Sitting of 17 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LLANELLI BOROUGH (RIVER LLIEDI) BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Teacher Training Colleges
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement indicating Her Majesty's Government's firm proposals for the reform of teacher training colleges.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): There is continuing unease and concern about the quality of some initial teacher training, which centres on whether some of the producers—the universities and colleges responsible for the training—are providing what the consumers—the schools—will need to achieve, which is higher standards. I announced in June a decisive shift to more school-based training for secondary teachers, following advice from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. My aim now is to make the training of primary teachers more school based and more closely related to the needs of schools and the requirements of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. His steps to make teacher training more school based will be welcomed especially by employers in my constituency and, I am sure, throughout the country. Will he consider going further and ensuring that all potential teachers, as part of their training, spend some time working with employers and finding out what it is like for people who work in personnel departments so as to ensure that they are aware of employers' needs in terms of the quality of products of secondary education?
    Mr. Patten: That is a very interesting suggestion and I should like to take it up with members of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, with whom I have not discussed it before. A number of schools and groups of schools have told me that they would like to be put in sole charge of teacher training as they believe that they could do at least as good a job as many teacher training colleges in training young teachers at the chalk face.
    Mr. Pickthall: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that a circular on changes to teacher education in
    124
    the primary sector will be issued in the near future and that the consultation period—unlike that for circular 9/92 on the secondary sector—will be sufficient to allow colleges to plan for a smooth transition and to allow for proper consultation? Will he also assure the House that there will be no dilution of teacher education for the primary sector by reducing the subject content so as to make courses shorter and cheaper?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's last question: I want primary school teacher training to be more rigorous, not less, and everything that we do will be to that end. I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that the consultation period allowed for in the circular on secondary school teacher training was inadequate. That circular was widely welcomed—so widely, indeed, that I rather doubted the wisdom of the decision that I had taken. I shall take a decision on primary education as soon as possible. I am awaiting further advice from the National Curriculum Council and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

    European Drug Prevention Week
    Mr. Faber: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what role his Department will be playing in European Drug Prevention Week.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): We are publishing tomorrow a revised and updated version of the booklet, "Drug Misuse and the Young" to help education professionals to prevent and respond to drug misuse by young people. We are also funding a series of regional conferences for 14 to 19-year-olds to look at approaches and appropriate strategies to counter the harmful effects on health from drug misuse and to focus on healthy life styles.
    Mr. Faber: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and warmly welcome his Department's involvement in European Drug Prevention Week. It is a sad fact nowadays that drugs are increasingly available in schools, in the playground and at the school gate, and that the problem is increasingly affecting rural areas as well as inner cities and, tragically, primary as well as secondary schools. Will my hon. Friend continue to inform teachers of the problems to look out for and the steps to take early on to try to help children to avoid the dreadful scourge of drug abuse?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, and I commend to my hon. Friend and to the House the excellent booklet to be published tomorrow as it does most of what my hon. Friend asks. It is designed to help teachers and those working with young people to stop youngsters misusing drugs in any way possible. It outlines the part that the education service can play in prevention and gives specific advice, for example, on dealing with emergencies. It summarises the laws on drug abuse and provides a short factual account of the main types of drugs and their effects. I believe that it will be widely read and used and will be of great help in dealing with a most difficult and distressing problem.
    Mr. Don Foster: Given the excellent work on drugs prevention by the health education co-ordinators, will the Minister reconsider his decision to end their grant from

    125
    March 1993? If not, can he say what progress has been made on seeking joint funding with his colleagues at the Department of Health and the Home Office?
    Mr. Forth: I have, of course, met representatives of the advisers and had discussions with them about the issue. I have undertaken to look into the very matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I must stress some important aspects of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware. For instance, the funding of the initiative was always designed to be of limited duration. It was always understood that the responsibility for continuation would eventually come to rest—rightly, in my view—with the local education authorities. Since its inception great changes have taken place, not least that we now have embedded in the curriculum important elements—dealing with drugs, with substance abuse and with healthy life styles—which go a long way to dealing with the problem, so we can look forward to the future with some confidence in dealing with the whole area.
    Mr. Rathbone: While welcoming the steps that the Department is taking in support of European Drug Prevention Week, which got off to an extremely good start with a conference this morning, may I add my emphasis to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). When Home Office and Department of Health initiatives are given initial pump-priming finance, should not Government financial support continue while the troubles continue, as it is unlikely that local authorities will be able to find the funding to which the Minister refers?
    My hon. Friend referred to the curriculum, but is he aware that the subject ranks very low in the curriculum and that individual schools will give priority to many other subjects well in advance of what he believes that the whole question of drug prevention should receive?
    Mr. Forth: I am well aware of the long-standing, knowledgeable and dedicated interest that my hon. Friend takes in this whole area. He has made my right hon. Friend and me well aware of that frequently in recent months. I assure him that I acknowledge his position on the matter. I must ask him to appreciate, however, that when pump-priming money is provided and there is a clear understanding that at some stage it will have to come to an end and responsibility will have to pass on, it is not unreasonable for a Government Department to look at the matter in exactly that way. I believe that we now have sufficient experience of what has been done in the matter—and we have seen a sufficient change in circumstances and background—to justify the decision that we took, after careful consideration and with great difficulty, some time ago.
    I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's view—"denigration" would be too strong a word—that somehow the position of the matter in the curriculum is a lowly one. The subject has an important and focal position in the curriculum and it is a matter to which all involved with the curriculum must give their fullest attention. That will be of great force in the years to come in helping young people in the education process to understand the nature of drugs and to help them to avoid abusing them.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister realise that his complacency will be alarming to many parents and teachers who are seriously worried about the drugs problem? Has not his Department stopped the £5 million
    126
    grant to local authorities which was specifically for drug prevention? Will the Minister reconsider that budget? Unless local authorities are properly funded, the work will not continue and more of our children will fall foul of drug and solvent abuse.
    Mr. Forth: I know that you, Madam Speaker, deplore excessive repetition and I should be guilty of that if I answered the hon. Lady in exactly the same way as I answered the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). As the hon. Lady asked exactly the same question, however, so as not to be out of order I shall not repeat the reply.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has regarding the take-up rate of student loans in the current university year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): As at 13 November, 115,770 students had applied for a loan for the current academic year.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that all independent advice shows that there is a high level of overdrafts and bank loans, in addition to student loans, and real hardship in the student population? Will the Government admit that they have got it wrong on student loans, scrap them and go back to a proper system of grants?
    Mr. Forman: The Government have no intention of scrapping student loans. They are a useful additional facility for students. There can be no generalised hardship because in the past four years for which we have figures —including the last academic year—fewer than two fifths of all students took up student loans.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that if student loans were as unpopular as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) implies, there would be fewer students in advanced education? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of students has increased from fewer than 700,000 to substantially more than 1 million and that the figures show that where previously one in eight people in the target group went into advanced education, now one in four does so?
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is right. During the period that student loans have been available, student participation in higher education has increased by one fifth. It is still rising and is due to rise by a further 13 per cent. in the next three years.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that student loans have not been taken up because many students are not prepared to put themselves into further debt? Is he further aware that a master at one of the colleges in my constituency told me that he had overhead a conversation between students with rich parents saying that they intended to use a student loan to go on a skiing holiday?
    Mr. Forman: It is always unwise to rely on hearsay and overheard conversations. The conditions and terms of student loans through the Student Loans Company are the best deal in town and the most attractive form of finance available to students who wish to take out a loan.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that many students have taken out loans when they would not otherwise have wished to do so because a handful of local authorities, mostly Labour controlled, have been appallingly late in delivering their grants to them? Will he monitor the position carefully this year and ensure that there is no repetition of that problem?
    Mr. Forman: Indeed, we pay very close attention to such matters. It is regrettable that many local authorities, especially Labour-controlled authorities, are slow in dealing with mandatory awards. We monitor the position carefully and we shall take swift action to deal with any abuses which arise.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that for well-off students and families a student loan is a damned sight cheaper than using a credit card for a holiday and that that is an abuse of the system? Will he confirm that the Student Loans Company is seeking the services of debt collection agencies but so far has been unable to find anyone to do the work? Will he assure the House that if debt collection agencies are employed it will be done by competitive tendering and that in the interests of open government a list of agencies prepared to carry out such work will be placed in Hansard?
    Mr. Forman: I have every confidence in Mr. Young and his team at the Student Loans Company. Their record has been very good. Their administrative costs are low and their record on getting payments in is extremely good.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that those loans are much appreciated by the students of Lancaster university, 825 of whom have taken them up? Moreover, 10 people apply to Lancaster university for every place that is vacant. Could that be because of the wide range of imaginative research carried out there, the latest of which is on how to adapt military technology to civilian purposes in Russia—a project known as "swords into ploughshares"?
    Mr. Forman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her sterling support of the university of Lancaster. I have visited that university, the records of which show how excellent it is.

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will report on the progress of the implementation of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Patten: The final subjects in the national curriculum—art, music and physical education—were introduced on time in September this year. That is in line with the timetable that we set in 1989 and have kept to ever since.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he further confirm that he has no intention of stopping the testing of seven-years-olds in our primary schools?
    Mr. Patten: I have absolutely no intention whatever of stopping the successful tests of seven-year-olds in our schools. A very few people, harking back to the outdated theories of the 1960s which did so much damage to education in this country, have suggested that we should
    128
    get rid of tests for seven-year-olds. What do they have to hide or to fear? We shall continue with the tests and we shall continue to see an improvement, for which I am grateful to the many hard-working school teachers. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have said that last year's tests showed a marked improvement over those of the year before and that teachers had higher expectations of their pupils. The tests are excellent and much appreciated by parents.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister agree that the pace of implementation of the national curriculum may depend in part on the Government's decisions about capital expenditure for 1993–94? With its huge problems of schools with basic needs, can we expect a generous settlement for Manchester?
    Mr. Patten: On capital expenditure for maintaining schools, following last year's 15 per cent. increase in the amount of money available for schools, this year we have maintained the level of the capital programme. I recognise that implementation of the national curriculum is not always easy for our hard-working teachers, but I am glad that there is at least bipartisan agreement that the national curriculum introduced by the Conservatives is supported by both sides of the House.
    Mr. Richards: How much money have local education authorities received in grants to help implement the national curriculum, and has that money been used to good effect?
    Mr. Patten: Each year we have been giving several hundred million pounds to local education authorities, both in England and in Wales, my hon. Friend's area, to help implement the national curriculum. The fruits of some of those schools' labours will be clear tomorrow when, for the first time, the Government publish the A-level and GCSE results for every secondary school in the country. That will pinpoint attention where it is needed locally and on standards where they need to be improved. It is the biggest ever public information exercise. Once those new tables are launched, parents will expect them year by year in future, and they will get them year by year —and quite right, too.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State not think it remarkable that he has managed to unite everyone in education, from the National Union of Teachers to the Girls' Schools Association in the independent sector, so that all are criticising his handling of the national curriculum and assessment procedures? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State started to listen to those parents and teachers who believe that the national curriculum is overloaded and too prescriptive? Should he not consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has just withdrawn proposals for the testing of seven-year-olds, which the right hon. Gentleman has just defended?
    Mr. Patten: I meet teachers as I go around schools in this country. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools and the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, we have visited 64 separate schools in the seven months since the general election. I have not visited one school where the head teacher or any classroom teacher has said that he or she does not support the national curriculum. There is a wide measure of agreement

    129
    on that. I am delighted that the national curriculum is being delivered on time and will lead to improvements in standards. Was it not Matthew Arnold who talked about
    "the last enchantments of the Middle Age"?
    It is right for many people to debate the national curriculum, and I do not dispute that there will always be lively debates on the subject, but there are faint echoes of the 1960s in what is being said by many people.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the electoral arrangements in parental ballots for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Forth: We have decided to introduce more flexibility to the electoral arrangements that apply in circumstances where a ballot is declared void and the governing body is required to hold the ballot again. We have therefore included in the Education Bill a provision that will, in certain circumstances, enable the Secretary of State to specify the effective date for determining the electoral roll in a reballot. That will ensure that the ballot can proceed on the basis of an up-to-date electoral roll.
    Mr. Lewis: The Minister will be aware that there have been two ballots in my constituency where parents voted not to opt out. He will also know that those two thrusts for opting out were led by the head teacher and a small coterie of ill-motivated governors—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State and I have already clashed on the matter; he was wrong then and he would be wrong now. There is absolutely no need to point the finger at those involved with those successful ballots, which were conducted in an orderly and fair manner. The Secretary of State needs to look at the ballots that have been successful in his own terms. He will find that in those ballots the rules were bent, and it is to that fact that he should address his attention.
    Mr. Forth: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is being so sensitive about. He seems to be saying that he welcomes cases where parents have freely expressed in a ballot their desire to make the school grant maintained, but he also seems to say that he regrets those cases and would actively oppose that very procedure. That seems to be bordering on paranoia. The hon. Gentleman should lighten up a bit and accept the opinions of parents up and down the country, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are happy to do.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware of the blatant ballot rigging, harassment and double dealing carried out in Birmingham by some Labour supporters who are trying to ensure that a school in my constituency, Lordswood girls school, does not become grant maintained? May I give him the evidence that I have received from girls, who speak in chorus about what has happened to their homes, and ask him to investigate the matter?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend highlights a disgraceful and distressing trend which has emerged of late and of which we in the Department for Education are obtaining increasing evidence: the deplorable behaviour of people involved in local education authorities up and down the country, and particularly in Birmingham. They use extremely unfair and unacceptable methods to seek to
    130
    influence parents in the free expression of their view of grant-maintained status through the balloting procedure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that he will not accept such conduct and will take all available steps within the existing law to deal with it. We will also look at the Education Bill now in Committee to make sure that every possible step is taken to ensure that all balloting procedures are fair and free.
    Mr. Eastham: Further to the Minister's remarks about grant-maintained schools, is he aware of the letter sent by the Department for Education on 3 November to chief education officers? Has he seen the replies to that letter, for instance, from the chief education officer of Manchester? He says that he finds the Department's letter most insulting and intimidating, and that he believes that some of the things that are going on with grant-maintained schools are quite unfair. In fact, we are not getting ballots at all, contrary to what the Minister says and contrary to the lies being told from the Dispatch Box. I shall publish the letter from the chief education officer—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to use the phrase, "the lies being told from the Dispatch Box"? If so, I know that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw and refrain.
    Mr. Eastham: I was talking about lines—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in this House a very long time, and he knows what I am getting at. He is an hon. Member, and I am sure that he will address the House correctly.
    Mr. Eastham: I apologise, Madam Speaker, if I caused grave offence—none was intended. All I am trying to do is clarify some points which are disbelieved by the general public. Given some of the remarks by Ministers it is my intention, with the approval of the chief education officer of Manchester, to publish his letter.
    Mr. Forth: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remarks, Madam Speaker, but that is a matter for you.
    I am sure that most chief education officers have nothing to fear in this matter and can regard the letter accordingly. Chief education officers who have something to fear—if people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) can bring evidence to the Secretary of State that unacceptable or illegal activities have taken place—will find the full rigour of my Department and of the Secretary of State descending on their shoulders—I can promise the hon. Gentleman that.

    Educational Psychology Services
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the workings and future of the educational psychology services.
    Mr. Forth: Educational psychology services are the responsibility of local education authorities. This will remain the case under the Education Bill. Their services will be provided equally for grant-maintained and LEA-maintained school pupils.
    Mr. Steen: I welcome choice and diversity in education, but many parents should be concerned about the erosion

    131
    of the schools psychology service, in view of the dramatic changes taking place in both the funding arid the management of schools.
    Is the Minister aware of the recent audit report which states that the schools psychology service is extremely professional, is very well run, and provides good value for money? Will he avoid his officials persuading him otherwise?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has an intimate knowledge of these matters, despite which I am sure that he will be entirely impartial in his assessment of their value. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind about the essential nature of and value provided by the educational psychology services, both now and under the continuing obligations laid on local education authorities in the Bill now in Committee. I expect educational psychology services to develop and change and to show flexibility as the Bill progresses. The treatment of special educational needs is strengthened under that Bill.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that there is real and widespread concern that the schools psychology service and other learning support services for children with special needs are under threat, and that some of those services have already been diminished by the impact of the Education Reform Act 1988? If he is not prepared to accept that from me, will he undertake a survey of local education authorities to find out what has happened to these services since 1988? If they have declined, will he take steps to put that right?
    Mr. Forth: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He does a great disservice to local education authorities and to professionals in educational psychology and other services in making such assertions. Local education authorities' statutory obligations are clear now and will continue to be clear under the Education Bill. It will be for local education authorities to ensure that they discharge their statutory obligations properly. That is what we shall be ensuring and I join the hon. Gentleman in looking to local education authorities to do just that.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that educational psychologists undertake much preventive work which is often overlooked? Much as we all welcome my hon. Friend's important statement that local education authorities will continue to be responsible for educational psychology services, will he confirm that it is crucial to the future of the child statementing process that the psychology service should continue at its present level, if not at a greater level?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. He will know from the Education Bill now in Committee that we have sought to strengthen the provision for children with special educational needs. The statutory obligations on local education authorities continue, and we are strengthening, speeding up and making more specific the way in which they will work. I am confident that generally, and in terms of the role played by educational psychologists, that can only mean a great improvement in provision for pupils with special educational needs.

    Discretionary Awards
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the funding available in the next financial year to finance discretionary awards.
    Mr. Forman: It is for each local education authority to determine its own policies and expenditure on discretionary awards in the light of local needs and priorities. In the financial year 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, authorities in England spent £216 million on discretionary awards. Details of next year's funding settlement for local authorities will be announced later this year.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the restrictions on local authorities' resources are making it increasingly difficult for them to offer a proper service on discretionary awards, particularly to mature students? What advice would he give to one of my constituents, a mature working class student, who struggled for five years to obtain an excellent law degree only to find himself without financial resources for the Law Society's final course? Does he agree that, in the light of mounting concern about the white, male, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated, legal profession, it is high time that the Government made the final fourth year of the Law Society's course eligible for a mandatory grant and made available the resources for that?
    Mr. Forman: That is heavy dose of special pleading from the hon. Lady. The resources available to local authorities under the education standard spending assessment are generous and will continue to be so. In the past full year for which figures are available, that sum was expanded by 7·4 per cent. and well-run local authorities should be able to finance an adequate level of discretionary awards within that sum.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is also considerable concern in Gloucestershire about the lack of money available for discretionary awards? That is in no small way due to the appalling way in which Liberal councillors in Gloucestershire have managed the county council's finances, not least in trying to buy votes in the Cheltenham area before the last general election. But the more sensible councillors in Gloucestershire county council feel that the standard spending assessment for education may have been slewed against Gloucestershire when compared with those of Oxfordshire and Devon. Will my hon. Friend undertake to keep the matter under review?
    Mr. Forman: I shall always keep important matters of that kind under review, especially when they are raised by my hon. Friend who has highlighted a typical example of Liberal mismanagement of local government. I have had direct experience of that in the London borough of Sutton, and I entirely agree with him.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Let me remind the Minister—even if it touches a raw nerve on the Conservative Benches—that those who are not white, male or middle class constitute the majority in this country. It is not "special pleading" to suggest that discretionary grants form a vital part of financial support for many people who would not otherwise have access to education. I hope that the Minister understands that.

    133
    Is the Minister aware that nearly two thirds of local authorities have cut or frozen discretionary awards for the current financial year? That means that many people who should be able to take advantage of such awards are unable to do so. What does the Minister intend to do about it? Will the Government provide a proper settlement for local authorities, and ensure that discretionary awards are available?
    Mr. Forman: The forthcoming settlement for local authorities in relation to their expenditure on education will form part of the announcement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make later this year.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: Following the answer that the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), may I ask him whether he realises that Gloucestershire county council is ruled by a Conservative-Labour pact?
    Mr. Forman: That just shows how unwise it is to enter into alliances with the Liberal party.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in England have not opted for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Forth: A total of 22,072 maintained schools in England have not had a ballot for grant-maintained status. Of the 701 schools that have balloted for grant-maintained status, only 152 have voted "no".
    Mr. Ward: Is that not a good record, given the comments about intimidation that we heard earlier? How will my hon. Friend ensure that the other schools that will be holding ballots—if they know what is good for their children—will hold them in a fair and free manner, without such intimidation?
    Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked me that. He will be aware that in the Education Bill, which is currently in Committee, we have introduced a number of provisions to streamline the application process, to abolish the requirement for a second governors' resolution before ballots, to provide support for governing bodies for expenses incurred in the promotion of grant-maintained status and to limit LEA expenditure on measures such as my hon. Friend has described. We have taken steps to ensure that a proper, balanced debate takes place before parents make an informed judgment and cast their votes.
    I think that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the information that there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of ballots this October compared with the number last October, and that about 200 schools are balloting in October and November this year alone. That shows that we are on the up and up, and rolling.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister's answer was not accurate. A total of 24,500 schools have not balloted, perhaps realising that—as with the ballots under the Housing Act 1988—all those not voting would be counted as having voted yes.
    While the Minister is dealing with disinformation, may I ask him why he chose to single out Hammersmith and Fulham for providing what he described as disgraceful material? He has never given any examples of such material. Will he tell me—either now or in writing—what
    134
    that disgraceful material was? If he cannot do so—and I suspect that he cannot—will he apologise to parents, governors and the local authority?
    Mr. Forth: My answer is yes; and it probably will not be necessary.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great and growing number of schools in my constituency have already achieved grant-maintained status, and that not a single school that has done so has had the slightest cause for regret? Will my hon. Friend suggest to schools that are considering adopting such status that they approach schools in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and learn about the actual experiences of those schools?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made an important point, which is worth emphasising. Anyone who is considering adopting grant-maintained status can do no better than go to a school that has been grant maintained for some time and speak to the head teacher, the governors and the parents of pupils. That person will find—as Her Majesty's inspectorate has found—that grant-maintained schools benefit in almost every conceivable way from their new independent status and authority. That is reflected in more popularity, better standards and better treatment of pupils.
    My hon. Friend made his point very well. I urge all those who are interested in grant-maintained status for their schools to talk to people who have already adopted it: they will receive a very positive response.

    White Paper (Consultation)
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will extend the period of consultation on the education White Paper.
    Mr. Patten: The consultation period on the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", ended on 25 September. The Government have now introduced the Education Bill into Parliament, to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper. Having had a successful Second Reading, the Bill is now in Committee.
    Mr. Llwyd: As the main thrust of the Education Bill apparently is to provide diversity and choice for parents, will the Minister explain how that will be achieved in large rural areas of Wales and England, where primary schools are often 10 or 15 miles apart and secondary schools 25 or 30 miles apart? As such areas are already suffering extreme economic hardship, will he explain how this plan will gel together?
    Mr. Patten: Welsh issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. On the generality of the hon. Gentleman's open-minded question, we set great store by small rural schools, which we want to support. We also set great store in giving such schools the opportunity to be grant maintained, and the Education Bill will give them the opportunity to do so as part of clusters. That is a very good thing for them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Heppell: Will the Prime Minister inform the House why a trade mission from Nottingham chamber of commerce was allowed to go ahead on 22 June 1990 even though the products of the companies involved would have been useful to Saddam Hussein's war effort? Will he assure the House that the role of such trade missions will be part of the Scott inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's point. As he may well know, my office receives about 3,000 letters and innumerable documentation each week so I cannot reply directly, but I will examine the point that he made.
    Mr. Lord: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor's autumn budget contained excellent news for the building industry? Does he further agree that allowing housing associations more resources to buy empty properties and local authorities more discretion to spend their capital receipts will be an excellent boost for the housing market?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is quite right. There were a number of aspects of my right hon. Friend's statement that were very good news indeed for the housing market. As Abbey National has said, this may prove to be the point at which the housing market turns. That is the view of Abbey National, and I hope that it proves to be correct. My right hon. Friend had a meeting with mortgage lenders yesterday to discuss ways of ensuring that the money is used as effectively as possible to reduce the overhang of empty properties on the market. If it is, it will have a material impact on the housing market and a beneficial one.
    Mr. John Smith: Last night, a Downing street spokesman briefed the press that the 1984 guidelines for exports of arms-related equipment to Iraq were changed in 1988. Can the Prime Minister tell why Parliament was not informed of this change?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that we have set out the most wide ranging terms of inquiry possible—far more wide ranging than most people imagined—and that all these matters will be discussed on that occasion. I hope that he will now accept that those terms are so wide ranging and cover so many aspects that nothing will not be fully examined.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell me, then, why the question whether Parliament was misled is not included in the terms of reference of the inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being extremely silly. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: If he reads the terms of inquiry more carefully he will see that they allow the judge to examine all the facts, all the decisions, the basis for those decisions and whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of the Government. The judge will have access to all the documentation as well as to individuals. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fears are wholly unfounded.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister will recollect that he quoted the terms of reference as being whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty's Government. But the allegation which is made, and which I also make, that this Government consistently, over a long period of time, misled Parliament, is not included in these terms of reference. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues have nothing to hide, why not include the misleading of Parliament in the terms of reference of the inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the terms of reference, when he would see that this is entirely implicit in them. The suggestion that Ministers misled the House is a serious and scurrrilous charge and has no basis whatsoever in fact. It is typical of the charges that have been made by the Labour party before. It is typical of the charges over the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which were utterly unfounded and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have never apologised for making.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the ever growing recession in Germany over £360 million worth of property in central London has recently been bought by German investment trusts? Is not this a demonstration, by putting their deutschmarks where their mouths are, of confidence in British economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a very large amount of inward investment in this country from both within and beyond the European Community. Indeed, in terms of investment in countries within the Community by countries beyond it, by far the lion's share comes to this country, because of this Government's policies over recent years.
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the effects of his economic incompetence on companies such as British Steel in Scunthorpe, and on unemployment? Is he aware, further, that long-term unemployment has risen by 48 per cent., to stand at 302,000? Is it not a matter for regret that of all the things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet unemployment was not one?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly understands even less than I thought he did. He clearly has not read my speech or the press reports. The speech was nearly all about the strategy for growth to provide long-term secure jobs. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand anything.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will settle down. Let us have some order. Front-Bench Members are bawling and shouting. Order.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his autumn statement, which did so much to preserve the Government's capital programmes: programmes for new roads, new railways, new hospitals and new schools? Does he agree that this will not only help modernise Britain's infrastructure but create new jobs in our construction industry?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is, of course, in sharp contrast to what happened under the last Labour Government, when they would always cut capital as the first and easiest cut, while avoiding the difficult decisions on current account. We have taken the difficult decisions on current account precisely to preserve capital, build up our future, create jobs and build up prosperity.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Hoey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the revulsion in the country caused by his Government's inhumane, shameful and sickening policy on Bosnian refugees? Why was the Prime Minister so ready to provide a safe haven and air support for the Kurds when they were running from Iraqi aggression when he is not ready to provide a similar safe haven or air support for women and children fleeing from Serbian aggression in central Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Lady that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will deal with this at greater length in a few moments. Let me say to her now that we have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors from Yugoslavia this year of whom more than 4,000 have applied for asylum, and we have agreed to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and with the International Red Cross to take the priority refugees they want us to take under the 1951 Geneva convention. With the best will in the world we simply cannot take everyone who, for understandable reasons, wants to leave Yugoslavia and, in this case, the group concerned were warned in advance that they should not go ahead with their mission to Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his determination to bring a successful outcome to the current GATT round will bring enormous benefits not only to Britain and Europe, but to the countries of the third world whose interests the Government so clearly protected last week in the welcome and substantial increase in our overseas aid budget?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the GATT round to the third world. It is entirely unreasonable for the west to say to the third world, on one hand, here is some aid to help with your difficulties and, on the other hand, close our markets, which are of even greater benefit to them. It is imperative that we have the GATT round for the industrialised world, but it is no less imperative for the non-industrialised world.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Could the Prime Minister spare a few moments at 3.30 pm to go downstairs to the Grand Committee Room and explain to a lobby of several hundred people from residential drug and alcohol projects why the Government have gone back on a clear commitment to ring-fence their funding with effect from 1 April next year? Is he aware that the decision will result in several of the projects closing, with obvious human consequences? It would be especially appropriate during European Drug Prevention Week for the Prime Minister to do a U-turn on the matter.
    The Prime Minister: The Government recognise that there are special circumstances for alcohol and drug misusers and we have met the specialist service providers. We will be encouraging fast-track assessment procedures, encouraging good practice in identifying who is responsible for each client and setting up special monitoring arrangements for those services for the first three months following implementation. That is in addition to the action we have already announced to ensure that the community care grant is spent on services that reflect people's wishes and causes minimum turbulence and disturbance to them. The hon. Gentleman should be more accurate about our proposals.
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: I am sorry that I am in the wrong place, Madam Speaker, but these young whipper-snappers show no respect to us old fogies.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of a national timetable is an essential element in changes that are made to railway policy? Is he aware that this morning, Select Committee on Transport members visited Crewe? Incidentally, we got back eight minutes early and were back here in time for lunch. We went to the national timetable centre and were somewhat dismayed to find that not only Ministers, but officials from the Department of Transport had not been there. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the civil servants responsible for the documentation to do a little more homework please?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that my hon. Friend has just done that, and in the most effective way possible.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Given the Matrix Churchill debacle of the past few weeks and the Government's obvious inadequacy in dealing with that matter—giving rise to questions regarding the very accountability of the Government—will the Prime Minister now accept that the only way to overcome such difficulties is to introduce a freedom of information Bill so that such situations can be avoided in future?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and, on the substantive matter that he mentioned, I have already said to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that there will be a full and wide-ranging inquiry to which every Minister concerned will give evidence, all papers will be available and all civil servants will make themselves available. There will be a full and total disclosure of all those events.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say what further steps he can and will take to press banks to lower their interest rates in line with reduced bank rates so that businesses can profit and, more particularly, so that young home owners and mortgage payers in my constituency and throughout the country can benefit?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, lower interest rates should benefit businesses and consumers alike and thus help the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, he will be taking the matter up with the individual clearing banks, and the Bank of England will be reviewing current practice by the banks.
    Madam Speaker: Time's up.

Bosnian Refugees
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Blair(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision to refuse entry to 180 Bosnian refugees.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): On 5 November I made a statement to the House about the offer that we were making to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to receive from Bosnia people with special humanitarian needs who the international organisations judged should be evacuted from detention camps and elsewhere.
I said that we would be discussing numbers and timing with the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have informed the UNHCR that we are ready to receive in the first instance 150 former detainees and their dependants, probably making 600 in all. At the same time, I announced the imposition of visas on certain nationals of the former Yugoslavia, making it clear that such action was needed to enable us to target our humanitarian assistance where it was most needed.
The Leeds European Refugees Trust—ALERT—was advised the following day, 6 November, by my officials that the group that it intended to bring to the United Kingdom could not be exempted from the visa regime to be imposed from midnight on that day. That information and advice was repeatedly given to ALERT before its coaches left the United Kingdom on 9 November—four days after my statement. Despite that clear advice, ALERT proceeded with its plans and then used its coaches to move the group from more comfortable conditions in the safe city of Ljubljana to the equally peaceful but colder mountainous region on the Austrian border.
The ALERT group then lodged applications at the British embassy in Vienna which were referred to the Home Office asylum division on 13 November.
I decided yesterday that visas may be authorised for six members of the group who have existing close family ties with the United Kingdom. They will be free to travel here to lodge applications for asylum, in accordance with normal policy, as the United Kingdom is the most suitable country of refuge in their cases.
I also decided that another 180 members of the group should be refused visas because they have insubstantial or no links to the United Kingdom. Their cases are indistinguishable from the plight of about 2 million people displaced in former Yugoslavia. They are more fortunate than those likely to be referred to the Government by the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross in that the ALERT group are housed in hotels and hospitals far away from the fighting.
Eight other cases, two with medical conditions, and their relatives remain under active consideration and are the subject of further inquiries. These inquiries include the need to establish that it is necessary for them to have medical treatment in the United Kingdom rather than in the hospitals where they are at present in Slovenia. It would also be necessary to ensure that the national health service could provide treatment for the patients if that case could be made.
142
The Government have repeatedly made clear their willingness to make a humanitarian contribution to solving the problems in the former Yugoslavia by helping to take the cases which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross judge to be the most needy. As I have already stated, we have agreed to accept an initial group of about 600 people in all from both international bodies. Numbers and timing are being urgently considered with the UNHCR and ICRC and, of course, we stand ready to consider numbers beyond the 600 I have mentioned.
We did not implement the new visa regime without thought for transitional cases. Groups similar to ALERT who were caught by my statement on 5 November and had already then started their journeys were, in fact, exempted from visa requirements; 187 individuals were admitted to the United Kingdom on 7 and 8 November, two and three days after my statement, without visas on the basis that they had already started their journeys. ALERT, however, was fully warned of the position before even starting the journey with its coaches from this country, and at no time did it have any basis for raising the hopes of the unfortunate people concerned.
Mr. Blair: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement, but will he agree that the people to whom he is refusing help today are beyond doubt victims of war, some from concentration camps and all in a desperate situation? Although for the past two days since the affair broke they have been in hotels and hospitals, previously they were sleeping on buses in the freezing cold. If no asylum is given, they will go back to the refugee camps from which they have come, or in some cases to Bosnia itself.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised the ALERT organisation. Some organisations may be well meaning but irresponsible, but will he confirm the following: that ALERT has wide experience in the refugee crisis; that this was the sixth such mission it had made and the first on which there were any problems; that it had recently been commended by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the responsibility of its conduct; and that it had secured places for all 180 people in this country before setting off?
Following the initial conversations with the Home Office, ALERT had got for the Home Office a letter from the head of the International Red Cross in Ljublijana on behalf of the Red Cross, backing up the Slovenian Red Cross, and saying that these people were victims of war with desperate need. Since the Minister is now saying, apparently, that the letter is invalid because it is from the Red Cross on the ground and not the Red Cross in Geneva, why was the first that any of the refugee bodies knew that there might be a doubt about the certification of the Red Cross when they heard the Minister on the radio this morning? How does he explain that?
Although everyone accepts that there must be proper regulation of the flow of refugees, in this case of clear suffering—involving mothers and children, where accommodation in Britain has been agreed and where the Red Cross on the ground has recommended help—would not the Minister command more support in the country if, instead of every day placing new barriers in the way of

143
help, the Government were to show the same spark of humanitarian concern as has been shown by the British people?
Mr. Clarke: There are at the best estimate 2 million people displaced by warfare in former Yugoslavia. They are all distressed; many are homeless and many are obviously in need of as much assistance as we can give. This country is in the forefront of the international community in giving humanitarian assistance inside Yugoslavia to those people. We have joined in, making our offer to take a share of those referred to us by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The hon. Gentleman gives no indication as to whether he would refuse any of those 2 million if they presented themselves to come to this country [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is quite true. I have faced the hon. Gentleman for several days. He shares my instincts; he shares my values. He believes that we should make an offer in this country, but he refuses to face the responsibility of saying that we in this country should decline to take anybody who is offered to us to come to this country. He also declines to take any notice of what I have already explained to him about the policy that we have been following.
I made a clear statement on 5 November about the basis on which we were proceeding and the introduction of the visa regime. Those people who had already started their journeys were allowed here without visas. ALERT, the organisation whose cause the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has taken up, sent the coaches from this country on 9 November after being advised for three days that it was sending out coaches to fetch people who did not qualify under the visa regime that we had introduced.
ALERT now appears to have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that somehow it had the authorisation of the Red Cross by producing to him a letter from Ljubljana with the Red Cross symbol on it. The body that we are negotiating with, the body that will send and identify for us the first 600 or so people from the detention camps, is the International Committee of the Red Cross—a large international organisation based in Geneva with many people active on the ground in the areas affected by the fighting in the former Yugoslavia.
There is a perfectly reputable body. The Ljublijana branch of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is exactly the same body."] It is not exactly the same body. It is a Ljublijana branch of a federation between Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations of people based in Slovenia. That federation has sent a letter today from its headquarters—a different headquarters—from the head of the Europe department about the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) stating:
"The letter was drafted in good faith by the Head of Delegation on basis of information which he could not verify at the time of writing. It does not reflect the view of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies."
The Ljublijana branch did not have the authority of its headquarters, of that organisation, for the letter that it gave.
In any event, that organisation is quite different from the International Committee of the Red Cross, with which we are working. The ICRC and the UNHCR are running detention centres very close to the fighting. They have accepted our offer to move to us about 600 people of those
144
at the moment in the heart of the fighting who need to be evacuated because they have been traumatised by their experience. They will be added to the 68 wounded whom we have already taken from the area at the request of the Red Cross and who are being treated in national health service hospitals. Of course, we already have 40,000 people from the former Yugoslavia here as visitors, 4,000 of whom have already applied for asylum and most of whom are not returning.
We are targeting our effort on those identified to us by the international organisation. The people we are talking about today are housed in hotels and hospitals in a peaceful part of former Yugoslavia far removed from the fighting. They have been moved there from Ljublijana for some reason by an organisation which took coaches there for that purpose some days after my announcement.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield must accept that there is a sensible case for saying no to some of those 2 million. Britain will take its share in making a humanitarian contribution to the most needy.
Sir Giles Shaw: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, because he has just quoted it, that I have become involved in the issue through many of my constituents who work for Leeds European Refugees Trust. They are constituents of great Christian motive and they are highly effective in what they have been doing to date.
My right hon. and learned Friend will also be aware that they sought the information and I agree with him that they were given strong advice that they should not move on Monday the 9th. Equally, my right hon. and learned Friend will now know, because he quoted it, that the information from the Ljublijana branch of the International Red Cross was of such a character that it was quite impossible for me or for ALERT to say that it was not a step towards the visa requirement so clearly set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement the previous Thursday.
I apologise unreservedly to my right hon. and learned Friend for being a nuisance in this matter, and unreservedly also if I have unwisely passed on advice to ALERT. My considered view was that the letter was meaningful, and it is only now that little meaning has been attached to it. Based on that encouragement, I suspect that ALERT allowed the buses to leave. They contained important medical supplies and other material which would have been received in the area concerned in any case. I hope that in considering the flexibility of the system, at a short distance, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the humanitarian aspect of assessment.
Mr. Clarke: First, my hon. Friend has no need to apologise to me or to anyone else. He has quite properly taken an interest in a distressing and difficult decision. I accept that it is plainly the case that the 180 people who are waiting on the border of Slovenia and Austria had appalling experiences. They are displaced and they are among literally millions of people who are suffering innocently and directly from the consequences of the warfare. My hon. Friend knows of the advice given to ALERT not to go there and select people to bring back from among those millions. He has been helpful throughout, and letters to him have finally been clarified

145
by the letter that I just quoted from the European headquarters of the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
We considered the case of each person on those British coaches. Visa forms were taken to them from Vienna, flown back to London and given priority over all the other incoming applications for refugee status and asylum. The forms were worked on over the weekend. When going through those cases, in the interests of making the most effective contribution, I had to decide that only six had any sensible case for choosing Britain as the place to which they should go from their current safe haven in the far reaches of Slovenia. Were we to take many more, or to admit more to our hospitals, we would reduce our capacity to take the people whom we have promised to take from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and I have been wrestling with an impenetrable tangle and have both been aware of the important humanitarian issues which lie behind it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we go further down this road, with long statements and not very brief answers, I remind the House that this is a private notice question and requires to be dealt with in a particular way—by direct single questions and brief answers.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Home Secretary aware that his voice sounds like that of his predecessor, Sir Samuel Hoare, who bundled Jewish refugees back on to planes to Germany in 1939? When he speaks of allowing 150 people in desperate straits into the country on the one hand and of 2 million refugees on the other, he does less than justice to our international role as a humanitarian country and simply deposits the problem in the lap of the German people. Does he think that that is an appropriate response for this great country?
Mr. Clarke: I respect the hon. Gentleman's passionate sincerity on the matter, so I shall not bridle with indignation at his outrageous allegation. I have been getting used to outrageous allegations about my conduct in recent weeks. On calm reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not find any comparison between the returning of Jews to a regime which was systematically killing them in the gas chambers and my refusal to allow people into this country from hotels and hospitals on the peaceful mountainsides of Slovenia where they are far removed from the fighting, having escaped from it, and where I trust that no one will attempt to pursue or to kill them.
There are a large number of displaced persons and all international organisations and European countries have agreed that the best policy is to keep as many of them as possible as near to their homes as possible, so that they can return when peace comes. We shall take our share of the people who are most traumatised. The International Committee of the Red Cross and UNHCR are best placed to tell us who those people should be.
Mr. Peter Fry: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree, in view of his last answer, that the urgent need is massive extra aid to countries such as
146
Slovenia so that refugees can be kept in safety not far from their homes? Up to now, the support given to new republics and other countries surrounding the former Yugoslavia has been insufficient. Does he agree that our resources, and policy for the future, should be channeled in that direction?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remind the House that the British contribution so far has been £70 million worth of humanitarian aid made directly and indirectly. Sums of money have been spent on medical supplies and assistance given to maintain health and water services in the worst affected area. I have mentioned the 40,000 people who have been allowed here as visitors and the 68 wounded who are being treated in our national health service hospitals. We have 2,300 troops on the ground running humanitarian convoys, we have run about 200 mercy flights taking in aid so far, and we have provided winter shelter for about 20,000 people in the worst affected areas. The British contribution to what is being done in Yugoslavia is one of the most formidable from western Europe. Combined with that, we are offering to take our share of people.
We could give help to Slovenia. Indeed, there is a case for giving help to Slovenia in relation to Austria. The Germans must really decide for themselves what they intend to do about the flow of people going to that country. It is not a model but a warning—what we must avoid—if we do not control what happens now. We are making our contribution, and matters are not helped by Opposition Members who are not prepared to say that we should be in any way selective when a group of 180 people turn up who they think should stay here.
Mr. Max Madden: As there is so much conflict about what advice and assurances were given, may I ask the Home Secretary to invite the president of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal to review the applications for visit visas made by the members of the group on the basis of support, maintenance and accommodation to be arranged by ALERT?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that if that reasonable request for an independent review is not met, he and his officials and his Department will stand accused of duplicity and deceit and another nail will have been driven into Britain's reputation as a civilised, compassionate and caring country?
Mr. Clarke: There is no dispute or doubt about the advice that was given. I have stated the position factually and clearly. In another part of the House, we are discussing the way to unclog the appeals system in this country, which is overburdened with huge arrears of serious cases—people waiting to have their fate decided as to whether they will be allowed to settle here. We cannot start introducing a new appeals procedure to hear about applications from Slovenia in respect of people who have never set foot in this country when we have looked at their visa applications and it is plain that they do not comply with our requirements.
The hon. Gentleman winds up with his usual outburst about outrageous behaviour. Frankly, he is either gullible in believing every version he hears from various groups or he is simply out to be mischievous throughout the whole episode. I leave it to people outside to decide into which category he falls.
Dr. Keith liampson: There are three aspects on which my right hon. and learned Friend might have broad support. The first is recognition that the members of ALERT did not have dishonourable motives in trying to help people whom they were encouraged to believe were in distress. The second is that it would be sending the wrong signal to well-meaning groups in Britain if they were led to believe that they could just go in buses and pick up people there and bring them back here. That is not the way to help the victims of civil war.
Thirdly, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real answer is to move as quickly as possible to take into this country people recommended by the United Nations and the Red Cross so that other well-meaning groups realise that the situation is being coped with?
Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and what has been said by Opposition Members, about the motives of those involved. I have no reason to doubt that those involved with ALERT have acted in what they believe to be a humanitarian cause and that they desperately believe that they must get the people concerned to this country. In campaigning from the border, they have made many misleading statements to try to get people here. I imagine that they regard those misleading statements as justified by the higher aim that they are pursuing. I am sorry to disappoint them but, as my hon. Friend said, many other groups would otherwise do the same.
Every international traveller knows the difficulty of going to a third world country or a country where there is trouble. It is easy to go there and see people whom one would like to bring back here for national health service treatment, for housing, and for the better conditions that they would enjoy in the United Kingdom. We cannot have that in respect of the former Yugoslavia. We have already stated to the international organisations our readiness to take in the first 600 or so of those whom we want to help. We are prepared: we could take them tomorrow. In the heart of the fighting, however—as opposed to the peaceful mountains of Slovenia—it is difficult to organise bringing people out. The British Government stand ready to play their part as soon as the 600 people can be brought here by the organisations who are trying to bring them out of the camps.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it possible for the Home Secretary to understand the heartbreak of those involved, especially the women and children, bearing in mind what is happening in the former Yugoslavia? Whoever was responsible for making them believe it, they believed that they would be able to get to the safe haven of the United Kingdom, at least for a temporary period. Is the Home Secretary aware that in all the interviews that he gave he seemed to lack compassion and understanding for the people involved? It is not a matter of accepting all who wish to come here. The Opposition as well as the Government accept that only relatively small numbers can come. In view of the hopes that were built up in the people whom we are now discussing, however, I believe that the Home Secretary has reached a wrong decision and one of which he should be thoroughly ashamed.
Mr. Clarke: I understand absolutely the plight of Yugoslavia—a country which I know reasonably well—and I can visualise the distress of every displaced family in the former Yugoslavia. There are many people who are
148
more distressed than those at present accommodated through the arrangements made by ALERT in the part of Yugoslavia to which they have been transported by that organisation.
I say again that compassion in this case does not mean simply agreeing that every application which happens to be before us should be permitted on exceptional grounds. The time has come to target our effort, and we shall do so: we stand ready and waiting to take the next 600 refugees referred to us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that among the people of Britain there is genuine concern about the refugees, and a considerable desire to help on a greater scale? I, too, have been approached by constituents who want to help. What advice would he give? What is the correct procedure that people should follow? Whatever that procedure is, can we please speed it up?
Mr. Clarke: The British Refugee Council will help us to receive and accommodate the refugees referred to us by the UNHCR and then to disperse them in Britain and settle them with people, voluntary organisations and local authorities able to offer them help. I advise my hon. Friend and others to approach the council if they want to make positive offers of help, or offers to receive people from Yugoslavia and take part in the process. I am sure that the British people want to take part in helping people whom the Red Cross and UNHCR ask us to take.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Home Secretary accept that his attempt to blame ALERT cheapens his reputation and that of his office as Home Secretary? It stands in sharp contrast to the altruistic, charitable and Christian motives of the ALERT organisation. Does he further accept that in his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)" in which he accused ALERT of making misleading statements from the border between Slovenia and Austria, he virtually accused ALERT of lying?
I suggest that it would be appropriate from a man who holds the office of Home Secretary to apologise to the House and to the people who work for ALERT. Does the Home Secretary recognise that it is likely that the 180 people involved will be sent back to refugee camps or possibly to the war zone? In the name of humanity, I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision that he has made—or does he want to take the risk and the consequences of that decision?
Mr. Clarke: As I have already said, ALERT sent out the coaches from Britain several days after it had been repeatedly advised that it would not be able to bring people back into Britain under the new visa regime. ALERT moved the people from Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia—a country not at war—to the place where they are now. The organisation appears to have found accommodation and treatment for them there. I see no reason why the people should be taken back to the war zones. I do not believe that anyone is standing ready to transport them back there. I do not believe that that is the case. Other groups want to continue to fetch people from Yugoslavia, to bypass the visa regime and bring them here. We must tell all those groups, as I already have, "We respect your motives but, frankly, this is impractical". The

149
British Government must concentrate on acting at the request of the Red Cross and the United Nations, which are more active at the heart of the conflict in Yugoslavia than those groups are.
Mr. Alan Duncan: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the group in my constituency called Haven, which has successfully brought a number of people from erstwhile Yugoslavia into Melton Mowbray where, incidentally, they have been housed at little cost to the social services. Having found itself in exactly the same position as ALERT, following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, the group phoned me and I in turn phoned my right hon. and learned Friend's office. I was given a quick clarification of how the rules would apply and told that no dispensation was permitted. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Haven's behaviour has been exemplary, that he is to be congratulated on making himself available for the quick clarification of the rules, and that those who thwart the rules deserve no special dispensation?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most organisations like Haven—there are quite a number of them—welcome the Government's stepping in to start to organise what is done in this country. I hope that those organisations, including ALERT, will continue their efforts by contacting the British Refugee Council and helping it to organise reception arrangements for those who will now enter this country at public expense, organised by the Government at the request of the Red Cross and the United Nations.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the basic problem is that he made a cruel and callous decision 10 days ago to introduce a visa regime? The decision was never debated in the House and its consequences are that people at great risk will be debarred from entering this country. We need a proper United Nations sponsored programme so that every country can take its share of responsibility for the people suffering in former Yugoslavia and grant them a safe haven in western Europe. Is not the Secretary of State's policy slamming the door in the faces of people who are fleeing for their very lives?
Mr. Clarke: It is not slamming a door to make an offer to the international organisations to pay for and receive 600 people whom they have identified as the worst sufferers from the present conflict. The rule changes will be laid before the House and can be debated if anyone so wishes. If they are debated, we shall defend them as an obvious and common-sense response to the pressure that we are under and we shall have the support of the vast majority of people in this country, who want us to make an organised response to the problems of the people in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the speed with which his Department and the Foreign Office acted last week to grant a visa to
150
one of the people on that convoy so that he can soon rejoin his wife and small child in my constituency, in a hostel run by ALERT. Does he agree that one of the high priorities which he should now adopt in assessing how the remaining visas should be allocated is to reunite families who have been sadly separated by that horrid war in the former Yugoslav territories?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pressing that case on me. When we went through all the cases, that was one of the priorities which emerged. The six visas that I have granted are largely for people who have become separated from wives, husbands or children in the course of the conflict. It seems obvious that we should reunite those people and it happens that a few of them were on the convoy organised by ALERT.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Home Secretary realise that, every time he has spoken about the Government making a contribution to resolving the problem, he has spoken in terms of the minimum possible number of people being granted refugee status? Against that background, and given the fact that 2 million people have been displaced, will he give the House a categorical assurance that he has not set a maximum number and that every judgment will be made on compassionate grounds? Otherwise, we shall stand accused, as we did in the 1930s, of turning our backs on ethnic cleansing which in that case turned into a holocaust.
Mr. Clarke: I said on 5 November, and I have said throughout, that the numbers that we shall take through the United Nations and the Red Cross are, in the first instance, 150 people plus their dependants. We stand ready to take more and shall discuss numbers with the international organisations. Obviously, the aim of the discussions between me and my opposite numbers in other parts of western Europe is that we should share the burden.
We shall continue to take more people, but at the request of the international organisations and after discussion with them about the numbers that we can take. Comparisons of numbers are usually extremely wild. The comparison usually made is with all those citizens of former Yugoslavia who have made their way to Germany. I repeat that I understand the great problems faced by the German Government. The position in Germany is not a model of what should happen. Most people in Germany realise that they are facing potential disaster due to the flood into Germany of hundreds of thousands of people largely because their families were among the pre-existing large Yugoslav population. I assure the hon. Lady that the German Government are in the forefront of those pressing their European partners to begin to organise more carefully what happens in relation to Yugoslavia.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements. If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will look his way later.

Water and Sewerage (Scotland)
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the restructuring of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland.
The forthcoming reform of local government in Scotland makes it necessary to review the way in which water and sewerage services are to be provided. A consultation paper on other aspects of local government reform has already been published, but I considered that water and sewerage should be addressed separately.
I told the House on 8 July that the Government had not yet decided on the future structure of those services, and that I intended first to commission a consultants' study into the technical aspects of alternative forms of organisation to assist me in drawing up a range of options, including ways in which the private sector might contribute enterprise and investment. I said that thereafter I intended to consult on the options. I am issuing today a consultation paper that fulfils that undertaking. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to take points of order after statements. Cannot the hon. Gentleman hear the Secretary of State?
Mr. Wilson: My point of order is in connection with the availability of the document in question, which is not—contrary to what the Secretary of State said—available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Lang: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I checked immediately before the statement and was told that the document was available.
The paper sets out—
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is what comes of taking points of order during a statement. Points of order will be taken after the statement.
Mr. Lang: The paper sets out the background to the water and sewerage services in Scotland and lists a number of different structures for the industry on which I am inviting comment.
There are eight options set out in the paper, ranging from the re-establishment of a structure similar to the present arrangements to full privatisation. Other options include the grouping of publicly owned authorities and various types of franchise operation. Given the very high level of investment that the services will require in the next 10 to 15 years and the need to manage resources in line with best commercial practice, all those options merit close consideration. The paper sets out in an even-handed way and raises a number of issues on which answers are sought. The Government will take a final decision in the light of the response to the consultation paper.
Water and sewerage are important, indeed vital, services. They take up an appreciable amount of our resources and will require substantial investment in the years ahead to ensure that the high standards that we have set are fully maintained. The challenge for everyone who
152
responds to the consultation paper is to identify the best means of securing that investment. The public will have to continue to pay for those services whether they are in the public sector or the private sector; and it is clear that in either case costs are likely to continue to rise. It is all the more important, therefore, that a structure is put in place that will deliver high standards with maximum value for money and at the lowest attainable cost to the consumer, and which will ensure that the wider environmental interests are also protected. Identifying that structure is what this consultation paper seeks to do.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Tom Clarke.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I be allowed to put a serious point of order first, Madam Speaker? It is clear that the documents are not in the Vote Office and that hon. Members cannot obtain them. May I invite your ruling on that matter?
Madam Speaker: It is not—[Interruption.] Order. As a matter of fact, it is not out of order for a statement of this nature to be made when the documents are not available. The Secretary of State has given the House an undertaking that the document is available in the Vote Office, but I understand that hon. Members have been to the Vote Office and found that it is not available. It is, of course, up to the Government to make documents available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Lang: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have asked my parliamentary private secretary to check and recheck, and on both occasions he has assured me that the Vote Office has the documents and is willing to release them the moment I sit down. I understand that that is the usual procedure.
Madam Speaker: That is in fact the usual procedure.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement—and the document, when hon. Members can read it—flies in the face of the majority of Scots, who are utterly opposed to privatisation in any form? Where is the evidence that the services for water and sewerage are seriously failing, that local authorities are not delivering, or that the public are unhappy with existing structures? Why were not these options put to the Scottish people at the general election, as recently as April? Why was there nothing about this in the Scottish Tory manifesto?
If the options are for real and the right hon. Gentleman's consultation is meaningful, will he give us an unqualified assurance here and now that, if a majority of those who respond are in favour of local government retaining control, he will accept their view?
On the Quayle Munro report, will the Secretary of State tell the House what the £50,000 remit was exactly? Will he even now place that report in the Library? If not, why not?
Is not this charade really about the Government finding ways of taking water and sewerage out of the public expenditure arena and dodging their responsibilities on matters as important as health and the environment, affecting every household in Scotland?
Why is the Secretary of State so concerned about controlling the level of investment when investment in the public sector and the private sector is increasingly paid for by the consumer and decreasingly paid for by the

153
Treasury? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in England and Wales, we have seen the future and it does not work?
The prospect of introducing to Scotland the highest ever bills as a reward to shareholders, record disconnections, even greater poverty among the nation's families and children, and lower standards of hygiene and environmental awareness is wholly repugnant to the Scottish people.
Finally, is it not time the Secretary of State met interested parties in Scotland genuinely to discuss with them investment in our water and sewerage industries instead of wasting the time of the House on a document that goes nowhere towards meeting Scotland's needs? Plainly, the Government have not yet put the practical needs of investment above the political concerns of ownership. That is why our campaign against water privatisation will go on.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman asked about evidence of the services failing. It is not a matter of evidence of the services failing: on the contrary, because of this Government's investment in the water and sewerage industries in Scotland, standards are rising. It is our purpose and intention that they shall continue to rise. The important issue is where the resources are to come from to fund that investment in future.
The hon. Gentleman asks why the options were not put to the public, and suggests that the matter should have been included in our manifesto. The matter arises from the reform of local government which was mentioned in our manifesto. In the light of the proposal to reform local government, it is inescapable and unavoidable that a new structure for the water and sewerage industries has to be achieved because the organisations responsible for them will no longer exist in their present form.
However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the first consultation paper on the reform of the structure of local government published in June 1991, paragraph 23 of which says:
"In addition, the provision of water and sewerage services might best be handled by organisations separate from the new unitary authorities."
That is clearly marked out in the consultation paper, which he has had the opportunity to study.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Government's response to the majority who respond. Her Majesty's Opposition should treat such issues with more seriousness than to pretend that they can be decided on the basis of some kind of trivial opinion poll. These are important issues. We have a practical problem, to which we must find a practical solution.
I invite people to consider the issues, to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the range of eight options, six of them in the public sector, which I have set out in the consultation paper, and to let me have their reasoned responses so that we can secure the best future for the water and sewerage industries in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the publication of the Quayle Munro report. That report was commissioned on a confidential basis because of the commercial sensitivity of the issues involved, but, in view of the presentation of the options in the consultation paper, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Quayle Munro report's findings were
154
concerned with assessing the feasibility of a number of options and made a number of assumptions about their potential viability.
With regard to taking expenditure on the water and sewerage industries out of the public sector arena and, as the hon. Gentleman says, dodging the issues of health, he fails to understand the central point. It is because we need about £5 billion of investment in the industry during the next 10 to 15 years that we have to find the best solution so that that sum is not denied to schools, houses, hospitals, roads and the environment. That is the issue that Opposition Members must address. I hope that they will take a more serious and responsible attitude during the consultation period than is suggested by the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on presenting a discussion paper which is so wide-ranging and which gives everyone the opportunity to make their views known. Can he confirm that, because of the substantial sums required to bring the industry into line with European requirements, he and the Government recognise that, with a public sector borrowing requirement approaching £40,000 million, it is nonsense for anyone on the Opposition Benches or elsewhere to suggest that we should not be looking at other ways of funding? At the end of the day, only the consumer can pay. There is no one else who can pay, because the consumer is also the taxpayer, and taxpayers are the people who pay. We need to find the money in a manner that will not overheat the public sector borrowing requirement when it is required for health and other resources.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. He addresses the central issue, which is where the money for future investment is to come from. The Opposition think that we can rely safely on the public sector to find that investment, yet when they were in power, between 1976 and 1979, they cut capital investment in the water industry in Scotland by one third and in the sewerage industry by a half. That is the kind of disadvantage that the industry is placed at when it relies on public sector funding. We must find a way in which the funds can be made secure and available and without prejudice to other services, and that is what I invite the Opposition to address.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his officials have placed restrictions on local authorities over recent years which have given inadequate consents for investment in water and sewerage services? Can he give any good economic reason why it should be easier to raise equity for private finance than to raise loan funding for Scottish water authorities which remain in the public sector with public accountability?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that, if people cannot pay their water bills, the sanction of disconnection will not be one of the options with which he has presented the House and the public today?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the industry had somehow been starved of capital investment. He may wish to know that capital investment has just about doubled in Scotland over the past four or five years. He also asked about the continuing reliability of public expenditure. Let me point out to him that, in the 20 years

155
between 1969 and 1989—when expenditure was entirely in
the public sector—investment throughout the United Kingdom was under £6 billion. Between 1989 and 1999, investment in likely to be closer to £30 billion—as a result of the privatisation of the water and sewerage industry in England, and taking account of Scottish needs as well. That is five times as much investment in half the time, and it shows that investment is available if we are prepared to view the circumstances imaginatively. The consultation paper presents a range of options that will enable that to be done.
Disconnections are not legal in Scotland; they have been legal in England before and after privatisation. We shall address Scottish circumstances in accordance with Scottish needs.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I welcome the report, which looks in detail at the intricacies of the water system. Opposition Members may not experience problems in their constituencies, but believe me, there are problems with sewage in the Clyde, and it is about time that they were addressed.
The report offers a wide range of options. It is a consultation document—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am well aware that it is a consultation document; what I need from the hon. Gentleman is a question—very briefly—that the Secretary of State can answer.
Mr. Gallie: This is a consultation document. When my right hon. Friend considers the consultations, will he ensure that he looks for quality rather than quantity?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is absolutely right. He is also right to recognise the heavy investment needs that lie ahead. Under the EC urban waste water treatment directive, we are required to reduce and abolish sludge dumping at sea by 1998; currently, we dump 75 per cent. of the total. That requirement is bound to create enormous demands for new investment in the sewerage industry.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Secretary of State pay heed to the way in which English water authorities have suffered? Ofwat has received 10,000 complaints about water. In the first year—1991–92–21,000 people had their water cut off, and there was a 20 per cent. increase overall in the 10 English water authorities.
Let me deliver a message to the Secretary of State—a message not from the Labour heartlands, but from the Tory heartland represented by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). In Clarkston, Newton Warns, Busby and Gifnock, 15,000 people signed a petition saying that they wanted nothing to do with the privatisation of the water industry. Is that not a clear message from the Secretary of State's own party?
Mr. Lang: Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Muirdykes water treatment works, which serves the Paisley area. New capital works amounting to £15 million were completed there in the last financial year. Where does the hon. Gentleman think that such investment will come from in the future if public expenditure constraints are imposed on the industry? I hope that he will look at the options presented in the consultation paper, and will let me have an answer to my question.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the near-hysterical rantings that we are hearing from the Opposition in no way enhance the debate and the consultation exercise on which we are now embarking? Does he, like me, hope—probably in vain—that, over the next few weeks, the argument will become more rational, more constructive and much more responsible?
Mr. Lang: I fear that my hon. Friend is right, not least because the Opposition made up their minds before we had even published the consultation paper. I hope that they will read it, and will observe that we have laid out a range of options in an even-handed way. We invite responses, and we also invite those who read the paper to answer 12 questions, giving reasons for their answers, so that we can consider this important issue sensibly. Water and sewerage are vital services in Scotland, and we have a responsibility to our constituents to achieve the best.
Mr. George Galloway: Why is the Secretary of State covering up, in a kind of Scottish Watergate, the Quayle Munro report, on which the taxpayer has spent £50,000? Is it because, if we were to see that report from Quayles, which has extremely dubious connections with the water privatisation industry, we would see that it is about how, not whether, Scotland's water, given by God in abundance to the Scottish people, should be sold off to the speculators and second-hand car salesmen who will queue to buy it?
Did not the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) put his finger on the nub of the question: that, because his Government have a £40,000 million deficit in the public sector borrowing requirement, they need to sell off the last of the family silver, irrespective of the effect on the health and well-being of the Scottish people, to whom the Conservative party lied, by omission, in the election when they failed to say what they intended to do with this precious natural resource?
On 12 December—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Galloway: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on 12 December, tens of thousands of Scottish people will make their objections known in the demonstration at the Euro-summit in Edinburgh, and that that will be only the beginning of the labour movement's campaign to stop this theft in its tracks?
Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the consultation paper, because he will then see that it is an even-handed paper that lays out the options. I am surprised that he should complain about our publishing a consultation paper and making today's announcement, because on 16 July—this was reported in the Daily Record the next day under the heading "House of Chaos"—the hon. Gentleman behaved in an extraordinary and unparliamentary way in the Chamber, complaining because we had not made a statement on the future of the water industry. He really should make up his mind.
Mr. George Kynoch: I join my hon. Friends in complimenting the Secretary of State on the consultation paper. Will he emphasise to Labour Members that, if they wish best to serve Scotland's needs, they should embark on a proper debate on how best to

157
fund water in the next 10 or 15 years and how best to manage it? It is likely that Labour will carry on in its normal way and reach a judgment before it considers the matter.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of water has risen by about 60 per cent. in the past four years, and sewerage by slightly less. It will continue to rise in the future, regardless of the structure that we set up, because we need a dramatic increase in investment in the next 10 or 15 years. It is all the more important, therefore, that we secure the structure that minimises the cost to the public and the consumer, who pays on average more than £100 per household, and maximises the quality of water.
Mrs. Irene Adams: The Secretary of State refused to accept the result of the greatest consultation—the general election in Scotland, where his party polled only 25 per cent. of the votes cast—and took charge of Scotland's business. Why should we believe that he will accept the results of the consultation on water? What will be the extent of that consultation? How will he reach the vast majority of people in Scotland, and why should we believe that he will accept the findings of a genuine consultation?
Mr. Lang: Of course I will accept the findings of a general consultation, but I shall assess the strengths and merits of the arguments that are advanced. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] Does the Labour party think that we should ignore the argument and have a simple poll? On an issue of this importance to their constituents, who need, deserve and, under this Government, will have high-quality water at the minimum cost, Labour Members really should behave more responsibly and in a more serious-minded way.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why, in the course of a £20,000 promotional video on the restructuring of local government, water and sewerage are not mentioned as local government services, despite all the other services being listed? Is that not an indication that this consultation exercise is the same sham, bogus exercise as the Secretary of State carried out on hospital opt-outs? Can he tell the House why, if it is possible to write off £6,000 million of capital debt for English private water, it is not possible to write off hundreds of millions of pounds of capital debt for Scottish public water to allow the required investment to be made? Finally, if he regards Scottish public opinion as "trivial", can he estimate what percentage of the Scottish population support any Tory attempt to steal Scotland's water?
Mr. Lang: On the question of writing off debt, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an issue that would arise only if it were decided to privatize—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the debt would be converted into equity on the restructuring of the companies for privatisation. I have not reached that stage of consideration, because I am laying out a consultation paper with a range of options on it. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the consultation is some kind of charade. That is precisely what it would be reduced to if I were to listen to Labour party advice. I want people to address the issue seriously and to give their
158
considered responses so that we can make sure that we have the best kind of delivery of water and sewerage services in the future.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Instead of offering a primary 1 lesson on "how we get rain", would not the Secretary of State advance the argument, consultation and discussion better if he were to publish the report of the consultation which he commissioned? What has he got to hide? Why can we not have those facts in order that there may be a real discussion, so that we can see what the facts are? It would advance the case for looking at the issue in a properly objective way if we could do that. There can be nothing commercially sensitive about the finances of what is currently a publicly owned water industry.
Mr. Lang: There are commercially sensitive matters in the report. It was commissioned on the basis of commercial confidentiality, and I am not prepared to breach that undertaking.
Mr. Wilson: I brook correction by the Secretary of State, but as far as I can see, on brief acquaintance with the document, the word "disconnections" is not used anywhere in it. Will he confirm that there is no legal right to disconnect in Scotland at the present time? Will he confirm, further, that no private ownership of water could operate without the sanction of disconnection, as in England?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take into account the fact that it is totally morally repugnant to everyone in Scotland, with very few exceptions, that, in the last decade of the 20th century, in a society that has previously managed very well without the sanction of disconnecting domestic water supplies, such an option should even be considered? Will he thus accept that, if the logic is that it is not to be considered, the whole scheme falls? Will he say now that beyond doubt there will be no domestic water disconnections in Scotland, because, if he will not say it, millions of people in Scotland will say it for him?
Mr. Lang: I understand that the number of disconnections, which rose in the early days of the privatised arrangements in England, has now fallen by 40 per cent., and that three quarters of disconnections are reconnected within two days. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the Chamber when I answered this question earlier. There is no legal consent available to disconnect water in Scotland. I have no plans to make any change in that. I shall be considering the range of options in the light of the submissions in the consultation paper, but at present that does not arise.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State explain to the people on the lowest incomes, who are struggling to pay their bills without any rebate help whatsoever, how it will benefit them, how it will help them to pay their bills, if they have to pay not only for the cost of the water and the investment but also for the profits of rapacious speculators?
Mr. Lang: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the cost of water and sewerage, because Western Isles has an average cost of £167 per household, which is double that in the lowest authority in Scotland and well above the Scottish average. It is precisely because

159
the continuing needs for new investment in the industry in Scotland mean that the figures will continue to rise that we must ensure that the rise is minimised, and that we have the best and most efficient delivery mechanism for the service in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will submit a constructive and positive input into the consultation process.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the considered, professional advice of Professor Kendell and the other medical advisers in response to the horrendous, but true, stories from England of lavatory pans being left to fill up, understandably for financial reasons, in water-metered households?
Mr. Lang: I have no information on those stories. lithe hon. Gentleman thinks that his point is relevant to the future structure of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland, he will, I am sure, make a submission in response to the consultation paper.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State has offered eight options in his paper. Does he consider all eight options to be valid? Does he accept that those whom he consults should make the decision rather than a Government who are motivated by prejudice in favour of privatisation? Will he give an undertaking that, should the people of Scotland, through their local authorities, community councils and public bodies, clearly show that they favour the local authority option advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), that option will be the one that the Government select?
Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all options in the consultation paper are valid. It was to establish their validity that we commissioned work from Quayle Munro. I can give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that all eight are open to consideration. If the hon. Member for Monklands, West puts forward a reasoned and argued case for one option, it will be considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put forward such a case as well.
Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in the Borders region, the Tweed basin is a natural water area with one of the cleanest discharges into the North sea in the United Kingdom? Will he also accept that, if anything goes wrong with water or with sewerage, the people have recourse to the officials or councillors who are responsible to them? That would not be the case with the board of directors of a Scottish company, of an English company or, worse still, of a French company, to which my constituents' compatriots south of the Tweed have to go at greater expense. Will the Secretary of State leave well alone?
Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced no suggestion about what should happen to the structure of the water industry and of the sewerage industry when local government is reformed. One option that we have laid out or something close to one of them will have to be adopted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a submission. We cannot "leave well alone" when the authority under which the water industry operates at present will no longer exist.
I hope and believe that water in the Borders region is in good condition. It may be that the Innerleithen water
160
supply improvements costing £1·4 million being undertaken at the moment will continue with that work. We need constantly to upgrade the quality of the drainage and water delivery systems throughout the country to ensure that we comply not only with EC directives, but with the high standards we set ourselves.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Is the Secretary of State prepared for the derision that he is likely to get when his document is passed around in Scotland? It does not compare favourably with material put forward by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has a far more factual base in the running of water authorities than even the right hon. Gentleman's private consultants have.
Will the Secretary of State add to the information that he is giving about the cost of water to people in the privatised regions of England? The cost for a one-apartment flat in which I live is £109, which is twice what I pay for a four-apartment house in Central region in Scotland.
If the Secretary of State allows the people of Scotland to choose and their choice is for the industry to be financed through local authority investment—and they are willing to pay for it through local taxation—will he accept their
wishes?
Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has managed to read the consultation paper so quickly as to enable him to pass such an authoritative verdict on it. I hope that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will address the questions laid out in the consultation paper and will let me have its answers. Its views will also be important so that we can secure the best system for the future.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to the fact that it is against the law in Scotland to disconnect domestic consumers from the water supply, except for technical reasons. Will he now guarantee that, whatever happens, and even if full privatisation goes ahead, that law will remain unchanged and that Scotland will never have to experience the barbarism of people being cut off from the water supply because they cannot afford to pay for it?
Mr. Lang: I have already said that I have no plans for disconnection but, clearly, the future structure of the water industry must be decided and, in due course, when one of the eight options—or one of the variants of those options—laid down in the consultation paper has been decided upon, the other factors relevant to that option will also have to be decided. That is a matter for later.
Mr. Brian Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that, if the vast majority of people say no, he will respect that response—something that he did not do in connection with the consultation on the South Ayrshire general hospital trust and no doubt will not do in connection with the North Ayrshire trust?
Mr. Lang: As with the hospital trust consultation period, I will assess the arguments advanced and reach a decision with my colleagues on the basis of those arguments. It will be a bad day for parliamentary democracy if we ever abandon that process.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that what appeared to be a well-rehearsed

161
leak on Scottish radio this morning suggested that his own preferred option was water franchising? If that is true, it is because he is now so frightened of the political consequences of a direct sell-off of water that he is going for a botched-up compromise instead. Would it not be better to drop both local government reform and any proposals for water privatisation and let us keep the status quo?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that that allegation is untrue. I have expressed no preference and am awaiting the outcome of the consultation process.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State seriously expect private investors to invest in water supply services if they are to have no sanctions against those who cannot or will not for any reason pay for such supplies? As the answer to that question must be obvious, does the Secretary of State accept that the only way in which the privatisation of water services in Scotland can possibly work is if powers to disconnect domestic premises are introduced?
Mr. Lang: That is not an issue that I have yet addressed. The time at which to address it will be the time at which we decide on a particular option that might make it necessary. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in England, the number of disconnections has fallen sharply in the past few months.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that his response has been entirely unconvincing? That will be the reaction in Scotland as well as in the House.
In particular, does the Secretary of State accept that the House is not persuaded by his assertion that, because he decided that the Quayle Munro report was confidential, that necessarily follows? We shall pursue that point.
Does the Secretary of State accept that people will be gravely concerned that, despite four or five opportunities, he gave no guarantee that there would not be disconnections in Scotland, and that that is entirely unacceptable? Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), he refused to give
162
an assurance that he would accept the views of the majority of the people whom he says he will consult? What sort of consultation will it be, given that the right hon. Gentleman has clearly decided what to do in advance of the consultation period?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), the right hon. Gentleman gave examples of investment that is taking place under the existing local government structure. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman meet local authority representatives to discuss investment and come up with the answers? Why does not he forget the whole charade of privatisation, which remains repugnant to the majority of Scottish people?
Mr. Lang: I find it depressing that the hon. Gentleman still has not grasped the fact that we are publishing a consultation paper which will lay out a series of eight options, one of which—or a variant thereof—will need to be adopted for the future of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland.
This is a serious matter, and I had hoped that the Opposition would rise to the level of events. Instead, they have paraded naked blind prejudice and unthinking atavistic resistance to any kind of progress that might improve the quality and delivery of services to their constituents. They have given no answers at all. I hope that they will reflect and soon produce an answer to the question of how the £5 billion that we shall need in Scotland over the next ten or 15 years can be found without jeopardising investment in schools, roads, hospitals, housing and a whole range of other developments, which both they and I regard as important.
The Opposition have until the end of January to reflect and consider how to fulfil and discharge their responsibility in a sensible way for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I hope that they will be more serious and responsible than they have been so far.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: We shall now move on.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Bermingham first.

Points of Order
4.45 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, you expressed your desire for shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers. Would it not be an idea if you used your inimitable tact and charm and let it be known that those who ask long questions or give long-winded answers will not catch your eye? Then the rest of us humble Back Benchers might have some chance of doing so.
Madam Speaker: That is a common-sense suggestion, and I wish that I could take it up. I try to note those hon. Members who make comments and statements rather than asking questions and to bring them to order. If all hon. Members asked questions, I could call many more Back Benchers than I can at present. The hon. Gentleman has made an important suggestion, and I hope that our exchange will be read in the Official Report.
Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am bitterly disappointed that I was not called to speak in questions on the statement. I have been here since Prayers, and I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) says about Back Benchers.
I should like to ask you, Madam Speaker, whether this is to be the end of our debate on the privatisation of water in Scotland. We do not feel that we have had a debate on the matter. It is surely out of order that such a very short time should have been devoted to the document. Can you guarantee that we shall discuss this subject more fully in the near future?
Madam Speaker: I understand the anxiety of hon. Members whom I was not able to call. I cannot call all hon. Members on a short statement such as this. As has repeatedly been said, however, we are talking about a consultation document to which we shall return on many occasions; I shall try to remember the hon. Gentleman when we do.
Mr. Clive Betts: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek a ruling from you, and your guidance. This morning, the leaders of local authorities in England received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment effectively terminating the urban programme from April next year. That serious policy change will affect many thousands of people in our most deprived inner-city communities. The House has not heard a statement on that matter or had the chance to ask Ministers questions about it.
The matter could have been referred to in the autumn statement last Thursday, but it was not. Instead, a letter has gone out to local authority leaders. Is that a proper way for the Government to make such a policy change, and, given that such a change has now been made on an issue of importance and concern, will you use your good offices to arrange for a statement to be made at the earliest possible opportunity?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, we are to have a two-day debate on the autumn statement, and he may be able to catch my eye on that occasion.
On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I have no control over documents or letters sent by the
164
Government, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity during business questions or the debate on the autumn statement to probe Ministers on that question.
Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have just heard a point of order from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
Mr. Bermingham: It is further to a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McKelvey: I have not raised a point of order yet.
Madam Speaker: I cannot take all points of order at once. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) will have to wait a moment. I shall first hear the point of order that is further to an earlier point of order.
Mr. Bermingham: Was it not said many times in the previous Parliament that it was courteous to the House to announce policy changes here rather than by way of letters? Will you, Madam Speaker, make your feelings felt on that matter, too?
Madam Speaker: I have not seen the letter so I have no idea to what degree it entails a change of policy. I take the view, however, that all major changes of policy should be announced to the House first.
Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise a Back Bencher who is somewhat concerned? My constituents feel that Kilmarnock and Loudoun are being disfranchised. Over the last five statements and at several Question Times, I have been jumping up and down trying to catch your eye. My constituents can see that on television, and neither they nor I can understand why I fail to catch your eye. If it is something I have done, perhaps you will tell me; if I am dressed wrongly, perhaps you can advise me; or if I have been overlooked, perhaps something will happen in the near future.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be a little short in stature, but he has a great deal of personality, and I do notice him. Perhaps he will report to his constituents that, if some of his colleagues were to ask shorter questions, he might be one of the lucky ones who would be called.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister said that documents would be available in the Vote Office, but when we arrived at the Vote Office, they were locked in a secure place and were released only well after the Minister had sat down and a telephone call was made, I assume, to a security centre to authorise their release. The statement was not available. Could you use your good offices to make sure that, when someone says that a document will be available —1 think the word "now" was used—it is available at that time?
Madam Speaker: Documents are available in the Vote Office at the moment a Minister sits down. That is the

165
usual procedure. On this occasion there was a hiccup. If the documents were locked up, perhaps the key could not be found immediately.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I ask with what I hope is my customary politeness towards you, Madam Speaker, why I was not called on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Madam Speaker: A number of Members were not called on the statement, as often happens on statements and business questions. It is not possible to call every hon. Member on a statement or a private notice question. I have also to keep in mind the business of the House. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier—that this is merely a consultation document and that we shall be coming back to it on many other occasions? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not go unnoticed then.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Another point of order? The hon. Gentleman had not been rising earlier.
Mr. Foulkes: It has nothing to' do with Scottish statements; that is why I was not rising earlier. Madam Speaker, you will be aware that often Ministers, when asked direct questions, fail to answer them. May I put it on record that, in a written answer yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who had asked the date of the bringing into effect of the full arms embargo against Iraq, the Prime Minister volunteered additional information and gave all the terms of reference of the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott?
That must be a unique occasion, when an hon. Member gets information that he did not even ask for. It is interesting that the Prime Minister gave the information before the Leader of the Opposition could raise it today. I think it should be put on record; it is a unique occasion.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will be enlightened and we will all have had our knowledge increased as a result of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

BILL PRESENTED
  IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to remove from Ministers the power to claim immunity in respect of documents relevant to court proceedings; to reserve to the trial judge the discretion to decide upon the introduction of such documents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December; and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

  Employment (Age Limits)
  4.52 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of age limits in job appointments, training schemes, promotion, retirement and advertising of jobs; to make other provision relating to employment; and for connected purposes.
  I was brought up to believe that only young men liked young wine and young women, but unfortunately that immaturity seems to be spreading. One of its more unhappy aspects is that it seems to have spread increasingly to those who seek to employ others.
  Each of us who knows the destabilising effect on our constituents of unemployment knows that one of the utterly depressing and often degrading aspects of the search for work is rejection because of highly subjective criteria which are not always clear.
  In the past two years, it has become increasingly plain to me that many of my constituents are facing a new and far more subtle barrier than the forms of discrimination that they have met before. Many of them find that there are not only advertised age barriers but that, if they send in their curriculum vitae without their age on the document, they are not even shortlisted, irrespective of the qualities that they might bring to the job.
  That is not only an enormous waste of tremendous talent and ability: it is totally uncalled for. When unemployment is high, we understand that employers will want the best person, male or female, but if artificial barriers are raised such as a spurious attempt to suggest that people of a certain age are not capable of doing an efficient task, whole groups of people will be discarded from the employment list without even having the opportunity to present themselves for interview.
  Some of the examples are extraordinary. It should be unlawful to specify an upper age in job advertisements. Mrs. V. of Essex, who was in her early 50s and was an experienced clerical assistant, offered to do any office job, for which she had considerable qualifications. She learned not to apply for jobs in companies which described themselves as having "a lively, young office". The only job offers that she has had are as office cleaner or canteen cook, for neither of which she has any experience.
  Mr. W. of London, who is in his very early 50s and is a senior corporate executive with international experience, has been applying for posts for over a year, with no success to date. Several prospective employers told him that they were looking for younger members for the management team.
  The one example which struck me particularly was that of Mrs. Y. of Manchester, in her 50s, who was a secretary with word processing, shorthand and all the other office skills. Finding it difficult to get any job at the same level, she pointed out that she had worked for the personnel departments of several large companies where job advertisements were drawn up, stating arbitrary age limits. She told Age Concern:
  "I've worked in offices where job adverts are drafted, and I know for a fact that age limits are plucked out of the air, and that they are based on sheer prejudice alone, amid such remarks as 'we don't want any wrinklies here spoiling our fun'."
  That would be laughable if it were not so devastating for the people concerned.

  167
  In my constituency, we have lost over 2,000 jobs in the last two years, and the result has been appalling for those involved. It was frightening when men in their 50s in engineering and women in their 40s in the rag trade were told that they were too old to take alternative employment. Now, even people of 38, with full apprenticeships and over 20 years' work in the same firm, are told that they are not of an appropriate age to apply for alternative jobs. Executives in their late 40s, with 20 years' experience in car leasing, are being told by other branches of their own firms that it is better to have a young, inexperienced person of 20 in the job.
  The position is not only alarming but self-defeating. As a nation, we are not training young people, and we are rapidly creaming off those in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have experience and who are capable of contributing to our affluence. Where will we end up if we continue in that way?
  Baroness Phillips of Fulham, who introduced the Bill in another place, said that she had never had an idea or project where she had not been told that it was too difficult or that there were too many problems. She believed that such discrimination should not be allowed to continue. Baroness Phillips explained exactly what she wanted. I must stress that, as she was in her 82nd year, she was not thinking of herself. She thought that it was important that it should be unlawful to refuse a job on the grounds of age, and that it should be totally unlawful to include an upper age limit in conditions for eligibility for promotion or to refuse promotion on the grounds of age alone.
  Once upon a time, older Members in the House were regarded as valued members of the establishment and as having something to offer. Perhaps we should understand that experience and maturity are not always qualifications that should be ignored.
  Unfortunately, such problems are now appearing in the public sector. Nurses in their late 40s with 21 years' clinical experience in specialties are being replaced by people well down the scale, but not because they are incapable or because they do not have something to contribute: they are being told that they are being replaced because there should be a "turnover"—for which read, untrained nursing assistants who are cheap labour. "Cheap labour" will be the cry of many of those people.
  The House should seriously consider the implications of such attacks on those who most need our support. Such a short-sighted policy will cost our economy dear, and it is a policy that we cannot afford to sustain. I ask the House seriously to grant me leave to bring in the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mrs. Linn Golding, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Barry Jones and Mr. David Winnick.

  EMPLOYMENT (AGE Limns)
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of age limits in job applications, training schemes, promotion, retirement and advertising of jobs; to make other provision relating to employment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
Orders of the Day

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must
  inform the House that, because of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, Madam Speaker has decided that there will be a 10 minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  5.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is almost exactly the anniversary of the Second Reading debate—13 years ago—on the first of this Government's Employment Bills, introduced by my distinguished predecessor, Lord Prior. It is salutary now to remember how pessimistic many people then were, against the background of the winter of discontent, about the prospects of any legislation to reform industrial relations. To many people at that time, the problems of British industrial relations—strikes, restrictive practices, violence and intimidation on the picket line—seemed insoluble. They believed that the law was powerless to deal with those problems.
  We know now that the pessimists and the sceptics were wrong. The changes that we have made in the law since 1979—for example, to end the closed shop and to introduce strike ballots—have not only proved effective, they are also now accepted by trade unions and employers alike as irreversible. The role of the law in industrial relations is no longer in question.
  This is a wide-ranging Bill. It gives effect to a number of the Government's manifesto commitments. It represents the conclusion of extensive consultations. It will implement a number of EC obligations. Above all, it marks a further, important stage in the programme of trade union reform on which this Government embarked in 1979—a programme which has now been endorsed by the British people at four successive general elections.
  The Bill has two main objectives: first, to strengthen and extend the rights of the individual—both individual employees and individual trade union members; secondly, to increase the competitiveness of the economy and remove obstacles to the creation of new jobs. In the first place, the Bill provides a range of important new rights for employees—rights which they have not enjoyed before in this country.
  We promised in our election manifesto to provide all women in employment with the right to 14 weeks maternity leave and with protection against being dismissed because of pregnancy. The Bill honours both those undertakings. In future, every employee who becomes pregnant will be entitled to 14 weeks leave regardless of her length of service or the number of hours that she works. The existing right to return to employment after a maximum of 40 weeks—the longest period of maternity absence in the whole of the European Community—will, of course, be maintained for women who have been employed for more than two years and the

  169
  Bill makes it unfair to dismiss any employee on the grounds of pregnancy, again regardless of her length of service and the number of hours she works.
  Those are important new rights for women in employment. They give effect to the requirements of the EC directive on the rights of pregnant workers which was adopted as recently as 19 October.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Am I right in thinking that one of the major arguments surrounding the EC directive was the issue of maternity pay to accompany maternity leave? If that is so, if we combine the right to extend maternity leave—something that is welcomed on the Opposition Benches—with the abolition of wages councils, more women will be taken below the lower earnings limit. Although those women may be entitled to maternity leave, their right to maternity pay will immediately be taken away. Are not the Government taking away with one hand what they are giving with the other?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, I refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation. In the first instance, the proposals extend new rights to all pregnant women at work and I am glad that he and his colleagues welcome that. I will refer to wages councils in a moment. However, the Bill is concerned with employment law, maternity leave and protection against dismissal. Matters of maternity pay were in doubt because the directive was adopted only on 19 October. That was the main area of dissension between Italy and the Commission and the other member states. That matter is not dealt with in the Bill. It is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who will certainly make an announcement in due course.
  The difficult negotiations upon which I just touched in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) were brought to a successful conclusion under the presidency of the United Kingdom at the 11th hour. As a result, women in employment throughout the Community have gained new rights, which will safeguard their health and safety when they become pregnant.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: While the right hon. Lady is on the question of employment rights, does she believe that every worker should have the right to be represented by a trade union if he or she so wishes?
  Mrs. Shephard: That is entirely a matter between employers and their employees. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking of Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham, which is a special case.
  Because of the directive, women in France and Spain will, for the first time, have the right to paid time off for ante-natal examinations—a right that women in this country have had since the first Employment Act 1980 became law.
  Secondly, the Bill meets our manifesto commitment to give every employee who works for more than eight hours a week a right to a written statement, setting out their main terms and conditions of employment. Employees are entitled to an individual statement, which tells them clearly and simply how much they earn, how many hours they are expected to work and how many holidays they are entitled to. Those provisions meet the requirements of the European directive on employment contracts.
  170
  The Bill will also protect employees who have health and safety responsibilities from dismissal or action short of dismissal for carrying out their duties. It gives employees the same protection if they have to leave their work to safeguard their health and safety in the face of serious and imminent danger. Those rights will apply regardless of length of service or hours of work.
  Finally, the Bill provides for an important extension of the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals. In future, they will not be limited to hearing cases that arise from the statutory rights of employees, but will also be able to hear most breach-of-employment-contract claims on termination of employment. That will bring to an end the inconvenience, delay and costs caused to applicants and employers when contractual claims have to be pursued in the county courts while others are taken to a tribunal.
  All those proposals will extend and strengthen the rights of employees, and I believe that they will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  On the rights of trade union members, let us never forget that this Government ended the tyranny of the closed shop. In the 1970s, as a direct result of the legislation of the last Labour Government, more than 5 million jobs were barred to anyone who was not a member of a trade union. Hundreds of people were sacked from their jobs simply because they refused to become union members. As a result of the closed shop imposed on British Rail by the union which sponsors the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the legislation of the last Labour Government was found by the European Court of Human Rights to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. That was a shameful episode in our industrial relations history. The legislation that the Government have put on the statute book ensures that it will not happen again. No one can be lawfully denied a job simply because he or she does not have a union card.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the Secretary of State advise the House what the European Court of Human Rights said on the question of the rights of employees at the Government Communications Headquarters who choose to remain in a union?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman must know that GCHQ is a separate case and a special issue. The Government attach fundamental importance to safeguarding the security and continuity of essential operations at GCHQ even if Opposition Members do not and I note with interest that they still defend the closed shop.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State say that Opposition Members do not have due regard for the security of the country. Can the right hon. Lady give an example of a trade unionist who has given away the country's secrets? Is it not true that all the people who have given away secrets have been from Eton, Harrow and the privileged parts of our society?
  Mrs. Shephard: It is good to know that the Labour party is alive, well and living over there. The fact is—and I feel certain that the hon. Gentleman must accept it—that GCHQ is a separate and special issue. If Opposition Members do not feel strongly about protecting the security of our country, which is of fundamental importance, it is a great pity.

  171
  The Government believe that the time has come to extend the rights of employees further and to get rid of another outdated and undemocratic restriction on their freedom of choice. People should be free to take jobs regardless of whether they are union members and they should have the freedom to choose which union they join.
  As a result of the Trades Union Congress's so-called—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall make some progress and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady.
  As a result of the TUC's so-called Bridlington rules, many people have been denied that freedom. They were introduced as long ago as 1939, as a means of resolving conflicts between unions over membership rights, and they have always had a fundamental flaw—they make no provision for union members to be consulted or for their wishes to be taken into account. The operation of the Bridlington rules has come under increasing strain as a result. They no longer meet their original purpose of avoiding conflicts between unions, as anyone who has followed the recent history of the electricians' union will acknowledge. It is generally considered that they are undemocratic and unworkable.
  Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that in the Nottinghamshire coalfield people who chose to belong to the National Union of Mineworkers have not had any negotiating rights with British Coal for several years, despite the fact that the right hon. Lady is making those assurances? They do not meet with the coal board to discuss health and safety matters and many other issues. As for the security of the country and GCHQ being a special case, the truth is that it was not union membership which put the nation's future in peril, but the fact that the Government were negotiating with Saddam to sell him munitions despite the fact that GCHQ intelligence told them that it was unsafe to do so.
  Mrs. Shephard: That is very ingenious of the hon. Gentleman. The question of British Coal and the NUM is for British Coal.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: If the Secretary of State is concerned about workers' rights, will she introduce the right for the union that they wish to join to be recognised? I cite the case of workers at Burnsalls, at 10 Downing street in Smethwick, where 26 of the 29 members of the work force voted to join the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, yet the employer, who is paying the atrocious wage of £2·30 an hour with compulsory overtime, has refused to accept their wishes. Will she comment on the rights of those employees?
  Mrs. Shephard: Trade union recognition and bargaining rights are different from membership.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if an employee of Nissan—where there is a single-union agreement—who is a member of the AWEU decides that he wants to leave the union under the terms of the Bill and to join the Transport and General Workers Union, he would have the right to be represented in negotiations with Nissan by the TGWU?
  Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said, that is a separate issue. Trade union recognition and bargaining arrangements are completely different from trade union membership. People join trade unions for many different reasons and not simply for pay bargaining. I am not stating simply my opinion when I say that the Bridlington rules no longer apply. I am repeating the publicly expressed views of the leaders of the two largest unions. The general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. Bill Morris, said of the Bridlington rules in May 1991:
  "Today, when we are about choice and opportunity for the individual, there is no choice or opportunity within them".
  The general secretary of the engineering union, Mr. Gavin Laird, in an article in The Sunday Times on 6 September of this year, described the Bridlington rules as
  "outdated and irrelevant to modern industrial relations."
  He wrote:
  "Employees must have the freedom to join a union of their choice: unions cannot be exempt from people's freedom of choice."
  That is what the Bill will guarantee.
  The measure provides other important new rights for trade union members. It provides new rights in relation to the election of trade union leaders to prevent the sort of fraud and abuse which occurred in the executive elections of 1990 in the Transport and General Workers Union, when the discovery of 10,000 forged voting papers led to the re-running of the ballot.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I will give way shortly.
  The Bill will give every union member the right to a postal ballot before he or she is called out on strike and the right to have that ballot independently scrutinised. It provides new rights to information—
  Ms. Angela Eagle rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I have given way several times. I wish to make some progress. I promise to give way to the hon. Lady later.
  The Bill provides new rights to information about how union leaders spend the money which their members provide through their subscriptions, not least, information about the salaries that their leaders are paid. The House will recall how difficult it was for members of the National Union of Teachers to discover how much their general secretary was paid and how surprised they were to find that he had been given a 46 per cent. pay rise—[Interruption.]—taking his salary to £63,000 a year, at a time when the NUT was £1·4 million in the red. The Bill provides a new right for trade union members to be able in future to scrutinise such matters.
  Ms. Eagle: The turnout in postal ballots for industrial action is much lower than occurs in workplace ballots. Does the right hon. Lady suggest that a postal ballot, with a probably much lower turnout, is democratic?
  Mrs. Shephard: Regardless of the turnout, it is important for union members to feel that they can express their views in private and with the protection of a postal ballot.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State is making great play of the need for union members to have knowledge of exactly how much are the salaries of the president, general secretary and executive of unions, and

  173
  nobody disagrees with trade union members having that right. Why will the right hon. Lady not include in the legislation a provision to enable us to know the salaries of executives and members of private companies?
  For example, is she aware that when public money is being spent in Scotland, in an area for which she as well as the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible—the local enterprise companies and the training enterprise councils—the Comptroller and Auditor General said that he could not say whether the LECs in Scotland were being rutl properly because he did not have access to their accounts?
  Mrs. Shephard: TECs and LECs are subject to close audit. The law has always provided for trade unions to be treated as the very special organisations that they are, and there are tremendous differences between trade unions and private companies, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a little progress, having given way a number of times.
  The Bill also provides a new right for trade union members to decide for themselves how they pay their union subscriptions. As the law now stands, an employer and a trade union can agree that union subscriptions will be deducted automatically from a union member's pay packet. The union member has no say in the matter. Such so-called check-off arrangements can be imposed without consent or consultation. If union members object to paying their subscriptions in that way, the law gives them no remedy. Their only recourse is to resign from the union, and that is not acceptable.
  Dr. Robert Spink: The Secretary of State has explained how clause 12 will give ordinary employees and union members the right to opt out of the check-off system. Will she give an undertaking to keep in mind for the future the option of an opting in system for automatic deductions if unions abuse their position in regard to opting out?
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: We are discussing the arrangements as they will apply under this legislation, but we always keep such issues under review, and safeguards are being introduced for union members—[Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I have given way about 10 times.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Is it not a fact that it is a crime for an employer to deduct from the pay of a worker any sum of money unless that worker has previously consented to the deduction?
  Mrs. Shephard: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Perhaps he has been reading too carefully the briefing documents supplied by the TUC, which have helpfully also been supplied to me. I believe that there is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the TUC. It is right that there must be an agreement between the employer and the union, but that right is not specifically extended to the individual. That is what the Bill does. It will ensure that no
  174
  employee will have money deducted from his or her wages to pay union subscriptions unless consent has been given in writing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I will not give way for a little longer, having already given way 11 times.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not want to continue a host of interruptions of the right hon. Lady's speech, but setting aside anything to do with the law concerning trade unions, is it not the case, and has it not been the case throughout the 20th century, that it is unlawful for an employer to deduct from an employee's wages any sum to which the employee has not previously consented?
  Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I can clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. Union members covered by a collective agreement may have deductions made from their wages under the check-off arrangement, even if they have not given their individual consent—[Interruption.]—and the Bill addresses that matter.
  The TUC has said that it supports
  "a requirement for individual written consent"
  to the check-off. It claims that there is already such a requirement. That is not correct. The law does not provide such a requirement, though the Bill does, so it should have the TUC's support as well as the support of Opposition Members.
  The Bill does not make the check-off unlawful—as it is, for example, in France—and if union members want to pay their subscriptions by means of deductions from their pay, nothing in the Bill will prevent that arrangement from continuing.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. Lady accept—at least, according to the Library briefing based on the consultation document submitted to her—that the British Institute of Management, the Engineering Employers Federation and other employers' organisations said that they were clear that the Wages Act 1986 made it a criminal offence to deduct dues without such deductions being provided for in the contract or expressly agreed with the worker in question? In other words, is it not a fact that the proposed new legislation is not necessary because the existing law is adequate?
  Mrs. Shephard: I will try again to clarify the matter. A collective agreement can be taken as consent. The Bill ensures that individual consent is given. People, including the general secretary of the TUC, who argue that it will reduce the income of trade unions to allow union members to decide for themselves how they pay their subscriptions should consider carefully the implications of their argument. If trade union members are happy to have union subscriptions deducted from their pay, nothing will change as a result of the Bill. The new rights will make no difference unless money is being deducted now from employees' pay without their knowledge or agreement. I wonder whether that is what the general secretary fears. He cannot have it both ways.
  If this change in the law is unnecessary, as the general secretary claims, it will make no difference. If it makes a difference, it will be only because union subscriptions are currently deducted from employees' pay packets without their knowledge or consent. Once again, as with the introduction of strike ballots and ballots for union

  175
  elections, those who oppose the new rights in the Bill must believe that trade union members should not be trusted to decide such matters for themselves but only if they are covered by a collective agreement. We reject that philosophy utterly.
  Mr. Bill Olner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: No. I must make some progress. I have already given way 13 or 14 times.
  Before I deal with the other provisions of the Bill, I must mention another important new right that it will provide. This is the right which was first announced in the citizens charter White Paper in July 1991. The White Paper said that the general public usually have no legal remedy against unlawful industrial action, even when they are its victims and in some cases its deliberate target. Companies with contracts which are broken as a result of an unlawful strike have always been able to seek the protection of the law. Increasingly, they have been ready to use the remedies that the law provides and that is one of the reasons why our strike record has improved so dramatically. But the customer who, for example, relies on a train or a bus to get to work every day is defenceless in the face of unlawful industrial action. The Bill will, for the first time, give the individual citizen the right to go to court to get an order requiring an unlawful strike to be called off.
  The Bill contains another measure to safeguard the economy and employment from the damaging consequences of industrial action. It provides for seven days notice of strikes to enable employers to take the measures necessary to protect their businesses and the jobs of their employees from the threat of industrial action. The measure has been widely welcomed.
  There is no clearer evidence of the transformation in industrial relations since 1979 than the record of strikes. In the 1970s, an average of 13 million working days were lost each year because of strikes. In the past 12 months the figure was 0·5 million—the lowest figure since records began. We are proud of that record. We need to make sure that we keep it.
  Nothing has done more to convince investors in other countries to put their money into the United Kingdom and to create new jobs in this country than the improvement in our strike record. Rather than opposing investment from abroad on the ground that foreigners are "aliens"., the trade unions should realise why this country has been so successful in attracting foreign investment. There cannot be anyone in this House who believes that this country would have become what Jacques Delors has called a "paradise for foreign investment" if the United Kingdom was still synonymous with strikes and restrictive practices. Nor does anyone—apart from perhaps a few Opposition Members—doubt the crucial role which our legislation has played in bringing about the transformation of our industrial relations in the past decade.
  Now more than ever we need to make sure that the progress that we have made in reducing the level of strikes is maintained in the future. Without investment we shall not have the new jobs that we want to see. But without continuing industrial peace there will be no investment. Nothing could be more damaging to the prospects of employment growth than a return to the strike-happy ways of the 1970s.
  Mr. Olner: Will the Secretary of State explain why so many jobs have been lost during this relatively strike-free period? I suggest that more days are lost through short-time working and through members in manufacturing industry being made redundant than were ever lost in the dark days which she so delightedly describes.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten Britain's job creation record in the 1980s. Job creation was faster and more effective than in any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  The dramatic fall in the number of strikes is not the only evidence of a transformation in industrial relations. Less than half the work force is now covered, directly or indirectly, by collective bargaining. Barely a third of the work force is now covered by national collective agreements. More and more companies negotiate pay on an individual basis with their employees in ways which take account of individual skills and performance.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, I should like to make a little progress.
  Even where collective bargaining persists, pay determination has become increasingly decentralised to local level. These are all healthy and necessary changes, if the British economy is to be competitive and obstacles to the creation of new jobs are to be removed. [Interruption.] Given the ringing endorsement of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), I give way to him.
  Mr. Turner: Will the Secretary of State give a couple of moments thought to workers' rights? In the past few years a growing number of workers in Britain have found that they have hardly any rights whatever. They have no rights to redundancy payments, sickness benefit or unemployment benefit. People are dismissed on a Friday and re-engaged on a Monday. That is the society that the Secretary of State has created. It is based on fear. That is the answer to many of the questions that Conservative Members ask about the fall in the number of strikes. People are cowed by fear. That is the environment that the Government have created. People go without basic rights as a result of the Government's legislation.
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not condone bad employment practices, wherever they occur. The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on that.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: The Secretary of State mentioned that many individuals have negotiated pay with their employers. So why are the Government removing from more than 2 million workers the right to negotiate a pay rise of more than 1·5 per cent?
  Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his autumn statement the necessity for people who are in work to make a little sacrifice to help those who are out of work. That was expanded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the measure helps employment, most people will be ready to go along with it.
  The wages councils are an example of the damaging and outdated methods of deciding pay from which most sectors of the British economy have now moved away.

  177
  Wages councils fix rates of pay for their industries on a national basis without any regard for regional variations in levels of pay or labour market conditions.
  Two thirds of employees covered by wages councils are paid well above the statutory minimum rates laid down by the councils. For some of them, the councils are simply an irrelevant and bureaucratic burden. But in many cases the effect of statutory minimum rates is to push up the rates of pay of those earning above that level, with results which are damaging both for competitiveness and for jobs. To quote from a recent letter from the British Hospitality Association:
  "Wages Councils inhibit the ability of organisations to construct pay systems which are sufficiently flexible to reward skills and merit and at the same time take account of geographical variations."
  That is why the Government have always said that wages councils have no permanent place in British industrial relations. They were first established in 1909 when there were no statutory employment rights, no general health and safety statutory protection and virtually no social security provision. At that time, there was a justifiable case for arguing that statutory minimum rates of pay would provide a safety net against poverty. That is why the wages councils were established in 1909.
  Mr. David Hanson: The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the possibility of the Conservative party manifesto including a number of items in the Bill. Will she elucidate by telling the House on what page in the Conservative manifesto the abolition of wages councils was included?
  Mrs. Shephard: The Government have always made it clear that we see no permanent place for wages councils in the labour market. We have undertaken extensive consultation on wages councils and that has been the Government's view since 1988.
  The justification for the establishment of wages councils no longer applies in the conditions of the 1990s. Wages councils are not a safety net against poverty when 80 per cent. of the employees whom they cover live in households with two or more incomes. Low pay and poverty are not necessarily synonymous.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: When Winston Churchill introduced the Bill, did he not stress that it was to protect those whose livelihood depended on the industry and wage concerned? Does not the change outlined by my right hon. Friend show that those circumstances have completely changed?
  Mrs. Shephard: Indeed, he did make that point and I have already spoken about the conditions pertaining at the time. I believe that Winston Churchill was a Liberal at the time.
  Nor is there any reason to believe that removing statutory minimum rates of pay leads to lower levels of earnings. On the contrary, since young people were removed from the scope of wages councils in 1986, average full-time earnings for people under 21 have grown in real terms in all the main industries and occupations concerned.
  In any case, wages councils have never provided anything approaching comprehensive protection against low pay. The number of employees covered by wages
  178
  councils has been declining since the 1950s. Wages councils now cover only 10 per cent. of the work force. I might add that 10 wages councils were abolished by the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I must make progress as I have now given way 16 times.
  The wages councils they abolished included Industrial Canteens, which covered 218,000 employees and Road Haulage, which covered 210,000 employees. Between 1974 and 1979, a total of nearly 600,000 employees were removed from the scope of wages councils—that is nearly a quarter of the present total. If the Opposition are going to argue that the wages councils are some sort of safety net, they will have to acknowledge that they made some pretty big holes in it when they were last in power.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that those abolitions were carried out at the request of people working in the industries concerned and that Labour Ministers insisted on deferring some of them for far longer than people in the industries wanted?
  Mrs. Shephard: A very good try, but the fact remains that it is the principle that counts in this matter. As for the Opposition's attitude, they must acknowledge that they are on shaky ground.
  Sir Harold Walker rose—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
  Sir Harold Walker: As the Minister involved in the procedures leading to the abolition of the Road Haulage wages council, may I remind the right hon. Lady that it was because of pressure from employers and trade unions in the industry, who felt that the development of collective bargaining was being impeded by the existence of the wages council and that collective bargaining had advanced to a stage where they no longer needed that wages council. In any case, we could fall back on the road haulage wages legislation, which we introduced and the Conservatives abolished subsequently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, we sought to keep the wages councils for longer than those involved wanted. The important point is that, in this Bill as in others, the Government are deliberately turning their backs on collective bargaining and seeking to undermine it.
  Mrs. Shephard: I respect the right hon. Gentleman for his detailed knowledge of those matters and I thank him for reminding the House of what happened, but I am still confused about whether he was guided by principle or union pressure.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and for the intervention by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker). Has not every wages council that has been removed, including the recent removal of the wages councils' so-called protection for workers under 21, resulted in the average wages rising higher for that group of workers than for those left within the wages council?
  Mrs. Shephard: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I made that point in respect of those wages councils covering young people under 21.
  As the industrial and occupational structure of the labour force has changed so the coverage of wages councils has become increasingly arbitrary. For example, over the last 30 years the number of employees covered by the Fur wages council has declined from 9,000 to 800. The Ostrich, Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower council covers a total of 500 employees and the Coffin and Cerement Making council only 200.
  The whole structure is shot through with anomalies and anachronisms. For example, the Laundry wages council's regulations do not generally apply to self-service launderettes but to those where the employees do the washing for the customers. The Clothing council's scope still assumes that the industry's products are made from woven materials such as cotton and wool. So workers engaged on the same processes using knitted fabrics are excluded. The Catering councils cover managers in restaurants but not managers in pubs. Selling cooked meat is covered by a wages council but not selling raw meat; the sale of radios is covered but the sale of tape recorders is not. Anomalies of this kind make nonsense of the argument that wages councils provide a general safety net of any kind, and dealing with them causes practical difficulties for employers.
  The real argument between the Government and the Opposition is not about the survival of the remaining wages councils. The argument between us is about whether all employers should be obliged to pay all their employees above a single minimum rate which would be decided not by negotiation, not by the needs of the economy or of the labour market, not by the ability of companies to pay, and not with regard to individual performance and skills, but by the Government alone.
  The Opposition want a national minimum wage, which would raise labour costs right across the whole economy as workers fought to preserve their differentials. Nothing could be more disastrous for competitiveness—or for jobs. That is the real difference between us: we believe in creating a flexible labour market, which can create and sustain jobs; they believe in a national minimum wage, which would cost up to 2 million jobs.
  Finally, the Bill will implement changes in the management of the careers service, which were announced in the Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" in 1991.
  A professional system of careers guidance is fundamental to the removal of barriers to jobs. With the benefit of expert advice, young people can maximise their potential and use their talents to their own best advantage and that of the community as a whole. The Bill will, for the first time, enable the Government to contract with a range of different organisations to provide a careers service that is more flexible and more responsive to the needs of local people and local employers. The new careers service will not be restricted to helping young people. There will also be scope to assist unemployed adults, people faced with redundancy or those seeking a career change.
  There will be a general welcome for the new rights for employees that I described at the outset. I hope that that part of the Bill will not be controversial. Many of the other changes in the law proposed in the Bill and which I have
  180
  not had time to mention respond to the needs and wishes of many individuals and organisations. Other parts of the Bill will be vigorously debated.
  The Labour party remains wholly committed to the principle of a national minimum wage, regardless of its consequences for the economy and for jobs. On that issue there is a gulf between the Government and the Opposition that cannot be breached. But the new rights for trade union members contained in the Bill—the latest stage in our programme of trade union reform—are a different matter.
  At the last election the Labour party claimed that, if elected, it would keep the trade union legislation of the 1980s—despite the fact that it had voted against every trade union bill that we have introduced since 1979. Some people doubted whether the Labour party's conversion to the cause of trade union reform was entirely genuine. Today, we shall see.
  I am prepared to keep an open mind until I hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras speak. I hope that he will bear in mind the assurances that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), gave about keeping the trade union legislation of the 1980s. I hope that he will not take the line of all his predecessors and attack every clause and every line of the Bill while it is going through Parliament—only to admit in three to four years' time that the new rights that It provides for trade union members cannot be repealed. If he opposes the rights for trade union members in the Bill, he will be making the same mistake that his predecessors made when they opposed the ending of the closed shop and the introduction of strike ballots. By the attitude that it takes to this Bill, the Labour party has the chance to break out of the cycle of unthinking opposition, followed in due course, as the next election gets nearer, by embarrassed and half-hearted acceptance. It has the chance today to demonstrate to the British people that its attitude to trade union law has really changed.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras what is unreasonable about allowing trade union members freedom to choose which union they join? What is unreasonable about giving trade union members a right to a postal ballot before they are called out on strike? What is wrong with allowing union members to decide for themselves how they pay their subscriptions? And what is wrong with giving the citizens of this country the protection of the law if they are the victims of an unlawful strike?
  Conservative Members have always believed that the law must define both the rights and the obligations of trade unions, and that it must set limits to the destructive power of industrial action. We have always believed that the law has a legitimate and necessary role to play in guaranteeing the democratic rights of trade union members, as well as m protecting the individual and the community as a whole against the abuse of industrial power. I believe that the argument about the role of the law in industrial relations has now been finally settled. I believe that when the history of the 1980s comes to be written, that will be seen to be one of the most important and lasting achievements of the decade. By strengthening the law, the Bill will strengthen industrial relations in this country. That is why I believe that it deserves the support of the whole House.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I start by declaring an interest: I am sponsored as a Labour candidate by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which used to be the National Union of Railwaymen. I am proud of my connections with the union that represents the interests of railway workers, including hundreds of those who work at St. Pancras, Euston, King's Cross and 14 other stations in my constituency. It is the union of which my father and grandfather were members, and it has a proud record of promoting the interests of its members and their families, both through its industrial activities and through political involvement with the Labour party.
  Our task today is to judge whether the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State deals with the most pressing problems of employment and unemployment which now face the people of our country. The Bill fails that simple test. When we look at the state of the nation after more than 13 years of Tory rule we are confronted by the following facts. Almost 3 million people are officially out of work, more than 4 million are really out of work, 30 unemployed people are chasing every job vacancy and 6 million women are on low pay.
  Britain has the widest gap in the European Community between men's pay and women's pay. More than 2·5 million people who are in work are not paid a living wage, with the result that many of them have to fall back on means-tested benefits paid for by the taxpayer. Fewer than 4·5 million people in Britain are now employed in manufacturing.
  Government training schemes do not lead to jobs. Pay, hours and working conditions in Britain are falling further behind those of our European partners. Employers are exploiting the fear of unemployment to worsen the working conditions of their staff. As the Secretary of State recently admitted, every person out of work for a year costs the taxpayer £9,000.
  The Bill does not address those problems. It is not that it does not give them top priority—it gives them no priority. Instead, it reveals that when faced with the misery and concern about unemployment, poor training, low pay and exploitation, the Secretary of State gives top priority to fouling up the check-off of union subscriptions, privatising the schools careers service and abolishing wages councils, which provide a safety net for some of the poorest paid workers in the land. The Secretary of State cannot seriously believe that most of the matters covered by the Bill are Britain's top employment priorities in 1992.
  The Bill includes some limited improvements which we welcome, but credit for most of those improvements must go to the institutions of the European Community which instigated them—it certainly cannot be claimed by the British Tory Government who delayed and obstructed them, and watered them down.
  The legal position of Britain's trade unions is already the weakest in the European Community, but the Bill includes further mean-minded measures designed to make it even more difficult for trade unions to devote time and resources to promoting their members' interests. Under the Government, deregulation for business has been matched by over-regulation for trade unions. However, some of the proposals in the Bill seem likely to cause as much trouble for employers as for unions. For years, the Tories trumpeted the merits of single-union agreements
  182
  and claimed that they attracted inward investment, but the Bill gives unions a legal power and incentive to poach members from one another. What will foreign investors think of that?
  The bureaucratic burden of other proposals will fall on employers and unions alike. The proposal to permit the removal of lay members from industrial tribunals and leave them entirely in the hands of lawyers seems odd, coming from a Secretary of State who regularly assails the idea of the tyranny of the closed shop. There is no shop more closed than the lawyers' closed shop.
  In the time available, it is impossible to deal with all the issues covered by this rag-bag of a Bill, so I shall concentrate on four topics: the abolition of wages councils, maternity rights for women, the privatisation of the schools careers service, and the check-off of union subscriptions.
  The nastiest part of the Bill contains the Government's proposal to abolish wages councils. Nothing illustrates better the moral degradation of the current Tory party than that decision. Wages councils, which protect the worst off, were founded by Winston Churchill, strengthened by Clem Attlee and retained by Margaret Thatcher, only to be abolished by John Major—so much for a nation at ease with itself and a classless society. As the right hon. Lady said, wages councils are far from perfect—and we think that they should be improved—but they provide a safety net for 2·5 million of the worst paid workers in the land. Most of those workers are employed in shops, hotels, the catering industry, the clothing trade, and hairdressing. Wages councils are important in every part of Britain, especially in low-wage areas such as Northern Ireland. Basic wage rates range from £2·58 an hour to £3·10 an hour.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for doing nothing in the Bill to promote employment. Does he accept that all the evidence in this country and in Europe suggests that the setting of a minimum wage, either nationally as recommended by Labour or in a particular industry, destroys jobs?
  Mr. Dobson: In brief, no.
  Almost 2 million of the people covered by wages councils are women. The Secretary of State has Cabinet responsibility for promoting equal opportunities for women. If this proposal goes through, she will give 2 million badly paid women an equal opportunity to be paid even less. That is not the usual meaning of equal opportunity.
  Mr. Heald: Throughout the 1960s, the 1970s and the early 1980s, the Transport and General Workers Union favoured abolition of wages councils. It said:
  "Wages Councils do not represent an effective means of raising the standards of lower paid workers and they should be abolished".
  Why have Labour Members and that union changed their tune?
  Mr. Dobson: Like any other institution in the world, the TGWU is not always right.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course. On second thoughts, having recognised him, I shall not give way to him, so he need not stand up any more.
  Who is in favour of abolishing wages councils? The Government have refused to disclose who has made representations in favour of abolition. Apparently it is the lobby which dare not speak its name. We know that only half the employers' organisations involved in wages council industries favour abolition. The other employers fear that they will he undermined by bad employers.
  The Institute of Directors favours abolition; it and the Government claim that abolition would be good for the workers concerned. What can they mean? Wages councils set a minimum wage. They do not stop employers paying more than a minimum. Under present arrangements, employers can pay as much as they like, but not as little as they like. In setting up the wages councils, Winston Churchill recognised that market forces do not always work, that employers often have the whip hand and individual employees are weak. When employees cannot get a fair bargain for their work, Parliament decided that the law has a role in protecting them and in promoting fair trade. Churchill argued—at the time even the Tories agreed—that anyone whose bargaining position is so weak that he cannot get a living wage should be helped by the law; otherwise, the worst off would be forced to accept poverty pay, the bad employer would undercut the good, and the bad would be undercut by the worst.
  That is all still true, whatever the Secretary of State may claim about times having changed. Apart from the law, there is still nothing to protect a Bengali woman who depends on a job in a sweatshop in the east end of London, or an unemployed Cornish youth desperate for a summer job pulling pints in Falmouth, or a jobless young west midlands woman begging for work with a hairdresser, or the widow in Yorkshire going hack to work in a shop after her husband has died.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I have already made it clear that I will not.
  In one respect, the situation has changed—but for the worse. At the time when the wages councils were being set up, Parliament also took action to protect children who were exploited by being paid children's wages for doing adults' work. The current Tory Government have undermined the laws protecting children so that adults now have to compete with children for low-paid jobs.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Given that most of the occupations controlled by wages councils are universally acknowledged to have relatively low rates of pay, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conspiracy between the unions and some of the employers to depress wages needs to be broken? In occupations not covered by wages councils, almost all women do much better—as witness teachers, nurses and women office workers.
  Mr. Dobson: I accept that wages councils pay a lower minimum basic rate than Labour's proposed national minimum wage, which is why I favour a national minimum wage.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, and that is that.
  184
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has argued against abolition. The citizens advice bureaux are against abolition—
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Dobson: All those who have registered their objections to the abilition of wages councils can demonstrate a long history of genuine concern for the low paid. By contrast, the people in favour of abolition are a case study in cant and hypocrisy—and they are all Tories.
  I have already mentioned the Institute of Directors. Then there is the Grand Metropolitan company, the boss of which is Sir Allen Sheppard. He was the man who orchestrated the letter to The Times before the election in which it was claimed that a Labour Government would threaten "the spirit of enterprise". To be fair, Sir Allen is an enterprising fellow—so much so that last year he paid himself the enterprising sum of £713,000. He is in favour of abolishing wages councils because he wants to pay his staff in pubs, hotels and restaurants less than current minimum rates. So Allen Sheppard gets £433 an hour while his staff get less than £3 an hour. No wonder the Tories asked him to be their party treasurer.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that if—God forbid—there were a Labour Government he would bring back all the wages councils?
  Mr. Dobson: Labour is committed to establishing a statutory national minimum wage, which would be better than that.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On the point about Labour's statutory minimum wage, which was an issue at the last general election, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the comments of the shadow spokesman for transport, who said on "Walden" that if a statutory minimum wage were introduced there would be some shake-out of jobs and that any silly fool would know that?
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was telling the truth. When there are changes there will be some sort of shake-out, but we believe that all the evidence suggests an ultimate increase in jobs for everyone as a result of people being paid better.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Labour party policy not to restore the wages councils because Labour would have a minimum wage instead? Is he saying that he would not bring back wages councils if the Government abolished them?
  Mr. Dobson: The Labour party will introduce a statutory national minimum wage. We shall then need to consider whether any other special protection should be offered people in what are called the sweated trades—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Right, let us analyse the problem. Two and a half million of our fellow citizens are paid £3·10 an hour or less under wages councils. We would introduce a national minimum wage which would be in excess of that. If, having consulted the people who work in the industries concerned, and possibly

  185
  even the employers in them, we thought that some additional protection was needed for the worst off, we would consider that. No doubt we shall enter into such consultations before the general election—there is a long time to go.
  Ms. Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which have estimated that the abolition of the wages councils will lead directly to 25,000 job losses in the initial period simply because of the withdrawal of spending power from the economy which the depressed wages will cause?
  Mr. Dobson: That is the other side of the coin of the benefits which would flow from people being paid higher wages as a result of a national minimum wage.
  The nub of the issue is why the Government, post-Thatcher, are abolishing wages councils. I believe that it is part of the pay-off to the companies which provided the Tory party with its funds.
  Firms such as Whitbread, whose top-paid director receives £330,000 a year, and which paid the Tories £60,000 last year, are in favour of getting rid of wages councils. Trusthouse Forte contributed £86,000 to the Tory party last year. Its best-paid director gets by on £250,000 a year, but he thinks that the company's staff should take a pay cut—I saw him on television saying so. Allied Lyons, another in the catering trade, pays its top director £370,000 a year and contributed £80,000 to the Tories. Scottish and Newcastle, whose best-paid director receives £271,000 a year, is another company which will benefit from this kick-back in exchange for the £70,000 contribution that it made to the Tories. They are all rich Tory business people who favour lower pay for everyone except themselves.
  The Low Pay Unit has calculated that the cuts in pay which will follow abolition could cost the lower paid as much as £3 billion a year once the full impact is felt. Some of that reduction in their less-than-living wage will be made up: more people will become entitled to family credit, or to more family credit; others will become entitled to income support, or to more income support; others will be entitled to housing benefit and poll tax rebates or more of both or either of those. Therefore, not all the burden of this bonanza for the employers will fall on the worst off and their families. Some of it will fall on the taxpayer instead, so those Tory employers will be lining their pockets at the expense of their work force and the taxpayer.
  Mr. Miller: The largest single back-dated wages council award to an individual of which I am aware was in respect of a late employee of a BTR company owned by the noble Lord Hanson. That illustrates the point well.
  Mr. Dobson: I make no further comment; my hon. Friend has made the point.
  The Secretary of State has tried to say that abolition does not matter because so many of the workers involved are women working part time who are not the only source of family income. Yet when I asked her how many women covered by wages councils were the principal bread winner for their family, she said that her Department did not know. She could surely have found out before she decided
  186
  to change the law, but she did not—preferring to augment Tory prejudice with ministerial ignorance. In any case, it is surely a matter of principle that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value whatever they do with the money. The Secretary of State for Health and the right hon. Lady are just as entitled to their Cabinet Minister's pay as any male Cabinet member. That is a principle which should apply to everyone.
  That brings me to the maternity rights part of the Bill. We welcome the proposal as far as it goes. Without the stalwart commitment of Christine Crawley, the British Labour party chair of the European Parliament committee on women's rights, backed up by the TUC acting through the European TUC, the pregnancy directive from which this proposal springs would have been quietly smothered by the Government.
  The Bill will rightly prevent a woman from being dismissed because she is pregnant. That is a step forward. It provides some cover from suspension on health and safety grounds. That, too, is a step forward. It also provides a new minimum entitlement to 14 weeks continuous maternity leave, irrespective of length of service or hours of work. That is a great step forward. We welcome these proposals, but they do not go far enough.
  Why should women be protected from dismissal because of pregnancy whatever their length of service and hours of work but not have the same degree of employment protection when they are not pregnant? At the Tory conference the Secretary of State for Social Security was mouthing on about young women getting pregnant so that they could jump the queue for a house. If the proposal goes through in its present form, there is a real danger that he will be back at the Tory conference next year claiming that young women are getting pregnant to avoid getting the sack.
  Mention of the Secretary of State for Social Security leads to the next point. We have been told that during their 14 weeks maternity leave women will receive 14 weeks sick pay from the Department of Social Security. The right hon. Lady mentioned that, but we look forward to the legislation being introduced and we still challenge why it is based on sick pay.
  The Secretary of State claimed a lot of credit for the measure, but the House should remember that, as originally proposed by the European Commission and the European Parliament, the maternity leave entitlement would have given every pregnant woman the right to 14 weeks maternity leave on full pay. That would have benefited 350,000 women. As a result of the wrecking activities of the British Government, it is likely that the number of women who will benefit in full from the maternity pay provision will be 16,000 or 17,000. The pregnancy directive and the Bill gave the British Government the chance to catch up with the best maternity provision in the EC, but they have not taken that chance. In other words, the welcome improvements in maternity rights are largely to the credit of Brussels and Strasbourg; the weaknesses are due to the prejudices of the Tory Government.
  The next item is the proposal to privatise the schools careers service. Why? Are people clamouring to say that it is not doing a good job. Is there evidence that it is failing young people? Does the track record of previous Department of Employment privatisations suggest that the careers service will do a better job in the private sector? The answer to all those questions is clearly no. The careers

  187
  service should be helped to get on with its job. Instead, it is to be cast into months or years of turmoil, turned inside out and upside down and then flogged off, no doubt to some friends of the Tory party.
  Many people are concerned that the careers service will no longer give top priority to serving the interests of children and young people. They fear that profit-seeking owners will give top priority to their profits. After all, that is their legal duty. Will the new owners give impartial advice and help, or will it be a racket? People also fear that equal opportunities will be denied to people with disabilities or learning difficulties and to others on grounds of race or sex. I believe that the threat is even more fundamental than that: if the careers service is privatised, there is every chance that it will disappear altogether.
  Let us just look at what has happened with previous Department of Employment privatisations. First, the Professional and Executive Register was sold off—the outfit whose job was to help employers to recruit from the white collar workless. It operated a chain of 32 offices and was in direct weekly contact with 100,000 job seekers. In September 1988 that organisation, with a revenue of more than £9 million a year, was sold for just £6 million by the then Secretary of State for Employment, now chairman of the Tory party. Speaking of the buyers, he said:
  "There is no doubt they have the expertise and commitment to give the company the start in the private sector that we want for it."
  He said that it was
  "a business which I believe has an exciting future. The company will have the opportunity to realise its commercial potential, free from the restrictions under which it operated as part of the Government."
  The purchaser in which the Secretary of State had so much confidence was Robert Maxwell and the company ceased trading in December last year. There is now no special service for the record number of white collar workers who are jobless.
  The Department of Employment's sell-off shambles did not stop there. It sold or, to be more precise, in some cases gave away the Skills Training Agency and 51 of Britain's skill centres. In February 1990, TICC was given £2 million to take over four skill centres in Cumbria, east Lancashire, St. Helens and Ipswich. By August 1991 the company was in liquidation. METEL, which was given the Liverpool training centre, went out of business this summer. Now ASTRA, the company which was given taxpayers' money to run 45 centres, is in severe trouble. It has already closed eight centres, and has made 1,200 staff redundant. It is now in desperate financial straits, demanding further redundancies and 15 per cent. pay cuts. It could well go down, taking the remaining skill centres with it.
  No assurances from the Secretary of State about the future of a privatised careers service can possibly be accepted when we consider the assurances given by her predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who now presides over the council tax as he previously presided over the poll tax. Welcoming the privatisation of skill centres in what he called
  "the first successful management buy-out bid in the Civil Service",
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that he had
  "achieved a deal which is excellent for the taxpayer and for those who want to continue to receive training from the Skillcentres"—
  provided, of course, that they do not live in any of the dozen towns where skill centres have already disappeared.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Conservative Members look a bit embarrassed.
  Mr. Dobson: They have every right to look embarrassed. With such a track record, the Secretary of State really has a cheek to come to the House and ask for the power to privatise the schools careers service when it is doing a good job in the public sector. The House should not give her that power until she has got the skill centres and the professional and executive register up and running again, and helping people who are in desperate need.
  We in the trade unions welcome new rules which are intended to protect members' subscriptions, and to guarantee that members are sent full financial details of their union funds and of officials' pay and perks. Many unions do that already, using cheaper, quicker and more efficient methods than those proposed by the Government. We expect the Government in due course to bring the law on company directors' pay and perks into line with best trade union practice.
  That brings me to the Government's proposals to require—yet again—that employers have the written consent of each employee before checking off union subscriptions from wages. We believe that the law requires that already, and nothing said by the Secretary of State today undermines our confidence. It is theft for an employer to take money from an employee's wages without the employee's consent.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I think that a misunderstanding may have arisen about what is stated in the Wages Act 1986. The Act clearly provides that an employer may make a deduction from a worker's wages in only three circumstances, one of which is where the deduction is
  "required or authorized…by virtue of…any relevant provision of the worker's contract".
  The point is that, when a collective agreement provides for the deduction of trade union dues, the deduction can be made without a worker's individual consent. The Bill provides for that consent to be required.
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister should go back to the Box and get a better brief. Even in a negotiated contract of that kind, the worker must signify his agreement or consent to the contract in writing.
  Mr. John Evans: Most of what the Minister said applies to deductions relating to, for instance, social and sports clubs. It is interesting to note that the Government have given the workers a new so-called right in relation to trade union subscriptions, but have pointedly omitted to give them the same right in relation to deductions for social or sports clubs—or, indeed, in relation to deductions for charitable purposes under the Government's own scheme.
  Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend is quite right.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) is right about deductions for charitable giving. Surely, however, the differences between my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) relates to whether consent is direct or indirect. Ending that difference would probably bridge the gap.
  Mr. Dobson: A contract is not a contract until the parties to it signify their consent.
  In propounding this change, the Government referred to

  189
  "allegations that some employees who are not union members have nevertheless had union subscriptions deducted from their pay".
  When I asked whether the Government had investigated those allegations, the Secretary of State said:
  "The Department doesn't investigate allegations of this kind."
  What double standards: the Government come to the House proposing to change the law because of unsubstantiated allegations about trade unions, but they have still done nothing to change the law to protect pensions from the demonstrable theft that has been going on in the City. In any event, as I have said before, if money is checked off without an employee's consent, it is the employer who commits the offence, not the union.
  On top of that, the Government are now demanding that such consent be obtained every three years. What a burden that will be for businesses which are trying to keep their costs down. Why cannot union subscription check-offs be treated like other check-offs—or, for that matter, like direct debit for paying the poll tax? Why should there be a special rule for trade unions? We all know why. It is because the Government hope that they can change the unions into an ogre, to distract attention from what is going on in Britain. They hope to make it harder for unions to collect subscriptions and maintain their finances. They hope that, ultimately, such a change will undermine union help for the Labour party by reducing the donations that unions can make. What a cheek that is when the Tory party receives millions, in secret, from Greek fascists, Hong Kong insider dealers and foreign fraudsters who are given an easy ride in Britain; now those self-same Tories are trying to challenge the legitimacy of funds fairly and openly given to the Labour party by nurses, fire fighters, coal miners, dinner ladies and doctors.
  As I have said before, the Bill is largely irrelevant to Britain's current employment problems. If the Government persist with it, we shall try to strengthen the better clauses and expose the spite and hypocrisy which lie behind the worst. But it would be better if the Secretary of State took the Bill away and came back with an improvement.
  I ask the Secretary of State to think again. She says, as every Cabinet Minister does, that her party believes in choice. She and I are of an age. I remind her of the choice that was available to us, but is denied to the generation now leaving school and college. We both graduated in the early 1960s. When I applied for jobs I received offers from several employers, and I had a choice of jobs, pay and location. I am sure that the Secretary of State had as wide a choice as I had, or an even wider choice. That choice is no longer available.
  For every person who was out of work when the Secretary of State graduated in 1961, 14 people are out of work today. In that year, the number of people seeking jobs scarcely exceeded the number of vacancies. Today, 30 people are chasing every vacancy. Choice has not widened for those leaving school and college—it has narrowed, and many have no choice and no job. They feel let down, and they have been let down.
  The Secretary of State and I, with others of our generation, were the principal beneficiaries of full employment, and of the commitment by Governments all
  190
  over the developed world to the belief that full employment was good for the world economy, good for growth and, above all, good for people. They were right. What we want now is not the introduction of petty measures like these; we need the vision of a better world, and a long-term ambition to return to full employment with all our people at work. We need the political commitment for that to be brought about. Full employment was good for the Secretary of State, for me and for our generation, and it is the least that we can offer to our children and grandchildren.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: In a written answer given on 29 October, when asked for the Secretary of State's estimate of the number of new jobs that would be created following the abolition of wages councils and for sight of the evidence on which that evidence was based, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State ended his answer with the words:
  "We do not have the information to quantify the number of jobs that are inhibited by statutory minimum rates; and attempts to do so are not likely to be successful."—[Official Report, 29 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 825.]
  That, I think, was a proper answer; certainly a large amount of research evidence is not conclusive in any direction.
  I intend to return to the subject of clause 28. First, however, I wish to say something about trade unions and their links with the Labour party. Half the members of trades unions do not belong to unions that are unions affiliated to the Labour party or that operate a political levy. It would have been better if more trades unions had dropped the political levy.
  It is disgraceful to see public sector unions tying themselves to one political party. Although the National Association of Local Government Officers is not affiliated to the Labour party, it is disgraceful to see it spending its money in such a way that it appears to have swallowed all of Labour's propaganda.
  I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but I do not pay the levy. It supports a political party that has lost the past four general elections. I do not believe that the Labour party will treat trade union issues in a fair-minded way as long as it relies so much on trade union affiliations. The Tory party will not consider employment issues in the unbiased way that we should as long as so many trade unions are affiliated to our political opposition.
  I was president of the Conservative Trades Unionists in 1979. Part of my discussions with Harvey Thomas may have led to his brilliant organisation of the trade union members' rally on the last Sunday of the campaign at Wembley. It helped to deal with the issue of whether Conservatives in government could deal with trades union issues.
  Evidence of the past 13 years has shown that we have better understanding of trade union leaders and have received as much support from trade union members and their families as we do from many other groups. We still have the capacity to get things wrong—or, to put it more positively, there are normally ways of improving our trade union legislation.
  On Report, I intend to vote against clause 28, because I believe that we have made a mistake. I have been trying to advance my view since I was a Minister in the

  191
  Department of Employment between 1984 and 1986. I have tried to take up the matter with Ministers, and I am grateful for my recent meeting. I was part of the 1985 review of wages councils, but was not at the Department when conclusions were reached. I can, however, refer the House to what appeared to be the best summary of the consultation. The reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir John Cope) in column 557 of Hansard on 21 March 1989 showed that, from the number of responses to the consultative document on wages councils, there was little evidence that people particularly wanted to abolish them. I am not aware of any significant consultation since then.
  On leaving the Department of Employment, I joined the Department of Transport and spent much time with what might be called the hospitality industries—working men's clubs, non-profit-making clubs, licensed victuallers and publicans. Unfortunately, I saw little of the British Hospitality Association, which is normally quoted as an opponent of the wages council system. Working co-operatively with many people across a broad spectrum in the alcohol trade—health and safety inspectors and trade union members—I encountered few employers who found the wages councils' minimum rates a burden.
  I do not want to pretend that those rates have not been effective. I should not want to argue that they have not eliminated job opportunities, because at the margin they clearly have, especially on the fringes of employment opportunities, where people face a choice between work or no work, and also in areas where there are normally job choices, except in the depths of recession, but where exploitation or lack of skill in the labour market has meant that people have taken jobs despite being grossly exploited.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: In a moment. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) unfairly discriminated against my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) by not allowing him to intervene.
  Mr. Nicholls: How does my hon. Friend square the point that he is now making about voting against clause 28? I have reminded myself of the evidence on the point, because I subsequently had the same responsibility as my hon. Friend. I have a quotation, chosen almost at random, that the hon. Gentleman gave in a written reply:
  "There is general agreement that the abolition of wages councils would slow down pay increases resulting in an increase in employment for both young people and adults." —[Official Report, 11 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 399.]
  I fully accept that collective responsibility binds us to curious things sometimes, but I should have thought that the speech that my hon. Friend is now making would have read well as a resignation speech; what I do not understand is how it came to be made in the House today.
  Mr. Bottomley: If my hon. Friend—I shall refer to him as that rather than as the hon. Gentleman, which is how he referred to me—were to pay me the courtesy of listening with his ears rather than his mouth, he would discover that I have said that I am willing to concede that without wages councils some more people—[Interruption.] I said it with a smile—might have work, and other hon. Members will have heard me say that. That is consistent with the answer that my hon. Friend quoted from 1985.
  192
  My views have not changed, but I believe that my party's have. If it had indicated its intention to abolish wages councils, I would have expected to see some reference to it in the Green Paper on industrial relations and explicit reference in the election manifesto. Unless I have misread the manifesto or overlooked something in the Green Paper, I do not think that it was there.
  I apologise for the way in which I responded to my hon. Friend, but he asked for it.
  Mr. Nicholls: Would the hon. Gentleman like to talk about some of the other things that he has said over the years, because that was not an isolated example? Numerous examples appear in Hansard of the hon. Gentleman throwing his weight and authority behind the proposition that wages councils were bad for the lower paid. Unless my hon. Friend is going to try to say that this is an isolated example—I have done my homework, and it is not—he must say what is now different, apart from the fact that he and I are now sitting on the Back Benches rather than on the Treasury Bench. The truth is not that moveable.
  Mr. Bottomley: The House would become rather bored if we continued this interchange too long. My hon. Friend said that he could give further examples of my comments on wages councils. I should be happy to consider all the points, but I doubt whether they will be inconsistent with what I am saying now or with what I was saying before he intervened.
  I was talking about areas where there are normally good employment opportunities, yet where people can still be grossly exploited. There have been 14 prosecutions for illegal underpayment in the past year—twice as high as the year before—and there was some reason for them. More than £1 million was recovered for 12,000 workers, the majority of whom were part-time workers working fewer than 37 or 40 hours a week.
  There was a reason why those employees were willing for wages inspectors to seek repayment of the wages of which they had been cheated and unlawfully denied. In many cases, workers do not make such requests because they fear losing their job, but if three times out of four employees are willing to have their wages chased up we cannot argue that they are frightened of losing their jobs. Such people want the protection of the law.
  I suspect that the Department of Employment could have organised a survey of workers in wages councils industries. In fact, it would have been proper for the Department to have conducted a survey of employers in industries employing 100,000 workers or more. I think that many employers would have expressed some inhibition.have seen, for example, a letter from a member of the British Hospitality Association saying that he would prefer more freedom, which I can understand.
  I can also understand people who argue that pay restraint in the public sector should be copied by more people in the private sector. If a wages council suggested a pay increase of 4 per cent. when many people were receiving increases of 1·5 per cent. or nothing, that would be destabilising.
  If that is the problem that the Government think they are facing, and if it is the change between the Green Paper and the manifesto, they could say that wages councils cannot recommend increases in the next year or that council rates should be dropped by 10 per cent. or 15 per

  193
  cent., if that becomes an important issue. My guess is that the Government are trying to crawl into an area of logical extremism. The Labour party, with its statutory minimum rate, sometimes defined as an hourly rate and sometimes as a weekly income, is at one extreme. That did not find a great deal of favour during the general election and was not supported by many of the trade unions for much of the time that I have been involved in industrial relations.
  As a fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, I sometimes see some of the representative comments made by bodies, with some of which I agree and some of which I disagree. My trade union, the TGWU, opposed the statutory minimum pay rate for some time, and the Trades Union Congress opposed it until the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees managed to generate enthusiasm for it.
  I believe that there is a middle way between going for a statutory minimum rate for everyone and what some people, including, I expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, who succeeded me at the Department of Employment, would argue for: a total free market.
  I have never quite understood why those who believe in a total free market bother to come into Parliament. They do not need Parliament to intervene. I think that there are good arguments for Parliament to intervene in some cases, and here I make a passing reference to clause 24, which means that people, no matter how short their employment, cannot be dismissed for taking up the health and safety at work issue. That is an issue which I and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House were raising a year ago in relation to offshore oil industries and work on the mainland of Britain as well. Those are the sorts of areas in which I think it is perfectly reasonable to interfere with the free market. It cannot be said that all things are the same in this respect.
  I do not believe, further, that in the depths of a recession it is right to take away all existing protection for those who are often on low pay, when there are clearly pressures for their rates of pay to be reduced even further without necessarily a significant change in employment levels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignmouth, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, made reference to the change in the rates of pay for people under the age of 21. That was a change in the wages council system that I would support now, had it not already happened.
  Reference was also made in some written material to the fact that the numbers employed had also changed after 1986. From 1986 to about 1989—probably the latest available figures—we were at the top of the boom; we were towards the end of eight years of consistent economic growth.
  Those were the circumstances in which we were most likely to see an increase in both pay and employment opportunities, especially when a growing number of people under the age of 21 were going into further and higher education and so withdrawing from the labour market. So there are all kinds of consistent reasons why that does not necessarily support an argument that the
  194
  abolition of wages councils in itself has a significant effect on either the rate of pay or the numbers under the age of 21 employed.
  My argument is that, especially at this time, it would be wrong to withdraw all the existing minimum pay arrangements for 2·5 million people, even if only one in four are directly affected because they are at or around the minimum pay rate. It is not the right time to do it and it is not the right way to do it.
  I hope that the Government will look upon this argument in a rational way and ask themselves what kind of Government they want to be. I was brought up with the idea that those with broader shoulders should carry the greatest weight when times are rough. I do not believe that everything that helps to make pay rates higher should be abolished.
  I make the point not just to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but to the Government generally that I have seen them agreeing pay rates for people under 21 when Government do not employ many people under the age of 21. They quite cheerfully agreed with trade unions that the rate of pay for 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds should continue to go up when the number of people in those categories employed in the various Departments is probably less than 100.
  The effect of trade unions in negotiation with Government or private employers is that rates of pay are agreed which are way above the market clearing rate; they are the result of free negotiation, a balance of arguments, trying to deal with retention and with recruitment issues, not just in the depth of recession but throughout the economic cycle.
  I hope that in Committee, or, if not then, at Report stage, whatever the other merits of this Bill, clause 28 will be examined not just by those who oppose it, but by those who think that they support it. I hope that they will look at their reasons and at the effects and ask themselves whether straight abolition of the minimum pay system for 2·5 million people, no matter whether they are mainly part-time or mainly female, just on the ground of free market consistency is right.
  6.45 pm
  Sir Harold Walker: The Secretary of State reminded us that it was almost exactly 13 years ago that the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Prior, introduced a Bill with the statement that Conservative party policy in industrial relations was a "step by step" approach. On that occasion I said to the House from the Dispatch Box that that statement was not an off-the-cuff piece of rhetoric but a declaration of war on the trade unions—the salami tactic of cutting union power down slice by slice. The Bill before the House today is yet another step in that continuous, unabated process, handed down from Minister to Minister like some sacred Chingford principle, in pursuit of Lord Tebbit's once declared aim of "neutering" the unions.
  The Secretary of State suggested that the great improvement in industrial relations as measured by the fall in the incidence of days lost owing to industrial disputes was testimony to the effectiveness of the law that had been passed. I suggest to her that, as has been suggested by some of my hon. Friends, the reality is that the enormous growth in unemployment has been the chastening discipline. If she wants to bandy figures, she said that in

  195
  1979 a total of 13 million days' production were lost due to industrial disputes. I ask her to set against that the fact that this year there will be at least 100 million days' production lost due to unemployment.
  Mr. Dobson: I think that my hon. Friend may be underestimating; it is, after all, 4 million a day.
  Sir Harold Walker: My hon. Friend is right to correct my arithmetic and I am grateful to him.
  We welcome some of the clauses in the Bill: the provisions applying to pregnant women at work, the written statement of terms and conditions of employment, the health and safety provisions and the transfer of undertakings provisions. I thought that the Secretary of State was less than generous, however, when she said that these were all measures being introduced for the first time. It was the Employment Protection Act 1975 which made the first provision for maternity pay and maternity leave and which first introduced the obligation on employers to provide a written statement of the terms and conditions of employment. The present Bill, in a very welcome way, extends those provisions to other groups.
  I am astonished that nothing has been said about clause 26, relating to the application to the public sector of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, made under the acquired rights directive. I read that, following publication of the Bill and as a result of court action being pursued against the Government by the European Commission, legal experts believe that the compulsory competitive tendering system is on the edge of collapse. Apparently the European Commission has petitioned the European court to rule that the United Kingdom Government have been wrong to exclude the public sector from the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. That is reflected in the Bill before us today. The Commission is also pursuing action, as I understand it, to determine that the directive applies prior to the introduction of the Bill in the House—that is, retrospectively.
  Until those matters are resolved, the policy of compulsory competitive tendering seems to be in total disarray. Apparently, the Department of the Environment says that for the time being it is for each local authority to decide in each case whether its proposals amount to a transfer under TUPE, but how can they do that in the absence of firm, clear guidelines? In the event of their decision being proved later to have been a wrong judgment, who picks up the tab for compensation claims?
  The Government will be aware that a recent decision of the European court found that where a member state had failed to implement a directive it was for that Government to recompense individuals who had lost out. I wonder just how many workers have lost their jobs or had their terms and conditions of employment significantly worsened because of compulsory competitive tendering. Presumably, if the Commission wins its case, there will be retrospection at least to the beginning of compulsory competitive tendering. As one legal expert put it in The Independent last Friday, the Commission appears to have driven a coach and horses through compulsory competitive tendering.
  As has been said, clause 11 appears to give a qualified right for any individual to join any trade union of his choice. I wonder whether the Secretary of State thought that through. I thought that if there was one point in the
  196
  industrial relations controversy on which there was some consensus, it was the structure of the trade union movement. I thought that there was general agreement in the House that it would be for the benefit of industrial relations if there were fewer unions—not fewer trade unionists because I am in favour of more trade unionists. Many of the union mergers in recent years have been welcomed, not least by employers.
  The Government now seem to be going in the contrary direction because the proposals will inevitably encourage the formation of small, breakaway unions with a consequent proliferation of the inter-union conflict which so harmed industrial relations in the past. I thought that we had seen the last of that.
  Furthermore, the proposals will lead to an unwelcome fragmentation of collective bargaining. The Government are not concerned about that because they do not believe in collective bargaining. It seems that the word "collective" has acquired unfavourable connotations, like the word "society". Things are good if they are done by one person. It is like the quotation from "Animal Farm":
  "Four legs good, two legs bad."
  The Government seem to say, "individual good, collective bad." The Government are against collective bargaining, so they will not worry too much about the fragmentation.
  It has been said that trade union membership is effective only in so far as it is accompanied by recognition for bargaining purposes by the employer. The question has been asked and deserves an answer: to what extent will employers be obliged to recognise the union of the employees' free choice? Throughout my experience in industry, people could join any union they wanted. The problem was always in getting recognition by the employer.
  Clause 19 invites any Tom, Dick or Harry to take legal action if he feels that he is being affected by a dispute, no matter how remote his interests might be. Industrial disputes are difficult enough to resolve in most cases without third-party intervention or the deliberations of the courts. The proposal is an open invitation to the frivolous litigant and it is a potential disaster for those who have to manage industrial relations.
  I will respect the obligation to keep to the time limit for those who are to follow. I join those who have made comments on the wages councils and I link those comments with my comments on collective bargaining. I note in passing the comment of the British Institute of Management, which said:
  "In the middle of a recession the Government surely has higher priorities than abolition of Wages Councils and new union curbs."
  It is not only the wages councils which have been the subject of attack over the years. Since 1979, the Conservative party has sought to destroy anything that provided any protection for the weakest, most vulnerable and most poorly paid in our society. The fair wages resolutions were scrapped. Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959 was scrapped. Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 was swept away. The Road Haulage Wages Act 1938 was swept away. We sought to declare war on low pay, but the Conservatives are making war on the low paid. The Government have renounced International Labour Organisation convention No. 94 which required Governments and their contractors to behave like good employers.

  197
  I make it clear, if I have not done so in my earlier intervention, that I am not in the ranks of those who seek to preserve into perpetuity every wages council. I believe that the best way to improve the terms and conditions of employment is through collective bargaining conducted by strong trade unions with responsible employers and organisations.
  The Government are hostile to collective bargaining, as they have made clear by deliberately filleting from the terms of reference of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service anything which applies to collective bargaining. When ACAS was established, having been proposed by Michael Foot, it was intended that it should be a conciliation and arbitration service—full stop. I persuaded him that it should have a wider role than the previous Commission for Industrial Relations had had. I suggested that it should look more widely at matters concerned with collective bargaining so that it could facilitate the development of good industrial relations through collective bargaining. Now the Government are sweeping all of that aside.
  The Government may not stop at wages councils because there is yet another step to be taken—the abolition of the agricultural wages boards. The Secretary of State has kept silent about that. Will she give us an assurance that those boards and the millions who are protected by them will not be sacrificed as all the other protections have been?
  There may be occasions when individual wages councils are an impediment to the growth of collective bargaining and to effective trade union roles. The existing statutory framework allows for that and makes provision for it. The provisions in the Bill are unnecessary. In circumstances in which the Government have deliberately impeded the development of alternative protection, the wholesale abolition of the councils can only be regarded as the action of people who are callously indifferent to the evil consequences of their actions.
  Like much else in the Bill, clause 28 is yet another step in the sustained and deliberately cynical policy of attacking the hard-won rights of working people, weakening their trade unions and undermining collective bargaining. I look forward to the day when a Labour Government will sweep away the odious elements in a succession of anti-trade union laws introduced by the Conservative party and replace them with fair and equitable provisions which will not only encourage good industrial relations but will enhance the working lives of millions of our people.
  6.55 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: The right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker), whose authority in these matters I readily recognise, may not agree that trade union reform has been the single most effective and least disputed achievement of the Conservative Government since 1979. There have been many other remarkable and radical changes in those years, each attracting its passionate advocates and equally vociferous opponents. Some of the developments have been tarnished by the passage of time, whereas others take on a different aspect in changing circumstances. All are open to question by thrusting revisionists, writers of
  198
  political memoirs and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). Hon. Members should read The Daily Telegraph today.
  There is no question but that for the majority of people, not least members of trade unions, the reform of the unions has been seen as an unqualified success. Conservative candidates in the recent general election were able to campaign on the issue confident in the knowledge that in 1991 we saw the lowest number of days lost due to strikes since records began one hundred years earlier. The significance of that fact was not lost on the British people, and it was a major factor in their decision to re-elect the Conservative Government.
  That fact was also a major factor in the decision of so many foreign companies to invest in our country. It is not simply a matter of getting a foot in the door of the European Community. There are 11 other countries in which such a door could be found. The significant fact is not only that we are members of the European Community, but that we have a good industrial climate in which new enterprises can prosper. I give many thanks to the Conservative Government for that and for the Bill.
  Despite the massive advances in the past 13 years, reform of the unions remains unfinished business. Because of the extent to which the proposals will have an impact on industry generally, I must declare an interest as an adviser to the Federation of Master Builders.
  I welcome the Bill, which I see as a further step in the right direction and I congratulate my colleagues in the Government on bringing it forward so soon after our return from the summer recess. The Bill introduces what I see as new safeguards. It contains safeguards for the community. Labour Members do not talk much about the general public except in passing references to Tom, Dick and Harry—a masculine view of the public. To me, the proposal to require notice of seven days before a strike is undertaken is of immense value. I welcomed the proposal the day it was announced, especially as Londoners have suffered more than most from such strikes, especially on their railways and other transport systems.
  London is our capital city. It has a complex commercial and industrial society, so it needs protection. For some years I advocated that essential services should be required not to undertake strike action and that such an undertaking should be a condition of the contract of employment. If that is not to be, the Bill gives at least some protection against the hazard of strikes called without notice which can disrupt the lives of so many innocent parties. At least there will now be one week's notice.
  I do not want to comment too much on an individual strike. However, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Opposition spokesman, is a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. London again faces a tube strike. We have forgotten what it is like to face such disruption to our everyday lives. Such a strike would be a very real prospect if it had not been for previous legislation. The fact that the Bill will strengthen the legislation is very welcome.
  Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, I am following the London Transport saga with some interest. If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to 1972, when a Conservative Government first insisted on ballots being held before industrial action could take

  199
  place, he will recollect that the railwaymen, including the then National Union of Railwaymen, were the first to be balloted on industrial action and that the result was that the vast majority of railway workers were hardened in their view that a strike was necessary.
  If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, he will fall into the trap of overlooking the fact that, in the current dispute with London Transport, once a ballot has taken place, it will be extremely difficult to get people back to work—despite agreements reached by their leaders. The hon. Gentleman should not regard a ballot as a panacea or think that it will solve the current industrial problems in London.
  Sir Michael Neubert: As a representative of parliamentary democracy, I have nothing against ballots: I welcome them because they reflect people's free democratic choice, even if it is a mistaken choice. That is important, in strikes as in anything else.
  I welcome the creation of a commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action—although the phrase does not exactly trip off the tongue. Something more succinct such as "ombudsman" might have been more helpful. I am interested to know how his office—I assume that the commissioner will be a man, although that may not be so—will be funded. How will the work be publicised, and how easy will it be for the individual citizen to take advantage of the commissioner's services? Under the control of pollution legislation, we have an "aggrieved citizen" procedure. It is there in law, but how many individuals are able and confident enough to use it? I shall be interested to know how the commissioner's office will work, what financial assistance will be given, and whether advice on proceeding to the court to seek the necessary injunction to stop the action will be included.
  The Bill also contains safeguards for union members. I fully approve of a fully postal ballot, independently scrutinised, before every strike. That is a welcome advance. I naturally support protection against fraud and abuse in trade union elections. Presumably no Opposition Member will oppose that. I welcome the protection of individual union members against the mismanagment of their union's finances. That is another important consideration. I also welcome people's freedom to choose the union of their choice. Why should not trade unionists, like other members of the public, have choice extended in matters which are so important to them?
  In April, the Conservative party enjoyed its fourth successive election victory. To find a precedent for a fourth successive general election victory, we have to go back as far as 1826. The general strike of 1926–100 years later —provides another landmark in politics, and a legacy on which attention is focusing again today. The year after the general strike—this, perhaps, explains some of the Opposition's sensitivity regarding what are apparently innocuous proposals—the Tory Government introduced contracting in, whereby workers had to make a positive decision to join a union and pay its dues. Union funds suffered a sharp decrease in consequence. I am sure that that anxiety lies behind many of the comments and much of the controversy that we have heard today.
  After the war, the mphant Labour Government returned to contracting . The resultant boost to union membership and finances has directly and indirectly been a source of great strength to the Labour party ever since. Few workers had either the initiative or the inclination to
  200
  drop out or deliberately to withdraw from union membership. It took character and courage to set oneself apart from one's fellow workers on the shop floor; most, very reasonably, thought that union dues were a small price to pay for a quiet life.
  Let us acknowledge it: the Conservative party also found the issue too hot to handle, and confined itself to campaigns to persuade trade unionists to contract out through the established procedures. It had little success. More important, however, when it came to general elections, increasing numbers of unionists started to vote Tory and have stayed Tory. This growing support amongst unionists, nominally affiliated to the Labour party and included in the block votes brandished by trade union leaders at the Labour party conference, gave legitimacy and authority to Conservative proposals for reform. It was a vital element in the public acceptance of these proposals. Unions were seen as Militant-dominated and politically motivated, and the closed shop as a denial of liberty.
  The proposal in the Bill that has caused a frisson to run through the Labour party and the trade union movement is that workers will be protected against the unauthorised deduction of subscriptions from their salaries or wages. I thought it significant that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spent so much time on that apparently minor matter. Under a system called "check-off', which would not mean much to most people—it might be confused with a well-known Russian playwright—union dues can be deducted without a worker's knowledge or consent. In future, that will not be permissible unless the worker has authorised such deductions in writing within the previous three years—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Sir Michael Neubert: We have had enough interventions on that point and can forgo yet another.
  In future, it will not be permissible to deduct dues unless the worker has authorised such deductions in writing within the previous three years and has not subsequently withdrawn the authority, which can be done at any time.
  That is not, of course, a return to the full-blooded contracting in of 65 years ago, but for Labour's paymasters it is too close for comfort. They see that the new freedom could make significant inroads into union membership and funding. At a time when union membership—especially in manufacturing, and as a result of unemployment—has fallen well below its peak, that could be a further and, in some cases, fatal blow. The Labour party for its part—anxious, for political reasons, to present itself as independent of the unions, yet heavily dependent on them for its income, individual membership being next to negligible—is equally agitated. We have seen signs of that agitation on the Opposition Benches today.
  Socialist spokesmen can therefore be expected to attack the proposal as a Tory plot to finish them off by cutting off their cash. It is true that in a parliamentary democracy which, to date, has rejected the idea of public funding of political parties, it is important that the current principal Opposition party should not be denied adequate resources when the current party of government is assured of very

  201
  substantial contributions from business. Such considerations have no doubt played their part in the past in holding Conservative Governments back from returning to contracting in, and will no doubt do so in the future.
  Yet, in isolation, the proposal is entirely justified. Conservatives believe in a role for unions but we believe equally strongly that a worker should have the freedom to join a union or not to join a union as he or she wishes. If it is to be a completely free choice, no automatic mechanism or administrative convenience is acceptable. Such arrangements are part of the past. There is now a different and healthier relationship between employers and unions, and between unions and their members. Each partnership can make common cause in its own interests, a benefit long enjoyed in the United States and west Germany and an essential feature of agreements reached by Japanese companies investing here. It follows that a union should be prepared to stand on its merits and provide positive incentives to recruitment, rather than rely on inertia.
  There is the further fear for the Labour party that the political levy may also be subject to a switch to "contracting in". That does not look likely—at least, not this time around. The same arguments apply, however, and are equally valid.
  The next few years are bound to witness changes in the political landscape if there is to be any feasible alternative to a Conservative Government—not that I am looking for such an alternative, the House will understand. The relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions will be among the most crucial of those changes —from which will perhaps emerge a more self-confident Labour movement which could cope with a freely contracted political levy. Until that time, the Bill—soon, I hope, to be on the statute book—is a welcome further step towards a more modern system of industrial relations.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I remind hon. Members that speeches are subject to a 10-minute time limit.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the Secretary of State will recognise, the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties have supported many of the Conservative Government's trade union reforms. In some cases, we have pressed ahead—calling, for example, for the abolition of the closed shop in advance of the introduction of Government legislation. It is important to make that statement at the outset, because the Government have not made a case that justifies further substantial and detailed interference in the working of trade unions. There are other measures in the Bill for which no case has been made.
  People who would normally be on the Government's side—for example, employers' organisations—have described the measure as "a Bill too far". The Economist, in a more graphic headline, referred to it as "kicking the corpse". It seems strange that the Government have an unbridled enthusiasm for interfering in the minute details of the workings of effectively private bodies, although
  202
  operating very much in the public sphere, in a way which they would regard as unacceptable for almost any other organisation.
  The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) indicated what he thought were the concerns of the Labour Opposition. The Conservative party should bear in mind the dangers of provoking a backlash as and when there is a change of Government, which there will have to be if British democracy is to survive much longer. The arguments being put forward by Conservatives may be used, for example, to regulate the donations of companies to political parties and in other ways to regulate sources of revenue that the Conservative party previously depended upon.
  As has already been said by several hon. Members, some of the better proposals in the Bill are there not because of the commitment of the Government but because of the requirement of the European Community. Indeed, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State bore fine testimony to the strictures that were pointed out by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in the recent debate on the Maastricht treaty, of a Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box and claims the credit for a number of measures which her Government have bitterly fought almost at every stage.
  It is worth detailing that the provisions on maternity leave, contracts of employment, health and safety, equal treatment and the transfer of undertakings are all being introduced in order to fulfil European directives rather than the spontaneous desire of Her Majesty's Government to provide those benefits for citizens of the United Kingdom.
  The measure at the heart of the Bill which has rightly attracted most attention and adverse comment is the proposition to abolish wages councils. It is well known that the Minister of State has made no secret at any time of his opposition to wages councils and has never bothered to speak in code about it, even though some of his colleagues did.
  The case for abolition has not been made, and the timing is cynical in the extreme. To introduce such a measure at a time of record unemployment, the worst industrial downturn since the 1920s, when people in the unprotected sector are facing real cuts, and to suggest that those on the lowest wages should lose the benefit of the minimal protection afforded by wages councils is vindictive. I echo the comments of other hon. Members that it is nauseating to hear highly paid Ministers and even more highly paid corporate executives demanding that the lowest-paid people should carry the greatest burden of the recession. That is not defensible; it is neither a moral nor a justifiable stance.
  There is no evidence that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs. That statement is made without substantiation: there is no firm evidence either way. The suggestion which equates the earnings of people in the wages council sector with pin money is offensive and unjustified. It ignores the changing circumstances brought about partly by social change and partly by the effects of the recession, which mean that, in almost every case, the money brought in by people in that sector, even if the majority are women, is essential to the welfare of the families who depend on it, whether or not the wage earners are the main breadwinners. Their partners may be facing or suffering the consequences of redundancy.

  203
  It is utterly offensive that, because women may not be seen as the breadwinners in given households, they should be paid less in spite of the merit of the jobs they are carrying out. Anyone who suggests that that is a high moral position to take in the last decade of the 20th century is trying to drive us back to an era that we all thought had gone for ever.
  Obvious statements have been made about the abolition of wages councils leading inevitably to more people seeking more benefit from family credit and income support. It seems extraordinary that the Government should accept that. It is well known that, as Liberal Democrats, we do not share the Labour party's commitment to a national minimum wage, but we accept the need for a structure which provides people with minimum incomes and we accept that wages councils are essential in those sectors of the economy where people have no other protection.
  The Government seem to be setting the careers service up not for simple privatisation but for unclear piecemeal privatisation. At present, we have a partnership whereby local education authorities are required to provide a careers service and the Secretary of State provides the inspectorate to ensure that it is done properly. The Bill proposes that the Government, through three Secretaries of State, will take total control of and responsibility for the careers service, with no inspectorate or accountability requirement.
  In those circumstances, will the Minister tell the House how the quality of service will be assured, what mechanism will be used to ensure that every child has access to an impartial, professional careers service, and how we can be sure that it will not be suborned by the commercial needs of those running it to steer people into sectors where they require trainees rather than meeting the needs of the individual, whether a young person or a mature adult? Can the Minister explain how transferring the service from local authorities to the Secretary of State will increase local accountability? Does he no longer accept that local accountability is desirable or necessary?
  If I may anticipate the suggestion that local boards of businessmen will be appointed by the relevant Secretary of State, that is not the accountability which people want. Such board members would not be elected, nor would they be required to explain their objectives.
  Perhaps the most controversial provision is in clause 12, the check-off clause to which the hon. Member for Romford referred. Superficially it may be reasonable, but it seems to be moving into detailed regulation of trade union membership which goes far beyond simple contracting in and contracting out. If Conservative Members were as assiduous in calling for deregulation in that sector of the economy as they are in others, I do not believe that they would support the clause.
  It is ironic that even employers are making the point that the clause will increase their administrative burden, yet apparently the Government are determined to impose additional regulations on employers against their express will. Time precludes me from quoting them, but many employers' organisations have expressed their opposition to the clause.
  Clause 19 is a recipe for wanton litigation by people with no involvement in industrial disputes. It goes completely against the grain of trying not to clog up court time with unnecessary litigation.
  204
  The Bill is not necessary. It does not fulfil the aspirations of the people. It will do nothing for workers' rights, nothing for partnership and nothing for profit sharing, and we will vote against it.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House as my involvement in and support for democratic trade unionism goes back many decades. I am a believer in democratic trade unionism. I started my career quite some time ago in the car and car component industry, at Fort Dunlop near the area which I now represent, in quality control on the shop floor. At one of the many meetings of the Select Committee on Employment that I have attended, Opposition Members found it difficult to understand that I had been among the steam, the smoke and the carbon black of the tyre industry. They also found it difficult to understand that a Conservative Member knew something about manufacturing industry hands on and about the real effect of trade unionism.
  I am glad to say that my career progressed reasonably rapidly, and I found myself making quite significant decisions in the companies I worked for about introducing new products and having to cope with supply to the car industry.
  The problems created at the time by the undemocratic practices of the trade unions were legion. People who remember Birmingham and Coventry in the early 1960s and 1970s will understand that, after 20 years in the industry, I became so frustrated that my colleagues and I could not manage. That frustration was my main reason for wanting to become a Member of Parliament. Decisions were taken capriciously by a small key core of trade union leaders and not by the lads with whom I had worked, who I knew so well and who were the real trade union members. They had no democracy. I believe in trade unionism and I believe that they should have, and now have, democracy.
  It was therefore with great joy that I won my seat in 1979. Within 18 months, I was grateful to become Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Tebbit, who was himself a dedicated and experienced trade unionist. Following Lord Prior, we introduced various Bills in the 1980s, including the so-called Tebbit Bill and the secret ballot provisions. We provided trade union members with the democratic structure that they now enjoy. From Lord Prior, Lord Tebbit and others, we achieved that step by step.
  I was a member of most of the committees in the early days when we made those changes. It was hard in a sense, because one understood the resentment felt by those who were affected by the changes. However, one was buoyed up by the strong support of those who wanted to see decisions on strikes in particular taken by the people who were intimately involved—the trade union members.
  That is why, with that long experience, I welcome the Bill. I also welcome it as the joint chairman of the all-party motor industry group. The motor industry needs all the help it can get. It has increased productivity magnificently. It is now such an attractive prospect in terms of productivity and excellent and unrivalled industrial relations that we have inward investment from Japanese

  205
  companies like Nissan, Honda and Toyota, which would not have happened without the Conservative legislation of the early 1980s.
  That legislation led to the recognition that trade union workers must have democratic processes and be able to have secret ballots and it has led to our current superb record. Without that legislation, we would not have had that inward investment. It would have gone to France or Germany, and cars would have been imported instead of being built in this country.
  It is not just a matter of the front line with the motor car itself. There is a knock-on effect into the car component and subsidiary industries. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in the west midlands, depend on the car industry—for example, on the success of Peugeot. Peugeot is one of my constituency employers, because many of the people who work at the Ryton plant live in my constituency. Peugeot received a Queen's Award for industry in 1991 in the teeth not just of our United Kingdom recession, but of an international recession.
  It is magnificent to know that many of the Peugeot 405s that we see driving around Paris and elsewhere in France are made in Coventry. That achievement was made possible only by the high productivity and good industrial relations of the company. There is a similar record at Rover and Land Rover. Land Rover's increased production of the Discovery is a landmark victory in the teeth of the recession. Again, that has been made possible only by good industrial relations created by Conservative legislation in the early 1980s.
  Therefore, a further step is excellent. In response to those who believe that the CBI does not support the Bill, I will quote from the CBI brief:
  "The CBI fully endorses the Government's continued commitment to the periodic review of the law governing industrial relations.
  The CBI welcomes the new Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill as a measure which contains some useful proposals in this area."
  The CBI has some detailed arguments to which I will refer briefly. I wholeheartedly welcome the main provisions of the Bill. I welcome members' ability to obtain information about a union's financial affairs. That is surely their right. All clubs, even local football clubs, have an annual general meeting at which the members are allowed to examine the accounts. Such examination may be time-consuming for the chairman and treasurer as the members go through the accounts in great detail. Surely trade unionists in a modern society should have the same right.
  It seems eminently sensible to give individuals the choice to ensure that they are happy to be members of their union. There has been much discussion about what is or is not legal in respect of the check-off arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the existing law and what the proposals will mean in terms of extra protection for trade union members.
  Proper notice of strike ballots and strike notice are absolutely vital in furthering the process of democracy and the involvement of trade union members—not trade union leaders. A manager of a company or a trade union president has responsibilities, in the case of the company manager to the shareholders and the employees, and in the case of the union president to the trade union members.
  206
  The union president is there to represent the members, not as an ideological right to pursue political aims. The Bill adds to the step-by-step process towards democracy.
  The proposals in respect of the citizen's right to restrain unlawful industrial action are excellent, and are part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter. All hon. Members are aware of frustrated people who come to their advice surgeries on Fridays and Saturdays complaining about the lack of an ombudsman or tribunal to help them. However, I have a word of caution, and perhaps the Minister will refer to this point when he replies to the debate.
  We also see people at our advice surgeries who will never accept no for an answer. As good constituency Members, we pursue such matters to the best of our abilities. However, some people might be capricious in taking such action. I should be grateful if the Minister will reassure me that unlawful industrial action will be clearly defined, so that only those with a good, clear case against unlawful action will be able to approach the ombudsman.
  I should like to make many more points, but I am conscious that my time is up. As my heart and life have been in the motor car and car components industries, I welcome the Bill. As they are the dominant industries in the midlands, my constituents will also welcome it.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: The Bill has finally surfaced 18 months after the Green Paper was published. It is significant that during that time, none of the consultations have been published. There has been no improvement in the knowledge of employment law on the Government Benches. As we have seen tonight, Conservative Members are not even familiar with contract law. There has been no improvement in the understanding of how trade unions work, their aims and objectives and what their members require of them. Not to worry, we should perhaps expect nothing other than that.
  There are significant additions to the Bill which were not included in the Green Paper, one of which is the further centralisation to Secretaries of State in London of powers and duties previously held by local education authorities with respect to the careers service. What is the thinking behind that? Is it meant to provide additional funds to the training and enterprise councils to meet their present deficit in funding? Or is it even more insidious so that we will see the likes of Manpower and Brook Street Bureau providing career service advice on the basis of which client company pays the highest fees instead of on the basis of providing the necessary advice that young people require? Whatever the source of that career service advice, there seems to be a lack of objectivity. Perhaps our good friend the Minister will deal with that matter when he replies to the debate.
  Much has been said about the abolition of the wages councils, which comes as no surprise to Opposition Members although it was not in the Green Paper or in either of the last two Conservative party manifestos—but there again nor is so much else. That addition to the Bill is simply an extension of the vitriol and dogma that we witnessed at this year's Conservative party conference, when generalisation and stereotyping about certain targets sought to divert people from the real state of the economy, of the nation and of the misery that people are suffering.

  207
  The abolition of the wages councils is also consistent with last week's autumn statement, in which about 5 million public sector workers were told that they will suffer a cut in pay in real terms during the next 12 months. If there is to be a cut in the public sector, there has to be equality with the private sector and the abolition of wages councils will ensure that everyone suffers in the same way.
  The minimum wage argument is strange. When one considers that billions of pounds seem to be paid out by that mythical person, the taxpayer, in family credit, housing benefit, poll tax rebates and various other income-related benefits, I suggest that the state is operating a minimum wage in one form or another. Surely the responsibility for paying a decent living wage should be transferred to employers, in exactly the same way that the responsibility for statutory sick pay was transferred to them. It is okay for the taxpayer to pick up certain elements but not others.
  The trade union-related elements of the Bill are dishonest. They are born out of malice and ignorance. They claim to be an extension of individual rights, but they will turn out to be a diminution. They seek to destroy totally the collective entity that is trade unions. The Government seem happy to see all employees as helpless individuals without the strength of collective bargaining and union recognition.
  Is it not strange that as a society we deem it right and proper to have a taxation system, in which I include the national insurance fund, so that collective provision can be made for public services which would not be open to us as individuals? Even the Government do not challenge that. When it comes to rights in the workplace, that is to be denied. If we extended that principle to national defence, it would seem that we should make the army, the air force and the navy redundant and supply every household with a pea shooter.
  Although it might be a frightening thought, let us assume that the Cabinet is the employer and that the Bill is law. Let us consider—[Interruption.] Did the Minister wish to intervene?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): No; I was talking to my hon. Friend the Whip.
  Mr. Rooney: I just wanted to check as I thought the hon. Gentleman might be trying to learn something.
  Consider the notorious and somewhat failed rebellion of anti-European persons on the Government Benches a couple of weeks ago. Let us imagine that the Bill applied to them and that they had to give the Government Whips seven days notice of their industrial action and of the names and addresses of the persons involved. They would have had to give three days notice of the exact motion that they would be framing. Can one imagine what would have been the tactics—the arm twisting and pleadings—of that wonderful employer known as the Cabinet, that so-called good employer? What would have happened if it were a bad employer? Really the idea does not stand credence.
  Individuals should have the right to belong to a trade union, the right for that union to be recognised, to negotiate for them and to represent them. On several occasions, the Government have been asked why they do not legislate for cases when 100 per cent. of the work force has joined a trade union to make the employer recognise that that union has bargaining rights. They have ducked
  208
  the issue on every occasion and have said that such bargaining is separate and concerns individual rights. That is nonsense.
  I know of one example. Surprisingly, we have some good employers in Bradford, who encourage trade union membership. What is perhaps even more surprising is that they recognise unions, and negotiate with them daily. However, we have our share of bad employers. One company has about 38 employees on an average wage of £68 for a 44—hour week. Every employee joined a trade union and sought its recognition. The employers persistently refused to recognise the union. After two years, several industrial tribunal actions had been won by trade union representatives on behalf of people dismissed by the employer for engaging in union activities, and the employer finally recognised the union. The employees now enjoy wages of £160 a week.
  The dishonesty of the Bill is perhaps best reflected in a document published by the Department of Trade and Industry. Probably no one in this Chamber has seen the document because it is available only at our foreign embassies and at overseas trade fairs. The document says, "Invest in Britain", and that Britain has the best anti-union laws in Europe, the lowest wage rates of the 10 industrialised countries and there are no restrictions on taking capital out of the country—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: No, that is not correct.
  Mr. Rooney: You might not like it, but get a copy of the document, pal. I will see you afterwards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no pals here, only hon. Members.
  Mr. Rooney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The one good piece of news in that document is that we have the cheapest mined coal in Europe and the greatest energy resources, although the news does not seem to have reached the President of the Board of Trade—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooney: No.
  The truth of the Bill, seen in conjunction with the past 13 years of trade union legislation, is the Government's determination for Britain to be a low skill, low wage, low esteem and no representation economy—a sweat-shop economy, which is simply the assembly unit for the Japans, Germanies and Americas of the world.
  That situation was reflected throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s in the textile industry, which sought to survive in west Yorkshire on the back of low wages. We all know what happened to the bulk of that industry. The textile firms which survived invested in machinery, equipment and training and in paying people decent wages. The surviving companies are a testament to what the strength of management and unions can do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes are up.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. I shall follow the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) with the brief remark that it seems strange that he should quote a document incorrectly and that he does not have a copy of it with him. He was probably trying to say that Britain has the lowest

  209
  unit labour costs and not the lowest wages within the European Community, because everything else he said was patently rubbish.
  I wonder why the Labour party did not rush to its feet to welcome so many elements of the Bill. So often, what is described by Opposition parties as an attack on trade unions is benefiting the rights of trade unionists to ensure that they are properly looked after at every stage of their membership, which is what is contained in the Bill. For the trade union movement to say that there is no requirement in law for someone to have to sign to authorise deductions from their wages, and to spend so much time objecting to the fact that that is contained in the Bill, seems inconsistent. It demonstrates the anomaly by which, apparently, by giving somebody a contract—
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Bruce: With only 10 minutes in which to speak, I cannot give way.
  We must sort out the law and make sure that, in future, people are clear precisely what happens in such circumstances. It may come as a surprise to Opposition Members to learn that, in briefing me personally, the TUC told me clearly that it wants to ensure that its members regularly receive from the unions to which they belong a statement every time the deduction is increased. That is not attacking trade unions but ensuring that they keep good contact with their membership.
  There are many examples of people who have paid money to trade unions, and the link between the members of the union has been the purchase of union cards to enable them to join different organisations. Such examples have often been catalogued in the House. In other words, we are engaged in a sensible operation to tidy up the law to ensure that trade union members who are paying for a service can keep control of their unions.
  There must, of course, be a right of choice if people wish to join other trade unions. That right exists today, assuming that another union will accept their membership. The TUC rules prevent unions from taking on members in areas where they do not normally have negotiating rights. Only by a trade union member knowing precisely what is going on can he be certain that the union to which he has become affiliated is doing a good job for him. Otherwise, he has no choice, especially if he cannot change unions.
  I have been anxious to take part in the debate to correct some misconceptions about wages councils. Any statistical analysis of the evidence shows that wages councils have never worked. Indeed, the experience of many groups of workers who have been removed from the so-called protection of wages councils is that their wages have risen faster.
  If Opposition Members are wondering why a Conservative Member should be urging the abolition of wages councils, I assure them that there are circumstances in which it is sensible for people to decide, in free collective bargaining, to work for lower wages. No hon. Member has ever objected to the fact that, in law, if one works for oneself, one can pay oneself 2p an hour. It is the right of anybody who sets up a business to take less pay to make a go of it. I lost £9,000 in the first year of setting up in business, and as a self-employed person I worked between 60 and 80 hours a week.
  210
  Why should it be permissible to work for less for oneself, whereas a business man who is in trouble, or who is trying to start up with few resources, cannot negotiate with his workers and say, "I cannot pay what I believe to be a sensible living wage, but I can afford to make a start, or to keep the business going, if you are prepared to take lower wages"? By that means it might be possible to create or retain jobs that would not otherwise exist.
  The sort of wages that I was able to offer when I started my business attracted only women, and the only people with ability who applied were women. Yet within two years of setting up, the wages of all my staff doubled, and both men and women applied to work for the company. That happened simply because we showed that we could create business and employment, and only by such means can wages be paid.
  Labour Members seem to think that, by some magical process, every employer can afford a certain minimum wage. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that employers are grinding their employees into the dust. The vast majority of employers would never attempt to do that, because a ground—down worker is not productive. Almost every employer I know would like to pay more, but must increase productivity to enable higher wages to be paid.
  That is why we must take a realistic view of spending £3 million on wages councils. We must act to free up a section of the labour market. I guarantee that, when the Bill becomes law, the statistics will show that no harm will have been done to the average worker, that we shall have created jobs in the way we did in the 1980s, and that yet more bureaucracy will have been swept away. The measure represents an excellent move forward, and I am surprised that Opposition Members have not appreciated its excellence.
  7.45 pm
  Ms. Angela Eagle: I wish at the outset to declare an interest. I am in the process of becoming sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees, a trade union for which it was my privilege to work for seven years before coming to this House. The modest sums involved in such sponsorship never go into the pocket of the hon. Member concerned.
  The Bill is the sixth piece of legislation since 1979 designed to regulate industrial relations. Indeed, we have been in a state of almost permanent legislative revolution of which Chairman Mao would have been proud. While the Government have used the rhetoric of freedom and fairness as justification for their actions, their real agenda has been the systematic destruction of rights at work, coupled with the deliberate weakening of trade unions' ability to resist. Their aim has been to deregulate the labour market and to bring back exploitative cheap labour to these shores. In that aim, they have certainly succeeded.
  The Government will tolerate the existence of trade unions so long as they are impotent. They will allow a theoretical right to strike while ensuring that that right is so couched in a plethora of complicated rules and regulations as to render it practically impossible. If the unthinkable should happen and a strike should occur, the Government have sanctioned victimisation by selective dismissal to dispose of the miscreants. They have replaced bargaining in the work place with fear.

  211
  There are, in the Government's bizarre view of the world, no bad employers—only evil trade unions which manipulate their members by forcing them to go on strike against their will. Myths about the behaviour of trade unions which live on in Tory demonology have little or no bearing on reality, yet they have provided the Government with scant justification to dash headlong into legislative assault and battery, of which the Bill is another example.
  The myth persists on the Government Benches, for example, that trade union leaders force their members, like some sort of conscript army, to go on strike. After seven years of working for COHSE, I assure the House that the truth is exactly the opposite. The Government concluded that, by forcing trade union members to ballot, they would almost destroy industrial action. Even so, 92 per cent. of ballots have resulted in a yes vote.
  Even when the shameless Conservatives were unable to justify their next turn of the screw, we found the former Secretary of State for Employment declaring in a press release after his Green Paper had received the thumbs down:
  "Governments must be prepared not only to listen but to lead. Sometimes it is the duty of Government to take action which is in advance of opinion."
  When we strip away the hypocrisy and doublespeak with which the Conservatives always deploy their argument in such debates, it becomes obvious that their legislative attacks are handsomely rewarded when the money from their paymasters in the City and business floods into Tory party coffers.
  That is unregulated compared with the stringent laws governing trade union donations for political purposes. The Government have tightened up on those. Perhaps we would obtain more information about their sordid backroom deals if the Tories published their accounts in a regular and accessible way, as trade unions have done for years, even long before they were obliged to do so.
  I invite the House to contrast the Conservative party's over-zealous legal regulation of trade unions with its attitude to fraud in the City, which is clearly a persistent and serious problem. The Cadbury committee, which recently investigated the matter, concluded that the guiding principles should be, first, that self-regulation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill deals fairly specifically with trade unions. I am not sure where the Cadbury committee comes into that. Will the hon. Lady return to the Bill?
  Ms. Eagle: I am exploring the difference between the Conservative party's treatment of the voluntary regulation of City fraud and the over-regulation of trade unions. Is that in order? I should like your advice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Lady said at one point was out of order; that is why I gently suggested that she returned to the Bill. I hope that we can now move on.
  Ms. Eagle: I hope that I have made my point about the Government's different treatment of different parts of our society.
  The extent of the Government's bias against trade unions and the hollow nature of their rhetoric about freedom is summed up by the fact that virtually the only right that the Government have given working people in
  212
  the past 13 years is the right to take action against their trade unions. Trade unions exist to protect people, despite what Conservative myths suggest.
  People want the right to be treated fairly at work. They want the right to employment protection and decent wages and conditions. Yet the Government have systematically stripped working people of all those rights, bleating that such basic minimum standards are a burden on business. We even learned at the weekend that the Government apparently believe that the laws contained in the draft EC directive on the minimum age of work which aim to prevent the exploitation of children are also a burden on business. Next the Government will tell us that preventing children from sweeping chimneys for a pittance is an unacceptable restriction on the employer's right to manage.
  The Conservative party claims that removing minimum standards and "freeing the labour market" creates employment. That is why wages councils are to be abolished. Indeed, the neo-classical theory of economics worshipped by the Conservative party predicts that result. However, no practical experience bears it out.
  When 16 to 20-year-olds were removed from the protection of wages councils, their pay fell, but the rate of unemployment in that age group rose, and it is now one in five. If the Government proceed to abolish the wages councils for the 2·7 million people who are currently covered by them—80 per cent. of whom are women and the most vulnerable section of the labour force—they will achieve the same magnificent result.
  The argument that deregulating the labour market creates employment is not proven. The opposite appears to be true. Where deregulation has occurred in our labour market, there is higher unemployment. Indeed, we still have mass and rising unemployment, despite the much vaunted success of the Government's employment legislation.
  Conservative Members talk a great deal of cant about the benefits of the Government's employment legislation. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is currently the chairman of the Conservative party, had the gall to claim in a debate on the 1990 Bill that the Government's employment legislation was the great success of their period in office. I congratulate the Conservative party on finding any success in the smoking ruin that is now Britain after 13 years of their mismanagement. However, like most of its propaganda, that assertion is not true.
  Not only has the recession inhibited strike activity, but the declining level of strikes which the Government cite as proof positive of their success has been observed in almost all western countries in the same period. Those countries have achieved better results than Britain without compromising human rights, reneging on international agreements or condoning fear and victimisation in the workplace.
  Another equally absurd claim was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Secretary of State for Employment. In the debate on the 1990 legislation, he said that the legislation would strengthen our economy. The accuracy and sagacity of that comment fair take the breath away.
  It is about time that the Government got on with providing employment and decent standards of work for

  213
  British people, and stopped pursuing their political vendettas and neo-classical economic obsessions. The sooner they do so the better.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I begin by declaring my interest as a consultant to MinOtels Great Britain Ltd.
  One could say a great deal about the Bill if time allowed. We know that the Labour party is against the Bill. It has also opposed every employment Bill that we have ever introduced. It is always in favour of the Bill before last. Labour Members may not mean it when they say that, but when an election approaches they always say it. We can be fairly sure that in the fullness of time they will be against the next employment Bill and will claim that they were always in favour of this one.
  Several hon. Members have concentrated on the wages councils. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) put it well when he said that we should concentrate on the wages councils tonight. I accept that there is a case to be answered. At first sight, and when examined superficially, there is a beguiling case to be made for retaining the wages councils. It sounds like a good idea to have a council to protect the poorest members of society. Then we hear that the wages councils go back to 1909. So it is bound to appeal to the innate and reactionary conservatism on the Labour Benches.
  We also hear that the wages councils were introduced by Winston Churchill. That is always a good thing to say to both Opposition and Conservative Members. So at first sight the wages councils seem a good idea. The idea seems to be self evidently right and to benefit the poor. However, the idea that the wages councils help the poorest workers in our society one jot is a manifest absurdity which masquerades as a self-evident truth.
  Let us consider for one moment what the wages councils are supposed to do. They work on the assumption that a Whitehall bureaucrat or somone appointed for one day a month or one day every two or three months can say to an employer, "I do not want to hear about what you can pay, the demands of your industry, your problems of recruitment or pay differentials. I have decided that the right increase for you is X per cent." When one thinks about that, one realises what a thoroughly daft idea it is.
  The only proper measure of a proper wage is what an employer feels it is worth his while to pay and whether someone is prepared to work for that sum of money. If the two are out of kilter, the bargain is not struck. If the employer believes that the service that he wants performed is worth a certain sum and someone finds it attractive to perform that service at that price, a sensible wage is fixed.
  Earlier in the debate a sedentary intervention was made which was probably lost because it was not responded to. It was a fair point. Someone asked whether we would work for £2·50 an hour. Many of us have worked for less than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The reason why that comment incites noises on the Opposition Benches is that Opposition Members have no experience. If one comes to the House via the polytechnic route, one does not experience anything like the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) or I had
  214
  starting a business or what it is like to work as an articled clerk for 50 hours a week for £6. Opposition Members have no idea about that.
  Opposition Members are apparently so concerned on my behalf—I am touched—because they assume that if people are on a low wage they are there for life, locked into that wage for ever and that they will be ground down as the years go by. That is nonsense. For many people, low wages are a phase in their working life: it does not last.
  Coupled with the idea that once people are on a low wage they are locked on to the misery train to the end of their days is the idea that somehow people support their families on that low wage. That is piffle. The evidence shows that 80 per cent. of people who work in occupations covered by the wages councils have either two or more earners in their home. So the idea that those who are covered by the wages councils are locked into a low pay system for life and have to support their spouse and family on it is nonsense. It simply does not work that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, spoke about the evidence that supports those propositions. In this short speech I do not have time to go through all the research. As I gently said to my hon. Friend earlier, a number of authorities show what the evidence is. A study by Kaufman in 1989 and a study by Beenstock and Warburton in 1984 both said that the effect of having fixed, statutory, low minimum wages is that, ultimately, people lose their jobs. Inevitably, those were academic studies but the experience that followed deregulation in 1986 for those under the age of 21 is yet more evidence. We were told that young people's wages would go down, whereas in reality the effect was that their wages went up.
  The evidence does not stop there. Even if Opposition Members are neither interested in the academic evidence that supports the proposition nor concerned about looking at the experience of 1986, Labour Members have made the point time and again that minimum wages are not in the best interests of the poor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) has already quoted the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) saying:
  "I knew the consequences were that there would be some shake-out, any silly fool knew that".
  Some people align themselves with the man on the Clapham omnibus. The hon. Gentleman aligns himself with any silly fool, but he has a point—even a silly fool would know that.
  Someone who knows what he is talking about without being bullied into it is the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has previously worked with the Low Pay Unit and is an acknowledged expert in the subject that we are discussing. He said that the employment consequences of a minimum wage
  "would be little short of disastrous".
  It does not matter where one looks—at the evidence, what has happened since 1986, or what Labour Members who take the trouble to think about it say—one cannot conclude that minimum wages are in the best interests of the poor.
  The system is riddled with anomalies. It is absolutely potty that the wages councils will, for instance, cover those who work with cooked meat but not raw meat, those who sell a radio but not a tape recorder, and laundries but not launderettes. All those anomalies are implicit in a system that substitutes the judgment of bureaucrats for those of the people who work in the marketplace. There is only one

  215
  of two ways to deal with those inconsistencies: either we regulate everything—a Stalinist mentality is still alive and kicking among Opposition Members from time to time —or we say that it is a complete nonsense and we cannot proceed in that way. All that we can do when faced with that problem is to say that those anomalies cannot be straightened out but are implicit in the system.
  There is stacks of independent commentary. For instance, editorials in newspapers like The Times have made the point time and again, often quoting left-wing speakers, that minimum wages simply do not help.
  I should have thought that we would want to do something positive for the low paid. We should be prepared to look at something that is beguilingly attractive but ask whether, ultimately, it sets out to help those who need help. We have heard nothing about that from Labour Members tonight. If we wonder why, given the fact that there is good authority from Labour Members about the destructive effect of minimum wages, we should look at how the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) feels about the employers that we are discussing. We all know that there are bad employers but, in the experience of most of us, those are a tiny few. But not according to the hon. Gentleman. What frames his policy on behalf of the Labour party? He set it out well in Blackpool in September and was quoted in The Independent by Barrie Clement, labour correspondent, who, whatever else he is, is certainly no Tory hack. He made careful note of what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras really thought about the employers who provide work opportunities in this country. He said that the hon. Gentleman described them as "rich buggers"—I, too, am offended by the language, but I am quoting—
  "who paid poverty wages to their employees".
  Just in case somebody could not understand his subtlety, he apparently said with a great flourish of his beard that rich business people who pay their workers low wages were
  "thieving scum".
  That is the attitude of Labour Front-Bench Members and what pervades those who frame their policies. With that degree of malignant mediocrity which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras brings to the debate, is it surprising that the Opposition are not prepared to consider the evidence?
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is not surprising that Conservative Members' views on the trade union movement are based not on an intellectual argument but on the bias inherent in the Tory party since trade unions came into being.
  As a trade union member of some 54 years, formerly a member of the National Union of Seamen at the age of 16 and a member of the Transport and General Workers Union since 1946, I have sufficient experience in the trade union movement to challenge many of the points that Conservative Members have made. I did not join a trade union for high political ideals but because, at the age of 15 when I went to sea, I was working under conditions that were deplorable in every sense of the word. Those conditions and my wages—28 shillings a month—made me aware that the person for whom I was working was not dealing with me fairly, so I became a member of the National Union of Seamen.
  My experience over those years, excluding the war years, is that the trade union movement has been
  216
  responsible for protecting workers from exploitation which Tory Members have not even mentioned, tonight or at any other time. The Bill confirms my view that the Conservative party's war of attrition against the trade union movement is on-going, and will continue while they remain in power. I do not believe for one moment that that arises out of pure ideological hatred, because there are other factors, such as those that can be seen in the demise of the construction industry.
  In many areas, the construction industry has been deregulated. It is a diminishing industry due to the Government's economic policies. The unions deal not only with pay and conditions but with the health and safety of their members. The consequence of the Government's legislation is that cowboy outfits have come into the construction industry, and trade unionism is a thing of the past. Employers disregard health and safety measures in many places, resulting in record deaths in the industry.
  In the docks industry, despite the promises by the Secretary of State that the post-abolition period would not mean an attack on trade union membership, we have seen a return to casual labour and everything that was prevalent in the bad old days. The consequence of the Tories' anti-trade union laws has been employers' derecognition of trade unions in virtually every port in the United Kingdom.
  No one in the House believes that the Government have any other motive than to see the trade union movement made ineffective so that it will be difficult if not impossible for it to represent its members, as it has a responsibility to do. During the Government's term of office, we have seen the damaging effects that their legislation has had on the trade union movement. Government measures mean that a generation of young people have never enjoyed the advantages of belonging to a trade union, as they have been discouraged from doing so at their places of work, particularly in small businesses.
  One reason that the Conservative party supports small businesses is that many of those businesses do not recognise trade unions. That is not to say that we do not support small businesses that act in the best interests of their workers, but many such firms take advantage of young people, paying them low wages and providing poor conditions.
  I do not believe that the Conservative party is sincere in its attempts to improve the lot of the trade union movement. The Conservative party talks about the necessity of checking and re-checking whether the contributions of a union member have been authorised by him or her. I was originally opposed to the check-off arrangements. I have held every office at branch level of my trade union, and have been a district and national delegate of the docks and waterways section of the Transport and General Workers Union. The check-off system in my branch and many others resulted in a lowering of the attendance at the branches as contributions were deducted from members' wages. The convenience offered by the system has merits in the longer term.
  However, it is wrong for Conservative Members and the Secretary of State to suggest that there is a need for employees constantly to refer to employers about the deduction of trade union contributions. Employees have a right to withhold union membership if they so wish. The employer is required to obtain the consent of the trade union member in order to deduct the payments from his or

  217
  her wages. Therefore, there is no need for the clause in the Bill. That being so, the clause becomes an act of pettiness or a further sign of how the Government want to confuse the issue and escalate their persistent efforts to undermine the genuine work of the trade union movement on behalf of its members.
  The trade union movement has rights that were established many years ago, when working conditions were such that even those who opposed the organisation of labour agreed that collective action by workers was necessary in order to remove many of the excesses that employers imposed on their work forces. The position has not radically changed. Since the Government have been in power, there has been a movement away from the recognition of trade unions and a deterioration in work conditions.
  The Labour party believes that the trade union movement should have the rights that the Conservative party openly gives to employers. We believe that trade union rights should not be subject to constant Government interference. We believe that the trade union movement is entitled to continue to operate within the framework of the law, and should be in a position to represent its members.
  During the past 13 years, the trade union movement has frequently been rendered ineffective when trying to represent its membership. It is almost impossible for a trade union to announce a dispute without falling into one or other of the traps set by the laws introduced by the Conservative Government. We believe that those laws have impeded the trade union movement. The Labour party must ensure that those laws are removed when a Labour Government come to power, as will certainly happen.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I have sat on the Standing Committees considering most of the trade union reform Bills, and I hope that I shall be lucky enough to serve on the Standing Committee on this Bill. There will be endless opportunities for detailed discussions of many of the Bill's clauses in Committee, and I shall concentrate now on the strategic role played by the Bill in the development of industrial relations in Britain.
  Having listened to the speeches made so far, I have a wonderful sense of deja vu. Labour Members trot out all the same phrases and make all the same speeches as in years past. They say that it is a "Bill too far", that it is "anti-union". The only thing missing from the Labour's speeches is a commitment from their Front-Bench team to repeal the Bill as soon as Labour comes into power. I suspect that that is because the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is a far cannier politician than many of his predecessors and has the benefit of experience. He knows that, in a relatively short time, what the Government are now proposing will be the orthodoxy, and will be adopted by the Labour party.
  I declare an interest in that I am a lawyer and, since the early 1970s when industrial relations law began to develop, I have been very much involved with it. I have represented unions as well as employers, and individuals as well as companies. One of the most interesting features of this subject is the way that realities have changed, but the
  218
  noises made by the Labour party have not—although the voices of many of the more intelligent trade union leaders have significantly changed.
  When unions were formed, and for a large part of this century, the working man had no real protection other than collective action. If a worker was to be dismissed, the only protection to be gained was from collective action by his or her trade union. In the early 1970s, the bulk of industrial actions, particularly the devastating wildcat strikes, related to dismissals.
  In today's debate, the focus has switched from strikes over dismissals to pay and conditions. That is because strikes over dismissals are now so rare due to the alternative body of law that developed in the 1960s and 1970s, giving individuals a platform of rights that they can exercise in accordance with their own judgment. They are no longer dependent in the same way as they were on the collective support of a trade union.
  The first changes related to rights against employers, with legislation on matters such as redundancy payments, unfair dismissal, health and safety and women's rights. The Opposition were happy with those changes because their long-term impact was, to a degree, obscured. They came at a time when industrial relations—as developed through much of the century—had reached their nadir.
  In the 1970s, the system had become a parody of what good industrial relations should be. It was frequently based on mindless confrontation and poor emloyment practices by employers and trade unions alike. Some trade union leaders had political ambitions that overreached their duties as trade union leaders, and they were unable to distinguish between the two.
  A corporatist approach was adopted to industrial relations and the economy generally. The great and the good of industry and the trade unions sat down to beer and sandwiches at No. 10 to discuss the issues of the day. However, the great and the good did not represent the overwhelming majority of people in this country. The unions did not represent what was going on in the minds of many of their members. The Confederation of British Industry certainly did not represent small and medium-sized businesses. The consequence was that we lost out dramatically in the growth of the small and medium-sized businesses which have been the mainstay of many of our industrial competitors around the world.
  While Opposition Members were happy to accept changes in employers' rights, they were less happy when faced with the other side of the coin: the rights of the members of trade unions vis-a-vis their unions. To be fair, many of the changes that we brought in were just imposing on the whole trade union movement the best practices adopted by some of the unions—certainly in relation to ballots.
  Many unions had always had effective balloting systems. Unfortunately, as we saw with the National Union of Mineworkers at the time of its national strike, those balloting procedures did not work well when a president was determined to ride roughshod over his constitution. Hence the rule of law was reimposed, with powers of sequestration for the courts, and balloting procedures were developed. Certain key issues were sent to ballot. There was an end to intimidation, which had become commonplace and which had caused so much distress to many people through the 1970s and the early 1980s

  219
  The Labour party always argued against these changes, but once they were in place they came to accept them as the orthodoxy, because most people in this country, including a majority of those in trade unions, saw the reforms as thoroughly desirable.
  The role of the trade unions is inevitably changing. If they cannot dictate to their members what they should do, and if they cannot compel people on the shop floor to join, they have to sell the services which they have to offer. Many of the better unions and the cleverer trade union leaders see that there is an important role for trade unions in this changing world. The sort of industrial relations agreements reached by the best manufacturers in the world—as evidenced in Japanese investment in the United Kingdom and much else besides—demands a highly collaborative industrial negotiating machinery, which is based not on confrontation but on a will to collaborate.
  Successful unions are good at this. They must look at new areas, such as the protection of pension rights. They must offer skilled advice and representation of individuals to enforce their rights. A whole range of ancillary benefits flow from this too. These services are necessary, and, contrary to what we have heard this evening, I do not believe that the changes will necessarily lead to the fragmentation of the unions. To be successful in these areas requires a critical mass of resources and skills within a union effectively to represent its members' points of view.
  Against this background, the Bill is mainstream. It continues a series of developments that have featured in industrial relations changes since the mid-1960s. It brings in a range of changes in respect of employers and individuals and in respect of members and their unions.
  Perhaps the Bridlington agreement focuses most clearly on this point. Until now, people have looked at the Bridlington rules as a sacred cow. The truth is that, when they were brought in, one of the major problems in industry was the demarcation dispute. The Bridlington principles were a successful solution to such disputes. Now the situation has changed, and working practices are much more flexible. The problem for which the agreement was devised has passed away, and the rules are now being used to stifle the will of members. There have been many recent examples of members of unions being dissatisfied with their leadership and wanting to join another union instead.
  Hon. Members will recall that members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers wanted to join the GMB because they were fed up with USDAW's stand against Sunday trading. Airline cabin staff wanted to leave the Transport and General Workers Union because they were fed up with the militancy of its leaders. They wanted to join the British Air Line Pilots Association, but were prevented from doing so. There are many other similar examples.
  No union should believe that its members belong to it as of right or that anyone who makes a pitch for those members is a poacher and should be deterred by the collective weight of the TUC. Carrying through that logic, the sort of dispute that occurred between the TUC and the electricians would be just the first of many. Competition between unions for membership in modern circumstances is just as healthy as competition between companies. Unions that are in favour of Sunday trading will attract shop workers who want to work on Sunday. That competition will make union leaders reflect their members' interests better, and will provide the mechanism for evolution and change.
  220
  I look forward to detailed debates in Committee. This Bill stands bang in the middle of the mainstream of industrial relations development. Some of the best companies in the world believe that Britain is the best place in Europe in which to manufacture. We must ensure that we have in place the best industrial relations practices for those companies, and this Bill takes that process forward.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the rights for employees enshrined in this legislation, and the protection afforded to citizens against unlawful industrial action, with the appointment under clause 19 of a new commissioner. I also welcome clause 20 and schedule 2, which add to current provision for pregnant women by giving a new right to all employees, irrespective of length of service, to 14 weeks maternity leave.
  Many families throughout the United Kingdom rely on a mother's earnings to provide their basic standard of living. In more and more families mothers are the sole earner and the head of the household. For as long as that is so, every effort must be made to ensure that mothers-to-be enjoy the full protection of their rights as mothers and workers. Naturally I support clause 21, which provides for all female employees, irrespective of their length of service, a right not to be dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy or childbirth.
  I also welcome clause 23 and schedule 4 which will give every employee who works eight or more hours a week the right, within two months of starting work, to a written statement of his main terms and conditions, including details of entitlement to pay, hours and holidays.
  I am not persuaded by Conservative Members that the existence of wages councils has been holding back higher earnings for those protected by them, so I oppose clause 28 and the abolition of the wages councils. That is a step backwards for the rights of the workers who are covered. Wages councils provide a security net for low-paid workers, and by their removal the way will be opened to a minority of unscrupulous employers who have no respect for the rights of employees and who seek to exploit those already on low wages. Many who will fall victim to this lack of protection will have their spending power further reduced, and there will be an adverse effect on the wider economy.
  The Government's statements of commitment to economic recovery will have a hollow ring, given this development. The Government cannot hope for an upturn in the economy while at the same time wrecking the means to that upturn for many families. The saving to the public purse from abolishing the wages councils and making their employees redundant will be greatly outweighed by the losses to the economy resulting from what will amount to a wage cut for many workers who will be deprived of their right to a fair wage.
  In Northern Ireland, between 1971 and 1989, male employment fell by 9 per cent.; in the same period, female employment rose by 34 per cent. Of this rise in female employment, more than 97 per cent. was in part-lime work. Part-time employees are traditionally less qualified and lower paid than their full-time colleagues; yet many families rely on the wages of a part-time lady to provide the basic necessities for a reasonably dignified existence.
  The economic and social consequences of exposing so many families to further reductions in income are

  221
  frightening to contemplate. Unlike the Government, I do not see the destruction of workers' rights as a means of achieving their end. We cannot keep people in work and out of social security benefits by destroying workers' rights. The abolition of the wages councils can only lead to an increased reliance on benefits in the longer term, as more and more families find themselves caught in the poverty trap.
  It is time that the Government directed their attention away from conference rhetoric to please constituency associations and towards long-term measures to ensure that the United Kingdom has a well trained, adequately paid and willing work force. With unemployment queues nearing 3 million and the United Kingdom struggling to regain its economic strength, the last thing that we need is a demoralised and unwilling work force.
  In Northern Ireland, the 1991–92 minimum basic hourly wage set by the wages councils varies from £2·60 to £3·60 per hour and 34,000 workers currently enjoy the protection of the wages councils. Considering that many of those are involved in physically demanding work, £2·60 per hour is not much to ask of any employer.
  What can the Government seriously hope to achieve by removing the protection of the wages councils? If the Government hope that it will stimulate the economy by giving greater freedom to the employer in the labour market, they should think again. No self-respecting employer would pay below that level. The only employers who stand to gain by the abolition of the wages councils are those who have no respect for employees in the first place and therefore have little contribution to make to the wider economy.
  Of the 34,000 employees covered by the wages councils in Northern Ireland, many are in the service sector, but some still remain in manufacturing. It is nonsense to endanger their right to a fair wage.
  Finally, I call upon the Government to pay careful attention to the need to ensure that Northern Ireland has equal representation in the new careers organisation along with other regions of the United Kingdom. I support the call of the Institute of Careers Officers for a national council for careers guidance, subject to the inclusion of representation as of right for Northern Ireland in such a group.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: First, I declare an interest. My family business in Yorkshire owns a number of petrol stations, at one of which we have a small grocery stand, a fact which, on its own, brings that service station under the wages council for groceries.
  I wanted to speak in today's debate because, from leaving school in 1974 until I became the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby, I worked in the family business. Our activities include retailing, manufacturing, property and agriculture. The company was established by Joseph Sykes, my ancestor, in 1845. Therefore, one way or another, my family has seen a lot of employment law.
  The Labour party remains responsible for some of the most reckless and damaging trade union laws this century; legislation which culminated in 1979 when we saw the alien practice of union men picketing town halls, factories,
  222
  depots and hospitals and union men threatening the wives and children of those who dared to cross the picket line. Those were the every day alien practices of life in the 1970s under the Labour party.
  We were elected to change all that, at which point Labour Members scurried off to ask their union bosses, "What shall we do now?" So it was that they could not quite bring themselves to support the Employment Act 1980, which banned the violence of the flying picket. They felt uncomfortable about the Employment Act 1982 which dealt with the corruption of the closed shop, and they did not like the 1984 legislation one bit—an Act which gave union members a secret ballot before strike action.
  Labour Members tried to blockade the Employment Act 1988 requiring union bosses to submit themselves to election by secret ballot and they tried to scupper the Employment Act 1990 because it removed union immunity from secondary action prosecution. So, there we have it: five Acts in 10 years and the Labour party voted against every single one of them. That is how it comes about that we have this particular flying picket on the Labour Front Bench today.
  Two of the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen on the issue supported in writing the violence and howling pickets of Wapping. There they sit huddled around their brazier trying to warm themselves against the cold facts; sent here, I might add, compliments of the National Union of Railwaymen, or the PMT, or the RMT, or whatever they call themselves these days, compliments of the Transport and General Workers Union, compliments of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, whatever that is; sent here this evening no doubt to "down tools" over the question of secret postal ballots on strike action. The Leader of the Opposition came out of the closet on that recently. He said that ballots are an "irrelevant effrontery", "intellectually disreputable", while hard on his coat tails was the delegate from the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union who, on "Panorama", said:
  "on the restoration of a Labour Government strings will be pulled".
  He went on to say:
  "and we would be definitely pulling strings of our sponsored MPs."
  Strings have been duly pulled, not to say wrenched. The Leader of the Opposition, despite his carefully manicured appearance, is sponsored by the GMB—quite appropriate really when one thinks about it.
  No doubt there are some Opposition Members who want to "call out the lads" over the question of trade union financial affairs, measures that will give their members information about union finances—the fat salaries of the union bosses, the loaded perks that go with the job for which the ordinary member has to pay. I say that it is right to stand up for the member who faithfully pays his dues year in, year out. Is not he entitled to know what, or perhaps even more relevant who, his money is being spent on? But at least we know that the Opposition will support us on that one.
  We also know that it will be "one out, all out" over the question of the wages councils. We know, for example, that minimum wages cost jobs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow Transport Secretary, came out of yet another closet on that one when he said:
  "I knew the consequences. There would be some shake out. Any silly fool knows that."

  223
  That is one down—270 to go.
  I was forgetting. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that he had been hiding in the same closet when he said:
  "One or two jobs may be lost."
  He may well be right—if he is talking about 1 million or 2 million.
  No, we in the Conservative party will not take any lectures about the Bill from the Tolpuddle party. The only irrelevance that we have to deal with this evening is the TUC hymn sheet which Opposition Members have been sent here to sing all the way until Christmas. We will not take any lectures from Opposition Members whose only experience of employing someone is limited to the poorly paid research assistants who swarm about the Palace of Westminster every day.
  No, the Bill is part of the process that takes trade and industry in Great Britain towards the millenium. It is part of the process that the Prime Minister set in train when he torpedoed the social chapter last December and which Jacques Delors acknowledged would make Britain a paradise for investment. Forget Labour's Europe. All one has to do to see Labour's Europe is to go to Sheffield or Liverpool.
  No, as we head towards the 21st century, this is a Bill for more investment, more employment, more business, more output and more exports; a Bill for Great Britain; a Bill which is relevant for the 1990s; a Bill which consigns the alien practices, along with the Labour party, to the dustbin of history.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Today's debate takes place against the backcloth of massively rising unemployment and poverty which is so deep rooted in Britain that it is sad and tragic that all that the Government can do is to kick the boot at the worker and the trade union movement.
  On 6 November, the Financial Times said:
  "In deciding now to abolish the wages councils the government is taking a risk. Attempting to reduce the wages of low paid workers, at a time of depressed confidence, rising unemployment, and with the public sense of injustice already aroused by the miners debacle, is not the most politic of actions. In any case, the evidence does not suggest that the low levels set by the wages councils have a significant negative employment effect, as the government claims.
  Abolishing them now, in the current depressed economic climate, is likely to do little more than reduce the wages of some low paid workers, while increasing the amount of family credit paid to those low-income households that are adversely affected. The government is showing again a rare taste for the wrong battles."
  The Institute of Management Consultants believes that the abolition of wage councils will severely damage the United Kingdom's productivity. Its director general said:
  "The success of organisations depends on the productivity of the work-force. A low wage policy leads to a vicious circle of low morale, low performance and low productivity. The UK cannot compete in the 1990s with a 19th century approach to labour. The way forward is through higher productivity and higher skill levels created and rewarded by higher pay … The government's belief that low wages will create jobs is mistaken in those industries with minimum wage rates only marginally above benefit levels. Growth and real employment will come only through rewarding skills. Instead of removing the remaining protection for the low paid, Ministers should be showing a public commitment to a better trained workforce."
  I happen to be sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am delighted and
  224
  honoured to represent that union in the House. I know that it fights on behalf of low-paid workers and people who have not been given proper training, to take them into a higher pay echelon. It is unbelievable that this country can be at the bottom of the European league in regard to giving those who work for this country the conditions that they deserve.
  The wages councils cover 2·5 million people, but they do not cover some of my constituents. I know a security man who works for £1·85 an hour. Conservative Members may say that everyone else in the family works, but that is not true: he is the sole breadwinner. Having spent 20 years in the armed forces, he left to work for a poverty wage. Is that what we want to happen? Do we want people who have spent a decade or two in the Army to end up earning a pittance?
  That man worked for a Government establishment; that is, he worked in Coulport—under the Government's auspices—for a private security company. Why should we allow our people to be degraded by receiving such payments? Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to stump up housing benefit, income support and free school meals for that man's children. I think that it is appalling.
  I am not a great lover of Churchill, but I recognise some of his main attributes. For instance, he fought and argued for the rights of wages councils. He knew that, out in the big bad world, there were employers who would speculate and get away with paying workers tuppence an hour. They would do what was done in the days of Oliver Twist—provide a bowl of soup, and give a belt in the ear to those who asked for more.
  What happened when young people were taken out of the realm of wages councils? Were there more jobs for them? Not in my constituency. The facts and figures clearly prove that more young people are now unemployed; they also prove that young people are working for abysmal wages. They are forced to work seven days a week for about £1 an hour, with no rights, and they are sacked if they ask for half a day off to attend a wedding.
  Christmas will be here in five weeks. What a Christmas present this Scrooge-like Government are offering to low wage earners. If they are still in power next year and the year after, there will be many empty stockings hanging up in our young people's homes. Many children will not know what Christmas is, and will never see Santa Claus—unless they are out begging on the streets. The steets of London, Glasgow and Edinburgh are full of folk begging. The Minister should consider them, and consider the workers who are trying to make a living wage and who need the protection afforded by the wages councils.
  Every prediction that the Government have made has proved wrong. The Chancellor has kept telling us that the turning point is just around the corner. I feel that I am turning the corner at 100 mph, but all that I see is more poverty, more unemployment, more bankruptcies and more house repossessions. The Bill will not help the low paid. If the Government wanted to give working folk back their morale, they would establish the minimum wage proposed by Labour, and they would come up with a plan of action to train our young people to take on the rest of the world.
  I believe that our young people have the necessary will and spirit; all that they lack is the mentality of this stupid Government, who do not realise that our people can make the nation great again. The Minister should abandon his

  225
  proposals to abolish the wages councils, and consider the pleas of the trade union movement. The trade unions are the country's allies—not its enemies, as Conservative Members would like to think.
  My father was a trade unionist who fought for this country; my aunts and uncles fought for it too, and they were all trade unionists. Opposition Members are as committed to Great Britain as anyone else, and we see the trade union movement as an integral part of the nation's heritage and the fight to make it great again. The Government, however, are prepared to drive our people further into poverty. They talk of individualism, but the only individuals they are concerned about are their friends in the City.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to speak in such an important debate. I do not wish to follow the passionate but misguided comments of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who epitomises the dinosaur approach of Opposition Members who are always looking backwards rather than forwards.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her excellent, vigorous and constructive speech. The Bill is modest but wide ranging, designed to make limited changes to a number of important areas affecting employment and the trade unions. I believe that it will be warmly welcomed in the country and among a considerable number—probably the majority—of trade union members.
  Since becoming a Member in 1983, I have taken part in a number of debates on trade union reform Bills which have subsequently been enacted. I am extremely interested in this subject, not only because employment issues are important to the country in general and to my constituency in particular, but as a former trade union member. When I was a teacher in the 1970s, I was a member of the National Union of Teachers for a while, during which time I saw at first hand how archaic trades union organisations were and how undemocratic they had become. Branch meetings were held at inconvenient times. The propaganda and voting by show of hands were quite appalling, and interest in individual members was non-existent. There followed the disgraceful situation of the union instructing its members to withdraw from school on a half-day strike, at which point I left the union because I felt that it was wrong for professionals to strike—wrong because of the principle and the damage to children's education, and wrong for a strike to be called before a secret ballot of all union members.
  I was delighted in 1979, therefore, when the Conservative Government embarked on a systematic programme of trade union reform and employment legislation. That was long overdue and reform had become even more necessary after the legislation enacted by the Labour Government of the 1970s, supported by left-wing trade union leaders and financed by trade unions. Much of the legislation enacted in that period was proposed and allowed by trade unions.
  Throughout the 1980s, I supported the rolling programme of legislation. That legislation has proved to be a great success. The worst excesses of the 1970s and the
  226
  abuse of power by unrepresentative and irresponsible trade union leaders is well known. In addition, the Government had, and still have, a dual role—to protect society from politically motivated trade union barons and to assist ordinary trade union members to gain control of their unions. [Interruption.] Despite the sedentary comments of Opposition Members, I am not opposed to trade unions. I believe that they have a valuable role to play in contemporary society, but it is different from their historical role. Of course their role is to look after and represent the work force and to ensure that working conditions are improved, but they must now give advice, look after issues such as pensions and ensure that individuals are looked after in the workplace. Some good trade unions have done that, but others have failed to do so because they have been more interested in political activity than in advancing the interests of the workers whom they are supposed to represent.
  Trade union leaders are now elected on a more democratic basis to look after their members' interests in the workplace. It is not their job to be political animals. Trade unions must attract members by showing what they can offer the work force; they cannot take members for granted, as they did in the past. Needless to say, the Opposition always opposed the union reforms of the past decade and remain out of touch. That is why they remain in opposition and will not be elected to government in the foreseeable future.
  Employees should have increased freedom of choice —not only whether to belong to a trades union but to which trades union they wish to belong. There must be no coercion to join one union. That is in line with Conservative philosophy of choice. We know that it is anathema to Opposition Members, who do not believe in choice in anything. The Government are determined to increase choice for ordinary citizens, and that is—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions.
  Mr. Evennett: We have provided increased choice in housing, education and many other areas. The Government are continuing to widen choice in all areas, including trades union membership. Under the Bill, individuals must not be excluded or expelled from a union without good reason.
  I have confined my speech to trade unions. We have heard much about wages councils and most of what needs to be said has been said by Conservative Members, but the improvements for trade unions under part I are advantageous to ordinary union members, particularly the improvements to the conduct of union elections. I note and approve of the Bill's endeavours to improve the election system for trade unions. This must improve fairness for candidates and ensure that they are all treated equally. The Bill also addresses the secrecy of union affairs, such as membership and remuneration—
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: What about Tory party funds?
  Mr. Evennett: The hon. Gentleman has a large mouth and nonsense keeps coming out of it. If he listened for once he might learn something—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already spoken about sedentary interruptions. If hon. Members want to say something, they should seek to intervene in the proper parliamentary manner.
  Mr. Boyce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evennett: No, I have no time.
  In 1992, union members should be furnished with important details about their union. Certification officers' powers should be strengthened to investigate apparent impropriety in union affairs. Those are democratic safeguards for individual union members. More information and power for individuals will make for better trades unions. More choice and increased rights for citizens are the order of the day in 1992.
  The Government's commitment to the citizens charter has been well received by the general public. For far too long, individual members of the public have been powerless against the might of large unions. I welcome the fact that under the Bill ordinary members of the public will be able to seek legal redress if they suffer as a result of unlawful industrial action. We have all suffered when strikes have been held at short notice. Indeed, sometimes no notice has been given and such action has disrupted business and has disrupted and annoyed my constituents. When that has occurred, especially in the transport sector, people have experienced terrible difficulty in getting home after a long day's work. I know that Opposition Members do not care about ordinary citizens, but Conservative Members believe that they are very important and that they should be our prime consideration.
  The Bill proposes seven days' notice of strike action, which will be of considerable benefit to the general public. I warmly welcome those provisions. Some of my constituents would like my hon. Friend the Minister to go further and would support no-strike agreements for public services, so perhaps he will consider that as part of the rolling programme which we warmly support.
  Judging from the sedentary interruptions of Opposition Members, one would not have thought that this was a modest Bill, but it travels along a moderate road leading to improved and more responsible trade unions and more power to members of trade unions. It is a valuable addition, I believe, to the legal reforms of the past 13 years. It will strengthen the rights of the individual, the employment rights of people at work and the democratic rights of trade union members.
  8.58 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: There are just 55 wages inspectors, whose job it is to enforce the wages council legislation. Yet, even with this tiny number, their diligent work uncovered 5,971 establishments last year paying below the legal minimum rate. There were only, however, 15 prosecutions; that is, one quarter of 1 per cent. of the known, discovered offences were prosecuted. That hardly suggests wild enthusiasm for law enforcement, but of course this was a matter of whether money would be put back into the pockets of low-paid workers from whom it had been stolen by employers who were acting illegally.
  Not satisfied with that, the Government are now embarked on a drive to cut the wages of the lowest paid. They must think that wages will fall; indeed, they say that jobs will he increased because wages will fall. They think
  228
  that employers are so eager to take on extra staff that anything that they can save by cutting wages they will gladly spend on increasing their staff.
  Employers employ as few people as they can possibly get away with. This can be seen by looking at the number of unstaffed check-outs, while customers have to queue. I declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I know about check-outs, and of course unstaffed check-outs mean queues by customers. Customers have to wait just so the staff will not have one minute to look around. So as few workers as possible are employed, the hours of part-time workers are cut against their wishes and their hours are frequently lowered to remove rights to legal protection. Wherever possible, employers employ casual workers, temporary workers or home workers at the lowest possible rates. It is highly improbable that cutting wages will increase employment in that sort of situation. However, it will have the effect of worsening the conditions of the low paid.
  We have been told that no damage has been done to the wages of the young since the wages councils were stripped of their powers in relation to young people. However, my union had a look at the job centres in the Manchester area a fortnight ago. It found an advertisement—one of many deplorable advertisements—for a junior trainee hairdresser to work from Monday to Wednesday 9 to 6, Thursday 9 to 8, Friday 9 to 7 and Saturday 8.30 to 4.30; age 16 to 17 only, at a rate of £35 a week. Assuming that she would get a one-hour meal break a day, which cannot be assumed in hairdressing, I make that 50 hours a week at £35 pay. That was in Bolton. In Bury there was an advertisement for a stock assistant: 40 hours; £1·66 an hour at 16, £1·86 an hour at 17.
  As the Equal Opportunities Commission has said, the rates for young people have decreased as a proportion of adult rates, and it believes that there is the strongest possibility that the pay of women currently covered by wages councils will fall proportionately to men's rates. But the Government say that it does not matter. They say. in a letter to my general secretary—one of many similar letters sent by Employment Ministers:
  "Most Wages Council workers are part-timers contributing only a part of the income coming into the family home. There is no close link between the wage rates of such workers and their income."
  There are a number of aspects to that. One is that the income coming into a household is not necessarily available to the woman of that household. It is not her income, and her husband or partner may not consider it to be their income; he may consider that it is his income. So the idea that women as workers can simply be subsumed into the household is absolutely anachronistic.Conservatives always accuse us of being old-fashioned. There is nothing more old-fashioned than that; nothing more insulting and damaging to many families.
  The EOC refers to the fact that, in 1978, it was discovered through research that three times as many families would be in poverty if it were not for the earnings of the mother in the household. The EOC points out that women's earnings contribute more to the family now than they did in 1978. We are talking about family poverty.
  The Government say that overwhelmingly people in poverty do not have a job. They are experts in increasing the number of such people. They are now going down the road of increasing the number of people who are in

  229
  poverty despite having a job. They are adding to the poverty of unemployment the poverty of the working poor. [Interruption.] I notice a great sense of humour among Ministers. They laughed heartily when my hon. Friends talked about the problems facing families at Christmas. People can draw their own conclusions from such expressions of humour.
  People will be in poverty; they are in poverty now. Earnings of women are essential; they are not frivolous. Their earnings are not second incomes in the sense of not mattering to the family. The earnings matter to the individual woman and they matter to her family. There is every evidence that women's earnings will be cut as a result of the Bill.
  If wages will not fall as a result of the Bill, why do the Government say that there will be extra jobs? How will that come about? If the Bill will have no effect on wages, where will employers get the extra funds that they are deemed to be willing to spend on more employment?
  What will really happen is that demand will be withdrawn from the economy, which is a fancy way of saying that people will have less money to spend in the shops. That will mean not only that shopworkers' wages will be cut because they are the biggest group of workers covered by wages councils, but that their job opportunities will lessen because the recession in retailing is likely to be worsened.
  Anybody who continues to think that the Conservative party is good at managing the economy must be blind to facts. The one certain fact is that the Conservative party is greatly damaging the economy of private citizens, especially low earners. I am pleased to have had the opportunity of saying that and to draw attention to the fact that if one removes a floor, rates above are likely to fall as well.
  There is no truth in the Government's press statement in which they say:
  "Where companies pay above the pay levels laid down by wages councils, they are irrelevant."
  Wages councils provide the floor. If the floor goes, people earning above wages council rates will also be affected. The Bill is a drive against the wages of the poor, but it is also a drive against wages generally. I hope that it will be defeated.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: If what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the unions is right, if they have a powerful role in acting for their members in negotiations, if they are able to influence contracts of employment without reference back to their members personally, if they are able to have subscriptions deducted from wages without reference to their members every year, and if they are important in our society, why should they not give basic rights to their members?
  One such right is the right to a full postal ballot before industrial action. Why should they not give that right so that employees have the opportunity to consider the merits of industrial action in their own homes, away from the pressures of the workplace?
  Why should not trade unions give an annual statement of their finances, saying what is happening to the money that the members have paid? Why should not the trade
  230
  unions consult on subscription increases when they come up? Why should they not have to justify themselves to their members every three years if they are to continue to have the right to check off? Finally, if the institutions are so important, why should not the individual member have the right to choose which one he or she wants to join?
  Over the years, we have heard trade union representatives and Labour Members repeatedly object to legislation, only to find a few years later that it has become official Labour party policy. It is too bad that, instead of a genuine debate, we hear nothing but the Labour party's parrot calls.
  Winston Churchill introduced the legislation which laid the foundations for wages councils in circumstances very different from those obtaining today. He wanted to protect the disabled, the widows and the infirm. He was concerned that
  "the worker whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry"
  concerned should not be "undersold". I repeat that circumstances have changed since then. In those days, the social security system, which provides a safety net for low-paid workers, did not exist—and the trade unions were perhaps not so effective as they later became. Above all, we should remember that 80 per cent. of workers now covered by the wages councils do not rely on that money for their entire livelihood.
  There was a time when trade unions would admit that circumstances had changed. In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the Transport and General Workers Union was opposed to wages councils. In its response to the Donovan commission, the TGWU said:
  "Wages Councils do not represent an effective means of raising the standards of lower paid workers and they should be abolished."
  At the TGWU policy conference in 1981, at which a motion in favour of statutory control of wages was lost, the deputy general secretary reasserted the union's opposition to statutory controls on wages.
  Under Labour, unions such as the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades took no part in the proceedings to abolish the wages council for box makers, but welcomed the change as soon as it had been abolished. It supported the abolition of wages councils. At one time, the Labour party defended proposals to get rid of 10 wages councils. It seems to me that, these days, we cannot have a genuine debate on these matters, even though there has always been a strong body of opinion in the trade union movement to the effect that wages councils are ineffective.
  The councils are also inflexible. They interfere with employers' ability to provide incentive schemes for their workers and freeze differentials at low levels.They prevent new businesses starting up and moving from low wages to higher wages as they progress. They are anachronistic. Why are workers with woven cloth covered, whereas workers with knitted cloth are not? Why are hairdressers covered when beauticians working in the same establishments are not? Why is cooked meat covered but not raw meat? The time has come for the wages councils to be abolished.
  I am amazed that measures to provide rights to trade union members should be opposed. Sensible measures to deal with anachronisms such as the provisions governing pregnant women must be welcomed, and it is a pity that Labour Members oppose the Bill.

  231
  The changes in the way in which industrial tribunals and the employment appeals tribunals work are important. At present, there are long delays and backlogs—indeed, I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about one case involving a year's delay. Measures to allow chairmen of tribunals and the employment appeal tribunal to decide cases on points of law will drastically reduce such backlogs. That measure, too, should be supported.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: May I start by recognising the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)? I appreciate that compliments from the Opposition are often considered mixed blessings, and so they should be, but while I did not agree with all he said, I appreciated his comments on wages councils and the way in which he presented them. I also noticed the pre-emptive strike on him by his party through the mouthpiece of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and I thought that the hon. Gentleman might require some assistance. However, he was able to present his case splendidly. Therefore, I look forward to further contributions from him in Committee.
  The best that one can say about the Bill is that it is a squalid, mean-minded, mean-spirited and ill-conceived piece of legislation—in fact, one of the worst pieces of legislation to come before the House for a considerable time. It has little to do with workers' rights or industrial relations, and nothing to do with employment. It is all about trying to keep the Tory troops on the Back Benches in order and in good humour. The Bill is nothing more than a vestigial remnant from the past, and, like all vestigial remnants, it is utterly useless. It is a piece of outdated Thatcherism from which the world has moved on, but apparently not some in the Tory party.
  It is not so much a Bill whose time has come, as many Tory Members tried to maintain; rather it is a Bill whose time has passed, although the contributions from the Tory Members make it clear that many of them are living in the past.
  The Bill is schizophrenic. It is not sure where it stands. It lacks intellectual rigour and honesty. There are good parts in it, such as the provisions on maternity rights, the transfer of undertakings and contracts, and the attempt to protect whistleblowers and the right to stop the job. But all those good parts are submerged in a deluge of mean and provocative clauses which attack a decent wage, decent terms and conditions, a decent future and, above all, the only organisation which will fight for all those aims—the trade union.
  The whole basis of the Bill was given away by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), when he said that the check-off provision was the basis on which the Government would bring about the fatal blow to trade unions. That is what it is about. It is not about protecting the rights of individuals, but about trying to kill off trade unions and their links and contributions to the Labour party. I am grateful to the hon. Member for being honest enough to say that in the House.
  Apparently the Government are embarrassed by this tatty little piece of legislation. So they should be. I was not a Member when the Government started to introduce their industrial legislation in 1979 and through the 1980s, but I understand that the Tory Benches used to be crowded
  232
  when that legislation came forward. It is significant that most Tory Members are so embarrassed by the Bill that they have been hiding.
  The Secretary of State was so embarrassed that she did not want the Bill brought back until after Christmas, if not later. She had briefed industrial correspondents on that. Presumably she was hoping that she or the Government would move on, but she has not been successful, and the ideologues have won. The Government have every right to be embarrassed; in future, they will be not just embarrassed but ashamed of the attacks on individuals brought about by the Bill.
  Let us look at this curate's egg. On the one hand, the Government plan to abolish wages councils, saying that they are a burden on employers. On the other hand, they are introducing measures which we greatly value, such as the right to contract, maternity leave, and the transfer of undertakings, all of which in the Government's own language can be classified as burdens on employers. Why the contradiction?
  Part of the Government's problem is that they do not know the difference between burdens and duties. It is the Government's job to place duties on employers to safeguard the rights of employees—the right to a decent wage, the right to decent conditions and the right to maternity leave and to a contract. Those rights are guaranteed by duties on employers.
  I dare say that many employers consider those matters to be a burden. However, the Opposition do not take that view. We believe that they are duties that any reasonable society would expect their Government to place on employers. The main reason for the apparent contradiction in the Bill and its intellectual dishonesty, opposing duties in one sphere—wages councils—while supporting them in respect of maternity rights, health and safety and contracts, is that the latter measures are not ones that the Government wanted to bring in.
  The Government did not want to introduce maternity rights or provisions on health and safety and contracts. They did not introduce them through any generosity of spirit. They have brought them in simply because they were forced to do so by EC directives. The Government should not claim any credit for those provisions. The Government did not want them. They are in the Bill because they were forced on the Government.
  Even when the Government are forced to include such measures, rather than concede them with a good grace, they have had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the latter half of the 20th century. The Government opposed the directives on maternity rights and the other beneficial effects every inch of the way.
  Clause 26 deals with the transfer of undertakings. The directive about that has been around since 1977. The Government have been in office for 13 years, but they are only now introducing legislation to implement it in full. That does not show much commitment on the Government's part.
  The Secretary of State made great play of the maternity benefits, but the Government did not want them and they fought them every inch of the way in the Commission. They had the original proposals watered down. That is another example of how the measure is mean in spirit, mean in action and simply rotten to the core.
  The meanest part of the Bill is the part that the Government do want—the abolition of the wages councils. It is difficult to imagine a more pitiful response at

  233
  a time of economic slump. With Britain in recession, unemployment rising, homelessness increasing and confidence collapsing, it is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate Government response.
  Then again, the Government are only being true to form. At the height of the recession, following their own gross mismanagement, their only response is to put the boot into some of the weakest in society, to remove from the weakest their only protection, the wages councils. It is typical of the Government and the Tories that, when they are in trouble, they can only attack the weakest. They attack workers earning as little as £2·60 an hour, which represents a take-home pay of about £80 a week.
  The Government give many reasons for their attack on wages councils, and they are all as pathetic as the action itself. The Prime Minister gave some reasons in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The first of them was repeated tonight by the hon. Member for Teignbridge—that wages councils have been around since 1909 and therefore should be abolished. The Prime Minister said:
  "These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992."—[Official Report, 5 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 407.]
  That is quite an interesting piece of political philosophy: because something has been around for a long time, de facto it must be abolished. The House of Lords has been around for much longer, and I therefore look forward in the next Parliament to a Bill to abolish the House of Lords for the same reason.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Or the abolition of the Government.
  Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend points out, the Government have been around for a long time and they are also in line for abolition.
  The Prime Minister's next reason for abolishing the wages councils is that they are supposed to be bureaucratic. Whenever I hear that argument from the Government, I know that they are really struggling in their last refuge. Yes, wages councils cost just over £2 million, but new provisions in the Bill will cost that amount. Are those not bureaucratic? What is the difference? The councils and those provisions are not bureaucratic—they are the necessary price we pay to introduce decent terms, conditions and rights for individuals, and it is a price well worth paying.
  Both those arguments are pulled together in what the Prime Minister said constituted a burden on employers. The Government's philosophy is laid bare—no burdens on employers, no regulations, no statutes, just the free market. Malnourished children up the chimneys and pregnant women down the mines—that is the Government's philosophy for society. There will be no rights, nothing for anyone, but there will certainly be exploitation.
  The Government try to dress all that up as a measure to increase jobs. I heard much talk about that from the Conservative Benches. The Government contend that wages councils reduce employment. They have decided to abolish wages councils because of their ideology and they are now scrambling around for reasons. They have come up with the idea that they reduce employment. I am having
  234
  difficulty finding evidence to support that case. They have trotted out the same hoary old studies on minimum wages. Even they must know that they do not necessarily apply to wages councils.
  After considerable prompting by the hon. Member for Eltham, the Minister produced a long list of references, contending to support his case, showing a relationship between wages and employment. It was an impressive little biography, in nice alphabetical order, quickly pulled out of a computer. But the notable thing about the Government's list, which was also tripped out by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, is that it concerns the relationship between wages and jobs and not necessarily minimum wages.
  Many of those studies are also fatally flawed. First, they presuppose the effect of a minimum wage on other wages, and set about calculating the extent of job losses based on the wrong premise. Because they work from the wrong premise, they get the wrong answer.
  The second flaw in their argument, and the reason that the premise is wrong, is that the labour market is not a homogeneous body, with every part responding similarly, and I should have thought that Conservative Members would have known that. For example, take the rise in women's pay to equal men's, following the Equal Pay Act 1970. According to Government philosophy, as applied to the abolition of the wages councils, that would have reduced employment because it led to a rise in average wages; yet, far from falling, women's employment continued to rise.
  The Government base their studies on the employment effect of wages councils and do not analyse any relative changes in wages. There is no conclusive evidence that wages councils decrease employment, and it may be quite the opposite. They may lead to an increase, and their abolition to a decrease.
  In 1986, workers under the age of 21 were removed from the wages councils' responsibility. Wage rates for that group have fallen, but there has been no increase in the number employed. Nearly one in five young workers aged between 18 and 19 are registered as unemployed, which is double the rate among the rest of the population. Rather than helping young workers, removing them from the responsibility of the wages councils has led to their prospects deteriorating.
  That was effectively summed up in the study by Machin and Manning, which I am sure the Minister has read in full, as I have. They studied wages councils in the United Kingdom—the councils that the Government hope to abolish—and concluded that there is no evidence of an increase in employment as a result of a decline in the councils' effectiveness.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Am I not right in recalling that that study excluded part-time workers, who are the majority of people covered by wages councils?
  Mr. Galbraith: No, it did not exclude part-time workers, but I shall consider the Minister's question when I read the report again. The authors concluded that employment declined as a result of the decreasing effectiveness of wages councils, and added:
  "There is no evidence that the activities of wages councils have acted as a restraint on employment in Britain in the 1980s. If anything, it is easier to make the argument that minimum wages have been good for employment."

  235
  In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that wages councils reduce employment. Indeed, they have the opposite effect.
  All that was admitted by the Government. In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eltham, who asked what effect abolishing wages councils would have on employment, the Under-Secretary of State replied that the Government did not have such information. So the Government want to abolish wages councils even though they have no information on which to base their prejudices.
  On the other hand, there are strong arguments in favour of wages councils, and many have been stated in the debate. In particular, they prevent the good employer from being undercut by the bad. The abolition of wages councils means pay rates falling so as to compete. staff becoming transient and jobs being used merely as a step further along the ladder. So good employers cannot maintain their pay rates, cannot retain or train staff, and cannot provide a better service.
  The main argument in favour of wages councils is that of justice. My hon. Friends and I want not the abolition of wages councils but the abolition of the exploitation which will come from their abolition. With the abolition of wages councils, pay rates will fall, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. Indeed, that is the basis of the Government's argument, and they cannot run away from it. Their view is that wages will fall and employment will increase. That is the basis for a reduction in wages.
  As part of the low pay review in the autumn of 1989, a study showed that the abolition of wages councils covering those under 21 resulted in their wages suffering. It also showed that, if the qualifying age had remained at 18, nearly 20 per cent. of the licensed hotels surveyed would have been paying below the minimum. A job survey by the Greater Manchester low pay unit in July 1988 found that 70 per cent. of jobs with advertised rates of pay were offering rates less than those that would have been paid had they not been under the protection of wages councils.
  In a random analysis of cases referred to the Scottish low pay unit, the rates for those not covered by wages councils were absolutely atrocious. I will detail a few: hairdresser, £1·55 per hour; catering assistant, £1·80 per hour; security guard, £1·70; dental assistant, £1·95; clerical worker, £1·75; secretary, £1·67; car valeter, £1·67; care assistant, £1·75; and cleaner, £1·65. There was not one above £2 an hour.
  That is the situation that the Government want to impose on the workers of Britain. Do they really want wages at such a pathetically low level? How long are they prepared to let wages fall? How much are they preparing for the exploitation of the workers? What standards do they want to set?
  There are no reasons why wages councils should be abolished, and there is every reason to retain them. At the time of rocketing unemployment, with poverty increasing all round, the Government, with all their powers, pull themselves up to the grandeur of their office and all they can offer is a mouse—the abolition of wages councils—which is a response so pitiful, callous and inadequate that it is difficult to imagine it coming even from the present Government. Exploitation, poverty and injustice are clearly their vision for Britain.
  The Bill is mean in spirit, spiteful in intent and callous in effect. It will do nothing to improve either the lot of
  236
  employers or the economy of Britain. For all those reasons, we shall most certainly be pleased to vote against it in the Lobby tonight.
  9.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Listening to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I found myself wondering why, if he thinks that wages councils are such a good thing, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was so reluctant to tell the House that he would reinstate them after they were abolished by the House of Commons.
  The changes that we propose in the Bill are entirely consistent with our successful step-by-step approach of the past 13 years. They will ensure that we have a legislative framework in tune with the needs of a modern economy: a framework which will contribute to, rather than impede, the promotion of individual rights; a framework which will enable businesses to respond quickly to changes and opportunities in a competitive market; and which will therefore help in the creation of new jobs, as my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) said in their excellent speeches.
  The Government's policy is clear, consistent and credible. But what of the Opposition's policies?
  Mr. Graham: How will someone who is paid £3 an hour on a wages council scale be any better off if the wages are reduced to £2? Does that mean that for £1 an hour another person will be employed? Is that the logic of the Government's answer?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, that is not the logic of the Government's answer. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that two thirds of the people covered by the wages councils arc paid more than the minimum rate. I shall come to the point about wages councils later. The hon. Gentleman may well want to intervene again then.
  We have all grown used to the ritual commitments of Opposition spokesmen to repeal successive Acts of Parliament since 1979. Those Acts have helped to transform the climate of industrial relations in Britain, for example. by introducing secret ballots for union elections and before strikes; by the effective outlawing of most secondary picketing and secondary industrial action; and by ending the iniquities of the closed shop—the abuses which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) described so vividly.
  However, I thought that tonight the sobering experience of a fourth successive electoral defeat, together with the appointment of a new, although hardly fresh, Opposition spokesman, would herald a long overdue acceptance of the Government's industrial relations reforms. Where the Government have advanced through step-by-step reform, the Opposition, like Napoleon pulling back from Moscow. have been reduced to grudging step-by-step retreat—an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), in the light of all his experience of the Standing Committees which have considered employment Bills. I hope that his experience will be extended further by his participation in the Standing Committee which will consider the Bill, but that is a matter for others.
  The House will have seen what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and the Opposition have to

  237
  offer in response to the Government's clearly formulated and detailed proposals. First, they have made a thinly disguised commitment to hand back more power to the trade unions. Secondly, they have a crass commitment to the disastrous minimum wage policy which would destroy so many of the very jobs for which they want artificially to increase the pay. Thirdly, they unquestioningly accept the Maastricht social chapter, in a misguided attempt to bring in by the back door the failed socialist policies so decisively rejected by the Government and electorate.
  Labour's proposals are about as worthy of serious consideration as a Norwegian entry to the Eurovision song contest. But the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras deserves a prize for sheer brass neck in claiming that the Bill is irrelevant to the main employment issues that we face.
  What is irrelevant about measures to give employees new rights and protections at work, new rights for pregnant workers and new protections for those with health and safety responsibilities? How can the Opposition pretend that it is irrelevant to protect the democratic rights of individual trade union members?
  Mr. Burden: If the Government are so concerned about individual rights, why does not the Bill contain a clause to restore to employees who have been working less than two years the right to go to an industrial tribunal to claim unfair dismissal? Why can people be sacked unreasonably when their only crime is to have been employed for less than two years?
  Mr. Forsyth: I should be more inclined to take advice from the hon. Gentleman on that matter if he did not intend to go through the Lobbies tonight and vote against a Bill that extends employees' rights to go to industrial tribunals of the kind that he described.
  How can it be irrelevant to remove anti-competitive restrictions that hinder the creation of new jobs or to broaden the current straitjacket that regulates the management of the careers service? It cannot, and the Opposition know it.
  The hon. Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) and others showed clearly that the Opposition simply do not understand—or perhaps cannot bring themselves to recognise—that there is and always will be a very fundamental and direct relationship between economic competitiveness and jobs. Measures to improve competitiveness—for example, by reducing anti-competitive practices and removing artificial barriers in the labour market—will help to create a climate in which more, rather than fewer, new jobs will be created; and fewer, rather than more, existing jobs will be at risk.
  Opposition Members have presented some ingenious arguments for the retention of wages councils tonight. Their views now are somewhat different from those of the last Labour Government. When the Opposition were last in office, they abolished 11 wages councils. The last Labour Government freed more than half a million workers from wages council control.
  What has changed? I am puzzled. It is simple: when the Labour Government held power, they believed that they could dragoon people into joining the unions. Wages councils were seen as a threat to their recruitment plans
  238
  and collective bargaining, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker), who was a Minister at the time, confirmed earlier in the debate. The argument at the time was, why join a union if the councils set the rates?
  The trade unions have now changed their views in line with the new reality. As their membership and enthusiasm for trade unions has declined, the wages councils have become the last refuge. With the wages councils, the brothers could still negotiate the wages even if they no longer represented the workers.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give his own evaluation of those matters—he must have an opinion? What does he consider is a suitable minimum rate of pay for, say, a security guard who literally puts himself in the line of fire in the interests of society?
  Mr. Forsyth: Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman has chosen a poor example because security guards are not covered by wages councils. He makes my point for me. The position for the 10 per cent. of workers who are covered by wages councils should be the same as for the 90 per cent., which includes security guards, who are not covered. They should receive a wage that reflects the ability of the employer to pay in a competitive manner.
  What has been the Opposition's principled response? "Never mind the arguments or what we did in government", has been their response. The Labour dogs have continued to jump through the trade union hoops, as they always do.
  I am still not clear what the Opposition's new policy is. I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who so gallantly gave way to me. He refused to tell us what he would do in the unlikely event of his being in government. We know that the hon. Gentleman would introduce the job-destroying minimum wage, but would he bring it in and keep the wages councils? Would he maintain the councils' present powers or increase them? Would there be new councils to cover the 90 per cent. of workers forgotten by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)? Would there be more bureaucracy followed by more bureaucracy?
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should tell the House what the Opposition's policy is exactly—it is all rather vague. The hon. Gentleman refused to give an undertaking that a Labour Government would bring back wages councils. I shall happily give way so that he can give that undertaking to the House—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Forsyth: Where now the crusade on behalf of wages councils? The leader of that crusade will not even give a commitment to bring back the councils.
  Mr. Dobson: As the Minister should know, our crusade is not on behalf of any particular structure; it is about the people who are presently being paid less than £3 an hour and who the Government want to be paid even less. We believe that those people should and would benefit from the Labour party's proposal to introduce a national minimum wage at a rate far higher than they currently receive.
  Mr. Forsyth: I think that the hon. Gentleman was telling the House that he has no intention of bringing back wages councils. Why? Because he has listened to. the

  239
  arguments advanced by my hon. Friends today and has been persuaded. The structure in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should be interested is that of his own argument and campaign that has just collapsed around his ears.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was even more opaque about the Liberal party's intentions in respect of wages councils and a minimum wage. I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to tell us the Liberal party's position. Once again, we see an Opposition who oppose, but have no idea about how to make progress on the issue.
  I have the impression that Opposition Members have convinced themselves that wages councils are wholly concerned with combating poverty. The Opposition ignore improvements in living standards and the changes in the work force. They ignore the existence of targeted benefits and the fact that the majority of workers covered by councils are in two-income households.
  There are almost as many low-paid workers from the richest 10 per cent. of households in this country as from the poorest. The biggest cause of unemployment—[Interruption.] Wage fixing is a cause of unemployment, but the biggest cause of poverty in Britain is unemployment, and wages councils put more people on the dole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who was a distinguished predecessor in the Department of Employment, acknowledges that wages councils destroy jobs. He raised a number of other important issues, which I hope to have the opportunity of discussing with him in future.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the evidence from the United States—which does have a minimum wage law—which shows that every time the minimum wage is increased, there is an increase in the number of relatively low-skilled workers who lose their jobs? That has been happening since 1947 when the law was introduced in America, where it has been a disaster.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no point in giving people the right to a minimum wage if the price paid is to have no job.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I should like to make some progress first.
  The councils impose rigid and bureaucratic constraints on employers and workers. Every year the councils meet to set a new minimum rate. Every year there are percentage increases, sometimes well above the rate of inflation. Every percentage increase sets the going rate for wage increases over an entire industry. Every firm, large or small, whatever its position, comes under pressure to raise the pay of all employees, however much they earn. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) must recognsie that the firms have to do so without regard to the factors that matter: market conditions, productivity, performance and ability to pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) told the House, employers, trade unionists, academics, and City experts all accept that legal wage fixing destroys jobs—yet the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden doubts the existence of the evidence.
  240
  The Opposition leadership refuses to accept the large body of independent research which shows the link between pay and jobs. It refuses to accept what is obvious to every family in the country: the more things cost, the less people can afford; the higher the pay increase, the lower the number of jobs. In Labour's "Alice in Wonderland" world, if things cost twice as much, people can have twice as many.
  I am surprised that the Opposition's minimum wage is only two thirds of median men's earnings. If the minimum wage does not put jobs in jeopardy, why not pay everyone even more? Why not raise the minimum wage to average earnings? Why not increase it so that everyone is better off and no one suffers? This is the economics of the madhouse, and it is the economics of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. The need for wages councils has long since disappeared. It is time for them to go.
  It is also time individuals had the right to join the union of their choice. The Opposition, to their discredit, oppose that, claiming that it will jeopardise single union agreements.
  We have heard many fine words about single union agreements from Opposition Members, and from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in particular. They exhibit all the zeal of new converts. I have not forgotten how opposition to single union agreements by trade unions robbed Dundee and the north-east of Scotland, where I was brought up, of 1,000 jobs and £40 million worth of investment, as Ford was sent scurrying to Spain. Then, in the same year, the Electrical, Electronics, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union was drummed out of the TUC because it had signed single union agreements. For the TUC to defend Bridlington while extolling the merits of single union deals is breathtaking hypocrisy.
  The provision in the Bill is concerned solely with trade union membership rights. It will mean that a person who wishes to join a trade union can no longer be told—by the TUC, by union leaders, by an employer, or by anyone else —which union he or she must join.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister explain something that the Secretary of State refused to explain? There is a single union agreement at Nissan in Sunderland. If a person who is a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union decides to leave that union and to join, say, the TGWU, will he have the right to be represented in negotiations by the TGWU with Nissan management?
  Mr. Forsyth: That sort of proposal was included in Labour's 1975 legislation, which was abandoned and which was not even supported by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service because it proved unworkable. Employers will remain free as they are now to decide which, if any, trade union they want to recognise. That is an entirely separate matter from the right of individuals to join a trade union of their choice.
  Contrary to claims by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, there is no question of our seeking to outlaw the so-called check-off arrangements, as they are outlawed in socialist France. That is neither the intention nor the effect of our proposals—
  Mr. Michael Stern: Why not?
  Mr. Forsyth: Because we are reasonable. Employers and trade unions will still be able to enter into an

  241
  agreement to operate the check-off, but they will no longer be able to force a trade union member to accept such an arrangement against his wishes. As with other measures in the Bill, the Government on this occasion are on the side of the trade union member. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said in a splendid contribution, no one should have to suffer check-off deductions unless he has given his clear written authority in advance.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the Department know of any examples of union deductions being checked off people's wages when those people have not given their consent? If it does, why were those examples not included in the answer I was given by one of the hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues?
  Mr. Forsyth: A convener from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians was reported in The Sunday Times last year to have said:
  "a member known to me thought he had been paying his contributions for two and a half years and subsequently found he was not a member … now he asks where the money has gone … is he alone?"
  Is he indeed? The hon. Gentleman should know.
  We no longer live in a world dominated by the collective; a world where labour is treated as a homogenous block—
  Mr. Dobson: Is it true that the company that stopped the money itself gives money to the Tory party?
  Mr. Forsyth: What an astonishing question. The hon. Gentleman made it clear early in the debate that he does not understand the position in respect of individual consent for deductions of subscriptions. He asks me for an example of abuse and he comes back with a comment like that. It shows where the hon. Gentleman's loyalties truly lie.
  The Bill is about creating new rights and freedoms; rights and freedoms which recognise the responsibilities of employers to their employees, of trade unions to their members, and of those who provide goods and services to the community at large. It champions the individual, whether as an employee, a trade union member or a consumer. In doing so, it provides protection against the unscrupulous employer and against the undemocratic or improper actions of trade unions or their leaders.
  The debate has demonstrated in stark terms one of the fundamental differences between the Government's policies and those of the Opposition. The provisions in the Bill reinforce the Government's commitment to an employment market and an industrial relations climate based on the principles of flexibility, freedom and fairness —flexibility to meet changing business needs and the aspirations and circumstances of individual employees; freedom from unwarranted Government regulation and from manipulation by anti-competitive trade union practices; and fairness which derives from an effective package of individual employment rights.
  In opposing the Bill the Opposition reveal their true colours. Their job-destroying national minimum wage and social chapter, which they espouse in the name of fairness, would hit hardest those for whom they sanctimoniously protest their support.
  242
  Worst of all, the Opposition have shown themselves to be the party which puts the interests of collective organisation above those of individual rights and freedom. In opposing the Bill's proposals for further reform of trade union legislation—reforms which respond to clear evidence of shortcomings in the existing law—the Opposition are confirming their established role as the mouthpiece of the trade union movement.
  Do the Opposition really want to deny employees the right not to be victimised on health and safety grounds? Do they want to deny pregnant workers protection against dismissal? Do they want to prevent people receiving a proper statement of their terms and conditions of employment?
  None of those new rights will come into law without the Bill. Will the Opposition vote tonight to deny trade union members the new democratic rights and protections included in the Bill? Do they still want to be seen as the party which denies individual trade union members proper statutory protection against mismanagement or abuse in their union's affairs?
  Are the Opposition happy to see those who misuse members' subscriptions go unpunished? Do they want to prevent union members from knowing how much their leaders are paid? Do they condone elections where mythical Mickey Mouse and dubious Donald Duck can cast their votes again alongside real union members?
  Will the Opposition vote to deny individual citizens protection against disruption and hardship which will come through the new citizen's right and the requirement for unions to give at least seven days' notice of strike calls? Or are the Opposition, as so often in the past, still to be cast in the role of the striker's friend?
  The Opposition are singing from the old-fashioned song book of the trade union barons on whose patronage and support they still depend. But they are out of tune not only with the needs of the British economy and labour market of the 1990s, but with the aspirations and expectations of millions of individuals, including many trade union members—trade union members who, as the results at successive general elections have shown, continue to ignore the advice of their leaders by voting for the Government and supporting our reforms in this area. In their name I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 277.

  Division No. 88]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bates, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ancram, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Booth, Hartley

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  243

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  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)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  244

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Milligan, Stephen

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spring, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Stephen, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sykes, John

  Norris, Steve

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Pickles, Eric

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Richards, Rod

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Riddick, Graham

  Waller, Gary

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Whittingdale, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Willetts, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Soames, Nicholas

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blair, Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Beggs, Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  245

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, John

  Keen, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leighton, Ron

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Enright, Derek

  Litherland, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fatchett, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAllion, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McCartney, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  McFall, John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fraser, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  McWilliam, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maxton, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hall, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hardy, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  246

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Snape, Peter

  Olner, William

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spellar, John

  Parry, Robert

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trimble, David

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis

  Randall, Stuart

  Tyler, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Reid, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wallace, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walley, Joan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wilson, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion relating to Car Tax (Abolition) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Davis.]

  TRADE UNION REFORM AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in securing the provision of careers services,

  (b) any sum payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action, and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. David Davis.]

  10.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellsemere Port and Neston): The section on "Financial effects of the Bill" says:
  "The Bill is estimated to give rise to an overall net saving to public funds."
  I question that judgment on a number of headings.

  247
  The Bill continues:
  "The net cost to public funds arising from the provisions of the Bill which create new or extended grounds of complaints to industrial tribunals is estimated to be some £1·5 million in a full year."
  I shall seek to show that those costs are indeterminate, and substantially higher than the estimated figures. In a period of alleged constraint on public expenditure, such an increase does not seem wise.
  Clause 14 provides for independent scrutineers for balloting arrangements. Why do the Government not recognise that the scrutineers could enable people to be balloted in the workplace, thus saving substantial amounts of effort and time on the part of the scrutineers?
  Clause 22 deals with the transfer of undertakings. The regulations will not create a high cost to the Exchequer, but if the Government are so keen to protect pension funds, why are pension funds excluded from the clause? Reference has been made this evening to Maxwell. Are the Government really taking the issue seriously, or are they protecting the interest of a few Lords who are in the business of buying and selling companies?
  Schedule 4 deals with the rights of representation in disciplinary cases. Again, there is no reference to the rights of the individual. We have heard time and again today about the rights of the individual. The failure to incorporate the right of the individual to representation or clearly to specify that right in the Bill will increase the legal costs to the Exchequer from industrial tribunals, from the employment appeals tribunal, and from higher courts.
  Extensive references have been made to an alleged £3 million to be saved from the abolition of the wages councils. We have had a long and impassioned debate today about that proposal. There may be savings of £3 million, but what will be the cost to the lowest paid? Has the Chancellor made the obvious calculation about the net effect of that abolition on social security payments? I should welcome a response from Ministers about the projections on such payments.
  The functions of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have been narrowed by the Bill. That is an interesting point. Narrowing the functions of ACAS may achieve some financial savings, but it contradicts what was said in the Government's official brief. Once again, fact stands in the way of dogma. The Government simply fail to understand a modern economy.
  Clauses 29 and 30 narrow the scope and powers of tribunals. Chairmen will be given the right to sit on their own when working people who seek confidence in tribunals want their rights to be represented properly by a fully fledged tribunal. To cut the resources available to that service will be damaging in the extreme to the process of industrial relations. As a result of the change, more cases will go to the employment appeals tribunal and higher courts, and higher costs will therefore be involved.
  The Bill is a reflection of the Government's failure, yet again, to understand. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, the Bill attacks the structures of unions to the disadvantage of individuals, and it does so at indeterminate cost to the taxpayer.
  The Bill could have afforded increased protection to individuals against unscrupulous employers and in the interests of industrial relations. It failed to do that. It could have promoted change that would have enhanced our
  248
  competitiveness. It failed to do that. The mood of the House is clear: these matters will be dealt with in detail in Committee.
  I take very seriously a financial point which has been made a number of times in a lighthearted manner. It is time that we had payment by results around here—including payment by results for Ministers. I am glad to see that they are not to take a pay rise this year—indeed, it is time for a pay cut. That would introduce TQM—total quality management—in style on the Government Front Bench.
  10.22 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having listened to much of our proceedings today, I regard the Bill as a thoroughly sound measure. I am therefore happy to support the money resolution. The opinion of the House as a whole was also manifestly in favour of the Bill, as the result of the Division reflected a majority far greater than the Government's actual majority.
  My constituents are economical by nature, as am I. The fact remains, however, that they do not begrudge expenditure on worthy causes. Who can describe it as other than worthy to secure the provision of careers services, as the money resolution requests? Which Conservative Member—and which of the saner members of the public—would begrudge money spent on protection against unlawful industrial action? We should have had that years ago. I am happy to support the money resolution.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to discover that, rather than money resolutions going through on the nod, we are now to have genuine debates on them. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, a number of whom wish to speak, and to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman). I hope that my information that this is the latest that the hon. Lady has been in the Chamber for more than 10 years is not true, and that she will be here regularly in future.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to make a manifestly untrue statement? I am frequently in the House at 6 am; I am frequently here until late.
  Mr. Cryer: I said that I hoped that it was not true. I hope that the hon. Lady will be here to take part in debates on money resolutions again and again. I welcome the fact that she is here. I find it extraordinary that she should take exception to my defence of her attendance record.
  Why do we need a money resolution when, according to the Bill, it is estimated that it will give rise to an overall net saving in public funds? Paragraph (a) of the money resolution provides for the authorisation of
  "any expenditure of the Secretary of State in securing the provision of careers services".
  Yet the explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "There will be no overall change in the forecast level of central government expenditure funding for careers services by reason of the new arrangement which may be established by virtue of clause 33."
  Why, therefore, is there a need for paragraph (a)?
  Paragraph (b) refers to

  249
  "any sum payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action".
  According to the financial memorandum in the Bill, that amounts to £300,000. I shall come to that in a moment.
  Paragraph (c) refers to
  "any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act."
  The financial memorandum makes clear that there will be expenditure of £600,000 by the Department of Employment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
  According to the Minister, the cost of the extension of the work of industrial tribunals is estimated at £1·5 million in a full year. The additional costs for the certification officer and the new commissioner will be £300,000. Together with the £600,000 for the increase in the careers services, the total expenditure is estimated at £2·4 million, but the income claimed in the financial memorandum is £2·8 million through the wretched, nasty, vicious abolition of wages councils. The Minister is giggling about it all, but that gives a net income to the Department of £400,000. Why, therefore, do the Government need a money resolution? The reason is that the Government have allowed for large increases over and above the estimates in the paragraphs dealing with the financial effects of the Bill.
  The £300,000 allocated for the new investigatory functions of the certification officer and the activities of the new commissioner is a paltry sum. A function of the certification officer will be to investigate financial malpractices in trade unions, of which there is very little evidence. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the sum is small because the Government do not expect to find any financial malpractice. When the Government were considering that function, why did they not apply the same criteria to the City, and particularly to Lloyd's insurance market? There is no legislation before us which offers to trawl over the board rooms and the accounts of the big businesses which back the Tory party. Instead, the Government are spending taxpayers' money in an area where there is very little evidence of financial malpractice.
  In addition, the new commissioner is to be covered by the self-same £300,000. He will decide whether High Court or Court of Session actions will be financed. On that basis, I should have thought that £300,000 was a very small sum. The one closed shop that the Government do not oppose is the lawyers' closed shop. The Minister knows full well that that closed shop can run away with hundreds of thousands of pounds in a matter of days. The complicated libel actions and breach of contract actions which take place in our courts can result in costs of £100,000 and £200,000. The Bill specifically requires the new commissioner to deal with cases where, because of their complexity, an individual cannot take them any further. Therefore, I wonder whether £300,000 is adequate since the Government will use taxpayers' money to bolster up complaints about trade unions and send them into the courts. At the same time, the Government are going to cut legal aid when people seek redress in the courts for ordinary purposes, including criminal actions. That reveals a scandalous set of double standards.
  The paragraphs relating to the financial effects of the Bill refer to a figure of £ 1·5 million in respect of complaints to industrial tribunals. Those complaints are being enlarged to include challenges to terms of collective
  250
  agreements, breaches of contracts of employment, sex discrimination cases, suspension disputes over maternity leave and remuneration, and employment protection in health and safety at work cases. Opposition Members support the view that we should protect people who raise health and safety issues at work, but that is a very minor part of a generally very bad Bill. Will the £1·5 million referred to in the Bill and the power in the money resolution be sufficient?
  My next point relates to the savings claimed from the abolition of the wages councils which protect the lowest paid people in the country. The Minister cannot justify their abolition by claiming that it will create more jobs. When the Minister was asked a parliamentary question about that, he was unable to quantify the number of jobs that would be saved as a result of the abolition of wages councils.
  The Government claim that they will save £2·8 million. Is that figure accurate? If it is accurate, the Government do not need the money resolution. The Minister has replied to questions about the costs of the wages councils and the Government claim that their abolition will save £2·8 million. However, there were only 55 wages inspectors in post on 2 November—down nearly 20 on the correct number. Is the Government's calculation of the savings based on the wages councils in full operation or on actual expenditure?
  The Minister has also said that one third of wages council employees are paid at, or just above, minimum rates, so they receive relatively low pay. As there were only 55 wages inspectors, and presumably only a small support staff, does that add up to £2·8 million? If it does, the Minister must explain how he reaches that figure. If the figures add up to £2·8 million, the Government do not need the money resolution.
  There was a shabby parade of Tory Members through the Lobby to attack the lowest paid by abolishing the wages councils when most of those Tory Members are moonlighting and have six, eight or 10 other jobs which pay more than their parliamentary salaries. That is an absolute and utter disgrace.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: I wish to raise two points in relation to the money resolution. Both relate to legal aid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has already referred to legal aid, but Ministers have not referred to the availability of legal aid to cover the new extended jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. I am sure that I do not have to remind the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues that legal aid attaches to breach of contract actions brought in the county courts and in the High Court.
  The Government propose today to extend the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to include those breach of contract actions, and I fully support that. It makes much sense for the industrial tribunals to have that new jurisdiction, but will the £1·5 million referred to in the Bill cover the provision of legal aid in breach of contract actions which will now be brought before industrial tribunals? That is a very important point.
  If the Government are saying that legal aid will not apply to new breach of contract actions brought before the industrial tribunals, we are witnessing yet another cut in

  251
  the legal aid budget, which is under severe pressure. We know that the Lord Chancellor is trying to reduce the volume of legal aid. If legal aid will not apply, members of the public and of the House will be interested to hear what the Government's true intentions are. That is an important issue. Legal aid should be available for such actions. It is available in the county court and the High Court, and it should be available once such actions are brought before industrial tribunals.
  Secondly, the Government propose to spend at least £300,000 of taxpayers' money to support the activities of the so-called commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action. My view, and that of many of my hon. Friends, is that the commissioner is for the provision of
  252
  vexatious litigation. Given the financial circumstances facing the Government—excessive borrowing, the public sector borrowing requirement, and so on—and the financial constraints on the legal aid budget, I wonder whether it is appropriate for them to propose to spend money which could be better spent on legal aid elsewhere, such as on civil legal aid, which is under severe pressure, on promoting silly claims which will cost taxpayers money that they can ill afford to lose.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, especially to my questions about legal aid and breach of contract actions, which is an important issue of practice and principle. I know that many people who are concerned with that field will be interested in his response.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I join my hon. Friends to question some of the financial estimates that the Government have produced in relation to the Bill.
  The part of the Bill which has been least discussed today is the provision on the careers service. In the section entitled, "Financial effects of the Bill", it states:
  "There will be no overall change in the forecast level of central government expenditure funding for careers services by reason of the new arrangements which may be established by virtue of clause 33. In fully implementing the legislation, a small increase in resources (£0·6 million) will be required by the Department of Employment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices."
  I do not think that we should be confused about the new arrangements for the careers service. When one reads the Bill, it is clear that we are talking about privatisation.
  This seems to be the night for hon. Members to declare their interests, so I shall declare mine. Before I came to this place, I worked as a trade unionist in the public services and the public sector. Sadly, I endured a range of privatisation experiments and I have yet to come across one which has not cost the Exchequer far more than it has saved, whether in monitoring arrangements put out to contract, or in wholesale privatisation. Nothing said by Ministers tonight dissuades me from the belief that the privatisation of the careers service, as envisaged by the Government in the Bill, will cost the Exchequer more than the £0·6 million estimated.
  The provisions relating to the rights of pregnant women at work seem to have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Government's financial estimate of their cost seems to have gone astray. We know that when the issue was discussed in Brussels, the British Government moved heaven and earth to water down the directive. Having succeeded in doing so, they could not even bring themselves to vote for it in the Council of Ministers. They went all the way to Brussels just to abstain. As we are discussing money, I wonder whether it was worth the air fare to go to Brussels to abstain on a directive that they had watered down more than it needed to be.
  That directive was passed and, as a result, women in Britain and elsewhere will be entitled to paid maternity leave, irrespective of service. Or will they? This is where the financial implications come in. They will probably not be, because the proposed abolition of wages councils will inevitably take many women employees below the lower earnings limit of £54. More than 20 per cent. of working women—76,600 women—already receive pay of less than that figure. The abolition of wages councils will inevitably increase that figure, and the result of that will either be to reduce income to the Exchequer or mean more women turning to the social security system to make up their income. That, in turn, begins to undermine the estimated £2·8 million saving from abolishing wages councils.
  Although working women will suffer in the main, many others will be affected. In my region of the midlands, it is estimated that about 270,000 employees will be affected by the abolition of wages councils. That represents about one in every 10 households. In other words, the crazy part of what the Government propose is that by attacking the pay of the already low paid, the recession will be prolonged and income to the Exchequer will be reduced. A pay cut of
  254
  just 20p per hour in wages council industries means £10 million per week being removed from the purchasing power of the low paid, and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the subject. Indeed, he is making a Second Reading speech. He must speak to the money resolution.
  Mr. Burden: I apologise for digressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In their estimates of the cost of the Bill, the Government have been highly selective in what they have chosen to include and exclude. We were told last week, when discussing the Department of Social Security's budget, that benefits would be index linked. I question the willingness of the Government to do that if, as a result of the effects of this measure, with the abolition of wages councils, the income—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member really must address his remarks to the money resolution.
  Mr. Burden: My remarks are linked to the resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the provision to which I referred at the outset deals specifically with the consequential effects of the Bill on the budgets of other Departments. That is the point that I was about to make.
  I shall not delay the House any longer, however, save to say that when the balance sheet is finally worked out it will show that the Bill has cost the Government money and has cost the low paid both money and rights. When, in due course, my hon. Friends and I show that to have happened, I hope that Conservative Members will have the honesty and dignity to accept that we were right and that they were wrong.
  10.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): We have had an interesting debate on the money resolution, although it was perhaps somewhat unusual bearing in mind the way in which the hon. Member for Bradford, North chose to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), saying that somehow—
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister might get my constituency right.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has represented nearly everywhere, so from the point of getting his constituency right—
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that it is important for hon. Members to get the names of constituencies right, thus enabling the Official Report to identify the Members in question? The fact that the Minister is here so rarely does not excuse him from giving the correct constituencies.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While that is not a point of order for the Chair, it is helpful if hon. Members get the names of constituencies right.
  Mr. McLoughlin: That is a very wise ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that we have a problem in that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has represented many constituencies both here

  255
  and in the European Parliament. To say that Members of Parliament should not moonlight when for two years the hon. Gentleman was doing two jobs—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am at a loss to understand what that has to do with the money resolution.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am, of course, guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was making the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.
  The resolution provides authority for the provision, out of money provided by Parliament, of any public expenditure that may arise as a result of clause 33, which deals with the provisions for the careers service, clause 19, which makes provision for the new commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action, and to grant assistance to individuals contemplating or taking proceedings against trade unions under the new right established by that clause, and for any additional public expenditure which may arise as a result of the other clauses in the Bill. That includes the expenditure arising from clause 8, which provides new investigatory powers for the certification officer and for the various clauses in parts I and II of the Bill which will extend and create new grounds for complaints to industrial tribunals.
  It may be helpful if I explain that clause 33 of the Bill provides for the management of the careers service to be opened up so that it can be run in a variety of ways and be more responsive to the demands of local economic and education communities. It achieves that by placing a duty on the relevant Secretaries of State to ensure that careers advice is provided throughout Great Britain. That would be a tremendous advance for the careers service and not a diminution of it, as Opposition Members suggest. It is not our intention to diminish the careers service. Our intention is to secure more widespread availability of careers advice to the public in general.
  The new provisions which may be established as a result of clause 33 will not lead to any overall change in the
  256
  forecast level of central Government funding of the careers service. However, a small increase in resources—an estimated £600,000—is needed to cover the administration costs of my Department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices in implementing the legislation.
  Clause 19 will enable an individual citizen deprived of goods and services because of unlawful organisation of industrial action to go to court to stop that happening. The citizen will also be able to apply for material assistance for the court proceedings. There will also be a new independent commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action—something which the Opposition will undoubtedly oppose, as we have seen today. We believe in increasing, not diminishing, the rights of individuals.
  Several of the clauses in parts I and II of the Bill create new and enhanced individual rights, the enforcement of which will be effected by providing extended grounds for complaints to industrial tribunals. Following any such application to an industrial tribunal, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will offer its conciliation services to both parties. The principal additional costs which will arise from those proposals will be those of the industrial tribunals in dealing with complaints under the new rights, and the corresponding increase in the workload of ACAS.
  It is believed that, overall, the Bill will bring savings, as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. I commend the resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in securing the provision of careers services,

  (b) any sum payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action, and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

Ways and Means
  CAR TAX
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  CAR TAX
    Car tax (abolition)
    That the following provisions shall have effect—

    Abolition: the basic rule
    1. In section 1 of the Car Tax Act 1983 (charge to tax) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
    "(2A) Where (apart from this subsection) car tax on a vehicle would become due on or after 13th November 1992, it shall not become due and shall be deemed never to have been charged."

    Consequential amendments
    2.—(1) The Car Tax Act 1983 shall also be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 4 (registration of makers and importers) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
    "(1A) Subsection (1) above—

    (a) shall not make a person liable to be registered by reference to anything done in a calendar year falling after 1992;

    (b) shall not make a person liable to be registered by reference to vehicles made or imported in 1992, unless he makes or imports not less than ten chargeable vehicles before 13th November 1992."

    (3) In that section the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
    "(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, the Commissioners shall cancel the registration of any person when they arc satisfied that all tax due from him has been accounted for."
    (4) In section 6 (converted and adapted vehicles) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
    "(7) No direction may be given under subsection (4) above on or after 13th November 1992 except in relation to vehicles whose conversion or adaptation was completed before that date.
    (8) Where a person is registered in pursuance of subsection (5) above, the Commissioners shall cancel his registration when they are satisfied that all tax due from him has been accounted for."
    (5) In Schedule 1 (administration and collection) in paragraph 5 (records, accounts and returns) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (I)—
    "(1A) The duties under sub-paragraph (I) above, except so far as arising by virtue of section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1989 (certificates), shall he limited as follows—

    (a) the duty under paragraph (a) shall apply only to records and accounts relating to tax which has become due and vehicles on which tax has become due;

    (b) the duty under paragraph (b) shall apply only to records and accounts relating to vehicles on which tax has become due;

    (c) the duty under paragraph (c), so far as relating to returns of vehicles, shall apply only to returns of vehicles on which tax has become due."

    (6) In paragraph 5(2) of that Schedule after "tax" there shall be inserted "due".
    (7) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule (information) the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after subparagraph (2)—
    "(3) The duties under sub-paragraph (1) above shall apply only to information and documents relating to vehicles on which tax has become due.
    (4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply where the conversion is completed on or after 13th November 1992."
    (8) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (entry and search) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after subparagraph (2)—
    258
    "(2A) The powers under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall be exercisable only for the purpose of ascertaining whether tax is due and, if so, the amount of the tax."
    (9) In paragraph 8(3)(b) of that Schedule (offences) after "tax" there shall be inserted "payable".
    (10) In paragraph 12 of that Scheudle (regulations) the following shall be inserted at the end—
    "Any duty imposed by regulations under paragraph (c) or (d) above shall apply only where the vehicles are vehicles on which tax has become due."
    (11) Paragraph 13 of that Schedule (protection of car tax through vehicles excise system) shall be omitted.

    Special cases
    3. The Car Tax Act 1983 shall also be amended by inserting the following section after section 7—

    Abolition: special cases
    7A.—(1) This section applies where (apart from this section) car tax on a vehicle would have become due before 13th November 1992.
    (2) In a case where—

    (a) the tax would have become due at a time mentioned in section 5(2)(b) above, and

    (b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are satisfied,

    the tax shall be deemed not to have become due and never to have been charged.
    (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) above are that—

    (a) the tax would have become due because an offer to sell the vehicle was made by the person to whom it was delivered as mentioned in section 5(2)(b) above and was accepted, or because an offer to purchase the vehicle was made to that person and was accepted,

    (b) at the end of 12th November 1992 no sales invoice had been issued in respect of the vehicle by that person,

    (c) at the end of that day that person had not received the full purchase price of the vehicle, and

    (d) at the end of that day the purchaser had not taken delivery of the vehicle.

    (4) Where the tax would have become due at the time mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 5(2) above but at the end of 12th November 1992 the vehicle—

    (a) was still in the possession of the person to whom it was sent from the premises mentioned in that paragraph, and

    (b) had not been sold by that person or appropriated to his own use,

    the tax shall be deemed not to have become due and never to have been charged.
    (5) In a case where—

    (a) subsection (4) of section 5 above would have applied in relation to the tax or (as the case may be) the tax would have become due at the time mentioned in subsection (6) of that section, and

    (b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (6) below are satisfied,

    the tax shall be deemed not to have become due and never to have been charged.
    (6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) above are that—

    (a) the vehicle was made or imported by an unregistered person for the purposes of a business carried on by him,

    (b) at the end of 12th November 1992 the vehicle was still in the possession of the unregistered person or was in the possession of a motor dealer who obtained it directly from him, and

    (c) at the end of that day the vehicle had not been sold by, or appropriated to the use of, the unregistered person or the dealer;

    and in this subsection 'unregistered person' means a person not registered under this Act."

    Cancellation of prospective amendments
    4. In the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, section 18, Schedule 4 and Part VI of Schedule 18 (which make prospective amendments of the Car Tax Act 1983) shall be deemed never to have been enacted.
    Commencement
    5. This Resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on 13th November 1992.

    Provisional statutory effect
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir John Cope.]
    10.48 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: As this is a ways and means resolution, will the Minister say whether the ways and means are to be found by increasing motoring taxes in next year's Budget? There has been much suggestion in the press that the abolition of car tax, which may prove helpful to some car manufacturers and retailers, will be clawed back by an increase in motoring taxes. Those stories were not denied, or may have been fairly official, although at this stage the Treasury does not specify what it might do.
    Clearly, by choosing that instrument, the Government have forgone the opportunity to use car tax as an environmental policy instrument by putting a higher rate of car tax on heavy fuel-using vehicles and none on low fuel-using vehicles. It would be useful to know whether, having chosen that instrument, they are saying that there will ultimately be no net cost, or only the cost arising between now and next April, because they intend to claw back the whole lot through an increase in motoring tax later.
    10.50 pm
    Mr. Iain Mills: When my right hon. Friend the Minister concludes the case for the ways and means resolution, will he reflect on the need very quickly to bring the company car tax consultation document to the House and to finalise it before too long? That is part of the excise duty argument. Will he do it as quickly as he can, please?
    10.51 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: First, I welcome the motion and the Government's partial conversion to a point of view which the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, trade unions in the industry and Members of Parliament representing car manufacturing constituencies have been advocating for some time.
    I hope that I can claim some credit for the fact that the tax is being abolished. I called on the Government to act on it, both in questions to the Leader of the House on 19 July last year and in an Adjournment debate four days later. On 12 November last year, I asked the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions to back the British car industry by reducing the absurdly high levels of sales tax on new cars, then running at 27·3 per cent.
    Abolition will also get rid of the anomaly of double taxation, which is always resented, whereby value added tax has been levied on the car tax. Its abolition is all the more welcome for that.
    As with some of the other measures in the autumn statement, the complaint from Labour Members is not that some of our proposals are being purloined by the Government—the more they do what Labour says, the happier we shall be and the better off Britain will be—but
    260
    that they have taken too long to acknowledge that we were right, they are half-hearted about it and they are not adopting our whole programme for recovery, which is what the economy really needs.
    So it is with the car industry. Although we welcome the measure and the extra car sales to which it will give rise, no one can claim that it will in itself be sufficient to produce the scale of recovery that motor manufacturing desperately needs. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out to me, if second-hand car dealers cut their trade-in prices because of the knock-on effect of cheaper new cars, as they might, there will not be the £400 stimulus per car which the autumn statement assumes.
    Two other important points need to be made on this resolution: first, the sheer scale of the lack of consumer confidence, which has been locking the industry into recession; and secondly, the likely impact of the additional taxation on motorists, which the Chancellor warned that he is to impose in next year's Budget.
    As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said to me in a letter on the abolition of the special car tax:
    "Consumer confidence remains very shaky due to high levels of unemployment and personal debt; fear of unemployment; and negative equity in the housing market. It must be remembered that whilst a reduction in interest rates is welcome, car dealers have been offering interest-free finance on many models, and reductions in interest rates matter only in that they add to individuals' personal sense of well-being, rather than enabling them to buy cars at a cheaper price."
    Mr. Mills: Did not that communication also mention the increased number of cars that would be sold—60,000 in 1992–93?
    Mr. Smith: Indeed—I am coming to that. The forecast was for 60,000 in the current year and for 70,000 when the full year's effect of total abolition is taken on board.
    But that must be set in the context of the sheer depth of the recession in the demand for cars. Compared with new registrations, which reached well over 2 million a year between 1987 and 1990, there were just 1·59 million last year, and the latest projection for this year is, at best, 1·56 million. So, even if the abolition of car tax were to result in an increase in sales by as much as 70,000, sales would still be some 670,000, or 29 per cent., below their 1989 level. That is a measure of the depth of the recession into which the Government's incompetence has plunged us. It also shows us how puny the measures contained in the autumn statement are by comparison.
    Mr. Roy Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that car sales increased by more than 25 per cent. in the year up to this October, and that exports are up by well over a third, so the car industry is achieving much more than it did 12 months ago? Will he not acknowledge those facts?
    Mr. Smith: I very much welcome the improvement in car production and sales to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but set against the scale of the overall depression in demand for cars, and compared with the levels of sales and production in the late 1980s, the figures provide scant comfort for those who work in the industry. I commend the truly heroic performance of the car industry and its work force in terms of the quality and competitiveness of new models, and the impressive productivity gains.
    Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the fact that, helpful as the measure to abolish car tax is, above all the

    261
    industry needs a massive boost to consumer confidence. That will not be created as long as unemployment is set to continue rising, as the Chancellor concedes that it will. It will not happen while people are fearful for their jobs and worried about their accumulated debt.
    It will not happen for the 5 million workers in the public sector who now face the Government's 1·5 per cent. incomes policy. They will not rush out to buy new cars, and neither will the 2·5 million workers covered by the wages councils that the Government have tonight so disgracefully resolved to abolish. All those factors will leave the domestic production of cars struggling to sustain the small 1·8 per cent. increase on last year that it is presently registering.
    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) mentioned exports. Welcome as any increase in sales is—exports are critical to the industry—the measure will not of itself help exports. It would be wrong for the Government to place too much reliance on devaluation as a means of boosting sales and output. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said in its briefing on 9 November, after devaluation:
    "Despite impressive production figures in the face of the recession there are signs of growing difficulties in export markets, especially within the European Community. If this trend continues motor companies have warned that production schedules could be revised."
    In its summary of the main issues that the motor industry is pressing on Government, the society states:
    "Inflation is still feared, the pound is regarded as unstable at its present level (which is much too low—the industry was competitive at DM2·90 to the pound) and there is great concern lest the industry again be subjected to taxation to help the government fund the PSBR. A two-speed Europe would speedily negate the purpose of the foreign investment so that new capacity would replace rather than add to existing capacity."
    The lesson to be drawn from that is that it would benefit the car industry far more were the Government to get their act together on Europe and use the wasted British presidency to place at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit the concerted European programme for economic recovery for which Labour has called.
    Mr. Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the efforts of the socialist group in the European Parliament, particularly the work done by Carole Tongue MEP, in producing a report for precisely the sort of European strategy for the motor industry that my hon. Friend mentioned? Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than adopting the sort of hands-off approach presently adopted by the Government, it would be better if they joined in the sort of initiatives taking place in Europe to ensure that the car industry has a stable and secure future? That applies not only to the big manufacturers, but to the many hundreds of car component firms in the midlands and elsewhere that need such a strategy.
    Mr. Smith: I join my hon. Friend in commending our colleagues in Europe who, like us, have been pressing for this concerted programme for recovery. The car industry is a pan-European industry, so what happens in Europe is crucial to the prospects for exports and for the sale of British cars. However much importance the Government attach to measures to stimulate the economy, they are bound to run into balance of payments difficulties if the
    262
    expansion does not also take place in other member states of the Community. We need to expand together. That is why the Government must put at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit measures for recovery, to lift the fear of unemployment and jointly to stimulate investment. I understand that the President of the Commission wanted the Prime Minister to put those items on the Birmingham summit agenda, but the latter refused to do so.
    Mr. Phil Gallie: Given all that he has said about the need for Europewide expansion, why did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues go through the Lobbies en masse against Maastricht?
    Mr. Smith: Because—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Both hon. Members have now gone very wide of the ways and means resolution.
    Mr. Smith: We were registering a vote of no confidence in the Government, as Conservative Members know full well.
    I must heed your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and return to the subject of the debate. The House needs to know from the Government exactly why and how they propose to recoup from motorists the £750 million which it is estimated the abolition of the special car tax will cost. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said:
    "any action in this area will have to be paid for in my next Budget by higher motoring taxes after 1992–93."—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 998.]
    I trust that the Paymaster General will tell us why this money is being clawed back from motorists. A great part of the case against the special car tax was that it was unfair to have a levy that was not similarly levied on other goods. If the Government accept that logic, how do they justify proposing to clobber car purchasers again to compensate for the removal of the tax? Will that not amount to a transfer of the tax burden from purchasers of new cars to motorists in general? So motorists who cannot afford to buy a new car will have to pay the tax instead of those who can afford to.
    Why, on Government figures, is there a possibility that total taxation on motorists will rise? Is the £750 million which appears to be the gross cost of abolishing the tax the actual amount that the Government intend to claw back? If so, why do not they make allowance for the extra VAT which will be generated by the increased sales of new cars arising from the abolition of the special car tax? If the full-year effect of the abolition increased new car sales, including imports, by 70,000, at an average price of £10,000, the additional VAT revenues generated would amount to about £122 million; so even if the cost of abolition is to be recouped in the way the Chancellor proposes, should not the amount be £628 million, not £750 million?
    What is more, even if this amount is clawed back, is it not wrong to refer to it as some new fiscal stimulus—except for the few remaining months of this financial year? Typically, the Chancellor claimed a great many benefits for his autumn statement, but on examination those benefits fade away even more quickly than his hallucinogenic green shoots of the pre-election spring.
    We welcome the measure abolishing the special car tax, which was a Tory tax in the first place, but we want answers to the questions that I have posed, and we warn that this measure will not be enough to provide the uplift

    263
    in confidence that the car industry and the wider economy so desperately need. A full programme for economic recovery is needed for that —and that, sadly, is not on offer from the Government.
    11.5 pm
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Briefly, and in contrast to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), with his sour and rather grudging welcome, I want to say how much the measure has been welcomed in my constituency where both Honda and Rover manufacture cars. They consider that this has been a real boost to their work and see it as a sign of hope for the future.
    The workers in those two plants will have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about confidence. They believe that the measure gives them a real hope that they will see their industry come out of recession. All they will have heard tonight from the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Labour party, is the usual talking down of their industry, confidence and hope.
    I welcome the measure, and I hope that the House will also welcome it.
    11.6 pm
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) welcomed the measure, admittedly in what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) called a grudging way, and he was right to do so. He had no alternative but to do so, because the measure had been widely welcomed by not only the motor manufacturers, to whom the hon. Member for Oxford, East referred, but also by the retail trade and many other people. It is not surprising because it is a welcome measure.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the car tax as a Conservative tax in the first place. In fact, it carried into VAT in 1973 the extra rate of purchase tax that there was and had been for a long time under the previous Labour Government. The car tax continued throughout the subsequent Labour Government, and it has fallen to a Conservative Government to abolish it in this year's autumn statement, after having halved it in the Budget earlier this year.
    The hon. Gentleman also claimed credit for the abolition of the tax by saying that he thought of the idea first. As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been here for some time, when a tax is reduced or abolished, nearly everyone claims credit for it, but no one ever does when it is the other way round.
    I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the autumn statement—apart from anything else, we are about to have two days of debate on that—but it is undoubtedly the fact that this measure, taken together with the other measures in the autumn statement, will boost confidence and help to assist the welcome improvement in domestic car sales and car sales generally.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of exports, which do not arise under the resolution, and drew attention to the difficulties in other markets, which is another way of saying that other countries have problems of recession as well as us. But I noted what he said about a two-speed Europe and it came oddly from one who voted against Maastricht the other day along with most of his hon. Friends—all his hon. Friends.
    264
    Attention has been drawn to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the course of his autumn statement—that any action taken in this area will be paid for in the next Budget by higher motoring taxes. That, in a sense, is the answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). That was made clear by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, and I can confirm it.
    I can also confirm that the hon. Member for Oxford, East is right to say that the £750 million is the gross cost next year—that is to say, car tax plus VAT. What I cannot do, and have no intention of doing, is anticipate next year's Budget statement and the way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will approach this aspect of it. It would clearly be wrong for me to do that.
    Mr. Burden: I do not wish to press the Paymaster General too hard about what his right hon. Friend may say next year, but will he give some preliminary responses on taxation levels and the method of taxing company cars? The Government have claimed considerable credit for what they describe as taxation of perks in that connection. If it is possible that they will look at that next year, will they bear in mind the fact that the extent to which taxation has been levied on company cars has principally affected the possession rather than the use of such cars? As a result, a company director who has all his or her—it will probably be his—private mileage paid for will be affected disproportionately, not as greatly—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief, and they are not supposed to be speeches.
    Sir John Cope: I was about to intervene on the hon. Member myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I suppose that you were right to dissuade me.
    Company car tax has nothing to do with the motion, but my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) mentioned it as well, and I will pass on what has been said to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We are in the process of considering company car tax, and we shall continue to consider it between now and the next Budget.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Paymaster General saying—or does the Chancellor intend to imply—that the Budget announcement in April, projecting a tax forward into the forthcoming year, will feature a tax sufficient to recoup all the costs in the current financial year, together with those in the next financial year following the abolition of car tax?
    Sir John Cope: I have no wish to add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in the autumn statement, and I do not think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentlemen would expect me to.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I must push the Paymaster General on that point. The Chancellor has said that he intends to recoup the cost from increases in motoring taxation next year. May I repeat the point that I put to him earlier? Does he not accept that the VAT on extra sales will bring in some £122 million, and would it not be right to take that off the extra cost? Otherwise, will there not be additional overall motoring taxation?
    Sir John Cope: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said the first time, including his speculation about VAT yield.

    265
    Yes, he may push me if he wishes, but I will not add to what I have already said, and I do not think that he would really expect me to do so.
    The motion introduces the abolition of car tax, and, of course, primary legislation will put that into effect. The move has been widely welcomed in the car industry—both the retail and manufacturing sectors—and even more widely than that. Moreover, it has been welcomed in the House this evening, and I commend it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson do prepare and bring it in.

    CAR TAX ABOLITION BILL
    Sir John Cope accordingly presented a Bill to abolish Car Tax: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
PETITION

  Samuel Merry
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The background to this petition was the brutal killing of Samuel Merry, a constituent in Ayr, earlier this year. The sentences passed on his killers were widely perceived to be inexplicably lenient. Immediately thereafter, some 3,000 or 4,000 people in Ayr signed a petition prepared by the family, but its format was not acceptable to the House. Accepting that, a new petition was prepared and signed by 100 neighbours and relatives of the late Samuel Merry. Tonight, I present that petition, which states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that the honourable House will introduce legislation at the earliest possible date to provide the Prosecution in Scotland with the right of appeal against sentences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Social Fund
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann: I think that I can safely say that this debate is not being televised. Given the number of Members present, I thought of cutting short my speech but as the Minister is present and cannot go until I have finished I have decided not to do so.
  I was elected in April, so I bring fresh eyes to the social fund; they do not look very fresh at this time of night, no doubt, but in parliamentary matters they are. I did not know about the social fund until I was elected, and I have had to learn much since. The question that I want to pose is, does it achieve what the Government set out to achieve when they established it?
  The social fund, as hon. Members will be aware, if we are still in the plural, covers by regulation a number of areas that I do not wish to consider tonight. I wish to consider two discretionary areas—budgetary loans and community care grants.
  The aim of the social fund is to provide for exceptional and unexpected calls on household budgets that cannot be dealt with through the normal use of income support. It was stated that the Government wished the administration of the grant and loan to be more flexible and responsive to individual need, and with a minimum of formality. The question is whether it is more flexible and responsive, whether it offers the minimum formality and whether it copes with the exceptional and unexpected. I should like to share with the House three cases that have arisen in my constituency in the past few months that cast some doubt on that.
  The first is a case of a budgetary loan. I shall call the person concerned Paul. In all three cases, I shall use an assumed name. If the Minister wants the proper names, I shall give them to him afterwards. Paul has a wife and five children. His total income from invalidity benefit is £136 a week, and after fixed costs the family of seven is left with £65 a week to cover food, toiletries, household expenditure, bus fares and so on. Paul and his wife asked for a loan of £200 to purchase shoes for their five children ready for the new school term. The response that he received was that
  "The Social Fund Officer has decided after considering your application and your personal circumstances that your needs do not have enough priority and we cannot pay you the money you asked for. There is a limited amount of money in the Social Fund available for loans and grants and the Social Fund Officer has to decide when looking at individual applications which of them have the most priority."
  If children's shoes do not have sufficient priority it appears to me that not enough money has been put into the system.
  At least Paul thought that he could afford to repay a loan. Those who cannot are utterly dependent on a community care grant. I will read out the criteria for determining whether someone can have such a grant. It
  "may be awarded to promote Community Care … by assisting an applicant with expenses … where such assistance will

  (i) help that person or a member of his family to re-establish himself in the community following a stay in institutional or residential care; or

  (ii) help that person, or a member of his family to remain in the community rather than enter institutional or residential care; or

  268

  (iii) ease exceptional pressure on that person and his family; or

  (iv) allow the applicant or his family to care for a prisoner or young offender on home leave; ".

  That is admirably flexible, until we come to the case of Ray.
  Ray is single. He got into trouble and was put in gaol. He has been out of gaol now for just over a year. He has gone straight. He is on income support but he has debts. The income that he can spend each week is £30. All the agencies have tried to help Ray—the probation service, the housing service, the social services together have helped to keep him straight. They got him a furnished bed-sitter and when it was found that there were a considerable number of undesirable people with him there—not his fault—they got him a flat. But he has not got a bed, a cooker, a fridge, a chair or pots and pans. He has walls, a roof and a floor.
  Ray, on £30 a week, cannot repay a budgetary loan, so he applied for a community care grant. What happened? He thought that he would be all right under section (i), but the social fund officer said:
  "I acknowledge that 'Ray' has had to leave accommodation that was unsuitable to his needs. He has however been living within the community for some twelve months prior to his application for a grant. There is no evidence … that he has not re-established himself during this time."
  So, no job, no bed, no furniture, no real income, but it is not, apparently, to be assumed that he has not re-established himself successfully in the community. I would say that he has not.
  Ray has said
  "that he is likely to have to return to care if a CCG is refused"—
  this is the second category.
  "I can see there to be no tangible prospect of such an event occurring. … It may be that he will have to give his flat up and seek alternative accommodation if he does not get the grant. He is not at risk, however, of having to go into some form of care."
  So he was ruled out on that as well.
  What about the stress element—section iii? Ray
  "is single and without family ties. The situation that he finds himself in has and is no doubt causing him pressure."
  Well, it would, would it not?
  "An award of a CCG would, however, only assist him. It would not help anyone else."
  But the regulations say "the person and his family", so as it would not help anyone else, it would help only Ray, the tests set out in section iii are not met. So Ray does not get his grant.
  That is how a supposedly flexible system has inflexibly damaged that young man. I do not believe that that is right and I am sure that the vast majority of people in this country do not believe that it is right.
  Bill is another young man, who lives with his mother and his step-sister, who has a baby and another on the way. He is on income support. He has debts and cannot afford a loan. He wanted some money to buy a suit so that he could go for job interviews, because he has qualifications but he just does not happen to have any money. His application was refused. He said that he needed the suit because getting a job would mean that he could put more money into the family and could relieve the stress on the family. That argument was not accepted. The social security officials said that the only stress that would be relieved would be his stress, so the tests had not been met.
  A young man cannot get a job because he cannot get a grant. A young man cannot sit at home although he is

  269
  trying to go straight because he cannot get a grant. Yet the system is supposed to be flexible and adaptable to people's needs. It is not flexible or responsive. It is certainly not informal; it is bureaucratic. People cannot afford the loans and they cannot get grants. The system is more about budgets than it is about need, as I realise from the people who come to see me.
  The system is hated by the people who are supposed to be able to depend on it in their hour of need and it is even hated by the people who have to run it. The system and the funding should be urgently reviewed.
  11.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I have listened carefully to what he said. Despite his apparently coming here with little knowledge of the social fund—I cannot believe that an experienced council leader in Ipswich has no knowledge of the social fund—he was able to outline not only his cases, but his general feelings about the social fund extremely well.
  I shall deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. He will appreciate that I cannot discuss individual cases, although I am more than willing to receive from him details of the cases that he mentioned. It was kind of him to outline the circumstances without using the real names, and I appreciate that. If he wants to bring particular circumstances to my attention, I shall be more than happy to receive a note from him.
  I hope, therefore, that I can provide some useful points in reply. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we undertake close monitoring of the social fund. From that, there is clear evidence that, despite the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the fund is providing extensive help for those who need it.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about budgets. The total cumulative expenditure on the social fund, including the regulated maternity, funeral and cold weather payments, now exeeds £1 billion. Since the start of the scheme, more than 1 million non-repayable community care grants and more than 5 million interest-free loans have been awarded.
  We were pleased to note that a Policy Studies Institute report published earlier this year showed that social fund loans were a helpful source of interest-free credit for people on the lowest incomes.
  By April 1994, the level of planned gross expenditure on the discretionary part of the scheme will have increased by 105 per cent. since the introduction of the scheme—greater than both inflation or any temporary increase in the number of people on income support. It should also be remembered that the social fund is just one part of the overall social security system which next year will cost almost £80 billion, equating to more than £11 per day for each tax and national insurance payer.
  I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about expenditure and budgets, and I have even better news for him. I am sure that he will have welcomed the announcement on 2 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security of an £8 million increase to the 1992–93 budget. That means that this year's discretionary social fund budget, which is now at £310
  270
  million, has already increased by 36 per cent. since April 1991. That increase far outstrips the 5 per cent. increase in income support case load between May 1991 and May 1992.
  There is even better news for social fund budgets for 1993–94. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in his uprating statement, he expects the gross discretionary budget from April 1993 to be £340 million. That further substantial increase is possible, first, because of the continuing excellent performance on the recovery of loans, which shows the success of the loans system which enables more people to be helped by the fund; and, secondly, because of an increase of £5 million in the net budget. The cash limit has been increased from £130 million to £135 million from April 1993. Those increases mean that the April 1993 gross budget will be 12 per cent. up on the gross budget at April 1992 and 50 per cent. up on the gross budget at April 1991.
  I am sure that even the hon. Member for Ipswich will agree that that increase in the cash limit, which comes at such a difficult time, indicates the Government's continuing determination to help those most in need through the social fund.
  There is also good news for the hon. Gentleman closer to home, in Suffolk. It is absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have benefited from the increases in social fund budgets to which I have referred. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the large increase of 18 per cent. in the social fund loans budget for Suffolk for 1992–93 as a consequence of the statement of 2 November to which I have referred. That increase is significantly above the increase in the income support case load for the same period. More significantly, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the overall increases in allocations for the past two years up to today, he will find that the grants budget in Suffolk district has increased by some 82 per cent. since April 1991, and the loans budget by some 75 per cent. in the same period.
  Those figures speak eloquently of the Government's commitment to the social fund, and of the benefits that it has brought to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman pointed out some of the difficulties; his remarks should be seen clearly in the context of the additional assistance already provided to his constituency.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: Such is my affection for the hon. Gentleman that I shall, of course, give way—if the hon. Member has cleared it with the hon. Member for Ipswich, that is.
  Mr. Cann indicated assent.
  Mr. Dewar: I am somewhat alarmed by the thought that the Minister holds me in affection, but I shall ride my luck.
  Is the Minister confident in his sunny predictions about the present situation? He will know that the Social Security Advisory Committee report and work by York university, commissioned by the Department, contain stringent criticisms of the way in which the social fund is operated, and suggest that in many cases it is impossible to define the difference between applications which succeed and those which do not. We all know of cases in which the cash-limited nature of the fund means that applicants are told that, although they qualify and have a certain measure

  271
  of priority, it is just not possible to pay out and thus meet what is undoubtedly a real need. Can the Minister live happily with that state of affairs?
  Mr. Burt: My affection for the hon. Gentleman is undiminished and fully justified. With a telepathy not often found on the Opposition Benches, he has touched on the very point to which I was coming next—in relation both to the reports received on the social fund and to the budget itself.
  Opposition Members should be aware that a number of positive points were made in both the main reports on the social fund this year—by York university's social policy research unit and by the Social Security Advisory Committee. Perhaps I may help the Opposition by referring to some of them. The SPRU report showed that many people are being substantially helped by the fund. Moreover—this answers the final point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich, which was somewhat over the top by his standards—so far from people hating the fund, there was a high degree of satisfaction among many groups who received awards. There is also a general acceptance of loans, and certain factors—such as having a lower income or more and younger children—are associated with receiving awards. Finally, community care grants are being focused on elderly people receiving disability-related benefits where a household member has a severe health problem. We are hitting the target much more often than Opposition Members would concede.
  The positive points mentioned in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report include the good work done by social fund officers in their difficult job of making discretionary decisions. The effective immediate help provided through the fund for unpredicted events—for example, help to families returning home from the Gulf in 1990—was also commented upon favourably. The independence established by the social fund commissioner was also welcomed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee also went on to accept the restriction of eligibility to those with little capital receiving income support, the need for reasonable financial limits at this time of constraint on public spending and the broad criteria on which budgeting loans were offered.
  The reports make other proposals as well. As I have stated, we shall look at them carefully. It is important to note, as Opposition Members rarely do, that the endorsement of many of the principles of the social fund is significant in demonstrating that the fund represents an important leap forward from previous schemes.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want him to get away with that rather rosy image. I accept that positive points are made in both reports, but will he agree that they both recommend fundamental changes to meet fundamental criticisms? Can I take it from his remark about the reports being carefully considered that there is some hope that their major recommendations will be dealt with favourably by the Department?
  Mr. Burt: As the hon. Gentleman has been straight with me, I will be straight with him. Yes, indeed, there are positive aspects of the reports which I have been able to mention. If he is prepared to concede those, I acknowledge that other things in the reports cause us concern. They are being carefully considered. It is too early to say what the
  272
  response will be, but the hon. Gentleman has it from me that the negative aspects mentioned in the reports are noted, and there will be a response in due course.
  In the interests of balance, it is fair to recognise that in trying to administer a fund which caters for difficult and exceptional payments, it is hard to get the right scheme. We saw problems with the single payments scheme. This scheme has done much better than opponents would concede. The positive points that I have quoted are genuine and I am happy to acknowledge some difficulties, provided that some of the good points are recognised by the Opposition. If that happens, we shall have made progress.
  In regard to budget limits, the hon. Member for Ipswich raised some concerns about the budget in itself. The budget is an integral part of the fund. The discretionary part of the social fund was designed as a flexible system for helping people, mostly those on income support, who have to meet large, intermittent or unexpected expenses. There are relatively few rigid rules as to what help can be given. We see the discipline imposed by a budget as a necessary framework for the exercise of how social fund officers apply discretion.
  Most organisations—including the Government and, I suspect, also the Labour party—have to operate within an annual budget and there is no reason why the social fund should be different. Indeed, the previous rigid and inflexible single payments scheme suffered from spiralling expenditure, with the cost doubling every two years from 1980 to 1986, even allowing for inflation. This was out of all proportion to the increase in the number of people on benefit—less than a two thirds increase between 1979 and 1985. That expenditure was poorly targeted on needs, with four fifths of the money going to fewer than one in five claimants in 1987. It was therefore essential to refocus it on the greatest needs.
  As to the points which the hon. Member for Ipswich made on community care grants, I appreciate that he mentioned particular cases and I look forward to receiving information about them. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on those cases. However, I am satisfied that the overall framework of the social fund provides appropriate assistance to those who need it, particularly in relation to community care grants. More than 1 million people have received community care grants since the scheme began.
  The grants are intended to help people in priority groups, such as the elderly or disabled, to lead independent lives, including assisting them to re-establish themselves in the community after a stay in care, and to help people to carry on living in the community—the hon. Gentleman was right to illustrate some of the criteria—as well as aiming to ease exceptional pressure on families.
  Local authorities, of course, have the major responsibility for community care, and community care grants complement that responsibility rather than replace it. It is, however, for the social fund officer to decide in an individual case whether the applicant's circumstances meet the basic eligibility criteria for a grant and then to decide whether the need is of sufficient priority to be met. I am confident that that is a suitable way in which to assess those exceptional needs in a flexible manner. There is a rapid and flexible system of review which also assists in dealing with those grants.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich will appreciate that some of the decisions taken by social fund

  273
  officers in the situations that he described are taken in the most difficult circumstances. It is difficult at this distance to decide on such cases across the Dispatch Box. I am sure that, in the vast majority of cases, social fund officers apply themselves properly and carefully to the needs before the them. The fact that so many awards are made and so much money spent on the system shows that the Government and the system try to meet people's needs.
  However, we are not simply content to consider the way in which the system has worked in terms of theory and principle and not consider improvement. We have made a number of operational improvements to the scheme which assist in dealing with some of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich. The operation of the fund has not stood still since the field work for the SPRU report that I mentioned earlier was completed. We are constantly considering ways in which to improve its administration and operation. In difficult budgetary conditions, one examines the administration of the benefit system to discover the most effective ways to deliver.
  As we deal with people, we find that they want speed, efficiency and accuracy from the benefit system. They can be dealt with through improvements to administration. The social fund and those responsible for it have not been slow in coming forward with operational developments.
  Those developments have included the continuing development of a major main frame computer system which will start to roll out early next year. That will be a major assistance to the fund. Secondly, all letters and forms used in connection with the social fund have been redesigned. That is not cosmetic: the way in which information is presented to claimants is important. Although some people claim that they find forms difficult to understand, the forms are carefully examined and researched. Those genuine and real improvements will help the constituents of the hon. Member for Ipswich.
  A third development is improved guidance on local priorities. The hon. Gentleman referred to priorities. They are set and are difficult for the fund to operate. However, we are constantly looking at ways in which to improve guidance and particularly at local areas and their difficulties.
  The fourth development is improved training for social fund officers. We all recognise the importance of training —no one more so than I—in the Benefits Agency. Finally there has been a recent major process review by the Benefits Agency which reviewed social fund delivery and administration.
  Those improvements are only part of the changes, but they clearly show that the fund is under constant review and is continually responding to new pressures and the need to provide an even better service.
  274
  In responding to the problems that the hon. Member for Ipswich described, I hope that I have shown some of the ways in which the Benefits Agency and social fund seek to meet need. They will not always meet need as much as people want. Sometimes demand is not always equated to need. However, the determination of those who run the system and of the Government is to do their best to meet needs.
  The social fund had a difficult origin in that the difficulties produced by single payments translated into the current system. It seeks to meet the needs of society flexibly. It is not always possible to create a rigid structure. No doubt there are similar cases to those mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich elsewhere where similar circumstances have been met by some form of payment. To try to create consistency over such a large system that has already £1 billion and approved 5 million loans has been extremely difficult. However, the search and the determination are always there.
  When the Opposition consider the problems that the Government have to face, they seem to think that we are trying to be difficult to people in hard circumstances. I know that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are looking hard at the benefit system. I give them full credit for the way in which they are approaching their task, and they know that I do so generously. They will accept that we are not alone in Europe in studying the benefit system carefully and finding that it cannot meet all the demands that people place on it. As I said, demand is not always equated to need. Many other European countries also face difficulties in providing for one-off payments. Some make far less central provision than we do, relying more on local government provision and help from charities and voluntary organisations.
  I hope that I am not being unfair, but I sometimes think that the Government do not get the credit that they deserve from Opposition Members, who find it easy to criticise and to be churlish but have no conception or understanding of running such a complex benefit system, of which the social fund is part.
  In conclusion, I hope that my remarks have assured the hon. Gentleman that the Government are keeping the operation of the fund under constant monitoring, that we have already taken significant steps to increase the resources available to the fund, and that we shall continue to take any steps which we consider necessary to ensure that it continues in its role of providing assistance with exceptional needs for those experiencing the greatest difficulties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that no individual's civil action is statute barred as a result of their being unable to proceed with their action due to their eligibility for legal aid being wrongly assessed during the period 1 October 1991 to 30 March 1992;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the incorrect assessment of income in relation to applications for civil legal aid between 1 October 1991 and 30 March 1992;

  (3) if he will reimburse to solicitors their costs in checking clients' files in order to identify those cases where an incorrect assessment of income in relation to applications for civil legal aid was made between 1 October 1991 and 30 March 1992;

  (4) what estimate he has made of the amount that will need to be repaid to those claimants who made a contribution to their civil legal aid costs but whose income was wrongly assessed during the period 1 October 1991 to 30 March 1992;

  (4) what estimate he has made of the amount that will need to be repaid to those claimants who made a contribution to their civil legal aid costs but whose income wrongly assessed during the period 1 October 1991 to 30 March 1992;

  (5) how many claimants have been affected by his Department's incorrect assessment of income in relation to applications for civil legal aid during the period 1 October 1991 to 30 March 1992;

  (6) what assessment he has made of the number of clients' files that will need to be checked by solicitors in order to identify those cases in which an error in the original assessment for civil legal aid was made between 1 October 1991 and 30 March 1992.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal aid dependants' allowances are, by regulation, set at 25 per cent. above income support allowances. From 7 October 1991, the income support allowances for dependent children were increased by £0·25 a week. However, as a result of administrative error, legal aid allowances were not adjusted. This meant that the amounts allowed by way of child dependants' allowances in legal aid means assessments were inaccurate to the extent of £0·31 per week.

  In civil cases the assessments that may have been affected are those in which the financial application was completed between 1 October 1991 and 31 March 1992 and where the applicant had dependent children. Steps have been taken to ensure that those who may have been affected by this error will have their means reassessed. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the result of the error will have been that the individuals concerned will have been required to pay slightly more by way of contribution— around £4 per dependent child payable over one year— towards the cost of their legal aid than they otherwise would. Any such overpayment will be refunded. In these cases, the question of individuals being unable to pursue
  104
  their cases as a result of the error does not arise. In the unlikely event that this error caused an individual who would otherwise have been within the financial limits to be assessed as financially ineligible, I am prepared to consider, in the light of the particular circumstances, whether it would be appropriate for special help to be given to such individuals.

  It is not possible to provide accurate figures on the number of applications affected by the error, but the Benefits Agency estimates it to be about 8 per cent. of those cases assessed during the period of the error. I will consider any claims for reasonable and necessary costs incurred by individual solicitors in checking their clients' files.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agencies
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the status of agencies set up as part of the Government's next steps programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The status of potential agencies is carefully considered before the agency is launched as the then Prime Minister explained to the House on 24 October 1988, at column 14. The same alternative options of abolition, privatisation and contracting out the agency's functions will normally be re-examined during the periodic review of the agency's framework document that is a standard part of each agency's arrangements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Education
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the level of funding next year for prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received a number of representations about the competitive tendering exercise which the Prison Service is currently undertaking to determine the arrangements for the provision of education in prisons from 1 April 1993. Some of these have referred to future levels of funding. The level of financial provision for 1993–94 will need to take account of the outcome of the competitive tendering exercise and will be published in the supply estimates in due course. Payments to local education authorities in 1992–93 for the provision of education in prisons are expected to total £29·9 million, an increase of 14 per cent.—over 8 per cent. in real terms—on expenditure in 1991–92.

  Shotgun Incidents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 412, on domestic shotgun incidents, how many of the victims were women.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table.
  105

  Domestic homicide offences involving female victims where a shotgun was used

  Year

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Kent

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  London, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Metropolitan

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Thames Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  West Yorkshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  England and Wales

  10

  13

  10

  10

  9

  11

  Notes:

  1. Offences currently recorded as homicide as at 1 September 1991.

  2. The term "domestic" includes the following relationships of victim to suspect: daughter; parent; spouse; cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant; other family; lover or former lover including spouse's lover or lover's spouse or other associate.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent probation officers are employed at Her Majesty's prison Wolds; and who is their employer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Four probation officers work at Her Majesty's prison Wolds. They are employed by the local probation service.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many full-time equivalent chaplains are employed at Her Majesty's prison Wolds; and who is their employer;
  106
  (2) how many full-time equivalent (a) medical and (b) education staff are employed at Her Majesty's prison Wolds; and who is their employer in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Chaplains and education staff are employees of Group 4 Remand Services Ltd; medical staff are sub-contracted. The numbers are subject to commercial confidentiality and a matter for Group 4 Remand Services Ltd.

  Electoral System
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 November to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson),Official Report, column 630, to which parts of the United Kingdom the shortfall figure for electoral registration refers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimate relates to England and Wales. A comparison between parliamentary electorates and the corresponding population estimates in England and Wales, and in Scotland, for each year since 1981 is contained in the OPCS publication "1992 Electoral Statistics", series EL No. 19, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Women Prisoners
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons allow home leave visits for(a) foreign women prisoners and (b) female prisoners convicted of drugs importation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Governors of female establishments may grant a period of home leave only to those prisoners who are eligible for home leave and who satisfy the conditions for granting such leave, as laid down in circular instruction 43/1992, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) women prisoners and (b) foreign women prisoners have (i) children and (ii) children aged under five years in this country; and what proportion of those children are put in care on the imprisonment of the mother.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The answers given to the national prison survey in January and February 1991 indicate that 47 per cent. of women prisoners had children under the age of 18 who were living with them just before they came into prison. At the time the survey was undertaken, 10 per cent. of these children were being looked after by foster parents, and 2 per cent. were in children's homes or in care.

  A census carried out in December 1989 recorded that 28 per cent. of the sentenced women who responded had children under five years old.

  There are no separate figures for foreign women from either of these sources.

  Prisoners' Correspondence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the requirement for letters to foreign prisoners to be sent for translation still stands; and if he will make a statement.
  107
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Correspondence written to prisoners in a language other than English requires translation only if it is liable to be read under the terms of circular instruction 10/1991, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to enable prisoners with reading or language difficulties to get their letters read with minimum delay; and if he will list the prisons running such a scheme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prison staff are available, as part of their normal duties, to assist prisoners to get their letters read.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations he has made into the percentage of possible miscarriages of justice referred to him that involve black people.

  Mr. Jack
  Representations received about alleged miscarriages of justice do not normally reveal the ethnic origin of the person or persons concerned. As a consequence, the statistics sought are not available.

  Prisoners (Phone Calls)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to supplying £10 phone cards in prison to enable foreign visitors to make calls overseas; and which prisons currently allow free phone calls by foreign prisoners to their families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prisoners may purchase from earnings or private cash a minimum of two £2 or £4 phonecards a week. Consideration will be given to the need for £10 phonecards in the light of demand.

  Governors have discretion to enable foreign visitors to phone home or allow incoming or reverse calls on official lines.

  Information about those prisons that currently allow free phone calls by foreign prisoners to their families is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his proposals for a Bill on the use of residential property by homeless persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are committed to strengthening and improving the law against the unlawful occupation of premises by squatters. We are considering the best way forward in the light of the responses received to our recent consultation exercise and we will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what notice he gave to his counterparts throughout the EC of the decision to impose visa requirements on nationals of former Yugoslav states.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no requirement to give notice of the imposition of a visa regime and it is not the 108
  normal practice of member states to do so. Three days' notice was given to the Irish Republic because of the country's inclusion in the common travel area. Other member states were not given advance notice.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following his announcement to impose visa requirements on nationals of former states of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  By 12 November, seven hon. and right hon. Members, one Member of the European Parliament, 12 independent, charitable and church organisations and a number of members of the public had made written and telephone representations on matters arising out of the decision to implement the visa regime. These representations have mainly concerned requests to waive visa requirements in certain circumstances.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in police cells for each day since 1 October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. Figures for weekends are not collected centrally.

  Daily total of inmates held in police cells since 1 October

  Date

  Inmates in police cells

  1 October 1992

  792

  2 October 1992

  723

  5 October 1992

  738

  6 October 1992

  717

  7 October 1992

  702

  8 October 1992

  674

  9 October 1992

  675

  12 October 1992

  640

  13 October 1992

  647

  14 October 1992

  631

  15 October 1992

  620

  16 October 1992

  632

  19 October 1992

  622

  20 October 1992

  629

  21 October 1992

  642

  22 October 1992

  611

  23 October 1992

  584

  26 October 1992

  550

  27 October 1992

  563

  28 October 1992

  567

  29 October 1992

  546

  30 October 1992

  532

  2 November 1992

  525

  3 November 1992

  530

  4 November 1992

  498

  5 November 1992

  478

  6 November 1992

  481

  9 November 1992

  465

  10 November 1992

  466

  11 November 1992

  455

  12 November 1992

  441

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total budget allocation for police overtime in England and Wales for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Detailed information on current overtime expenditure for provincial police forces in England
  109
  and Wales is not held centrally, but their overtime expenditure for 1992–93 has been estimated at £148·9 million. The 1992–93 police overtime budget of the Metropolitan police service is £71·2 million.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police overtime payments in England and Wales have been routinely made since 1 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recalculations for the police overtime budget in England and Wales there have been for the financial year 1992–93 since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information about changes in current overtime budgets for the provincial forces in England and Wales is not available centrally. The Metropolitan police service 1992–93 budget has not been revised since the beginning of the financial year.

  Prisons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the date of official opening, (b) the date prisoners were first received, (c) the certified normal accommodation and (d) the prison roll at 1 November, for (i) HMP Holme House, (ii) HMP Lancaster Farms, (iii) HMP Wordhill, (iv) HMP High Down and (v) HMP Wolds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None of these establishments has yet had a formal opening. These usually take place some time after the prison has become fully operational. Construction of Lancaster Farms has not yet been completed and the establishment is still in the hands of the building contractors. The other information requested is shown in the table.

  Establishment

  Date prisoners first received

  CNA

  Number of inmates 1 November 1992

  Holme House

  18 May 1992

  649

  411

  Woodhill

  20 July 1992

  565

  148

  High Down

  1 7 September 1992

  1485

  233

  Wolds

  6 April 1992

  320

  228

  1 High Down will have a CNA of 648 when it is fully operational. Although the establishment did not take its own prisoners until the date shown, patients from HMP Winchester were held in the prison hospital at High Down from 25 August 1992.

  Demonstrations
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward legislation affecting the rights of persons wishing to demonstrate in public places.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the numbers of persons employed in the Metropolitan police in a civilian capacity and show by grade the minimum and maximum salary payable together with all other allowances.
  110
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The Metropolitan police service employs 17,561 civil staff. A total of 13,458–11,319 non industrial and 2,139 industrial—are employed in civil service grades ranging from administrative assistance to grade 3, including office support grades, for example, messengers, professional staff, for example, scientists and industrial grades, for example, labourers. Pay is according to civil service agreements.

  The remaining 4,103 staff are employed in departmental grades as follows:

  Grade

  Number in grade

  Minimum of pay scale £ pa

  Maximum of pay scale £ pa

  Area Traffic Warden Manager

  12

  15,057

  17,012

  Traffic Warden Manager

  156

  12,285

  13,880

  Traffic Warden

  1,551

  10,024

  11,796

  Principal Identification Officer

  10

  21,798

  26,522

  Senior Identification Officer

  32

  19,378

  23,578

  Higher Identification Officer

  66

  17,227

  20,152

  Identification Officer

  122

  15,308

  17,227

  Senior Assistant Identification Officer

  65

  14,689

  15,929

  Assistant Identification Officer

  173

  9,734

  14,689

  Fingerprint Officer 1

  9

  15,929

  19,378

  Fingerprint Officer 2

  38

  14,071

  16,565

  Fingerprint Officer 3

  9

  8,551

  14,689

  Senior Scenes of Crime Officer

  6

  17,916

  22,669

  Scenes of Crime Officer 1

  15

  15,929

  19,378

  Scenes of Crime Officer 2

  35

  11,592

  16,565

  Senior Communications and Electronics Officer

  34

  25,503

  28,687

  Higher Communications and Electronics Officer

  94

  21,798

  24,520

  Communications and Electronics Officer

  137

  18,632

  20,961

  Communications and Technical Officer 1

  190

  14,689

  17,916

  Communications and Technical Officer 2

  7

  11,592

  13,449

  Director of Music

  1

  122,618

  —

  Deputy Conductor

  1

  117,227

  —

  Bandmember

  31

  9,128

  12,833

  Catering Manager A

  19

  12,833

  15,308

  Catering Manager B

  36

  10,317

  12,133

  Catering Manager C

  61

  9,556

  10,641

  Catering Manager D

  35

  8,479

  9,841

  Catering Manager E

  1

  8,215

  9,092

  Chief Inspecting Officer

  1

  18,632

  24,520

  Coroner's Officer

  21

  10,440

  13,327

  Director of Metropolitan Laboratory

  1

  147,021

  —

  Director of Occupational Health

  1

  52,741

  55,836

  Director of Physical Training

  1

  25,330

  27,065

  London Examiner 2

  6

  12,285

  14,456

  Principal Public Carriage Examiner

  1

  18,632

  23,578

  Sports Officer

  1

  14,456

  16,668

  Technology-based Training Co-ordinator

  1

  25,554

  26,615

  Wireless Telegraphy Officer

  8

  10,230

  12,795

  Works Overseer 3

  1

  13,449

  15,929

  School Crossing Patrol

  1,114

  23·64 or 4·03 per hour

  TOTAL STAFF

  4,103

  1 Single pay point.

  2 The amounts quoted are hourly rates of pay dependent on geographical location.

  111
  In addition to their salary, grade 3s receive a £2,000 London allowance and all other staff, except school crossing patrols receive London weighting at £1,000 per annum for intermediate London and £725 pa for outer London.

  Allowances are paid in recognition of factors such as special skills, unsocial hours or a requirement to wear uniform clothing. The rates payable depend on varying factors such as grade, and the pattern of known workload, consequently levels of payment cannot be summarised.

  The following civil service and departmental allowances are payable:

  Civil Service Allowances

  1. Automatic Data Processing Allowance

  2. Additional Housing Cost Allowance

  3. Footwear Allowance

  4. Labourer's Fork Lift Truck Allowance

  5. Language Allowance

  6. Motor Mileage Allowance

  7. Night Duty Allowance

  8. On-Call Allowance

  9. Personal Secretary's Allowance

  10. Private Secretary's Allowance

  11. Typing Proficiency, Process and Skill Allowances

  12. Responsibility Allowance

  13. Shift Disturbance Allowance

  14. Stand-By Allowance

  15. Subsistence Allowance

  16. Telephone Allowance

  17. Uniform Allowance

  18. Allowance In Lieu Pending Receipt of Uniform

  19. Functions Fee

  20. Instructional Allowance

  21. Lodging Allowance

  22. Obnoxious Conditions and Confined Spaces Allowance

  23. Recall to Duty Allowance

  24. Staff Sent Home After Midnight Allowance

  25. Tool Money Allowance

  Departmental Allowances

  1. Band Staff Allowance

  2. Civilian Flight Observer's Allowance

  3. Driving Allowance (Storeman/Drivers and Assistants)

  4. Driving Specialised Recovery Vehicles Allowance

  5. Fingerprinting Dead Bodies Allowance

  6. Laundry Allowance

  7. Shoe Allowance (Traffic Warden)

  8. Stocking Allowance (Traffic Warden)

  9. Towel Money Allowance

  10. Driver's Duty Allowance

  11. Enabling Allowance

  12. Plain Clothes Allowance for Driver

  13. Prison Van Cleaning Allowance

  14. Riverside Lead

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1989–90

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Lancashire

  513

  94·6

  29

  5·4

  United Kingdom

  20,100

  92·0

  1,750

  8·0

  112
  Mr. Nelson
  The chief executive of the Valuation Office, Central Statistical Office and Royal Mint executive agencies have operational responsibility for health and safety. The three agencies have supplied me with statements on these matters and I am arranging for these to be placed in the Library.

  Double Taxation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy in his EC internal market negotiations to seek agreement that member states should not impose extraordinary levies on bank balances held by businesses owned in other member states; and if he will make a statement on recent such developments in Italy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Direct taxation is a matter for the member states, provided that its provisions are not contrary to obligations under the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The Commission of the European Communities has a responsibility to ensure that national laws are consistent with treaty obligations. As I have already indicated to my hon. Friend, the question of the levy on bank balances recently imposed in Italy is under discussion with the Italian authorities.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of double taxation relief by the United States of America on the United Kingdom's overseas earnings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: I am not aware of any such proposals. If the United States Administration were to propose any such change, the effect on United States and United Kingdom individuals and companies would depend on the precise nature of the United States proposals and the United Kingdom reaction to them.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and percentage of standard rate and higher rate tax payers in(a) Pendle, (b) Lancashire and (c) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table provides estimates of the number and percentage of taxpayers in Lancashire and the United Kingdom liable to standard and higher rate tax for 1989–90, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level. I regret that estimates are not available below county level. Married couples are counted as one unit in this last year before independent taxation.
  113

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Crown Estates Act 1961 to enable the Crown Estate Commissioners to make significant charitable donations to organisatons operating within communities where the Commissioners own property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  Section 4(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 allows the Commissioners to make financial contributions out of the income of the Crown Estate for any religious or educational purpose connected with land of the Crown Estate, or for other purposes tending to the welfare of persons residing or employed on any such land. I have no plans to extend this to the wider local community.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 October, at column 190.

  Bank Rates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in(a) bank rate and (b) rate of interest paid on premium bonds, since 1 January 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Changes in bank base rates

  Bank base rates1

  1987

  March 9

  10·5

  March 18

  10·0

  April 28

  9·-5

  May 8

  9·0

  August 6

  10·0

  October 26

  9·5

  November 4

  9·0

  December 3

  8·5

  1988

  February 1

  9·0

  March 17

  8·5

  April 8

  8·0

  May 17

  7·5

  June 2

  8·0

  June 6

  8·5

  June 22

  9·0

  June 28

  9·5

  July 4

  10·0

  July 18

  10·5

  August 8

  11·0

  August 25

  12·0

  November 25

  13·0

  1989

  May 24

  14·0

  October 5

  15·0

  1990

  October 8

  14·0

  1991

  February 13

  13·5

  February 27

  13·0

  March 22

  12·5

  114

  Bank base rates1

  April 12

  12·0

  May 24

  11·5

  July 12

  11·0

  September 4

  10·5

  1992

  May 5

  10·0

  September 16

  212·0

  September 17

  10·0

  September 22

  9·0

  October 16

  8·0

  November 13

  37·0

  1 Date shown when Bank of England changed dealing rates. Base rates generally moved on next working day.

  2 MLR of 15 per cent, announced 16 September to apply 17 September but not implemented.

  3 MLR of 7 per cent, announced in Autumn Statement on 12 November to apply 13 November.

  (b) Changes in underlying rate of interest which determines the size of the premium bond prize fund

  Per cent.

  1 August 1987

  7·0

  1 July 1988

  6·5

  12 November 19921

  5·0

  1 Will take effect from 1 March 1993.

  Tax Files
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Mr. G. Williamson's tax file, reference number 336/N21/02/F, will be sent from Hull district 1 tax office to the Plymouth office.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will be writing to my hon. Friend.

  Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to amend section 175(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to bring it into conformity with the words of section 276(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

  Mr. Lamont
  No. Section 175(1) of the 1992 Act is not different in substance from section 276(1) of the 1970 Act. The slight difference in wording is an editorial consequence of the process of consolidating the tax provisions on capital gains.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of VAT collected in each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) at June 1992 prices and (c) as a percentage of total Exchequer income.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  VAT receipts

  At current prices £ billion

  At 1992 Q2 prices1 £ billion

  As percentage of general Government receipts

  1982–83

  13·8

  23·4

  11·3

  1983–84

  15·2

  24·7

  11·7

  1984–85

  18·5

  28·6

  13·1

  115

  VAT receipts

  At current prices £ billion

  At 1992 Q2 prices1 £ billion

  As percentage of general Government receipts

  1985–86

  19·3

  28·3

  12·7

  1986–87

  21·4

  30·4

  13·4

  1987–88

  24·1

  32·3

  13·7

  1988–89

  27·3

  34·2

  14·3

  1989–90

  29·5

  34·7

  14·2

  1990–91

  31·0

  34·4

  14·2

  1991–92

  35·3

  36·6

  15·9

  1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Exchequer Income
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of(a) income tax, (b) capital gains tax and (c) corporation tax paid for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) at June 1992 prices and (c) as a percentage of total Exchequer income.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Income tax receipts

  £ billion

  at current prices

  at 1992 Q2 prices1

  as per cent, of general Government receipts

  1982–83

  30·4

  51·5

  24·8

  1983–84

  31·1

  50·4

  23·9

  1984–85

  32·5

  50·2

  23·0

  1985–86

  35·4

  51·7

  23·3

  1986–87

  38·5

  54·6

  24·1

  1987–88

  41·4

  55·6

  23·6

  1988–89

  43·4

  54·4

  22·7

  1989–90

  48·8

  57·4

  23·5

  1990–91

  55·3

  61·3

  25·4

  1991–92

  57·5

  59·6

  25·9

  1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Capital tax receipts

  £ billion

  At current prices

  At 1992 Q2 prices1

  As percentage of general Government receipts

  1982–83

  0·6

  1·1

  0·5

  1983–84

  0·7

  1·1

  0·5

  1984–85

  0·7

  1·1

  0·5

  1985–86

  0·9

  1·3

  0·6

  1986–87

  1·1

  1·5

  0·7

  1987–88

  1·4

  1·9

  1·8

  1988–89

  2·3

  2·9

  1·2

  1989–90

  1·9

  2·2

  0·9

  1990–91

  1·9

  2·1

  0·9

  1991–92

  1·1

  1·2

  0·5

  1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  116

  Corporation tax receipts

  £ billion

  At current prices

  At 1992 Q2 prices1

  As percentage of general Government receipts

  1982–83

  5·7

  9·6

  4·6

  1983–84

  6·2

  10·0

  4·7

  1984–85

  8·3

  12·9

  5·9

  1985–86

  10·7

  15·7

  7·1

  1986–87

  13·5

  19·1

  8·4

  1987–88

  15·7

  21·1

  9·0

  1988–89

  18·5

  23·2

  9·7

  1989–90

  21·5

  25·3

  10·4

  1990–91

  21·5

  23·8

  9·9

  1991–92

  18·3

  18·9

  8·2

  1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 12 November Official Report, column 994, if he will set out how he intends to apply the conditions to public sector pay rises.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As my right hon. Friend announced in his autumn statement on 12 November, the Government's policy is to restrict public sector pay settlements to between zero and 11 per cent. in the coming year. The Government expect this policy to be applied without exception throughout the public sector regardless of the normal method of settling pay. For central Government employees and NHS staff not covered by review bodies the Government will apply the policy directly as part of its responsibility for setting the pay of these groups. Application of the policy to staff covered by the pay review bodies was set out in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer of 13 November 1992, at column 1002. Spending allocations have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the policy on other public sector groups.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he has made to the Valuation Office executive agency's published key targets for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  Yes. The key target for the clearance of non-domestic rating appeals has been increased from 302,000 to 308,000. This is to take account of additional receipts from the Welsh Office to maintain the current good progress in clearing outstanding appeals.

  United States-United Kingdom Taxation Agreements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United States-United Kingdom taxation treaties and agreements together with the dates when they took effect.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Two agreements are in place with the United States.

  First, the taxation of income and capital gains is covered by arrangements which comprise a convention dated 31 December 1975, as amended by protocols of 26 August 1976, 31 March 1977 and 15 March 1979. The

  117
  convention, as amended, in general took effect for the tax year, financial year or chargeable period beginning in 1975. The relevant provisions are detailed in Statutory Instrument 1980: No. 568 titled The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The United States of America) Order 1980.

  Second, provisions regarding the taxation of inheritances and gifts are set out in Statutory Instrument 1979: No. 1454 titled The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and on Gifts) (United States of America) Order 1979. This convention was concluded on 19 October 1978 and took effect from 10 November 1979.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount of advance corporation tax repaid to United States companies with United Kingdom subsidiaries in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Payments of tax credits to non-resident parent companies under the United Kingdom/USA double taxation convention—companies which control at least 10 per cent. of the voting stock of the United Kingdom company—are estimated to have been as follows:

  £ million

  Tax credits payable

  1987–88

  310

  1988–89

  390

  1989–90

  410

  1990–91

  260

  1991–92

  180

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when either he or the Governor of the Bank of England knew of banking accounts held in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International by Matrix Churchill or its individual executives that were used for the export of equipment to Iraq which could be used for defence purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: Neither my right hon. Friend the Chancellor nor the Governor of the Bank of England has ever been given any such information.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when either the Government or the Bank of England was informed that accounts held in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International were used for the export of equipment to Iraq which could be used for defence purposes between 1987 and 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: Neither the Government nor the Bank of England has ever been given any such information.
  118

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the income from duties on Scotch whisky in each of the past 10 years in cash and constant price terms.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The following is the estimated income which includes whiskey from Northern Ireland.

  £ million

  Year

  Excise duty receipts

  At constant 1991–92 prices

  1982–83

  478

  784

  1983–84

  818

  1,282

  1984–85

  591

  883

  1985–86

  714

  1,007

  1986–87

  667

  910

  1987–88

  698

  917

  1988–89

  681

  844

  1989–90

  650

  747

  1990–91

  726

  761

  1991–92

  730

  730

ENVIRONMENT

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location, the Ordnance Survey triangulation pillars that have currently been adopted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to the executive agency. I have asked Professor David Rhind, chief executive for the Ordnance Survey to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Rhind to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the adoption of Triangulation (Trig) Pillars.

  Ordnance Survey has recently completed its assessment of the pillars it needs to maintain as part of its survey control network. We have decided to maintain 1,269 pillars, leaving 4,906 for which we have no further need.

  Great interest has been shown by a wide variety of organisations and individuals in adopting single or groups of pillars for voluntary maintenance. We are now starting the process of dealing with these applications and publicising opportunities. This will take some time to complete because, whilst the pillars will remain the property of Ordnance Survey, we have to obtain the permission of the land owners for those adopting pillars to have access.

  In short, no pillars have yet been adopted but the process for adoption is now under way. We anticipate this will take several months to complete.

  Please let me know if you would like me to supply a list of adopted pillars and their locations when the exercise is over.

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he wil list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to my executive agencies
  119
  under their chief executives. I have asked Mr. Roger Courtney to arrange for a reply to be given for the Building Research Establishment; Professor David Rhind for the Ordnance Survey; Mr. Stephen Crow for the Planning Inspectorate; Mr. Marcus Buck for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; and Mr. Roger Powell for the Buying Agency.

  Letter from Roger Courtney to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding fact finding visits that I have made during the last twelve months.

  My recent visits are listed below:

  Transport Research Laboratory (Executive Agency, Department of Transport).

  National Institute for Standards and Technology, USA. Technical Research Institute, Finland, (VTT).

  Such visits provide me with comparative information on sources of funding and associated policies, programme formulation and management, and operational arrangements and therefore assist the future development of BRE. Where appropriate, the scope for co-operative working is also explored, to mutual benefit. My many regular contacts with heads of research executive agencies and with my counterparts in other countries supplement these specific visits.

  I would be happy to provide further information if you wish.

  Letter from David Rhind to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about fact finding visits made by the chief executives of agencies.

  I have not made any visits which I would classify as "fact finding" since I took up my appointment as Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey in January of this year.

  Letter from Stephen Crow to Mr. Martin Redmond Dated 28 October 1992:

  In reply to your Parliamentary Questions, I am asked on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment to list both the titles of papers published by the Planning Inspectorate since it became an agency and the fact finding visits made by myself in the last 12 months; and to indicate the findings resulting from those visits. The Planning Inspectorate became an Executive Agency only on 1 April this year, and so a full 12 months have not yet elapsed.

  The only Inspectorate paper published since 1 April is entitled "Good Practice at Planning Inquiries". It was published on 7 September 1992 as an Annex to Department of the Environment Circular 24/92 (Welsh Office Circular 47/92).

  Since April I have made one fact finding visit, to Edinburgh and nearby, where I was shown some interesting examples of urban regeneration, and where I was able to discuss, with my opposite numbers in Scotland and Ireland, matters of mutual concern. The visit and meeting resulted in useful comparison of professional and managerial practice.

  Letter from Mr. Marcus Buck to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  I am responding to your question regarding the fact finding visits undertaken during the last twelve months by Agency Chief Executives in the Department of the Environment, and the resulting findings.

  During his last months in office, my predecessor, Roy Kendrick, did not undertake any fact finding visits. As Chief Executive designate I conducted a series of visits to conference centres in order to familiarise myself with the industry. My findings were not aggregated into a publishable form.

  If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
  120
  Letter from Roger H. Powell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  I have been asked to reply direct to your parliamentary question regarding fact finding visits by Chief Executives.

  I have undertaken no "fact finding" visits as such. I have visited a number of principal customers and suppliers but these have primarily been to promote relationships.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to my executive agencies under their chief executives. I have asked Mr. Roger Courtney to arrange for a reply to be given for the Building Research Establishment; Professor David Rhind for the Ordnance Survey; Mr. Stephen Crow for the Planning Inspectorate; Mr. Marcus Buck for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; and Mr. Roger Powell for the Buying Agency.

  Letter from R. G. Courtney to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  PQ: Executive Agency staff numbers and costs—BRE

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding BRE's staff numbers and costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  The average number of BRE staff in each grade during 1991–92 and the estimated equivalent for 1992–93 are given in the attached table. These figures include staff employed on a casual basis.

  The "full economic cost" for the staff in post in 1991–92 was £16,734k and the present estimate for the equivalent cost in 1992–93 is £18, 330k.

  Average number of staff at BRE in 1991–92 and 1992–93 by grade

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade 3

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 4

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 5

  5·0

  5·0

  Grade 6

  24·0

  25·0

  Grade 7

  90·0

  96·5

  Senior Scientific Officer

  97·5

  100·5

  Higher Scientific Officer

  95·5

  102·5

  Scientific Officer

  62·5

  60·0

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  17·5

  13·5

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  16·0

  18·0

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  11·0

  12·0

  Professional and Technology Officer

  12·0

  12·0

  Technical Grade I (PTO)

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Information Officer

  6·0

  7·0

  Information Officer

  7·0

  9·0

  Assistant Information Officer

  2·0

  4·0

  Senior Librarian

  1·0

  1·0

  Librarian

  1·0

  1·0

  Assistant Librarian

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Photographic Officer

  2·0

  2·0

  Higher Photographic Officer

  3·0

  4·0

  Photographic Officer

  5·0

  4·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  1·0

  1·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  9·0

  11·5

  Executive Officer

  23·0

  24·5

  Administrative Officer

  74·5

  76·5

  Administrative Assistant

  5·5

  3·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·0

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  21·5

  21·5

  121

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Typing Manager

  2·0

  2·0

  Typist

  15·5

  17·5

  Graphics Officer

  1·0

  1·0

  Technical Grade 1 (DOA)

  1·5

  1·5

  Technical Grade 2 (Tracer)

  2·0

  2·0

  Assistant Chief Reprographics Officer

  10

  10

  Reprographics Officer 1

  3·5

  3·5

  Senior Messenger

  1·0

  1·0

  Messenger

  2·0

  2·0

  Telephonist

  3·0

  3·0

  College-based Sandwich Course Student

  —

  —

  Vacation Student

  —

  —

  Industrial

  94·0

  82·5

  Ordnance survey staffing

  1991–92

  1992–93 (estimated)

  Grade

  No. of staff in 1991–92

  Salary cost 1991–92 £

  Forecast staff in 1992–93

  Salary cost 1992–93 £

  Unified grades

  Grade 3

  1·0

  68,198

  1·0

  71,477

  Grade 5

  3·0

  162,486

  3·0

  170,313

  Grade 6

  8·0

  373,496

  8·0

  393,880

  Grade 7

  39·0

  1,419,132

  40·0

  1,530,960

  Administrative grades

  SEO

  27·0

  727,110

  28·0

  790,920

  HEO

  73·0

  1,563,039

  82·0

  1,851,321

  EO

  105·0

  1,744,995

  106·0

  1,870,264

  AO

  168·0

  2,127,216

  175·0

  2,347,450

  AA

  52·0

  484,432

  53·0

  533,498

  Senior personal secretary

  1·0

  17,049

  1·0

  17,849

  Personal secretary

  3·0

  41,814

  3·0

  43,773

  Typing manager

  1·0

  17,634

  10

  18,460

  Typist

  12·0

  123,456

  9·0

  96,921

  Graduate trainee

  6·0

  98,880

  3·0

  53,097

  Librarian

  1·0

  22,638

  1·0

  23,735

  Assistant librarian

  1·0

  18,618

  1·0

  19,520

  Mapping and charting grades

  SMCO

  61·0

  1,777,784

  67·0

  2,057,101

  HMCO

  181·0

  4,199,200

  179·0

  4,355,786

  MCO

  1,091·0

  21,446,878

  1,106·0

  22,831,158

  MCT1

  362·0

  6,101,510

  274·0

  4,875,830

  MCT2

  59·0

  711,953

  51·0

  658,716

  Carto assistant

  1·0

  14,125

  0

  0

  Support grades

  Stores C

  3·0

  58,107

  3·0

  60,921

  Stores D

  4·0

  63,240

  5·0

  85,640

  Support manager 2

  1·0

  17,928

  1·0

  18,815

  Support manager 3

  3·0

  43,143

  3·0

  46,539

  Support grade band 1

  35·0

  419,580

  37·0

  472,490

  Support grade band 2

  74·0

  736,966

  74·0

  784,548

  P & T Group

  PTO

  1·0

  20,138

  1·0

  21,113

  Technical grade 1

  5·0

  84,105

  5·0

  88,180

  Industrial

  32·0

  291,340

  14·0

  134,211

  Letter from Stephen Crow to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 3 November 1992:

  1. The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked for a list by grade of the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92, and estimated figures for 1992–93.

  2. The Planning Inspectorate was launched as a joint Agency in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office on 1 April 1992. The Agency's estimated staff cost for 1992–93 is £ 13·9 million. The breakdown of permanent staff by grades (as at 1 September 1992) is in the attached table.
  122

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  724·0

  738·0

  Letter from David Rhind to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about staff numbers and cost. I enclose a table which shows the Ordnance Survey staff numbers by grade and their associated costs for 1991–92 and the corresponding estimated figures for 1992–93.

  The cost figures quoted comprise salaries, ERNIC, superannuation, overtime and specialist allowances.

  3. Prior to 1 April 1992 the Welsh Office were directly responsible for the Inspectorate's functions in Wales. The average number of permanent staff undertaking the Inspectorate's functions in England during 1991–92 was 613 and the salary cost was £12·3 million.

  The Planning Inspectorate Staff in Post as at 1 September 1992

  Grade

  Staff in Post

  3

  1·0

  4

  2·0

  5

  14·0

  6

  2·0

  123

  Grade

  Staff in Post

  7

  7·0

  Principal Housing and Planning Inspector

  39·0

  Senior Housing and Planning Inspector

  117·0

  Housing and Planning Inspector

  84·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  7·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  33·5

  Executive Officer

  78·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  14·0

  Administrative Officer

  167·5

  Administrative Assistant etc.

  69·5

  Typist

  1·0

  Total

  637·5

  Letter from Mr. Marcus Buck to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  I am responding to your question regarding the above subject. Figures for The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre are as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  AO

  15

  16

  EO

  11

  10

  HEO

  4

  4

  SEO

  1

  1

  SIO

  2

  1

  Grade 7

  5

  4

  Grade 6

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  December 1991

  October 1992

  October 19931

  Staff

  Salaries

  Staff

  Salaries

  Staff

  Salaries

  Administration Officers

  34

  287,599

  31

  280,404

  29

  267,560

  Support Grades

  4

  33,712

  4

  35,864

  4

  36,581

  Typists

  5

  39,073

  5

  41,569

  5

  42,400

  Executive Officers

  22

  268,745

  20

  259,134

  20

  264,317

  Personal Secretaries

  2

  21,620

  2

  23,000

  2

  23,460

  SM3/SPS/Typing Manager

  3

  36,987

  3

  39,348

  3

  40,135

  Technical Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  7

  114,735

  7

  122,059

  7

  124,500

  HPTO

  6

  137,059

  10

  236,950

  12

  290,027

  SEO

  4

  93,382

  4

  99,343

  4

  101,330

  SPTO

  7

  151,340

  9

  212,069

  11

  264,379

  Grade 7

  7

  184,980

  6

  170,759

  6

  174,174

  Grade 6

  2

  75,000

  2

  78,500

  2

  82,500

  Grade 5

  l

  47,000

  l

  49,000

  1

  50,750

  104

  1,496,232

  104

  1,653,499

  107

  1,779,523

  1 Forecast.

  Airports (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the length of time between submitting the application and a final decision being announced in respect of all planning applications involving airport expansion that were subject to a local public inquiry since 1970.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The table gives details of the length of time taken to determine most of the major airport expansions subject to public local inquiry since 1977.
  124

  1991–92

  1992–93

  HPTO

  3

  3

  PTO

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  2

  2

  Typist

  1

  1

  SGB1

  1

  1

  SGB2

  8

  8

  Specialists

  10

  9

  Casual

  1

  1

  Total

  66

  64

  Costs

  £1,525,000

  £1,612,000

  (Actual)

  (Estimated)

  If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Roger H. Powell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  Michael Howard has asked the Chief Executives of Agencies attached to his Department to respond to your Parliamentary Question on the above matter.

  I have set out at Appendix A 3 figures which represent snapshots of the situation as of December 1991, and October 1992 and a forecast for October 1993.

  I have given staff in post figures which include a number of non-civil servants.

  If I can be of further help please contact me.

  (months)

  Airport

  Date application made

  Date final decision announced

  Time taken

  Leeds Bradford

  8 August 1977

  17 December 1980

  40

  Heathrow (Terminal 4)

  26 September 1977

  17 December 1979

  26

  Manchester

  2 February 1979

  9 September 1980

  19

  Gatwick North

  2 March 1979

  9 November 1982

  44

  Birmingham

  17 April 1979

  30 May 1980

  13

  East Midlands

  1 November 1979

  1 February 1983

  38

  Heathrow (Terminal 4)

  4 June 1984

  18 September 1985

  15

  Leeds Bradford

  23 January 1986

  14 August 1989

  42

  Lydd

  8 September 1987

  24 September 1992

  60

  London City

  12 September 1989

  26 September 1991

  24

  125

  Economic Development
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to change the procedures used to designate scheduled authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, to ensure that scheduled authorities are those local authorities which have the highest levels of unemployment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Those local authorities designated by the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 which were not previously designated in the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) Regulations 1990, qualified on the basis that, in whole or in part, they fell within a travel-to-work area with an unemployment rate above the—narrow base—national average for England of 9·8 per cent. for the period from April 1991 to March 1992. The list of scheduled authorities will be reviewed again in the light of the unemployment statistics for April 1992 to March 1993.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many English local authorities, which were designated scheduled authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, have higher levels of unemployment than(a) Southampton and (b) Gosport; and if he will list them and their current levels of unemployment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Fifty-six local authorities were newly designated as scheduled authorities under the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, on the basis that each authority, in whole or in part, fell within a travel-to-work area with unemployment above the—narrow base—national average for England of 9·8 per cent. for the period from April 1991 to March 1992. Southampton city council and Gosport borough council did not fall within such a travel-to-work area. The scheduled authorities added by the regulations are:

  In the county of Dorset

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  In the county of East Sussex

  Brighton Borough Council

  Lewes District Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Hove Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  In the county of Essex

  Basildon District Council

  Brentwood District Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Maldon District Council

  Rochford District Council

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  Thurrock Borough Council

  In Greater London

  The Common Council of The Corporation of London

  The council of the—

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London Borough of Barnet

  London Borough of Bexley

  126

  London Borough of Bromley

  London Borough of Camden

  London Borough of Croydon

  London Borough of Enfield

  London Borough of Harrow

  London Borough of Havering

  London Borough of Merton

  London Borough of Redbridge

  London Borough of Sutton

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  London Borough of Westminster

  In the county of Hampshire

  East Hampshire District Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  New Forest District Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Winchester City Council

  In the county of Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  In the county of Kent

  Dartford Borough Council

  Gillingham Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Rochester upon Medway City Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing District Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  In the county of Surrey

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  In the county of West Sussex

  Adur District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Horsham District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Green Belt, Lancashire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the planning decisions in Lancashire over the past 15 years where development on designated green belt land has been permitted; and if he will indicate those approvals granted after appeal to him.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on local authority decisions is not available; reliable information on appeal decisions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold meetings with the major financial lending institutions on the criteria they will use to determine their lending policies to house builders and house purchasers of homes built on contaminated land.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Plant Standards
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set a timetable to ensure that all existing power stations and combustion plants operate according to new plant standards by 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1 April 1991 all large combustion plants have been subject to integrated pollution control
  127
  under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and therefore to regulation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. When considering an application for authorisation HMIP is required to ensure the use of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent, or minimise and render harmless any releases. The precise timetable for the upgrading of existing plant, and the standards to be achieved, are matters for HMIP.

  Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken by his Department to date upon the use of selective catalytic reduction upon levels of nitrogen oxide emissions; and what plans he has to support and fund the selective catalytic reductions initiatives in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Technologies for reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, including selective catalytic reduction, have been considered in two items of research commissioned by my Department; a general study of acid emission abatement technologies undertaken by the Fellowship of Engineering, and a report on nitrogen oxide abatement technologies for large combustion plants undertaken by DNV Technica. While I have no plans for funding or other specific support for the development of this technique, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is under a duty to keep such techniques under review for the purposes of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to upgrade the United Kingdom plan to cut acid emissions.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is already committed to substantial reductions in acid emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. We continue to keep these plans under review in the light of both the developing scientific evidence of acid damage and the progress of negotiations, in which the United Kingdom is playing a full part, towards new international agreements for the control of acid emissions.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement upon the impact of the new EC action programme on the environment on Government support for the pollution control authorities in the dealings with plant operations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Among the many issues it addresses, the EC's fifth environmental action programme emphasises the importance of a scheme of integrated pollution prevention and control to regulate the operations of industrial plant. The European Commission is currently working on a proposal in this area. We introduced a scheme of integrated pollution control in the United Kingdom under the Environmental Protection Act [990, which came into force in April 1991 and is now being implemented by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We therefore welcome the Commission's intentions.

  Trees
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage the provision of trees in towns and community forests in England.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government provide grant aid for planting, including grants from the Forestry Commission 128
  through the woodland grant scheme and the new community woodland supplement, and support from Task Force Trees—a special unit of the Countryside Commission which is allocating some £17 million in grant to replace trees in both urban and rural areas lost in the storms of 1987 and 1990.

  We also provide assistance to voluntary and other bodies which are active in planting trees in towns and the urban fringe and fund an important programme of research and the provision of advice, placing emphasis on the practical care and maintenance of trees.

  The Countryside Commission and the Forestry Commission are engaged in a joint initiative to create a number of community forests near major towns and cities. The Government have funded the establishment of project teams to explore means of implementing these forests and are currently considering proposed business plans for the three lead schemes: Thames Chase, Forest of Mercia and the Great North Forest.

  Housing, Pendle
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the housing investment programme bids by Pendle district council to his Department and the HIP allocation for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of the revisions to the capital finance system introduced in April 1990.

  Housing investment programme (HIP) bids by Pendle district council and allocations and capital expenditure, 1982–83 to 1992–93

  £ thousand

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations1

  Housing capital expenditure

  Cash

  1992–93 prices1

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  1982–83

  6,014

  10,447

  5,163

  8,969

  5,173

  8,986

  1983–84

  6,151

  10,212

  4,469

  7,420

  5,657

  9,392

  1984–85

  8,115

  12,823

  3,815

  6,028

  6,324

  9,993

  1985–86

  7,900

  11,837

  3,157

  4,730

  4,463

  6,687

  1986–87

  7,206

  10,460

  2,980

  4,326

  3,777

  5,483

  1987–88

  8,162

  11,231

  3,191

  4,391

  4,005

  5,511

  1988–89

  11,375

  14,590

  3,196

  4,099

  5,169

  6,630

  1989–90

  6,515

  7,841

  2,574

  3,098

  5,687

  6,844

  New capital finance system3

  1990–91

  6,888

  7,677

  3,203

  3,570

  3,962

  4,416

  1991–92

  5,610

  5,848

  2,468

  2,573

  43,381

  43,525

  1992–93

  6,005

  6,005

  3,420

  3,420

  54,220

  54,220

  Notes:

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, i.e. the intial allocation plus any increases to the initial allocation made in-year. The allocations figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are the HIP allocations—housing annual capital guidelines plus specified capital grants—issued prior to the start of the financial year. These figures do not include any supplementary credit approvals issued during the year.

  2Cash figures have been converted to 1992–93 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  3 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation is an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a directly borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  4Provisional.

  5Estimated.

  Diesel Engine Trains
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department takes to monitor the level of pollution produced by diesel engine trains.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department does not monitor directly pollution produced by diesel engine trains. Diesel motors of all kinds contribute to ambient levels of smoke, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in particular, and these are monitored in many places throughout the United Kingdom. Rail transport is estimated to contribute about 1 per cent. of total United Kingdom emissions of nitrogen oxides, and negligible proportions of total emissions of other major pollutants.

  DOE Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 14, 1991: Tables 1.1–2, 1.7, and 1.9–10).

  Squirrel Monkeys
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost, nationwide, of a licence to keep squirrel monkeys under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

  Mr. Maclean
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is he will state the amount of grant awarded by each local authority for renovation to reduce the risk from radon gas, and the total paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the proposed reduction in planned spending by his Department under the "Environment" heading in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  This heading comprises a variety of spending programmes including new towns, the urban block, Property Holdings, Ordnance Survey and the Office of Water Services as well as environmental initiatives. Forecast outturn for 1992–93 and the revised provision for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are higher than in previous plans.

  The year on year changes between 1992–93 and 1994–95 reflect a number of factors, including a change in the forecast of receipts from the disposal of new towns assets. Provision rises throughout the period on the environment, countryside and wildlife block of expenditure programmes within the overall "Environment" heading.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the relevant appointing body for the members of the board of each housing action trust, and the rate of remuneration received by each member of such bodies.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: Members of the boards of housing action trusts are
  130
  appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the basis set out in schedule 7 to the Housing Act 1988 and are entitled to receive remuneration of £4,890 per year, based on an assumed time input of half a day a week.

  Waste Water Treatment
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent estimate of the total level of capital investment required to meet the EC Municipal Waste Water Treatment directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Following discussions with the Department, the National Rivers Authority, and the water industry, the Director General of Water Services made certain assumptions in order to make an estimate of the possible capital costs for England and Wales in his consultation paper, "The Cost of Quality", published in August. Work continues, however, to identify the obligations arising from the directive and associated costs with greater precision.

  Land (Public Access)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the public can find out where they have rights of access to private land as a result of tax concessions being granted to the owners in return for greater public access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  The owner of land that has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax is required to publicise the agreed public access arrangements. The extent of the publicity depends on the facts of each case. The owner will generally be required to take specific steps to publicise public access, for example by advertising the access arrangements in a local tourist office or town hall.

  The appropriate heritage advisory agency, for example the Countryside Commission for scenic land in England, is able to supply information about public access to heritage land including conditionally exempt land, although land will not be identified as conditionally exempt. In addition, in England and Wales, a member of the public who wants information about public access in a specific area can contact the footpaths officer of the appropriate county council or national park authority. Details of footpaths and public access also often appear on maps and in commercial publications, particularly for major tourist areas.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Fairs
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to adopt a more flexible application of the three times rule in relation to a company's participation in trade fairs in a particular national market(a) in general and (b) for the apparel and textile industry.

  Mr. Needham
  The general policy of the three times rule does incorporate a certain level of flexibility in that flag ship events—that is major prestigious shows focusing on important sectors—are supported on five occasions. This additional level of support is also available for events in
  131
  Japan, North America and Germany, except that the latter two are restricted to three events within regions of those markets.

  A review of the trade fairs support scheme is planned to take place during 1993. The results of that exercise will form the basis of a total review of the present policy.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the (i) current account and (ii) manufacturing trade balance was for the calendar year 1989 in(a) United Kingdom and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is in the table.

  Balances on current account and in manufacturing in 1989

  £ billion

  Current account balance

  Manufacturing balance

  United Kingdom

  -21·7

  -17·3

  Germany

  35·1

  68·7

  Notes:

  1. All figures are on a balance of payments basis except the German figure for trade in manufactured trade goods, which is a crude balance.

  2. Germany excludes eastern Germany.

  Source: CSO, OECD, German national source.

  Nuclear Processing
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of uranium and plutonium would be produced by reprocessing spent fuel from United Kingdom nuclear power stations under existing contracts with the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 November.1992, c. 308]: The figure for the amount of plutonium arising from the reprocessing of spent fuels should have read eight tonnes.

  EC Regional Development
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of EC regional development funding received by the United Kingdom has been spent within the United Kingdom assisted areas(a) in each year since 1984 and (b) in total since 1984.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  From 1984 to 1989 the European regional development fund—ERDF—grants were payable only in Northern Ireland, the assisted areas of Great Britain, and the remainder of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Development Board of Rural Wales areas. Figures for the latter areas are not readily available, but would have comprised only a very small proportion of the United Kingdom's total allocation.

  From 1989, eligibility for the ERDF has, with minor exceptions, been determined according to eligibility for objectives 1, 2 and 5b of the reformed structural funds. The great majority of the ERDF allocations resulting from these objectives go to Northern Ireland and the assisted areas, but figures on the exact proportion could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 November,Official Report, column 606, if he will list those areas in the United
  132
  Kingdom that are (a) part of the United Kingdom's assisted areas map but do not qualify for EC regional development funding and (b) not part of the United Kingdom's assisted areas maps but which qualify for EC regional development funding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The areas in the United Kingdom that are assisted areas but do not qualify for EC regional development funding include: the whole travel-to-workareas—TTWAs—of Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye, Corby, Kidderminster, and Whitby; and part of the TTWAs of Birmingham, Coventry and Hinckley, and Dudley and Sandwell.

  The areas in the United Kingdom that are not assisted areas but qualify for EC regional development funding include: Northern Ireland; the whole TTWAs of Aberystwyth, Alnwick and Amble, Brecon, Burnley, Castleford and Pontefract, Camarthen, Chesterfield, Dolgellau and Barmouth, Inverness, Islay Mid Argyll, Keith, Llandeilo, Llandrindod Wells, Machynlleth, Mansfield, Newtown, Oban, Orkney Islands, Pendle, Retford, Shetland Islands, Thurso, Wakefield arid Dewsbury, Welshpool, Whitehaven, Worksop; and part of the TTWAs of Alfreton and Ashfield, Edinburgh, Elgin, Goole and Selby, Manchester, Nottingham, and Stirling.

  Development Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much EC regional development funding has been spent in the Darlington travel-to-work area(a) in each year since 1984 and (b) in total.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  European regional development fund allocations to the Darlington travel-to-work area since 1984 have been as follows:

  £ Thousands

  1984

  3,816

  1985

  580

  1986

  348

  1987

  508

  1988

  225

  1989

  557

  1990

  617

  1991

  939

  Total 1984 to 1991

  7,590

  The figures include allocations to projects which part fall outside the Darlington TTWA.

  Economic Development Assistance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each piece of legislation within the responsibility of his Department which bestows economic development powers or economic development assistance on local authority areas and which are based, in whole or in part, on statistics related to the relevant travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 empowers my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make grants in the assisted areas for the improvement of a basic service for which he is responsible. Local authorities would be eligible for such assistance. My

  133
  right hon. Friend has no other powers bestowing such powers or assistance to local authorities in the manner described.

  Export Credit Guarantee Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether prefabricated boxes made from steel mesh manufactured in Italy but in part assembled in the United Kingdom, and for the purpose of erosion protection for river banks and road embankments, are eligible for export credit guarantee finance, in respect of exports to African countries.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Export credit guarantee finance is provided to facilitate the supply abroad of goods and services by United Kingdom businesses. Depending on the details of individual cases, within strict limits foreign goods and services may also be financed.

  If the hon. Gentleman has a particular transaction in mind he may like to write to me about it.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has only one agency, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. David Beeton, to reply to the hon. Member and I shall place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. John McAllion, dated 12 November 1992:

  I have been requested by the Minister to reply to your Written Parliamentary Question on this subject.

  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency currently follows the health and safety policy of its previous parent Department —the Department of the Environment—of which it was a part until it was transferred into the new Department of National Heritage in April this year. A copy of the DOE's policy statement is attached.

  The Agency is now developing its own health and safety policy in consultation with the Department of National Heritage with the aim of finalising it in the new year.

  I understand that the Minister is arranging for a copy of this reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The policy statement has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage has only one executive agency, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, HRPA. This was considered for privatisation and contractorisation in the normal way when it was set up. Its framework document is currently being reviewed in accordance with the usual procedures under which agency framework documents are considered every three years. The HRPA will continue to contract out a proportion of its services in line with Government policy.

  BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what have been the financial allocations to the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This is a matter for the BBC, within the terms of the present royal charter and licence and agreement.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what use his Department has made of private detectives since its inception; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has not used the services of a private detective.

SCOTLAND

  Dentistry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental checks were carried out in Scotland(a) in each of the three years preceding the withdrawal of free dental checks in the NHS and (b) in each year since then.

  Mr. Stewart
  Charges for dental examination were introduced on 1 January 1989. The figures available on the number of dental examinations carried out in Scotland in each of the years in question are contained in the table. The figures from 1 October 1990 are for adults only, as under the new dental contract introduced from that date children are now treated under capitation arrangements to provide continuing care, and information is not recorded separately on individual treatment items such as examinations for children. The number of children registered with a dentist under these arrangements for the periods since October 1990 is shown separately in the table.

  Million

  Year

  Number of examinations

  Number of children registered October 1990 onwards

  1986

  2·66

  n/a

  1987

  2·64

  n/a

  1988

  2·67

  n/a

  1989

  2·69

  n/a

  1990 January to September

  1·96

  n/a

  1990–91 October to March1

  0·95

  0·47

  1991–92 April to March2

  1·90

  0·63

  1 New contract for general dental services introduced on 1 October 1990.

  2 With effect from 1 April 1991 the method of collecting statistical information was changed to reflect financial years.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now reverse the decision to withdraw free dental checks in the NHS.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to reintroduce free NHS dental examinations.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will withdraw the draft regulations aimed at clarifying the existing statutory framework for compulsory competitive tendering issued on 16 June to local authorities, and amend them accordingly, following the Government's acceptance of the EC's acquired rights directive;

  (2) whether the EC acquired rights directive will be applied retrospectively to all contracts awarded externally by Scottish local authorities under compulsory competitive tendering legislation; and what is his estimate of the number of workers involved in such contracts to date;

  (3) what provision is made under the EC acquired rights directive for reinstatement of former pay and conditions to former local authority employees who have been transferred to the private sector under compulsory competitive tendering legislation, and who have suffered a reduction in pay or conditions as a result;

  (4) what advice he will provide to Scottish local authorities and other public bodies to enable them to inform interested parties fully in the compulsory competitive tendering process of the implication of the Government's acceptance of the EC's acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to withdraw the consultation paper issued on 16 June 1992 which contained detailed proposals for the content of regulations and guidance to clarify the framework for compulsory competitive tendering. The consultation paper reflected our view that it would be most unusual for the provisions of the directive to apply to a normal contract let under the compulsory competitive tendering legislation. Responses to the consultation paper, including those relating to this particular point, will be carefully considered before the regulations and guidance are finalised. The interpretation of the law in its application to the individual case is, however, a matter for the courts.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of former public sector employees in Scotland transferred to the private sector under compulsory competitive tendering legislation; and what proportion of these workers come under the EC's acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about the number of former public sector employees in Scotland who are now employed in the private sector following the award of contracts under compulsory competitive tendering legislation is not held centrally.

  Final year basic student nurses—one year later1; by health board year beginning 30 September

  Total final year students

  Status in following year

  In post2

  Further training2

  Not in NHS in Scotland3

  Participation rate4 (per cent.)

  1987

  Scotland

  2,198

  1,608

  76

  514

  76·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  134

  103

  3

  28

  79·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  98

  89

  2

  7

  92·9

  Borders

  17

  14

  0

  3

  82·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  71

  44

  3

  24

  66·2

  Fife

  104

  70

  3

  31

  70·2

  Forth Valley

  90

  70

  4

  16

  82·2

  Commissioner for Local Administration
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland to those local authority services and statutory responsibilities which are transferred to private companies or other bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Although the Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the activities of private companies or other bodies undertaking local authorities' statutory duties or other services, the ultimate responsibility for the provision of such services remains with local authorities. Where a local authority has a statutory duty to provide a service, it cannot divest itself of that duty. It is therefore not necessary to extend the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to cover these circumstances. The Government will continue to review the Commissioner's powers in the light of any new factors which arise.

  Nursing and Midwifery Students
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing and midwifery students obtained posts in each health board area in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement regarding the estimated level of such employment, assuming both volume and percentage changes.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The exact information requested is not available centrally. The table, however, gives a broad indication of the underlying trends, assuming that qualification rates stay constant, of the number of final year pre-registration nursing students finding direct employment in the NHS in Scotland within the year of qualifying. Final year students in post at a census date are shown classified by their status one year later. It should he noted that the methods by which this information is collected do not permit account to be taken of certain students, for example those who have been unable to complete their training within the normal three year period; those who, having qualified, may have chosen to have a break in service before seeking employment; those who have found employment as a nurse outwith the NHS; and those who may have qualified, joined the NHS and left within a census period. Those who qualify and work occasionally in the NHS,—for example, bank or agency nurses—also cannot be identified and have therefore been counted with the "not employed" category.

  Comparable information on post-registration midwifery students is not available.
  137

  Total final year students

  Status in following year

  In post2

  Further training2

  Not in NHS in Scotland3

  Participation rate4 (per cent.)

  Grampian

  143

  108

  4

  31

  78·3

  Greater'Glasgow

  712

  522

  28

  162

  77·2

  Highland

  79

  41

  10

  28

  64·6

  Lanarkshire

  138

  101

  5

  32

  76·8

  Lothian

  418

  300

  8

  110

  73·7

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tayside

  194

  146

  6

  42

  78·4

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1988

  Scotland

  2,028

  1,460

  52

  516

  74·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  105

  82

  2

  21

  800

  Ayrshire and Arran

  66

  58

  0

  8

  87·9

  Borders

  26

  26

  0

  0

  1000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  57

  37

  1

  19

  66·7

  Fife

  112

  71

  1

  40

  64·3

  Forth Valley

  98

  71

  2

  75

  74·5

  Grampian

  135

  112

  2

  21

  84·4

  Greater Glasgow

  709

  502

  16

  191

  73·1

  Highland

  92

  61

  6

  25

  72·8

  Lanarkshire

  161

  130

  5

  26

  83·9

  Lothian

  343

  216

  10

  117

  65·9

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tayside

  124

  94

  7

  23

  81·5

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1989

  Scotland

  2,174

  1,411

  54

  709

  67·4

  Argyll and Clyde

  107

  72

  1

  34

  68·2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  88

  79

  2

  7

  920

  Borders

  23

  17

  0

  6

  73·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  58

  40

  3

  15

  74·1

  Fife

  113

  64

  1

  48

  57·5

  Forth Valley

  88

  64

  3

  21

  76·1

  Grampian

  183

  132

  4

  47

  74·3

  Greater Glasgow

  652

  401

  7

  244

  62·6

  Highland

  99

  45

  12

  42

  57·6

  Lanarkshire

  144

  93

  2

  49

  66·0

  Lothian

  381

  229

  13

  139

  63·5

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tayside

  238

  175

  6

  57

  76·1

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1990

  Scotland

  2,232

  1,412

  36

  784

  64·9

  Argyll and Clyde

  106

  80

  1

  25

  76·4

  Ayrshire and Arran

  86

  77

  0

  9

  89·5

  Borders

  26

  22

  0

  4

  84·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  68

  53

  1

  14

  79·4

  Fife

  108

  56

  1

  51

  52·8

  Forth Valley

  131

  88

  6

  37

  71·8

  Grampian

  188

  145

  5

  38

  79·8

  Greater Glasgow

  669

  345

  9

  315

  52·9

  Highland

  88

  56

  3

  29

  67·0

  Lanarkshire

  160

  107

  1

  52

  67·5

  Lothian

  384

  220

  6

  158

  58·9

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Shetland

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0·0

  Tayside

  217

  163

  3

  51

  76·5

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1 This table excludes those who were still final year students one year later.

  2 Includes staff employed in another health board.

  3 May include agency or bank nurses and those who fail to qualify.

  4 Proportion working in NHS in Scotland or continuing with further training.

  138

  Cumbernauld New Town
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created and how many jobs have been lost in Cumbernauld new town in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The figures shown in Cumbernauld development corporation's annual report for each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year ended

  Jobs created

  Jobs Lost

  31 March 1988

  2,114

  1,170

  31 March 1989

  2,307

  1,293

  31 March 1990

  2,474

  1,578

  31 March 1991

  2,740

  2,057

  31 March 1992

  2,676

  2,231

  Fishing Closures
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to modify section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 in relation to(a) sea loch closures and (b) seasonal closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: A review of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 is presently taking place. A consultation paper was recently issued proposing some changes to the conservation regime including the provisions on sea loch and seasonal closures. The responses are at present being assessed and it is hoped to make an announcement on any changes before the end of the year.

WALES

  Genetic Screening
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library details of the regional and sub-regional genetic screening service in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place in the Library of the House details of the genetic screening services offered by the regional medical genetics centre at the University hospital of Wales. Details of district and sub-regional services are not held centrally.

  Cadw
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of Cadw's health and safety policy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under its chief executive, Mr. John Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. A. J. Carr to Mr. John McAllion, dated 17 November 1992:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked if he would place a copy of Cadw's Health and Safety Policy in the Library of the House.

  The framework document for the Agency delegates to me responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of its staff and
  140
  the public who are affected by its work. We have not, however, adopted a policy separate from that of the Welsh Office's written statement setting out its approach to health and safety.

  I enclose a copy of that statement.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is his estimate of the total amount of poll tax arrears in Wales; and if he will give the breakdown for each district authority at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 5 November 1992, at column 377.

  Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to undertake improvements to the landscape and highway hardware on and around the A55 approaches to the new Conwy tunnel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Landscaping and other works at the Conwy tunnel approaches have been carried out in accordance with the planned proposals; no further works are currently anticipated other than regular maintenance.

  Child Psychotherapists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the number of child psychotherapists employed within the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 30 September 1992 there were three—whole-time equivalent of 1·5—child psychotherapists employed within the NHS in Wales.

  Teacher Training Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to reform teacher training colleges.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have already announced the changes to be made to the initial teacher training of teachers for secondary schools. The main thrust of these reforms is that schools should play a much larger part in initial teacher training as full partners of higher education institutions.

  The target date for the reform of initial teacher training for primary teachers is 1 September 1994. Our aim is to make primary phase teacher training more school-based and more closely related to the needs of schools.

  Educational Psychology Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the educational psychology service.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Educational psychology services are the responsibility of local education authorities. This will remain the case under the Education Bill. The Welsh Office makes grant available to LEAs for the initial training of educational psychologists. Expenditure of almost £200,000 is being supported in 1992–93.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on discretionary awards.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for discretionary awards for students rests with individual local education authorities. Each LEA will determine its own policies and expenditure on discretionary awards in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Wales have applied for grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Three and six respectively.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend nursery education in Wales in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is no statutory requirement to provide children under the age of five with schooling. The provision of education in school for children under five years old is at the discretion of local education authorities.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to improve the quality of life of pensioners in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's proposals for the improvement of the quality of life of pensioners in Wales are set out in chapter 11 of the White Paper "Caring for People—Community Care in the next Decade and Beyond", Cm 849, and in guidance issued subsequently to assist authorities in preparing for its full implementation. The social care plans for the implementation of community care for the elderly, drawn up by social services authorities in Wales, jointly with health and housing authorities and others, have the following key aims and objectives:

  1. To do all that is practicable to enable elderly people to live in the home environment of their own choice.

  2. To maintain and foster maximum independence, taking into account personal and coping skills.

  3. To recognise the needs of family and other carers, and to provide them with necessary support.

  4. To encourage participation in community life, by facilitating access to social, educational and leisure opportunities.

  5. To provide information to enable individuals to make informed and realistic choices about services.

  6. To promote opportunities for elderly people, and the carers of elderly people, to contribute to the design of services and to ensure that they are able to contribute to local policy and operational planning.

  7. To respond to individuals' choice of service, while ensuring that good standards of care are maintained.

  8. To stimulate the development of a wide and flexible range of services from a variety of providers, and to ensure cooperation and effective working by all concerned.

  9. To increase public awareness of the needs and rights of elderly people.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed there are in(a) Wales, (b) each of the travel-to-work areas in Clwyd and (c) Alyn and Deeside local authority areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of long-term unemployed in each of the areas requested are given in the table. The table shows unadjusted numbers of those unemployed for more than 52 weeks.

  Long-term unemployed on 8 October 1992

  Number

  Wales

  43,197

  Travel-to-work areas which are either wholly or partially within the county of Clwyd

  Conwy and Colwyn

  1,112

  Denbigh

  254

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  2,003

  Wrexham

  1,699

  Local authority area

  Alyn and Deeside

  722

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of rent arrears in each district in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities' own estimates of both current and former tenants' rent arrears at 31 March 1993 are given in the table:

  Local authority

  Rent arrears (£s)

  Aberconwy BC

  55,000

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  210,000

  Arfon BC

  97,000

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  96,201

  Brecknock BC

  65,400

  Cardiff CC

  1,000,000

  Carmarthen DC

  172,000

  Ceredigion DC

  140,000

  Colwyn BC

  95,000

  Cynon Valley BC

  22,500

  Delyn BC

  137,000

  Dinefwr BC

  129,587

  Dwyfor DC

  33,320

  Glyndwr DC

  215,000

  Islwyn BC

  110,000

  Llanelli BC

  240,243

  Lliw Valley BC

  174,000

  Meirionnydd DC

  42,000

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  75,000

  Monmouth BC

  185,000

  Montgomeryshire DC

  80,000

  Neath BC

  217,000

  Newport BC

  620,000

  OgwrBC

  812,000

  Port Talbot BC

  130,000

  Preseli Pembrokeshire DC

  270,000

  Radnorshire DC

  26,000

  Rhondda BC

  281,000

  Rhuddlan BC

  95,000

  Rhymney Valley DC

  530,000

  South Pembrokeshire DC

  177,000

  Swansea CC

  1,299,915

  Taff Ely BC

  427,000

  143

  Local authority

  Rent arrears (£'s)

  Torfaen BC

  408,000

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  164,000

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  292,000

  Ynys Mon BC

  158,000

  Live Music
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on promoting live music.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In Wales, Government support for the arts is provided through the Welsh Arts Council and regional arts asssociations, with the aim of encouraging quality and innovation in all art forms. In the current financial year total Welsh Arts Council spending on live music will be almost £4 million. The regional arts associations and local authorities also fund live music.

  BBC Wales Symphony Orchestra
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the financial allocations to the BBC Wales symphony orchestra in 1982, 1988 and in the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The BBC Wales symphony orchestra receives financial support from the Welsh Arts Council. Grants were £226,487 in 1982, £396,050 in 1988 and £517,500 in 1991.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1987–91

  VAT Registrations

  8,700

  10,900

  10,900

  10,200

  8,400

  49,100

  VAT Deregistrations

  7,200

  7,800

  7,700

  8,000

  8,800

  39,500

  Change to stock of VAT-registered business

  + 1,500

  + 3,100

  + 3,200

  + 2,200

  -400

  + 9,600

  Hearing-impaired Pupils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he has taken for the hearing impaired in the schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to identify, assess and make appropriate provision for children with special educational needs, including those with a hearing impairment. The Welsh Office makes grant available to LEAs for the training of teachers, including teachers of the deaf.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those schools in Wales that exist for the hearing impaired.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Maintained special schools which are approved specifically for children with hearing impairments are Bryn Glas School, Mold, Clwyd and Ashgrove School, Penarth, South Glamorgan. In addition, there are pupils with a number of difficulties, including hearing impairment, in other special schools and some ordinary maintained schools have units which cater for those with hearing difficulties but details are not available centrally.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has adopted to limit truancy in the primary and secondary schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Truancy is a serious matter. It undermines the educational process and contributes to the juvenile crime rate. Since August this year, maintained schools are required to publish their rates of unauthorised absence. This will enable us to establish the full extent of the problem and to consider what action the Department needs to take.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many small firms have gone out of business in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not available. However, VAT registration and deregistration figures, which mainly comprise smaller businesses, are available for each of the years in question and show a net addition of 9,600 VAT registered businesses in Wales for the period 1987–91, bringing the total number of VAT registered businesses in Wales to 86,700.

  The number of VAT registrations and deregistrations in Wales for each of the last five years, and the resulting change to the stock of businesses, is as follows:

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those locations in Wales where orimulsion is burned.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Orimulsion is not burned on a commercial basis in Wales at the present time. National Power plc has put forward proposals for the use of the fuel at Pembroke power station and these are under consideration by the relevant authorities.

  Point of Ayr
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report and recommendations of the inspector resulting from the inquiry into proposed development at Point of Ayr by Hamilton Oil.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As soon as possible.

  North East Wales TEC
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that the North East Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd. does not receive any public money towards its proposal to build new offices for its managing director and staff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  North East Wales TEC, in collaboration with the Welsh Development Agency, will
  145
  be establishing a business development centre in Clwyd. The contribution which the TEC will make towards the cost of this Centre comes from operating surpluses it has been able to generate from the provision of training and enterprise programmes since its inception.

  The business development centre will provide an effective "one stop shop" of information, advice and assistance to local businesses and a range of facilities including a lecture theatre, fully equipped training rooms, video conferencing facilities and exhibition space. It will also provide office accommodation for both the TEC and the WDA.

  This integrated approach will help to stimulate the growth of the north-east Wales economy, making it easier for large and small businesses to access the help they need to develop and grow and to compete in domestic and overseas markets.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution will be made to local authorities for supplementation to private nursing homes for the year beginning 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I announced on 2 October that £35·9 million would be made available to local authorities in Wales in 1993–94 in respect of all their community care responsibilities.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available in the Library copies of the responses he has received to the proposals on local government reorganisation set out in his statement to the House on 3 March, at columns 171–72.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the formal response submitted to me by the Welsh local authority associations, individual authorities and others, together with the reports prepared by the structures group and its sub-groups. These latter reports were prepared as advice for the Welsh consultative Council on Local Government and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Welsh Office or the local authority associations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reasons for the different treatment of Wales from that of England and Scotland in the proposed central Government support for local authorities in table 11 of the public expenditure plans announced on 12 November.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The levels of central Government support for local authority spending in Wales, England and Scotland reflect the decisions taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland and myself, taking account of local government functional changes for 1993–94.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pipers Crossroads, Moneyrea
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made for the scheme to widen the road at Pipers crossroads at Moneyrea; whether the land has been acquired for the scheme; whether the design work has been completed; and when he expects work to commence on site.

  Mr. Atkins
  The vesting order to acquire the necessary land will become operative next month; design work is at an advanced stage; and work should commence towards the end of the current financial year, subject to the availability of finance.

  EC Finance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the total sums which are identifiable as having accrued to the Northern Ireland budget from EC sources in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Mates
  Northern Ireland's largest single source of funding from the European Community is the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. The bulk of such receipts are disbursed centrally by the Intervention Board executive agency (IBEA) and details of those receipts are not maintained on a regional basis.

  The following amounts, however, have been identified as receipts from the European Community's three structural funds:

  Year

  £ million

  1973–74

  0

  1974–75

  4

  1975–76

  4

  1976–77

  16

  1977–78

  14

  1978–79

  19

  1979–80

  31

  1980–81

  44

  1981–82

  41

  1982–83

  53

  1983–84

  51

  1984–85

  58

  1985–86

  44

  1986–87

  77

  1987–88

  111

  1988–89

  96

  1989–90

  95

  1990–91

  110

  1991–92

  132

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial contribution will be made to local authorities for supplementation to private nursing homes for the year beginning 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be making an announcement shortly on the additional resources to be made available by way of transfer from the social security vote to the budgets of the health and social services boards. Any further additional funds secured in the current public expenditure round will be announced in due course.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what is the outcome of the current application for HSS trust status in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend, the Earl of Arran, has decided to approve the applications for trust status from the following units:

  Belfast City hospital

  Craigavon area hospitals group

  Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals

  Green Park unit

  Eastern ambulance service

  Down and Lisburn unit

  North Down and Ards community unit

  North and West Belfast community unit

  South and East Belfast community unit

  The application from the Mater Infirmorum hospital has been deferred to allow the future role of the hospital to be clarified in the light of the Eastern health and social services board's current review of acute services.

  Waiting list by category

  District

  at 30 September 1991

  at 31 March 1992

  at 30 September 1992

  As

  Bs

  As

  Bs

  As

  Bs

  Antrim

  77

  576

  82

  609

  72

  586

  Armagh

  44

  489

  62

  497

  49

  484

  Ballycastle

  26

  160

  21

  167

  23

  157

  Ballymena

  88

  565

  99

  601

  96

  651

  Ballymoney

  28

  287

  18

  310

  16

  326

  Banbridge

  60

  262

  46

  266

  41

  238

  Bangor

  113

  901

  120

  889

  138

  824

  Belfast 1

  169

  513

  131

  524

  162

  526

  Belfast 2

  177

  822

  165

  834

  131

  771

  Belfast 3

  339

  451

  292

  433

  249

  418

  Belfast 4

  243

  604

  217

  656

  223

  586

  Belfast 5

  202

  420

  202

  408

  238

  415

  Belfast 6

  132

  483

  128

  501

  138

  492

  Belfast 7

  238

  1,025

  220

  1,058

  209

  1,025

  Carrickfergus

  56

  468

  45

  501

  66

  495

  Castlereagh 1

  35

  248

  28

  245

  35

  207

  Castlereagh 2

  63

  455

  73

  450

  69

  445

  Coleraine

  83

  717

  75

  698

  67

  694

  Cookstown

  37

  189

  21

  209

  20

  212

  Craigavon

  14

  223

  5

  193

  6

  173

  Downpatrick

  134

  597

  100

  620

  157

  667

  Dungannon

  28

  358

  42

  378

  26

  394

  Fermanagh

  92

  444

  81

  465

  76

  465

  Larne

  54

  364

  64

  364

  58

  352

  Limavady

  61

  288

  54

  367

  55

  340

  Lisburn 1

  132

  512

  129

  539

  135

  495

  Lisburn 2

  38

  285

  57

  320

  54

  287

  Lisburn 3

  85

  326

  57

  322

  66

  321

  Londonderry 1

  198

  422

  199

  432

  202

  440

  Londonderry 2

  91

  339

  100

  369

  122

  394

  Londonderry 3

  98

  258

  85

  249

  125

  257

  Lurgan

  74

  428

  57

  462

  49

  429

  Magherafelt

  45

  333

  51

  331

  41

  355

  Newry 1

  61

  423

  41

  441

  50

  430

  Newry 2

  55

  407

  63

  434

  47

  443

  Newtownabbey 1

  43

  308

  41

  349

  52

  344

  Newtownabbey 2

  57

  441

  47

  437

  60

  460

  Newtownards 1

  116

  467

  97

  489

  87

  473

  Newtownards 2

  53

  251

  28

  245

  32

  231

  Omagh

  42

  476

  59

  485

  58

  439

  Portadown

  48

  364

  47

  403

  43

  405

  Strabane

  71

  299

  67

  347

  67

  317

  148
  The approved HSS trusts will come into operation on 1 April 1993, apart from the last four—community-based units—whose establishment is dependent on the passage of amending legislation and cannot therefore be before 1 April 1994.

  Housing
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each district office of the Housing Executive, for each of the last six quarters, their waiting list broken down by category, the number of allocations by category, the longest period for which applicants had been A1 homeless and priority transfer and the average period spent in each of those categories by the respective applicants who were allocated houses.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised that the available information is as follows:
  149

  Allocations by category Six month period ending:—

  District

  30 September 1991

  31 March 1992

  30 September 1992

  As

  Bs

  As

  Bs

  As

  Bs

  Antrim

  82

  166

  69

  152

  92

  111

  Armagh

  48

  73

  45

  75

  51

  84

  Ballycastle

  15

  7

  16

  7

  21

  2

  Ballymena

  103

  143

  96

  166

  81

  118

  Ballymoney

  34

  32

  32

  26

  21

  25

  Banbridge

  72

  25

  54

  26

  34

  43

  Bangor

  106

  34

  107

  49

  104

  34

  Belfast 1

  78

  41

  97

  45

  51

  22

  Belfast 2

  123

  102

  108

  79

  135

  76

  Belfast 3

  143

  27

  102

  28

  108

  27

  Belfast 4

  52

  87

  39

  62

  35

  91

  Belfast 5

  76

  213

  62

  221

  56

  56

  Belfast 6

  51

  124

  58

  92

  80

  112

  Belfast 7

  157

  112

  99

  90

  127

  125

  Carrickfergus

  71

  80

  66

  77

  51

  68

  Castlereagh 1

  35

  248

  71

  117

  60

  134

  Castlereagh 2

  54

  37

  51

  29

  46

  27

  Coleraine

  95

  88

  51

  102

  74

  59

  Cookstown

  37

  49

  24

  42

  10

  48

  Craigavon

  23

  79

  24

  131

  16

  96

  Downpatrick

  95

  58

  114

  61

  76

  31

  Dungannon

  41

  58

  45

  95

  59

  63

  Fermanagh

  78

  45

  71

  48

  78

  41

  Larne

  52

  30

  45

  39

  58

  29

  Limavady

  57

  24

  44

  14

  45

  16

  Lisburn 1

  127

  73

  131

  78

  133

  76

  Lisburn 2

  46

  35

  40

  39

  48

  47

  Lisburn 3

  52

  1

  116

  11

  140

  7

  Londonderry 1

  80

  9

  48

  7

  93

  5

  Londonderry 2

  91

  65

  88

  64

  100

  41

  Londonderry 3

  120

  5

  113

  1

  73

  0

  Lurgan

  41

  56

  47

  33

  48

  49

  Magherafelt

  36

  28

  27

  33

  37

  23

  Newry 1

  64

  27

  67

  32

  68

  16

  Newry 2

  52

  54

  56

  27

  74

  44

  Newtownabbey 1

  32

  174

  36

  152

  47

  140

  Newtownabbey 2

  79

  84

  54

  159

  53

  82

  Newtownards 1

  126

  32

  100

  34

  112

  90

  Newtownards 2

  53

  13

  48

  20

  35

  27

  Omagh

  65

  63

  78

  31

  69

  34

  Portadown

  29

  64

  27

  37

  40

  48

  Strabane

  32

  49

  31

  58

  33

  63

  Irish Languages
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will name the schools, public bodies and Government sponsored associations involved in the promotion of the Irish language; and how many individuals use these facilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Details of the number of pupils studying Irish in individual schools are not available. However, on the basis of a 10 per cent. sample survey relating to those schools which offered Irish as a subject in the 1988–89 academic year, it has been estimated that 26,210 were studying Irish. Those schools are listed in the annex.

  There are in addition two grant-aided primary schools which teach through the medium of Irish and an Irish medium unit in an English medium primary school with a total enrolment of 648 in September 1992.

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland provides grants for relevant projects and activities involving the Irish language—for example, in the fields of drama and literature. No information is available centrally as to the numbers participating in these activities.
  150
  The Ultach trust was established with Government support in 1989 to widen appreciation of the contribution which the Irish language makes to the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland and to increase knowledge of the language throughout the community. In 1991–92 Ultach supported 64 projects. No information is available centrally as to the numbers participating in these projects.

  The origins of placenames project began on I October 1987 and involves a team of 5 academics located in Queen's university. The Project was assigned the following task by the Department of the Environment:
  "to research the origin of all names of settlements and physical features in Northern Ireland appearing on the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale map; to indicate their meaning and to note any historical or other relevant information. The project will enable an authenticated Irish language version to be provided for most of these names."

  Currently the Training and Employment Agency's action for community employment scheme assists employment in six projects which promote the Irish language. Information on the number of individuals using these facilities is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The British Broadcasting Corporation local radio provision includes Irish-medium and bilingual Irish-English magazine programmes and schools programmes which support Irish teaching in English-medium schools.

  151
  A bilingual series and several Irish-medium and bilingual feature programmes have been broadcast on television. Information on the number of individuals using these facilities is not available.

  In the financial year 1991–92 93 prisoners used the educational and translation facilities provided by the prison service.

  SCHOOLS OFFERING IRISH LANGUAGE—1988–89

  School

  Abbey Grammar School, Newry

  Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch

  Carnhill High School, Londonderry

  Christian Brothers' Grammar, Omagh

  Christian Brothers' Grammar School, Belfast

  Christian Brothers' Secondary School, Glengormley

  Christian Brothers' Secondary School, Belfast

  Convent Grammar School, Enniskillen

  Corpus Christi College, Belfast

  Cross and Passion College, Ballycastle

  Cross and Passion High School, Belfast

  Dean Brian Maguire High School. Carrickmore

  Dominican College, Portstewart

  Dominican College, Belfast

  Drumcree High School, Portadown

  La Salle Boy's Secondary School, Belfast

  Lismore Comprehensive School, Craigavon

  Little Flower Girls' Secondary School, Belfast

  Loreto College, Coleraine

  Loreto Convent Grammar School, Omagh

  Our Lady and St. Patrick's College, Knock

  Our Lady of Mercy Secondary School, Strabane

  Our Lady's High School, Cookstown

  Our Lady's Girls' Grammar School

  Convent of Mercy, Newry

  Rathmore Grammar School, Finaghy

  Sacred Heart Girl's Grammar School, Newry

  St. Aiden's High School, Enniskillen

  St. Aiden's High School, Glenavy

  St. Aloysius Secondary School, Cushendall

  St. Brechan's High School, Londonderry

  St. Brigid's Boys' High School, Armagh

  St. Catherine's College, Armagh

  St. Cecelia's Secondary School, Londonderry

  St. Ciaran's Secondary, Ballygawley

  St. Colm's Secondary School, Draperstown

  St. Colman's High School, Strabane

  St. Colman's College, Newry

  St. Colmoille's High School, Crossgar

  St. Columb's College, Londonderry

  St. Columba's High School, Portaferry

  St. Columban's High School, Kilkeel

  St. Columbanus's high School, Bangor

  St. Comgall's High School, Larne

  St. Comgall's Secondary School, Enniskillen

  St. Dominic's High School, Belfast

  St. Eugene's Secondary School, Castlederg

  St. Eugene's Secondary School, Enniskillen

  St. Gabriel's Secondary School, Belfast

  St. Gemma's Secondary School, Belfast

  St. Genevieve's High School, Belfast

  St. John's Secondary School, Dromore

  St. Joseph's Boys' Secondary School, Newry

  St. Joseph's Grammar School, Donaghmore

  St. Joseph's High School, Crossmaglen

  St. Joseph's High School, Coalisland

  St. Joseph's Secondary School, Londonderry

  St. Joseph's Secondary School, Plumbridge

  St. Louis Grammar School, Ballymena

  St. Louis Grammar School, Kilkeel

  St. Louise's Comprehensive College, Balfast

  St. MacNissi's College, Carnlough

  St. Malachy's College, Belfast

  St. Malachy's High School, Castlewellan

  St. Mary's Convent Grammar School, Magherafelt

  St. Mary's Girl's High School, Downpatrick

  St. Mary's High School, Limavady

  St. Mary's Junior High School, Lurgan

  St. Mary's Secondary School, Londonderry

  152

  St. Michael's Grammar School, Enniskillen

  St. Michael's Senior High School, Lurgan

  St. Olcan's Secondary School, Randalstown

  St. Patrick's College, Maghera

  St. Patrick's and St. Brigid's Secondary School, Claudy

  St. Patrick's Boys' Academy, Dungannon

  St. Patrick's Boys' Secondary School, Dungannon

  St. Patrick's Boys' Secondary School, Omagh

  St. Patrick's Girls' Academy, Dungannon

  St. Patrick's Girls' Secondary School, Dungannon

  St. Patrick's High School, Dungiven

  St. Patrick's High School, Ballymena

  St. Patrick's High School, Downpatrick

  St. Patrick's High School, Banbridge

  St. Patrick's High School, Cookstown

  St. Patrick's High School, Keady

  St. Paul's Junior High School, Lurgan

  St. Paul's Secondary School, Kilrea

  St. Paul's Secondary School, Bessbrook

  St. Peter's Secondary School, Londonderry

  St. Pius X Secondary School, Magherafelt

  St. Joseph's Boys' Secondary School, Enniskillen

  St. Patrick's Grammar, Armagh

  Thornhill College Convent of Mercy, Londonderry

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dip
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when training courses will be available to farmers on the dangers of sheep dip to human beings.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Training courses for farmers on sheep husbandry tasks are available from the Agricultural training board, various agricultural colleges and other training organisations. The hazards of sheep dip and the health and safety precautions to take during sheep dipping operations are included in these courses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those leaving youth training in 1991 in(a) Lancashire and (b) Pendle have found full-time employment within six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of those leaving youth training training providers in Lancashire in 1991, 51 per cent. found full-time employment within six months. Figures for Pendle are not available.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the gap between the earnings of Britain's highest and lowest paid in(a) 1962 and (b)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information nearest to that requested is contained in table 15 of part A of the "New Earning Survey" for the years 1980, 1990 and 1992. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers currently receive less than £207·13 a week.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information closest to that requested can be found in table 14 of part A of the "New Earnings Survey 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies in the textile industry have taken place in(a) Lancashire and (b) the north-west region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is available only from the confirmed redundancies series that was discontinued from summer 1992. The number of confirmed redundancies recorded in the textile industry in Lancashire and the north-west region in each of the years 1979 to 1991 are given in the following table. Since spring 1992 the main source of data on redundancies has been the quarterly "Labour Force Survey" which provides a more reliable measure of the number of redundancies than the discontinued series, but does not provide the type of detailed analyses requested.

  Year

  Lancashire

  North West Region

  1979

  2,061

  5,124

  1980

  8,976

  19,164

  1981

  2,630

  9,003

  1982

  1,729

  4,803

  1983

  782

  2,837

  1984

  199

  1,490

  1985

  26

  1,134

  1986

  48

  1,318

  1987

  231

  952

  1988

  184

  1,400

  1989

  938

  1,959

  1990

  391

  2,764

  1991

  942

  2,482

  Unpaid Probation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has to prohibit employers from offering unemployed people a period of unpaid probation on the basis of continuing to receive unemployment benefit and meal and travel allowances.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no such proposals. Under our successful job interview guarantee a person unemployed for six months or more can try out a job with 154
  an employer for up to three weeks, with a guaranteed interview at the end of that period. In 1993–94 we intend to expand the number of these work trials arranged by the employment service to 20,000.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost of the market testing department in the Health and Safety Executive when it is fully staffed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The salary cost of the market testing section which the executive plans to have in place are expected to be around £180,000 in a full year at 1992 costs.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of the consultant assisting the director general of the Health and Safety Executive in compiling his report on market testing; how he was appointed; and what was his previous occupation or employer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The consultant is a partner with Touche Ross and has extensive experience of market testing in the public sector, both in central and local government. He was appointed under HSE's normal procedures, following an invitation to tender and a personal interview. HSE followed the guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector contained in the Treasury public competition and purchasing unit publication—CUP16 in appointing him. I regard his rate of remuneration as commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the business case for the Health and Safety Executive FOCUS computer system will he placed in the Library and made public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The FOCUS business case is a working document prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for internal use to support the proposed introduction of the FOCUS computer system and not for publication.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will raise the maximum age limit of the aim group for employment training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment training is open to unemployed people up to the age of 59 who meet the general eligibility conditions. However, those aged 50 and over do not fall within any of the categories of unemployed people who have priority for places. Under training for work, which is to replace employment training from April 1993, age will not be a factor in determining priority.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the working population are on work-related Government training programmes in each region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Participants on work-related Government training programmes June 1992

  Region

  Work-related Government training schemes1

  Percentage of civilian work force in employment

  South East2

  57,000

  0·7

  Greater London

  29,000

  0·8

  East Anglia

  8,000

  0·9

  South West

  22,000

  1·1

  West Midlands

  32,000

  1·4

  East Midlands

  22,000

  1·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  34,000

  1·6

  North West

  46,000

  1·7

  North

  32,000

  2·6

  Wales

  20,000

  1·7

  Scotland

  43,000

  1·9

  1 Includes all participants on government training and employment programmes who are receiving some work experience on their placement but who do not have a contract of employment.

  2 Including Greater London.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what use her Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if she will list the firms involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Department group has not employed any private detectives in any of the last five years.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for each training and enterprise council their total reserves at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All of the information requested has not yet been received from the training and enterprise councils and may not be received for some considerable time. I will write to my hon. Friend with the information as required.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) establishments and (b) employees were covered by wages councils in each standard region in (i) 1979, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1991; and what percentage of the working population this represents in each region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available estimates, which are for wages inspectorate divisions in 1989 and 1992, are given in the following table. I regret that data on a consistent basis are not available for 1979 and 1986.

  (a) number of workers (000s)

  Wages inspectorate division

  1989

  1992

  Southern:

  London

  367

  330

  South East

  268

  275

  East

  233

  253

  South West1

  318

  360

  Midlands

  380

  411

  North West1

  335

  345

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  214

  225

  North

  133

  140

  Scotland

  224

  220

  (b) number of establishments (000s)

  Wages inspectorate division

  1989

  1992

  Southern:

  London

  56

  51

  South East

  41

  43

  East

  36

  39

  South West1

  49

  56

  Midlands

  58

  64

  North West1

  51

  54

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  33

  35

  North

  20

  22

  Scotland

  34

  35

  1 North Wales is covered by the North West Division and South Wales by the South West Division.

  There are no estimates of the percentage which these figures represent of the working population in each of the wages inspectorate's divisions but about 10 per cent. of the Great Britain work force are employed in industries covered by wages councils.

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on relaxation of the passengers charter with regard to the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  New passengers charter performance standards for InterCity services, including those operating on the west coast main line, are at present being discussed by British Rail and the Department of Transport.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many respondents to his consultation document on rail franchises expressed an interest in operating services.
  157
  Mr. Freeman
  Thirty-five of those who have so far responded to the consultation document have expressed interest in operating services. In addition, several companies have told us that, although they were unable to meet the 12 November deadline, they would be registering an interest shortly.

  Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) capital investment and (b) other measures he plans to improve transport links to Britain's ports.

  Mr. Norris
  Many programmed motorway and trunk road schemes will improve access to ports, in particular planned schemes on the A2, M2, M3, A12, A20, M20, A259, A27, A580, A 1033, and the M1–A1 link.

  Airports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the figures for cross-subsidy to Stansted airport from Heathrow and Gatwick airports over the last two years.

  Mr. Norris
  The revenue and operating profit or loss for each of the British Aiports Authority's airports is contained in the annual published accounts of BAA plc. In addition, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission undertook in 1991 a detailed examination of Heathrow Airport Ltd., Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Stansted Airport Ltd. Its report was published by the Civil Aviation Authority in July 1991 and a copy placed in the Library.

  Roads
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will postpone all further consideration of a second A38 road crossing of the River Tamar until such time as a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis has established the relative economic and environmental advantages of current and proposed improvements to the A30 and A39 Atlantic highway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All current and proposed improvement schemes in the road programme, including all those referred to in the question, are subjected to such analyses, and proceed only if they are justified.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with(a) the Camelford bypass (b) Alliss to south Penlean, (c) the Stratton diversion, (d) the Kilkhampton bypass, (e) Clovelly cross to Seckington and (f) the Bucks cross improvement schemes for the A39 Atlantic highway; and what changes have taken place since his Department's south-west regional brief 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Progress on the preparation of these schemes has been made as resources have permitted. Compared with the position at October 1991 reported in the Department's south-west regional brief, current plans are:

  Camelford bypass

  Public consultation 1993

  Allins to South Penlean improvement

  Public consultation held 1992

  158

  Stratton diversion

  Surveys under way for Public consultation 1994

  Kilkhampton bypass

  Clover Cross to

  Public consultation 1994

  Seckington improvement

  Bucks Cross improvement

  M6
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest position in relation to the M6 widening proposals in the north of the Coventry, North-East constituency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Preparation work is proceeding satisfactorily; we expect to be ready to consult the public on proposals for widening the length between the M1 and junction 4 towards the end of next year.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets or time scales he will apply to his Department under the citizens charter with respect to decisions on road construction projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The time taken to announce decisions on trunk road schemes after a public inquiry will depend on the complexity of the scheme and the weight and nature of the objections.

  More generally, we are concerned about how long it takes to prepare major trunk road schemes. We have appointed consultants to review the statutory and administrative procedures involved and to recommend possible changes which might speed up the process.

  Search and Rescue
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the civilian emergencies in each of the last six years attended by the search and rescue services.

  Mr. Norris
  From HM coastguard records, the numbers of incidents on the coast and at sea attended by the United Kingdom search and rescue services, including governmental and voluntary resources, for each of the last six years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  5,300

  1987

  5,563

  1988

  6,261

  1989

  6,835

  1990

  7,076

  1991

  7,212

  West Highland Railway Line
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total subsidy paid to British Rail in 1991–92 for the operation of services(a) on the West Highland line and (b) specifically on the line to Oban; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public service obligation grant is not allocated on a line by line basis. The total grant paid to British Rail in 1991–92 was £892 million.
  159
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representationss he has had regarding the future of rail services on the West Highland line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Petroleum
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety regulations govern the transportation of petroleum by road; what plans there are to review the regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The regulations for transport of dangerous goods by road are made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Those affecting the transport of petroleum are:

  The Dangerous Substances (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1992;

  The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984;

  The Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1992;

  The Road Traffic (Training of Drivers of Vehicles Carrying Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1992.

  The Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport regularly review the regulations in the light of changes to international recommendations, developments in technology and practical experience.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents since 1982 involved the transportation of petroleum by road; if he will list the number of fatalities and injured; how many of those accidents occurred in residential areas; and if he will list the number of fatalities and injured in those areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information is not available in the form requested. There have been three fatalities and few serious injuries resulting from the transport of petroleum by road since 1982. There were 440 reported incidents of overturning or other serious damage, release of product of fire involving road tankers carrying all types of dangerous substances from 1982 to 1991. Incidents occurring in residential areas cannot readily be separately identified.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents since 1982 involved the transportation of petroleum by rail; if he will list the number of fatalities and injured; how many of those accidents occurred in residential areas; and if he will list the number of fatalities and injured in those areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has a record of all reported freight train accidents.

  The inspectorate is aware of five serious accidents during this period involving petroleum trains, none of which gave rise to death or major injury.

  Noise Insulation Grants
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in deciding whether schools should be eligible for noise insulation grants when they are in close proximity to airfields; and when he expects to make an announcement.
  160
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A number of issues raised by the draft report of the sub-group of the land compensation working party have to be resolved. It is hoped that an announcement will be made shortly.

  British Rail (Freight)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the Government's plans for the sale of British Rail's freight businesses to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The privatisation of British Rail's freight businesses requires primary legislation. Subject to enactment of that legislation, we intend that privatisation will commence in 1994. We are aiming to announce preferred options for the restructuring of the freight businesses prior to privatisation in the first part of next year.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with interested parties regarding the Government's plans for the franchising of passenger rail services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is considering responses to the consultation document issued on 12 October, and will be having discussions with some of those respondents. I shall be visiting Scotland next month as part of my national programme of presentations on our proposals for privatising British Rail.

  Road Accidents (Summer Time)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has on the connection between the ending of British summer time and traffic accidents and casualties, with particular reference to children.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Detailed estimates, by the Transport Research Laboratory, of the casualty savings that would accrue from a change to the present summer time regime are contained in paragraphs 26 to 43 of the 1989 Home Office document "'Summer Time— A Consultation Document". Copies of this are available in the House Library.

  The estimates of the casualty savings that would accrue from a single double summer time regime have been updated to take account of 1991 casualty data. This indicates a saving of 140 fatalities, 520 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries, many of which would be child casualties.

  Chelmsford/A12 Bypass
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the emergency telephones on the Chelmsford/A12 bypass to be erected and in operation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The telephones are currently being installed and should be in service early next month.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Instructors
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to operate a scheme for registration of heavy goods vehicle instructors along the lines of his scheme for driving instructors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: I have no such plans. All large goods vehicle candidates must already have passed a car driving test and then face the very demanding LGV driving test. There is no clear road safety evidence to justify further regulation.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what qualifications he considers suitable for HGV instructors; how they differ from driving instructors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: My Department does not set qualifications for LGV driving instructors beyond requiring that they hold a full licence for driving the category of vehicle. The Driving Standards Agency is, however, preparing an official learner syllabus for LGV drivers which will help trainers and trainees alike.

  School Buses
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 160, when he completed the review of the Carrying Capacity Regulations 1984 and associated regulations regarding the permissibility of three children aged under 14 travelling on a double seat as referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), 25 June, Official Report, column 273; and what are the reasons underlying the decision not to change the regulations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: We are continuing to review these regulations. For the present, as I said in my reply of 3 November, I have no plans to amend the regulations.

  Commuter Services
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to divert sufficient amounts of the proposed increased investment by British Rail to modernise commuter services to and from London, including the Fenchurch street line to Southend.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to set priorities for investment within the resources at its disposal.

  BR is currently reviewing its priorities in the light of the autumn statement and I will write to my right hon. Friend in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the text of the extradition treaty with India he signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and India was signed on 23 September 1992 and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that date.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government regarding its cancellation of troop withdrawals from the Baltic states.

  Mr. Hogg
  The Russian Government have suspended rather than cancelled withdrawals from the Baltic states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter with President Yeltsin during their talks in London on 9 November, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed it with the Russian Foreign Minister on 10 November.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total spending in Britain by the European Commission and its agencies on information, public relations and publicity in 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Details of the information and publicity budgets of institutions are set out in the EC general budget. This is published in the Official Journal, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The Commission and other EC institutions do not specify what proportion of their information budgets are spent in each member state.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Kaliningrad
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on levels of military deployment within the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Republic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Kaliningrad region of the Russian republic contains the headquarters of the Russian Baltic fleet. We understand that there are at least 30,000 ground forces, as well as significant numbers of aircraft of the Russian naval air force and the Russian air force based there. Kaliningrad is a significant staging-post for Russian ground troops withdrawn from Germany and Poland.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for economic, political and democratic growth in Hong Kong as outlined in the Governor's speech last month to the Legislative Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government fully endorse the economic, social and political policies for Hong Kong set out in the Governor's address to the Legislative Council on 7 October.

  The economic prospects of Hong Kong are very encouraging. Hong Kong's projected annual GDP growth

  163
  between now and 1997 is expected to average 5 per cent. in real terms. The growing economic co-operation between the territory and southern China has enabled Hong Kong to benefit from the remarkable rates of growth in China in recent years.

  The best way to protect Hong Kong's prosperity and stability in the years ahead is to maintain the territory's way of life. The Governor made a number of proposals in his speech aimed at making the administration of Hong Kong more effective and broadening the participation of Hong Kong people in running their own affairs. We consider that these proposals are consistent with the joint declaration and the basic law. The Governor has made clear that he is willing to consider alternative proposals if these meet the requirement of being open, fair and commanding widespread support in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Hong Kong citizens have applied for United Kingdom passports; what is the likely proportion that will be granted passports; and how many dependants are likely to attach to each passport granted.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Some 66,511 Hong Kong residents have applied to date for British citizenship in the first phase of the British nationality scheme under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. About 39,418 of them are expected to be successful in their application.

  Present indications are that the principal beneficiaries each have two dependants on average.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the documents made available in the Matrix Churchill court case, he will make further inquiries into the circumstances of the death of journalist Jonathan Moyle in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I told the House on 21 January 1991, we have previously looked into media reports that Mr. Moyle may have come across information about Chilean arms sales to Iraq, but we have no evidence to substantiate this.

  Mr. Jonathan Moyle's tragic death is still under investigation by the Chilean authorities, and the British Embassy in Santiago remains in touch with those authorities.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of any formal or informal agreement reached by EC ministers for EC member states to receive families from Bosnian detention camps this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This question was discussed at the EC Foreign Affairs Council on 9 November but no agreement, formal or informal, was reached. We have offered to accept 150 (plus dependants) in the first instance and are looking at what more we can do. We understand that EC partners have made similar offers.

  Public Works Contracts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which regulations equivalent to the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991 were enacted or came into force in each other EC member state.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The material requested is not held centrally and will need some time to be collected. I will provide as full a response as I can as soon as possible.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the appointment of a departmental board for the Wilton Park executive agency; and whether targets have been agreed for the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Wilton Park departmental board was appointed earlier this year and held its first meeting on 23 October. I have agreed the recommendation of the board that the following key targets be adopted for this financial year:

  to increase income from £790,000 to £876,000;

  to recover 72·5 per cent. of costs;

  to increase the overall number of Wilton Park conference participants from 720 to 860;

  to reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant from £426 to £387.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 9 November.

  Mr. Hurd
  I chaired the Foreign Affairs Council on 9 November. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and, on trade issues including GATT, my hon. Friend the Minister of Trade represented the United Kingdom.

  There was a discussion of guiding principles on subsidiarity on the basis of a draft presidency paper. It was agreed that COREPER would report to the next meeting of the Council. There was discussion on how to introduce greater openness into the work of the Community following the discussion at the European Council in Birmingham. COREPER will take this work forward too.

  Progress in ratifying the Maastricht treaty was discussed informally. The Danish Foreign Minister explained the Danish proposals. We as presidency agreed to liaise closely with the Danes and our other partners to reach agreement on a framework for a solution at Edinburgh. I reiterated the Government's commitment to securing the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in order to permit the United Kingdom to ratify the Maastricht treaty.

  There was a further discussion on the Community's finances, based on outline conclusions tabled by the presidency and on a presentation by the President of the Commission.

  The Commission reported on recent negotiations with the United States on GATT and oilseeds. The Council urged the Commission to resume negotiations with the United States and warned that United States unilateral

  165
  action could lead to a retaliatory spiral. The Council emphasised the vital importance of early action by both sides to avoid this.

  The Council welcomed the Commission's opinion on Finland's application to join the Community. It was agreed that this should be considered as part of the preparations for enlargement negotiations with the EFTA countries.

  The right hon. and noble Lord Owen briefed Ministers on recent developments in the former Yugoslavia. Ministers had a wide ranging discussion of the crisis, including the plight of released detainees. They agreed to continue work on tightening sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.

  An EC/Turkey Association Council took place in the margins of the Council. The Council agreed on a new political dialogue arrangements with Turkey, including meetings at the highest level and regular meetings at Foreign Minister level.

  Korea
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Their Royal Highnesses were the guests of President Roh Tae Woo. The Korean Government and people gave them an extremely warm reception as a mark of the esteem in which they and Britain are held in Korea. Their Royal Highnesses undertook a very busy schedule which involved meeting many distinguished and influential Koreans. Their visit provided an excellent base from which to develop further the already good bilateral relations which exist. Their Royal Highnesses attended a number of major commercial promotions, several sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry. Their presence provided a unique opportunity for British companies to demonstrate their commitment to the market, and to raise the profile of British business and technology in South Korea's growing economy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he intends to make for parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service and the secret intelligence service.

  The Prime Minister
  As I explained to the hon. Member on 13 May 1992,Official Report, column 103, the security and intelligence services are all subject to close ministerial oversight, and the Ministers are responsible to Parliament. There is now also a Commissioner for the Security Service who produces an annual report to Parliament, and a tribunal for those who have grievances. There will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate such matters when legislation is brought forward.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it is customary for decisions made in Cabinet Committee to be relayed to Members of the Cabinet who have not attended that meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Not in all cases. The procedures for Cabinet committees are set out in paragraph 4 of the "Questions of Procedure for Ministers," which is available in the Library.

EDUCATION

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a further statement on the corporate status of governing bodies of schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill includes provision for the incorporation of governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what factors he will take into account when considering the recommendations from the School Teachers' Pay Review Body.

  Mr. Patten
  I set out in my letters to the chairman of the school teachers' review body dated 24 July and 12 November the considerations which should inform their recommendations for teachers' pay and conditions of service in 1993–94. Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on teachers' pay.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has asked the school teachers' review body to make recommendations on teachers' pay and statutory conditions of service from April 1993. His letters to the chairman of the school teachers' review body dated 24 July and 12 November set out the matters on which he has asked for recommendations, and the considerations to which the review body is to have regard. Copies of both letters are in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding performance-related pay for teachers and the scheme's proposed introduction.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations on the introduction of performance-related pay for school teachers. He has asked the school teachers' review body to recommend how the pay of all school teachers might be more closely related to their individual performance.

  University Entrance (Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has available to him as to the proportion of sixth formers in Cumbria going on to attend university.

  Mr. Forman
  More than 1,200 students from Cumbria entered universities in Great Britain and polytechnics and colleges in England in 1990–91. This represented nearly 20 per cent. of the young adult population in Cumbria, and was very similar to national participation races for that year.

  Schools (Surplus Places)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest Government estimate of the number of surplus places in schools in England.

  Mr. Patten
  We estimate that there are currently up to 1·5 million surplus places in England.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions he has made in relation to the auditing of the accounts of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The governing body of a grant-maintained school is required to appoint qualified external auditors, which may include the Audit Commission, to audit the school's annual accounts. The Department has issued guidance on the form of an audit code for governors and auditors of grant-maintained schools. As for other Exchequer-funded bodies, grant-maintained schools are subject to the oversight of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of schools in England have had ballots on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  Ballots have been held at 701 schools in England to date, that is around 3·5 per cent. of eligible schools. The sevenfold increase in ballots last month compared to October last year reflects the significant increase of interest following publication of the White Paper.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Blackburn about his proposals for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations from Blackburn about his proposals for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) secondary and (b) primary schools are now operating under grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 225 secondary schools and 53 primary schools are currently operating under grant-maintained status. A further 43 secondary schools arid 21 primary schools have received approval.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the contributions which can be made by grant-maintained schools in rural areas.
  168
  Mr. Forth
  The advantages of grant-maintained status —for example, the ability of schools to manage their own affairs, their accountability to parents and the local community and not to a bureaucracy, and popularity with parents shown by the increased applications for places—apply equally to schools in rural as in other areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received about the future funding of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  We have received a number of representations on the future funding of grant-maintained schools in the light of the White Paper. We aim to publish consultation papers on the arrangements for calculation of grant in 1993–94 and on the common funding formula before the end of the year.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on changes in the resources for 1993–94 available for(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) local education authority schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced provision for grant-maintained schools for 1993–94 in his reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 12 November at columns 894–97.

  Details of the Government's assumptions about the level of local authority recurrent spending in 1993–94, including spending on education, will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment later this month, along with other details of next year's local authority finance settlement.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what capital funding arrangements he is making for newly appointed grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  All new and existing grant-maintained schools are invited to bid for grant funding for capital projects in an annual bidding round. All bids are judged strictly on their merits and in the light of the funds available. Decisions on the bids received from schools for 1993–94 projects will be announced in the new year.

  Grant-maintained schools' annual maintenance grant includes an element for minor repair work. Schools also receive a formula allocation of capital grant for longer-term repairs and minor capital projects. In 1992–93 schools becoming grant-maintained in April received a full-year's formula allocation. Schools becoming grant-maintained in September received a proportion of their full-year allocation once incorporated. Schools can decide how to allocate this funding and are free to set their own priorities including the amount which they spend on repairs and maintenance.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the funding available in the next financial year to finance pre-school education.

  Mr. Forth
  Details of the Government's proposals for next year's funding settlement for local authorities will be announced later this month. Within the framework of the settlement, individual local authorities are free to determine their own policies and expenditure on under-fives provision.

  Sixteen-year-olds
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the total number of 16-year-olds expected to enter the labour market during this year.

  Mr. Forman
  The total number of 16-year-olds in England in the current academic year is 551,000, of whom some 397,000 are expected to be in full-time education at a school or further education college. The balance of 154,000 represents the number of young people expected to enter the labour market. A significant proportion of these are expected to be undertaking part-time education or training at a further education institution or on Government-sponsored youth training. The Government guarantee a suitable place on youth training for all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in further education or employment.

  School Buildings
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the funding available in the next financial year to repair school buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  We shall be allocating £660 million to support capital spending on school buildings in 1993–94. Local authorities will also benefit from the change my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week on the permitted use of capital receipts.

  It will be for individual local education authorities to determine the level of their capital and recurrent spending on school buildings and their priorities.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of today's universities were polytechnics or colleges in 1979; and what this represents in student numbers.

  Mr. Forman
  Thirty-six institutions have received approval for university titles following the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. In 1990–91 about 342,000 students were studying at these institutions out of a total of about 1,150,000 higher education students in Great Britain. This represents nearly 30 per cent. of all higher education students in Britain.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had from teachers' unions on the Government's public expenditure plans for next year.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a very small number of such representations.

  Special Needs (Higher Education)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the funding available in the next financial year to finance special needs education in higher education.

  Mr. Forman
  The total funding for higher education in England next year was announced by my right hon. Friend 170
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 November. It is for the Higher Education Funding Council to decide how to distribute its total grant between institutions, taking account of the interests of those with special needs and other factors.

  Access Courses
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the level of funding next year for access courses.

  Mr. Forman
  No such representations have been received.

  Further and Higher Education
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new initiatives his Department is proposing concerning access to higher and further education.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government's public spending plans, announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement to the House on 12 November, provide for a continuing increase in both higher and further education student numbers. In his initial letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, my right hon. Friend asked the Council to consider a range of access issues and we drew the Further Education Funding Council's attention to similar concerns in his launch letter to that council.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if students who entered universities recently converted from polytechnics will be classed as students entering universities or as students entering polytechnics, in official Department for Education figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department will continue to publish statistics on higher education students which adequately reflect the titles of the institutions those students attend. Discussions are currently in progress to establish statistical arrangements consistent with the new framework for higher education.

  Law Students
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce proposals to ensure that students following a law finals course receive a mandatory rather than a discretionary grant.

  Mr. Forman
  The Education Act 1962 restricts mandatory awards to full-time courses leding to a first degree or comparable qualification, or to the DipHE or HND, and to courses for the initial training of teachers. But the Act also allows for discretionary awards for most other courses, including the postgraduate law finals course. We have no present plans to move that boundary, which would require primary legislation.

  Education, Support and Training Grants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much funding is available for the schools element of the grants for education support and training programme in 1992–93 and for 1993–94.
  171
  Mr. Forth
  The grants for education support and training programme for 1992–93 supports some £377 million of expenditure in England, of which some £344 million will be for or associated with schools. The programme for 1993–94 will support some £320 million in England, of which some £314 million will be for or associated with schools. Grant is generally paid at 60 per cent. of expenditure.

  Part-time Courses
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that courses of study at educational establishments of no more than 20 hours weekly are designated as part-time study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Decisions on the appropriate number of hours of study for individual courses, and on whether a course should be designated as full or part-time, are for individual institutions.

  Harris City Technology College, London
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils at the Harris city technology college, south London, were in the year group taking GCSE in the summer of 1992; how many of them achieved a GCSE pass at either grade A or B in(a) technology, (b) mathematics, (c) French, (d) German, (e) history, (f) geography, (g) single science and (h) design and communication.

  Mr. Forth
  There were 117 pupils in the year group YG11 at Harris city technology college, London, taking GCSE in the summer of 1992. The number of pupils achieving a GCSE pass at grades A or B for these subjects are as follows:(a) technology, 0 (b) mathematics, 2 (c) French, 0 (d)German, 0 (e) history, 1 (f) geography, 1 (g) single science, 1 and (h) design and communication, 0.

  In providing comparative information about examination results on a national and local basis GCSE results are to be banded to show passes at grades A to C and A to G. At Harris CTC, GCSE A—C grade passes in all subjects totalled 342, including 11 in single science and 147 in double science. Of schools in the London borough of Croydon, Harris has the second biggest improvement in the number of children getting five or more A to C passes at GCSEs in 1992, a 15 per cent. increase over last year. The pupils taking GCSE in 1992 were formerly pupils at the Sylvan high school on the same site. The average number of A to C passes this year was 2·92 per pupil compared with the best average at the Sylvan school of 1·54.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what(a) Government and (b) private sector financial support was received by Harris city technology college, south London, in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  Recurrent funding for city technology colleges is provided by grant direct from the Department of Education. The amount of Government grant for Harris city technology college in the academic year 1990–91 was £2·939 million and in the academic year 1991–92 was £3·107 million. As for all other schools, any additional funding by private sector sponsors for recurrent expenditure purposes is a matter for the schools and sponsors concerned.

  Schools (Opt-out Ballots)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) maintained and (b) voluntary-aided (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools there are in each local authority area; how many have balloted on the question of opting out; how many votes were in favour of opting out; and what is the percentage of pupils in the local authority area that that figure represents.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on Friday 6 November,Official Report, columns 478–87. The additional information requested could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  Mr. Forman
  None.

  Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of the central funds provided for education to each(a) local education authority and (b) self-governing school per pupil in each age group in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Central Government support for local authorities is virtually entirely through general grant, which is not hypothecated to particular services such as education. Local authorities are thus free to determine their own spending priorities.

  Grant-maintained schools receive the bulk of their recurrent funding through annual maintenance grants, which are recouped in full from the former maintaining education authority. None of the special purpose and capital grants which grant maintained schools receive from central Government are allocated on the basis of pupil age ranges.

  School Action Plans
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from whom he intends to seek advice when monitoring action plans for schools and the progress of their implementations as proposed in the Education Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend will seek the advice of Her Majesty's chief inspector.

  Engineering Places
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many engineering places in advanced education have been available in each of the last five years; and how many were unfilled.

  Mr. Forman
  The Universities Funding Council—UFC —and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council—PCFC—have distributed recurrent funding on the basis of funded numbers or places. But these funded numbers do not necessarily reflect the total number of available places, as additional students may be recruited on a "fees-only"
  173
  basis. Data on the total number of engineering places which institutions wish to make available each academic year are not collected by the Funding Councils.

  Data which are available on funded places and enrolments—full-time equivalents—home and EC students—in engineering and technology are given in the table.

  Universities (GB) in UFC sector

  PCFC sector (England)

  Academic year

  Funded places

  Enrolments

  Funded places

  Enrolments

  1990–91

  37,687

  36,927

  34,686

  36,316

  1991–92

  36,715

  39,816

  34,839

  42,028

  Access Funds
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy that access funds should be available to students who do not already have student loans.

  Mr. Forman
  Access funds are intended to help students who face severe financial difficulties after availing themselves of all other public sources of support. We have given guidance to institutions that they should not make payments from the access funds to students who are eligible for a student loan but who have not taken one out, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what monitoring his Department carries out of delays by local authorities in issuing maintenance grant cheques to students.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department does not directly monitor the time taken by each of more than 100 individual local education authorities to assess and pay mandatory awards to well over half a million students in total. But we vigorously investigate any reports of delays by named authorities to ensure that they take whatever action is necessary to comply with their statutory duties and minimise hardship among students. We have given all authorities guidance on prompt grant payment, and the Audit Commssion has published proposals for future performance indicators in this field.

  Funding Authorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the functions and duties that his proposed legislation(a) requires education funding authorities to perform and (b) which any Secretary of State may require them to perform; and on what basis payment of grant to them will be calculated.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the proposed legislation, as set out in the Education Bill introduced to Parliament on 30 October, the Funding Agency for Schools has the functions summarised below. Payments of grant by the DFE to the FAS will be calculated on the basis of forecasts of projected expenditure on both the grants that the funding agency must make to schools, and the agency's own running costs.

  The Schools Funding Council for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  174
  FUNCTIONS OF THE FAS

  A. Functions of the FAS where no order has been made conferring responsibility for providing sufficient school places:

  1. The FAS is to be responsible for paying annual maintenance grant to the governing bodies of all GM schools in England, the amount of which is to be determined by the Agency in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

  2. Regulations may provide for the payment by the FAS of capital and special purpose grants to the governing bodies of GM schools.

  3. The FAS is to be responsible for paying grant to the new GM governing body of a school acquiring GM status in respect of any expenditure incurred by them up to the date of implementation of the proposals where it is incurred for the purpose of, or in connection with, the transition of the school to GM status.

  4. The FAS is to have power to pay grants to the governing body of any GM school which is being discontinued where it is for the purpose of discharging any of the liabilities of the governing body or for meeting any of the costs of the winding up.

  5. The FAS is to have similar grant paying functions to those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 above in relation to schools conducted by education associations.

  6. The FAS is to be under a duty to provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice in connection with any of his functions relating to the provision of education as he may from time to time require. It is also to have the power to provide the Secretary of State with such information and advice as it thinks fit.

  7. The FAS is to be under a duty to make such reports and returns, and to give such information, to any LEA as the authority may require for the purpose of its functions.

  B. Functions of the Secretary of State in relation to the GM sector which he may transfer to the FAS.

  8. The Secretary of State may by order transfer to the FAS (either generally or in specified circumstances) the following of his functions in relation to the GM sector—

  (a) the making of new instruments of governments and their modification, and the making and variation of articles of government;,

  (b) the function of determining proposals by a governing body significantly to change the character or enlarge the premises of a GM school;

  (c) the power to authorise the transfer of a GM school to a new site;

  (d) the function of determining proposals by a governing body to discontinue a GM school;

  (e) the power in certain circumstances to vary trust deeds relating to GM schools; and

  (f) the power by order to make such provision as appropriate in connection with a school's transition to GM status.

  C. Additional functions of the FAS where an order has been made conferring responsibility for providing sufficient school places.

  9. Where at least 10 per cent. of pupils educated in maintained schools (other than special schools) are educated in the GM sector, the Secretary of State may make an order the effect of which is to place a duty on the FAS, as well as the LEA, to secure the provision of sufficient school places. The functions set out below are exercisable by the FAS where such an order has been made.

  10. The FAS is to have the power to propose the establishment and discontinuance of GM schools, after consultation with such persons as appear to it to be appropriate. The Secretary of State must approve proposals to which objections have been made, or which he has "called in" or if the proposals name a sponsor of the school. The FAS is also to have the power to propose that a significant change in character, or significant enlargement of the premises, be made to a GM school.

  11. The FAS is to have the power to direct that the approved admission number of a GM school be increased. The function of the Secretary of State in approving variations to the admission number proposed by the governing body of a GM school also transfers to the FAS.
  175
  12. The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the FAS to provide him and LEAs with such information as may be prescribed relating to the provision of education in a LEA area for which they have responsibility. The FAS is to compile such information, and to make such provision for conducting, or assisting in the conduct of research, as is necessary for the purpose of providing the information required under the regulations.

  13. Where at least 75 per cent. of pupils educated in maintained schools (other than special schools) are educated in the GM sector (or at least 10 per cent. of pupils are so educated and the LEA requests the order to be made), the Secretary of State may make an order the effect of which is to impose on the FAS the sole responsibility for securing sufficient school places in the LEA's area. Where such an order is made, as well as the functions referred to in paragraphs 10 to 12 above, the power of the LEA to direct a child's admission to a specific school also transfers to the FAS.

HEALTH

  Treatment Purchases
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those health authorities which have decided to cease purchasing categories of treatment in total or for particular groups of patients; and if she will give details of the categories of treatment concerned.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Family Planning Service
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to expand the domiciliary family planning service in order to meet the targets

  Health authority

  Number of domiciliary visits

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  North Tees

  —

  —

  1Y

  South Tees

  —

  Y

  —

  North West Durham

  Y

  Y

  Y

  South West Durham

  —

  —

  Y

  Gateshead

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Newcastle

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Sunderland

  Y

  Y

  Y

  York

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Scarborough

  Y

  —

  —

  Bradford

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Airedale

  Y

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Dewsbury

  Y

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  Y

  Y

  2—

  Central Nottinghamshire

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Barnsley

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Rotherham

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Sheffield

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Cambridge

  Y

  Y

  Y

  West Suffolk

  Y

  Y

  Y

  East Suffolk

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Norwich

  —

  —

  Y

  Barnet

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Harrow

  Y

  —

  Y

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Ealing

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Parkside

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Basildon and Thurrock

  Y

  Y

  —

  Southend

  Y

  Y

  —

  City and Hackney

  Y

  —

  —

  Haringey

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Waltham Forest

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Y

  2—

  Y

  Medway

  Y

  2—

  Y

  Tunbridge Wells

  —

  2—

  Y

  Greenwich

  —

  Y

  Y

  Bromley

  Y

  2—

  Y

  176
  regarding the reduction of teenage pregnancies and the incidence of sexually transmitted disease and invasive cancer of the cervix set out in the White Paper. "The Health of the Nation";

  (2) what guidance she will issue to health authorities and trusts regarding domiciliary family planning services in the light of the care in the community proposals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The day-to-day management and provision of family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and needs. New guidelines issued by the National Health Service Management Executive in January 1992 include advice on targeting services and the service accessibility. Attention is drawn, with reference to earlier advice family planning memorandum of guidance (HSC(IS)32)—to the way in which domiciliary services can be used to improve take-up among those people with special needs.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list those health authorities which provided domiciliary family planning services in each year since 1985;

  (2) how many health authorities and national health service trusts in the United Kingdom currently provide domiciliary family planning services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table lists those district health authorities that reported making at least one family planning domiciliary visit in one of the years 1988–89 to 1990–91. Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  177

  Health authority

  Number of domiciliary visits

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  West Lambeth

  Y

  2—

  Y

  Camberwell

  Y

  2—

  Y

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Y

  2—

  Y

  Chichester

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Worthing

  Y

  Y

  —

  Croydon

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Kingston and Esher

  Y

  —

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Wandsworth

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Merton and Sutton

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Y

  Y

  Y

  South West Hampshire and Southampton

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Winchester

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Salisbury

  Y

  —

  —

  Bath

  —

  —

  Y

  West Berkshire

  Y

  —

  Y

  Kettering

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Northampton

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Oxford

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  Y

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Herefordshire

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Shropshire

  Y

  Y

  —

  North Staffordshire

  Y

  Y

  Y

  East Birmingham

  Y

  Y

  Y

  North Birmingham

  Y

  Y

  Y

  West Birmingham

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Dudley

  Y

  —

  Y

  Sandwell

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Solihull

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Walsall

  —

  Y

  —

  Macclesfield

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Warrington

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Liverpool

  Y

  —

  —

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Southport and Formby

  Y

  Y

  Y

  South Sefton

  Y

  Y

  —

  Wirral

  Y

  —

  —

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Blackburn/Hyndburn/Ribble Valley

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Bolton

  Y

  Y

  Y

  South Manchester

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Stockport

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Tameside and Glossop

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Trafford

  Y

  Y

  Y

  Wigan

  Y

  Y

  Y

  1 Y At least one domiciliary visit recorded.

  2 —No return made.

  Districts not listed showed no domiciliary visits during the period.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds were available in England and Wales for the most convenient date in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1992; and what is her estimate of the number available for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1970 there were 123,219 beds allocated for use in the psychiatric specialties. The corresponding numbers for 1980 and 1990–91 were 87,396 and 55,239 respectively.

  The number of psychiatric beds available in the next three years will depend on the volume of in-patient psychiatric services purchased by health authorities.

  Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) day patients were waiting for hospital treatment on 30 September in each region and, of these, how many had been waiting for (i) less than one year, (ii) between one year and two years and (iii) more than two years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional waiting list figures for 30 September 1992 were published on 11 November in press release H92/381. A copy is available in the Library. More detailed waiting time information, including separate figures for in and day patients is given in "Hospital Waiting List, In-Patient and Day Cases", published every six months.

  Repairs and Maintenance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated expenditure required to clear the backlog of repairs and maintenance in each district health authority and NHS trust in England.
  179
  Mr. Sackville
  Tables showing the estimates for 1991, the latest available, have been placed in the Library.

  Childhood Vaccination
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals her Department has further to promote the benefits of vaccination against each of the childhood killer diseases; and what initiatives exist better to target different groups of vaccine-refuser parents across the community.

  Mr. Sackville
  General practitioners, clinical doctors and nurses all play a major part in explaining to parents why immunisation is important. I am pleased to say that the most recent estimates from the public health laboratory service's "COVER" programme show 95 per cent. coverage of children aged 18 months for diphtheria, tetanus and polio immunisations, 91 per cent. at the same age for whooping cough, and 92 per cent. at 24 months for measles, mumps and rubella. In the White Paper "Health of the Nation" we have set a national target of 95 per cent. coverage by 1995 for all those immunisations. East Anglia region has already achieved that target for all diseases, and Oxford, South Western and Wessex regions have done so for all except whooping cough. The Department works closely with the Health Education Authority in providing full information on immunisation for health professionals and parents, and is funding specific research aimed at ascertaining why a very small number of parents do not have their children immunised, with a view to answering their questions and convincing them of the benefits of immunisation. The findings of that research should be available in the spring of 1993.

  Health Authorities (Directors)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances pensions are paid to former members or non-executive directors of health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Members or non-executive directors of health authorities are appointed on a non-pensionable basis. They are therefore ineligible for membership of the national health service pension scheme.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives have been taken by her Department in the preventive treatment of osteoporosis during the period 1985 to 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Among many other measures we have emphasised the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle including a good diet, regular exercise throughout life, the avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, for example in the booklet "Your Health: A Guide to Services for Women". We have reinforced these messages recently in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation". We have encouraged the use of hormone replacement therapy—HRT—when appropriate, because timely intervention can often prevent further deterioration. In 1990 we funded the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to set up a study group of international experts to look at HRT and osteoporosis, the findings of which were published by the college. We have supported the work of charitable bodies such as the National 180
  Osteoporosis Society to produce literature for doctors and patients, and we are currently part funding the society's new handbook for GPs and practice nurses. We have sponsored research by Professor John Kanis of the department of human metabolism and clinical biochemistry at the university of Sheffield into screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis, and by Professor Martin Vessey of the department of public health and primary care at the university of Oxford into a cost-effective analysis of HRT.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances NHS trusts may use taxi services instead of ambulances for transporting in-patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 16 November.

  South West Surrey Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the 1992–93 allocation per head of population made to South West Surrey health authority; and what additional funds have been made available to that authority since 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to district health authorities are the responsibility of regional health authorities and the information about the funds allocated to them is not held centrally in this form. The hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Marion Hicks, the chairman of South West Thames regional health authority, for details.

  Taxis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct NHS providers to contract taxi services only with those firms which operate a no-smoking policy.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The model smoke-free policy set out in the joint Department of Health/Health Education Authority booklet "Creating Effective Smoking Policies in the NHS", indicates that smoking should not be permitted in NHS vehicles, including ambulances. The extension of this policy to non-NHS, contracted transport providers is a matter for local service purchasers.

  Standards of Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities and health service trusts have applied to the British Standards Institution with expressions of interest in the BS 5750 standard.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Staff (Accommodation)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she is making to the arrangements for disposing of surplus national health service staff residential accommodation.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are enhancing the national health service scheme to bring it into closer alignment with the
  181
  statutory right-to-buy scheme under the housing Acts, and to improve the terms of sale to tenants. In particular, in calculating the discount on the sale price we are allowing health service organisations to take into account previous occupation by the tenant of other public sector accommodation. The new arrangements are set out in a guidance note which we have placed in the Library.

  District General Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district general hospitals there are in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no agreed definition of a district general hospital. Acute hospital services may be provided to a district from a single site or multiple site general hospital facilities which may also be supplemented by specialist or single specialty hospitals. In 1990–91 there were 327 hospitals in England with 100 or more acute beds.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list of those district general hospitals in England that do not have a specialist full-time accident and emergency consultant.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest estimate of the cost of closure and rationalisation of hospitals contained in the report by Sir Bernard Tomlinson excluding improvements in primary health care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Bernard's report is advice to the Government. No decisions have yet been taken on the closure and/or rationalisation of hospitals in London.

  West Midlands Ambulance Service
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the response times for the ambulance service responding to 999 calls in the west midlands for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table for the years 1987–88 to 1991–92. The figures for 1991–92 are provisional.

  Ambulance response to emergency calls for west midlands ambulance authority

  Year

  Total emergency calls

  Number with response within 7 minutes

  Percentage where response within 7 minutes

  Number with response within 14 minutes

  Percentage where response within 14 minutes

  1987–88

  115,081

  44,698

  38·8

  109,788

  95·4

  1988–89

  117,387

  50,468

  43·0

  111,499

  95·0

  1989–901

  66,944

  32,782

  49·0

  55,563

  83·0

  1990–91

  117,191

  60,822

  51·9

  103,245

  88·1

  1991–922

  120,258

  387,120

  372·4

  110,944

  92·3

  1 Due to the industrial action in this period the figures for 1989–90 do not reflect the total activity in the year.

  2 Figures are provisional.

  3 Figures are based on response times within 8 minutes.

  Private Care Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution will be made to local authorities for supplementation to private nursing homes for the year beginning 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 October that £539 million would be made available to local authorities in England in 1993–94 in respect of all their new community care responsibilities.

  Ambulance Service
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the published response times of the ambulance service to 999 calls are calculated by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Response times are not calculated by this Department but are recorded locally and then submitted to the Department on an annual basis. The ambulance authorities and NHS trusts supply the Department with figures for the total number of emergency calls, and the numbers of these responded to within the target times.

  The emergency response time is measured as the time between the receipt of a 999 call by ambulance control staff to the time of arrival of a fully equipped emergency ambulance and qualified crew at the scene of the incident.

  Dentists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many items of service were provided by contractual dentists in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The information requested is given in the table:

  General dental services (GDS)—England Items of service

  Year

  Under 18s

  Adults

  Total

  1988–89

  20,968,540

  58,119,870

  79,088,410

  1989–90

  20,683,510

  55,932,870

  76,616,380

  1990–91

  19,114,484

  70,460,387

  89,574,871

  1991–92

  5,122,418

  77,109,003

  82,231,421

  Note:

  The data for each year are not comparable due to changes in the dental contract. Under the new GDS contract, introduced on 1 October 1990, most treatment for under-18s is undertaken under capitation and is no longer separately identified. For adults, the new fee scale subdivided many of the items of service.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  I am arranging for a copy of the Department of Social Security's health and safety policy statement to be placed in the Library. There are no separate policy statements for the Department's agencies.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications have been refused in the last 12-month period for which figures are
  183
  available, for (a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; how many of these claims were later successful on appeal; and if he will provide separate figures for each district office.

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Bankside

  2,304

  1,876

  217

  Barking and Havering

  1,943

  1,259

  66

  Barnet

  1,506

  930

  471

  Barnsley

  2,302

  1,569

  152

  Bedfordshire

  2,618

  1,630

  51

  Berkshire

  2,709

  1,629

  509

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  3,629

  1,970

  192

  Birmingham Heartlands

  3,281

  1,989

  156

  Birmingham North West

  3,327

  1,871

  212

  Birmingham South East

  3,902

  986

  39

  Birmingham South West

  3,082

  1,809

  172

  Blackburn and Accrington

  2,338

  1,568

  861

  Blackpool

  1,563

  962

  257

  Bolton

  2,696

  1,493

  323

  Bradford

  3,967

  2,994

  538

  Bristol Severnside

  3,493

  2,184

  342

  Brunel

  2,352

  1,523

  207

  Buckinghamshire

  2,152

  1,189

  74

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  1,978

  1,212

  39

  Cambridgeshire

  3,023

  2,040

  229

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1,335

  788

  111

  Central Derbyshire

  2,389

  1,742

  394

  Central Staffordshire

  1,833

  1,197

  66

  Channel

  1,324

  839

  214

  Cheshire East

  1,366

  816

  53

  Cheshire North West and Central

  1,366

  1,621

  135

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  1,993

  1,258

  353

  City East

  2,021

  1,147

  464

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  2,635

  2,144

  1,110

  Clyde Valley

  3,612

  2,544

  242

  Coatbridge

  3,446

  3,042

  911

  Cornwall

  2,530

  1,632

  1,478

  Coventry

  2,908

  1,624

  340

  Cumbria North

  1,619

  1,370

  27

  Cynon Merthyr Rhymnney

  3,141

  3,181

  262

  Derbyshire South

  1,744

  1,060

  87

  Devonia

  2,420

  1,674

  147

  Doncaster

  2,312

  2,056

  443

  Dorset

  2,246

  1,336

  1,690

  Durham North

  3,277

  2,489

  62

  Durham South

  2,502

  1,872

  44

  Ealing

  3,037

  1,556

  140

  East Lowlands

  3,241

  2,586

  646

  East Nottinghamshire

  2,279

  1,545

  188

  East Sussex

  1,190

  607

  53

  Essex South West

  2,281

  1,239

  207

  Euston

  4,103

  2,693

  426

  Fife

  3,242

  2,625

  455

  Forth Valley

  2,442

  2,214

  143

  Fulham

  4,448

  2,757

  175

  Glamorgan South

  4,658

  3,553

  514

  Glasgow South West

  3,336

  2,225

  1,330

  Glasgow City

  3,028

  2,308

  283

  Glasgow East

  5,990

  4,262

  1,874

  Glasgow West

  2,455

  1,891

  384

  Gloucester

  2,086

  1,737

  644

  Grampian and Shetland

  1,751

  1,204

  47

  Gwent North and Brecon

  1,898

  1,556

  126

  Gwyneddigion

  1,474

  992

  120

  Hackney and Islington

  3,709

  2,125

  311

  Halifax

  2,039

  1,702

  265

  Hampshire North

  1,433

  1,081

  252

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  1,422

  704

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,791

  1,123

  333

  Highlands and Islands

  1,633

  1,035

  163

  Hounslow and Kingston

  1,796

  1,040

  116

  Hull

  4,977

  3,894

  440

  Irvine

  2,664

  2,250

  30

  Kent North

  2,847

  2,238

  123

  Kirklees

  2,529

  1,931

  329

  184
  Mr. Scott
  District refusal figures for the period April 1992 to September 1992 are in the table. Information for earlier periods is in the Library. The information requested on social fund reviews is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  185

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Knowsley

  3,073

  2,181

  586

  Lancaster

  2,126

  1,315

  348

  Laurieston

  4,017

  3,086

  827

  Lea-Roding

  2,840

  1,800

  241

  Leaside

  2,814

  1,493

  93

  Leeds North

  4,346

  2,528

  155

  Leeds South

  3,571

  2,616

  164

  Leicestershire North

  2,824

  1,624

  383

  Lewisham and Brixton

  4,294

  3,159

  956

  Lincolnshire East

  1,596

  1,011

  381

  Liverpool Central

  2,471

  1,610

  261

  Liverpool North

  2,519

  1,833

  227

  Liverpool South

  3,365

  2,385

  249

  Lomond and Argyll

  1,669

  1,629

  46

  London Central

  1,037

  749

  161

  Lothian Central

  2,437

  1,846

  733

  Lothian West

  2,847

  2,093

  833

  Manchester Central

  2,877

  1,915

  1,213

  Manchester North

  2,397

  1,609

  306

  Mid-Wales and Maelor

  1,627

  1,328

  153

  Neasden

  2,416

  1,638

  113

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,435

  3,834

  470

  Newham

  3,364

  2,242

  26

  North and East Hertfordshire

  1,258

  811

  24

  North Essex

  1,909

  1,276

  553

  North Stafordshires

  3,180

  1,271

  115

  North Tyneside

  1,661

  1,289

  284

  North Wales Coast

  2,082

  1,432

  369

  North Yorkshire

  1,304

  863

  39

  Northamptonshire

  4,610

  2,594

  467

  Northumberland

  1,649

  1,311

  51

  Norwich

  3,058

  2,311

  480

  Nottinghamshire North

  2,039

  1,579

  54

  Nottinghamshire West

  2,593

  1,544

  44

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  2,023

  1,814

  105

  Oldham

  2,855

  1,568

  64

  Oxfordshire

  1,858

  1,321

  105

  Preston

  2,193

  1,452

  100

  Renfrew

  2,393

  2,224

  864

  Rother and Dearne

  2,755

  1,857

  515

  South East Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  3,213

  1,259

  110

  Salford

  2,358

  1,416

  45

  Sandwell

  3,133

  1,702

  38

  Sefton

  2,750

  1,982

  71

  Sheffield East

  3,678

  2,650

  350

  Sheffield West

  3,039

  1,896

  595

  Shropshire

  1,904

  1,553

  51

  Solent and Forest

  2,687

  1,887

  56

  Somerset

  1,554

  849

  250

  South Cheshire

  2,648

  2,128

  118

  South Devon

  3,617

  2,709

  1,376

  South Downs

  2,138

  1,367

  1,101

  South East Essex

  1,833

  1,277

  333

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  2,054

  1,488

  526

  South Leicestershire

  2,563

  1,340

  214

  South Manchester

  3,860

  2,536

  616

  South West Lancashire

  2,375

  1,723

  40

  South West Scotland

  2,737

  2,142

  480

  South West Thames

  3,435

  2,052

  599

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  3,620

  2,739

  1,237

  South Humberside

  2,765

  2,008

  179

  Stockport

  1,596

  1,046

  55

  Suffolk

  3,227

  1,854

  430

  Surrey Downs

  1,245

  672

  118

  Surrey North

  2,655

  1,760

  407

  Swansea

  2,262

  1,374

  225

  Taff Rhondda

  1,569

  1,152

  75

  Tameside

  2,290

  1,603

  422

  Tayside

  3,607

  2,789

  542

  Tees North

  3,820

  3,257

  361

  Tees South

  4,488

  3,101

  109

  Thameside

  2,749

  1,602

  491

  Tyneside South

  4,252

  3,345

  396

  Wakefield

  2,819

  1,907

  144

  Wales West

  1,964

  1,480

  267

  Walsall

  2,275

  1,748

  16

  Warwickshire

  2,043

  1,384

  105

  186 187

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Wearside

  4,304

  3,372

  60

  West Hertfordshire

  1,244

  720

  23

  West Kent

  1,159

  753

  51

  West Lincolnshire

  2,814

  1,732

  88

  West Pennine

  3,122

  2,137

  257

  West Sussex

  1,555

  999

  660

  Wigan and Leigh

  1,946

  1,162

  124

  Wiltshire

  2,461

  1,655

  143

  Wirral

  3,926

  2,872

  389

  Wolverhampton

  2,914

  1,713

  30

  Worcestershire North

  2,227

  1,288

  197

  Yorkshire East

  1,157

  753

  889

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on low incomes in each region, for the last 12 months for which figures are available have applied to the social fund for help with essential food items; how many have(a) been refused and (b) been awarded either a grant or loan; and what measures his Department is taking to support claimants who have fallen into debt as a result of repaying loans for essential food items.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for social fund payments have been made in the local offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow in each of the months of the past year; and how many were(a) granted community care grants, (b) offered a crisis loan and (c) refused by the adjudication officers.

  Social Fund Information—Clyde Coast and Cowal District October 1991 to September 1992

  Applications

  Grant awards

  Crisis Loan offers

  Refusals

  October 1991

  2,168

  185

  310

  1,153

  November 1991

  2,255

  180

  295

  1,162

  December 1991

  1,510

  126

  216

  1,008

  January 1992

  1,738

  150

  264

  991

  February 1992

  1,793

  165

  237

  1,015

  March 1992

  2,036

  123

  258

  1,182

  April 1992

  1,651

  143

  205

  880

  May 1992

  1,681

  185

  236

  995

  June 1992

  1,781

  148

  234

  928

  July 1992

  1,777

  157

  310

  1,010

  August 1992

  1,720

  154

  261

  958

  September 1992

  1,880

  142

  271

  1,088

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of applications for social fund community care grants in the North Tees district in 1991–92; what is the projected number of applications for 1992–93; and if he will ensure that sufficient funding is available to meet any extra demand.

  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 a copy will be placed in the Library.
  188
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 16 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund applications in the local offices of Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  From the inception of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, the former DSS offices of Greenock and Port Glasgow became Clyde Coast and Cowal District.

  Applications to the discretionary part of the Fund, that is, for loans and grants, are decided by Social Fund Officers, rather than Adjudication Officers. Details of discretionary applications, grant awards, crisis loan offers and refusals for discretionary payments at Clyde Coast and Cowal District are provided in the Annex. I have given details for the past 12 months to September 1992, as these are the latest figures available.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Peter Mandelson, dated 16 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund community care grants in the North Tees District.

  The North Tees District received 8,436 applications for community care grants in 1991–92. Information for 1992–93 is not available as forecasts are not made at a district level. The community care grant national budget currently stands at £91 million, an increase of more than 35 per cent. since April 1991.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Diet
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's assessment of the weekly cost, in real cash terms, of maintaining a healthy diet; how many(a) families on low income with children under five years and (b) pensioners on low incomes, fall below deficiency levels for essential nutrients; and if he will subdivide these figures by region.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no single cost of a healthy diet. Diets can be constructed in a variety of ways and individual preferences vary. Information about nutrient deficiency in specific population groups is not available, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food national food survey does indicate that in general the diets of people in all income groups contain adequate levels of most nutrients but rather more fat and less fibre than the latest dietary recommendations. The welfare foods scheme continues to provide a nutritional safeguard for children under five in families with income support.

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the likely effects on his budget from the proposed abolition of the wages councils.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 11 November at column 817.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Privatisation and contractorisation of the Department's agencies are considered as part of each agency's three-year review. Where appropriate, an announcement will be made.

  (£ billion) Contribution income1

  June 1992 price3

  Percentage of Exchequer income

  Employers NICS

  Employees2 NICs

  Employers' NICs

  Employees' NICs

  Employers' NICs

  Employees' NICs

  1982–83

  12·02

  9·20

  20·39

  15·61

  9·77

  7·48

  1983–84

  12·45

  10·53

  20·19

  17·07

  9·84

  8·32

  1984–85

  12·20

  11·29

  18·83

  17·42

  8·87

  8·20

  1985–86

  12·53

  12·11

  18·34

  17·72

  8·38

  8·10

  1986–87

  13·82

  12·79

  19·59

  18·13

  8·69

  8·04

  1987–88

  15·33

  14·13

  20·60

  18·99

  9·03

  8·32

  1988–89

  17·28

  15·65

  21·65

  19·61

  9·22

  8·35

  1989–90

  18·50

  14·74

  21·77

  17·34

  9·06

  8·22

  1990–91

  20·55

  14·86

  22·77

  16·47

  9·50

  6·87

  1991–924

  21·66

  15·33

  22·46

  15·89

  9·88

  6·99

  1 Includes national insurance surcharge in the period to 1984–85.

  2 Includes national insurance contributions by self-employed for which separate data are only available from 1986–87.

  3 Treasury estimate of GDP deflator in the second quarter of 1992 used to convert current price to constant June 1992 prices.

  4 Estimate.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the increase in income to the Treasury would be in 1993–94 as a consequence of raising employees' national insurance contributions from 9 per cent. to 10·4 per cent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The national insurance fund would receive about an extra £2·3 billion in 1993–94.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much per week an increase in employees' national insurance contributions from 9 to 10·4 per cent. would cost families with incomes of(a) £5,000, (b) £7,000, (c) £9,000, (d) £10,000, (e) £15,000, (f) £25,000, (g) £40,000 and (h) £100,000 in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Annual earnings £

  Weekly increase in contributions £

  5,000

  56 pence

  7,000

  1·10

  9,000

  1·64

  10,000

  1·91

  15,000

  3·25

  25,000

  5·10

  40,000

  5·10

  100,000

  5·10

  Notes:

  1. The table assumes one employee in each family working in one employment in 1993–94.

  2. NI contributions are not paid by employees on earnings above the proposed annual upper earnings limit of £21,840.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions collected for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (i) in cash terms, (ii) at June 1992 prices and (iii) as a percentage of total Exchequer income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Back Pain
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many days of work were lost through back pain in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Newspaper Articles
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances staff at his Department's offices are permitted to include newspaper articles in clients' files.

  Mr. Burt
  Current instructions provide that newspaper articles should be drawn to the attention of staff who have had dealings with that customer, although such articles should not be kept in customers' files. However, the Department is in the process of devolving responsibilities to its executive agencies in line with the Government's next step programmes. It will be for the chief executives of the agencies to decide whether they consider it appropriate or necessary to provide central guidance on such matters as the retention of newspaper articles in customers' files.

  HIV
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to whom his Department circulated the statement concerning the agreement that compensation made from the Department of Health to fund non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood or tissue transfers would not affect the entitlement of those individuals to benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced in the House on 18 February this year that the payments would be fully disregarded in the income-related benefits. All prospective applicants for a payment were sent a copy of the document describing the scheme which made specific mention of the social security provisions. A letter explaining these provisions in detail was issued to all recipients of a payment.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of supplementation of the cost of elderly people in old people's homes and nursing homes for each year from 1980 to 1991 and the latest estimate for 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Payment of Income Support (Supplementary Benefit prior to 1988) to Residents in Residential Care and Nursing Homes

  Nearest £ million

  Annual equivalent

  December 1980

  18

  December 1981

  23

  December 1982

  39

  December 1983

  104

  December 1984

  200

  December 1985

  348

  February 1986

  459

  May 1987

  671

  May 1988

  878

  May 1989

  1,105

  May 1990

  1,270

  May 1991

  1,870

  Estimate 1992

  2,530

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to ensure that pensioners on small incomes are assisted with heating costs during the winter months.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government's policy targets the available resources on those groups considered most vulnerable and least able to meet extra heating costs as a result of very cold weather. Cold weather payments are already issued automatically to all pensioners who get income support pensioner premium.

  Students
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of students undertaking further education for no more than 20 hours' per week who have been denied income support on the basis that their 20 hours' study is designated as full-time education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available. Students following a full-time course of education, irrespective of the number of hours they attend each week, should look to the educational maintenance system for the necessary financial support.

  Whether a course is designated as full time or part time is a matter for the individual educational establishment. Unemployed income support claimants who take advantage of part-time education courses for up to 21 hours a week benefit from a valuable concession in the income support scheme. They are treated as available for work, but have to satisfy all other relevant provisions whilst continuing their search for work.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the instructions accompanying all documents relating to claims and appeals within his Department are available in Welsh.

  Mr. Burt
  The provision of instructions which accompany documents relating to claims and appeals is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 16 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about instructions accompanying all documents relating to claims and appeals being available in Welsh.

  In May 1990 the Department of Social Security published its bilingual policy for Wales. In line with this the Benefits Agency set up a Welsh Language Unit with responsibility for implementing the policy.

  One of the elements of the policy is that bilingual forms and leaflets will be produced, given time. Substantial progress has been made. Many of the most widely used leaflets are now available in a bilingual form, and some of the most widely used claim forms are available in Welsh.
  193
  We are committed under the Department's bilingual policy to produce further bilingual leaflets and forms. Indeed, we are striving to ensure that all future leaflets and forms will be produced in this way.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Britannia Royal Naval College
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he intends to make to release the land known as Norton playing fields used by the Britannia Royal Naval college, Dartmouth, for sale.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have reviewed our need for the land and have concluded that it should be possible to release most of it. No date for disposal can yet be given, but, work is in hand with the object of bringing a sale forward as soon as possible.

  Support Command
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Tornados, (b) Jaguars, (c) Phantoms, (d) Harriers and (e) Buccaneers are assigned to Support Command.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Support Command's main functions are to provide maintenance, training and support services to the RAF. The command has no operational flying commitment and does not therefore halve assigned to it aircraft of the types specified.

  Artillery Regiments
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reduction in the number of artillery pieces will result from the planned reduction in the number of artillery regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The reduction in the number of artillery pieces deployed in the field Army as a result of the planned reduction in the number of artillery regiments is expected to be 68.

  Falklands and Belize
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to annex C of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992", how many Phantoms are in the flight assigned to the Falklands; when they are due to be replaced by Tornado F3s; and how many Harriers are in the flight assigned to Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Phantoms assigned to the Falklands were replaced by Tornados at the end of July. For operational reasons, we do not release details of the number of aircraft in these theatres.

  Tanks
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions in tank numbers will result from the planned reduction in armoured regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The reduction in the number of tanks deployed in the field Army as a result of the planned reduction in the number of armoured regiments is expected to be 299.

  Armoured Combat Vehicles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions in armoured combat vehicles and armoured combat vehicle lookalikes are envisaged as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The exact quantities of armoured combat vehicles and armoured vehicle lookalikes to be deployed when the planned reductions in the Army have been completed are still under review.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many families of British forces personnel have been evicted from his Department's accommodation in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of families of personnel currently or formerly serving in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who have been evicted from Ministry of Defence accommodation over the last five years are set out in the table, by calendar year. The Army has been keeping figures centrally only since April 1992 and these are provided in the table. It would require disproportionate effort and cost to collect the earlier figures.

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1988

  3

  —

  1

  1989

  18

  —

  12

  1990

  14

  —

  1

  1991

  13

  —

  5

  1992

  213

  37

  22

  1 Includes one physical eviction.

  2 To 13 November 1992.

  3 Period 1 April to 30 September 1992.

  Note:

  No evictions overseas by Royal Navy and RAF. Number of evictions overseas by Army are unavailable.

  Battalion Complements
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect "Options for Change" has had on the normal complement of a battalion in the Army; and what is that complement now.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following the implementation of "Options for Change" there will be a small increase in the typical establishment of a battalion in the Army; that establishment depends upon the type and role of the battalion and currently ranges between 628 and 927.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the inquiry by Lord Justice Scott into Ministers' handling of arms sales to Iraq will have access to papers and officials dealing with equipment sales to Chile during the relevant period;

  (2) if he will release to the inquiry being conducted by Lord Justice Scott on sales to Iraq the studies undertaken under the auspices of his Department into the Iraqi military procurement network in the United Kingdom and the activities of Matrix Churchill.

  Mr. Aitken
  Lord Justice Scott will have access to all relevant Government papers.
  195
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ammunition supplied by British companies was revealed by the analysis of ammunition captured following the end of the Gulf war; arid how much of this ammunition was originally shipped to Jordan.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not carried out an extensive analysis of the origins of all ammunition captured during the Gulf conflict. However, the analysis that has been carried out has produced no evidence to suggest that Iraqi forces used any ammunition of British manufacture.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what oversight Her Majesty's Government exercised during the period 1985 to 1988 of British Aerospace's role in Arab-British dynamics; and what representations were made to the company about this role.
  196
  Mr. Aitken
  My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had a number of discussions with British Aerospace on the subject of Arab-British Dynamics over the period in question.

  Activity Bulletins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to place regular bulletins on developments and activities in(a) Bosnia and (b) the Gulf, which affect the troops deployed there, in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 October 1992, c. 616]: I intend to place a note summarising the activities of British forces in former Yugoslavia and the Gulf at intervals in the Library of each House. Such notes will be placed once a week, on a Thursday, and more often if circumstances require it. The arrangement will begin on 19 November.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Angola
2.37 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the political situation in Angola.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we remain committed to the implementation of the peace agreement embodied in the Bicesse Accords and have been working closely with our partners in the EC and the UN Security Council to that end. We have also been active in support of efforts by the UN to consolidate the present ceasefire in Angola.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in view of the Government's deep commitment to advancing the cause of democracy in Africa and elsewhere, this setback is grave? Can she assure us that there will be no prevarication on the part of the Government in making it absolutely clear to all the parties that they must accept the outcome of a democratic election as held?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can do no more than agree with the noble Lord.

Croatia: "Ethnic Cleansing"
2.39 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can confirm reports that Croatian forces are joining the Serbs in the persecution and "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnian Moslems and, if so, whether they believe that sanctions should be imposed upon Croatia.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, these will be among the issues which my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will be discussing with the UN Secretary-General later this week.
I have just received the text of UN Security Council Resolution 787 which was signed last night. In order to cut the Question short, I should say that it contains all the information which your Lordships may want. Ten nations were in favour of the resolution, there were two abstentions (China and Zimbabwe) and none against. The resolution contains the following elements: support for the Owen/Vance constitutional proposals for Bosnia; condemnation of violations of humanitarian law, including the deliberate impeding of humanitarian supplies; further measures to tighten
526
existing sanctions, including authority to stop and search suspect shipping; a ban on transhipment of strategic goods (oil etc.) across Serbia and Montenegro, except with specific UN permission; a warning to the Croats that their policies in Bosnia are under close international scrutiny; and implementa-tion of a decision at the London Conference on Yugoslavia to deploy monitors along the Bosnian borders.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that most helpful reply. Given that the Serbian forces have enough arms and ammunition to last them for perhaps 20 years and the Croatians enough for perhaps 10 years, will the noble Baroness agree that it is high time that the iniquitous and indefensible arms embargo against the legitimate government of Bosnia was lifted? Otherwise, the ill-armed Moslems will be virtually eliminated within 12 months, with the apparent connivance of the West. Will the Minister agree that, quite apart from the humanitarian aspects, this would poison relations between Islam and the West for generations to come?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are not in the business of providing arms to Bosnia. We think that that would be totally counter-productive.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there is a considerable risk of the spread of conflict? Will she indicate what measures are contemplated if the policy of ethnic cleansing is extended to Kosovo? Can she brief us as to what progress the European Community has made with Greece towards the recognition of the province of Skopje, Macedonia?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, we deplore and condemn ethnic cleansing and all atrocities. All parties, but primarily the Bosnian Serbs, are to blame. United Nations Security Council Resolution 780 provides for the creation of an impartial commission of experts to assist the UN Secretary-General in the collation and analysis of evidence of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and report to the UN Secretary-General. The UN Secretary-General has appointed commission members from the Netherlands, Egypt, Canada, Senegal and Norway and the commission will be based in Geneva. Quite honestly, I think that the second part of my noble friend's question is wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the Government's latest estimate of the total number of people currently detained in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the different sides? Will she outline what specific measures the Government are taking through the UN and through their presidency of the European Community to secure the release and resettlement of those people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, my noble, and unfortunate, friend Lord Ferrers will make a Statement later which is relevant to the question asked by the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the argument that one should not allow people who are defending themselves from aggression to have access to arms is an excellent pacifist argument but that it is a rotten argument for anyone who is not a pacifist?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble friend will not reply to that question —it appears she will not—does she not agree that the term "ethnic cleansing" is rather misleading as it sounds as if it might have some virtue? It is actually used to describe the process followed by Hitler and Stalin; it is a mixture of genocide and mass transportation of populations. That process is not restricted to Yugoslavia but is also occurring in Nagorno-Karabakh at this moment. This House is deeply disturbed that no one has yet found any effective way of impeding it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Foreign Affairs Council declaration of 5th October makes clear that the perpetrators of mass killings and other grave breaches of international law will be held individually responsible for their actions. I have already said that we deplore and condemn all atrocities.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that sanctions on Serbia are conspicuously failing at the moment? We read daily in the press of vast quantities of petroleum products being shipped up the Danube and being shipped through Greece and Bulgaria. What are the Government doing to ensure that the United Nations sanctions are made effective?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, sanctions are having a marked effect on the Serbian and Montenegran economies. It is important to maintain the pressure and to tighten implementation. EC/CSCE sanctions assistance missions under way in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have the aim of assisting local authorities to enforce UN sanctions more efficiently. Plans to extend these to Macedonia and other states, including neighbouring Serbia and Montenegro, are under way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect, does the noble Baroness accept that there is no confusion between this Question and the Statement to be dealt with later this afternoon? What we are seeking is information about the total number of people detained and what is being done to seek their release from detention. The issue of visas is quite another matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have found the passage I was looking for. There are over 3 million displaced people within the former Yugoslavia, of whom 1,640,000 are in Bosnia, and there are approximately 566,000 refugees or displaced people in other countries.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, following the question asked by my noble friend Lord Tordoff and the answer we received, is the noble Baroness really telling
528
the House that the press is inaccurate in saying that there is now no shortage of petroleum in these countries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, the matter of tightening existing sanctions was accepted in the United Nations resolution passed last night. Everyone is aware of what is going on and steps are being taken to close any holes.

Rented Housing: Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of their policy for growth, they will ease the restrictions on the use of capital receipts by local authorities for the building of new homes to let.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): Yes, my Lords. As from 13th November 1992 to 31st December 1993 local authorities will be able to spend 100 per cent. of their receipts on most capital receipts programmes.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister assure me that the Government will give an equally prompt response to any further suggestions I may make regarding changes in government policy? In this case, however, is it not rather a pity that this concession has been hedged around with so many absurd restrictions as greatly to reduce its practical value?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being less than charitable to the announcement that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last week. We believe that the announcement will have a substantial effect on the building and construction industry and that it will be worth some £1.85 billion during the course of the next 14 months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Chancellor, in the way he has jigged this so-called benefit, has been less than charitable to those trying to build houses for people who are endeavouring to leave the homeless queues? Is the Minister aware that at the present cost of building a house, and with a 60 per cent. discount, for example, on the sale of each council house, five or six council houses will have to be sold to build one new property? Why is the Chancellor being so mulish and obstinate in not unlocking immediately some of the substantial sums of money held by local authorities? It amounts, I believe, to £5 billion. There is no guarantee whatever that the sum of money that the Minister has just indicated should be available will be available. The Government should unlock the money local authori-ties now have and let houses be built straight away. Let us stop messing about and playing with words.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no reason why local authorities should build houses themselves. They can support housing associations that can build

529
houses far more quickly than local government. Local authorities can, of course, spend the money on renovating and improving their housing stock which they have always maintained is a priority. The reason we are not releasing the money held by local authorities is because some local authorities have used that money to pay off debt. It would discriminate against those who have paid off debt to allow others who have not done so to spend that money now.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that for many years local authorities have been able to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts on building for re-sale? If they really want to help the construction industry in their areas why do they not do just that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is correct. We want to see the money used as quickly as possible, which is why we consider that renovation will help the construction industry and further our plans for growth more rapidly than if local authorities were to build new houses.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that, although many people consider it desirable, the policy of the sale of council houses has contributed adversely to the number of homeless people? Will the Minister stop talking about the rapidity with which housing associations can build properties? During the period of a Conservative Government, local authorities employing private sector companies and their own building departments were building 300,000 houses a year while the target for housing associations is, I believe, 68,000 properties a year. Will the Minister please listen to some sense and unlock some of the £5 million which local authorities have? There are builders in the private sector who have package deals ready and who are able to start building tomorrow. Let us get on with it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, local authorities will now have that money. They can put plans which are on the table into effect immediately with the resources that they will be able to release.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that even when council houses are sold that does not change the total number of houses in the country which are available for occupation? Does he agree that it does not really matter whether houses are in private or local authority ownership and that it is highly misleading to suggest that when council houses are sold they go out of the housing stock?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord inferred that I meant that the sale of council houses was the reason why there are no houses available for rent. I said that that was a contributory factor. That was all that I said; I did not say that it was the only cause of the problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in connection with the refurbishment and renovation of houses for which the noble Lord has indicated some of the funds could be used, does he agree that the need goes way beyond the
530
sums we are now discussing? Will he indicate whether, once those resources have been exhausted, other measures will be introduced to make more funds available?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we obviously keep under review the resources available for the improvement of housing. This is a once-and-for-all injection to be made available over the next few months to help local authorities release their receipts and spend 100 per cent. of those receipts on capital projects which they regard as most suitable.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the large numbers of people who are homeless and on very low incomes, can my noble friend say what provision there is for providing houses for the lower paid who cannot afford the high prices?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this will be a tremendous opportunity for the Housing Corporation to enter into partnership with central government and local authorities to provide more low-cost social housing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the sale of council houses is not the only means by which local authorities can obtain capital receipts to spend on new housing? Does he agree that they could consider selling some of their other assets, such as local authority airports? Does my noble friend agree that if they are serious about finding money to help solve the housing situation local authorities should consider doing that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is very wise to bring to the attention of the House the fact that local authorities have huge resources in assets other than housing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in order to produce income there have to be buyers who are ready to purchase what people are willing to sell? Is he not over-estimating the capital assets which councils will accumulate in view of the present state of the market? Does he not agree that many people have had their fingers burnt with mortgages and will not take them on lightly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe that there is money in the economy. With the reduction in interest rates and the renewal of confidence following last week's announcement, I think that it is very likely that local authorities will be able to divest themselves of their assets.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House the amount of additional resources which it is estimated will be available in 1992–93?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we expect more than £1 billion of additional expenditure in 1992–93.

Wansbeck: Assited Areas Review
2.54 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in considering the request of the Wansbeck initiative for restoration of development area status, they will bear in mind the need to reach a decision before the conclusion of the current inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, we are well aware of the very serious problems facing the Wansbeck area. Those problems are being carefully considered in the assisted areas review. Our aim is to implement a revised map early in 1993. We appreciate the need for speed in this matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for her appreciation that speed is required. Will she keep in the forefront of her mind the eagerness with which an early and affirmative decision will be awaited?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are doing that. My honourable friends and I have met many delegations. The revised map will be submitted to Europe as soon as possible.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that in the review the number of assisted areas and intermediate areas in Northumberland will not be reduced in view of the fact that that is the area of the greatest unemployment in mainland Britain?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I cannot give a decision ahead of the outcome of the review, but I stress that it is not an automatic review. We are looking at the areas which are among the worst off one third in the country in terms of unemployment and other criteria. We are well aware of the difficulties faced in the North East.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is it not a fact that the criteria may well result in one half of the country, or more, requiring development area status?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I repeat that we are seeking to identify the worst off third of the country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the Wansbeck District Council area there is currently 15 per cent. unemployment, and 20 per cent. male unemployment, which in turn is higher than in the rest of the North East which, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara said, is the highest in the mainland United Kingdom? Does she further accept that the industrial base in Wansbeck is very narrow and that such employment as there is is dependent on the Alcan smelter, the Alcan power station and the Ellington colliery? Will she further accept that the position in Wansbeck is already worse than the
532
position will be in seven of the 10 areas where pits are virtually certain to close and yet those areas are to be targeted for special help in diversification and job creation while Wansbeck is not? Is not that a scandalous state of affairs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Williams—I am sorry, that mistake must be due to the courteous way in which the question was put!—that my honourable friend the Minister for Industry met with a delegation from Wansbeck District Council. They put the matters raised by the noble Lord eloquently and fully.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on visas for Bosnian refugees.

Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1985 so as to add the criteria of internal arrangement and thermal efficiency to the fitness standard; to provide for the enforcement of the fitness standard where only part of a unit of accommodation fails that standard; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Merlyn-Rees.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Select Committees: Appointments
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Richard be appointed to the Select Committees on House of Lords' Offices, Liaison, Privileges, Procedure of the House and Selection in the place of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos; and that the Lord McIntosh of Haringey be appointed to the Select Committees on House of Lords' Offices and Procedure of the House in the place of the Lord Williams of Elvel.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, before this Motion is voted upon, I hope that it will be in order for me to express the hope that, if elected, the noble Lords will ensure that never again is any broadcasting authority permitted to make the kind of misleading programme which we saw last evening and which was a travesty of the House of Lords.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is not for me to answer for the two noble Lords in question; but I feel sure that the sense of the House is entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has just said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I hope not to detain the Committee very long in dealing with this Motion. I simply want an explanation in regard to Clause 5. The Committee will remember that Clause 5 reads:
"The power to make regulations under section 2(2) or section 3(2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such regulations, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House".
Under what circumstances is a draft made without having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament? In other words, can the Minister tell the Committee the circumstances under which she envisages that this clause will be brought into operation within the context of her very comprehen-sive speech at Second Reading?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I could explain the background to Clause 5 and the effect of omitting it from the Bill. The powers to make the regulations in Clause 2(2) and Clause 3(2) of the Bill would be subject to no parliamentary procedure. It is clearly necessary to retain the clause, or something like it, if Parliament is to have control over the use of those powers.
Let me explain to the Committee the purpose and effect of Clause 5. Clause 5 provides that the powers to make regulations under Clauses 2(2) and 3(2) are exercisable by statutory instrument. The instrument may be subject to either negative or affirmative resolution procedure in the same manner as instruments made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The clause follows, therefore, the formula in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 in the 1972 Act.
The fact is that the 1972 Act allows either negative or affirmative procedure to be adopted so that regulations under Section 2(2) of that Act may be combined with regulations made under powers in other Acts. Those Acts may provide for either negative or affirmative procedure but not for both.
534
The flexibility provided in the 1972 Act allows Section 2(2) regulations to be made, using whichever procedure applies under the other Act.
Having given the background, perhaps I may explain why we believe that the clause is necessary. The same consideration applies to regulations under Clauses 2(2) or 3(2) of the Bill. If Clause 5 provided only for either negative or affirmative procedures—I believe that is the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—there would be occasions when regulations made both under other enactments and under the Bill on the same matter would have to be subject to different procedures and, as a consequence, be in different instruments. That would mean unnecessary confusion. It would be a waste of time and resources to make two instruments. It would be unhelpful to readers of the measures to have to try to understand the relationship between them.
We are trying with this clause to ensure that the two sets of regulations are made in the same instrument and are subject to the same procedure to ease all future activity on these Bills in this House. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord and that he will not press the matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I am still not clear about the circumstances when a draft is not available for consideration in advance. Is it because there is some hurry over something? Why should a draft not he made available? The clause states:
"if made without a draft having been approved".
In other circumstances in which drafts are not available it becomes necessary to apply the affirmative procedure. I should have thought that it would be for everybody's convenience for drafts to be made available in advance in any event.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: In this clause we are trying to protect the necessity for providing dual instruments in this area. When making regulations under these powers we would normally use the negative procedure.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have listened to the noble Baroness and will further study her remarks when they appear in the Official Report. In reserving the right to raise the matter at some later stage, I shall withdraw my objection.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved an amendment:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:—
ANNUAL REPORTS
(" .A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament annually a report on the operation of the agreement and the development of the European Economic Area.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to add a new clause which reads as follows:
"A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament annually a report on the operation of the Agreement and the development of the European Economic Area".
I trust the Committee will appreciate that I seek to inject an element of transparency into the activities of government and officials in this particular field. Under

535
Article 94 of the agreement to which the Bill applies there is provision for an annual report to be made. It states that:
"The EEA Joint Committee shall issue an annual report on the functioning and the development of this Agreement".
I am anxious that that should be supplemented for the following reasons. Under Article 93 of the agreement:
"The EEA Joint Committee shall consist of representatives of the Contracting Parties".
Under paragraph 2 of that same article:
"The EEA Joint Committee shall take decisions by agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the EFTA States speaking with one voice, on the other".
It is clear that the annual report, which ought to cover a wide field, is not submitted on the authority of Ministers; it is not even issued under the authority of the EEA council. It is submitted solely on behalf of unelected and, so far as one can see, unknown officials who are to operate in this field.
Perhaps I may quote from the excellent publication issued in October 1992 by the noble Baroness's department. At page 25 The Single Market—The European Economic Area states:
"Composed of EC and EFTA officials, the EEA Joint Committee will be the main EEA forum, charged with the responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the Agreement. In particular, it will be responsible for: ensuring that both the EC and EFTA comply with the obligations of the Agreement; ensuring that the two areas adopt a common approach to implementation and interpretation of the Agreement".
As will be seen from the following pages, which I shall not read to your Lordships for reasons of time, the officials occupy an extremely important position. However, they appear to be responsible to no one in terms of accountability.
When today we are dealing with international organisations—whether they be the European Community, the new organisation which will deal with the EC and EFTA moving towards a situation in which new countries can make application for admission to the EC, and a whole series of other international and European organisations—we find that Ministers of the Crown in this country are becoming more remote from the activities which those organisations cover. That applies also to other countries but I am more particularly concerned with the United Kingdom whose Ministers are becoming more remote from the activities which are carried out in the name of this country.
I consider that to be undesirable. The annual report will be submitted by officials whom we do not know, whose decisions and functions have not been described anywhere, apart from in the most general terms, and who may vary from time to time throughout the years. We shall have a report from those officials and no one will be accountable for what they say.
It is up to other countries in the EC, and to other countries which will be party to the agreement, to do what they wish. However, as regards the United Kingdom, I am sure that it is proper that a Minister of the Crown should have an obligation and responsibility to report what is happening to Parliament. Anyone who has perused the Bill will know that from time to time legislation passed at this level will be incorporated automatically into British
536
law by virtue of Section 2 of the 1972 Act. It will also be transmitted to the UK in a form in which the UK has the option of bringing certain legislation into operation.
The agreement is full of references to variations which may take place in Customs duties. As the agreement is supposed to come into operation in 1993 questions arise about the extent to which the Customs duties are capable of identification and levying when Customs posts are to be drastically decreased in number and in function. There is a whole series of matters on which other countries should be informed. For example, let us suppose that certain legislation prepared at this level and transmitted by officials is varied by one of the countries concerned exercising the option under Article 127 of giving a year's notice and leaving the agreement altogether. What retrospective action will be taken in order to ensure that Customs duties which have been paid may have to be refunded or additional Customs duties may have to be levied?
All those are matters of some concern. It may well be that during the passage of time Parliament has become so used to paying no attention to such matters, regarding them somehow as beneath parliamentary attention. However, often they go to the very root of government. There will be extra expenditure in terms of the agreement because on its coming into operation the United Kingdom will be required to pay sums out of the Consolidated Fund in order to subsidise some of the less advantaged countries within the area. It will be proper and indeed necessary for a British Minister to report those matters to Parliament. Surely any significant expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund is a matter in which Parliament should be interested at the time and not merely retrospectively when there is a detailed examination of the out-turn of Treasury accounts.
There are other matters which are capable of being reported. For instance, the explanatory note to the Bill mentions certain circumstances in which extra moneys may have to be paid out of the Treasury in connection with a whole series of matters. One cannot expect a broad general report, which deals with the agreement as a whole and which is made by officials outside this country who are not accountable to it, to refer to those matters that are of some domestic interest to people in the United Kingdom. I would expect a Minister to be able to deal with them. Indeed, the people in the country as a whole may be interested—and if not, their elected representatives should be interested—in the advantages which are likely to accrue, if one is to believe, as one obviously does, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, on Second Reading. She said that there would be certain advantages as regards the fisheries of this country and the total allowable catches available to the UK. Surely it would be in order for an annual progress report to be given on those matters.
I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer by discussing the details. It is necessary that a Minister of the Government should be made responsible for an oversight of the whole operation, not merely for the information of Parliament but for the discipline of Ministers. The best way to secure that is by imposing

537
a responsibility that there should be a report on the matters which I have already discussed. I hope that the Government will agree to that.
It may he possible at the same time for the annual report made to Parliament to identify, in accordance with the Prime Minister's advocacy of more transparency, which Cabinet committee or sub-committee has dealt with the matter during the course of the year.
I hope that I have said sufficient for the noble Baroness to apprehend the anxiety which lies behind the proposed insertion of this clause. Although the Government may find it difficult to believe, this is an endeavour to be helpful to them. It is to ensure that the growing rule and unaccountability of international civil servants throughout the Community gives way progressively to a far greater sense of responsibility by Ministers. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel constrained, in the interests of transparency and good democracy, to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has done us a good service by raising this not unimportant issue. I find—as, I dare say, do many Members of the Committee—that one of the problems in performing our duties in connection with the whole European system is following exactly what is happening from time to time. It is practically a full-time job to do that.
Therefore, on the face of it, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, seems to be extremely useful. He suggests that there should be an annual report prepared by Ministers. As I understand it, it should not be a report calling for approval but simply a report for the information of Parliament and, therefore, of the country. It may be that there is some great difficulty in that regard to which the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will invite our attention. I keep an open mind on that until she has spoken. However, prima facie the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, seems to have raised an interesting point to which the Committee would like to hear an answer, if there is one.
Lord Beloff: I support the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in part for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There is a good deal of anxiety and confusion in the country about the working of the increasingly complicated set of European institutions in which we are involved. The only way in which those anxieties can be allayed in our parliamentary system is by frequent reports—perhaps annual reports—to Parliament. One hopes that those reports would give rise to debate and would not merely be something lost in the Printed Paper Office for the few who take a detailed interest in those matters.
I am particularly worried because when the Government come round to feeling that the country needs more information, they do not always perform that task in a way which commands general assent. The recent pamphlet sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office called Britain in Europe, which many Members of the Committee will have received,
538
purports to be an explanation of the Treaty of Maastricht. On Sunday the Sunday Times managed to find at least a dozen instances where the interpretation was, to say the least, questionable. In my view, it was moderate in its criticism of that document. It is not an explanation of the Treaty of Maastricht but a defence by those who believe that it should be ratified, putting aside the anxieties which have been widely expressed in another place, in this Chamber and more importantly, in the country at large.
Had that been a document presented as a report to Parliament, which Parliament had the right to question, rather than being issued in the manner of tablets from on high, people's worries might or might not have been allayed. In any event, in order to avoid that happening again it seems to me a very good idea to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. It is essential to have such a provision if the dual procedure is to be allowed to work at all. As a Member of the European Parliament for five years, I know that it is no good relying upon European Parliament Members to carry out that task. The European Parliament is submerged with too many items which make it impossible to get a coherent view as to what affects one's own country.
The reason that I support the amendment in particular is that if a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an annual report, we shall be more certain that the Minister of the Crown knows what is happening. We know that there are too many instances of Ministers making recommendations to Parliament which have merely been put in front of them by their departments. They do not always think it right to give time to understanding all the implications of those recommendations.
If a Minister must prepare a report and submit it to Parliament, he is more likely to know what is involved. Therefore, it will not be possible to hide matters with only interested parties questioning the possible results. The preparation of a report by a Minister may ensure that some of the quirks which seem to get through would be eliminated because the Minister preparing that report would have seen it in good time and would know what was involved.
I believe that Community matters should be more democratic than they are at present. A report from an elected Government Minister means that he would know what is involved. Therefore, we should accept the amendment.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, although I do not know whether it is in proper form. As a Member of the European Parliament I was extremely disturbed by the lack of what is known as a democratic deficit. In the parliament we were able to table questions and ask for reports to be laid before the parliament but, of course, the reply came from a member of the Commission or from somebody who had no power to act on what the parliament then said.

539
It is for that reason that I welcome the possibility of a report on a major issue to the United Kingdom which will come before the British Parliament and where questions can be asked by British parliamentarians on matters which affect British interests. I therefore strongly support the principle of the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: I do not believe that we should stray into the delicate area of what Ministers of the Crown know or knew of this or any other topic. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we are in the Committee stage of the European Economic Area Bill regarding the extending of the Community's single market to member countries of EFTA? I do not understand how we have strayed into the general issues of Maastricht and other matters.
Much as I am sympathetic to the idea of giving reports to Parliament, I was under the impression that the Government were already on record as committing themselves to doing precisely what my noble friend requires. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what I understand to be the case; that is, that the Government are already committed to doing what is being requested.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his explanation of the new clause. I share his anxiety and that of my noble friends that Parliament should be properly informed of developments in the European Economic Area and that there should be transparency of action. I was delighted when the noble Lord drew the attention of the Chamber to the fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is committed to transparency of action. I can reassure him by pointing out that the EEA Council, under Article 89, will assess the overall functioning and development of the agreement. It will therefore assess and effectively oversee actions of the joint committee about which the noble Lord expressed nervousness.
I should like to confirm the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is indeed something to which the Government are already committed. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord and my noble friends that the agreements already made will ensure that Ministers accept their responsibilities and that parliamentarians in this country will have the chance to examine the matters in hand.
Perhaps I can say first that once the agreement comes into force the Government will report twice a year to Parliament on the operation of the European Economic Area in the six-monthly White Paper, Developments in the European Community. There will be a new section in the White Paper exclusively for the European Economic Area following a recommenda-tion of the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee in its report of 25th July 1990 on trade with EFTA.
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord. The second report indeed arises from Article 94 of the agreement. That requires the EEA joint committee to
540
issue an annual report on the functioning and development of the agreement. The noble Lord expressed doubts in that regard because it would be a report issued by officials. I reassure him that to ensure Parliament is able to consider the report it is the intention of the Government that it should be treated as a European Community document for the purposes of parliamentary scrutiny. It will be deposited in Parliament accompanied by an explanatory memorandum from DTI Ministers, which will be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as any other report made under the terms of the new clause.
The memorandum will address specific aspects of the operation and development of the agreement that affect UK legislation and policy. For example, as the noble Lord suggests it could include statistics on recent trends in trade between the United Kingdom and EFTA. That procedure will allow your Lordships' committee on European Communities to consider developments in the European Economic Area. I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that there is no closer scrutiny than a committee of your Lordships' House. I hope that Members will agree that those procedures will ensure adequate reporting to Parliament.
We are saying that three pieces of paper will be introduced. The new clause will simply add a fourth produced by the same people. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will accept that the spirit of my comments is not to conceal information but to avoid unnecessary duplication. At Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord said that anything that can simplify matters will be a great advantage. In particular, he identified the workload of Ministers in staying on top of European matters. I hope that in this instance he will not increase our paperwork.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I can ask about the report of which she spoke so interestingly and which she said would be open to parliamentary scrutiny. Have the Government considered whether the European Communities Committee of the House of Lords will have a role in scrutinising that report from time to time? Does my noble friend know whether that has been considered? If she does not, perhaps she will undertake to look at the possibility.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am pleased to be able to reassure my noble friend Lady Carnegy that the procedure will allow your Lordships' European Communities Committee to consider the develop-ments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend said that the Government are already doing what the clause asks for, but in another form. In order to avoid the extra paperwork to which she quite rightly objects, is there no way of making that which is being done a statutory requirement instead of a voluntary undertaking? That would make a great difference and give satisfaction to those of us with doubts.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble

541
Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will accept that by putting our intention on record today we are indicating that that is indeed our intention.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us that explanation in answer to the few remarks that I ventured to mention to the Committee on this subject. It occurs to me that she has given the Committee so many assurances that it may have been simpler and taken far less time for the Government to have accepted the insertion of the clause which puts the matter quite simply.
I did not expect to receive the support of my noble friend Lord Peston. I do not accept his view that the position is already covered in the agreement. I presume he has read the agreement; if so, he will know that that is not the case.
I am grateful for the assurances given by the noble Baroness and unhesitatingly accept them. In the interests of good government, public accountability and transparency I should have preferred specific responsibility to be laid upon a Minister. As the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Beloff pointed out, it would concentrate the minds of Ministers and possibly of the Cabinet Committee and may be welcomed by them.
I am aware that should I press the matter to a Division this afternoon, it would be impossible for the Report stage to be taken today. It has never been part of my policy to obstruct the wishes of the Chamber and the Government in proceeding with the business of the day. After giving good notice, which I trust the noble Baroness, the Government and my own Front Bench will take into account, I shall return to the question of public accountability and ministerial responsibility as regards EC affairs time and time again as long as I am able. Therefore, as long as these considerations are borne in mind, and after thanking the Members of the Committee and the noble Baroness for participating in this debate, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed, Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

Bosnian Refugees: Visas
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in reply to a Private Notice Question about the grant of visas to Bosnian nationals. The reply is as follows:
"On 5th November I made a Statement to the House about the offer we were making to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to receive from Bosnia people with special humanitarian needs who the international organisations judged should be evacuated from
542
detention camps and elsewhere. I said that we would be discussing numbers and timing with the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have informed the UNHCR that we are ready to receive in the first instance 150 former detainees and their dependants, probably making 600 in all. At the same time I announced the imposition of visas on certain nationals of the former Yugoslavia, making it clear that this action was needed to enable us to target our humanitarian assistance where it was most needed.
"The Leeds European Refugee Trust, which is commonly known as ALERT, was advised on 6th November by my officials that the group it intended to bring to the United Kingdom could not be exempted from the visa regime to be imposed from midnight on that day. This information was repeatedly given to ALERT before its coaches left the United Kingdom on 9th November. Despite this clear advice it proceeded with its plans and then used its coaches to move the group from the more comfortable conditions in the safe city of Ljubljana to the equally peaceful but colder mountainous region on the Austrian border.
"The ALERT group then lodged applications at the British Embassy in Vienna which were referred to the Home Office asylum division on 13th November.
"I decided yesterday that visas may be authorised for six members of the group who have existing close family ties with the United Kingdom. They will be free to travel here to lodge applications for asylum, in accordance with normal policy, as the United Kingdom is the most suitable country of refuge in their cases.
"I also decided that another 180 members of the group should be refused visas because they have insubstantial or no links to the United Kingdom. Their cases are indistinguishable from the plight of about 2 million people displaced in former Yugoslavia. They are more fortunate than those likely to be referred to the government by the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross in that the ALERT group is housed in hotels and hospitals far away from the fighting.
"Eight other cases—two with medical conditions and their relatives—remain under active consideration and are the subject of further enquiries. These enquiries include the need to establish that it is necessary for them to have medical treatment in the United Kingdom rather than in the hospitals where they are at present in Slovenia. It would also be necessary to ensure that the National Health Service could provide treatment for the patients if that case could be made.
"The Government have repeatedly made clear their willingness to make a humanitarian contribution to the problems in the former Yugoslavia by helping to take the cases which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee for the Red Cross judge to be the most needy. As I have already stated, we have agreed to accept an initial group of about 600 people in all. Numbers and timing are being

543
urgently discussed with the UNHCR and ICRC, and of course we stand ready to consider numbers beyond the 600 I have mentioned.
"My department did not implement the new visa regime without thought for transitional cases. Groups similar to ALERT who were caught by my Statement on 5th November and had already then commenced their journeys were, in fact, exempted from visa requirements. On 7th and 8th November 187 individuals were admitted to the United Kingdom without visas on that basis. ALERT, however, was fully warned of the position before starting its journey and at no time did it have basis for raising the hopes of the unfortunate people concerned".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Earl for this Statement. The noble Earl is a man of considerable sensitivity and concern. Does he not agree that this whole sorry saga has been extraordinarily ineptly and insensitively handled? At the very least, is it not possible that there was a failure on the Government's part to give a clear indication to those concerned as to the implications of policy? For those of us who have worked in humanitarian organisations it is a very real experience for us that it is easy in the context of this country to understand the administrative decisions made by the Government of this country. But it is quite another matter for the fieldworkers caught up in the actual activity in the field to be able to absorb that information, make use of it and change their plans and operations in time.
Furthermore, is it not a fact that the decision on visas was made at short notice and that that had profound implications for everyone who was concerned about the position of the refugees? Has the noble Earl been made aware of the letter sent by the Red Cross in Ljubljana to Sir Giles Shaw, a Member of another place, which stated:
"I would like to confirm the contents of the letter and certify that 200 refugees with the Leeds European Refugee Trust will meet the United Kingdom criteria for asylum seekers who can be given entry visas as victims of war with desperate need.
"They are coming from the war area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, some having been released from concentration camps, some are in need of urgent medical attention and others already having close relatives in England.
"I understand these people are already in transit to England. These people comply with the new visa legislation issued by the British Government".
Was the noble Earl aware of that statement by the Red Cross? Furthermore, is he aware of the way in which the decision on visas was introduced? In much of the world it was regarded as extraordinarily cynical in effect. What was said was that we did not have the facilities on the spot to deal with the applications for visas as we would like to be able to deal with them, and therefore people must set out on the journey to another country to find the visas in the embassies in other countries. What an extraordinary way of administering a policy. In effect, is this not simply to
544
pass the buck to the other countries in which the embassies are located because once people have made the journey to those other countries, they become the responsibility of those other countries?
Is the noble Earl also aware that, when referring to the humanitarian and generous decision by the Swiss Government to take 1,500 people in this kind of plight, the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees said:
"We are extremely grateful to Switzerland for its help…But the fact remains that we still have to find safe haven for thousands of prisoners who continue to languish in these camps—camps that have been condemned by the international community as an outrage to humanity. If a few more countries followed the example of Switzerland…we could end this sad chapter in a very tragic conflict"?
Does the noble Earl not agree that the sane, sensible and humane way to have handled the matter would have been to say, in commonsense terms, that the refugees assembled by ALERT would be allowed in but that this was the absolute point at which the new policy would become operative and, from then on, there would be no further extensions of this kind? Why could we not envisage some humanitarian gesture of that sort? Does the noble Earl feel no shame that these refugees are now going to Spain and countries of that kind because Britain cannot take them? How does he feel about comparing our position—our hard and unyielding line—in the face of the most appalling experiences of the people in Yugoslavia with the position of the Government in Switzerland, a smaller country, which has taken yet again the steps which it has taken?
It is impossible to over-emphasise the sense of bitter frustration among the humanitarian aid workers in many organisations throughout the country at what the Government have done. The Government have thrown back those people's commitment in their faces. It is also impossible to imagine the sense of bewilderment and agony felt by the refugees who have been caught up in a situation over which they have no control. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again. It is one thing to talk about humanitarian commitment, but the whole of Britain's real reputation for humanitarian commit-ment stands on what it does about these people in this appalling plight.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about this particularly unfortunate case which has been handled in a particularly unfortunate and ham-fisted fashion. Is the noble Earl aware that of those 200 people waiting on the border 100 are children? Perhaps some special account might be taken of their needs.
Is the noble Earl further aware that, although he has assured us about the course of events, the story that I have is a rather different one? Like that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my information is that ALERT did what it could to go through the procedures that it was told to go through—that is to say, it sought the guidance of the Home Office. It received the support of the International Red Cross via the Ljubljana Red Cross and thought that it had satisfied the requirements of the new ruling. As the

545
noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the new ruling was introduced at ludicrously short notice and in such a fashion that it was impossible for people to get the visas that they had been told to get. The noble Lord said that that was cynical. I would simply say that it was savagely inhumane. If voluntary agencies follow the course of instructions that they have been told to follow, it seems hard if they should then be told that that is not good enough and that six or seven out of 100 people will be accepted by this country.
Perhaps I may add that I thought that the Government had recently said that they had made it clear to UNHCR and ICRC that,
"we are ready to receive from Bosnia and from other parts of the former Yugoslavia, people with special humanitarian needs who the international organisations judge should be evacuated, including those released from detention camps".
It seems to me that a large number of those in the convoy of 200 people fall precisely into that category. Therefore, I wonder why the Government have gone back on the undertaking which I understand they gave.
Speaking on this subject yesterday in another place, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"The House is well aware of the continuing work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, which is continuing to draw together the efforts of the European Community and the United Nations in close liaison". —[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/92; col. 76.]
Perhaps I may suggest that that conference should take into account the refugees as well as other matters because if one thing is absolutely essential it is that the European Community co-ordinates its policy towards the reception of refugees. If each country pursues a "beggar-my-neighbour" policy, not merely will it be an unsavoury spectacle, but it will do nothing to help the refugees or to solve the very real problem which confronts us all, and particularly those countries closest to the former Yugoslavia. I urge the noble Earl not only to take these suggestions seriously, but also to take seriously the condition of these people to whom we have a humane obligation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand both the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, being concerned about those people who are caught in this predicament. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that this was a matter of great sensitivity and he is, of course, right. He said that it had been ineptly and insensitively handled by Her Majesty's Government and added that Her Majesty's Government had not given any clear indication of what was going to happen. I would take issue with the noble Lord on that.
It was stated perfectly clearly on 6th November that as from midnight that night visas would be required. The Member of Parliament for Great Grimsby was advised on 6th November by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office that no exceptions would be made for the ALERT group as its journey had not yet begun. It was fully aware that visas would be required and that these could be obtained only from a British post outside the former Yugoslavia. ALERT officials were subsequent-ly in regular telephone contact on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday —6th, 7th and 8th November
546
—with officials of my department. They were consistently advised that no exceptions could be made and that it was unlikely that the vast majority of the group would qualify for visas under the immigration rules. So ALERT was warned about that and was told about the position; however, ALERT did not stop the coaches leaving the United Kingdom for Ljubljana. As the Statement said, ALERT was then responsible for moving those people from relatively safe conditions to the relatively inconvenient conditions of the foothills in the north of the country.
I can understand certain noble Lords being concerned at the fact that the visa regime was instigated, but we felt that that was necessary because we cannot take everyone into this country. One must try to take those whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross consider the most appropriate. In that respect, it would be wrong for the ALERT group (or for any other group) to take advantage over those who might be in an equally or sometimes even more competitive position in terms of requiring consideration to be given to their cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the position of the Red Cross. ALERT is well aware that the International Committee of the Red Cross had not asked the United Kingdom to take this group. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is referring to is the local delegation of the Red Cross in Ljubljana. That is a local committee; it is not the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is situated in Geneva and which deals on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, whatever the local branch of the Red Cross said, that did not have the authority of the international committee.
I also point out to both noble Lords that Slovenia is in fact a different country. These people had gone from Bosnia to Slovenia and therefore they were in a different country. What we now have to do is to find out whether they nevertheless still require to come to this country.
In all this ALERT has, if I may say so, been responsible for the condition in which these people find themselves. ALERT was warned by the Home Office; it was advised by the Home Office; and despite all the warnings and despite all the advice it nevertheless sent coaches over there; it nevertheless moved these people from a safe position. Then when it finds that it is impossible to give them the visas which they require, ALERT complains and says it is unfair. The responsibility was theirs.
4 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember the question that I put to him on Thursday of last week about these refugees on the frontier? Does he recall that he said to me then that visa officers were being sent, presumably from Britain, to deal with this problem? Would that not give the impression to those involved, including ALERT, that there was an intention by the British Government to deal effectively with the issue? I was very pleased with the answer that the noble Earl gave me at that time.

547
Does the Minister accept that ALERT had the support of the local Red Cross? We should not write off the value of the Red Cross at a local level. Does he accept that housing had been obtained in the United Kingdom for all these refugees? In all the circumstances, how could these people be called economic migrants, as they were this morning by Mr. Charles Wardle, the Home Office Minister responsible? It is intolerable and an act of intolerance that the Government should treat these unfortunate people in such a hardhearted way. Will not the Government think again? I wonder whether the noble Earl heard the exchange on the radio this morning between Mr. Charles Wardle and the man who was looking after these people on behalf of ALERT. Does he not feel a certain sense of shame that the British Government are behaving in this hardhearted way? If he does, will not the Government think again about this appalling way of treating people who are in such distress?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, over these people; and I remember well his question on whether or not these people would have visas. I did not say that visa officers would be sent but that forms would be sent to these people. One has to have a form before one can apply for a visa. I did not give any indication that, having filled in those forms, those people were more likely to have preferential treatment—
Lord Ennals: Huh!
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says "huh" or perhaps it was just an expletive that he emitted while in a sedentary position. I gave no indication—I could not do so—that because a person fills in a form he is to have preferential treatment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did say it from a sedentary position. If the noble Earl says that visas are being sent and decides that he will not send an officer with them, does it not give the impression that the Government have an intention to issue visas?
Earl Ferrers: Certainly not, my Lords. The noble Lord may wish to have a passport. He applies for a passport and then it is up to the Government to consider whether it is suitable to issue it. It is just the same with a visa. One applies for a visa but that gives no indication whatsoever that there is an intention to give a visa. Those forms were sent out there. They were processed over this last week-end in order to help these people. In fact it was found, for the reasons that I have given, that it was not possible to give these people visas.
I come back to the point—but it is an important point—that ALERT took these decisions and took its action against the advice of the Home Office and against the advice of officials there. And having done that, I find it hard to think that it ought to feel a sense of grievance. I quite understand that those people who hoped to come in and now will not do so may feel a degree of sorrow. But there are 2 million people there in as good a position as or in an even worse position than those 180 people. ALERT cannot be the
548
organisation that decides who should or should not come into this country. It must be done by a proper method. The noble Lord asked whether we take account of the support of the local Red Cross. Obviously, that is a matter of interest. But the local Red Cross is not the international committee, and it is that body to which we have to go for advice as to who are the most suitable people to bring in.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, who will advise the international committee if it is not the people on the ground? I should have thought that the best information available was precisely the information from the international Red Cross people on the ground. Any bureaucracy that may have to take place in Geneva is only adding to the problem. I should have thought that this was a useful short cut.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps it is a useful short cut but it may not be a very accurate one because there may be all kinds of other local committees which might give information and advice to the international committee. Governments cannot decide on the basis of dealing with a local committee. One has to decide on the basis of the advice of the international committee and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1992
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the principal purpose of these regulations is to implement Council directive 90/618/EEC of 8th November 1990 into United Kingdom law. This directive brings motor liability insurance within the framework of Community law which enables insurance companies to conclude contracts with policyholders in other member states. This is generally referred to as "the freedom of services". Previously, third party motor liability insurance has been excluded from the scope of Community law on freedom of services. This directive, and a parallel directive on freedom of services in life assurance, also contain provisions intended to improve access for EC insurance companies in non-Community markets. For convenience, the regulations implement these provisions together. These regulations also make a number of technical amendments and improvements to existing insurance law.
I do not propose to describe all the draft regulations in detail, though I shall be happy to explain any of them more fully if that would be helpful to noble Lords. However, I shall refer briefly to some of their more important aspects. The present regulations extend the scope of Part IIIA of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 to companies writing motor liability insurance. This part of the Act applies to insurance companies operating under the freedom

549
of services. However, as a counterpart to the liberalisation of motor insurance, the regulations also insert new measures laid down by the directive to safeguard the interests of the victims of road accidents. EC insurers selling motor liability insurance in the UK must join the Motor Insurers' Bureau and must also appoint a representative resident in the UK to handle claims made against the insurance company.
The directives enable the Commission to open negotiations to improve market access for Community insurance companies in non-Community countries. They provide for further action to be taken at national level if these negotiations are unsuccessful and Community insurers suffer discrimination.
These provisions are quite separate from the provisions on motor insurance. They are reserve powers which are designed to encourage liberalisation in third countries rather than to protect the EC market. We very much hope that, in the context of the GATT Uruguay Round, there will be an agreement on trade in services under which all parties make acceptable commitments to liberalisation. The Community has said that it would not invoke these provisions in respect of other signatories to such an agreement.
The Government attach a high priority to the completion of the single market in insurance so that both our insurance industry and consumers may enjoy the new opportunities that it offers. We look forward particularly to the significant benefits that will flow from the entry into force of the third directive on insurance. The present regulations represent a small but necessary step in that direction and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the House and to the noble Baroness for not being in my place when she moved this Motion. She did me the kindness of sending the draft orders to me before they were moved so, as I told her beforehand, I have had an opportunity to look at them. So far as we are concerned, they fulfil the directives which are in place, and as such we have to accept that they must go through.
I have only one question for the noble Baroness, which is about Regulation 15. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness can give me an answer on this as it is a rather complicated question. Regulation 15 applies to Lloyd's. I was wondering whether that meant that there would be an amendment consequential on this to the Lloyd's Act? I am not sure quite how that will work. Other than that, I can only say to the noble Baroness that we welcome these regulations and believe that they are a step forward in the single market for financial services, which we have joined with the Government in trying to promote.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, regulations should not be taken to imply any inadequacy in self-regulation at Lloyd's. The
550
regulatory function at Lloyd's is now clearly separated from business leadership. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Posted Workers: ECC Report
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Protection of Posted Workers [5th Report, HL Paper 16].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a draft directive adopted last year by the European Commission concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services has been considered by sub-committee E of the European Communities Select Committee. Its report has been published under the somewhat cryptic title of Protection for Posted Workers. I have to explain to those Members of the House who have not been involved in the drawing up of this report what this draft directive refers to. The directive seeks to encourage the free movement of services throughout the European Community, to ensure legal certainty as to the laws to be applied where otherwise a conflict of laws may arise, to protect the worker, and to avoid distortion of competition which could be consequent on differences in pay, working time and holidays between the member states of the European Community.
The principal concerns for the committee were, first, whether the directive would attain its objectives; secondly, whether the directive might have a negative impact on the labour market rather than contribute to reducing unemployment; thirdly, recognition that labour laws vary considerably from state to state; and, fourthly, whether, while legal certainty might be ensured, the employee or worker would be guaranteed that certainty in practice. We are grateful to those who gave evidence to the committee, both written and oral, and to the legal adviser, assistant, and clerk to the committee.
While some bodies were in favour of the directive, there was no concrete evidence provided by any of the bodies who produced either written or oral evidence that problems had so far arisen, at any rate as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, in those cases where undertakings based in the United Kingdom had posted workers to do temporary work in another member state or indeed in other member states. I should like to outline briefly some of the issues set out in the report and the grounds for our conclusions without, I hope, being too repetitive for those who have had the onus of reading this report.
It is useful to look first at the provisions of the Rome convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations ratified by 10 member states at the time of our deliberations, and open to member states of the European Community. It only remains for completion of certain procedures for the convention to apply in all the member states. This convention has been in force

551
since 1st April 1991—just about 16 months ago—which of course is not a long time. The principal objective of the convention is to provide freedom of choice for parties to a contract as regards the law to be applied to that contract.
A second objective is to clarify which law is to apply where the parties have not made it clear which is the applicable law. The convention covers individual contracts of employment, and provides in Article 6 a guaranteed protection for the employee based on the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work. However, under Article 7(1) there is provision for mandatory rules of the law of another country to be applied, in so far as these rules are applicable, regardless of the law applicable to the contract. Under Article 22 of the convention, the United Kingdom and three other member states so far have reserved the right not to apply the latter provision. The United Kingdom therefore will not apply any of its labour laws in such a way as to override freedom of contract where the proper law of contract is neither English nor Scottish law.
In the draft directive, the Commission is seeking, by providing that certain mandatory rules shall apply throughout the Community for undertakings posting workers to another member state, to remedy what it regards as a lacuna in the convention. While the freedom to provide services is set out in the treaty under Articles 59 and 60 there still remain legal obstacles and uncertainties, and that the committee unanimously agreed. A case in point which was brought to the notice of the committee is the recent Rush Portuguesa case. This referred to the European Court of Justice and relates to Portuguese workers who were sent to carry out work in France. Although the Portuguese company had the right to send its workers under the provision of services article in the treaty, the court stated that member states:
"were not precluded from extending their legislation or collective agreements entered into by both sides of industry to any person who is employed, even temporarily, within their territory, no matter in which country the employer is established."
But the Court did not go any further than that. Hence the Commission's attitude to this particular draft directive, because it is partly on the basis of this judgment that the Commission proposes that there should be what is termed a hard core of conditions applicable to the posted worker in accordance with the laws and regulations of the host state, as well as those laid down by collective agreements or arbitration awards, setting out the workers to whom these conditions would apply, and with a proviso that these laws would not be applicable to postings of under three months' duration.
The provision referring to collective agreements or arbitration awards covering the whole of the occupation and industry concerned having an erga omnes effect and/or being made legally binding in the occupation and industry concerned has raised certain queries. The TUC in its written evidence questioned the clarity of this provision. In the United Kingdom, collective agreements, while not legally binding, are reflected, as explained in UCATT's evidence, in the
552
individual contracts of employment as in the case of the NJCBI agreement, and are seen to be part of the implied terms and conditions of a building worker's employment contract.
I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for his helpful note on national laws on collective agreements in member states, setting out the very different approach of the United Kingdom compared with that of other member states, as well as the differences between the member states in the application of agreements to different occupations and industries. I should like to say at this point that the committee very much regretted that, for medical reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was not able to take part in the discussions during the deliberations of the committee. I know that we shall be hearing today some interesting points, which may or may not be in total agreement with the content of the report. In view of the noble Lord's distinguished position as a leading labour lawyer not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, we shall listen with the greatest interest to what he has to say.
The nub of the directive lies in Article 3, which sets out the hard core items which must be applied to the posted worker in accordance with the laws of the host country. Mandatory rules of the host state would apply to working time, pay and holidays as well as to health, safety and hygiene at work, protective measures for pregnant women and including other groups needing special protection, equality of treatment between men and women, and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of colour, race, religion, opinions, national origin or social background.
The committee recognised the essential importance of posted workers being protected by the same health safety and hygiene rules, though they are mainly already covered by Community legislation applicable in all member states. Similarly, the committee agreed with the two other terms of protection, though some doubt was raised as to Community competence in regard to racial discrimination. However, no one on the committee denied that that was an essential protection for all workers throughout the European Community. It is on the question of application of rules on the remaining three hard core items that the committee concluded that it could not agree with the Commission's proposal. I should like briefly to outline our anxieties.
Several reasons are set out in the report—I have in mind, in particular, page 20—among which it is stated that there would be an intolerable additional burden on businesses, especially small businesses, to estimate correctly the effect of mandatory rules of another member state on its contracts with its employees. Holiday periods vary from state to state, but not in such a fundamental way as to operate unjustly. The complexity of adjusting contracts for short periods, even those over three months—although it may be four or five months—where, possibly, the posted worker has to work in more than one host country, seems unreasonable. If that is not a particularly

553
legalistic approach, it is, nevertheless, a very practical one which reflects our genuine concern for the protection of the worker.
However, it is the minimum pay condition which gives rise to the greatest complexity and concern. Not all member states have rules covering national minimum wages. If the minimum only is to apply, it still leaves the posted worker with a variation of pay packet as against his fellow worker, the national of the host state. Therefore, what might have been the desirable aim of bringing about equality in the wage packets of host member state nationals and the posted worker, is in fact not achieved. In any case, pay in accordance with the decisions of the European Court of Justice includes social security benefits, family allowances, credit facilities, to say nothing of medical care, maternity benefit, unemployment benefit and pension rights.
Anyone who has had to deal with the administration of cross-border claims relating to those provisions—and those who have served in the European Parliament will be among them—will agree that by far the simplest, fairest and most protective solution from the point of view of the employee is to retain the home system without running into unnecessary complications and delays.
I should also add that there is a further complication with regard to pay adjustments which has not in fact been mentioned by the Commission. As I understand it, posted workers will, for tax purposes, remain resident in their home country. Their tax liability will therefore be under home country law. That would add a further complication to an already complex issue where, I should have thought, certainty and guarantee based on existing contracts of employment must be essential ingredients for the posted worker.
The proposal further complicates the task of businesses, especially small businesses, when tendering for a contact to provide services within another member state under, for example, the public procurement directive for provision of services. Following on from the Note in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on, for instance, French law (covering collective bargaining) it would seem—at any rate to me; but perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain—that, while the directive would lead to the application of French law, it would be difficult to identify the consequences of that application when assessing the pay rates, including benefits, to be calculated when tendering for a contract. It seems to me that there is a wide variety of results consequent upon collective agreements. We maintain that security for the posted worker lies in the continued application of his home state rules with regard to pay, including his right to home state benefits, and that this is also desirable for the obvious administrative reasons which I have already mentioned.
The application of host state rules regarding working time again raises the issue of freedom for the posted worker to decide with his employer what is most beneficial to him. It was pointed out in evidence that, for example, construction workers—and they seem to be the category of worker which is most
554
affected, or at any rate, would be affected for the time being by the draft directive—going to another member state would prefer, in order to return home to their families earlier, to complete their work in a shorter time, without tight restrictions of hours per day. That was confirmed in the reply that the committee received from the Government. I should like to express our gratitude for that most full reply.
There are one or two other points where our examination of the directive led us to feel that there is a lack of clarity and as regards which the committee has asked for further clarification. First, there is the question: to whom should it apply? The Commission proposes that it should apply to all posted workers whatever the country of the undertaking which employs them. It is not clear how the treaty provisions of Articles 57(2) and 66 (the legal base upon which the Commission has relied in proposing the directive) can apply to any other than the member states of the European Community. I should be grateful if, at some stage, the Commission can be asked how that anomaly may be clarified; that is, how can the proposed directive applies not only to member states but also to any third country from which posted workers come as regards an undertaking in one of those third countries?
Secondly, more detailed clarification is needed for workers such as cross-frontier workers, seamen, tourist guides and others who would be excluded from the measures set out in the directive. I think that that should be fully spelt out in the directive so that those categories of worker know where they stand. At the time when we considered it, the draft directive was defective in many ways both as to law and as to consequences for undertakings which would have to operate in a complex area without certainty of existing contracts with their employees.
We believe that it would be beneficial to see whether the provisions of the Rome Convention may assist in resolving conflict of law questions in relation to individual contracts of employment—as I have already said, it has been in force for only a few months—before embarking on this new unchartered course. If the single market is to work for the benefit of all, especially for workers, reducing unemployment must surely be one of the main objectives. For more extensive use of cross-border contracts for the provision of services, there must be a need to guarantee workers their existing rights and for posted workers to know what their guaranteed position is with regard to family allowances, social security benefits and the rights which pertain to workers generally throughout the Community. Should evi-dence come forward showing that provisions of the Rome Convention do not fulfil its principal objective, that there is unfair treatment of posted workers, or that there is resentment between nationals and non-nationals coming from Community member states, we would strongly recommend that the situation be reviewed.
As a result of the brief outline of our report that I have given your Lordships, I very much look forward to hearing what other members of the committee and other speakers have to say about it. I shall also listen

555
with the greatest care to my noble friend Lord Ullswater when he tells us what is the Government's position and how far the draft directive has gone down the line of European Community legal procedure.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Protection of Posted Workers [5th Report, HL Paper 16]—(Baroness Elles.)
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the committee on the production of a very clear and extremely informative report. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for the clarity of her explanation. The draft directive concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services is explained in a quite exemplary manner in the report. Moreover, the committee was careful to ensure that it took evidence from those with a keen and legitimate interest in the subject; for example, the CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation as well as the Institute of Personnel Management and major unions, including the TUC. Naturally, the Department of Employment has made its views known and they are included in the report.
The Community has come to the view—which I am sure is correct—that the completion of the internal market is bound to lead to an increase in the number of short-term postings of employees in the services sector to other member states in the Community. As the noble Baroness has already pointed out, some of the respondents indicated that they had not hitherto encountered problems. But things are bound to change. It is pointed out that where an employment relationship is temporarily carried out in a member state other than those whose laws govern the contract of employment, issues as to which law applies are likely to arise.
It seems to me that the directive has a number of quite reasonable objectives. First, it wants to ensure so far as possible that there is clarity and an avoidance of legal uncertainty. Secondly, there is the commendable desire to try to ensure that posted workers are protected from exploitation. Thirdly—and this is connected with the second objective—it wants to ensure that the principles of fair competition are maintained so that it would not be possible for a provider of services to succeed on the basis that his labour force was cheaper than those bound by more stringent laws operating in the host country. Personally, I can see nothing wrong in all this. I do not accept that there is no need for such a directive, simply because the Department of Employment is not convinced there is a need for it. The attitude in the past of the United Kingdom Government has been in opposition to any attempt to interfere in industrial relations where the aim is to benefit or to protect the employee; and it seems to me the same stance has been adopted in relation to this directive.
It is not surprising either that this view as to the necessity for a directive has been supported by the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation and
556
other organisations normally representative of employers' interests. However, the Institute of Personnel Management and the unions take a different view, the Institute of Personnel Management believing that it would be beneficial to clarify which laws govern the conditions of temporarily posted workers, and the TUC arguing—surely sensibly—that posted workers ought to receive a written statement of their terms and conditions before they accept a posting elsewhere in the Community. As has been explained, the directive seeks to identify a so-called hard core of protective legislation with respect to workers who are temporarily posted to work on the territory of another member state.
The list of working conditions is set out in detail on page 12 of the report. There seems to have been little opposition from respondents to conditions relating to health and safety and equal treatment being applied to posted workers; but strong opposition by employers to the inclusion of pay, working time and minimum paid holidays—even though it is intended that minimum paid holidays and minimum rates of pay should apply only in postings of more than three months.
In this latter connection, it should be noted that the union representing building workers was opposed to the three-month "threshold", claiming—I am sure correctly—that many building workers are posted to other countries within the Community for shorter periods and need protection against exploitation for these shorter periods. Others expressed doubts about the threshold, pointing out that it might induce employers to post employees for periods of three months or perhaps lesser periods.
There are problems about the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness has already alluded to that aspect. We do not have minimum rates of pay laid down by statute, except where wages councils exist, and the Government are intent upon doing away with those, a move that will be vigorously opposed from these Benches. But now is probably not the appropriate time for talking of that. However, there are industries, where there are collective agreements which could be applied and be deemed to be a means of giving effect to the directive. The unions favour the directive on the reasonable ground that if operative it would prevent undercutting and thus ensure that the objective of fair competition is maintained, while at the same time giving protection to employees who are posted to other states in the Community.
They, and other respondents, also raised the matter of non-Community undertakings. UCATT in particular drew attention to the East European building workers being employed in the United Kingdom and other Community states at rates of pay considerably lower than those set out in the building industry's national agreement. That seems to me an important issue and it needs to be addressed.
We now come to our comments from these Benches on the conclusions of the committee in relation to the draft directive. First, the committee agrees that the draft directive is a potentially useful measure to assist courts in member states to clarify the law applicable to employment contracts of posted workers. It seems to

557
me that is a sensible thing to say. However, they go on to say—and the noble Baroness has explained this earlier—that rates of pay, working time and paid holidays should not be matters where the host state may issue mandatory rules overriding freedom of contract. In other words, the committee has decided to agree with the Government and the employers' organisations which gave evidence. I regret that this is so. These are, after all, the most important items to the worker in his contract of employment. If the intention is to prevent undercutting, and thus ensure fair competition, it is difficult to see how this can be obtained if rates of pay are to be excluded from consideration.
Nor is it possible to prevent the exploitation of workers unless the protection afforded to them includes the most important item: what they are actually going to be paid. To an employee, what he is paid and how long he has to work for it are the most important items in his contract of employment. I do not accept the committee's conclusion that it is a form of fair competition for an employer in a member state, perhaps with high unemployment or a minimum wage law, to take advantage of relatively cheap labour to provide cross-border services.
It has always been necessary in a civilised society—even one committed to a market philosophy—to protect those who are most vulnerable. Obviously, in recessionary situations where there is a lot of unemployment and job uncertainty, it is absurd to talk as though the parties to an employment contract are in any respect on an equal footing. It is one of the positive aspects of the Community, in my view, that this is acknowledged and we have the social chapter—which unfortunately the United Kingdom Government have decided they will not have. When we debated Maastricht in this House, I said that the United Kingdom Government believed that they could deal with unemployment by creating "sweat-shop Britain". This kind of outlook still informs their thinking, and I am sorry that in relation to pay and working conditions the committee seems to have chosen to go along with it. I think it was wrong to do SO.
Let me say finally that I support the directive but I believe it needs amplification. In particular, I should like to know how it is proposed that it should be enforced. I should like some clarification about the position of undertakings external to the Community, and I support entirely the opinion of the European TUC that posted workers should have the right to a statement of terms and conditions from employers before accepting posting to another member state.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, when I put my name down to take part in this debate, as a member of the committee which produced the report, I did not realise that we were going to have a Statement and that we were also going to have a long debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, at the beginning of our session. Unfortunately, I have a long-standing engagement,
558
which means that I must leave your Lordships' House at five o'clock and I apologise therefore for not being able to stay until the end.
As a member of the committee, I am in agreement with its recommendations. In my view, the directive itself helps to clarify and fill in gaps in the Rome Convention, particularly in relation to Articles 6 and 7. However, the directive misses out certain points. For instance, there is no clear definition of the word "posting" or what "a posted worker" means. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned that. There is a great need for clarification as to the position in which people may find themselves if, as a result of their occupation, they are permanently crossing borders.
We considered which mandatory rules should be applied to a worker in the host country and to what extent a proper balance must be arrived at between the interests of the host country and the interests of the provider from another state. I was certainly keeping in my mind all the time the primary objective of the directive, which, in my view, is the removal of obstacles to the free movement of services. It is not, in itself, a directive particularly dealing with a measure of worker protection. That exists in other directives within the Community and therefore the balance of interests is most important.
The mandatory rules in the host state must obviously cover matters such as health and safety and non-discrimination. But we must take great care all the time to prevent the mandatory rules from stifling competition within the single market just as we must take great care to see that competition does not penalise the worker excessively. There is a very fine balance between the two aspects of the problem.
On matters such as rates of pay, hours of work, work on Sundays and paid holidays, the committee came to the conclusion that they should be left to the law of contract in the provider state. We had evidence particularly from the construction and engineering industries. It was stated forcefully that hours of work were of great importance as quite often speed of completion was of the essence in some contracts taken on by these two industries. For example, with a firm in this country which had achieved a contract for major repairs on a power station in another country, it is important to the other country that the job is completed as quickly as possible. Hours of work are of the essence. Therefore, one should not follow whatever mandatory rules exist within the host state.
Secondly, the employer of the posted worker may have a core of employees who may be posted across frontiers on a recurrent basis. Employers frequently have workers who are always working abroad, but not always in the same country. So there is the problem of the worker from the same company having to face up to different conditions on pay and working hours. I believe that that is one of the reasons why it is sounder to have paid working hours dependent on the rules of the home state, not of the host state.
The question of a worker who has been posted abroad has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. The worker has to take into account the tax liabilities and social security benefit of

559
the home state. But he must also take into account the increased costs of working abroad, travel and accommodation, when he is not living at home.
Thus it seems to me that the committee came to the right conclusion in deciding that there should be a balance between the rules that must be obeyed in the host state and the rules that should still govern employment from the home state.
One of the most difficult questions is how the directive should be enforced, by whom, and how it should be monitored. The Pappayanakis Report proposed that the competent authorities should be set up in each member state with adequate powers to monitor and enforce regulations. I have never been in favour of setting up any more authorities than necessary.
The Institute of Personnel Management suggested that enforcement of this directive should be through the national courts of the host state. But, on the basis of the recommendation in the report, it would have to be through the courts of both states because they would govern different parts of the directive. I would say that the most important aspect is that the question of enforcement should be resolved.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I wish first to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her clear presentation and, so far as I am concerned, for her chairmanship of Sub-Committee E, of which I was a member and which produced the report. It was a remarkable job to have got it done in such a short time and short compass.
In the directive we are concerned with quite a significant piece of European Community legislation. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the matter of posted workers is entirely suitable for regulation by means of a directive, whatever one may think about other emanations from Brussels. The directive deals with a real situation which is likely to become more conspicuous as the single market comes into effect. There are sure to be more posted workers seeking and taking up employment across borders.
It must be in the United Kingdom's interests that the situation should be recognised since we or our big companies, both in the construction industry and in engineering, send a number of people to take part in important projects on the Continent such as Euro Disney, Expo in Seville and so on. Therefore, we have an interest in seeing that the legal system is clear. On the other hand, that brings about a number of complications which brought the report into being.
It is difficult to evaluate the merits or demerits of the directive because the objectives are multiple, not single. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, there are three quite separate objectives—the free movement of workers, the protection of workers and the promotion of fair competition. Those are not always consistent with each other and one has to strike a balance between them which is a matter of judgment.
Under the heading of "worker protection", the report of the European Parliament, which is in the committee's report, takes the view that the most
560
important factor is that workers and also employers should be placed under a legal regime and should know what that legal regime is. That appears on page 50 of the committee's report. The TUC naturally takes the same view. If there is one slight omission in the report from the sub-committee, it is that it does not sufficiently underline the necessity for employer and employee to be supplied at an early stage with full particulars of what the legal regime is. That brings us to the Rome Convention 1980 with which the directive has been running in parallel for a number of years, as successive drafts have been produced. In my view, it is important that one should recognise—as I am sure the Government do—that the Rome Convention deals with the conflict of laws. It is designed to deal with matters of private international law which arise when people of different nationalities—say English and Spanish—seek employment in another state and work side by side with people coming from yet other member states of the Community, or even from outside the Community, as the noble Baroness said.
The object of the Rome Convention is simply to establish for the benefit of both employer and employee what is the law which governs their contract of employment. One has then to recognise that workers and employers, as well as having a contract of employment, are interested in a number of important requirements in the public law field: requirements as to health, hygiene, social security, minimum wages and so on.
So one has not done everything when one has found a legal regime. One still has to reconcile it with what are called mandatory requirements. The Rome Convention recognises this in Article 7 which, however, is fluid and is not accepted at the moment by the United Kingdom.
The subject of mandatory requirements brings one at once into the whole area of labour law. That matter is fully recognised by the Commission in its introduction to the directive. It is worth noting that the Commission states at paragraph 24 on page 33 of the report that Article 3—the critical article in the directive, which gives the list of requirements—
"does not intend to harmonise the material rules of the Member States concerning labour law … but to co-ordinate their conflicts of law rules … In that sense, this is not a labour law instrument, but a proposal concerning international private law".
The same point is made in paragraph 27. Therefore this is not a matter of harmonisation. The measure does not attempt to harmonise, however desirable one may think harmonisation is. It is not a social security measure either. As one of our witnesses pointed out, social security matters are being, and are intended to be, dealt with by other directives from the Community. An example of a social security matter is the problem of education of workers or of their families who are sent to work in another state. That matter was raised by one of the witnesses. It is extremely important; it has even been considered by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It would, of course, be attractive and nice if one were able to have all matters such as social security, education, minimum wage and others dealt with in

561
one directive. But having regard to the way in which these matters are worked out in the Community, that is simply not possible.
In the result the directive is much more modest in its aims. It produces a list in Article 3 of what it calls core matters which are in general to be made effective. The report agrees with that list, subject to some modifications. The principle, in other words, of having a core list of non-exhaustive requirements is, in the report's view—I agree with that—a correct one, even though one may venture to disagree as to detail in some items.
I wish to say a few words about competition, which is one of the objectives of the directive. Fair competition is an objective, and one has to recognise the reality of what competition may be. There are enormous differences in wage rates and conditions of work between workers in different member states. The tables in the report show that between Portugal and Denmark there is a difference of a factor of nine in wages for manual workers. The difference is even greater between construction workers in the two countries. Denmark pays its construction workers 10 times the rate that is paid in Portugal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, the pay of a worker constitutes more than simply a weekly cheque. All kinds of other items are recognised by the European Court as ingredients in pay such as pensions, allowances and perks.
There is more to competition than pay. The Engineering Employers' Federation states on page 19 of the written evidence in the report that there are different levels of productivity of workers as regards quality control and in other areas. All these matters enter into fair competition. One cannot simply fasten on to the amount of the weekly pay cheque. Competition may, however, be very real and very serious. Can one do anything to ensure that it is fair? The directive seeks, in the view of our report—again, I agree—to strike a compromise between the requirement of fair competition and the protection of workers. Our report follows that, subject to a reservation which it makes as regards items one to three of Article 3. That relates to pay and conditions.
It is the view of the report—again, I agree—that one must not be too ambitious or too inflexible about these matters. One must leave something to progress according to developments. Above all, one must not overlook the problems of enforcement. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly drew attention to the necessity of enforcement. However, I respectfully suggest that in doing so she very much weakened the force of her argument to have the directive extended to matters of pay, conditions and social security. The more one takes in in this area, the more difficult it must be to achieve and to devise a satisfactory measure of enforcement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the Pappayanakis Report which, fastening on this point, suggests the setting up of competent authorities with adequate powers. The prospect of setting up yet another elaborate body to monitor the working out of social security, pensions, pay and other areas in relation to all these possible combinations of workers
562
from different states in different labour markets is terrifying. I believe that the report has taken a realistic line in turning away from that and suggesting that the list of mandatory requirements should be limited. As it is realistic and a fair compromise and as it is the best way of achieving the three objectives I have mentioned, I respectfully support the report and hope that the Government will do the same.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her introduction to today's debate and also for her leadership from the chair in our committee on the occasions when I was present in the committee and on the occasions when I was not present, to which she kindly referred. I knew that under the noble Baroness the committee would produce its report, as indeed occurred.
It is a matter of fact, and we should not forget it, that almost everyone is agreed there should be a directive. The European Parliament, the Commission, the economic and social committee and indeed the report of the sub-committee support that view. That latter report speaks of the directive as being a potentially useful measure. It is agreed that problems of legal uncertainty and social difficulty are arising and that the Rome Convention is insufficient by itself to solve them. That is especially true if one renounces Article 7 in the manner of the United Kingdom and three other governments.
This report contains a presumption that the directive, or something like it, is needed. I wish to make two points in regard to the evidence. First, it has been said there is some likelihood that a directive of this kind is likely to contribute to unemployment. I think the burden of proof is on those who make that assertion. I do not believe there is evidence to support that. There is certainly no such evidence in the report.
Secondly, it is said that there are uncertainties. I suggest that this draft directive is not outside the normal range of uncertainty. I do not know of a draft Bill or measure which does not have a large number of uncertainties. A Bill without uncertainties is like a tiger without spots. It would be unfair to my brethren who earn their living on those uncertainties if the position were any different. What one has to ensure is that as many uncertainties as possible are cast out.
The social evidence has been recently added to by a working party report—I understand that is being sent to the Commission—co-ordinated by Dr. David Marsden of the London School of Economics. That report has two findings of interest. First, the movement of workers, in terms of mobility in the normal sense, under the treaty has not increased very fast—that is not surprising—but postings and a variety of similar practices have increased, and are likely to increase, not least because of the manner in which capital can flow among frontiers. The rate of mergers has doubled in the past five years. Therefore, there are more internal labour markets, and the posting of workers within those internal labour

563
markets in multinational enterprises is likely to involve a large number of postings and a variety of types of employer. Dr. Marsden writes:
"Such developments raise many problems, among which are the transferability of terms and conditions negotiated in one country to another and the potential disadvantage of women's access to careers".
That, too, has a dimension which relates to problems for women workers especially.
The Commission's proposal for a directive was not for the free movement of workers nor based upon welfare for workers. It was based upon Articles 57 and 62 relating to the provision of services in the Community. That immediately raises the question of creating or removing obstacles to free competition in the single market. It is at that point that I believe the report, in its final deliberations, is open to question by confining the permissible subject matter of the directive to only a few of the conditions of employment of posted workers and by excluding from mandatory application in the host state's laws, or collective agreements, maximum working hours, minimum pay and paid holidays. The noble Baroness referred to a note on collective agreements which I prepared for the committee and that is an issue to which we shall have to return. The application of collective agreements in the Community will create more and more difficulties.
The report supports its solution by applying the maxim of freedom of contract. I should like to make two points in relation to freedom of contract as that subject appears in the report. It is a well-known will-o'-the-wisp. The general point is the one made by my noble friend Lady Turner. It is a commonplace in freedom of contract and employment matters that terms and conditions are, for the most part, imposed conditions for the average individual employee unless they are negotiated by his or her trade union. Even the Rome Convention departs from the classical maxim of freedom of contract when it comes to employment contracts in Article 7. That is very significant.
There is also a particular reason why blanket application of the maxim of freedom of contract is not useful here. If no directive on posted workers is adopted the result will not be freedom of contract in the form in which it has been debated here or written about in the report. National governments will retain their competence to make rules for their own employment law in respect of their own minimum standards provided; and I apprehend that this is a proviso which has to be made to any quotation from the Rush Portuguesa judgment (I have my own but I shall not use it because we have already heard from the Rush Portuguesa judgment). They are not discriminat-ory. There may be situations in which the Government will have to be careful to avoid that.
For the most part, if we do not have a directive we shall have what the Engineering Employers' Federation—which I do not claim supports the directive in all respects—describes as a piecemeal approach. The choice is between co-ordination through a directive and not freedom of contract but a market in which states, as time goes on, will individually apply different national laws to posted
564
workers. It is therefore not helpful to the argument in the report to claim that freedom of contract will produce the greater certainty. Nor is it a sensible solution.
One could draw an analogy between the directive, at its minimum, and a double taxation agreement. It seems to me that our report approved the double taxation agreement but excluded the basic rate. That would be very strange indeed. The report argues that the directive should require member states to apply common terms of employment to posted workers on safety at work, discrimination—a wide area of discrimination far beyond our present law, except in Northern Ireland—temporary work and protection of young workers and pregnant women, but not further than that.
Beyond that I do not claim to be a matter of legal analysis. It is a judgment of political economy. My judgment would be that the report errs when it says that,
"it is a form of fair competition for an employer based in a Member State, perhaps with high unemployment or a low minimum wage law, to take advantage of relatively cheap labour to provide cross-border services".
There is no protection of the employee there. With great respect to the noble Baroness, who will no doubt tell me where I should look for that if I have missed it, I did not find any protection of the employee as a basic ground for the proposals in our report in the subsequent paragraphs either. I did not find it in paragraphs 79 and 80, where the interests of the host state and the interests of the employer are balanced. I accept that the interests of both states are involved. However, that somewhat strabismal perspective omits the interests of the posted employee and of the other workers involved. There is no single concrete instance of employees' interests in that sense.
It is here that I approach the matter slightly differently from my noble friend Lady Turner. It is not so much an issue of the Maastricht agreement. We all have our own personal views on that. That is not very important at the moment. What is important is that from the Madrid summit onwards the United Kingdom Government, as one of all 12 governments, have accepted that by 1993 the market must have a social dimension. The Government have accepted statements from the Madrid summit that the social and economic dimensions of the market are equally important.
If that is so then the directive, which is based largely upon the economic issue of competition and provision of services, must nevertheless be tested in the social dimension of the interests of the workers concerned, which will be equally important. That is why the Commission speaks of the need:
"To protect the workers concerned from practices which may emerge in the international framework".
It is also why the European Parliament's Pappayanakis Report seeks to,
"protect workers from exploitation as a cross-border labour market develops"
and from "social dumping". Longer passages are printed with our report.
To the practical and legal problems, which are likely to increase, must be added the social dimension for the employees both in the host community and in

565
the posting state. Merely to say that cheap labour is a fair competitive device without addressing the problems of unprotected undercutting is not wise. There is disillusionment with the Community; not just in Britain but in Denmark and France and across the whole Community. That is due partly to bad luck because during a recession people do not feel so good; but people expected, because they were told again and again, that there would be a social dimension to the internal market of the Community which would take the edge off what everybody knew would be a difficult period in the first year or two of that internal market. The recession does not distinguish between working hours, pay and rules on safety at work. Nor do people who are at work, who know that those will be the targets of the recession in their households and in their families.
In a sense this is a small matter, but if we take away from instruments such as the one proposed a dimension of protection for employees then we may unintentionally contribute to the acceleration of a negative process which could have frightening consequences in the next few years.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I read with great interest the report prepared by the Law and Institutions Sub-committee (Sub-committee E) under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Elles. I am most grateful to my noble friend and her colleagues for giving the issues such a thorough and expert examination. I am grateful to her for the way in which she explained the report and its contents to the House today.
The report and the evidence it contains will make a valuable and lasting contribution to our consideration of the proposed directive in this House and elsewhere. The Government will take careful account of its findings and recommendations.
The subject of our debate today may seem at first sight dry, technical and obscure. But first impressions are misleading. The development of a free and open market in services is one of the most important aims of the European Community. It is an aim which the United Kingdom has consistently supported for many years. The draft directive that we are considering could either help the process or hinder it.
My departmental colleague the Minister of State for Employment has given some detailed comments on the sub-committee's report in a written response. I am grateful to my noble friend for her words of thanks for that response. I shall therefore concentrate on the two major issues raised in the report and in the debate. The two main conclusions are, first, that the draft directive is a potentially useful measure in assisting courts in clarifying the law; and, secondly, that posted workers should not be covered by mandatory rules on rates of pay, annual paid holidays and working hours in the host country.
On the first point, the European Commission has argued that the directive would help resolve legal uncertainty. The Select Committee agrees that the
566
draft directive could potentially be useful for that purpose. The Government accept that legal uncertainty could discourage the use of posted workers in the supply of services between member states of the Community. When employees are posted temporarily to work in a member state where they do not have a contract of employment, are they covered by the law of their home country—the country where they have their contract of employment—or of the host country where the temporary work is done? What happens if neither legal system clearly covers them, or if both systems cover them and there is a conflict between the two?
Existing case law of the European Court of Justice has gone some way towards resolving these questions. Broadly, the court has established that any member state is entitled to apply its own statute law or equivalent provisions to workers from other member states who are temporarily working within its jurisdiction, provided that in doing so it does not discriminate in favour of its own providers of services. Clearly, that is a very important and desirable proviso.
The Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations also lays down some useful rules to determine which system of law governs a contract. Nevertheless, it leaves some points to the discretion of individual states. Notably, it is left to them to decide whether to apply their mandatory rules, such as statutory employment law, to posted workers. Any employer or user of posted workers would therefore need to take account of the legislation enforced in the host country, discover whether it applies to posted workers, and what it requires if it does.
In principle, some uncertainty or conflict could arise. Whether it actually does arise is another matter. The Commission's explanatory memorandum provided little evidence on this point. My department therefore highlighted the issue in its consultation exercise. We asked what problems employers and users of posted workers had encountered in practice. While they did report some practical problems, these tended to be more concerned with taxation and social security matters, which are not covered by the draft directive, than with employment law. The evidence given to the Select Committee confirmed that there could be a problem in principle, but my noble friend Lady Elles confirmed that few if any witnesses gave any concrete examples of actual difficulties in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn indicated that the increase in the flow of capital across boundaries in the member states was likely to be followed by an increase in the number of posted workers. I am prepared to accept that assumption. However, the Government remain uncertain about the extent of the practical problem to be dealt with. We do not say that there is no problem. But the evidence is inconclusive. Under our presidency of the Council we have therefore focused on this issue in discussion with our Community partners.
Assuming that a significant problem does exist, we must be satisfied that the directive would help resolve it. Many employers and users of posted workers are sceptical on this point. Some even fear that the

567
directive in its present form would increase rather than reduce the uncertainties. That is perhaps too pessimistic. But there is a real danger that adding a layer of Community legislation above the existing legislation of member states could complicate matters rather than simplify them.
We must also take account of the Rome Convention. While the convention admittedly leaves some potential problems unresolved, we should remember that it only came into force in the Community in April 1991, as my noble friend made clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce drew attention to the Rome Convention and the fact that it dealt with a conflict of law. However, I believe he also questioned whether the directive as it stood was strictly necessary or strictly required. It may therefore be rather premature to propose measures to complement the Rome Convention before the effect of its operation over a reasonable period of time can be assessed.
The second main conclusion of the Select Committee's report was that rates of pay, working time and paid holidays should not be matters where the host state may issue mandatory rules overriding freedom of contract. My noble friend Lady Elles and her colleagues rightly said that there is a need to strike a balance between the potentially conflicting interests of the host state and the employer. The interests of the employee must also be considered. It is far from easy to decide where the balance should be struck. The European Commission favours an approach which would require mandatory rules on pay and related matters to be applied to posted workers but only after a threshold period of three months. Some Members of the European Parliament would prefer a shorter threshold, or none at all. In contrast, the Select Committee would prefer these matters, and working time, to be excluded from the directive entirely.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lady Elles drew attention to construction workers posted to another member state where they may wish to work longer hours in order to fulfil and finish an important construction contract. Indeed, if I understand the committee correctly, it does not believe that member states should be allowed, let alone required, to apply their domestic law on these matters to posted workers. That would involve some curtailment of the discretion that member states enjoy at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, signified their dissent from that conclusion of the committee. The evidence provided to the committee was divided and, therefore, it is not surprising that some members of the committee should support the views put forward by the trade unions. The Select Committee rightly placed much emphasis on the need for free and fair competition for services within the single market. It argued that in some member states lower wages are a legitimate competitive advantage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, stressed by referring
568
to the tables published in the report. The directive must not have the effect of restricting any legitimate cost advantage in the supply of services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made the important point that the exploitation of posted workers should be avoided. However, employees, posted or otherwise, will have agreed their contracts of employment in their own country. We must also consider the practical implications of the directive for the employers and users of posted workers. There is a danger that the directive as it stands would create new bureaucratic complications for employers. There might be particular difficulties in determining the appropriate terms and conditions for posted workers in member states where there are many legally binding local and sectoral agreements. There would certainly be difficulty in ensuring that comparisons are made on the same basis between the pay of posted workers and that of their host country counterparts. That point was made by many noble Lords.
For similar reasons there could be practical problems in determining the holiday entitlement of posted workers. Most other member states have statutory rules on minimum holidays and often have many mandatory public and local holidays. Calculating any extra leave entitlement in relation to a worker's existing holiday terms would be a complex exercise and a particular burden for smaller firms. My noble friend Lady Elles drew attention to that matter.
The issue raised by the committee's report is clearly both important and difficult. On the one hand, freedom of competition in the single market is a central aim of the Community; on the other hand, member states already have a certain discretion to apply their domestic law to posted workers, provided that they do so without a discriminatory effect. They will be reluctant to see that discretion curtailed. The EC Commission has proposed one way of striking a balance; the Select Committee favours a different approach; while the European Parliament and some member states may prefer to go in the opposite direction. The Government have not yet reached a final conclusion. In our presidency of the Council we aim to promote a constructive debate on the issues.
The Select Committee also discussed the appropriateness of the legal base chosen by the Commission. Its report concludes that Articles 57(2) and 66 of the treaty are an adequate and appropriate legal base. The United Kingdom has doubts on this point, as do other member states. The committee's report suggests that the directive is not primarily a measure of worker protection. Nevertheless, the primary effect of the directive's only substantive requirement (Article 3) is to ensure that posted workers are not deprived of the benefit of whatever relevant employment rules apply in the member state to which they are posted. This does on the face of it appear to be a measure of worker protection whatever the underlying motives for it.
Another reason for questioning the legal base chosen by the Commission is that the draft directive attempts to regulate the position of workers posted into the Community from non-EC countries, even where there is no supply of services between member

569
states. There is considerable doubt about whether that would fall within the proposed legal base and, indeed, whether it is a proper matter for action by the Community at all. Similarly, some of the matters covered by Article 3 of the draft directive, such as discrimination on grounds of race or social background, are not in themselves within the competence of the Community. We are not satisfied that it is proper for the Community to concern itself with them even in the indirect way proposed in the draft directive.
In conclusion, I am sure your Lordships will agree that although short in length the directive raises many complex issues. We hope to pursue those in further discussions in the Community. The United Kingdom presidency of the Council has proposed a discussion among Ministers of some of the key issues raised by the proposals. That may take place at the Social Affairs Council on 3rd December. It would help to clarify the priorities and standpoints of other member states and the prospects for agreement on a way forward. The European Parliament also has still to deliver an opinion on the proposals. I understand that a debate in a plenary session of the parliament is not expected until the new year. I have indicated that on some matters, such as the Commission's proposal for a three-month threshold, there may be a difference of opinion between the Commission and the parliament.
As matters stand the Government remain open minded about the merits of the directive but want to be convinced that it addresses practical and not just hypothetical problems. In the Government's own consideration of the issues, the committee's report will be invaluable. I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for chairing Sub-committee E and the Select Committee for the valuable report. I thank noble Lords for their contribution to our debate.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply to the debate. I thank also noble Lords who have taken part, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who were members of the sub-committee.
We have dealt with many points tonight, all of which I regard as important. Some noble Lords considered that we were not sufficiently concerned with the protection of workers. I do not agree with that conclusion. Our main concern is that there should be a practicable solution for employers. The onus on them to discover the necessary facts—if, for instance, employment contracts for those who are going to work abroad must be drawn up in detail before a posted worker is sent—must not be burdensome. Above all, our main concern is that there is certainty for the posted worker himself. I do not believe that that certainty is guaranteed under the directive as drafted.
There is no certainty as to the wage which a posted worker will receive in the host state if the provisions remain in Article 3. There is no provision for knowing that social security benefits, family allowances and so forth, which go with what is termed under European
570
Community law "pay", will be guaranteed, thereby assuring posted workers that the benefits will be available to their families while they are working in another member state.
Finally, it is important to point out, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, did, the effect of the distortion of competition. That is a difficult issue and I do not intend to take up the time of the House tonight. However, workers might go from their home state to another where wages were lower. Therefore, it is understandable that, in accordance with the terms of the directive, the worker from the home state can retain the higher wages while in a member state where the wages are lower. There is not a simple answer to that particular problem. I hope that the Government will look closely at the issues that have been raised on all sides of the House and take them into account.
Above all, I assure noble Lords that in spite of opting out of the social chapter, many of us on this side of the House are well aware that there is a major social dimension in the development of the single market. We are concerned that there should be social measures to protect posted workers, whether in their home state or in a host state. I look forward to the Government's conclusions as regards the adoption of the directive in due course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Services
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon rose to move, That this House takes note of the findings and recommendations contained in the report, A Strategy for Justice, published by the Legal Action Group and in particular those recommendations aimed at providing satisfactory services for citizens in need of them through law centres, advice agencies and the proposed community legal centres.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House, and indeed the nation, may well believe that a debate in your Lordships' House on publicly funded legal services has never been more necessary or timely. The recently issued report of the Legal Action Group—an organisation founded some 11 years ago as a registered charity with the aim of improving legal services, particularly in the field of social welfare law—supplies a very suitable basis, especially in the light of certain recent announcements in regard to legal aid, for discussing the whole question of what should be the proper provision of those services in the 1990s. That report is entitled A Strategy for Justice.
As I have indicated, this debate takes place, albeit fortuitously, but a few days after the announcement made by way of an Answer to a Written Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who appears to be ever helpful in such matters. It appeared in last Thursday's Hansard and on Friday last The Times reported it under the grim heading, "Deep Inroads into Legal Aid." The Answer was described as constituting,
"the most significant curbs on eligibility in the scheme's forty-year history".

571
I summarise the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I understand them to be. They provide—and this is in more senses than one the unkindest cut of all—that the lower income limit for civil legal aid (that is, the limit of disposable income below which an applicant for legal aid pays no contribution) is to be reduced to income support levels. On current figures that means reducing the limit from £3,060 to £2,213 per annum. Contributions are to be increased from one quarter to one third of income above the free limit and are to continue for the length of the case instead of, as now, 12 months. Legal advice under the green form scheme is to be abolished for all whose income is above £60 per week. That follows upon the history of dramatic decline in eligibility figures since 1979.
Between 1979 and 1990 the estimated proportion of households entitled to legal aid on income grounds dropped by 25.5 per cent.—from 69.7 per cent. to 44.2 per cent. In human terms that fall represented 15.3 million people, leaving only 37 per cent. of the population covered by the legal aid scheme compared with 66.2 per cent. in mid-1979. Between 1987 and 1990 alone, the numbers eligible fell by 5.3 million people. Because the capital limit is very low for advice and assistance, it is likely that the numbers actually made ineligible over that period is much higher than the figures I have just given. Now, these proposals will mean that many millions of adults will be required to pay legal aid contributions which they are likely to be unable to afford.
Never before have any government, so far as I know, attempted to reduce the free limit. It seems to have been with all-party agreement that the free limit was deliberately set above the level for welfare benefits, it having been recognised that those without the means to pay for such essentials as the rent for a roof over their heads were manifestly below the income group which could be expected to contribute towards their legal costs. If those proposals are carried into effect, it will place legal aid, for all practical purposes, out of the reach of almost all whose incomes are above the level of income support.
As regards the almost complete abolition of the green form scheme, except for those who receive income support, I can only emphasise what a great role that scheme has played in providing people of limited means with advice on problems which could be sorted out without resorting to litigation. If that proposal is carried through, the legal aid scheme will no longer provide that service other than for the very poorest of our citizens.
We are fast reaching the situation—indeed, we shall reach it if the proposals are carried through—where the proud name of the legal aid scheme, in truthfulness, will have to be changed to the pauper legal aid scheme. In that context I must perforce remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—indeed, he may even have been the author of the relevant words—of the assurance contained in the Conservative election manifesto of only some months ago. It stated:
572
"We are committed to enabling people with limited means to have access to legal services".
I note with pleasure that so many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House are to participate in this debate. At the outset I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when replying, to give the House an assurance that before finally putting the proposals to Parliament, he will consult fully with such vitally interested bodies as consumer organisa-tions and both branches of the legal profession. Will he also refer the proposals to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid, giving it an opportunity to comment upon them and to make such recommendations as it thinks fit? Finally, when regulations dealing with the proposals come before your Lordships' House, will steps be taken by the noble and learned Lord through the usual channels to ensure that such important regulations do not come before the House late in the evening and that the fullest opportunity is given for them to be debated?
Of course, we must all realise that in the present economic climate, priorities in public expenditure must be examined and chosen with the greatest care. However, I make bold to submit that very high among those priorities, as A Strategy for Justice affirms, must always be the principle that justice and a knowledge of his legal rights must not be denied to any citizen merely because of lack of means. That principle now looks as though it is to be sunk almost without trace.
My plea is not on behalf of practising lawyers and certainly not on the issue of their remuneration. My plea—and it is the emphasis of A Strategy for Justice—is on behalf of the consumers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will undoubtedly refer, as he has done in this House on several recent occasions, to the fact that government gross spending this year on legal and advisory services will be over £1 billion. He will add to that the figures for planned expenditure over the next three years which were published last Thursday.
Undoubtedly, considerable sums are involved. But I must ask, as the president of the Law Society asked, whether approximately 1 per cent. of total public expenditure is such an exorbitant price to pay for a fair system of justice. Are we satisfied that in paying out those sums we have a coherent and cohesive plan by way of a national policy for the supply of legal and advisory services for those who, for lack of means, would otherwise not receive them? Has there been an adequate study of the availability of alternatives to our present procedures and policies?
I submit that at present there is no comprehensive national policy as such. There should be, for good social and economic reasons. I give but one example of what deserves to be looked at by way of economy and what I submit is a considerable reason for court proceedings being so costly to the Legal Aid Fund. It is that all too often proceedings are unnecessarily expensive in terms of time spent hanging around in court corridors. Indeed, it is not only the costly wasted time of practitioners which is involved; it is the inconvenience and frustration suffered often by parties and witnesses because of what frankly seems to be inadequate and at times—if I may be blunt—selfish

573
administration in our courts. Too often—I speak in the main of magistrates, county and Crown Courts—our courts appear to be run almost solely for the convenience of those who administer them with all too little regard for the parties they are there to serve.
I ask for a national legal aid and advice programme and policy. If nationally funded and planned, much more assistance in the area of legal aid and advice could be obtained from organisations which now exist quite separately from private practitioners in the law. Especially with the proposed measures in regard to the green form scheme, those organisations should be incorporated in a national policy. Unfortunately, many of them are struggling and in some cases have had to close down for lack of comparatively small financial assistance. They are quite capable of supplying help and advice in matters which are so important, especially in current conditions, to so many of our citizens. I have in mind in that context, as did the report, problems such as those arising out of debt; problems of repossessions; problems in regard to social security; and problems about employment and attendant redundancy. In so many instances those organisations are able to give wise practical advice which often obviates the necessity for matters to reach the stage of litigation or indeed the necessity to consult private practitioners.
In continuing the submission as to the need of a coherent, cohesive national policy in which legal and quasi-legal services would be publicly funded by central government, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as indeed does the report, what possible policy justification there is for retaining the historical but quite illogical and uneconomic separation of legal aid on the one hand and the voluntary advice sector on the other. What logical administrative argument can there be for two separate government departments to have responsibilities in this field; namely, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Lord Chancellor's Department? Surely that is an anomaly which demands correction? In addition, the report suggests that the Legal Aid Board should have its responsibilities enlarged and should have within its purview the entirety of legal and quasi-legal advice whether given by advice agencies, the legal profession or whatever.
In an integrated national policy the advice sector would provide an extremely important tier. Those independent agencies—and they must indeed remain independent—muster a substantial number of fine volunteers. They more than deserve to be encouraged. With a modicum by way of backbone of employed staff, properly supported nationally and properly planned from the point of view of location and need, they could fulfil what at the moment is a huge gap. Legal advice centres, the citizens advice bureaux and the considerable number of advice agencies of varying types, many of which are members of the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, should become a vital part of a national network. At this moment, without such a national integrated policy, those advice agencies have to function with complete uncertainty as to their future and depend financially upon completely varying funding from local authorities.
In 1990–91 the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux reported that,
"funding from county councils varied from nothing to close to £30,000: funding from metropolitan districts ranged from just over £30,000 to just over £560,000".
I need not tell the House that current restrictions on local authorities' spending are throwing the whole future of those organisations into doubt. Nor need I emphasise the obvious in saying that the local authorities whose citizens have the greatest need of assistance in their area are the very authorities which are least able to afford to make the necessary grants. Indeed, they are unable in many cases to afford to carry out their statutory duties and this Motion is not about a statutory duty. As a result, citizens advice bureaux have been lost in metropolitan boroughs as far apart as North Shields and Camden. An urgent voice cries out in what may fast become a wilderness: that those organisations fulfil a national need, even more so when the Lord Chancellor's present proposals see the light of day, and that that need should and must be nationally recognised and financed.
Obviously, local authorities are best able to judge the requirements of their areas and must be consulted about them. Within the framework of national financial responsibility there should be a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide within their areas an adequate level of independent advice. The Legal Aid Board or a new body such as a legal services commission should lay down guidelines on what is deemed to be an adequate level and, based on objective indicators of need, there should be a central government grant by way of subsidy. They should and would continue to specialise in those areas which are of such importance to our poorer citizens, areas in which the legal profession itself frankly is not generally known for its specialist skills—the fields of social welfare law such as those I have already mentioned; housing, immigration, employment, debt and welfare benefits. All that in the era of charter rights for the citizen would appear to be elementary. Regional legal services committees, which have already proved their worth where they have been set up, should be extended to cover the whole country.
There is another area in which one would like to see those bodies—the law centres, the citizens advice bureaux and so on—help to fill a real lacuna in our judicial system. I refer to representation at tribunals which determine many matters in the social welfare field. It is an area which becomes more and more complex as we in this House have learned when grappling, for example, under the expert guidance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with some recent legislation relating to a parent's obligation to maintain children, the arithmetical working of which he appeared to understand rather better than we did.
It is so unjust that in the vast majority of tribunal cases the government department has the benefit of representation and the citizen does not. In the case of industrial tribunals the employer very often has the benefit of legal representation and the citizen, especially one who for one reason or another is not a member of a trade union, has none. Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord, if indeed he needs

575
any such reminder, that his department commissioned a report from Professor Hazel Genn of London University which was submitted July 1989. It related to the effectiveness of representation at tribunals. That report quoted in turn the findings of the Royal Commission on Legal Services which found the position of representation on tribunals as being "unsatisfactory" in the availability of advice and representation. It recommended that encouragement and resources should be given to lay agencies which would provide this advice and representation. The Genn Report for its own part concluded:
"Representation of appellants and applicants contributes to more accurate decision-making and to the fairness of the process by which decisions are reached. If it is considered desirable that tribunals should achieve these objectives, and if those appearing before tribunals unrepresented do so because free representation is not available to them and they cannot afford to pay for representation, then the argument for improving access to representation is unassailable."
This representation could so easily and most economically be provided by an agency employing both lay specialist advisers and lawyers along the lines of the already existing Child Protection Action Group, Citizens' Rights Office, some of the tribunal representation units and law centres. Included would be all hearings before the Social Security Commission, immigration appeal tribunals and industrial tribunals.
To conclude, I submit that some re-thinking about the Lord Chancellor's present proposals in regard to legal aid and some re-thinking about an integrated national policy has to take place.
I hope that in initiating this debate—a debate which has become all the more urgent and vital in the light of what I can only call the draconian proposals which have just been announced—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider that a sincere attempt has been made to do some practical thinking on the lines of A Strategy for Justice. Others who follow me will make, I know, more useful contributions than I have been able to make. What is indisputable is that the debate is on a subject which many in your Lordships' House regard as one of high priority, especially having regard to the difficulties which confront so many of our people in today's economic conditions. The noble and learned Lord must know that this House will never forget our traditional adherence to the principle that justice and a knowledge of their rights should be available to all who dwell within our midst regardless of their means. That principle is now under dire threat. I beg to move.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am at a loss to express my appreciation of the really powerful speech we have just heard which included almost all the facts available. Most of us have prepared many things to say, but they have all been said and said better than we are likely to say them. In particular, the opening attack describing the changes now being considered was absolutely devastating.
When my old colleague asked me to support him in this debate there were no speakers listed to take part and the debate was for the next day. I said, "All right, you deal with the legal aid difficulties and escalations
576
and I will deal with the advice centre side". But the noble Lord has dealt completely with both. Therefore, I shall try not to repeat them but merely add a few thoughts.
The first relates to a matter which I said I would leave alone; namely, the legal aid principle itself. The Independent today contains the suggestion that those accused and with previous convictions should get no help in the magistrates' courts. Nothing less than access to a duty solicitor could possibly cover that. If that is true, I hope that we can persuade the noble and learned Lord to change it. It may be just a rumour, but the idea that a man straight from prison, feeling resentful and wanting to get back to his old life which was not a very good one, should then be prosecuted for a petty crime without the right to advice from anybody, is intolerable. That is my first point. I repeat that nothing less than access to a duty solicitor can possibly deal with that situation.
The type of man we are trying to protect not only requires defence at law, but sometimes he also requires to be able to attack and to bring justifiable arguments against people who have been unfair to him. I have opened in error so many letters meant for my noble and learned namesake from Lymington that I am under no illusion as to the existence of a small but determined number of absolutely relentless litigants who will go on as long as anyone will pay for them, and a good deal longer than that. It is perfectly clear that there are some limits which have to be considered as regards legal aid. That, again, I shall leave to the lawyers to deal with. In particular, I shall look forward to the noble and learned Lord's comments on our joint correspondence.
I turn now to the need for help and advice for the weak and confused, without which the courts are bothered with innumerable cases which should never reach them at all. It must be nearly 30 years since I had the honour to chair the executive committee of the family service units in this country. Those units continue to flourish and to serve some of the neediest and most confused parts of society. They were expressly set up to help families which have been given up in despair by other helpers. Many of our clients came then, and probably do now, from local authority housing departments. They are sent to us as a last effort to avoid eviction.
I then learnt from my daughter, who worked for the FSU for a couple of years after her education, that the first thing one has to do is to make friends with the mother, gain her confidence, and go around the house searching for unpaid bills which will be stuck behind a clock, in the back of drawers, in the pockets of winter coats and all over the place. When they have been collected and listed it is possible to see the extent of the problem and as often as not to arrange weekly repayments with one or more of the creditors and thus gradually get things back to a manageable state. Any one of such cases left to itself might run into a court case and need legal aid.
I want to stress the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that one of the most certain ways of decreasing public expenditure on legal aid is to

577
increase public expenditure on advice and law centres. I quote one sentence from the excellent report we are discussing. Page 20 states:
"Legal aid is, on the whole, only available where solicitors choose, for commercial reasons, to provide it".
That will not do for a start. Nobody can say that that is any way to run a business. It is not acceptable and it shows that the whole set-up is topsy-turvy.
The report goes on to argue that, as the noble Lord told us, legal aid should be be part of an integrated strategy aiming at equal justice for all members of society. Again as the noble Lord said, the main weakness today is that the provision of legal help stems from the historical separation of legal aid from the voluntary advice sector, which has grown up in various forms. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described them so I shall not bother your Lordships by doing so again, but they include the citizens' advice bureaux, the legal aid centres and the advice centres. The legal aid centres aptly describe themselves as,
"independent agencies mobilising large numbers of volunteers around a spine of employed staff".
Expert voluntary advice and help is the cheapest and most effective kind available and, if I may say so without offence, is a most useful outlet for lawyers who are sometimes embarrassed by the size of their fees. It always amazes me that the Treasury makes no attempt to foster such work. As the noble Lord pointed out, these centres are haphazardly funded by local authorities. Some get a lot; some get nothing. As long as they are funded directly by the local authorities, nothing much will happen. If that is to be done by the local authorities then, to use the word which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, prefers, the aim must be to have "hypothecated" rather than ring-fenced funds.
I should like to see that work carried out directly by the noble and learned Lord's department, or in any way that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks fit, provided he takes the responsibility for ensuring that the provision goes right across the country and that it is not muddled up by a lot of other people, especially the local authorities, which in most of these cases are the enemy rather than the friend of the man in trouble. Local authorities may be great friends to people who are not in trouble, but anybody who is in trouble locally is nearly always in trouble with the local authority.
I think that that is as far as I want to go. I really believe that the recommendations could make everything very different for the poorest. Again as the noble Lord said, the truth is that modern social welfare legislation (relating to debt, as in the example that I gave; divorce; marital problems; immigration and all the other things) is so complicated that it leaves the uneducated struggling family at a loss. Whatever else we persuade the noble and learned Lord to do, we must persuade him to pay, say, 1 per cent. of the money that he is going to spend on direct legal aid on this indirect advice which is cheap. If that is done, I believe that there could be a change for the better which would help us all very much in the future.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who addressed us with his usual clarity and persuasion and who, in my opinion, set out the matter fairly and made a very formidable case for further action in this regard.
The debate is timely coming as it does so soon after the Autumn Statement, which defined new limits for legal aid of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described. I have some experience of the evolution of legal aid because, like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I was in the Chambers of Mr. Eric Sachs, King's Counsel (as he then was), who was largely responsible for formulating the original legal aid scheme. It worked wonders within its original limits, but it gradually expanded. I also served for 18 months on what used to be called an "area legal aid committee", composed largely of solicitors. I was the only Queen's Counsel on it. I remember the genuine concern that the solicitors showed in trying to get things right in the relatively early days of the scheme—I am speaking now about the middle of the 1950s. In practice, I eventually did a good deal of legal aid High Court work.
Since the scheme was started back in the late 1940s, there has been an enormous increase in the acknowledgment by Parliament of the people's rights, and new tribunals have been established in order to assert them. As a result, the work of the courts has increased. Very recently, and thanks to the Children Act (which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor introduced in 1989) there has been a most remarkable extension of the rights of children. It is estimated that 7 million children now have rights of their own in the courts which they never had before. Previously, those rights had to be used by other people. That, in itself, is a very big step.
Over the years, the legal aid scheme has done a lot to achieve justice but as all of us, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are conscious—by implication the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, admitted this—it has become a very great financial burden on the public purse. It is hardly surprising that in the present conditions my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury have had to think of some way of limiting legal aid. Some will say that the limits are a bit too tough; others will say that they are inevitable. But the point is—and that, I think, is the point of this debate—that those limits on legal aid make it even more necessary to consider and support alternatives, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Before going any further, I must make a confession. I have a longstanding public engagement this evening which I cannot avoid, so I cannot stay very long for the debate. I am therefore keeping my speech very short. What I should like to do in the time that I shall engage your Lordships' attention and indulgence is to praise the efforts of the Legal Action Group and to say how remarkable the book, A Strategy for Justice, is. It is thorough and I thought that it was truthful. It is perceptive and delves deeply into the problems. Its

579
recommendations, let us face it, are very far reaching. They would cost a good deal of taxpayers' money if fully implemented, but would of course save money on legal aid. We should note in passing that those recommendations would require major legislation—and quite a lot of it. It would not come all in one Bill because, among other things, it is said that there must be more law reform, and that opens the door very widely.
So, what is to be done? It would be tempting for a government to suggest that there should now be another Royal Commission to consider the whole thing in the light of what has been put forward in A Strategy for Justice, and in the light of this debate. I hope that that will not be done. I do not think that it is necessary, and it would take too long. It is better for the Government, Parliament and both branches of the legal profession to consider the proposals in A Strategy for Justice and try to get consensus on general principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon indicated. That is important so that we know exactly what we are aiming at.
We should be building on what is already there. The legal aid centres and advice agencies do good work and there could be more of them. I give that as one example of building on what is already there. But much more could be done. Then, having agreed on the general principles, particular steps could be taken to implement them as and when time and money permit. There is great opportunity given for enabling the people to enjoy their rights and to get justice done. Although I could be accused of suggesting piecemeal solutions, the practical way is to take the step-by-step approach in this matter.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, if you seek to work with Judaeo-Christian insights into public policy, it will not be very long before you come to the rule of law. Indeed I recall taking part in a brainstorming exercise some years ago when some of us were encouraged to set out public issues in order of importance. I came up with the rule of law at the top of my list. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that access to legal services is as high a priority as we could name. Equality before the law is part of our democratic ideal. I welcome the report of the Legal Action Group because its recommendations seem to me to combine that ideal of equality of access to legal services with realism about how those services can be delivered.
Our Church report Faith in the City, published in 1985, and the subsequent report Living Faith in the City acknowledged the specific value of law centres and at the same time flagged up the precarious nature of their funding. As chairman of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, I am glad to say that the Churches have seen the importance of supporting legal services within the community. For example, the Church Urban Fund recently provided funding of £30,000 in partnership with a trust over a three-year period for a lawyer to be appointed at the legal centre in Aston, Birmingham.
580
The value and importance of such legal services in the community was brought home to me in Liverpool, following the Toxteth riots of 1981. Leaders in the community came to us as Church leaders asking for us to help them. They believed that their greatest single need was to have a law centre. After long negotiations a plan was agreed. We were not to have control over what was properly to be accountable to the local community. The Churches would have representation on the management committee, as does the Liverpool Law Society, and we would offer to help in finding support, as we have continued to do over 10 years, some coming from Church sources, some from trusts and some from companies. My friend Archbishop Worlock went to see a wide range of people before the launch, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was then Lord Chancellor, a Home Office Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. On all sides we were encouraged. It was seen as a good idea. But the means to support it were not willed.
The only hesitations I remember in those conversations were that the centre might become political. We felt that those who said that did not begin to understand how deeply alienated are many people in that community from the whole process of city, politics and the settled life of society. I am very thankful that the Liverpool 8 Law Centre came into being and that, through many times of anxiety about funding, it has continued through these years. In that very deeply hurt and deprived community people have found to their surprise that the law can be a friend. That has several spin-offs. When the law centre was launched there was no black barrister, solicitor or solicitor's clerk in Liverpool. Those gaps have begun very slowly to be filled since then.
Funding has remained a repeated anxiety. The Liverpool 8 Law Centre has only had funding from the local authority for three years—for salaries only. Funding from charities is generally for only three years at a time without much chance that it will be renewed. Staff have to put much energy into generating funds when they have enough burdens to bear for the community without that.
The funding of the network that is described in A Strategy for Justice is very fragile. Only nine out of 57 law centres receive contributions from the Legal Aid Board. I remember that figure from 11 years ago. It is apparently still the same. They depend on local authority grants which are easily at risk for centres often challenge local authorities and become unpopular with them—the very people who are going to vote or withhold grants.
A Strategy for Justice is the right title: something more secure and universal is needed. Stringency of funds in local authorities is currently putting a number of law centres at risk. Depending on charitable funds and haphazard local authority grants makes the provision highly erratic. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, spoke of his years of experience with the Family Service Unit, of which I have the honour to be the national president now. I have the very good experience of making a president's visit to different cities each year and I can draw on my

581
knowledge of Liverpool. I see in all those areas districts where there is need for such legal services, where people feel deeply estranged from the normal workings of our society. But in so many areas there seems to be no possibility of finding the funding.
I understand the limits to public resources. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that legal aid must be better targeted towards those people whose needs are greatest. Recently, John Pitts, chairman of the Legal Aid Board, said of law centres:
"We need those targeting skills to use resources most effectively".
There are many situations in which law centres will provide a more appropriate service than private legal practice because they are not constrained by the requirement of making profit. It may be that negotiations or education could avoid litigation. Might there not also be a very cost-effective investment in offering more resources to those working in the field of mediation? Set against a budget of £1 billion for legal aid, it seems odd that Mediation UK, for example, should find it so difficult to ensure adequate funding to develop its national role in promoting and monitoring local mediation schemes.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I deeply regret that legal aid is to be confined in effect to those who qualify for means tested benefits. That would be a serious blow indeed to law centres, for funding from the green forms is a major part of how they live. It would be an even greater blow to the low paid. I asked a lawyer who does a great deal of work in Toxteth to spell out for me who this new arrangement would hit. The example he gave was of a woman with no children, with a small part-time job earning, say, £100 a week. She would no longer qualify for legal aid. Suppose, he said, she was embroiled in divorce proceedings. She would now have to pay roughly a £40 court fee to issue a divorce petition and about £250 for a solicitor. Previously she would have been exempt from court fees and would have had to pay a solicitor between £5 and £70.
I believe that the report is right in recommending a mixed approach to the delivery of legal services. There is a need for flexibility and experimentation, but it is important that the most vulnerable members of our community have access to legal services which are well established in the community. They need to be consumer friendly. Many people are fearful of all the processes of the law. It is a very good day indeed when someone finds the confidence to think of the law as a friend.
In our priorities in this matter I believe that first and foremost should come the security of the established network of those 57 law centres. Many people are concerned that legal aid eligibility lacks sufficient coherence in terms of the criteria actually set. There needs to be much greater public debate both about the absolute size of the legal aid budget and how it is apportioned. That debate should not be the concern solely of legal aid practitioners on the one hand and the Lord Chancellor's department and Treasury officials on the other. Ensuring equality before the law should be the concern of us all, and often justice will not come cheap.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the House will wish to acknowledge its triple debt today first to the authors of the report for accumulating so much up-to-date thinking and information; secondly, to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for drawing the attention of the House to the report and for the comprehensive speech with which he introduced this debate; and thirdly, if he will allow me, to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us that the subject that we are discussing today is not something that takes place in a vacuum but is an integral part in the life of local communities.
It is not difficult to point to defects in the present provision for legal aid and advice. The upper limits for eligibility—my noble friend referred to the lower limit—exclude large numbers of people who cannot make effective the rights that Parliament and the common law have conferred on them unless they have access to advice and, where necessary, to representation. In 1950 civil legal aid was available to 80 per cent. of the population. By 1973 that figure had fallen to 40 per cent. In 1979 my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was able again to extend that proportion to 79 per cent. That figure is written on my heart because virtually the last task that I was called upon to perform in government in 1979 was to introduce into another place the Bill that gave effect to that enlargement. Alas, by 1989, if we accept the figures of Mr. Michael Murphy—and I leave the analysis to those who are more numerate than I am—that figure has again fallen to 48.4 per cent. If people are to enjoy freedom under the law, those limits need to be extended. I am not speaking simply of the poorest groups. It is clear that we need to take account not only of people's resources but of the kind of litigation in which they may be involved. There are many people who could finance a county court action, or a day in the High Court, who would be crushed if they found themselves involved in a long hearing with a succession of appeals. So we may be looking for a sensible sliding scale in respect of eligibility.
Secondly, aid and advice are not available for a number of purposes for which they are clearly needed. Of course we need to make law and procedures readily intelligible to people who are representing themselves. Of course not every case requires representation by a trained lawyer. But we know at least since the Genn Report of three years ago, to which my noble friend referred, that those who have some representation have a significantly higher prospect of success. It follows that to deprive some people of representation is to deny them equality before the law. Like my noble friend, I should be grateful if, when he replies to the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give us some indication of the Government's reaction to the Genn report. We have contained our curiosity for three years, and it may be that by now the Government have had time to consider some of these matters.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not have overlooked a problem relating to the level of fees for those providing legal aid. This is not a matter for the benefit of lawyers. I

583
say only that among the solicitors' profession it is becoming possible to make legally-aided work viable only by specialising. Not in terms of subject matter, which may be sensible, but specialising simply in legal aid work, while certainly in London and many of the larger cities there are many solicitors who are not prepared, because they cannot, to take legally-aided work. So there is growing up a limited and clearly-defined group of practitioners who are separate from the remainder of the profession.
It is not a question of whether they are better or worse, or whether their standards are higher or lower. Surely separation in this field is thoroughly bad. The philosophy behind legal aid since the Rushcliffe Report has been that those who are legally aided have available the same advice from the same practitioners as those who pay privately. If there were to be two services, or two professions—certainly one hopes there will not be two entrances for gentleman and players—that would not be the way to promote equality before the law.
Where we must most warmly recommend the report is its insistence, referred to by my noble friend, that we cannot discuss advisory services in airtight compartments. Of course the resources are finite. We need to look at advice and representation in the context of substantive law reform. Lord Elwyn-Jones was enabled to extend eligibility in 1979 because the formal hearing for undefended divorces had been abolished, and that was not uncontroversial at the time. I believe that money spent now on conciliation services in the area of family law such as those referred to by the right reverend Prelate could turn out to be a valuable cost-saving investment.
We cannot discuss legal aid without taking account of the other advisory services which are available. I believe now that the funding is extended among some seven government departments. Bringing them all within one departmental budget would be an important step forward, although I appreciate the political difficulties. The Royal Commission on Legal Services, which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, recommended a council for legal services, which admittedly they said should have advisory functions. The Society of Labour Lawyers in its publication More Law Reform Now argued that that council, whatever it was called, ought to have executive functions. This report speaks of a legal services commission, but I am not wholly clear from the report whether the authors propose that its remit should extend across the whole of the advisory services.
I would hope to see it identifying geographical areas in which there is no readily available advisory service at all, and identifying fields of practice where expertise is not easy to find. But it would also, I am sure, identify areas of duplication where there might be scope for savings. Certainly there are geographical areas where it is virtually impossible to have access to the advisory services. That may not appear a serious matter to those of us whose pedestrian activities are confined to walking from the front door to the car, but, if it entails two changes of bus, then, particularly
584
if the prospective litigant did not have great confidence in the system in the first instance, that may serve to make such resolution as he or she had managed to muster evaporate. How many of us have been deterred from consulting a dentist because of a shower of rain?
The great virtue of the report is that it seeks to question some of the rigid concepts enshrined in our legal culture. The law centre movement has shown that the provision of services does not have to be kept rigidly separate from public educational programmes, or from identifying areas for law reform, or for providing practical experience for law students. I am old enough to have attended the conference of the Society of Labour Lawyers in 1967 when the idea of law centres was first ventilated. That gave rise to the report, Justice for All. But I do not believe that that was the last word; indeed, there has been a great deal of experience and certainly much thinking since that time. I believe that the law centre movement itself may need to develop new responses to the current situation.
I venture only to offer a respectful word of caution. Much of the material in the report, which I believe will prove to be of great value to future generations, is targeted to the future. We need to ensure that, in the process, the immediate needs of this generation are not overlooked. I say that because justice denied to an individual now cannot be retrieved 20 years further on. Therefore, I believe that we need to keep distinct our vision for the future and the urgent need, in specific areas, to act now.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has my sympathy. He has to reconcile an expanding need for resources with an ever meaner Treasury—although perhaps we should remind ourselves that the Treasury is a vehicle for the Government's economic policy. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that our sympathy with his position is not inconsistent with our insistence on the need for action. Your Lordships' House has traditionally sought to protect the rights of individuals under the law. That must take priority, in spite of our sympathy for the noble and learned Lord. After all, as my noble friend pointed out, we are discussing 1 per cent. of the national budget. I doubt whether there was ever a time when that function of your Lordships' House was more important than now. We are all deeply indebted to my noble friend for initiating the debate.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I should like to endorse all the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the importance of the work of the advice agencies, notably the citizens advice bureaux, and the law centres. It is important that they should be able to work within a coherent framework for their operations, and that such a framework should include some security of funding. I also believe that, while we all respect the importance of the pressure on the public purse, they are a remarkably cost-effective resource. I believe it is right that in the year 1990–91 the citizens

585
advice bureaux handled 7 million inquiries at a total cost of £39 million, or at an individual cost of £5.50 per inquiry.
There are two aspects of the work of those agencies which seem to me to be of particular importance—and, I hope, fully in accordance with government policy—and therefore worthy of promotion. First, there should be clear explanation to people of their legal rights. That is a theme of the Citizen's Charter. Secondly, there should be advice to people as to how, wherever possible, they can deal with problems without recourse to the courts. That involves a saving of time, a saving of trauma and a saving of expense.
In passing, I believe it is most important that, wherever possible, the facilities of the citizens advice bureau or a similar advisory centre should be available at, or in the close vicinity of, the courts. I am sure that everyone who knows how the citizens advice bureau operates within the Royal Courts of Justice has been impressed by the work it carries out there and in other court centres where it is available.
Tonight I should like to concentrate upon the problem which seems to me to arise and to be inherent within our current adversarial legal system. This evening, I shall refer only to civil proceedings because criminal procedures are under consideration by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, for the past 40 years we have greatly enhanced individual rights; but, by contrast, our civil procedures have not been radically changed. They are seen by many as being prolonged, formal and expensive. They must increase and prolong the stress which is an inevitable, but unfortunate, aspect of litigation. I am sure the reduction in the legal aid threshold brought about by current pressures on public expenditure must exacerbate that difficulty.
How is the system seen? Justice, the all-party group which seeks to investigate miscarriages of justice and promote law reform, recently published its own pamphlet entitled Justice and the Individual. I shall quote from paragraph 1 of Chapter 1:
"Our present system of civil justice is Court-based and adversarial. Its use required skilled and expensive lawyers. It is not well suited to the needs of a modern democracy whose citizens find the civil judicial process daunting, especially because of its cost".
I know that similar sentiments have been expressed by the National Consumer Council.
Our legal system is slow to respond to those consumer pressures and perceptions. Why? It has been understandably reluctant to forgo safeguards which it sees as an integral part of fair process. But, at the same time, there is a risk that by doing its utmost to uphold what is seen from the perspective of those who administer the law as being proper standards, it may yet ultimately betray the very purpose of the law which is to provide access to justice which is surely integral to fairness.
Practitioners of the law have tended to believe that people in dispute have a right to what has been called their "day in court". However, I believe that most people actually have much simpler and rather different needs: they want an independent review of their case and they want an objective assessment; but they want
586
to get to the heart of their grievance and have their views as speedily, and as economically, expressed as is sensibly possible.
In the recent Justice report, we drew attention to the small claims procedure and welcomed the fact that the limit for arbitration had been increased to £1,000. But we also suggested that the limit should be raised to £5,000 with a residual discretion on the judge to refer the case to more adversarial processes where the nature of the case made that desirable. The report also expressed the view that the county courts should be more efficiently run with greater use of computers and word processors. I would welcome the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of how he sees the extent of progress which his department has been able to make in that area.
I turn now to what is known as "alternative dispute resolution"—that is somewhat formidable jargon for a simpler form of problem solving. I am convinced that we must make more use of mediation and conciliation and that our adversarial procedures which may be necessary sometimes should not, because of that, be the norm. I once heard Warren Burger, the former Chief Justice of the United States, speaking in that country, say that in the 21st century he thought that many in society would expect lawyers to be,
"reconcilers not warriors; healers not hired guns".
As we all know, that is a Utopian view carried to its ultimate extent. Within a democracy there will always be some issues where the rule of law requires that they should be resolved thorough process.
However, wherever possible, we should look to alternatives. I should like to speak briefly about one of which I have some experience over the past few years. I refer to the banking ombudsman. The system came into existence for the very good reason that, without it, individuals in disputes with large organisations would not have had an opportunity to have those disputes resolved because the court process was daunting and also a deterrent. So what people gain from the ombudsman system is a means of an examination of the case which would not otherwise be available. The emphasis is on conciliation. There is no oral hearing and the inquiry is conducted on papers. There are no costs to the applicant and the system is industry-funded.
Moreover, the ombudsman (who is currently a solicitor) is also able to develop norms for the industry in a way in which the operations of the court system cannot do, and he can reinforce those norms in an annual report. I find this a more flexible, more efficient and a more constructive jurisdiction that the courts can offer. As your Lordships are aware, there are other such systems. Nor do I hear the complaint that people feel this informal system deprives them of the rights and safeguards that they would have within a court's proceedings. I sense no great desire on the part of the public for the rigmarole and paraphernalia of court procedures to resolve these disputes.
As your Lordships will know, in some jurisdictions alternative dispute resolution has been developed as part of the court's jurisdiction. Some states of the United States offer mediation and conciliation under

587
the auspices of the courts as an alternative to litigation. There has recently been a pilot scheme in New South Wales, where the judges sifted out cases which they felt it was appropriate to suggest should go to mediation.
I personally think that alternative dispute resolution is bound to develop further. I see advantages in it becoming part of the service offered by the courts rather than it developing fully separately from the courts. I should be interested to know whether the Government are considering the promotion of court-based alternative resolution as a way of easing pressure on the courts and giving parties a more easily accessible service.
Finally, a point on funding: money must be efficiently spent. That, as I see it, points to the Government taking the lead in promoting mediation and conciliation to avoid wasteful uses of resources where adversarial procedures are unnecessary. However, I should also like to draw attention to the proposal which we in Justice have been advancing for—I am tempted to say decades because it is almost two decades now. That is a proposal for a contingency legal aid fund. We raised it again in our recent report, of which I know the department of my noble and learned friend has a copy. I would be very much interested to know what the department's thinking is about the possibility of developing a contingency legal aid fund. We see it as a sensible aid to some litigants who otherwise would not pursue remedies.
In all this, if I am right in thinking that we need to look for simpler forms of problem-solving, the legal profession itself will have a large part to play. Some, I know, are cynical and others are sceptical. But I think that increasingly it is beginning to command respect. It is within the past year that the Bar Council and the Law Society have each produced a report on alternative dispute resolution. It is an issue in which the profession can make progress. The profession as a whole should seriously consider the extent to which mediation and conciliation techniques should become part of the education of lawyers. I hope, as part of this process, that the Government seek imaginatively to give a lead because this is one area in which we could seek to reduce delay, reduce costs and seek to compensate in some measure for the problems currently affecting the financing of the legal aid system.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, may I join in the thanks and congratulations which have been tendered to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, not only for bringing this very important report to the attention of the House and providing an opportunity for debate, but for doing so with incredible skill as to timing. The timing could hardly be more relevant, following the announced intention to restrict legal aid costs.
I support almost everything the noble Lord said, and I say "almost" lest I miss something with which hereafter I might want to disagree. But, so far as my recollection goes, I support everything that he said
588
and particularly the stress that he placed on the need for help in the fields of debt, housing and tribunal work. Those are the fields where the most people, and indeed the most disadvantaged, are involved.
Like other noble Lords, I can well understand that at the present time there is a need to restrict, or at least to cap, rising legal aid costs. But the question has still to be asked: where do the Government go from there? Restrict this particular funding by all means; but presumably if that is done, they have some alternative in mind. ADR has been mentioned. It is not a complete alternative but it is certainly something that needs to be looked at. Are the Government looking at it? There are possibilities in other directions, I do not doubt. In what directions have the Government looked?
In the absence of knowing what alternatives are proposed in the face of these swingeing cuts, I have a nasty suspicion that perhaps the Government do not accept the proposition, which I regard as fundamental, that justice and its availability to all is not an optional extra in a civilised society. It is one of the basic pillars of that society. That does not mean to say of course that it can only be provided by lawyers: very far from it. But justice itself seems to me to be something which—perhaps this is the wrong phrase but it conveys my meaning—is non-negotiable.
If we are not to use lawyers to the extent that we have previously used them, what is going to happen? The legal system in this country, for better or for worse, certainly in its higher reaches, has evolved on the assumption that the Government, in terms of resources, are responsible only for providing the judge, the courtroom and some minimal support in the form of a clerk, or something of that sort. Justice is administered in this country in the form of a partnership between the judge on the one hand and solicitors and counsel on the other. The judge relies to an enormous degree upon solicitors and counsel for assistance.
Soon after I became a judge, when I had a family in Canada, I propounded the idea that there should be an exchange of judges between the Canadian High Court and the English High Court—not an entirely disinterested suggestion. It was revealing to me that the Canadian judges said that quite frankly they did not think they would have much difficulty in sitting on the High Court Bench in London, but they told me that I could not begin to sit on the equivalent Bench in Canada, for the very good reason that I would not get the assistance from the Canadian Bar and legal profession which we get here.
If that is to be removed, or removed in part, we are entitled to ask: how is the system going to work? The immediate result will be that there are those citizens who just do not come to court. That will ease the judges' problems in some ways; but there will also be larger numbers of litigants in person who do come to court. Litigants in person are the bane of every judge's existence. The judge worries about whether he is overlooking something and whether he really is doing justice. He worries, with good cause, that he is taking

589
far longer to try the case than he would otherwise do and that that is holding up justice for other people waiting in the queue.
What are we going to do about that? Are we going to provide the judges with judges' clerks—I use the American pronunciation—or some other assistance? What about basic assistance for the litigants? In the Court of Appeal we issue very clear and simple instructions to appellants as to how they are to make up a bundle of documents. A hard core either cannot read or, as I believe, can read, but totally fail to understand. The noble Lord, my namesake, referred to some of the correspondence that emerges. I wish that I could introduce him to some litigants; he would have had an even wider view of the horrors with which judges have to put up.
We tried. we tried to use the staff lawyers to help litigants, and some were helped. There were, of course, a few who did not want to be helped. The trouble was that there was no establishment in the Court of Appeal for staff lawyers to do the work. If those few we had were diverted to that kind of activity, their real work suffered. Thus I ask again: what alternatives are in contemplation? Is it proposed that there should be staff lawyers or trained staff—they may not have to be lawyers—who will assist litigants seeking to discover how to present their cases to the court?
There will be those whose familiarity with the legal aid scheme is much greater than mine who will want to comment in detail upon the changes which are proposed. I wish however to comment on one aspect. In the original safety net proposals, it was suggested, I believe by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and certainly by me, that it is ridiculous that we calculate the contribution of a litigant on the basis of his available income for a limited period of 12 months. Litigation, if undertaken at all, should be about a serious matter. The average citizen of small means has no hesitation whatever in entering into a hire purchase agreement, for consumer durables or a car, extending over a period of three to five years. I cannot for the life of me understand why, if he is involved in serious litigation, he should not contemplate the same kind of commitment. After all, he commits himself to housing for a much longer period, although I accept that he has a property of a residual value at the end. He may not have that in the case of litigation.
Let us confine ourselves to consumer durables: three to five years is not unreasonable. I was absolutely amazed to hear that the current thinking of the Government is that contributions should continue for the duration of the case. What on earth does that have to do with the amount that a litigant can reasonably be expected to contribute? What if he has a really urgent case, one which we may say has national ramifications? I cannot speak for the trial divisions, although no doubt they would operate in exactly the same way as the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal it would be brought on within a matter of days or hours. Is it to be said that his contribution is to be scaled down in that way?
On the other hand, there are many cases of lesser importance which, to the regret of the judiciary, have
590
to be postponed in order that other more urgent matters can be taken. Is it to be said that the litigant's contribution towards the costs must be increased on that account? It makes no sense whatever. By all means fix a higher contribution spread over a greater period, but it must be a period which is fixed, just as it is under a hire purchase or similar contract. It can have no relevance whatever to the time taken, which may depend upon the pressure of listing or the sheer inefficiency of the lawyers advising him.
Incidentally, I mentioned listing. Is it really to be said that listing would have to take account of the fact that by not listing one case which was legally aided one was increasing the contributory costs of the party, whereas by listing another case where there was no legal aid it would not affect the litigant in any way?
Perhaps I may mention two other matters. The first is that I should like to see an increase in the efficiency, or at any rate see a check made of the efficiency, of the Legal Aid Board in deciding which cases shall be assisted on the merits and which shall not. In the Court of Appeal I have been very struck by the number of appeals which, on any view, were completely hopeless but which nevertheless were legally aided. I suggested to the board that it was not unreasonable in the case of an appeal which had been recommended by counsel, presumably on the basis that it was likely to succeed, and it then having failed—particularly if the judges indicated that it was hopeless from the beginning—that the board should invite counsel to make a report, free of charge, explaining why the appeal had failed. It is more difficult in a trial, of course, because witnesses may not come up to proof. But on appeal, we know what the facts are as found by the court; we know what the law is as found by the court. There are, agreed, a number of cases where the activities of the Court of Appeal cannot be forecast, but in a great many they can be forecast. I have been surprised at the number of those cases where the losing party has been legally aided.
Perhaps, in the same context, it is necessary to look at cases involving children. It is quite staggering the extent of the representation which is given in some cases. We may have mother, father, foster parents, guardian ad litem and the local authority all represented by counsel. On one awful occasion they were all represented by two counsel each. The only one of those parties who is not normally legally aided and usually on a nil contribution is the local authority. That type of case needs examination to see whether it is really necessary to have such expensive and diverse representation.
One last word, with apologies, about a topic which may not occur to noble Lords as being important. It is a point which will appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack because the reform will cost the Government not one penny piece. There are two grounds for fear on the part of litigants. The first is the extent of the costs which he will incur. The second, which is just as important in my view, is the risk that he is taking that he may fail—perhaps through no fault of his own, if it is a doubtful case—and find himself visited with a totally crippling bill for the quite unlimited costs of the other side. I tell the House

591
frankly—and I hope that the House will accept the first part of the proposition—that I am quite capable of conducting litigation on my own and without legal assistance, whether under the scheme or otherwise. However, I am not prepared to litigate unless driven into a complete corner simply because of the risk that I might find myself faced with a vast bill for costs from some rich appellant.
This is dealt with under the existing legal aid scheme by saying that where assisted litigants fail, their liabilities to the costs of the other side should be restricted to what is just and equitable in the view of the court. As a working rule the courts proceed upon the basis that it would be just and equitable that litigants should pay no more to the other side than they have contributed to their own costs. I am not entirely sure that that is a sensible formula but it is the formula which is adopted.
I suggest to the Government that if they are cutting down on eligibility for legal aid, they ought to put something in place which will protect those who have lost legal aid—and, indeed, a much wider class of people—from the deterrent fear that by engaging in litigation in defence of what may be a very real right, something may go wrong and they may be faced with crippling costs. I propose that this should be done by revising the costs rules in the courts so that where, if the disposable income of a party is under a given sum—it should be quite a high sum—the court has discretion in awarding costs against that party to look at the person's means and not award more than is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case. At the moment we have no discretion in the absence of special circumstances which do not include the means of the litigant and costs follow the event. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take that suggestion on board. I sit down with apologies for having spoken for a long time.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the House, as many of your Lordships have said, is grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for calling attention to this important initiative by the Legal Action Group for improving access to justice. This is by no means the first time that my noble friend has spoken up for the voluntary sector. I well remember—perhaps he will allow me to remind him—that as long ago as 14th January 1988 when we sat together in Committee on the Legal Aid Bill in this House he moved an important amendment that the new Legal Aid Board should,
"have regard to the need to maintain and develop a competent accessible independent national network of advice centres and law centres".
One object of that amendment was to provide a secure basis for the funding of the voluntary sector. On many occasions we on these Benches have sought to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is no duty on central government to fund these bodies and that there is no duty on local government to fund them. In fact, the bulk of their funding comes from local authorities. Local authorities have to rely on such limited discretionary powers as they have; but
592
at a time when they are suffering from the effects of the recession, from grant penalties for exceeding government spending thresholds, from charge cap-ping, and from the huge difficulties they experienced collecting the poll tax, it is small wonder that many local authorities have had to cut down on the voluntary sector as they struggle to maintain minimum statutory services.
My noble friend, on the occasion to which I have just referred, won support from many parts of the Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in a notable contribution—she makes many notable contributions on these subjects—emphasised the geographical inequality that,
"the whole country is not covered by Citizens' Advice Bureaux, by legal centres or by money centres".
She called for,
"a network—or at least a survey to see how a network can be set up—to meet the needs of every part of the country, including the country areas".—[Official Report, 14/1/88; col. 1391.]
However, the amendment was defeated by the vote on which the Government could call.
I have to say that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on that occasion disappointed many when he replied that he regarded as,
"quite outside the legal aid field—matters with which, for example, Citizens' Advice Bureaux are concerned".—[Col. 1396.]
I hope that this LAG initiative will bring forth a more positive and encouraging response this evening. The noble and learned Lord may not regard himself as compelled to defend, at any rate directly, the savage cuts in access to legal aid announced last week; however, I do not discourage him from such a defence. This House will certainly turn to that matter on another day, but this Motion directly invites him to respond to LAG's proposals for alternative access routes to justice. These may now be of some interest to the Government not least because, after last week's cuts, there may be some concern that their election manifesto pledge to enable people with limited means to have access to justice looks pretty tattered.
The basic problem is that legal aid has been treated as one issue, one problem, and the voluntary advice sector as another. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, put his finger on that central point. They should be seen as two aspects of the same issue: how the state can best secure access to justice. I, for my part, would accept LAG's central thesis—the need for a coherent and integrated national policy on publicly-funded legal services. With 7 million taken last week out of free access to justice, and with millions more compelled to choose between deterrent contributions to their legal aid costs, or going without justice altogether, it is absolutely obvious that it is the voluntary sector that will be asked to take up much of the strain.
The recession with its ever rising unemployment, multiple debt, the terrifying level of business failures and home repossessions, has hugely increased the burdens on the voluntary sector. I predict the pressures will become intolerable when the new cutbacks on legal aid really begin to bite. As the policies and legislation of central government give these voluntary bodies more and more to do locally,

593
many have grave funding problems—as the right revered Prelate observed—and lead a hand to mouth, week to week existence.
The voluntary sector suffers from two basic weaknesses. The first is that it is not fashioned into a geographically fair national network ensuring equal access to justice. Everyone who has knowledge of these bodies is aware that the story of the generalist advice centres is one of serious geographically-based inequalities. The story of the specialist centres in many parts of the country is that they simply do not exist. So there are in fact two challenges to Government. The first is: do they have a policy for a geographically fair network of CABs, law centres and advice centres? The answer to that at present must be no. The second challenge is: do they have a policy for their secure funding? Again the answer, for the present, must be no.
The great bulk of the funding of the CABs, the advice centres and the law centres comes, as I said, from local government. However, I am sure that the great majority of people in this country would be shocked if they knew that there was so little central government funding; that provision is so haphazard and unequal across the country; and that neither local nor central Government are under any duty to provide any funding at all for any of these bodies.
The LAG initiative is a challenge to Government and in particular to the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The challenge is a well-meaning one. I suggest that the department should now respond by taking its own initiative to promote an immediate and intensive dialogue between the department and all agencies within the voluntary sector on how better access to justice can be secured.
There are many themes which should be addressed in that dialogue: what can best be provided by traditional legal aid; what can best be provided by the voluntary sector; or what can best be provided by a mixture of both. That dialogue should be free of "no go areas" on both sides of the dialogue. The issue of the provision of salaried legal services through the voluntary sector will have to be addressed. So, too, should the possibility of some provision of representation in the industrial and social welfare tribunals through the voluntary agencies, employing a mix of lay specialist advisers and lawyers. LAG's proposals for the gradual and planned introduction of a national network for community legal centres with core funding deserves the most serious consideration.
I ask: can funding come from a partnership between the Legal Aid Board and the local authorities, with central and local government having funding duties? What scope is there for extending franchising to advice agencies? Has the green form franchising experiment in Birmingham, affecting the Bromsgrove and Birmingham city centre bureaux, been judged a success? Does it point the way to a broad expansion of franchising for specialist para-legal casework to be carried out by the CABs in areas where the voluntary sector is specially skilled and interested; for example, debt and welfare payments?
Also, the agencies themselves must be ready to look with an open mind, for example, at their own
594
structures. What can best be done by the CABs and what can best be done by the law centres? Should CABs receive public funding for in-bureau lawyers, or is law centre provision for that preferable? Is the answer for particular bureaux and law centres to try to negotiate a common approach according to their particular skills, experience and resources in each neighbourhood, because general, nationally-based answers to those questions are likely to prove inappropriate?
The ultimate question must be: how can publicly-funded legal services be most effectively delivered? I for one believe, along with my noble friend Lord Mishcon, that the Government's response to the Legal Action Group's imaginative initiative will be a touchstone of its readiness to engage with new ideas and new solutions to the growing denial of a fundamental right of citizenship by exclusion from justice.
7.13 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like all other noble Lords I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for introducing the debate and for doing so in such a timely way. I have rarely heard the House so unanimous and rarely been in such total agreement with everything I have heard.
At this stage of the debate what can be seen with the naked eye tends to have been said. I therefore wondered whether there might be a case for using first the telescope and then the microscope, for taking a long-term view and then for looking at how the propositions are illustrated in my own local area of Brent.
In the year 1208 King John deprived one of his barons of his lands. The reason given in the record was:
"because we were cross with him".
That is a necessary part of the background to Magna Carta. The arrogance of power is not confined to any century, to any country, to any party, to any type of person exercising power. It is part of the old Adam. What is so vital about the rule of law is that it is a means of controlling the arrogance of power. It ensures that those who hold power are bound to behave according to their own rules and that there are places where they can be held to account for it and which should be run at their own expense, for such the courts have always been. That is, of course, something which authority, through the centuries, has from time to time resented. It has from time to time resented it very bitterly indeed. That is precisely why it is necessary.
It has always been necessary to pay for the courts. Equally, it has always been necessary to recognise that some people must be able to plead, as the law used to put it, in forma pauperis. This is not new to a modern, subsidised society. It is as old as the law. The alternative is the use of violence.
During the debate I have been reminded of arriving in the United States in 1979 and receiving advice in my first week from people in Yale Law School. They told me that, if I were accused of anything of which I was not guilty which carried a penalty of anything up to

595
and including a six-month prison sentence, I should plead guilty because the penalties of conviction would be less than the penalties of paying my legal bills. That advice somewhat disconcerted me and I hope never to receive it here.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool made an absolutely central point when he said that it is essential for people to be able to perceive that the law is their friend. That is a condition of a civilised and law-abiding society. It is the central principle of the rule of law. I am reminded of the statement by Joan Twelves of Lambeth Council, who your Lordships may imagine has never been my favourite politician. When Lambeth won the poll tax capping case, Joan Twelves said that Lambeth was not used to winning cases in the courts. I could not help thinking what a wonderful experience that must have been and hoping that it was educational.
That is why the legal aid issue is so vital. I shall not gild the lily by adding to what has already been said except by expressing my entire and total agreement.
The advice function is equally vital. In many ways it is a different function, though it can overlap. Information can save a great deal of trouble, and as matters become more complex it can become more difficult. Every Tudor and Stuart historian knows the quotation from William Lambarde complaining about JPs groaning under stacks of statutes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is no longer in his place so I cannot ask him to remind me precisely how many pages those stacks of statutes have now grown to. Not many of us know them all.
I am sometimes asked by pupils about a precise point they need desperately in a Bill through whose passage I have sat. To my shame I do not always remember it, and it is to the citizens advice bureau that I turn on those occasions. It is facing an exceptionally heavy burden at the moment. I shall not repeat the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, quoted, but they are worth remembering.
I entirely agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about conciliation. I agree about the need to get away, where we can, from the adversarial procedure. But I also believe—the noble Lord may not disagree with the proposition—that it is sometimes essential, in trying to seek conciliation, to be able to have the possibility of confrontation if it does not work.
People are not always very willing to listen. They are busy; they do not like being challenged. Sometimes they might listen with a great deal more attention were they to realise that, if they did not do so, there was a hypothetical possibility that a court case might follow. That is why we need law centres as well as advice bureaux.
I am sometimes reminded when dealing with certain authorities nowadays of a comment of one of my American colleagues on the American banks that they are impenetrable except to bank robbers. It is occasionally necessary to have an authority behind one in order to get the person with whom one is in conflict to listen.
596
There has been much talk about the overlap of functions between law centres and advice bureaux. I sympathise but there are problems as well. There are differences of function; there are differences of organisation; also there may be motives for amalgamation which may not necessarily be in the interests of justice.
I have here an article in The Lawyer of 7th April which says that the Law Centres Federation is gearing up to fight a trend among local authorities of seeking to amalgamate law centres with other advice centres into one-stop shops. There may be good reasons for that, but there are also reasons which may enter into it which involve costs. This may be simply a concealed device for cutting costs. We all understand the pressure that local authorities are under to cut their costs. It may also—this point is rather more vital—be a means of trying to gain control.
Authority has never much liked being challenged in its own courts. That is true of all kinds of authorities. Local authorities are no exception. So behind these mergers may sometimes lurk the spectre of a local authority trying to gain control. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said that those involved in such things must remain independent. That is absolutely central.
That brings me to the particular example of the London Borough of Brent, in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, to the great gratitude of many people in Brent, recently become involved in efforts towards conciliation. We thank him for it. The London Borough of Brent is not the easiest body to talk to. Recently it issued a summons for poll tax default against a four year-old child. The mother informed the council that it related to a four year-old child. There was no response. The mother informed the council again, and again. Finally she turned up in court with the child on her shoulders. The magistrates threw out the charge but made some observations. The next thing the woman knew was the arrival of the bailiffs to distrain for the poll tax of this four year-old child. The bailiffs inspected the child's bonnets but decided not to distrain. What the bailiffs said to Brent Council I do not know.
Your Lordships will understand that it is a little difficult to talk to Brent Council. This is why it is so vital to have a body like a law centre. Should it not be able to achieve conciliation, which it values deeply, it could retain the option of taking cases to court and providing something to which the local authority has to listen.
Brent has decided it wants to amalgamate a number of its advice centres: the private tenants' rights group, (a very valuable organisation to which I have referred pupils in difficulty with landlords in Brent and which has done what was needed), the citizens advice bureau and the law centre.
The citizens advice bureau first raised the problem that it is required to be independent; it got the reply that that was too bad for them. It pointed out secondly that it was a national organisation and therefore could not entirely detach itself from its parent framework; it got the reply in effect: "not impressed". The law centre asked the council why it
[Start ***]
597
was doing that and one of its spokesmen said recently: "When I asked the chairman of housing for the reason behind the proposals, he said that it was council policy. When I asked why it was council policy, he refused to discuss it." That is like the words to King John: "because we were cross with him".
The council is trying to require three conditions of the law centre. They are noted in the council's minutes. First, advice is to be restricted to first stage advocacy, which includes the preparation of casework for hand-over to other legal practitioners where litigation is necessary. Secondly, there should be no campaigning. I do not know why and do not see any problem about that since they have not campaigned. Thirdly—this risks contradicting the first condition—there shall be no litigation against the council without previous consultation. That can conflict with the lawyer's duty to the client, but again one cannot tell that to the council.
Next in the council minutes is the council note that there is—as it somewhat coyly puts it—a problem about the law centre's tenancy. What has happened is that, by agreement with the council and on the council's invitation, it removed from one set of premises into another with the council's full approval and a £10,000 grant very generously given for refitting. Now the council says that the centre has entered the place illegally and is squatting there.
A document has come out as a result of disclosure in court in which an officer of the council suggested that the council should stop the law centre's grant so that it should cease to pay its rent, so that the council would be able to evict it for non-payment of rent. Noble Lords may see why the law centre is a little distrustful of assurances.
It may perhaps be relevant and may illustrate the general point about the arrogance of power that the law centre has recently helped a client on whom the council had attempted to pull exactly the same trick. Indeed, with this particular council chairman that is something of a course of conduct. He has done exactly the same thing recently to a women's refuge, which, sadly, has now closed. It was recorded in the council minutes that the refuge was under council control. The refuge worker was paid a salary by the council. People were referred to it by the council. The mayor attended the Christmas party wearing his chain of office. The full council heard counsel's opinion that it was a council refuge. The council said that it was a squat and nobody could tell it otherwise.
That brings me back to the arrogance of power. In 1610 King James I, in a rash fit of pique, exclaimed: "I will not be content that my power be disputed upon". A Member of the House of Commons who was a barrister told him that if he would only go down and listen to the courts of law he would hear his power disputed every working day of the week. That is how it should be and as I hope it will remain.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that it is not easy to persuade a man of anything when you stand between him and his dinner. Therefore, I promise to be brief. The debate inspired
598
by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has ranged widely; but I wish to concentrate on a narrow issue. Anyone involved in the administration of justice is conscious of the fact that whatever happens inside a court is useless unless people can get into the court, be heard and present their cases.
Like all publicly-funded services, the legal aid system is under great pressure. However, for a number of years we have had the law centre movement. I suggest that during its history the movement has unanswerably demonstrated three great virtues which cannot be disowned. It will surprise your Lordships to hear that not everyone finds lawyers attractive people to meet. The local inhabitants—the less privileged of us—had a deep antipathy of crossing a professional's doorstep. Law centres have met the need to provide an accessible and welcoming form of legal advice to people who otherwise would not have taken it. That is their first virtue.
Their second virtue is that they cover most areas of the law which are closest to the ordinary man in the street; and which, surprisingly, are exempt from legal aid funding; for example, a man's job, his social security rights, immigration, discrimination and housing. Those issues most closely concern the man in the street; yet they are the very areas in which legal aid is not available. Those areas have been served by the law centres. I am not saying that they are alone in doing so but they are the major providers of services in areas which legal aid does not cover. In the present circumstances, it is unlikely that legal aid will be extended to those areas.
Thirdly, it is undeniable that value for money, by whatever criterion one judges that, given by law centres far exceeds that given by any other form of legal advice and representation. The centres are non-profit making. The people who work for them are content to work for modest salaries, and they have a great deal of voluntary assistance.
We have an accessible advisory system covering areas which legal aid does not and it is run at a moderate cost. Yet two law centres have already closed for want of funding and many are under enormous financial pressure. Speaking from the Cross-Benches I do not wish to become engaged in any party political debate. I am far from saying that I regard all law centres or the whole law centre movement as perfection. One aspect of the movement, which was touched on earlier, was its previous political affiliations. I know not whether that is correct or whether it still continues. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will explain the basis on which public funding is not being extended to an efficient system which reaches people and that he will assure us that that is not based on the fact that there is a difference between the political ethic lying behind the law centre movement and that in government. At present, I am unable to appreciate why for so many years law centres, which provide such marvellous services, have not been funded in the way that they should have been.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for being absent from the Chamber when the debate began. My pre-planned programme for the day was upset as a result of an outside appointment which I had to keep. I am grateful to my noble friend for having initiated the debate. A wide audience beyond this House will read his words with great appreciation.
The report of the Legal Action Group upon which the Question is based is thorough, comprehensive and radical. Perhaps I may be permitted to concentrate my comments on the law centres. They bear a strong resemblance to the report's proposed community legal centres. The House will know that law centres and legal aid centres have been strongly supported on this side of the House. We recall that our late colleague Lord Elwyn-Jones constantly kept the item on the agenda. Their great value is that they reach out to the community and provide all citizens with legal advice in neglected but important areas of social welfare law.
We have heard that once again the future of many of the 57 law centres is at risk, and that at a time when the need for their advice and assistance has never been greater and when it continues to grow at a faster rate than ever before. That rate of growth is confirmed by the figures on page 74 of the 1991–92 annual report of the Legal Aid Board. It is confirmed also by the National Consumer Council and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—let alone the experience of the advice desks of the law centres themselves.
The point has been made that hitherto law centres have emerged in our large cities. Nevertheless, research demonstrates the need for such centres in socially and economically deprived areas all over the country, and probably in rural areas too. It can be fairly said that the supply of legal services is in inverse ratio to the need.
Before long, a good deal of information will have been collected and analysed by the Cardiff Law School at the University of Wales. It will show a hidden need in the valleys of Mid-Glamorgan. In view of references made to the local authorities' contribution, I acknowledge that the study of the Cardiff Law School is being financed in part by the Mid-Glamorgan County Council. That county has immense social problems but fewer providers of legal services than the average county of England and Wales.
I agree that most of the services now provided by the law centres could in theory be provided by the solicitor's practice in High Street which is open on week days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.. Sadly, they are not. That is acknowledged by the Law Society. Solicitors in private practice, with some notable exceptions, do not focus on the provision of legal advice and assistance on social welfare issues. I doubt very much whether that will be provided by private practices in the foreseeable future. There may be diverse reasons for that apparent failing; but I believe that the main reason is that solicitors in private practice, either from preference or necessity—and I suspect it is the latter more often than not—concentrate on those fields which generate high profit
600
costs. Social welfare law is not well recognised as a generator of high profit costs. To generate more income each fee earner tends to expand as quickly as possible into commercial law, property law, probate or insurance-based litigation and there to provide a high quality service, which is promptly delivered to a satisfied client.
In a sense the modern successful law firm is a centre of excellence in its own field; but sadly, a price is being paid for that. Three weaknesses follow. First, under modern conditions the profitable departments within a modern and successful firm providing services of a high standard are unwilling to cross-subsidise indefinitely the low fee earning departments. Secondly, smaller practices—a firm of perhaps half a dozen solicitors drawing three-quarters of its income from the Legal Aid Board—have been unable to attract or develop a sufficient caseload in the branch of law which concerns us this evening to enable them to build up a bank of up-to-date knowledge and understanding of the practices and procedures within the executive agencies. That is almost as important as a firm knowledge of the substantive law itself. Hence, the quality of the service available may not be as good as it would be if the solicitor had been moving with confidence around the regulations and procedures.
Thirdly, if a young, newly-qualified solicitor decides to take on board an occasional social welfare case, there is no senior partner at hand within the practice who can steer him in the right direction based on his experience within the territory.
In the result, more often than not a client in need of qualitative legal aid services, in those important branches of law with which we are concerned, has to look elsewhere for that assistance and advice. That is confirmed by the CABs. I believe also that it is confirmed by the Law Society papers, which we have received. A client looks to the CABs or to a law centre if one is available.
In the mining valleys of South Wales, and perhaps beyond, until fairly recently a client would look also to the compensation secretary of the NUM lodge. I recall with great affection half a dozen compensation secretaries who undertook a wide range of services and were competent to undertake any work, apart from representation in court or taking out a grant of probate. They would sometimes refer a particularly thorny problem or a point with wide implications to one of my colleagues—Mr. Cyril Mosely, in particular. Sometimes we would look to counsel for advice. I can well recall that on a grey October morning about a quarter of a century ago I telephoned the clerk to one of the leading silks of London at the time. He agreed to accept instructions without mention of a fee because I was without funds to instruct leading counsel. Later on, the Treasury Solicitor, prompted by Lord Elwyn-Jones, paid the fee. Our clients were the families in the mining village of Aberfan. This debate gives me the opportunity to acknowledge publicly our indebtedness to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who accepted that brief.
Only nine of the 57 centres are grant-aided by the Legal Aid Board, a point powerfully made by my

601
noble friend Lord Irvine. As I read the table on page 31 of the board's 1991–92 annual report, the grant amounting in total to about £850,000 is borne by the board's own general and administration account, if I understand the documents correctly. That is puzzling. Why is there not a separate fund for law centres just as there is a fund for each of the four main areas of legal aid expenditure? Most of the 49 centres are supported by local authorities. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the whole of Wales there is only one law centre; that is, the Adamstown law centre in Cardiff.
The Welsh local authorities have always given a very low priority to expenditure on the private voluntary organisation funding sector. Before we rush to be overcritical of that approach, I should explain to the House that there are powerful and complex historical and philosophical reasons for that ap-proach. It was that approach which, in another field, led to the setting up of the Tredegar miners welfare scheme, which became the model for the first NHS.
The voluntary sector in Wales receives from local authorities less than 40 per cent. of the funding supported by local authorities in the rest of the country. In the UK generally the law centres must compete with many tasks and demands for money which assail a cash-starved council.
I accept that if the funding were tomorrow to be borne by the Legal Aid Board from a specific fund for that purpose, that in itself would not solve the problem unless the board were given an increased budget or satisfactory ways are found to transfer part of the existing expenditure on legal aid from private practice to the law centres.
Sadly, at present the funding available to the Legal Aid Board does not enable it to undertake any new initiative which involves additional expenditure although it could be beneficial. That emerges very clearly in paragraph 6.31 of the annual report of the Legal Aid Board. It acknowledges that the board was unable to obtain additional money, which initially was small, to finance consultation on the proposal to fund duty advice and representation in the county court where so many of the debtors, hire purchasers, companies, former tenants and licensees end up.
The report briefly notes in that one sentence,
"We have now been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Department not to do so".
Why on earth was the department so negative? Bearing in mind that the county court is such a vital and obvious arena for so many defendants, I should have thought that the department, indeed the Government, would have been anxious to give a high priority to the proposed initiative of the Legal Aid Board. I therefore attach considerable significance to the fact that the board was unable or unwilling to obtain the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
As a result of last Thursday's announcement, like other noble Lords I fear that much worse is still to come. In the absence of a national system of legal advice centres supported by the Legal Aid Board, in the absence of adequate funds by the Legal Aid Board,
602
and if the Lord Chancellor is in such immense difficulties with the Treasury, how can additional essential funds be found?
The House—and indeed the lawyers—have a duty to address that question. In view of the Law Society's position, which is geared to protect the interests of the profession, dare I mention that I for my part believe that a strong case can be made out for confining the green form advice and assistance to the local law centre or advice agency where the board is satisfied of its experience and expertise, and similarly in those cases which allow for lay representation. Of course there would be exceptions; but given good will they could be worked out.
I note from the society's briefing on the recent speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to its National Conference that it would be opposed to such a restriction. I am sorry that should be its initial reaction. The Law Society is always conscious of the public interest and its own helpful policy statement on law centres is supportive of the concept of the law centre working in common harness with private practice. I would therefore be greatly encouraged if there were some indications that the society was prepared to rethink its attitude towards restriction of green form advice to law centres whenever that is appropriate. Possibly that is an area which the Legal Aid Board, with the active encouragement and support of the Lord Chancellor, could explore further with the Law Society.
I feel that the Legal Aid Board, for its part, has taken cognizance of the size and nature of the problem we are discussing this evening. I share the views canvassed by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg that the Legal Aid Board should be actively encouraged to find some practical way of dealing with this greatest failure of the system. Its consultative paper on franchising issued at the end of October represents a move towards a planned approach to legal aid. Thus it should be one of the conditions of a franchise that a firm should develop expertise in those branches of the law so neglected.
The effect of that proposal over time would be the setting up of a kind of legal aid office in the private sector which had some of the attributes of the law centre in the public sector which we have come to know and learn to value, notwithstanding some imperfections. Unlike the public sector law centre, it would not be accountable to the community at large which it serves. It would not have the reach-out capacity which we believe to be so important, unless of course that could be brought within its remit and actively encouraged by the Legal Aid Board. That would be a kind of organic development which many of us would welcome.
In conclusion therefore right at the centre here in London we want more attention paid to the strategic direction in which the legal aid system should be advancing as we approach the end of our century. I earnestly hope that the Legal Aid Board with the sympathetic and active support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and taking into account the powerful contribution of the legal action group, will provide the direction which is so necessary.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was an infinite pleasure to me to listen to the speech of my noble friend and supporter Lord Mishcon. It was a masterly critique informed by reason, if I may say so, as well as by passion and experience. Some things we appear to agree on. The first central proposition is that we all recognise that expenditure of public funds on legal aid cannot continue its inexorable rise year on year. Flowing from that, therefore, is the fundamental question of how available public funds are properly to be spent in the most productive way.
The answer to that question will require a coherent considered policy which, search as one can, is not evident to any of us, as my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg pointed out. I regret to say—I do not say this in any spirit of personal criticism because I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows the personal regard I have for him—that the approach of the Lord Chancellor's department is crude, mechanistic and lacking in consultation. The response has been simply to cast out eligibility for legal assistance for millions of needy people. The numbers eligible for help fall year on year.
A person has no rights when, first, he does not know where they are and, secondly, cannot enforce them. More and more people will be left in ignorance of what the law should offer them by way of advice or redress. Even worse, those who dimly perceive what their rights may have been will be too poor or too afraid to try to enforce them. Perhaps I can give one simple illustration. A couple on an income as small these days as £8,000 per year before tax, with two children aged 8 and 12, will be assessed as liable to pay a contribution of £700 a year. I repeat, people will be too poor and too afraid to risk the enforcement of their rights. No couple with that income will be able to afford that sum. Even if they could scrape it together, they would be too fearful to risk it.
We have discussed on many occasions, in this House and elsewhere, miscarriages of justice. I intend to spend a moment or two on them. I do not refer to the headline miscarriages in regard to crime, but to the regular deep occasions when justice miscarries every day in this country. A man loses his job. He has no help before the industrial tribunal. That means he has lost his job, his home, perhaps his company car and quite likely his company pension. The employer is wealthy or insured. He is in an infinitely powerful position. There is nothing for the man who has lost his job. The man enmeshed in social security provisions before a tribunal has no effective redress. He barely knows his rights and he has no real assistance. People with personal injury claims will simply be afraid to pursue them.
Those are miscarriages in which we collude if we provide no assistance for people who are of the class which requires our assistance. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken of legal insurance. That is a bare, mean palliative. The people of whom we speak this evening do not contemplate legal insurance; they cannot afford it. I am happy to reiterate what the right reverend Prelate
604
said, that so many people who need legal assistance are afraid of the law; they are alienated by its systems and they do not know that there is redress for them.
I am obliged to the right reverend Prelate for returning at that precise moment because I was about to point out that I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, indicate that the litigant in person is the bane of every judge. I believe that our experience may be that, very often, the judge in person is the bane of every litigant in the eye of the litigant.
Law centres and the public facilities generally spoken of in this admirable report we are discussing are efficient and cost-effective. They provide a good service to the poor and unknowing. They provide that service near the place of need and at the time of need. The consensus among your Lordships seems to be that these vast sums are ill-directed; that they are not productive of what we all want; that there is little consideration put to the administration of this vast budget; and little effective consideration given to the ends which are supposed to be served.
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for raising this topic, which is plainly one of enormous importance in this country. However, although I have joined in the gloom as much as anyone, we ought to bear in mind that the provision of legal aid and assistance at public expense is almost unique to this country. It is infinitely the best provision that is made anywhere in the world, whether or not one speaks of developed countries. In countries quite near to our own one very often finds no provision for civil legal aid and the meanest and most parsimonious provision for criminal legal aid, so I do not wish to be unduly critical of what is done. I well recognise the limits of public expenditure. I simply re-suggest that over the past 20 years there has not been a sufficiently considered policy for the spending of these enormous sums. Frequently, what is spent at the moment is not productive to those who really need it.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the basis of alphabetical merit I usually gravitate to the top of most lists. When merit alone is the decisive factor the result, as your Lordships see, is quite inevitable. But in that situation I hope to be able to rely particularly on the indulgence of the House. I add my congratulations to those of my brother Peers to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It takes me back a good quarter of a century when he used to be reckless enough to send me instructions as counsel. They were always, as his speech was today, clear, concise and exhaustive. They frightened me to death because the question at the end of an instruction was almost always of immense difficulty.
I had occasion last Thursday, when addressing your Lordships, regrettably rather late in the evening, to quote in abbreviated form from Bernard Shaw's The Devil's Disciple. The occasion was on the Third Reading of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill. We were concentrating on an amendment dealing with the position of a judge who became disabled at an

605
early stage of his appointment and/or died of that disability. So we concentrated also on the position of the widow.
The clause in the Bill was castigated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice as "nothing short of shameful" and the amendment proposed by the Government as "mean in the extreme". It occurred to me that the same quotation, but this time perhaps in full, was equally pertinent to this debate. It reads:
"The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to he indifferent to them, that's the essence of inhumanity".
Indifference can arise out of a variety of attitudes. Perhaps the one which is most open to criticism is to pay lip service to a given need and then to ignore it.
In November 1983 the Government, having taken four years for its consideration, gave their response to the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services (the Benson Commission). It is in Command Paper 9077. At the foot of page 10 this statement is to be found:
"The Government believes that legal aid should be available to assist those of small or moderate means, by giving them the same chance to pursue or defend their legal rights as those in a position to instruct lawyers privately; provided that it has been shown that there are reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending the right in question".
That now has to be re-written. One deletes the word "small" and either puts in "very small" or "minute". One certainly takes out the words "or moderate".
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, it is axiomatic that one cannot begin either to pursue or defend a legal right efficiently or effectively unless one is first aware of the existence of that right and knows how to pursue or defend it.
In his speech on 19th December 1989 on the Second Reading debate of the Courts and Legal Services Bill (Hansard, col. 122) my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"Our keynote is to improve access to justice for all who need it. There are three elements to this".
The noble and learned Lord then identified the third element in these terms:
"an efficient and effective scheme to make public funds available to those who need legal services and cannot meet the costs themselves".
The keynote now is to be heavily muffled, if not rendered totally silent.
There can be no dispute that there are areas of the law which impinge disproportionately on the poor who are quite unable to obtain access to advice and assistance which they quite often desperately require. I refer to what has been comprehensively described as social welfare work, which is the law relating to housing, immigration, employment, debt and welfare benefits.
It requires no imagination at all to foresee that if everything is left, as the Government sometimes desire, to the mechanism of the market place these areas of the law will be—as, of course, they are now—under-resourced. Practice in such areas does not even pay a significant proportion of the practitioner's overheads, let alone make a contribution to his profits. At a time of serious recession there is no scope for the cross-fertilisation which exists when there is an adequacy of profitable work. I urge the Government not to be obsessed with the pursuit of cost-cutting.
606
Some years ago when we debated the Courts and Legal Services Bill—and Part I in particular—your Lordships were concerned with whether large areas of jurisdiction could be effectively transferred to the county courts. We heard horrifying stories of the extent to which cost-cutting had affected the administration of justice in those courts. The clerks were told not to use first-class postage and to use only second-class postage. Electric bulbs were not replaced until darkness had almost descended.
A quite dramatic example which I heard from a judge in the west country whom I know well arose in these circumstances. A litigant in person, a husband, had been ordered to execute the necessary conveyanc-ing documents to enable the matrimonial home to be sold so that the proceeds could be divided. He refused to sign the documents so he was brought to court and the judge kindly sought to persuade him that if he persisted in refusing to obey the order he would, with great reluctance, have to commit him to prison. There would be no alternative. The litigant in person insisted that he would not sign. The judge said, "You give me no alternative" and made the committal order. There was no bailiff available because staff was being cut down, so the judge said, "Kindly wait at the back for the bailiff to come". Being the first case in the court's list, the man waited all day, but still no bailiff. So he was sent home with the polite request from the judge, "Would you kindly wait at home for the bailiff to come and collect you?" The man went home and he waited and he waited. He grew more and more depressed and in the end he burned the house down. That is a wholly true story, and is an indication that the pursuit of shortsighted economy is self-defeating.
I have recently received a Home Office publication entitled Costs of the Criminal Justice System, which I have not yet had time to read in full. I have, however, observed the following statement in the introduction to this work. I quote:
"The need to give value for money is an important factor which courts should bear in mind when deciding what is the appropriate decision to make in any particular case".
That is referring to criminal cases.
I find the generality of this observation quite startling. How on earth is a judge expected to reflect this philosophy when considering the appropriate sentence for a serious rape case, an armed robbery case, a case involving death caused by dangerous driving, drugs-related offences or offences in a similar category?
As I have urged previously upon your Lordships, penny-pinching is almost invariably a self-defeating operation. I have always thought that starving the family advice and conciliation services of the necessary money only results in losing, in many cases, the opportunity of preventing costly breakups of marriages. Early advice and assistance in the field of social welfare is bound to result in many instances of substantial savings in social welfare payments, let alone valuable court time.
I urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to treat any money—and not a great deal is being required to assist in extending the legal advice centres—not as mere expenditure, but as an investment; and not only as an investment in justice

607
but as an investment in terms which the Treasury can understand. In practice, it will save an immense amount of costs.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if the list of speakers is dealt with on the basis of merit, I obviously come below my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner as well as all of your Lordships. We have had an extremely interesting and, for my part, an extremely useful debate. I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who selected the date with such consummate skill.
I do not think that this is the time for me to deal in detail with the proposals put forward in relation to the public expenditure announcement of the Autumn Statement last Thursday, except to say that after these proposals are given effect, our estimates are that the legal aid budget in England and Wales will grow to £1,284 million in 1993–94, to £1,406 million in 1994–95 and to £1,528 million in 1995–96. There is no question whatever of the legal aid budget being cut. Quite the opposite—it is rising inexorably. It would obviously have risen more if steps had not been taken to contain it. It is no particular pleasure to me to have to take such measures but I have sought, as I have explained, to protect the poorest in our society against this so far as I possibly can.
The intimation of what I am proposing is quite detailed. Obviously, I am willing to receive representations from all the bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon referred. I would find it particularly useful if the representations contained suggestions on how the budget might be contained otherwise than I have proposed.
The principle theme this evening is A Strategy for Justice, the work of the Legal Action Group. I read that work with great interest; indeed I have discussed some of these matters with members of the Legal Action Group previously. The situation so far as legal advice centres and law centres is concerned is that I believe that they have a very useful role to play. I also believe that the determination of precisely what form the centres should take is a matter that should grow from the local community. I do not believe that it is satisfactory to seek to impose some national pattern —whether one calls it a "strategy" or whatever—on these particular institutions. Those who have worked in them take the view that they should be developed out of the local community, with the local community having a sense of propriety about the institutions which, I think, makes for a strong bond and makes it easier for those who have some problem to go to the centre rather than to seek some other type of advice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, mentioned the difficulty of having to go to a number of different places. Looking in some detail at what has happened in Brent, I see that Brent law centre would prefer that, on the whole, its operations were separate from those of the other agencies whereas Brent thought that these should be put together. I discussed this in detail with representatives of the Brent law centre not so long ago and there are
608
reasons why, in their judgment, the old arrangement was better. That is just one example of the need to look at the matter from the point of view of local and community considerations.
In addition to expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for initiating the debate, I should like to express my gratitude to all those noble Lords who have taken part. I listened to the debate with great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, put his finger on what is for me one of the most important aspects. I refer to the question of where the money comes from to fund the law centre movement. Under the legal aid budget I provide core funding for some law centres but the legal aid budget also provides legal aid payments to law centres which undertake legal aid work. So there is an additional source of income to law centres in that area. I have been considering this matter for a considerable time. One of the difficulties I have had over my period of office is the rate at which the present legal aid system has consumed resources. That makes it very difficult in this time of acutely rising resources to make adequate provision for additional resources. I believe that what may be required is some re-ordering of the present system.
How does one bring that about? I have been trying to give that question some careful consideration also. I believe—and in this I follow the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—that the franchising system which is being developed by the Legal Aid Board is probably the best method available for dealing with the problem. For one thing the franchising system enables us to specify the nature of the advice in question and will, for example, enable us to give some priority to the areas of welfare law, housing law, debt advice, in so far as that is legal advice, and so on. The franchising system which is being developed by the Legal Aid Board is a way forward which can be used without very large or sudden lurches from one type of provision to another. It is capable of being used differently in different local situations. Therefore I believe that there is scope under this system for a community based development which has appropriate national encouragement if proper standards can be achieved. It is essential to the franchising system that standards of quality and service are specified and adhered to. That is the way forward.
A Strategy for Justice deals with the matter on a fairly wide basis and does not attempt in any detail to assess the costs of the proposals. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for saying what I believe to be true: that the legal aid system provided in this country is a very generous one by international standards. It is one about which I am certainly not complacent because I believe that it needs to be developed. The Legal Aid Board is a very useful way of taking that forward. The experience of the members of the Legal Aid Board is of vital consequence in this connection. I am particularly grateful for the help that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has given me in seeking to identify new members for the board.
A number of particular matters have been raised which are not quite so central to the main theme as the

609
matters with which I have already dealt. I am very much in sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon was saying about the possibility of giving service which was not the ordinary form of adversarial litigation. Progress in that direction is not without difficulty. As my noble friend said, I have increased the limits for small claims to £1,000 and I have also been anxious to extend the scope so that, for example, simple personal injury claims might be covered. Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to achieve any kind of consensus on that because questions of cost and the like have been raised.
One of the essential qualities of the present small claims system is the absence of fear of costs, a point to which my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington referred. I am not keen to depart from that aspect of the small claims procedure. On the other hand I am told that in order to make a claim for personal injury one needs medical advice. One does not get that for nothing. One also needs to get technical advice about the nature of the accident. One does not get that for nothing. The question is then asked: should not those costs be allowed? I am doing my best to secure some kind of compromise in that area but I do believe that the kind of litigation that is permitted under the small claims system is a good way forward. We have introduced measures which would enable that to he done without necessarily having professional legal help through opening the scheme to permit other types of help.
At the moment I am very concerned to try to develop a system along with the proposals made by the Law Commission in respect of divorce. That is a good area for some form of mediation using the system of voluntary agencies so far as that can be done. One of the difficulties, however, is that to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred. If one provides that, one may also have to provide for litigation over and above. There is quite a risk that what should produce a saving if one provides for extra work to go into it will in fact mean a combination of the requirement for mediation in the first place and the cost of that and then the cost of litigation over and above. The devising of a suitable system for controlling that is something to which I am giving attention. Any suggestions that your Lordships may have about how it should be done will be received with warm gratitude.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and other noble Lords asked me about computer support for the county courts. One of the first things that we have been able to do is to take out of the county courts altogether the banking function that they used to have which was a tedious money collecting process. They have managed to avoid that without detriment to anyone. The second thing that we have managed to do is to provide a summons production centre at Northampton for the automatic processing of bulk issues; that is to say, large organisations like banks and credit agencies, which have a large number of summonses to issue, put them on a tape and give them to Northampton which is able to issue them from there. We also have a bulk issue centre at Northampton to do the later processing. We had to
610
change the rules a little to make that possible, but we are taking forward vigorously improvements of that kind. I have learnt—and some experience of other agencies in the public sector reinforces this—that one must be careful in developing computer systems that they will do the job required of them. I have a team at Northampton which is seeking to develop computer systems for the management of county court business, which is an essential part of the civil justice review proposals for court management of cases, instead of just leaving them to the parties.
My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington mentioned the possibility of some kind of special discretion to be granted in respect of litigants of small means who might be frightened of costs. My understanding of the law —here I speak subject, particularly as I am so late in the order, to correction by others—is that Parliament has given the courts a complete discretion on costs. It is true that the decisions that have been elaborated from that have perhaps made the discretion a little less flexible than otherwise it might have been, but the courts certainly have a wide discretion in these matters and I see no reason why, in a suitable case, they might not use it in the way that my noble and learned friend has suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked me about a consultation exercise being pursued in relation to criminal legal aid in the magistrates' courts. The problem with regard to this is that the present rules are quite difficult in practice to enforce. One of the results is that the National Audit Office, in seeking to audit the legal aid accounts, has found it necessary to qualify the accounts on the basis that it cannot be satisfied that the money is properly spent because it cannot check that the present rules have been properly complied with. I have therefore found it necessary to consult on what the new system should be. One aspect of course is that the Criminal Justice Act has changed the range of penalties that may be exacted in some cases. That is a factor relevant to the interests of justice test.
I think that the noble Lord may not have the complete detail of what is proposed. I am certainly looking at that in order to try to produce a workable system which is capable of being checked, and therefore capable of producing a basis on which the Comptroller and Auditor General can properly certify the accounts. It would be unfair to your Lordships if I were to detain your Lordships further. I have sought to deal with the main matters that were addressed.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he at least indicate when we may hope to hear the Government's reaction to the Genn Report?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have reacted to the Genn Report on a number of occasions previously. I appreciate what was said there. I have repeatedly pointed out that it was not legal representation that Hazel Genn thought was necessary in these cases. I had in fact endeavoured to work on that in a particular example not very long ago in seeking to use the United Kingdom Immigration

611
Advisory Service as a means of providing both advice and representation on a cost-effective basis such as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said was true of advice centres. I am sure that the noble Lord remembers the great pleasure with which that proposal was greeted by many in the legal services sector. It did not work, for reasons really connected with the UKIAS organisation.
I have sought ways—and I have not given up the search—in which the legal aid budget might be used to provide representation in certain areas. I cannot of course, in present circumstances, contemplate increas-ing the expenditure, but the method of franchising that I have described is sufficiently flexible to make it possible to consider this kind of thing as a way of taking forward that particular objective. But it has to be within the constraint that there is then less money available for other aspects of legal services covered under the legal aid system at the present time. I think I have given that answer—perhaps not elaborated to the franchising—and I have certainly appreciated in the past what Hazel Genn had said. Certainly I have always been on the lookout for ways in which to ameliorate the present difficulty, which I need not remind the noble and learned Lord faced him when in government as well as me.
I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It would not be a practical expression of that if I detained your Lordships longer than the 20 minutes that I have apparently taken so far.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it only remains for me to express my gratitude to all your Lordships for having participated in this debate and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the way in which in his reply he has given consideration to what has been said.
If I may say so, I could have wished that the whole of this debate had indeed been televised. If it had, it would have served to counteract the farcically false way in which a programme entitled "The House of Lords", which sought to depict the typical activities of your Lordships' House and its Members, came over on Channel 4 yesterday. If anyone were prepared to sue the producers of that programme, I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would see that he got a free legal aid certificate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four mi-nutes before nine o'clock.

  TACHOGRAPHS: CHART FALSIFICATION
  TACHOGRAPHS: CHART FALSIFICATION
  BRITISH FORCES IN YUGOSLAVIA AND THE GULF: BULLETINS
  BRITISH FORCES IN YUGOSLAVIA AND THE GULF: BULLETINS
  NATIONAL HERITAGE DEPARTMENT
  NATIONAL HERITAGE DEPARTMENT
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
  YOUTH TRAINING BRIDGING ALLOWANCE
  YOUTH TRAINING BRIDGING ALLOWANCE