another injury in a battle school, not in a theatre of war. I had no idea then of a pension. One did not think of such matters. However, now that one has grown up and has children it matters a great deal. In those days it did not matter. Since then I have always wondered whether or not a battle school not in a theatre of war would have qualified for a pension.
However, for those of us who are in the service of the Crown, and who for one reason or another through some exclusion clause do not qualify, a great injustice can be done. For that reason I support the Bill which hopes to put right an injustice—an injustice which most of us would not care to see perpetuated.
I have a doubt about the reference in Section 2 to "in the theatre". I should like that clarified either in reply today or at Committee stage. I am also unhappy about the word "obvious" in Section 3. I wonder whether it is necessary. I have yet to be convinced. I do not know whether "obvious" includes, for instance, mental illness. Those of us who have had experience in the services and under fire all know that there are non-obvious but serious injuries.
With those two qualifications, I give my firm support to the Bill and hope that it will proceed to the Committee stage.
3.18 p.m
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swinfen in this most necessary, welcome and compassionate little Bill.
First, as is shown in Clause 2, the Bill is strictly limited in its application. It applies only to accidents

1197
and injuries incurred during peace time. Whatever may occur in wartime is totally outside the scope of the Bill, and most precisely excluded. It is therefore a Bill of limitation. However, the area that it covers and the good that it will do in future is out of all proportion to its size. It must be welcomed by the leaders of the Armed Forces and by the Ministry of Defence because it will remove from them the necessity to prove that they were not negligent.
No one likes losing face and no one likes being attacked for possible negligence. Immediately the person becomes like a limpet: rock-like and unable to shift from his position. Anyone who as a child has tried to dislodge limpets from rocks knows that it is almost impossible to do so. But every limpet has a soft centre. Therefore this Bill may allow the Ministry to display its own soft centre without being forcibly dislodged from its rock.
The Bill must also be welcomed by members of the Armed Forces themselves. Anyone who has been injured or hurt physically in any way knows that the only way to recover is to curl up like a hedgehog and concentrate all one's mental and spiritual forces on getting oneself well—or as well as one can ever be. To dissipate ones efforts by having at the same time to fight for compensation may well impede and will certainly delay the process of healing. And if there is no compensation bitterness may also set in. That is an acrid emotion and may permanently prevent the mental and spiritual healing which also needs to occur after any profound shock.
I urge your Lordships, who are renowned for your compassion, to support my noble friend's Bill.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Swinfen on specifically ethical and moral grounds, besides any other grounds of practical and common decency that would come to be in one's mind and heart.
It would appear that a military person is on service duty when on exercise as much as when in a conflict or war. In fact, when on exercise military personnel are enabling themselves to be alert through their training so that in the event of the real occurrence they are fully capable of performing as they would wish.
Therefore it is rather strange for a serviceman or woman to have to take the action of suing Her Majesty's Government. That is even more so when the person can be given the necessary information only by taking that action. Negligence surely has not to be found in that way, nor is it to be presumed on those injured.
Of course, the families are also involved with the situation. Surely the authorities—the Army—have a large responsibility in ensuring the clearest safeguard against negligence. In fact, that is the authorities' responsibility, not just that of the military personnel. For instance, if personnel are being sent on exercise the military authorities ought to know that there is no unnecessary presence in the area which could cause injury or harm.
Something would appear to be wrong if a military person and the family has to go through such turmoils
1198
in addition to any injury. I strongly support the Bill introduced by my noble friend. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept it so that any improvement can be made in Committee. It is not right that the three Grenadier Guards should have had to go through hell, and perhaps are still doing so mentally and spiritually. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that the Government will accept the Bill and that any necessary improvements can be made in Committee.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we too on these Benches support the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it forward. It was introduced recently in the other place but only as a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. Such a Bill always sees a death and I am afraid that this Bill was no exception. We hope that the Government will take a generous view.
The Bill requires important changes to be made in Committee. For instance, Clause 1 does not apply to Scotland. That is a technical matter but one which must be looked at. I do not understand why only the United Nations and not the WEU or NATO is mentioned in Clause 2. Who decides the figure of 50 per cent. mentioned in Clause 3? Such issues must be looked at and can be changed or improved in Committee.
We support the Bill and believe that it could well have been introduced a long time ago. We are not careless about taxpayers' money and will listen carefully to the case which the Minister will make. How many claims are at present before the MOD? What financial difference will the Bill make in the handling of such claims? How many additional claims will succeed, and what will they cost the taxpayer?
Those are the only issues that I wish to raise. I assure the noble Lord that Members on these Benches will support his Bill and will try to improve it in Committee.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, all noble Lords are aware that the Bill responds to a serious injustice and that the Guardsmen in question had to fight hard against the Ministry of Defence in order to secure proper compensation. It is a Private Member's Bill and therefore I do not speak for my party. The issue is personal and in consequence I shall speak personally.
In general I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his Bill. Your Lordships would be right to give it a Second Reading, but I have several questions which perhaps can be cleared up in Committee. First, the Bill places members of the Armed Forces in a privileged class. If the Bill is passed as drafted they will be entitled to compensation without proof of negligence. However, civilian public servants—for instance, firemen, the police, ambulance men and others—who may be involved in situations equally as dangerous as a state of war must prove negligence in order to obtain compensation. That is the first point which I shall wish to flag to the Minister in Committee. There was in another place considerable support for a no-fault

1199
provision in medical accidents. If that is accepted it is difficult to see how it will march with a fault provision, if I may put it like that, in Armed Forces accidents in training.
The second major issue that I hope will be resolved in Committee is that, as drafted, the Bill appears to imply that, even if the member of the Armed Forces in question is negligent, he still is not required to show negligence on the part of the Crown but can claim compensation. Furthermore, if he is in breach of a regulation or is subject to disciplinary procedure in circumstances specified in the Bill he can still claim as a plaintiff compensation without having to show anything other than that he is in the clear and that the Crown de facto is negligent.
My third point takes up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton; namely, the matter of "obvious and serious injury". The noble Lord pointed out that mental injury was not at least specified in the Bill. I am not entirely certain and no doubt the noble Viscount will be able to enlighten me about what,
"loss of any of the five senses",
means. I hope that he will be able to explain it. If not, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will be able to do so when he winds up the debate. It seems to me that under these circumstances there may be mental injuries sustained which either are not obvious or do not appear to be serious but which nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, are extremely serious when it comes to the event.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount, when he replies, will comment on the proposed European Community service directive which is under discussion at the moment. If adopted, that directive would reverse the burden of proof. In other words, it would be up to the Crown to show non-negligence, as it were, rather than for the plaintiff to prove negligence. If that directive is adopted—it is a big "if" as we know—that may be the way in which matters of this kind could and should be treated.
I am sorry that I enter certain somewhat discordant notes to what noble Lords have said. I treat this matter seriously as a legislative proposition from the Dispatch Box from which I have the honour to speak. I have every sympathy with the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and with the purpose of the Bill. But I am slightly unhappy with some of the details and I hope that your Lordships will be able to correct those details when we come to Committee.
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am very grateful, as all noble Lords must be, to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for introducing a Bill which once again brings to the attention of your Lordships' House the importance of making sure that we treat all our servicemen in a way that they deserve. Indeed, during the brief time that I have been fortunate enough to be attached to the Ministry of Defence, I have been struck by the extraordinary and justifiable lengths that serving senior officers, retired senior
1200
officers, ex-officers and men of all ranks go to ensure that proper consideration is given by the authorities to looking after servicemen present and past. I regard this Bill as another example of that concern.
To that extent I should welcome the Bill. However, I suspect that many noble Lords will not be altogether surprised to hear me say, with the greatest reluctance, that I believe there are good and sufficient reasons for Her Majesty's Government not finding themselves in agreement with what the Bill proposes. A number of the reasons that we adduce for that were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, during the course of his remarks. I shall return to some of them in a moment.
As has already been mentioned, the Bill is identical in intent and similar in content, though not completely identical, with the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by the former Member for Winchester. The same considerations that applied in January when the subject was debated still apply now in the Government's view. The reasons are not, as my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery suggested, Treasury driven, although any government department is sometimes tempted to blame Her Majesty's Treasury as a useful butt for all blame.
The attitude is much more a legal one. The position of service personnel who are killed or injured while on duty, as noble Lords more versed in the law than I am will know, is inextricably bound up with the general question of the nature of legal liability and the relationship of employees to employers under civil law. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, until May 1987 when the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act became law, servicemen could not sue the Crown for injuries received on duty. I well remember in another place signing many Early Day Motions suggesting that that provision should be repealed. In those days I was fortunate enough to represent a constituency in which many servicemen, actual and retired, lived.
Since May 1987 the legal position of servicemen injured on duty so far as the MoD as employer was concerned has been exactly the same as that of any employee and his or her employer. That legislative change to bring service personnel in line with their civilian counterparts did not alter legal principles of evidence or the law of tortious liability. Those apply equally to all service and civilian cases. Nevertheless, the change that I mentioned has been an important advance which I certainly welcome and which I am sure is welcomed in all parts of the House.
As a result, the MoD now has a legal liability to pay compensation to service personnel where negligence by the Ministry of Defence or those acting on its behalf can be established. The Ministry of Defence accepts that obligation with no sense of regret. However, I suggest that to impose absolute liability on the Ministry of Defence to pay compensation whenever service personnel are injured would place servicemen in a far more advantageous position than other civilian employees—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—including other Ministry of Defence civilians with whom increasingly servicemen work. That is an important aspect.

1201
It is also worth noting that the Bill contains a clause which was not in the previous Bill to the effect that the no-fault principle should not apply in time of war or when the military are aiding civil power or the UN. So far as concerns the technicalities of the Bill, that is, as has been said, a sensible advance and one which so far as it goes we certainly welcome.
To take away the requirement to establish negligence would undermine the fundamental principle of civil law that one person can claim damages from another only if a wrong has been done to him by that person. Otherwise, employers such as the Ministry of Defence would have to pay compensation even if they are in no way responsible for the accident. That again was a point made the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I suggest that in principle and in practical terms of legislation that cannot be right.
I also suggest that, if we were to listen to all that the admirable—I say that with no sense of irony—lobbyists for the servicemen imply, we would sometimes feel perhaps that the injured serviceman is without any financial support whatsoever. I have tried to look at this matter with care and service pension schemes compare very favourably with best practice outside. For example, servicemen discharged with attributable injury receive index linked tax free pension and disability awards from both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security, which are also reassessed if the condition of the serviceman deteriorates. For a soldier who is seriously disabled in an in-service accident, payments can amount to several hundreds of pounds per week. I shall give two concrete examples of that because the bald assurance of the principle of the thing is sometimes helped by examples. Of course, the examples are not necessarily typical but are examples based on reality.
A private paralysed after an accident on duty and invalided in early 1991 was assessed 100 per cent. disabled. He received a lump sum of £6,061.92 and at the rates applicable up to the end of March this year —your Lordships will remember that payments are index linked and rise every year—he was paid a DSS war pension, which included supplements, of £216 per week and a MoD armed forces pension of £3,317 per annum, giving him a tax free, index linked income of over £11,000 per year.
A person does not have to be 100 per cent. disabled to receive a pension and other payments. For example, a petty officer with 10 years' service who is invalided out of the service now (this year) with a 60 per cent. degree of disability—for example, if he lost one leg immediately below the knee—would receive a terminal grant of £10,323, an attributable gratuity of £5,162 and a combined Ministry of Defence armed forces pension and DSS war pension of £7,323 per annum, not counting other supplements such as a mobility supplement or invalidity allowance which may be payable.
I know that we can always say that those payments, particularly for people in the services who are serving their country, are never enough. However, I suggest
1202
that they are a great deal better than they were years ago, largely because of the pressures exerted by institutions like your Lordships' House.
I point out also that servicemen receive support from a wide range of service bodies. The Ministry of Defence does its best to support those bodies which help people to adjust to civilian life and to find employment. It has been suggested, particularly by my noble friend who introduced the Bill, that, although the Ministry of Defence says that it will deal with claims as expeditiously as possible, it is very difficult for a young soldier to pursue a claim against such a great monolithic body. It is difficult particularly if he has been injured. For that reason I should point out that the Royal British Legion and, indeed, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers stand ready as independent bodies —particularly the Royal British Legion, with its strong defence connections—to do their best to pursue claims on behalf of soldiers or other servicemen should that be desired.
I should say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that between December 1986, when the Ministry of Defence began to admit claims from personnel in the services, to January 1992 —this year —2,037 claims have been received, of which 366 were accepted and settled at a cost of £5,652,330, while 545 claims were not accepted or were not pursued. There were 1,126 claims under consideration when I last saw the figures at the end of April this year. In some of those cases the amount of the claim outstanding only has not been settled. That very often depends, as the noble Lord will know, on medical reports, which are sometimes relevant some time after the accident because it can be difficult to assess the full extent of the permanent disability of the ex-serviceman involved.
The number of claims is rising each year. Last year we received something over 900 claims and during this course of this financial year we expect to pay something over £6 million in compensation. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a small political point. I say this with due trepidation in your Lordships' House, with all its traditions, but one of the benefits of what have been known in certain quarters of the gutter press, like the Sunday Times, as the Thatcher years has been that what one might call the "deferential society" has begun to evaporate. Not surprisingly that is as a result of Conservative rather than Labour governments. One of the results of that evaporation is that people are far more willing to pursue their rights and are far less inhibited by authority from doing so. I suspect that the statistics of rising claims rather lend a form of verisimilitude to my contention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made a political point, but I hope that he will recognise that I was speaking from this Dispatch Box in my own personal capacity and that there is no party view on this Bill. I hope that I can lay that before the noble Viscount.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord were to extract the party political element of what I say, he will accept that there is a less deferential attitude towards

1203
authority now in this country than perhaps there was —I shall not pick invidious dates—20 years ago. I suggest that as a result it is more likely that a young serviceman will feel able to attack the Ministry of Defence for negligence than he might have done hitherto.
As I say, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. It is further evidence of the remarkable way in which the interests of servicemen are pursued in this House. As a general point, I welcome that, as I am sure your Lordships do. I am sorry that I cannot endorse the Bill either in principle or in detail for the reasons I have given. Your Lordships will be satisfied that the present system in which service personnel have exactly the same legal rights as any other employee is surely right, particularly in the circumstances of the modern world.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Second Reading debate particularly as, with the exception of the Minister, everyone has supported it and I am most grateful for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, drew attention to Clause 2 and the question of the theatre of operations. I admit that I drafted that clause trying to doctor the Bill introduced, as has already been said, by the Member for Winchester in the last Parliament. I had considerable difficulty in finding suitable words. I am told in fact that our forces are not under the command of the United Nations but are working with the United Nations. Therefore, amendments will have to be brought to that clause to make certain that it is workable. People have asked me also what would be the position of our forces going to Yugoslavia at the request of the EC. Again, that will need to be looked at but I am sure that, with the expertise in this House, that matter can be dealt with.
The question of what is obvious and serious will also need to be looked at. In addition, the question of mental disability will also need to be examined. It is an extremely important point. That illness may take some years to make itself obvious. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that he understands that the Bill as drafted does not apply to Scotland. That was not my intention. My intention was that the Bill should apply to Scotland and an amendment to that effect will have to be brought forward to Clause 1. I understand that that clause needs considerable amendment to bring it into line with modern legal drafting. If noble Lords read my introductory speech they will see that I suggested words that might be suitable.
The noble Lord also asked: What is a 50 per cent. disability? That is a medical qualification. One goes before a medical board which decides what percentage of disability one has. I am not quite sure how it is done or how it is justified, but the medical world has worked that out to its satisfaction. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that the Bill would place the Armed Forces in a privileged class in some respects. I believe that to be quite right. They are people who are so often asked to do the nation's dirty work when
1204
many other people are not prepared to do it. They have to be trained for it. There may also be a case for doing something similar for the police and the fire service who also have to undertake at times what are extremely dangerous tasks. They are tasks which I personally would not want to do. All credit to them.
There is the question of a breach of discipline or orders, or negligence on the part of a servicemen. I also agree that we may have to bring in an amendment at Committee stage to deal with those matters. As far as lawyers are concerned, I am thoroughly naïve. I should have thought that that was a defence which the Ministry of Defence could use in any event. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, muttering "not under the Bill". I know that he is well versed in the law and I am not. I shall be happy to take his advice on that. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned the European service directive. That is also a matter of interest.
My noble friend the Minister said that the Royal British Legion and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers were willing to come to the aid of servicemen who were severely injured. He also said that since 1987 servicemen were in the same position as civilians. I do not entirely agree with him. Legally they may be, but in practice they are not. So often the Ministry of Defence is able to hide behind national security and not give the information which is required by the serviceman or his legal advisers to pursue his case. That puts him in a very difficult situation. I understand that in a civilian situation the defence lawyers would have to disclose any relevant information. As I have said, by hiding behind security the Ministry of Defence would not have to do so.
Once again I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Christmas Island Atomic Test: Health Claims
3.54 p.m.
Lord Parry Lord Parry rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to respond to claims made by individuals relating their health problems to their exposure to the atomic test on 28th April 1958 off Christmas Island.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have quoted before in this House some words of William Wordsworth in his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads. He wrote that it was the duty of the poet to seek the truth, adding the caveat that he should seek that truth that was general and operative rather than the truth that was local and particular. I believe that we all agree that it would serve democracy very well if the practical politician were generally seen to be as energetic in the pursuit of truth as the romantic poet. Sadly, we are not so seen to be. We are generally represented as being economical of the truth, dealing in terminological inexactitudes and, generally speaking, dodging the

1205
questions that are raised. I am sure that that is not the attitude to this Unstarred Question that I bring before the House this afternoon.
We seek information. I was once advised by an old politician in Wales that you should never ask a question unless you yourself knew the answer. But so many questions have been asked on the issue which I now raise and so many answers given down the years that I come to the House not desperately optimistic that all the questions that will be raised in this tiny debate will find a definitive answer. I hope that I am not being too pessimistic, but I want to put the position on the record.
My Question asks Her Majesty's Government,
"how they intend to respond to claims made by individuals relating their health problems to their exposure to the atomic test on 28th April 1958 off Christmas Island".
Since tabling the Question I have received such a body of information from many sources including your Lordships' Library, individuals affected and the newspapers. I have received so much information that I would not want the House to be tied to the absolute specific of that test on the day named. I am interested in the reaction of the Government and the response of the Minister to the whole series of tests and to all the responsibilities relating to them.
I believe that it will serve all our interests if we explore the general and operative truth today rather than the simple, local and particular one. By one of those coincidences which occur so often that they can hardly be thought of as coincidences at all, I found a particular article in one of the bundles of Sunday newspapers that I love to read. It appeared in the Sunday People, a newspaper with a record of exploring these issues over a long time. The headline read "A-test hero, John, dead".
The article stated:
"Brave ex-airman John Hall—the leukaemia victim who took on the Government in a historic fight to prove that his cancer was caused by Britain's nuclear bomb tests—has died. The former electrician was to have been the standard bearer in a test case in the High Court that could have paved the way for compensation for hundreds of ex-servicemen. Premier John Major took a personal interest in Mr. Hall's case after The People reviewed his story".
The Prime Minister is on record as declaring that he is in favour of a much more open reaction to the questions of the people. I accept that and I ask this Question today in precisely that context. The report states:
"Mr. Hall [who was] 53 worked on Canberra bombers that flew through nuclear dust clouds during A-bomb tests in the South Pacific in the 1950s. He contracted a rare form of leukaemia three years ago and died in hospital in his home city of Leicester on Wednesday".
Nothing could be more apt; nothing could be closer to the Question that we raise. We will all want to sympathise with the loss to his family and the suffering that has taken place. Brave John Hall, as the House will know, is only the latest in a viciously long line of service and civilian personnel who died believing that the ironically named Christmas Island made them the present of their premature graves. Their grieving relatives know that for many of them their sufferings were such that the grave itself was a release.
This House knows that to expose those men in their thousands —a minimum of 20,000 on past
1206
governments' own recordings —to the risks implicit in the testing of the nuclear devices was a folly that makes the blunder of the Charge of the Light Brigade almost insignificant. Those people have been in the jaws of death since the early 1950s, many since their teens.
My reading of debates both here and in the other place shows that 200 United Kingdom servicemen were stationed around 8 kilometres upwind from zero because it was decided to allow them,
"to experience the effects of nuclear explosions at ranges closer than previously allowed".—(Official Report, Commons 12/3/84; col. 195.)
We all know now that that was folly. Everyone accepts that. There is no one in this House, knowing what we now know regarding the effects of thermonuclear weapons, who would countenance such idiocy or attempt to explain it away, except through ignorance, which at the time we all shared.
Mr. Pattie, the Minister at the time in the other place, said at col. 196 that it was,
"a subject which is capable of being handled in an entirely sensationalist way".
I do not wish to sensationalise. I seek the truth. But all previous debates and Answers to Questions on this matter lead me to believe that neither I nor the House are likely to get at the whole truth today. That is neither to pre-empt nor disparage the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who will be answering. It is to place on record the belief that the evasion of the total truth by all Ministers answering Questions on this issue since April 1958 has been so skilful and political, regardless of which party at the time was in power, that the chances of real progress this afternoon seem slim.
The House will see that I hold a fat file of press clippings. Parliamentary reports and early day Motions are included. They outline cases and concerns raised in Parliament and the media since the bombs first exploded on, around and over Christmas Island. I possess also the video produced by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association of which my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—who one hopes will arrive shortly—are sponsors. The video consists of three separate evaluations of the appalling risks faced and the damage suffered by the personnel at and around Christmas Island. They are headed, "Children of the Bomb", "Dispatches" and "Bomb Damage". It should be viewed by all Members of this House. I do not know whether the Minister viewed it in his preparations. I earnestly recommend that he does. It will help him to understand some of the other features that concern the nuclear veterans.
In a short debate I cannot cover all the issues. Reading the papers, viewing the video and studying the other material is a depressing experience. It is clear that at the time of the Christmas Island test series there was almost complete ignorance of the long-term effects of exposure of personnel to the explosions and fall-out from them. There seems to have been also almost as total a lack of care, although I do not want to impose on a dead generation charges to which they cannot respond.
On 29th April 1958, the day after the test explosion named in my Question, we were being reassured by a Daily Telegraph reporter that fall-out was "negligible". Neither he nor we actually knew then what precisely had been tested. It may have been a hydrogen bomb, a nuclear warhead or a guided missile being developed by Britain. Even a spokesman for the Atomic Energy Authority said that night that,
"The explosion was probably of thermonuclear type".
More complacently and more chillingly, he added the pious hope which could only have been grounded in ignorance,
"This may be a development towards the time when we have weapons which have little after-effect".
We know now that hundreds of lives were ruined and hundreds of lives prematurely ended with second, third and fourth generation consequences to the descendants of those exposed.
With more time I could draw the attention of the House to a press release issued on 17th October 1991 by the Tyne Tees television company. It lists direct consequences to second, third and fourth generations of people exposed to radiation in domestic and commercial situations and, more aptly for my Question, to those who were exposed on Christmas Island. In those are four cases of adrenal cancer, a cancer so rare that doctors would expect to find only one in over 100,000 children. Fifty per cent. of the illnesses were in the first child conceived after the father's presence at the nuclear tests. Research reveals genetic deformities and other cancers as well as leukaemia, cases of children with both male and female sex organs and children with feet growing backwards. I need not go into all those matters which seem to be a direct result of the ignorance that led us to expose 20,000 to 35,000 of our fellow United Kingdom citizens to that appalling risk.
Making all the allowances and skipping that detail, in fairness to the Minister—who was, I believe, only 12 years old at the time—I must say that I am not blaming him for all the evasions of truth and responsibility that have been practised by many government spokesmen and women ever since that date. Nor will I take the House through all the case histories highlighted in my notes. However, the Minister is aware that I have one specific case in mind. Ronnie Adams, whom I once taught, went to the island a healthy young man. He died long before his time riddled with cancer. No one in my home town of Neyland, Pembrokeshire, believes other than that he died as a result of exposure to the weapon blast. He died prematurely. His widow still fights for official recognition of that fact.
There is another Welshman in the case lists. There are many, of course, but the case of Sapper William Brian Morris of Conway Road, Swansea, came early to the tribunes and was disallowed. Few in Swansea who knew the case agreed with the tribunal. Let me take noble Lords to The Times of 28th May 1991. A headline of that day read,
"A-test veterans die as pay-out fight drags on".
The newspaper recalled the Mervin Pearce test case when, after a difficult passage, five High Court judges supported his right to establish a case for compensation.
Another veteran, Mr. Andrew Dickson, wrote not only to me but also to the Prime Minister and, I assume, to the Minister and to almost everyone else. He is an inveterate correspondent on these issues. Mr. Dickson is concerned that there are records of individuals kept and that those records are in a so-called "Blue Book". While he knows a great deal and received a great deal of information from Ministers and others, he does not know the detail of the consequences of his own exposure. He says that he is convinced that a link exists. On a personal basis he feels,
"that ex-servicemen who served at nuclear testing sites, and witnessed detonations, without protective clothing, and were part of the 'records made at the time of the tests' that are currently classified 'medical in confidence' documents, ought to be included in the radiation workers study, along with their children, in order to reduce the amount of time two studies are going to take, and the conclusion two studies could cause".
We know that there was an examination of the effects of exposure to radiation of workers in nuclear undertakings, but we do not know when that will be concluded. My supporting speakers will refer to that also. Why is all this business dragging on? Why will it take apparently another three years before these people are told of the nature of the consequences to them?
Mr. Dickson says:
"I am aware of my 'Blue Book' number 1641905, but unaware of what dosage I received on 28th April 1958 when I was taken from the main camp at Christmas Island to an area closer to detonation in order to view 'Significant Events in British History from a better vantage point'".
I could go on at great length although I do not propose to do so. I shall take a short cut and move on to another important point. Perhaps I should say that I am not filibustering simply to allow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to get to his place. Indeed, your Lordships are being very patient in listening to me raise this serious matter and I appreciate the way in which you are responding.
A letter from the National Radiological Protection Board at Chiltern in Oxfordshire, states:
"Strictly speaking, the 'Blue Books' were provisional lists of participants in UK atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, together with some general description and statistics. Sections of the Blue Books which did not contain information about specific, individual test participants have been supplied to the veterans' associations. The Blue Books were compiled at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the early 1980s".
When the Minister replies perhaps he can say whether, in a period of more open government and after an election in which this issue was raised and when the result seems to indicate that at least part of the proposition made at the time was acceptable to the voters, there is any good reason why those people cannot receive the extracts from the Blue Book that refer to them. Is there any reason any longer why that information should be withheld from them? If we were talking about a criminal case—if these people had undertaken some savage act of vandalism or had even murdered someone—they would be given all the help in the world and all the information that they needed to establish a case in their own defence. Why on earth

1209
should these people—some of them innocent 17 year-olds at the time and others more mature—who found themselves in a situation that they could not understand and who were exposed to a risk that no one else understood, now have to bear the consequences so heavily and so sadly not only themselves but their succeeding generations also?
I should like to say in conclusion that I am a democrat; I think that we all are. I believe, with Herbart, that there are recognisable steps in the decay and disintegration of any society. They arise first from disillusion and out of disillusion comes the decay of the system. Out of the decay of the system comes disintegration; and out of the disintegration there usually emerges some system or faith that is the exact antithesis of the one that it replaces. I believe in open government and I accept that the Minister believes in open government—so let us have it. Give these people the facts that they need and we shall give them the support. Perhaps then we shall resolve an issue that has for far too long clouded the conscience of this nation.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Parry for introducing this rather sad topic. Indeed, this is not the first time that the House has debated this matter. On 22nd May 1990 I moved an amendment to the Social Security Bill, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and my noble friend Lord Parry to deal with the matter of compensation by introducing into that legislation the compensation measures that had been agreed by the United States for the quarter of a million servicemen who had been exposed to radiation through nuclear testing. Having re-read our debate in Hansard, it is interesting to note that we had a rather better reply from the Minister of the time, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, than the rather intemperate reply that was given in another place by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Archie Hamilton, who was replying to an Adjournment debate on this subject that had been initiated by Mr. Keith Vaz on 25th February this year.
The facts are clear, so there is no need for me to rehearse them in detail and I can be brief. We know that the servicemen who were involved in the Christmas Island tests in 1958 argued for a very long time that exposure to ionising radiation had resulted in an increased incidence of certain cancers. That was consistently denied by successive governments until, to their credit, the Government in the mid-1980s commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board to investigate the matter and to report on it. The NRPB report, which was published in January 1988, established the possibility of a link between some forms of leukaemia and multiple myeloma and exposure to the Christmas Island tests. After that report, the Government agreed to pay war pensions in appropriate cases to sufferers from those two cancers. It is important to remember that the NRPB report did not say that there was no link with other cancers. It said that there was insufficient evidence to support that thesis.
1210
During our debates on the Social Security Act 1990 I said:
"It would help the Committee if the noble Lord could say how many war pensions have been awarded since 1988 in respect of leukaemia and myeloma in response to the NRPB report".
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, replied:
"My understanding is that a total of seven have been awarded —six to widows whose husbands died as a result of the two diseases and one to a war pensioner".—[Official Report, 22/5/90; cols. 764–5.]
Perhaps the Minister can now give the House the updated figure.
In passing, perhaps I should say that the payment of war pensions in these cases—that is, for certain forms of leukaemia and for myeloma—contradicts the reply that was given to a Written Question on 19th December last year in the other place when the Minister, Mr. Archie Hamilton, replied:
"There is, however, no firm evidence to show that any ill-health suffered by those who attended the tests was caused by their participation".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/ 91; col. 282.]
It seems a little odd to say that there was no case of any ill health when the Government have agreed to pay war pensions to those suffering from those two forms of cancer.
The report that was published by the NRPB in January 1988 recommended that further research was required. It was agreed to continue the work and to report on the cases from 1984 to 1989. We were assured at the time that that updated report would be published by the end of 1991. We now hear that it will not be published until the end of this year or perhaps even later. Perhaps the Minister could explain that delay in publication. Is there any chance of an interim report?
There are still a number of very puzzling aspects to this whole matter. Hundreds of the participants in the tests have confirmed in terms that they were not issued with dosimeter badges to reveal their exposure at the time. The Government, equally firmly, deny that. However, as I understand it, none of the men has been interviewed to test their statements. Why has that not been done, given that to some extent the Government's case rests on the fact that those men were not exposed to excessive doses of radiation and when hundreds of the participants say that they were not wearing the dosimeter badges that would have revealed the level of radiation at the time?
When we discussed this matter previously it was pointed out that the 1988 NRPB report's figures specifically excluded all those who at that time had outstanding claims for war pensions. By definition, the participants in the tests who were claiming a war pension at that time as a result of the exposure would have a chance of a higher incidence of cancer. It is argued that the results of the report were skewed because of their exclusion. When it appears at the end of this year or later, will the updated report include all the people who had claimed a war pension and whose files were with the War Pensions Board?
If it were to be agreed to pay compensation to those who are claiming a connection between cancer and exposure to the nuclear tests, will the Minister inform the House of the likely cost of that compensation?

1211
When we debated this issue previously, I quoted a figure for the total cost of between £4 million and £5 million. The Government agreed with that figure and quoted it in another place. However, in the Adjournment debate of 25th February to which I referred earlier the Minister in another place replied:
"the cost to the taxpayer would be unbelievable".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/92; col. 946.]
Those two statements—the agreement in the spring of 1990 that the total cost of compensation if it were awarded in all cases would be of the order of £4 million to £5 million and the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that the cost to the taxpayer would be unbelievable—do not fit together. I should like to ask the Minister to give the House the most recent estimate by the Government of the cost of awarding compensation.
A new and desperately sad aspect of the matter, which was referred to in passing by my noble friend Lord Parry, has now come to light. I refer to the incidence of cancer and other illnesses in the children of the nuclear test veterans. I understand that there is an investigation by the NRPB into the incidence of cancer among the children. Is this to be a part of the updated report for which we are waiting, or is this a new study on the incidence of cancer and other illnesses in the children of the veterans?
In all the cases of exposure to ionising radiation in the past it has been revealed eventually that the danger is greater than was at first thought. This applies to Sellafield and indeed to Chernobyl. This greater danger will, I am sure, become apparent in the case of the Christmas Island tests and of those who were exposed to them, but sadly I fear that by the time the appropriate action is finally taken most of the men involved will be dead.
4.21 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has done a service to the House by asking this Question, in particular because of the recent television programme raising many of the points which he put so eloquently to your Lordships today. It affords me an opportunity to try to give the direct answer which the noble Lord requested.
The first direct answer is a bald one. The policy of the Ministry of Defence is to pay appropriate compensation whenever the Crown's legal liability is established. That is, in the case of those who took part in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme, whenever it can be shown, on the balance of probabilities, that their participation in the programme is more likely than not to have caused illness. I must emphasise that it is a very important distinction. We are not talking about a burden of proof beyond peradventure. As the noble Lord knows, we are talking about a possibility. If that possibility can be shown to exist, even if the Ministry of Defence feels that there is a very good probability that it would not be possible to establish the burden of proof, the Government will pay war pension compensation.
1212
The question to be considered is whether there is a causal link between participation in the test programme and any subsequent illness. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, assumed that such a causal link existed and was provable. He based a great part of his, I now realise, not inconsiderable eloquence on that premise. The allegation normally is that it was exposure to radiation during the test programme that caused the illness. No one disputes that exposure to high levels of radiation can and often does cause cancers and leukaemias. We do not dispute that at all. Nevertheless it is a fact of life that the incidence of many illnesses, including the kind of health problems now being experienced by some of those who participated in the test programme, increase as one gets older. Of course, neither the noble Lord nor I have yet experienced that. These diseases commonly arise from natural causes including, in some cases, the natural background radiation to which we are all subjected. I am advised that most Members of your Lordships' House will have received over your lifetimes at least 100 millisieverts of ionising radiation, which apparently is a fairly significant dose.
The noble Lord accused predecessors at the Ministry of Defence of lack of care. Your Lordships will agree from a reading of its report that that view is not shared by the NRPB. It is certainly rejected by the Ministry of Defence which feels that its predecessor ministries exercised a very considerable amount of care and that that care showed a remarkable understanding of the risks.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As I remember my speech —I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow to see what I said—I was making the point that out of ignorance at the test site a proper degree of care was not taken. I was not charging subsequent Ministers of Defence or Ministers with responsibilities for pensions with not caring.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would still say to him that the Ministry of Defence does not in any way accept that during the course of the conduct of the tests inadequate care was taken. I am glad that he gave me an opportunity to clarify that point.
In fact very few of those who participated in the test programme were exposed to measurable additional radiation. Of the well over 20,000 test participants only some 1,300 people have recorded radiation doses. A somewhat larger number were metered but the meters showed a zero dose. The remainder were kept too far away from the detonation to be exposed to initial ionising radiation or they were upwind of the test and so were not subject to any subsequent radioactive fall-out.
For the 1,300 or so people for whom we have a recorded dose level of exposure to radiation we can, using internationally accepted risk estimates, relate the level of exposure to the age and type of cancer or leukaemia being suffered by an individual. This would indicate the degree of probability that a particular case of disease was caused by that individual's exposure to radiation; in this case during the tests. Any claim from

1213
such an individual can be treated accordingly. I should add that the same internationally accepted estimates of radiation risk suggest that it is statistically unlikely that even one additional death would have resulted among test participants. So for the vast majority of participants, although there are no recorded radiation doses, there is other evidence to confirm that levels of cancer are consistent with radiation doses having been effectively zero.
This is shown by the statistical studies of the National Radiological Protection Board which the noble Lord quite rightly quotes. Like me, he attaches a great deal of importance to its independence of view. The board's 1988 report compared mortality and cancer incidence of test veterans with those of a similar number of men, known as the control group. It is worth saying that the numbers involved were very substantial indeed, which shows how seriously we take this case. There were 22,000 plus individuals in the control group and another 22,000 among the participants themselves. This control group had not participated in the tests but they had served in tropical or subtropical areas where the tests were being carried out. The conclusion was that the overall incidence of death and malignant disease among the participants had been no worse than that of people who were not involved in the test programme. That is an important point to realise as allegations have been made, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that certain important participants in the tests were excluded from the sample.
I refer the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Parry, to page 85 of the NRPB report. It is important to realise that the "Dispatches" programme quoted the first part of the third paragraph on that page and omitted the next sentence. If your Lordships will allow me, I think that the allegation made is important enough for me to emphasise the point. The report reads:
"The interpretation of the results of this study has been complicated by the fact that not all participants were included in the study and that the results suggested that the participants might, as a group, have smoked less than their controls. The former does not appear to have introduced any substantial bias into the results".
If we are to take a dispassionate view of the matter, I believe that we should take account of that fact. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am most obliged. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could comment on the following. I made a point—it has been made in the past—that at the time the sample tests were being set up for the NRPB they excluded all the claimants for war pensions whose files were with the War Pensions Board. Such claimants were those who, if successful, would in fact have a higher incidence of cancer. It is not a point of argument; it is a statistical point as regards the methodology. By excluding those people, for whatever reason, did that not in fact skew the sample?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that he will take account of the quotation that I read to your Lordships. I believe that to be relevant.
Lord Carter: My Lords, certainly.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think it should be said that the report of the NRPB which was published in 1988 included all those whose records could be traced at the time. It was based on data for deaths and for cancers arising up until 1984. That was regardless of whether or not the individuals concerned made claims. I believe that is an important point of clarification to make if we are to be specific on the matter.
In the same context, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, spoke as though there was some great secret about the Blue Book and as though it contained what one might call "the Ark of the Covenant" of his case. I agree with the noble Lord, whether God is on his side or mine is a matter which we shall soon no doubt discover. I hate to disillusion the noble Lord, but the Blue Book does not contain any great mystery. It is a list of the nuclear test participants. I should emphasise that that list has been made available to the NRPB. The board had a good look at it when compiling its report. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that fact.
I realise that time is pressing, but I am equally sure that your Lordships wish me to take the matter seriously. As the noble Lord said, within the overall cancer figures the NRPB found that for some specific types of malignancy deaths among test veterans were fewer than among the control group and that for other types of cancer there were more deaths among the veterans. In the latter case, the veterans had a small number of additional cases of multiple myeloma and leukaemia. Indeed, that point was addressed in detail by my noble friend Lord Henley during the debate in May 1990 to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. I am delighted to see that my noble friend is present in the Chamber today.
It is worth repeating that the NRPB found no evidence linking the veterans to radiation doses. There was no increased incidence with increasing dose as would be expected if radiation had been caused. But because the NRPB could not rule out the possibility of an association between the diseases and some unknown factor of the men's service, that was relevant to war pensions payable to former servicemen by the Department of Social Security. As a result, the DSS has considered and will consider applications for war pensions from test participants suffering any health problems. The applicant has only to show that there is reliable evidence which is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt—the point I tried to emphasise to the noble Lord at the beginning of my remarks—that an illness or injury may be attributed to, or aggravated by, service in the Armed Forces. The DSS medical advisers have concluded that such a doubt was raised by the findings of the NRPB in relation to both multiple myeloma and leukaemia. As I explained to the noble Lord, the benefit of the doubt was given.
We heard references to the further report from the NRPB. It is expected later this year. I understand that

1215
most of the information needed for the report is being compiled and that when it is complete it will be subject to statistical analysis. I want to emphasise the independence of the NRPB report; indeed, it would be quite useless if it were in any way influenced by the Ministry of Defence. I believe that it is worth waiting for the publication of the report so that there is no doubt whatever that the NRPB has produced a report that is independent from any influence from us. We should not try to pressure the board in any way.
Nevertheless, I can say that delays have arisen through extending the study to include all mortality data available until 1991 instead of 1989 as originally envisaged. Therefore, the statistics upon which the report is based will be updated and more up to date as a result of the delay. That is a benefit. The new report will assess the effects of emigration on test participants and use a new DSS computerised vital status check. So, again, it should improve the quality of the statistics and, therefore, the interpretation. That will obviously add to the scientific rigour of the report. It will then need to be subjected to the customary peer review about which my noble friend Lord Henley talked in some detail in the 1990 debate. As is known, that is customary. It has to be done thoroughly and carefully. I hope that your Lordships will not be disappointed by the result.
I tried to address myself to the question of veterans with outstanding pension claims. However, the question of compensation is more difficult. The cost of paying compensation depends entirely upon the number of people who are paid. So far, not a single person has been shown on the balance of probability to have been damaged by participation in the test programme. But if any such case arises, we would expect compensation to be calculated in the usual way, according to the legal principles with which the noble Lord is familiar. Of course, the amount paid would depend entirely on the circumstances of the case.
But if the Government were to make substantial payments to every test participant who subsequently developed cancer, the cost would be enormous. That is the point that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces was trying to make in another place. I say that because up to 10,000 test veterans either have got or will get some form of cancer. That is not because they are test veterans; it is because one third of the entire population suffers from cancer at some stage in life.
I shall deal briefly with two further points. During the Social Security Bill debate on 22nd May, my noble friend Lord Henley gave figures regarding the number of war pensions paid to leukaemia and multiple myeloma sufferers. I can now update that figure. At present, there are 30 disablement pensions being paid and 16 widows' pensions. Finally, there was the question about the effects on the children of test veterans. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the forthcoming NRPB report does not study the children. However, I understand that other studies conducted by other scientific bodies are in hand. I cannot be specific as yet as to the bodies involved, but I shall certainly make it my business to find out.
1216
I am also advised that we should be aware that there is no overall excess of cancer among test veterans. Therefore, in the normal course of events, none would be expected among their children. According to internationally accepted calculations of radiation risk, not one case of radiation-induced disease would be expected to arise among the children of British test participants. It will be interesting to see what the results of the studies to which I have referred show.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for raising this subject. It gives me an opportunity, as he said, to give what I perceive to be the truth of the matter. These matters are always difficult, especially with such an emotive subject as anything to do with nuclear power and weapons. Of course the Government have always the greatest sympathy and respect for those who have served their country well. It is essential that we should be seen to be doing the right thing. I hope that the trouble we have taken will show that we are doing just that.

Youth Hardship and Social Support
4.40 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report Severe Hardship and of the Youthaid Report A Broken Promise and of Chapter 3 of the eighth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I owe the House an apology for cutting my arrival at the debate so fine. I also, perhaps more, owe an apology to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association for not having spoken in its cause, as I had hoped to do on the first Unstarred Question. I have been teaching this afternoon and I had expected the debate to continue for rather longer than it did; so I can only plead, after the manner of Lord Peter Wimsey,
"my mind being momentarily on my job".
The slightly clumsy title of this Unstarred Question covers the fact that in the recent past three reports have been published covering the same ground and reaching similar conclusions. I put them all on our Order Paper because I thought it might be for the convenience of the House to bring all three of them to our attention. The first is the report Severe Hardship by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; the second is the eighth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee; and the third is the report A Broken Promise by Youthaid for the Coalition on Young People and Social Security. Those three reports reach very much the same findings. I had been tempted to introduce myself today as the bell man, claiming that what I tell you three times is true; but, alas for a neat image! I had no sooner thought of it than I heard that today a fourth report on youth destitution in Scotland is being published by the Strathclyde Poverty Alliance. So, the bell has tolled more than once.
I any in good company in expressing anxiety about the treatment of 16 and 17 year-olds and about income support. The policy has been weighed in the balance

1217
and found wanting by Barnardo's; the Bridge Project of the University of Edinburgh; the Children's Society; the Coalition on Young People and Social Security; the Child Poverty Action Group; CHAR; your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, intends to speak; the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; MORI; the Social Security Advisory Committee; the Nottingham Hostels Liaison Group; the Scottish Council on Single Homeless; Church Action on Poverty; and the Strathclyde Poverty Alliance, to name only a few.
Since that argument is, to a degree, familiar, I thought that I would touch first on the other theme of the NACAB report—the lower rates of income support paid to those under 25. I have never understood what the logical justification for that lower rate was. Originally, during the debates on the 1986 Act, it was suggested that it followed the distinction between householder and non-householder rates; but it is becoming increasingly clear that the distinction between householders and non-householders is not the same as the distinction between younger and older people. In fact, that is the classic discriminatory assumption. It takes an attribute which is common among one group and takes it as the attribute of the whole of the group.
When we discussed this matter in debates on the council tax, my noble kinsman invoked the principle that young people have lower wages. Women have lower wages and black people have lower wages; but if it were to be suggested that they should receive a lower rate of social security benefit for that reason there would be a considerable body of comment. I also believe that my noble kinsman's argument was attempting to introduce an altogether new principle into the social security system.
Income support is a subsistence benefit. Subsistence is not earnings related. I have never before understood that subsistence benefits were supposed to be earnings related. If that were coming in, it would be a major change of policy which would need some justification. The expenses, of course, are the same. Food bills are the same; rent is the same; gas is the same; and water and electricity are the same. I shall not engage my noble kinsman in an argument, that he will find familiar, about the general levels of income support. I shall touch upon one point: the cost of actively seeking work.
I know something about that issue because both my children have been doing it recently. Starting with a two-zone travel card at £2.70 a day, it is not possible in London actively to seek work at a cost of under £10 a week. It may often cost a great deal more. On a benefit of £33.40 a week, that makes a big hole in benefit levels. If one cannot afford actively to seek work and eat, there is obviously a temptation to seek work slightly less actively than one might otherwise do. If we calculate the cost to the Exchequer of people not actively seeking work and look at the cost given by Mr. Burt on 2nd June for changing that policy at £110 million, it would need only 11,000 people to get into
1218
work who otherwise would not have done so to pay for the cost of changing the policy. That I do not regard as by any means unimaginable.
The major matter involved in the debate is obviously the 16 and 17 year-olds. The theory of government policy is that there is a youth training guarantee for everyone, and a severe hardship allowance for those who do not obtain it. Of course it sounds good, but it is not working. The guarantee has never worked. That is not just a matter of the recession. I have been sent briefing cases by people who were receiving nothing from the moment the policy came into effect. I admit that the severe hardship allowance is working rather better than it was, but it is still short term in its application and random in its effect.
The most important statistic in the MORI Report commissioned by the Government is that of those who obtained the severe hardship allowance 49 per cent. had no visible means of support; and of those who were refused the allowance, 44 per cent. had no visible means of support. So when I say that the working of the policy is random, I mean exactly what I say.
That leaves, as the Social Security Advisory Committee said, large numbers of people with no visible legal means of support. Apart from any concern of common humanity, that is not prudent. It is an incentive to seek invisible, illegal means of support. That is against the public interest. It is difficult to work out how many people are affected. In the reply sent by the TECs to the chairman of the Employment Select Committee in another place last November we have a figure from nine TECs of 6,686 people without places; and from another 25 TECs, 10,165. The careers service knows of 50,000 people registered for youth training and without a place. That is a minimum figure. The estimate in the Youthaid Report, and among those who are working in the field, is that the most likely figure is 80,000 registered for YT, but without visible means of support.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for his Written Answer of 1st June. In it he attempted to work out the statistics for where 16 and 17 year-olds are, how many are in full-time education and how many are in employment. He gave me a health warning, saying that the figures were taken from different sources and different places and were not to be added up. I accept his health warning. I believe that his figures do the Government an injustice.
Equally, the noble Viscount will agree that the figures do not help him to rebut the estimate of 80,000 people with no visible means of support. That is in the target area. The fact that we cannot be more precise is a bad effect of the Rayner principle that the Government's statistical service gathers only that information which the Government want to know. In that context, I hope that they will not reprove us for relying on anecdotal evidence, for they have made sure that nothing else is available.
I also hope that my noble kinsman will not tell us that the guarantee is working. The careers service says that it is not. Numerous chairmen of TECs say that it is not. Those are the Government's main, legitimate

1219
sources of knowledge. If the Government were to say that the guarantee was working, they would be calling into question the good faith of those sources. I hope they will have the wisdom not to do that.
We have had four years of tinkering with the problem and it is no better. It remains my opinion that the guarantee was undeliverable from the beginning and that a restoration of entitlement to benefit is the only long-term solution. But when people are starving in the first year of a parliament, it would be a principal form of cruelty to confine oneself to suggesting solutions which require a general election in order to put them into effect. So I have attempted to ask where I would have gone if I had been a horse; what solutions I would have applied if I believed in the Government's policy. There are a good many of them and in working them out I have realised more than ever what a gimcrack scheme the youth training guarantee was.
In the first place, one would have thought it was elementary common sense that the guaranteed training should last for the same time as the disentitlement to benefit. That is two years. In fact —and this is the second most important statistic in the MORI report—58 per cent. of youth training courses last for three months or less. How a three-month course can give a two-year guarantee passes my understanding.
The next point that needs attention is the bridging allowance: £15 a week for eight weeks. It has not been up-rated since 1988. Last time we exchanged arguments on this the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, argued that it was enough to support a person living at home. But clearly many are not living at home. The commonest single reason why they have been thrown out is that their parents cannot afford to keep them if they do not receive benefit. So the bridging allowance should be extended to approximately the level of income support. On Citizen's Charter principles, if the Government have given the guarantee and they fail to deliver on that guarantee then they must make it good. So the bridging allowance should remain available until a suitable youth training place is found. Then the question may arise whether the bridging allowance should act as a passport to passported social security benefits.
More seriously, I believe that there is a conflict at the very heart of the youth training scheme. The basic idea is training in skills, to which my noble friends also are deeply committed. Some of the chairmen of TECs express concern that the need to provide a welfare guarantee is getting in the way of providing skilled training. That is not in the national interest, nor is it something we would welcome. The training in skills is employer-led. That means that employers must be doing something in their own interests and must have the right to refuse the people they do not think suitable. I have never understood how this could be squared with the universality appropriate to a welfare guarantee.
If we are to keep the present scheme, then we must have a fallback system of youth training such as I understand is now being experimented with in Essex.
There, a basically community service scheme is available for those who are difficult to place. There are numerous groups who are difficult to place but who are not therefore unentitled to subsistence. They include: the homeless, people with disabilities, the pregnant, the learning disabled, those whose native language is not English, those with a medical condition, and offenders. I add two more: those living in remote rural areas and those within three months of their 18th birthday who cannot complete a course. There must be a fallback, state-led scheme.
It is the function of industry to make profits and I am surprised that I should have to explain that to a Conservative Government. It is not legitimate to ask industry to do things which are not in its financial interest. In the end, welfare is a business which cannot be privatised, it is not profit making.
It seems to me that we are moving towards regarding youth training as a repeat of national service. However, if we do that, we should do the job properly. We should re-introduce something resembling the old national service medical exam which, as some noble Lords may remember, not everyone passed. I am not talking only about physical illness or about trauma in the short term afflicting those whose parents have thrown them out. They often need a few weeks before they are fit for work. I am talking about cases like the one forwarded to me by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. A young man was an asthmatic; the only youth training available to him was as a painter. He was a conscientious young man and he was hungry, so he took it. He could not carry on, so he was ruled to have refused a good offer of youth training and to be entitled to nothing. I believe that a medical examination would have prevented that.
At the same time, there ought to be an examination of the suitability of the place. I give one example. In Blairgowrie there are 37 people looking for youth training but there is only one place. Blairgowrie is not the centre of one of our great conurbations; the nearest other places are 15 miles away. Travel is expensive and public transport is not one of Blairgowrie's greatest strengths. In that case, people should be entitled to income support on a severe hardship basis until a suitable place can be made available.
On the severe hardship scheme, I refer my noble kinsman to the speech of his noble friend Lord Mottistone on 24th July last year. His exposition of what was wrong with the procedure cannot be bettered. The severe hardship entitlement for those who cannot get a youth training place must become a right and not discretionary. It must continue until a suitable youth training place can be made available, instead of being stopped and needing to be renewed every few weeks.
The Minister will talk of cost. His honourable friend Miss Widdecombe said it was impossible to discover the cost involved. The Government do pay for the Rayner principle, but we should take into account that among these 80,000 people a certain number—at a rough guess out of the air I would say the number was possibly 5,000 a year—may be so

1221
affected that they are rendered unemployable. That would mean that over a lifetime they would cost the state £395,000 apiece. Therefore, the argument of cost is on the same side as the argument of humanity.
5 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. I had a nasty feeling that when I did not see him in his place he might have been struck down by lightning.
We are talking about the problem of young, unemployed 16 to 17 year-olds who are often sleeping rough. This problem has existed in our society for some time and it has been debated in your Lordships' House before on 24th July 1991. It is also a cause for disquiet that some outstanding reports have been compiled on this subject. I was going to enumerate those reports but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already done so. I must stress that those reports are outstanding.
One must understand the difficulties of young, homeless people who do not have adequate money and who are unable to obtain or fit into a training or education scheme. The Minister, my noble friend Lord Henley, will remember that some years ago a meeting was held in the Department of Health with representatives of statutory and voluntary organisations and representatives from the Department of Employment and the housing department to discuss this problem. But, alas, that took place five years ago and we are in the same position now as we were then.
After much thought I have come to the conclusion that we have been barking up the wrong tree all these years. I profoundly believe in the principle laid down in the Children Act 1989—that is children and young people are the responsibility of their parents both in a material and an emotional sense. At the same time one has to be realistic and recognise that some 16 and 17 year-olds have been in care or have been brought up in children's or foster homes and do not have a parental home on which they can rely. Such young people are at a great disadvantage in the adult world and in the world of work.
There are some young people who live at home until they are 16 or 17 and then leave home for a valid reason. I illustrate that situation with the example of a girl who has been sexually abused by her father but who has not wished to report the matter to the police and break up the family or bring opprobrium on it and has left home.
The intention behind the structure of Her Majesty's Government's scheme was good in the early days—I believe the noble Earl will not agree with me on that —in that to qualify for financial support a young person had to be on a YTS scheme or engaged in further education. At the time that was a commendable structure and I agreed with it. However, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it has not worked out as intended. There is little low-cost affordable rented accommodation. If a young person has no address, he cannot obtain a job, and if he cannot obtain a job he cannot obtain accommodation and an address.
1222
Further, the YTS scheme worked well for some; but in many cases either a young person could not fit into the work structure or the employer found that a young person was a disrupting factor. The employer has a living to make—I believe the noble Earl referred to this—and he has financial constraints. Therefore it is not always possible for employers to keep these young people in the workplace if they are a disruptive influence.
A number of young people are given the chance of training but that training is often not the training they want and it is not in the place they want. I believe we have not faced up to my next point. Many but by no means all of these young people without work are in need of support, encouragement, advice and help. That point has not been taken into account. I suggest that we need to adopt a completely different structure to the one we have at present. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the fact that at the moment they are considering the foyer scheme. That scheme is used in France where there is a network of some 450 hostels that help 50,000 young people. Such young people can take up residence in the hostels for a short time and they receive adequate guidance and help as regards choosing an appropriate training scheme. They are given help in finding accommodation; and, if necessary, they are helped in finding sheltered employment by an organisation that is the equivalent of our Remploy.
Organisations in this country such as the London and Quadrant Housing Trust, the National Council of YMCAs, the North British Housing Association and Shelter are starting to run similar schemes. The Department of Employment is considering this scheme at the moment. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment, the right honourable Mrs. Shephard, the housing minister, Sir George Young, and Mr. Howard and Mr. Forsyth on considering this scheme.
Inevitably we shall still need to consider the question of the rates paid to young people on income support. We shall also have to consider the whole question of low-cost, rented accommodation. I have great experience of these matters, and I believe there are many 16 and 17 year-olds who cannot yet cope with the workplace and who need training to enable them to cope. I suggest that the Department of Employment should give serious consideration to providing workshops for those young people.
I well remember running a workshop in Oxford in which we received help from British Leyland. Under the guidance of British Leyland, the young people in the workshop were able to carry out simple processes. They were paid the going rate by British Leyland. Therefore the young people were earning a living but they were under supervision and they received sheltered employment, if one can use that term. This employment had a good effect on the young people with tremendous results.
We need to rethink completely our approach to looking after these many disadvantaged young people. They need help and advice, and they need an assistance scheme which is based on a different structure to that of the present scheme. These young

1223
people cannot manage their money or work. That is not altogether their fault. Their education may not have been of the highest standard. However, the fact remains that we should help them in a positive way. We should not just push them into a YTS scheme and leave them to look after themselves and find accommodation for themselves. When they have little money, they will never succeed in looking after themselves. I hope Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the foyer scheme and will do away with the present scheme. I hope the foyer scheme will be introduced in this country.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl for initiating the debate this afternoon. The young people whose stories, often tragic, are spelt out in the reports to which the noble Earl referred will be even more deeply indebted if, as a result of this afternoon's debate, we see some improvement in the schemes which have been operated.
Re-reading the report of the discussion that took place in 1988 at the time when income support was, with some exceptions, withdrawn from 16 and 17 year-olds, it is clear that three purposes underlay the Government's action, with which it is possible to have a degree of sympathy. One was to seek to strengthen or reinforce the ties of the family and to bring home to parents their own proper responsibilities. The second was to motivate young people to train and improve their qualifications. The third was to save money wherever possible. However, it is clear that, even measured by its own objectives, the scheme is not working.
We would all agree that there must be emphasis on encouraging parents to maintain responsibility for their children and that young people should be encouraged to stay at home as long as they need to do so. We know that some leave too quickly; we also know that they run back home very quickly when they find what life is like outside, if they have a home to run back to. As has already been said, many—a growing number—do not have a home. Many have been in care, and a growing number come from unstable households as a result of divorce, remarriage and changes of partners.
That is recognised in the provision that children who are genuinely estranged from their families can receive benefits. However, many find it extremely difficult to establish estrangement. It seems to be too often assumed that if they walk out they are the guilty party and are irresponsible. As has also been made clear in the Eighth Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, there is often a great deal of difficulty in establishing their entitlement to severe hardship payments. I must admit that the process of claiming SHP as it has been described to me would tax my ingenuity and patience.
In its report the SSAC described some of the difficulties. Young people must visit the Careers Office, the unemployment benefit office and the DSS office—which may be miles apart. The DSS local office
1224
relies on information from the Careers Office, which delays matters. The procedure is time-consuming: in some offices if a claimant arrives after mid-morning he or she may not receive a decision by the end of the day. In addition, some young people are wrongly turned away by unemployment benefit offices:
"where the young person may just be told that they have no entitlement to benefit as they are under 18".
So there are problems in establishing entitlement to SHPs.
The second objective was a highly desirable attempt to motivate young people to train. That is an unexceptionable aim. However, as has been shown so clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the shortfall in training places demonstrated by a variety of authorities is now surely beyond argument. Up to the mid-1970s, unemployment among young people was not widespread. At that time fewer than 20,000 young people were unemployed. Today, as has been said, we do not know the figure. We do know that in 1991 there were some 220,000 young people on youth training; some 13,000 on bridging allowance; some 20,000 in income support plus an unknown number who received none of those benefits.
The inability to meet the guarantee is widely documented in the reports. I quote from one project manager's report. He said:
"Even college courses don't have work placements … It's no good giving them a place on a course if you don't get a work placement—that's not fulfilled the guarantee".
That is the case with practically any NCH project dealing with young people—alternatives to custody, family centres, independence units. They will all tell one off the cuff of young people who cannot find a place to train, and of young people who are destitute as a result of the combination of circumstances which have been so adequately described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
There has not only been a decline in the number of places but also a decline in the quality of training. I was given an account of a young person by the NCH:
"One project told me of a young person who said that he wanted to work with animals, and was placed at an abattoir".
Yet is is assumed that people who walk off the job are irresponsible and that all employers are responsible and competent. We know that that is not accurate. When young people no longer want to put up with shelf-filling and are receiving no proper training, as a last resort they walk away in desperation. Successive studies have shown, for example, the MORI and Open University studies, that young people want to work. They would prefer to work rather than to live on benefit.
The third purpose of saving money again is not an undesirable objective. However, at what cost have we been saving money? Again and again the reports have demonstrated that many young people are not so much dropping out of the system as dropping into unemployment as a way of life. They become habituated to scrounging and begging, which is now becoming legitimised as a way of making a living. If only we could have a full cost-benefit analysis of what is happening, then I believe that the £80 million or so

1225
that the Government claim to have saved would pale into insignificance compared with the costs of what is happening to young people on our streets today.
What is to be done? The Government's position is that young people should either provide for themselves or be provided for by their families. We are told that their options are full-time education, youth training or employment. For those awaiting a youth training place or employment there are bridging allowances; for those on YT there are training allowances; and for those for whom those are not valid options income support is available. For those who fall through the net we are told severe hardship payments are available. That is the picture we are given.
However, the evidence is overwhelming that that structure has great gaps of increasing size through which far too many young people are falling. Government measures to plug those gaps have not eliminated the problem. The support which is available is not paid at a sufficient level to allow young people to survive. Discrimination against young people is a major cause of homelessness. There are further effects and individual and social costs—in health, crime, drug-abuse and begging. I cannot add to the programme that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expounded and which I wholly endorse, except to make one point. Not only do we need the specific measures that he advanced, but we need too general measures to improve the employment situation.
The problem of unemployment among young people has been growing massively as part of the general increase in unemployment. The problems of unemployment and training young people cannot be solved except in the context of a policy for promoting employment in our society. I believe that the combination of the measures proposed by the noble Earl and a general improvement in employment is the way in which we can give more help to young people and more solace to our society.
5.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I offer my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the debate and giving the House the opportunity to examine this important subject. I am grateful to him not only for this debate but also for drawing our attention to three separate reports which all run in the same direction. To my mind the most telling is the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It has to be said that it is not a report from self-appointed enthusiasts who want to promote a particular cause; it comes from a body appointed by the Secretary of State. It draws attention, in accordance with its duties, to areas of concern in the present system.
It seems to me that the concern for 16 and 17 year-olds brings to the surface a much deeper issue about the relationship between the responsibility of the family and the responsibility of society. In recent times we have tried in many different fields to return responsibility to the family. I believe that that is right. There is a well known saying that there is no such thing as society. That is not a statement I wish to
1226
endorse, but the truth that lies behind it may be that society is not independent of or to be differentiated from individuals, families, groups and institutions; it is rather the rich intermix of those different things which together form society. Therefore the family and society are in interaction with one another. That must be recognised if we are to get right the respective responsibilities of family and society.
I suppose that broadly speaking it could be said that the younger the child, the greater the responsibility of the family; and the older the child, the greater the responsibility of society. With 16 and 17 year-olds one is near the borderline. The anxiety is that it is precisely that age group which is dropping between the two responsibilities into a ravine from which they can hardly scramble. On reading those reports it seemed to me undeniable that the present arrangements are defective.
I have met some of the young people living in hostels who are trying to work their way through the system, so to speak. In that respect I have some very small direct experience of the difficulty about which we speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, produced more radical solutions to the problems than I am able to suggest. My requests to the Government are much more modest. But it seems to me that there are at least three areas in which small steps could be taken that would be helpful to us all.
First, pursuing a point made by the noble Earl, can the Government give undeniable substance to their guarantee of youth training? In those reports it is alleged on fairly good evidence that the promise that was made is not being delivered. The weakness is that we do not have the statistics and figures to show that the promise is being fulfilled. The Government may convince people of their delivered guarantee if they will make arrangements to ensure that the necessary statistics are available.
Secondly, the benefits—bridging allowance, youth training allowance and for that matter severe hardship payment—surely should be increased at least in line with inflation. If the figures were adequate in 1988 (I cannot think that the Government decided that they were over-generous), to that extent they are inadequate now. That fact must be recognised and addressed.
Thirdly, I plead for some simplification, particularly for the procedures for bridging allowance and severe hardship payment. From my limited experience I know that it is bewildering for young people to trail from office to office and from one department to another, not understanding the bureaucratic divisions. The net effect on young people is that they believe that society simply does not care and that the individuals who operate the system do not care. I am sure that that is not the case, but that is the impression created.
My experience is that young people have to be given guidance on how to proceed through the system in order to obtain the payments to which they are entitled or which they can reasonably expect. I pay tribute to the volunteers and others in hostels and elsewhere who give immense time and patience to help young people understand what it is they can obtain.

1227
There is anxiety about the way in which the present system requires young people to answer questions about personal matters—why they left home and so on—in a way which assumes that they are cool analysts of their situation, which of course they are not. Many, though not all of them, are bruised and bewildered youngsters who have escaped from a home that has left them hurt and confused. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, they need a considerable amount of experienced help to understand their situation, let alone how to get out of it. Simplification of the requirements is urgent in order to ensure that the necessary help is provided to people who have become trapped in an unsatisfactory system.
I recognise that there are no easy, slick solutions to the problem. There is a risk of people falling for the over-simple solution. Nonetheless the present situation is demonstrably unsatisfactory. I plead with the Government to take at least some small steps, if not in the direction which I have indicated then in other directions, in order to try to remedy what many of us feel is an affront and an indictment of our current society.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this debate. On reading the three reports which are the subject of the debate, one can only feel dismayed and saddened by the realisation that the youth training guarantee to give all young people a suitable training place is not being fulfilled. I welcome the opportunity to raise concerns which have been expressed by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This is the third report with evidence on this issue which has been produced by the CAB. All the reports have highlighted the difficulties faced by young people who cannot obtain youth training placements and who cannot claim income support except for short-term discretionary severe hardship payments. The CAB has become increasingly alarmed about young people, sometimes in desperate straits, who consult their local CAB because they have no money or do not have sufficient for the barest subsistence.
The Government's own advisory committee, the Social Security Advisory Committee, has also drawn attention to the failure of the youth training guarantee. Its report states:
"In both our sixth and seventh reports we registered our concerns … in particular the problems faced by young people who could not live at home and who in our view ran the risk of destitution. During the last 18 months we have met many organisations and individuals who work directly with young people … The story is the same in all areas we have visited: the YT guarantee is not being delivered in full and without such a guarantee, the absence of a right to continuing entitlement to income support can leave very vulnerable youngsters with no visible, legal means of support. We can see no sign that the situation is improving. Indeed there seems in some areas to be a sharp decline in the availability of places".
Recently the effectiveness of the guarantee of suitable youth training for all who need it has increasingly been questioned. There is considerable evidence that the recession may have increased the difficulty of implementing the guarantee. More young
1228
people are unemployed. The unemployment figure for 16 and 17 year-olds is estimated to have risen by 38,000 to 103,000 in the year ending January 1992. That has been borne out by the evidence in the CAB report.
The problem with meeting the YT guarantee has also been confirmed by the providers of YT. Individual cases reported to the bureaux are likely to represent the tip of the iceberg as the CAB is not usually the first port of call for teenagers. Evidence of the scale of the problem is also provided from the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment. The committee expressed its concern that the guarantee of youth training might not be fulfilled in all areas. The chairman reported to the House of Commons in November that over half of the 69 TECs which replied to an inquiry about the position said that they were not meeting the guarantee. Many TECs are struggling with considerable numbers of young people without youth training and, although they may seek and obtain extra funding, any special measures are bound to take time to implement. In the report of the CAB there are many responses on that issue.
I wish also to highlight the problems faced by young people who try to claim severe hardship payments. Such payments were introduced as a backstop for exceptional cases, with the aim of ensuring that young people without youth training do not suffer hardship. However, the SSAC explains the problems experienced by people claiming severe hardship payments. In its report it states:
"There are several problems with this procedure: the three offices may be miles apart; if the young people have no money they are unable to commute between offices at each stage of the procedure … the claimant must answer several questions from a set questionnaire … the entire procedure is extremely time consuming … there is evidence to suggest that some young people are turned away before they actually make a claim".
The Social Security Advisory Committee recommends that the DSS should review the procedures for 16 and 17 year-olds claiming income support to ensure that those suffering hardships may claim without complicated and unnecessarily daunting procedures.
The effectiveness of the severe hardship payments scheme depends on young people in need being given accurate and speedy advice by the various departments with which they come into contact. It is particularly important that the local social security offices pick up possible entitlement and gain all the information that may be relevant for a decision. Indeed, many of the administrative changes introduced since 1988 were designed to facilitate that. However, the cases reported in the NACAB report, all submitted since July 1990 and therefore after some administrative improvements, still include worrying examples where local office staff wrongly turn young people away or where urgent needs are not dealt with quickly. Again the report cites many examples.
Cases of hardship regularly reported by the CAB and by the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that the discretionary scheme of severe hardship payments cannot provide a consistent and comprehensive substitute for the benefits that have been withdrawn

1229
and that certain groups, in particular pregnant young women and young people who are estranged from their parents, are especially vulnerable.
We have to accept that resources are finite. I do not believe that the long-term solution to the problem is to keep on increasing all social security benefits. It is surely not desirable that children should become dependent upon benefit at the age of 16. The long-term objective must be to fulfil the YT guarantee. We shall probably have to find some other structure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. It is essential to ensure that all young people, whatever their ability, receive a suitable training place to learn the skills necessary to develop their natural attributes. Such training cannot be done in three months, as the noble Lord said. It must take at least two years. Without training young people cannot hope to gain worthwhile or satisfying employment.
It is apparent that that objective will not be achieved swiftly or easily. But, as the reports that we debate and that of the Child Poverty Action Group clearly demonstrate, something must be done now to alleviate the hardship facing young people. I urge the Government seriously to consider the recommendations of the CAB contained in the report. I have no doubt that the Minister will study them. I commend them to him. I shall be most interested to hear his comments when he replies to the debate.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said. We must pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux not only for the work that they do in advising young people but for the excellent advice they give to those who go to them. Whether the issue concerns rent rebates, social security or poll tax those people—in many cases volunteers—seem to know as much about the subject as any Member of Parliament, Minister or civil servant. The organisation seems to have the right kind of people who are able to give the right kind of advice so that one can take further any grievance or problem. I wish to pay that tribute to the bureaux
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke with his customary eloquence to which we were delighted to listen. The problem is serious and has been raised previously in this House. It must continue to be raised because improving benefits is like trying to get blood out of a stone. I am sure that eventually we shall be successful if enough of us speak up. The noble Earl gave a long list of people who have raised the problem.
The Rainer organisation, which is a worthwhile body, stated in its annual report:
"It is the experience of all Rainer projects that the YT guarantee made by the department has not been met".
There are many Members of your Lordships' House who are part and parcel of the Rainer organisation, it further states in its annual report:
"There is evidence of some TECs writing off those with special needs as unemployable".
That is another guarantee which is being broken by the TECs.
I am pleased to say that I am involved with the Rathbone organisation in the City of Birmingham. It realises that there are young people with learning
1230
difficulties and special needs. The organisation has set up its own training programme. After training young people the organisation can offer them to employers to carry out the task for which they have been trained at its skill centres.
I was interested to hear the comments of my noble friend Lord Murray, and other noble Lords, about young people going first to the careers offices and then finding their way to the social services department. That department closes at 12 o'clock and opens again at two o'clock but in the meantime they are sent down the road to find some other advice. There is a constant moving around of people. Many noble Lords watched a television programme broadcast about a month ago. It depicted vividly a homeless young man who had great capabilities. He knew how to speak and how to put his points across but he was completely dismissed. He was told, "Oh, we close at 3.30 on Friday. You should have come this morning". He asked, "Where do I go?", and was told, "Well, there is this other place three miles away". We are talking about vulnerable young people aged between 16 and 18. They are not used to standing in front of people, banging on counters and demanding their rights. If people tell them that there is nothing for them they just go away. If they do not the police are on the scene before long, there is a scuffle and they are brought before the courts. We are dealing with young and vulnerable people who want advice. They do not want to be rebuffed and told, "You should have gone there first".
We must look first at setting up one-stop shops. Why cannot we have them, whether at the careers office or the social security office? People are going to those offices for money because they cannot get a training position. Why must they go to three different offices in order to qualify? We know how expensive fares are these days and the difficulties of arriving on time. It is important that the Government should look seriously at setting up an office where one can be assessed and receive one's benefit. That would make the system a great deal easier.
We must also consider the advice and assistance which the various offices of the DSS appear to give. Not all have the same rules and therefore one receives different advice and perhaps help. It can vary from office to office. I do not blame the people behind the counters who are giving the advice. The complexity of the regulations make them difficult to interpret in respect of individual clients. Let us be perfectly candid, only small payments are being made. We are not offering £100 per day per person, but only small amounts of money. Nevertheless, the whole system is extremely complex.
The Government say that there will always be cheats and rogues. However, lots of cheats and rogues evade income tax and do all kinds of things on the financial markets which involve millions of pounds. By comparison we are talking about chicken feed. We are penalising those who are not cheating the system. That does not happen to people who are working in the City and in the financial markets. They do not have to pay the penalty, but these young people will

1231
have to do so. The Government think that some of them will get away with it, but we must be candid and ask ourselves what they are getting away with.
We must also seriously consider the delay in making the first payment. After you have gone through all the paraphernalia—I must call it that—of filling in all the forms (heaven help the forests that people are talking about in Rio) and after you have got your evidence and your proof you are told, "I have to phone Glasgow". I dread to think of the number of long-distance telephone calls to Glasgow to discover whether Bill Jones can have his money. It must cost as much for the phone calls to Glasgow as it would to give him his money there and then. But it is not for me to question the operation.
After Glasgow gives the all clear the young person is told, "Yes, you can get your benefit". He replies, "Thank goodness". He is then told, "But you are not going to get it today, it will be a fortnight before we pay. If you had come in last Monday you would have got the money next week but, because you did not, it will be a fortnight". At first the young person thinks that he will be given the money and that he will be home and dry, but then learns that he will not have it for a fortnight. No wonder we find that these young people are taking drugs, are stealing and doing all kinds of things. They are desperate.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made special mention of the various organisations which try to help homeless young people. I am involved with St. Basil's in the Birmingham area. The organisation has been operating for 21 years, helping young people throughout that time. Organisations which try to help young people to get money from the DSS must do so immediately because payments are slow in coming. The charities work hard for young people to try to rehabilitate them, to find them places in short-stay hostels and get them down to the job centres. They do everything that they are supposed to do. Therefore, the arrears from the DSS mean that the cash flow becomes quite a serious problem for many of those charities. I believe that the Government should think about the organisations which try to help young people.
Mention has been made of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, which is an HMSO publication. On page 40 it states:
"We have previously discussed this point"—
that is, young people aged 16 and 17—
"in our Sixth and Seventh Reports but consider it important to raise it again".
This is the eighth report and the third year that that point has been raised. Perhaps it should be third time lucky for those young people. It seems strange that we have an organisation like the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is supposed to help the government, and yet in that respect it has been completely disregarded. If one was sitting on the committee one might think that one might as well pack up and go. It is a complete waste of time if the Government do not take any notice. In very heavy black print the report states:
"We strongly urge that, at least for those living away from home, the full rate is restored".
1232
That refers to the young people about whom we are speaking.
I hope that the Minister will not stand up and say that there is no evidence or figures. We accept that that is the normal reply from the Government when they do not wish to give us unpleasant figures. However, the evidence has been put forward this afternoon by other noble Lords in the debate and by the reports that have been referred to.
When there is high unemployment we must accept that there will not be as many training places. The TECs are aware of the problem and they have told the Government that there are fewer places available. Of course, the fact that there is high unemployment and a recession is not the fault of the young people and they should not be blamed for not being able to take up training places. Surely the Government cannot close their eyes and minds to the hopeless position of many of those young, vulnerable people. In some cases those young people have been forced to leave home or have come from children's homes. They are homeless.
The Government have broken their guarantee. That is obvious and has been proved. We look forward to hearing what the Minister is offering in recompense for a broken guarantee.
5.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too convey my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing this question once again to our attention.
When I am not attending your Lordships' House, I am generally to be found helping my husband with our farm animals. Your Lordships may ask what that has to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I shall endeavour to explain. In order to produce strong healthy progeny from our animals, we know that we must ensure that they are properly fed before and during their pregnancies and while they are lactating. It is perhaps more important that proper attention is paid to the pregnant woman's diet. Recent research has shown that a tendency to coronary disease and to several other diseases which manifest themselves later in life is determined not only by the lifestyle of the subjects after their birth but by the diet of their mothers prior to and during pregnancy.
What then is the position of the young women who are the subject of today's Question if they find themselves pregnant? Unless special circumstances apply—for example, they are mentally or physically handicapped—those who are 16 or 17 years old are unable to claim income support until 11 weeks before their baby is due. Those aged 18 to 24 can receive a reduced rate of benefit despite the fact that their needs are the same as those of older women. The Government seem to assume that their families will accept full responsibility for their care and maintenance. Some do, but the reasons that others do not have been rehearsed before your Lordships on so many occasions that I need not repeat them.
It is the 16 and 17 year-olds, who are without parental support and who find themselves pregnant, who are so vulnerable. Those who are fortunate enough to be employed or who have a YTS placement

1233
may discover that their employer is not interested in training pregnant women and will dismiss them. Those in employment will not have worked for long enough to receive statutory protection from dismissal and the eight weeks at £15 per week bridging loan is well below the amount of money needed to provide an adequate diet, let alone the other needs of a pregnant woman.
A report not mentioned on the Order Paper but which is relevant is the Second Report on Maternity Services of the Health Committee in another place. It looked particularly at the arrangements that exist to provide help to women on low incomes through income support and the social fund. Evidence it received from the Maternity Alliance and others stressed the importance of a good diet before and during pregnancy. It reported that the Maternity Alliance had calculated that the cost of an adequate diet for a pregnant woman—£14.06 per week at 1988 prices—would absorb 51 per cent. of income support for an 18 to 24 year-old and as much as 68 per cent. for a 16 to 17 year-old. That compares with a mere 8 per cent. of the average income of an older working woman. After the birth, all women from 16 to 24 are entitled to the same rate of income support, although that is still below the full rate.
It is known that babies born to young unsupported mothers face greater hazards to their health perinatally and during their first year. If their mothers are properly fed during the whole of their pregnancies, those risks could be reduced substantially. The 16 or 17 year-old pregnant woman will not qualify for welfare milk or vitamins until she qualifies for income support. That is for just 11 weeks before she delivers.
The Health Committee was puzzled that different rates of benefit were paid to women of different ages. It concluded that,
"to compound the risks to very young mothers with the setting of benefit levels on the assumption that where teenage women are pregnant, family and friends will in all cases provide support for the young women is putting such mothers and babies at unnecessary risk".
It goes on to recommend that pregnant 18 to 24 year-olds who qualify for income support should receive it at the full adult rate.
I suspect that the Minister is thinking that those women can apply for a severe hardship payment. The Health Committee found that between December 1990 and November 1991 nearly 2,500 pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds claimed income support severe hardship payments. Of those, four fifths were successful; what of the other fifth?
The eighth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee graphically describes what it calls "the convoluted route" to severe hardship payments: several noble Lords have mentioned that matter. What is more worrying is the evidence that some young people are being incorrectly advised by social security and unemployment benefit offices and are misled into believing that they have no title to benefits.
Teenagers who find themselves pregnant are already in an extremely stressful situation. They should not be subjected to the additional pressure of not knowing from where their next crust is coming.
1234
Again in this report we see the recommendation that the full rate of income support should be restored, at least for those living away from home.
During the passage through your Lordships' House of the Social Security Act 1988, the undesirability of encouraging young people to become dependent upon benefits was thoroughly discussed. Likewise, the intention behind the refusal to allow 16 and 17 year-old girls benefits during the whole of their pregnancy if they were unable to find suitable employment or a place on a youth training scheme was supposed to be a deterrent to their becoming pregnant. Time has proved the opposite. However we may deplore teenage pregnancy, it happens and has happened since time immemorial. Whatever our own moral stance, I do not believe that we have any right to sit in judgment over a developing human being and to deprive it of essential nourishment—essential during all stages of its development—by depriving the mother of the means to feed herself properly.
I ask the Minister how long the Government will continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the plight of this especially vulnerable group of young people. Ever since the Social Security Act 1988 came into force the voluntary agencies have been ringing the alarm bells. The assistance given to young people leaving care has been the only concession, and a minor one at that. Perhaps the Minister will ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security urgently to conduct research into the dietary needs of pregnant women—especially those who are unsupported for any reason—and to upgrade the rates of benefit paid to 16 to 24 year-olds, particularly those who are pregnant, in line with their needs.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise strongly to support the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other experts who followed, including the last speaker. It may be thought to be an occasion when I should follow the example of the speaker who, after Edmund Burke had spoken, rose and said, "I say ditto to Mr. Burke". That would save the time of the House. However, I have been associated in my fashion with homelessness for many years, having started with the New Horizon youth centre which sees around 3,000 homeless young people a year. I have engaged in conversation with some of them over the past few days.
I agree entirely with what was said by my noble friend Lady Fisher regarding the vulnerability of those people. They may not appear vulnerable; they may even appear bold when one encounters them. But they are insecure and certainly nervous of involving themselves in arguments with government officers. Even the oldest of us may sometimes shrink from that kind of encounter.
Not long ago I attempted to get my old-age bus pass renewed and experienced some difficulty. The young person—I will not state the sex because it may be thought to be chauvinistic—insisted on asking how the department could be sure where I lived. I explained that it was on my previous bus pass. They then asked how they could be sure that I still lived at that address.

1235
I said, "As it happens, I live a few hundred yards down the road". The assistant said, "How do we know that? Do you have your passport?" I explained that I did not usually carry it. When asked for my driving licence, I pointed out that I did not drive. I was then asked for my birth certificate; but I really do not know where that has gone. That is the kind of trouble we old people have with young people in these offices. I am sorry to say that on that occasion I asked to see the manager, who was quite charming and put everything to rights. But young, vulnerable people cannot ask to see the manager. They would probably be arrested for impertinence if they tried such tactics. That is an important point to make on this occasion.
I must be careful not to begin quoting the speech I may have made if I had been opening a debate on young people in residential care, which was in fact effectively taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and others. Again, I may begin anticipating a speech I shall make, if I am spared, on 24th June when I initiate a debate on young offenders. All those matters are linked together—children in care coming out of care with no one to look after them; those who are homeless; the unemployed; and, finally, those who are in trouble with the law. All those matters are connected, as has been brought out one way or another by earlier speakers.
I shall not detain the House with wide reflections, but I shall quote one or two young people with whom I have spoken in the past few days. I do not say that all wisdom is delivered to young homeless people—far from it. However, they have an angle of their own —what may be called an "acute" angle.
One young person I spoke to had been living on the streets for three years. He obtained a job in a training scheme as a barman at the Savoy and had no complaints about the scheme. After eight weeks he left and moved to become a barman in Soho. He was so badly paid in Soho that he had to live rough even while he was employed there. One can work out for oneself what the pay was like on the job he left in order to move to the job in Soho. In other words, the first point that arises is the extraordinary low pay of people on those schemes.
I asked him what he would say if he were speaking in your Lordships' House. I am too shortsighted to see whether or not he is here but he may be listening. His first point concerned the question of accommodation. That is what homeless young people usually mention first. They quickly mention the almost total restrictions imposed upon 16–17 year olds when applying for social security. However, accommodation is certainly the first thing many will mention. I certainly support everything that was said earlier in the debate on such matters, particularly the emphasis on the treatment of 16–17 year olds who apply for social security.
My other young friend began in Preston. He spent two years on a horticultural training scheme and again had nothing against the scheme. I expect the evidence varies, but I believe that most young people, and certainly the two to whom I spoke—I spoke also to
1236
others in the centre—had no complaints about the schemes on which they were working. But they complained strongly about the poor remuneration they received while they were on the schemes.
When I asked the second young man what he would say were he to speak in the House tonight, he said that he would stress the need for a guarantee of a job at the end of a course. That may be thought to be impossible. However, he said something which is a more modest demand which perhaps could be conceded. He said that at least they should be guaranteed an interview. I have not given notice of this point, but perhaps the Minister will agree that at the end of a training course a young person could at least be granted an interview for a job. It is not much to ask.
I rose only to show my strong support for the fine lead given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and those who support him.
6.8 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the subject of his Unstarred Question. After all, today's young are the future of our country and the mainstay of it. Young people aged 16 to 17 who are especially vulnerable are those who cannot return home for one reason or another or have come from care. The last group may feel lonely, lost and frightened, having been accustomed to being one among a number of people living generally a somewhat gregarious life.
It would seem that some people either do not know their legal entitlements or are even given wrong and conflicting advice. That can often be caused by the complexities of the system. I sometimes find myself bewildered when I try to understand what given entitlements there may or may not be.
One of the charities working with the young homeless is called Centrepoint. I am sure that many noble Lords are aware of its work. One of its tenants applied to the Department of Social Security for support. When asked whether she was a student she stated that she was. The DSS told her, without checking on the number of hours she worked as a student, that she was not entitled to income support. In fact she was a student working 21 hours or under and was therefore entitled to benefit. Before a Centrepoint housing worker sorted out the problem, that young person had gone without a basic income for six weeks, resulting in substantial arrears of rent, because housing benefit cannot be awarded without notification from the DSS.
Centrepoint, with other voluntary sector agencies that work in the field of homelessness, agree that the changes in the social security system are a major factor in the increase in homelessness among young people which leads to sleeping rough and begging in order to survive. Centrepoint also feels that the current benefits system prevents young people from obtaining and retaining independent accommodation. Surely the reduction in available cheap rented accommodation causes even more problems. It is distressing to see young people in our country having to beg to eat.

1237
The replacement of urgent needs payments by the Social Fund has also added to the problems which young people face. Urgent needs payments were grants and not loans and could be used to pay deposits. Many young homeless people cannot afford to move into more permanent accommodation because the deposits charged are too high. If they do move into more permanent accommodation they often find that they cannot afford essentials such as bedding and other furniture.
Centrepoint is finding an interesting shift in the places from which the young are coming. Rather than coming from Scotland, Ireland or elsewhere in the country, more are coming from London itself. When young people first arrive at Centrepoint's emergency hostel they are frequently hungry and often also frightened. Some have escaped from violent or abusive homes or come from care. Some are suffering severe health problems, including physical as well as mental illness. That can lead to the risk of their becoming involved in prostitution or with drugs. Even with the help of skilled workers in the hostels they find it very difficult to establish entitlement to benefit. The process is both daunting and complex. Understandably, a young person can be reluctant to divulge sensitive information relating to his or her background. Centrepoint has experienced many cases of a young person arriving at one of its hostels with nothing but the clothes that they are wearing. They have applied for assistance from the Social Fund but have been turned down, having been told that they are not in a priority group. Surely to have a change of clothes is necessary for self-respect, let alone anything else. Can the Minister say how these young people are to get into a priority group—perhaps by arriving at the office in the traditional fig-leaf?
There is one case where a young person applied for youth training but there were no vacant places. The young person went without income for six weeks and had to resort to begging on the streets while the claim for income support was being sorted out. Eventually a bridging allowance of £15 a week was granted. When Centrepoint inquired why income support was not being paid it was told that the young person was not eligible. If the DSS had asked the young person, it would have discovered that the applicant was eligible because of estrangement from the family. Can the Minister say when the Government will take action on the terrible anomaly which currently results in 16 and 17 year-olds being paid less than an 18 year-old who is homeless? Will they take steps to consider paying the higher rate of income support to all 16 and 17 year-olds who are pregnant or who live independently?
A number of problems have been identified as regards the severe hardship payments. A young person has to visit the careers office—the unemployment office—to register as unemployed and then the DSS office. These offices are not infrequently some distance apart and the young person may be unable to afford the cost of travel, although a crisis loan can be made available for travel if the young person knows about it or is asked whether he needs it. The Social Security Advisory Committee found no cases where
1238
the offer had been made. It said that if it had been made and taken up, the recipient would have been in debt before the benefit had been verified.
The Children Act 1989 provides a clear duty on local authorities to provide accommodation and other necessary support for 16 and 17 year-olds who are in need. That is to be welcomed and indeed encouraged. Can the Minister say whether the Government will reassure local authorities that they will receive adequate resources to fulfil the commitments imposed on them by law? CABs consistently report cases of income support claimants of different types suffering financial problems because of the low level of income support. These problems concern young people aged 18 to 24 years, particularly young single people receiving the lower under 25 rate of benefit, which is £33.60 per week as opposed to £42.25 per week for persons aged 25 and over.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already spoken about the distinction between those under 24 years of age and those over that age. I do not understand the system either. After all, physical needs appear to me to be exactly the same from the age of 16 onwards for people not living at home because they are still growing, they need more clothes and have just as hearty appetites.
An instructive case is reported by the CAB in North Yorkshire. A young man of 23 is lucky enough to be living with his parents. He has income support but as a volunteer trainee with the CAB he finds it essential to have a car. He is also a volunteer tutor with an adult literacy scheme. The CAB pays him travel money but the teaching scheme does not. He finds it very difficult to manage on income support even though he pays no rent. The local Jobcentre recently closed down. When he was called to the Jobcentre it involved a 16-mile journey. The officials did not offer him travel expenses, but when the young man asked he found that he was entitled to claim. Surely that should have been explained to him in the first place. I ask the Minister to consider and draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the recommendations made by the CAB.
I now turn to the housing and community charge benefits which should be calculated at the same adult rate for all because neither rents nor the community charge are lower for persons aged under 25 at present. The CAB further recommends that 18 to 24 year-olds who are pregnant or living independently should receive the full adult rate of benefit. Many of these young people have the same expenses as older persons and should not be denied the same level of benefits simply because they are of a different age. It is more than strange that apparently the bridging allowance has not been increased since 1988. Surely it should be increased to keep pace with inflation or at least to give a young person sufficient to live on until a YT place is obtained.
Finally, there is a large psychological area which I have not touched on. It involves the question of self-respect. Unless these young people are given sufficient means to maintain a healthy diet and adequate clothes, they will not feel much respect. That is very important for anyone, especially the young

1239
who are setting out in life. The Government are to be thanked for the concessions which they have made, but it is true that many anomalies still exist.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing these matters to our attention. I do not have the intimate connections that many other noble Lords have with the various worthy bodies which work on the problems of youth. Therefore, I shall talk more in general terms because I believe we are liable to forget certain very general principles.
The first general principle is that this is a rich and prosperous country. It is one of the 15 richest countries in the world. Secondly, at this juncture those who are 16 to 19 years of age need to have more education and training so that they may equip themselves for the future. One is struck immediately by the complex and monstrous system of rules which we have created for ourselves. Like many others, I was totally lost when reading my briefing papers as to who was entitled to what. I would have great difficulty advising anyone of what they were entitled to. There are far too many sub-classifications. I am surprised that under a Government who are normally against bureaucracy and believers in simplicity, we are increasing the power of bureaucrats to make decisions. We are finding all kinds of rules and regulations which people have to know before they learn whether they are getting £3 more or £3 less. I shall return to that point later.
Surely we all agree that one of our country's major needs is education and that our young people should stay on in education and that, if they do not, they should receive some training. The current system of benefits gives the wrong incentives. I would be quite utopian and say that everybody from the age of 16 onwards should have an income entitlement which should depend solely on age. If the person concerned happened to be in education, all well and good: that is exactly where we want our young people to be. The entitlement would provide some encouragement to stay on in education. If young people do not want to be in education, that is fine too. If the same amount of money were to be paid to everybody between the ages of 16 and 19, whether in education, training or unemployed, that would be an extremely simple system and easier to administer.
No doubt the Minister will tell me that such a system would cost x hundred million pounds more. I say that because there are many estimates of what it would cost. However, like my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, I believe that any cost-benefit analysis of such a simplification and universalisation of income entitlement would prove to be a better, more efficient and more economic way of going about things. If one added up all the administrative costs as well as all the social costs of the present system, such as people who are reduced to begging and who suffer other social disorders, my suggestion would not be all that expensive.
As I said, the current system provides the wrong
1240
incentives and is both complex and expensive. It is based on a number of assumptions that are no longer true. First, as my noble friend Lord Murray pointed out, it is based on what was perhaps the laudable idea that children should be the first responsibility of their parents. That sort of household or family structure is not as prevalent as it used to be. Even when it does apply, we discover more and more that intrafamily violence and intrafamily problems are such that, sadly, we can no longer presume that parents taking care of their children is either usual or even a desirable option. Therefore, we have to think again.
The second assumption was that if our young people received training, the jobs market was such that there would be jobs for them. However, the structure of employment has changed over the past 15 years and we can no longer assume that people will necessarily get a job, even after employment training. We must think seriously about the problem. One good way of ensuring fitness for jobs would be to ensure that as many young people as possible stay on in education.
The current scheme was designed to save money. I believe that any careful accounting will show not only that it has not saved money, but furthermore that it has caused enormous social and economic problems for our country. As I said, ideally I should prefer a system of income entitlement that would be unquestioning and based solely on age. However, if we are not to have that, I join my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal in saying, "Let us have a one-stop shop and a simple system so that everybody understands what they are or are not entitled to." If we are not to have that, let us ensure that the current system of income supplements—or rather the variety of such payments—is at least index-linked in order to catch up with the increase in prices since 1988. That is the least we can do.
As a next step, I should like the Government to say that, even in the current system of low benefits, income support should be extended to everybody who is not in education although I should like it to include everybody else also. Finally, if the Government could increase young people's benefit entitlements to the full adult rate, I might almost say that I would be happy, but perhaps that is too much to promise.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating this debate. We had a kind of dress rehearsal for today's debate on the fourth day of our debate on the Address when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, covered much of this ground but did not receive much of an answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I expect that that was because the Minister knew that this debate was to take place and that we would have a full answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
While on the subject of our debate on the Address, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the answer to his first proposal was given on that occasion by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she said:

1241
"Moving straight from school to depending on benefits should not be an option. The majority of 16 and 17 year-olds are at school or at work".—[Official Report, 12/5/92; col. 336.]
Perhaps I may anticipate the Minister's reply to this debate and advise the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that that answer is what he will hear today. He is therefore speaking to deaf ears.
I regret the change in 1988 because I believe that it has given rise not only to a great deal of personal disaster, but, more than that, to a great deal more public expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to that as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he introduced the debate.
These reports—which are all admirable—have been so well covered that I shall not go over the ground again at this late stage in the debate except to say that they have made out a powerful case for Her Majesty's Government rethinking their 1988 changes which have borne down so hard on our disadvantaged young people of 16 and 17, and on the disadvantaged and, alas, disaffected young adults between the ages of 18 and 25. Instead, I should like to point to some of the consequences of the changes that were made in the late 1980s, especially in relation to criminal justice. I am not in the least bit in the business of apportioning blame, although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seems to think that we all are.
I believe that we all want—I certainly want to do so today—to point to one of the consequences of the Government's policy. I ask the House and Ministers to reflect on whether there is a direct correlation—or at least some connection—between the policies introduced in 1988 and the rise in the number of young people who are committing crimes which cause them to come into conflict with the law. The fact is that, as a result of these policies, a large number of young people have been thrown into the world without money or job placements. That much has been made clear by the debate so far. Those young people are often those who are least well-endowed either in terms of heredity or environment. Young people who may, for instance, have been thrown out of home or abused at home, who cannot return home or go to relatives or who have left care will have no one to cherish them. They will have no money and, naturally, will drift into the underclass. In the words of the Social Security Advisory Committee, these young people,
"resort to other means of obtaining money"
instead of starving. That means "crime or prostitution". What else can they do if they are not to starve? In reply to the fourth day of the debate on the Address the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that people who talked like that were making excuses for committing crime. However, I do not think that it is an excuse; it is an explanation. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to bear that in mind.
I am not talking without information. I am basing some of what I say on a report by Professor Pritchard on young adult clients in the probation and social service departments of one of the most affluent areas of Britain. All the factors which he and colleagues listed in 1989 had become worse by 1990. A high proportion of the offenders, for whom the noble Baroness could find no excuse, have, according to the
1242
report, a degree of mental disorder and have attempted suicide. They display high risk behaviour coupled often with a history of illegal substance abuse. Poverty was an all-pervading issue. Two-thirds had money and debt problems, and one-fifth had chronic housing difficulties. Professor Pritchard concluded that among the clients of the probation and social service department in this affluent area were,
"a core of people with long-standing disrupted, deprived and disadvantaged lives, who are likely to require long term service, not only for themselves but their families".
If they are to have that long-term attention it will cost a great deal of money; and that is by way of a rescue service after they have spent several years from the time they left school with no placement and no money. I plead with Ministers to understand that this evidence shows that these young adults in trouble with the law clearly come from an underclass that has been failed by society and also failed by the department which is the arm of society that should be looking after them when they leave school and when they are young and vulnerable. Any money that may be saved by the Department of Social Security through not paying these young people when they leave school has been lost many times over by the cost of unemployment (as the noble Earl has pointed out); by the cost of the police; by the cost of the prison service; and by the cost of the probation and social services. They are rescuing these young people, as described, at our expense when they need not have been thrown on to the rubbish heap in this way.
The Prime Minister said when he took office that he wanted a society,
"in which people are not only able to get their feet on one rung, but are able to scale the whole height of the ladder if they have the will and the skills to do so".
These young people do not even have one foot on one rung. The social services departments are not helping the Prime Minister to fulfil his wish.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this important subject today. It is one of which I fear the Government do not have a sufficient appreciation. I agree with the Government and with the right reverend Prelate that 16 and 17 year-olds should ideally be the responsibility of the family. However, we have to realise that many families are not in a position to honour that responsibility. I agree with the Government that paid idleness for 16 and 17 year-olds is not a satisfactory solution. There must be an alternative. The evidence is overwhelming that the training guarantee is not providing, in its entirety, that alternative and that vulnerable groups of young people are being caused unacceptable levels of suffering through inadequate support and through the difficulty of access to such support as is available.
The noble Earl referred to the report on young people in Europe by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. I did not bring the report with me but I quoted it only recently during the debate on the gracious Speech. In that report the Select Committee came to the conclusion that in many countries in Europe, including this

1243
country, there is an underclass of young people suffering multiple deprivation who are becoming estranged from our society. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this issue and the damage that will be caused to the social and political stability of this country in the future if we allow this process to go on.
I think particularly of severe hardship, of young people living rough and, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has suggested, of the feeling by young people that society has let them down. They will say that as society has rejected them, why the devil should they accept its standards and mores? Why should they not do what they can to obtain some short-term benefit for themselves? I turn again to the Government and say that I am a great supporter of their reforms in education and training. They have been revolutionary, bold and imaginative. Surely it is inevitable that some fine tuning will be necessary. I hope that the Government will accept that and will not feel ashamed to take action to do what is necessary to solve the problems that have been thrown up by these immensely imaginative initiatives.
I want to look briefly at two groups which are suffering severe deprivation and in respect of which changes are needed. Both groups have been referred to by previous speakers. The first group is those who cannot live at home. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, made particular mention of this group. Many young people today are estranged from their families through no fault of their own. They may be estranged through rejection; through violence, which is often linked with alcohol; through sexual abuse; through overcrowding, which often leads to incest or the risk of incest. They may have been in care and so on. We have to try to adopt a positive approach to what can be done about this group, but first we have to disentangle the concept of training from the concept of providing a safe, clean bed and food to eat.
Is it possible to identify who these young people are? In this context I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an interesting new project in Brixton which has been launched by the Catholic Children's Society in conjunction with grants from the department and Lambeth council. It is called the Home and Away Project. Young people who have left home, have run away or are at risk are referred to the project. They are put in temporary accommodation and interviewed and the family is then interviewed. Although it has been running for only nine months, the results of the first six months were extremely interesting. About 40 per cent of those young people were integrated with their families, usually on the basis that over a period of a year or so they would make a planned withdrawal into independent living, and about 60 per cent of them have had other satisfactory accommodation found for them. I suspect that very few noble Lords in this House would disagree in principle that all 16 and 17 year-olds ought to have access to somewhere decent to sleep and enough food to eat. I believe that most 16 and 17 year-olds from time to time need the support and encouragement of an adult whom they can trust.
1244
In that context I had intended to describe to your Lordships at some length—although I shall now do so more briefly—the Foyers Jeunes movement in France to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], referred. I believe that it is a most interesting example of what could be done here. However, I think that the noble Baroness was wrong to quote the figure of 5,000; I believe that 48,000 places are being supplied at this time by foyers in France.
I visited a foyer in Beauvais. It had about 120 young people in it. It had a restaurant, a bar, nice games facilities and, most important to me, not only a warden and an assistant warden but also what they called an animateur. The latter's job was to create activities during the evening. All three people were trained voluntary workers. Therefore, the young people could consult them and talk about their problems. In that way they received help, encouragement and advice when they needed it—but not oppressively so.
I was delighted to see an advertisement by Shelter linked to the Grand Metropolitan Estates Trust for a development of ficer to develop a chain of foyer hostels in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], mentioned one or two other organisations that are also doing the same thing, including the YMCA. I congratulate those organisations on picking up what I perceive to be a very real need and running with it. Can the Minister give me an assurance that when such hostels are built they will not be denied to the very young people who need them most because they are unable to pay? I am afraid that £29.50 a week will not be enough. Further, will accommodation in these hostels be provided by the local authority under the Children Act? Alternatively, may I sue the local authority if it fails to provide such accommodation?
On a longer-term basis, will the Government consider introducing a system of vouchers by which all 16 and 17 year-olds who are unavoidably estranged from their families can purchase safe, decent board-and-lodging at approved hostels? I believe that the cost could be recovered from parents where they are able to pay, but where they are not able to do so the cost would be picked up by the taxpayer. It would be a very good investment.
I turn now to the other group of people about which I want to speak, young people with special needs. Such people have been referred to by previous speakers. They overlap with the previous group because so often they are also young people who lack parental support. They are a diverse group that includes everything from slow learners and handicapped people to emotionally disturbed young people and those whom the education system has failed. Those with language problems have also been mentioned this evening.
In every case those in the group need guidance, support, encouragement, motivation and, above all, time. Of course, time is money. Some of them are not yet ready for training at the age of 16. Some need educational top-up and some need help to decide which career to follow. That brings to mind a young man of 15 to whom I was speaking last summer. I asked him what he was going to do with his life. He

1245
replied, "Well, I think that I might be a fighter pilot or, if not, I'm gonna join my brother on the barrow. I haven't quite made my mind up yet". I believe that that summarises the problem.
As a positive measure I suggest to the Government that the expansion of an independent careers service could have a very important role to play in this context. The careers service could take all young people onto its books at the age of 14, which, generally speaking, is before they have started truanting regularly. The service could follow them through to the age of 18. It could visit schools and encourage children to think that the curriculum that they are following is relevant. It could also perhaps guide head teachers and governors to make the curriculum relevant to the employment needs of the district. The service could follow the young people into training and into qualifications and jobs. If the careers service was to be judged at the end of the day by the proportion of 18 year-olds with educational or vocational qualifications as a proportion of the 14 year-olds which it took on its books at the beginning, I believe that that would be a very useful control mechanism and might also enable the Government to keep an independent eye on the quality of the training which is being provided by the local TECs.
I have drawn attention to two vulnerable groups. I should just like to emphasise once again that, without housing, jobs and training, vulnerable people are extremely liable to drift into crime, prostitution, drugs and alcohol abuse. I do not believe that it would be very costly to help this small marginal group; indeed, that point has been made many times. But to fail to do so would be to fail to defuse a social and political time bomb.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like every other speaker tonight, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both for introducing the debate and also for a long history of tenacious and skilled advocacy of young people's rights and needs. The debate has focused on one of the most worrying and distressing issues within the social security system. Indeed, we have heard moving speeches from all parts of the House. I believe that that shows the degree of concern felt by Members of your Lordships' House.
When is a guarantee not a guarantee? When it is a right to a pension if you are a Maxwell employee or, if you are 16 or 17 years of age, seeking a YTS placement. As my noble friend Lord Murray says (when reminding us of the statistics given by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in a Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russe11), something like half of 16 to 17 year-olds are in education and just under a quarter, 200,000, are in work. But whereas in the 1960s only 20,000 16 and 17 year-olds were unemployed, that figure is now nearer 300,000, and part of a wider problem of unemployment. Moreover, something like 220,000 of those young people are on YT schemes, and about 30,000 appear to be receiving income support or severe hardship moneys. But, so far as one can tell, a further 80,000 16 to 17 year-olds seem to have no income at all.
1246
We all accept that this country is one of the most under-qualified and under-skilled in Western Europe. The consequence is that we have a low-pay, low-skill and low-productivity economy. We all accept that we need quality training for young people extending right through to the age of 20 to 21 and based perhaps on the West-German model. Indeed, various models have been mentioned tonight.
Moreover, we all accept the need to avoid youngsters drifting into benefit dependency in which they become unfit for the routine and discipline of day-to-day work. However, it is a fear that can perhaps be over-stated. What is striking among young people is not the urge to laze but the hunger to work as they walk the streets knocking on every employer's door. I see the friends of my own sons meeting rebuff after rebuff and still persistently, and often heroically, seeking work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, reminded us, it was the Social Security Act 1988 which reformed—perhaps deformed—so much social security provision and caused so many young people so much hardship. The entitlement to income support was replaced by a guarantee to a YTS placement which the Government have failed to deliver. The efficacy of those 1988 social security reforms depended upon three things: first, the availability of YTS places; secondly, the quality of training that those placements offered; and, thirdly, the sensitive arrangements organised for those beyond their net. All the evidence —the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has quoted some of it tonight—is that YTS is failing young people on all three counts.
As the noble Earl said, we cannot easily give the statistics: the Government have chosen not to monitor YTS placements or to keep the figures. Apparently we do not need to know the result of their 1988 reforms. We have some information on the availability of YTS placements. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, in the autumn of 1991 the careers service estimated that there was a shortfall of nearly 51,000 YTS placements; and 32 of some 60 TECs confirmed that there were insufficient places to make good the Government's guarantee. The NACAB report has quoted some examples: Hertfordshire had 1,500 young people waiting for a placement; East London TEC, 3,200 young people waiting; Shropshire 250 young people waiting; Manchester over 1,200 young people waiting; while Milton Keynes had no YTS vacancies, but 14 job vacancies and 495 young people waiting for placement.
Far from the employer topping up low training allowances, as many of us hoped they would do, TECs are paying some employers to take youngsters. The recession has meant, as so many speakers have said, a declining number of employers willing to offer placements, facing a growing number of unemployed youngsters needing them. As a result, employers are becoming increasingly choosy. I was told today of an employer requesting to interview eight young people before accepting one for placement. The type of young person that employers are now seeking are those who are staying at school.

1247
In addition, TECs are inadequately funded. As Bedfordshire TEC said:
"We have a demand-led programme with a cash-limited budget".
Many of the TECs are facing cuts. Those TECs whose funds are based almost entirely upon their youngsters obtaining NVQs will take only those youngsters likely to obtain NVQs. Youngsters may be unlikely to obtain an NVQ, or, for example, may live in the country and not be served by a bus. As I was told today by a TEC, TECs are not interested in anyone who presents a problem whether in skills or in travel or who is not easy to place. As so many noble Lords have said, youngsters may find no placement when they are within a few months of their 18th birthday. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, young women in the later stages of their pregnancy are turned away; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, young people with special needs who make time consuming demands upon welfare departments find it hard to obtain a placement.
Without the voluntary organisations and, above all, without the local authorities—even facing rate capping as they do now—being willing to accept hard-to-place youngsters, those who are already marginal in the labour market would never have the faintest chance of entering it subsequently.
It is calculated that 103,000 young people are not in school, not in work and not in YTS placements. Some 30,000 of them may be receiving some income support, but 80,000 young people are without an income, and although they persisted in seeking jobs and YTS placements, they have given up.
That brings me to my second criticism of YTS. If the first is the lack of suitable placements, the second is the quality and suitability of the training too often offered. British industry has one of the worst records in the world for training. As we are all aware, the construction industry poaches skilled labour in the good times and sacks it in the bad. It is ruthlessly short-term. When trade revives, we shall see a desperate shortage of skills.
Too often those who take on YTS placements see themselves as cheap labour fodder. As so many speakers have said, youngsters are given dead-end work, without training or prospects. A CAB gave an example of a 16 year-old who was working in residential care. Her training consisted solely of cleaning lavatories. Only one-third (some 38 per cent.) of those in YTS obtain the NVQ qualification upon which so much hope was placed and so much central government funding depends. Even when a young person can obtain a training placement it too often bears no relationship to his or her skills, interests or aptitude. A youngster who wanted butchery training was offered only painting and decorating. Another young woman who wanted residential care work was offered gardening or hairdressing. A third wanted the motor trade and was offered a placement stacking shelves in a warehouse.
YTS is not a reliable route to work. Barely half (57 per cent.) of those in YTS went on to work. That percentage is falling. We are too often using YTS as a
1248
warehouse in which to store young people, keeping them off the labour market, out of benefit, and away from the unemployment figures—out of sight, out of mind, out of the statistics! Not surprisingly, two-thirds of young people believe that YTS is a waste of time.
Those are not young people who have rejected the work ethic; they are young people whom the work ethic has rejected. That is compounded by the low rates of allowances for YTS. As many of your Lordships have said, most 16 year-olds will receive under £30, and about £35 if they are 17. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford reminded us, the rates have not changed since 1988 because it is assumed that those youngsters are living in the parental home. They see themselves working alongside other young workers who are being paid £120 a week to do the same job.
The Labour Government's 1978 YOP paid £19.50 a week. That was not especially generous. Had that amount arisen in line with average earnings, it would now be worth about £80 or £90 a week. If YTS has failed to offer placements, and quality training, do the 1988 social security reforms offer supportive arrangements for those unable to find, take, or hold a placement (the lone parent, the young pregnant woman, the young person recently out of care) or for those subject to Section 4 who are between placements? There is a bridging allowance that runs out after eight weeks. Will the Minister tell us how many young people were on bridging allowances which have now run out?
We can say one thing about the Government: they may not be providing full-time work for young people, but they are certainly making it a full-time job to be young and poor as young people tramp from the benefits agency to the careers office, to the Department of Employment and back to the benefits agency, as my noble friend Lady Fisher graphically described. Each of those offices often give conflicting and inaccurate advice. Those same youngsters are coping with paying poll tax, and go between the community charge office and the DSS, and from the Department of Employment to the city hall while possibly trying to find and hold a bed-sit and claiming housing benefit.
Most worrying of all are the 80,000 or so young people mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who appear to have no income. The Government's presumption was that the placement was guaranteed. We have seen that that is not true. The Government's presumption was that if there was no placement, the young people would be supported by their families. That is not always possible.
The youngsters who slip through the net, tend, as many of your Lordships have said, to be the least educated and least skilled. They are often the children of lone parents. They sometimes have a truancy record or are known to the police. Sometimes they have special needs. If those young people are fortunate enough to have support from their families, those families in turn are usually among the poorest in our community. For example, there is the lone parent who has a seven year-old and who is also trying, on £60 per

1249
week, to support a 17 year-old without any additional allowance. What we have done is to transfer poverty to the parent.
If we assume—as the Minister will no doubt suggest —that there should be family support, why is this not reflected in the payments made to parents in such situations in terms of income support levels? Many youngsters turn to elderly grandparents who are pensioners for help which is generously and ungrudgingly given, but often at the expense of food and heating.
All research shows that even where families try to help their young people they have to give up because of financial stress. As noble Lords have said tonight, many such youngsters come from nothing that we would recognise as a family. Only three out of four children will live in a two-parent home until they are 16. One in four will not, they will face broken, violent, abusive and abusing homes or will have come from the surrogate homes of institutional care. Without a home it is difficult to get a job or a YTS place. Without a job or YTS place it is difficult to get a home of one's own. These children have no home, no job, no money and are utterly destitute. They have been referred to movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We see them around us, begging, thieving, prostituting and at risk of AIDS. At 16 they are already the derelicts of our streets. There are 156,000 homeless young people, 50,000 in London alone. We would do anything to avoid that for our own children and grandchildren. What is not good enough for our children and grandchildren is not good enough for any children in our society.
We accept that such youngsters may have more problems than a lack of income, but destitution is at the core of their distress and difficulties. That destitution is easily remedied. One simple change to the 1988 Act, pressed by my noble friend Lady Turner in a previous debate on this subject, would make all the difference. It is that all 16 and 17 year-olds actively seeking work or actively seeking a placement should he entitled to income support. That is all. The careers office could test it, as the Department of Employment currently does for those over 18.
As my noble friend Lady Turner brought out in that debate, it might add £200 million to a total social security bill of billions. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in that debate, YTS is not a cheap option. But I believe that it is bad value for our money. The net additional costs may well be quite modest, to say nothing of the second or third chance that it would offer young people.
I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of all who have spoken tonight. We know that he has to speak to his brief and we expect nothing less. However, given the quality of the debate, the eloquence and experience of those Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken tonight, and given the distress and suffering to which they referred, may we hope to receive from the Minister not just a reading of his brief but a serious consideration and a willingness to take away some of the proposals put forward tonight on behalf of the most vulnerable members of our society.
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we are always prepared to consider points put forward by all noble Lords in debates in this House. I stress that we shall take note of everything that has been said. We welcome the three reports which my noble kinsman Lord Russell brought before the House and their valuable comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked us to take particular note of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on the grounds that it was a social security committee. Obviously I accept that. We take the committee's advice; that is what it is for. However, it is not for the Social Security Advisory Committee to be our poodle, and similarly it is not for us to be the committee's poodle. We listen to its advice and respond as we see fit.
There are various points to which I shall come later and in opening my remarks I would rather not respond to one or two points at the moment. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and her noble friend Lady Kinloss raised the problems of pregnant women, particularly those aged between 16 and 17 on income support, as well as the levels of that support. The noble Countess rightly referred to the report of the Select Committee on Health in another place. We shall respond to it in due course and I therefore hope that the noble Countess will accept that I prefer not to respond to her technical points now.
Nor do I wish to respond to the somewhat wider remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He will understand that there is not time to comment on every subject in winding up such a debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will also accept that my noble friend Lady Blatch responded to as many points as she could in winding up the debate on the humble Address. If she had responded to every point in the detail which the noble Lord seemed to require, I -suspect that he might still be listening to the winding up.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also suggested that the reforms of 1988 had led to increased youth crime. I do not accept such allegations. Many factors can lead to increased youth crime. There is no evidence for us to lay it at the door of one particular set of reforms.
Turning to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the foyer scheme, again I cannot comment in detail as it is a matter for the Department of Employment. However, I understand that the department is prepared to look at the problem. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that, and I take note of her comments.
Both my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to a Written Question and the Answer by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. They allege that it shows that 80,000 people are without support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg my noble kinsman's pardon but I did not say that it showed that. I said that it gave the Government no assistance in refuting that figure.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman and shall now proceed to refute it. The reason that the Answer did not give the Government ammunition to refute the suggestion of my noble kinsman is that he asked about only five categories of individuals. Those categories do not cover all young people. For example, my noble kinsman forgot to add those in part-time employment who might have earnings which could easily be at or above income support levels.
If we deduct from the 80,000 the number of those in part-time employment, some will be without support. But we should not say that all those people without support are automatically destitute and on the streets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, admitted a large number are supported by their families. She gave the example of a 17 year-old living with a single parent mother who also has a seven year-old and asked how that child would be supported. If the 17 year-old were seeking a YT place, eligibility for income support would exist under severe hardship conditions. Such cases are not automatically ruled out.
I believe that the Government and all the other speakers are not totally at odds on the issue of 16 and 17 year-olds and their entitlement to benefit. No speaker this afternoon, with the possible exception —if I understood them correctly—of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Desai, has suggested restoring a general right to full adult income support for all 16 and 17 year-olds, irrespective of whether they seek training.
I believe everyone would agree that we must offer these young people a choice. The choice that the Government are offering—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, underlined this—is one of education, training or work. I would hope that all of us are agreed that every young person who is able to take up one of those three options—I stress the words "is able to"—should be in one of those three categories. There should not be a fourth category of those who choose not to be in categories one to three—that is, education, training or work—but rather choose the life of benefit. That is the crucial matter here.
That choice is crucial because I believe we can commit no greater crime than permanently confining a class of people to permanent dependency. I very much regret that we have heard very little this evening about the risks of benefit dependency and the dependency culture and all the attendant costs that go with that such as a likely life of crime and all the related problems. Education or work must always be the better option. If we are agreed on that, and I think in the main we are, we must then decide how to go about it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord must not assume that everyone agrees with him over this.
Lord Henley: My Lords, what I think I have said is that I do not think there are many people, with the two exceptions I have mentioned, who advocate an automatic right to a return to income support irrespective of whether young people sought training or not. I am sure the Front Bench of the noble Earl's party would certainly not take that line. Most people in this debate have accepted that there should be some limits on the control of income support for 16 and 17 year-olds just as there are for other members of society. For those over 18 there are deductions in income support if those people refuse actively to seek work. They face reductions in their personal allowances.
We feel that replacing the general entitlement to income support for 16 and 17 year-olds with the guarantee of the offer of a youth training place for all who seek one represents a real investment in the future by providing the incentive for young people to make the most of their opportunities. It provides the means of enhancing vocational skills, and whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said, it can be an important first step on the employment ladder. The noble Baroness said only some 57 per cent. of people on YT went on to get a job. I can assure her that in fact something of the order of three-quarters of those completing YT go on to get a job. However, I am afraid I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that we cannot guarantee a job to all those who take part in YT, nor for that matter can we guarantee even an interview. But certainly all assistance will be given wherever possible.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why cannot the Government guarantee an interview? That is not much to guarantee.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think it is for the Government to tell employers that they must interview X or Y. All we can say is that we can give what assistance we can. The noble Earl may like to insist that the Government should tell employers that they must offer interviews, but I am afraid I do not see that as a line down which the Government ought to go.
We have invested—this figure has been mentioned —some £850 million in the year to March 1992 in youth training. I feel that that is something more than blood out of a stone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, put it. It is an example of our determination that young people should enhance their potential and avoid the risk of benefit dependency. I do not accept the allegations of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that courses last on average only three months. The noble Earl will say no doubt that 57 per cent. of the courses last only three months according to MORI. There is quite rightly much moving about as individual trainees try one course, find it is not suitable and then try another. Our evidence is that as a whole they stay on individual schemes and YT for periods far longer than three months and more likely for periods nearer a year. But that does not mean that the YT guarantee is not being met.
Of course if the individual goes on a short course lasting three months he can then go on to another and

1253
another and another. I therefore would like to reaffirm that the Government are still committed to meeting that YT guarantee. It will be met. I should like to give that assurance and re-emphasise that to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. Indeed in February of this year some 300,000 young people in Britain were actually on YT. The speed at which suitable places can be offered will naturally vary from place to place but any problems of supply of places will be tackled expeditiously. I can assure the House that the Department of Employment keeps in close touch with each training and enterprise council on these matters and any individual cases of difficulty will be dealt with promptly if brought to the notice of TECs through their guarantee liaison facilities.
My noble kinsman, my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, all expressed fears about whether the guarantee was being met for those with special needs, whatever the problems were. I need not go into those problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, listed all those who might have problems of one kind or another with some of the more demanding courses on offer.
Such trainees as those with special needs are covered by the guarantee. Those with special training needs are endorsed in three categories. Some will be endorsed as requiring a period of preparatory training before entering training. Some will be endorsed as having no realistic prospect of achieving an NVQ at level 2, while others will be endorsed as having some prospect of achieving an NVQ at level 2 but as needing significant additional help. Training plans for these young people should be individually designed to give them the support and help they need. The TECs contract with a wide variety of providers to ensure that these needs are met.
Young people who have a YT place have an underlying entitlement to income support but in most cases these young people have no need for benefit as the YT training allowance is higher than benefit levels. I would say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—it may have been the right reverend Prelate who made this point—that that is why it has not been found necessary to raise the training allowance since it was first introduced. Income support has of course been annually uprated and was increased by 3 per cent. over RPI this year. Obviously those are matters that would have to be reviewed if income support levels in time rose higher than the training allowance.
The Government's support of young people does not end merely with the YT guarantee. We realise that some people may not be in a position to benefit from YT at all and others may need financial support while awaiting a YT placement. Income support therefore is available for those 16 and 17 year-olds who for good reason are unable to participate in YT or employment —for example, couples with children, lone parents, severely disabled people, carers, the registered blind and those who are temporarily laid off employment among others. They can claim income support in the same way as those over 18.
1254
For those who leave school and are seeking work and a YT place financial support is available in a number of ways. I am certainly pleased that NACAB has acknowledged—I think my noble kinsman Lord Russell accepted this—in its report the steps that we have taken to improve, where appropriate, both the coverage and the administration of benefits. I stress of course that we are not complacent about the delivery of benefit to those entitled to it and we continue to make improvements as and where possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, both raised the question of a one-stop shop. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was going down the same line in his speech. Obviously we are aware of the problems that can be attached to having various different agencies in this field. We should like actively to pursue solutions in that area. Certainly I know that the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, which is the arm of the Department of Social Security dealing with the delivery of benefits, is more than anxious to improve the service in that field, as in others.
On behalf of the Benefits Agency I can only apologise to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and other noble Lords, who cited individual cases of bad advice being offered by Benefits Agency staff. That is something we very much regret and it is a situation we shall try to alleviate. I feel that the Department of Social Security, through the Benefits Agency, has made terrific strides forward over the past two or three years in improving the service, not just to 16 and 17 year-olds but to all the customers who come before us.
To continue on the subject of other improvements we have made, we have also established that the bridging allowance paid by the Department of Employment to people between YT places or between work and YT should no longer be regarded as sufficient income to avoid severe hardship where young people have to live independently. We have also stressed to Benefits Agency district offices their absolutely crucial role in ensuring that benefit is properly delivered. Revised guidance has been sent out by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency on handling claims from young people. It incorporates good practice and I hope will deal with many of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Wise and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in relation to the complicated procedures. Those are matters which we keep under constant review, and we hope to keep things as simple as possible.
In our defence, as I have mentioned before in this House, I am pleased to say that on various occasions some of the Department of Social Security literature has been in receipt of the plain English award. I therefore hope that the old idea that everything we produce is completely incomprehensible has passed and that we are becoming more user friendly in terms of explaining the delivery of benefit to individuals.
However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will have to accept that a department which deals with some £70,000 million of taxpayer's money—that is, £20 a week for every man, woman and child or £10 a day for every earner in the country—has to have some

1255
fairly stringent rules to make sure that that money goes to the right people and is dealt with accordingly. Although I have been stressing the role of the Benefits Agency, which is the appropriate arm of the Department of Social Security, I know also that the Employment Service, working for the Department of Employment, has also reminded its personnel that they should not indicate to any 16 or 17 year-olds that income support is not available.
I should like to return for a moment to the fundamental aim of our policy and draw the attention of the House to the higher number of young people who are now staying on at school—in 1991 it was some 720,000—and the number of training opportunities which now exist, as well as to the financial support provided to those not able permanently or temporarily to take up those opportunities. The Government's record in that respect is, I believe, impressive and I can see no justification for risking those achievements by reintroducing general entitlement to income support or even introducing an entitlement which is, in effect, general in that the individual could turn down any number of training places whether or not they were suitable.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, demanded that we should give to all recipients of either 16 or 17 year-old income support rates, or 18 to 25 year-olds, the higher full adult rates. My noble kinsman claims never to have understood what logical explanation we have for our policy. I have explained the matter to my noble kinsman on many occasions: young people have lower wages and lower expectations. My noble kinsman then produced quite the most extraordinary argument I have heard for a long time—that if that was the case then should it not also be the case that black people, or women, who tend to have lower wages should not be paid the full rate of income support but a lower rate.
I do not believe that the two groups can be compared. Black people and women tend to receive lower wages. We all accept that they should receive the same wages as their peers when appropriately qualified. I shall not give way at the moment; I shall finish the argument that I am making and then give way to my noble kinsman so that he can put his argument. The simple fact is that young people by definition have fewer skills and are worth less on the job market. Accordingly, their rates of income support are lower. To try and argue that one should do the same for the black community and women is a piece of the most extraordinary sophistry.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that makes the plot thicken. Is my noble kinsman telling me that young people as a point of principle should be paid less than others who do equal work? If so, that surprises me very much indeed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said nothing of the sort. I said that young people tended to have fewer qualifications and to be worth less on the job market. That is quite right. Most people would accept that the young man starting work should not be paid the same
1256
as the man who has been there for a great many years and can do the job based on a great deal more experience. I am sorry. I simply do not accept the noble Earl's argument.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley will take note of the fact that we are not talking about people's wages but their needs. Social security is to cover subsistence needs. Every single person over the age of 16 needs clothes on his or her back, food in his or her belly and a roof over his or her head. No landlord, no local authority, no gas, water or electricity authority will say, "this person is a young person so we will charge him less than a full adult". They have the same expenses. Will the noble Lord please understand that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Countess fails to understand the social security system. If there is an entitlement to housing benefit, that benefit will be paid at the same level as for those above that age. All we are talking about is the personal entitlement to income support. Young people might have the same needs, but their expectations are less. We have no evidence that individuals cannot survive on the levels of benefit that are available. I see nothing wrong therefore in paying lower rates of income support to those whose expectations are somewhat lower.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also asked whether 16 and 17 year-olds on a low income will be able to afford places in good quality hostels when those become available. I think that I dealt with that question in responding to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in that housing benefit will be payable to hostel dwellers in exactly the same way as to anyone else. It is for the local authorities, which administer housing benefit on our behalf, to decide whether or not a charge represents a fair rent.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also complained that young people were allegedly a low priority on the Social Fund. I have to stress that Social Fund officers are required to meet the highest priorities first and to ensure that the best use is made of the available resources. It is for the Social Fund officer to decide the priority of each application taking into account national Secretary of State's guidance on priorities and the area Social Fund officer guidance on local priorities. Obviously individual priorities may be raised by the Social Fund officer in cases where individual circumstances warrant doing so.
In concluding, I should like to make it quite clear that, as I said at the beginning, in this as well as in other areas of social security policy, the Government will be monitoring developments to ensure that we achieve our objectives. As part of that process, I can confirm that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be discussing the questions raised by the NACAB report with NACAB representatives in the near future. I understand also that senior officials in the Employment Department Group will be meeting NACAB representatives.
We shall take note of the three reports. We always do. I must stress that since the debate we had last year, further steps have been taken to ensure that, for example, delivery of the severe hardship provisions are

1257
effective. I am grateful that NACAB has welcomed those improvements. We shall continue to monitor our arrangements to see what changes are necessary. But this is not a policy in the short term to save money. It is more a long-term policy of making expenditure now to save in the future and, by means in the long term of far less benefit dependency and greater training, to induce a more positive attitude to work.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
Re-committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK ROUTE
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK ROUTE
  KENYA: UK AID
  KENYA: UK AID
  ARCHAEOLOGY AND PLANNING: GUIDANCE NOTE REVIEW
  ARCHAEOLOGY AND PLANNING: GUIDANCE NOTE REVIEW
  EARTH SUMMIT
  EARTH SUMMIT
  ASSISTED AREAS MAP: REVIEW
  ASSISTED AREAS MAP: REVIEW