Sitting of 16 February 1993

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

    Job Clubs
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received in connection with the function of job clubs; and if she will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Job clubs have been a great success. I have received many representations asking that we provide more places and we shall.
    Mr. Sumberg: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but does not it sit uneasily with the fact the professional and executive job club in my constituency has recently closed? Is she aware that the alternatives provided are very unsatisfactory? Could she examine the situation and find out whether we can make some improvement?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about our new arrangements to replace the Prestwich executive job club. I was glad that he and his constituents found it so helpful and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, in view of our plan to provide an extra 75,000 places from April, we shall certainly take the opportunity to review arrangements in Prestwich.
    Ms. Eagle: How useful can job clubs be, when unemployment in Wallasey is now 5,964 and at the last count there were only 75 vacancies?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could explain to the hon. Lady that the job clubs' record is first class. Nearly 50 per cent. of people who leave them go into work and a further 15 per cent. go into training, self-employment or full-time further education. Two thirds of unemployed people leave the register within six months. The 1.5 million opportunities that we have made available help all unemployed people to improve their prospects of finding work at what is undoubtedly a difficult time.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our job club at the college of technology in Erith is very popular and is widely used by the local community? Does she agree that we should encourage more such clubs, because they give unemployed people tremendous opportunities for companionship and advice and to get into real employment in the near future?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I said, job clubs are effective in helping unemployed people to find work. I am glad to say that, from April, very nearly 300,000 places will be provided.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to improve the training opportunities for the young unemployed; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I shall be extending the use of credits, which will give more and more young people greater opportunities to gain the skills that they and employers need for the 1990s.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Minister share the concern of many of my constituents, who think that rising youth unemployment is one of the main reasons for the rocketing crime figures? Why do not the Government increase substantially the amount of money that they spend on youth unemployment, in a week when employment figures throughout Britain will reach 3 million?
    Mrs. Shephard: Due to the larger numbers of young people staying on at school we have a large amount of resources to spend on youth training. All training and enterprise councils have the resources to meet the guarantee and I have left them in no doubt that that is what they are expected to do.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's stated policy and intention that every young person over the age of 16 should be in either education or full-time training, unless they have a job? Will she do what she can to improve the way in which information is gathered for statistics involving young people who are seeking jobs or who are in training? Finally, will she confirm that, under the Government, about 250,000 young people are undergoing training, compared with only 7,000 under the Labour Government in 1979?
    Mrs. Shephard: About 291,000 young people are training under youth training and currently, of those, more than three quarters find jobs or go on to further education. There was a problem with the exchange of information between careers services, training providers and TECs in the summer, which was why I announced then the improved arrangements. I am continuing to monitor them closely.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that if we were to use the same definition for the young unemployed as the Conservative party uses for the Young Conservatives, everyone who is out of work would be included in that category?
    On a serious note, there are now more than 900,000 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work. That is not the lost generation, but the abandoned generation. It has been abandoned by a Government who have no policies and no compassion. The Secretary of State recently rightly talked about the abolition of the 21-hour rule. Will she ensure that every young person between 16

    117
    and 24 has the right to go into either full-time education and training or part-time education and training and still draw benefit?
    Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment is not an option for young people aged between 16 and 17. They either remain in full-time education—there has been a welcome 25 per cent. Increase in the numbers going into further education—find a job, or take up a guaranteed youth training place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the fact that large numbers of 18 to 21-year-olds are going into higher education and provision has been made for them. On the issue of benefit eligibility, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time a couple of weeks ago—that a wide range of options is being considered to help unemployed people to use their time productively. I shall make an announcement in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Lester: When my right hon. Friend is considering that wide range of options, will she blow the dust off the original community programme that we had in 1980? It was a successful programme as a follow-on to training, particularly for young poeple, and it had a good record of placing people in jobs. We should not rewrite the book when we already have a good book on the shelf.
    Mrs. Shephard: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in the matter. A large number of elements of the old community programme have been retained in employment action. My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the excellence of many features of that programme, which is one of the options that we are currently considering.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the north of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): In December 1992, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 168,500 unemployed claimants in the northern region.
    Mr. Etherington: One of the few areas of expansion that the Government have achieved since 1979 has been unemployment and my constituency has had more than its fair share of that commodity. Last week a Minister said that the way to rebuild the economy in this country was to ensure that we had a well-trained and well-educated work force. In view of that, does the Minister agree that the last thing that we require is a tax on knowledge? If he agrees, will he speak to his colleagues and ensure that no value added tax is placed on books, periodicals and newspapers?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that, in July 1986, unemployment in his constituency was 10,991 and that it is now 6,812—a reduction of 38 per cent. I should have thought that even he might welcome that, but perhaps I was hoping for far too much. The question of which issues will be included in the Budget is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Bates: Is my hon. Friend aware of the significant inward investment that has been made in the north-east? Is
    118
    he aware of the £2.7 billion of inward investment and the 35,000 jobs that it has either created or safeguarded? Does he agree that that has been achieved because organisations such as the Northern Development Company, Tyne and Wear development corporation and the Teesside development corporation—all Government sponsored—have gone round the world promoting the considerable benefits of locating in the north-east, not perpetually running down the north-east, as the Labour party does?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to inward investment, which has been very important to the north-east and the northern region. Inward investment is indeed welcome and has certainly not been described by the Government as "alien" —as it was described not so long ago by the Trades Union Congress. My hon. Friend is right: inward investment has provided many jobs and is very welcome.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that there are now 200,000 fewer jobs in the northern region than there were in 1979? Will he take the advice of all who watch him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on television and listen to them on the radio? Will they cut the cackle, stop waffling and actually create some jobs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: If anyone has been responsible for waffle, it is Opposition Members rather than us.
    The simple truth is that, in the northern region—which the question concerns–220,000 people were unemployed in July 1986. Today, the figure is 168,000. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would welcome a reduction of 24 per cent.
    Mr. John Greenway: May I remind my hon. Friend that any geographical description of the north of England must include Yorkshire and Humberside? Does he agree that, in Yorkshire and the rest of the northern region, entrepreneurs and others who wish to set up businesses will find a good quality of life, local authorities that are prepared to help them with planning and a willing work force second to none in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is absolutely right.

    Wages
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly wage for (a) men and (b) women.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The figures are £346.70 and £247.10. respectively.
    Mr. Chisholm: That is appalling as it stands, but will the Minister tell us whether it includes workers below the national insurance threshold? Will he also tell us—given that a major factor in the gender gap is the concentration of women in low-paid employment—why the Government are deliberately widening that gap by abolishing wages councils? Is not it time that they did something to help low-paid women by extending the power and scope of wages councils, strengthening the Equal Pay Act 1970 and providing more child care facilities to which such women can have access?
    Mr. Forsyth: I note the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the abolition of wages councils. I am not sure that he was a leading opponent of their abolition when the Labour Government abolished 11 of them.
    The hon. Gentleman might like to know that average female earnings rose by 48 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1992. That is three times the rate of growth under Labour.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is important to be price-competitive when recession and unemployment are increasing everywhere? We certainly do not want to price ourselves out of jobs—especially in my hon. Friend's constituency and mine, where the tourist industry is a big employer.
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to point out that wages councils destroy jobs. If we were to adopt the Opposition's policy and opt for some form of minimum wage, instead of having the highest proportion of the female work force in employment, we might find ourselves in the same position as Spain, where nearly a quarter of the female population is out of work. Spain is one of the two countries in Europe with a statutory national minimum wage.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that the gap between men's and women's wages is far less in the sectors covered by wages councils than it is in other sectors? Is not that a strong argument for retaining wages councils, rather than abolishing them?
    Will the Minister also comment on the scandalous position of young workers who were taken out of wages councils by the Government and whose wages are now very low? My local job centre, for instance, is advertising a job for an apprentice hairdresser aged between 16 and 20. The pay is £35–60 for a 38-hour week—in other words, 93p an hour. Can the Government describe that as a decent wage for a week's work?
    Mr. Forsyth: It was precisely that attitude which was responsible for the destruction of so many apprenticeships in this country. It seems that the hon. Lady would like to have people with no jobs and no apprenticeships in return for having a national minimum wage. I should be much more impressed by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is so vocal on the Opposition Front Bench about the abolition of wages councils, if they were to tell the House that after this House has abolished wages councils a future Labour Government would bring them back. The hon. Lady has consistently refused to do so because she recognises that wages councils are an anachronism which cover a mere 10 per cent. of the work force.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what current proposals the European Commission has to introduce, under other treaty provisions, measures within the scope of the social chapter.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is for the European Commission to decide what proposals it brings forward under the treaty or under the Maastricht agreement of Eleven on social policy.
    Mr. Butler: May I reassure the excellent employers of Milton Keynes that the Secretary of State's fight against the working hours directive will continue and that no parts of the social chapter will be brought in under the guise of health and safety directives without a continued fight from the Government? Does my hon. Friend agree, as the employers in my constituency do, that Britain is, as Jacques Delors says, a paradise for foreign investment as a result of this Government's policies?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is certainly true that Britain gets something like 40 per cent. of the inward investment coming into the European Community. My hon. Friend is right to point to the job-destroying effects of the social chapter measures. I was struck by the fact that the non-wage costs of employing Hoover workers in Dijon is five times the cost of employing the same workers in Cambuslang.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that the problem is not just about the legislation that is about to come from Europe? It is about the legislation which we already have but which has not yet been implemented by the Government—in particular, the acquired rights directive. Will the Minister confirm that the acquired rights directive applies to compulsory competitive tendering, that it has always applied to compulsory competitive tendering and that those individuals who have been disadvantaged by the Government's not applying it in the past can now seek compensation? When will the Government publicise those facts so that workers can obtain their democratic rights?
    Mr. Forsyth: The question whether the acquired rights directive applies will depend upon each contract and the circumstances pertaining to it. If an undertaking has been transferred, the terms of the acquired rights directive will apply. For the hon. Gentleman to describe British workers as being denied rights because Britain refuses to have any part of the social chapter is nonsense. The fact is that British workers have the right to determine the terms and conditions of their employment alongside their employers. By transferring the right to decide that outside Britain, British workers are losing rights, not having their rights enhanced.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whatever the European Commission happens to bring forward, it is the Council of Ministers which makes the final decision on what should be accepted? Does my hon. Friend agree that if only we could make progress towards ratification of the Maastricht treaty, we could set about altering the institutions of the European Community and bringing them more into line with what the British Government would prefer?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that these matters are ultimately decided by the Council of Ministers, although the point to which I think he drew attention was that matters were being brought forward under health and safety provisions which were determined on a majority vote—like working time, which would be damaging to jobs in this country. The Government will continue to fight those measures because we wish to have no part in making the European Community or Britain less competitive and putting more people on the dole as a result.

    Official Entertainment
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on official entertainment in her Department in the last financial year.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In 1991–22, the amounts spent by the Employment Department, ACAS, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission the Employment Service and the Office of Manpower Economics were £43,281, £6,927, £13,635, £23,500 and £7,858 respectively. This represents three thousandths of 1 per cent. of the Department's budget.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister is not going to get away so easily with that answer. I can well understand a modest amount being spent on entertainment, but for his Department to spend that sort of money in 1992–23 and the year before when unemployment has risen every month is an absurdity. What is this year's budget to be spent on—champagne to celebrate unemployment reaching 3 million on Thursday, on pâte de foie gras being stuffed down the throats of employers because Britain is being turned into a sweatshop, or shall we be drinking highballs to celebrate the opt-out from the social charter? The Government have no right to spend taxpayers' money on wassailing in the Department of Employment while the unemployed have nothing to celebrate.
    Mr. McLoughlin: It seems that the only people who will be drinking champagne to celebrate 3 million people being unemployed are the Opposition. They have offered no constructive messages and have opposed every training scheme that we have introduced. We shall accept no strictures from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), as the one thing that I have been unable to find out is the amount of money spent on entertainment by the Greater London council.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amount of money spent on entertaining which he announced this afternoon is petty cash compared with the Department's budget? If that money enables our officers and Ministers to tell people that we have low inflation, low taxation, low interest rates and sensible trade union legislation which will attract jobs into this country, is not it just petty cash and was not it stupid to ask that question?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that any money spent by the Department on such matters is very closely monitored.

    Commercial Vehicle Industry
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people employed in the commercial vehicle industry at the end of 1992.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There are no separate estimates for the commercial vehicle industry.
    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that the numbers in the industry will be diminished if the Government do not assist Leyland DAF? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get off his backside, stop his inactivity and begin to intervene on behalf of the leading truck maker, as the Belgian and Dutch Governments are doing?
    Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear in the House that the receivers believe that at least part of the United Kingdom operations can be saved as a commercially viable business without state handouts. He also made it clear that we cannot repeat the open-ended taxpayers' commitments of the British Leyland years. He also said that if proposals are made to the Government for help with specific projects, we are prepared to consider them on their own merits, provided, of course, that they are within EC rules and the usual criteria under the industrial development legislation.
    Mr. Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is her Department, through the redundancy fund, which has paid the money to the ex-workers of Leyland DAF? Therefore, have not the Government already helped the commercial vehicle workers?
    Mrs. Shephard: We made rapid arrangements to pay statutory redundancy payments. It is also true that Employment Service and training and enterprise council staff are ready to go to plants deal with claims and offer advice.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that redundancy payments from her Department are the last kind of assistance that British workers want from the Government? Does she realise that three and a half jobs for every direct job are at risk as a result of the Leyland DAF crisis? Does she accept that there is a serious discrepancy between what the President of the Board of Trade said about approaches that have been made and what is being said by representatives of the company? Will she make representations for more active involvement by the DTI to save the jobs involved?
    Mrs. Shephard: I made clear my Department's intention to give every possible assistance to workers affected in that way, and I repeat that the receivers believe that at least part of the United Kingdom operations can be saved. Staff and Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry have stood ready to give help if required and I can do no more than repeat what I just said to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that European Governments should redouble their efforts to deal with the problem of over-capacity in the commercial vehicle industry in Europe? To that end, should not particular help be given to long-serving truck workers who lost their jobs in 1992?
    Mrs. Shephard: I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency interest in the matter. He is right to pinpoint as the problem the over-capacity of truck production. Nevertheless, the Government hope that some help can be given and that something can be salvaged from the current problems of Leyland DAF?

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for reducing unemployment in west Cumbria.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Employment Service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in west Cumbria, as elsewhere.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister noted the framing of my question, No. 8 on the Order Paper, which asks what proposals the Secretary of State has for reducing unemployment in west Cumbria? May I have an answer to my question? What proposals do the Government have for reducing unemployment in an area where there is no prospect of new industry coming in? Young people in my constituency, who asked me to table the question about their future prospects, want an answer. What proposals do the Government have?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government have consistently made it clear that it is our intention to provide the right economic climate so that job and employment opportunities will be available to people. Bearing in mind all the Government's investment in west Cumbria—the Trident programme and the development of Sellafield—it is strange that the hon. Gentleman should have the cheek to ask such a question.

    Protective Headgear
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received calling for action to ensure that Sikhs living in the United Kingdom and throughout the EC are exempted for religious reasons from requirements to wear protective headgear in appropriate workplaces.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on the matter. I have met various hon. Members to discuss the matter, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and for Slough (Mr. Watts) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
    Mr. Madden: Why are the Minister and his Secretary of State so reluctant to stand up for the religious beliefs of Sikhs in the United Kingdom and throughout the EC? Why has the Minister's Department failed to consult the Home Office on the race relations aspects of the matter? When will he seek some convenient legal advice from the Attorney-General in order to find a way in which to exempt Sikhs from the daft requirement to remove their turbans in order to wear protective head gear?
    Mr. McLoughlin: While the directive was being negotiated, the United Kingdom issued a unilateral minute stating that the provisions of article 6 of the directive
    "are not intended to result in requirements which are incompatible with the beliefs and practices of religious groups in member states."
    That was our position, but it was rejected by the other member states.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend believe that more or fewer Sikhs would be at work if we were to introduce a national minimum wage and sign the social chapter? Do those who advocate that course of action not want the unemployment of more Sikhs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is, of course, right. Such practices, which the Opposition would have imposed on the United Kingdom, would severely restrict employment opportunities generally throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Khabra: I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I
    124
    have raised the question with the Leader of the House in early-day motion 1251 in my name and those of hon. Friends. I come from the same community. I know that the directive will be an attack on the Sikh religion. This Government can ignore the EC directive. They have done so in the past whenever it suited them. I am sure that this Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There are occasions when the House has to be a little tolerant. This happens to be one of them. I am sure that the hon. Member will now put a direct question, having made his comment.
    Mr. Khabra: I ask the Minister to ignore the EC directive, since the Government can disregard and ignore the views of the House on a matter important to the nations concerned, such as the Maastricht treaty. They could ignore this directive and grant a concession to the Sikhs as they granted a concession to the Sikhs in the construction industry.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I do understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making on this. At the meetings I have held with leaders of the Sikh community, with hon. Friends and a Labour hon. Member, these points have been put to me. We tried to secure a derogation from the directive and that failed in 1989. There is no reason to suppose that a new approach would be more successful, especially as the directive has now come into force. I recognise the point that the hon. Member makes and I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council replied to his question after the statement on business.
    Mr. Watts: None the less, can further approaches be made to the Commission to seek a derogation from the offensive provisions of this directive?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for the question, but we did try to get a derogation at the time of the negotiations in 1989. That failed, but I am willing to consider very strong representations that have been made to me by my hon. Friends and by Labour hon. Members, but I cannot say that that will be successful, at the end of the day.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the latest figures for adult male unemployment in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales, (c) the valleys programme area and (d) Neath.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The unadjusted rates are 14.2 per cent.,14.2 per cent., 19.6 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State has confirmed that one in five adult males is unemployed in the south Wales valleys area, That is a disgraceful figure. When added to the one in five who are economically inactive, that means that four in 10 people are seeking work or wish to work in the south Wales valleys area. When will the Secretary of State stop mouthing fine words and coming up with seminars and gimmicks, and when will she do her job of creating employment in this country by carrying out a programme of investment—not gimmicks, schemes and other words of sympathy?
    Mrs. Shephard: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for all people facing unemployment, but he surely welcomes the fact that unemployment in Neath, his constituency, has fallen in the past 12 months. He must be delighted, too, that unemployment is lower in Wales than in some regions of England and that that is due in no small part to a highly successful programme of inward investment which last year brought 17,000 jobs to Wales with capital expenditure of more than £1 billion. The hon. Gentleman asks about action; that is action, but it has been welcomed by him and his comrades in the TUC as alien action.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Wales has attracted inward investment by more than 1,000 companies since 1981 creating tens of thousands of jobs? Does she agree that if the Labour party were to have its way with the social chapter that inward investment would dry up?
    Mrs. Shephard: There is no question about it. Indeed, if Opposition Members were to have their way with many of the other lunatic policies that they wish to pursue—for example, punitive taxation of successful companies, levies and burdens on business, support for the social chapter and for the national minimum wage—it would discourage inward investment and hence the creation of jobs.
    Mr. Dobson: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the figures that she has just given for the United Kingdom show that we now lose no fewer than 15 million working days every week because of unemployment? Does she agree that it is the economics of the madhouse for Britain to attempt to do without the products, goods and services of the people that her Government have thrown out of work? Is it not time that, instead of just expressing her concern and coming up with fiddled figures, she did something about getting people in this country back to work? They want real jobs, and when they are at work they want to be paid well enough to be able to bring up their families.
    Mrs. Shephard: Earlier the hon. Gentleman exhorted us to cut the cackle, which is pretty rich coming from someone who has raised blustering to an art form. He is quite right when he says that what people want is real jobs, and real jobs can come only from the pursuit of low inflation, low interest rates and low burdens on businesses —exactly the reverse of all the policies pursued and supported by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that we recall how we created jobs in the 1980s by maintaining a low taxation, low interest rate and high incentive economy? I draw her attention to the unemployment record in France, which has been linked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development directly to the application of minimum wage legislation, which demonstrably destroys jobs.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is indeed the case that the experience of France in terms of job creation was in direct contrast to our own during the 1980s, when our supply-side measures were described as impressive by the OECD.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her latest estimate of unemployment among persons aged under 21 years.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Claimant unemployment figures by age are produced quarterly and for specific age bands only. On the unadjusted basis, there were 243,928 claimant unemployed people aged under 20 in the United Kingdom in October 1992.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the disastrously high level of youth unemployment in many parts of Wales and elsewhere? Is he aware that for those leaving youth training schemes the unemployment level in Wales has increased from 15.9 per cent. in 1990 to over 26 per cent? Is this not a totally unacceptable level? In these circumstances, why on earth do the Government cut back the money available to the training and enterprise councils, as they have with the West Wales TEC, where they have cut back £800,000, when the money is desperately needed to give training opportunities to young people?
    Mr. McLoughlin: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that 74 per cent. of those who go on youth training schemes manage to find jobs when they finish their course. I should have thought that he would welcome that. My right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that we stand by the guarantee to all people in that age bracket, and if for any reason any TEC cannot meet that guarantee, we are willing to consider whether extra resources can be made available to it.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend accept that we on the Conservative Benches fully understand the terrible difficulties that unemployment brings for individuals and their families? Does my hon. Friend agree that a system of workfare, particularly for young people, is worthy of consideration? Not only would it ensure that certain useful environmentally friendly jobs were carried out; it would also give those young people an opportunity to have contact with the world of work.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will acknowledge the change that we have made already whereby young people will not have the opportunity of claiming benefit without going through training or further education. With regard to workfare, I can only say that we are looking at a number of schemes that have been put to us.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister know that some of our biggest companies are closing their apprentice training schools? Does he know that this is particularly the case in steel, textiles and aerospace? What will the Government do about this serious development, which will prove to be the route to industrial suicide unless they do something about it?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend mentioned the damage that had been done to the apprenticeship scheme, and the way in which many trade unions tried to pursue larger wage increases. We are determined to ensure there is proper training and look forward to a change and to reversing the policy of the Opposition so that they start supporting training schemes we have taken forward.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that as far as workfare is concerned, there are already schemes in place that assist those who are unemployed and that it would be better to look at a scheme such as this as an

    127
    additional resource for the unemployed? Might not there be competition for such a scheme because of the additional resources that will be provided?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A number of schemes are available, such as employment action, which has been very successful and useful in the community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    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. Worthington: In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry—seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.
    Mr. Worthington: In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else's fault?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that
    "the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent"
    —not my words but those of the Leader of the Opposition. I would find the hon. Gentleman's concern more convincing if he had one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment, but he has not.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?
    The Prime Minister: It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the
    128
    Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.
    Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?
    The Prime Minister: There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.
    Mr. John Smith: Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a
    "spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer".
    —[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Smith: Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?
    Mr. Skinner: Vote against Third Reading and we'll show them. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister:Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East claims repeatedly to support the Maastricht treaty, but he and his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which was intended to lead to amendments to the treaty, a new intergovernmental conference and new ratification procedures in the member states. Opposition Members were prepared to put at risk the future not just of the Bill but of the entire treaty. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who accuses us of sharp practice when he claims to support the Bill.
    Mr. Booth: Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one's objective.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smyth: Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?
    Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to promote peace in Northern Ireland is the continued curtailment of funds and support for terrorism with an intensive education course for United States citizens, especially those of Irish republican sympathies, to enable them to understand that Northern Ireland is not a colony but part of the United Kingdom by choice of its citizens?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.
    I hope and expect the new American Administration to continue to support the political dialogue established over the past two years. I believe that it offers the best hope of reconciliation and is fully consistent with Northern Ireland's position, as the hon. Member said, as a part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

    United Nations
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Gallie: What about Rosyth?
    Mr. CryerDoes the Prime Minister endorse and support—
    Mr. Gallie: What about Rosyth?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman's question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

    Engagements
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr.Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word "misleading".
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.
    Mr. Cryer: I will withdraw the word "misleading" and say that he was economical with the truth.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Patrick Thompson.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?
    The Prime Minister: I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Reid: With reference to the Prime Minister's earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary
    132
    sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils: "But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?" How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?
    The Prime Minister: He would have said, "I can't, and I don't."
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.
    The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.

National Health Service (London)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our proposals for improving the national health service in London. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly and quickly. We are about to hear an important statement.
Mrs. Bottomley: I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to Sir Bernard Tomlinson, whose report has been instrumental in carrying the debate forward.
Following the publication of the Tomlinson report, we undertook an extensive period of informal consultation with the institutions and professional groups involved. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for the thorough way in which he held those discussions.
London and the rest of the country are poorly served by the present pattern of health services in the capital. Despite the fact that we spend some 20 per cent. more per head in London than elsewhere, services are often ill matched to the day-to-day needs of those who live and work there. London has 43 major acute hospitals, twice as many consultants per head as elsewhere, and, for example, 14 centres of specialist cardiac services and 13 in neurosurgery.
Despite the panoply of provision, patients use accident and emergency departments rather than going to a GP; patients cannot be discharged from hospital because there are inadequate services outside hospital to care for them; primary health care services in the rest of the country are often well ahead of the care that is available inside London. This is an unacceptable imbalance. It has to be redressed. The issues are well known. They are well documented and well understood. They have been the subject of at least 20 reports in the last 100 years. For a variety of reasons, successive Governments have declined to grasp the nettle. Today we are making a decisive break with that tradition.
Patients from outside London prefer to be treated locally. This process will accelerate, and not decline, in the future. Modern medicine means also that we can treat more patients with fewer beds. Many more services can be provided outside hospital, as the pioneering advances of the GP fund holders have shown. London should be in the vanguard of change.
Our response is rooted in the principles of our health service reforms. We start from the unshakeable belief that in London, as elsewhere, it is the patient who must come first. How and where services are provided should be determined first and foremost by what suits patients.
To provide a patient-focused, modern health service in London requires a radical programme of change. The work will be carried forward by the London implementation group, reporting to me and working with the existing health agencies in the capital. It will start now, work quickly and keep to a strict timetable.
The first step must be a substantial improvement in primary care in London. That means the development of
134
higher quality, more accessible health services at local level —provided through GPs, nurses and other professionals in the community.
I am today establishing a London initiative zone covering the most deprived parts of the city where services can be most improved. I will be providing £170 million of capital investment over the next six years for improvements in the LIZ area. Much of that money will be used to provide new and improved premises for GPs and their teams where needed, and to provide new primary care centres.
Next year alone, we will invest over £40 million additional funds in primary and community health services. In addition, a further £10 million will be specifically targeted to ease waiting time problems for inner London residents.
We will strengthen the training of family doctors, nurses and other professional staff. We will bring experienced GPs into the capital, perhaps on short-term appointments.
We will be looking at new ways of providing services —by employing some GPs directly, by reviewing relevant aspects of the GP contract, such as the system of deprivation payments, by developing the GP fund holding initiative in London, which has brought so many benefits to patients elsewhere, and by much else besides.
We expect the social services to play their full part in ensuring effective integration of local health and social services. They must make use of the opportunities provided by our community care reforms and the significantly increased resources available through the special transitional grant.
We also want to make the best use of the special skills and talents of the voluntary sector. I can announce today that I am making a further £7.5 million available over the next three years to build up the role and work of the voluntary organisations.
To focus minds on innovation and experiment, we will provide a further £1 million to initiate a London primary health care challenge fund. We look to others also to contribute to the fund. It will make money available, on a competitive bidding basis, to fund experimental schemes, especially those which aim to bring local and hospital care together and those involving the voluntary, independent or social services sectors.
Putting those ideas into place involves a shift from care in acute hospitals to primary care. This, in turn, means building up services outside hospital, with fewer hospital beds and fewer sites where acute hospital care is delivered.
We need to reduce the excessive duplication of specialist services. I am announcing today six simultaneous reviews of those services to help us determine where best to concentrate specialist services to provide high quality cost-effective care. Each review will be taken forward urgently under the joint leadership of a distinguished clinician and a senior NHS manager of a purchasing authority. They will report by the end of May.
Accident and emergency services will mainly be provided from fully-equipped departments which have good access to back-up specialist services. In addition, we envisage an increasingly important role for minor injuries clinics.
But there is also a case for some rationalisation of accident and emergency services. In particular, the regions are setting in hand consultation on the closure of the A and

135
E at Charing Cross when the new Chelsea-Westminster is available, and on the closure of full-scale A and E at St. Bartholomew's.
We are determined that the London ambulance service should continue to make progress, to deliver a much-improved service for the considerable sums of money invested in it.
The new Chelsea-Westminster hospital is one of the most modern and advanced hospitals in Europe. This £200 million development is further proof of the Government's commitment to the national health service in London. Its completion marks the beginning of a new and better pattern of services in this sector of London.
A great deal of work has been done, in addition to the Tomlinson report. On the basis of the information before me, I have decided that there is no financial case for relocating the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross hospital. This decision has clear implications for the future of that hospital. I have asked that detailed proposals for its future to be drawn up by the autumn. The London implementation group will also consider where best to relocate the maternity services currently provided at Queen Charlotte's hospital.
We cannot sustain extensive overlap or duplication in this part of London. In the long run, the best way forward may be an integrated health sciences centre, based at the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden, their respective institutes, and the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, with links to Imperial College. We will pursue that idea with those organisations.
In south-east London, consultation is under way on the proposal to merge the management of Guy's and St. Thomas's. If a Guy's/St. Thomas's trust is established, we will ask the new trust board to bring forward proposals, within six months, for consolidating the hospital services.
We also propose that the University College and Middlesex hospitals should continue to work up a proposal for rationalisation as quickly as possible. This would be considered with other priorities and subject to statutory consultation in respect of service changes. A development considerably smaller than the current hospitals combined seems likely.
In the east of London, significant changes are needed to provide a better pattern of services for the local population. People in Hackney and the surrounding area will be best served by developing the Homerton hospital to meet their needs. To make that possible, the Homerton will be established as a separate directly managed unit, with a view to it offering its patients the benefits of trust status from April 1994. We will consider urgently the proposal to build a further phase of the Homerton.
We believe it will be in the best interests of local people if some of the acute services currently at St. Bartholomew's at Smithfield are relocated to the Homerton. The hospital at Smithfield cannot continue as it is. That fact is well recognised, not least by the management and clinicians at St. Barthlomew's. Its precise future must depend crucially on the outcome of the speciality reviews and on whether or not purchasers wish to send their patients to it. In view of this, I have decided that the Barts NHS trust should not come into operation on 1 April and the shadow trust is therefore to be dissolved.
There are, in our judgment, three options for the future of St. Bartholomew's. The first is closure of the hospital site at Smithfield, with its specialist services relocating elsewhere. The second is joint management of St.
136
Bartholomew's and the Royal London hospital. The new management would be responsible for determining whether, in light of the demand for its services, the combined hospital can continue operating from two major acute sites. The third is retention of Smithfield as a much smaller specialist hospital.
I have set in hand an urgent appraisal of each of those options, to be concluded by the autumn. The proposal which emerges will, of course, be subject to statutory consultation. Under any of the options, the services provided at Smithfield, and the number of beds, would be substantially reduced. I propose to consult separately on whether to replace its full scale A and E department with a 12-hour weekday minor injuries clinic.
The Government will also consult on proposals for the merged management of Northwick Park and St. Mark's and, subject to a sound business case being made, the relocation of St. Mark's to Northwick Park.
On medical education, Professor Tomlinson's proposals for mergers of London's free-standing medical schools with the major colleges of the University of London have been widely supported. They are in line with the university's long-standing policy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has welcomed Sir Bernard's broad conclusions on education and research. He has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to take them forward, working with those involved, to ensure that health and education changes march in step. The funding council will consider the issues raised in the Tomlinson report about student numbers in London.
Our proposals will have significant implications for NHS manpower in London. We will make sure that their skills are kept within the NHS, by redeployment and retraining wherever possible. I intend to establish a clearing house to help those staff who cannot find alternative employment through the normal arrangements.
The Tomlinson report made clear that the root cause of London's problems is not a lack of resources. Indeed, hon. Members from outside the capital often point to the consequences for their constituents of the fact that 20 per cent. of NHS resources are spent in London on 15 per cent. of the population.
A top priority must be to make the NHS in London more efficient and effective. At the moment, we provide bridging funding to London hospitals to help them survive the loss of income they face from the fact that money is following the patients elsewhere. That is not a sensible long-term use of funds. It is unfair to London and unfair to the rest of the country. We will tackle those inefficiencies. Over a period of time that will mean more money for better services outside London.
I have not the time to describe every proposal now. Full details are contained in a document "Making London Better", published today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
No change is no option. Sir Bernard Tomlinson spoke of a "spiral of decline" if we do not act now. The programme of improvement must be balanced. Rationalisation of hospital services must be paced alongside the complementary build-up of services outside hospital.
London deserves a first-class primary health care service, fit for the 21st century. London deserves a better-balanced hospital service, targeted on patient needs.

137
London deserves the radical overhaul which, for years, many have promised but none has delivered. Under our proposals, that is what London will get.
We have accepted the need for radical change. We will deliver it. My programme offers the opportunity to cure London's ills and to make London better. I commend it to the House.
Mr. David Blunkett: I pay tribute to my colleagues, who made a series of 39 visits and met more than 2,000 people when examining Sir Bernard Tomlinson's proposals.
Opposition Members find the statement deeply disappointing. It is a damp squib, with a long fuse attached to a powder keg—a powder keg of cuts, closures and capitulation to Treasury demands for cash to pay for the Government's economic incompetence.
The statement is an admission of failure: the failure to match the challenge and opportunities for the future health care of the capital; the failure of the Government's health care changes, with their commercialisation and the internal market, which have made an existing problem into a crisis; and the Secretary of State's failure to win sufficient resources to do the job properly.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that she is a latter-day grand old Duke of York, who promises much and delivers nothing? The statement is the worst of all worlds. It allows existing hospitals to wither on the vine, but does not find the resources to put the necessary health care in place; it talks about merger and unites St. Thomas's and Guy's, under the chairmanship of an ex-Conservative Minister, with a direction to close one of those hospitals.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this afternoon she has effectively announced the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital? In her three proposed consultation plans, she spelt out that St. Bart's could not stay open as it is, and that it would not stay open under the plans put forward to her Minister of State. If it stays on the existing site, the accident and emergency unit will be a daytime unit only.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the document that she mentioned at the end of her statement she gives the game away? She says:
"Our proposals will have significant implications for NHS manpower in London."
What does the phrase "significant implications" mean? Does not the document give the game away when it suggests that a cautionary estimate shows that 2,500 beds will close over the next five years? Who will pay for the redundancies, the manpower losses and the retraining? From where will the money come and why was that not mentioned in this afternoon's statement? Where is the Treasury—behind the scenes, determining the hand of the Secretary of State for Health?
What have we had this afternoon? Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the document to which she referred, euphemistically called "Making London Better"—the title makes me choke on my words as, far from being called "Making London Better", it should have been entitled "Making Matters Worse"—paragraph 9 states:
"The operation of the NHS internal market will determine the precise patterns of health care in London in the future; just as it is a major influence for good elsewhere."?
Is the Secretary of State telling us the truth this afternoon or is it a fact that Charing Cross hospital, the
138
Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear hospital and, as I have already said, Barts, will close—and with Charing Cross, the medical school will close? Will there not be a major cutback in medical training in London? Is not her announcement this afternoon a totally inadequate response to the challenge facing London's health care and the rest of the nation?
Can the Secretary of State justify coming to the House this afternoon and pronouncing that increased general practitioner fund holding will help inner London, where there are three times the number of GPs working single-handedly from lock-up practices that need an immediate injection of cash? How can she tell the House this afternoon that less than £30 million a year over six years is an adequate response to the £400 million that the four inner London family health service authorities estimate to be the minimum to bring those GP premises up to an acceptable standard?
Can the Secretary of State really say that the £1 million challenge fund announced this afternoon will compensate for the complete annihilation of the inner city programme, the removal of the city challenge scheme, and the capping and closure of community care provision that will be made necessary by the Government settlement for local government from April? How can beds be freed to allow more patients to be treated if community care is neglected and the voluntary sector has to put up with £2 million a year to take on the task that local government in London should be allowed to fulfil?
Today is indeed a bad day for London, but it is also a bad day for the rest of Britain as the statement provides no answers for the investment needed in primary health care. It provides no answers to the needs of Londoners who wish to see in place proper accident and emergency facilities to deal with daytime and nighttime needs to ensure that the challenge of which the Secretary of State spoke on 29 October can be met.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures and financing spelt out in Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report have already proved to be inadequate? Although the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon that the Royal Marsden and Brompton hospitals are to have a temporary reprieve because Ernst and Young found that it would cost £62 million to close them, her ancillary document states that, over the next five years, they will be "absorbed". That is another euphemism for "closed in due course".
This afternoon's exercise is one of duplicity. It allows hospitals to wither on the vine while covering the Government's back in a crisis of unemployment in facing the difficulties over the mining industry and the diktats of the Wakeham committee, which instructed the Secretary of State to cover up the closures, cutbacks and redundancies that are predicted.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how much is being clawed back from the rest of Britain's health service to pay for cuts, closures, redundancies and redeployments? How much will be clawed back from regional health service budgets over the next few years? Will we see a repetition of what happened to the Westminster and Chelsea hospital, which eventually cost £300,000 per bed? How much will be clawed back to close health services in London rather than improving them, and to put at risk projects and health care provision in the rest of the country?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, far from protecting the rest of Britain by closing hospitals, beds and community facilities in London, she is putting at risk

139
projects that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see in their regions? Is not the document a capitulation to the Treasury rather than a health document ensuring the care of Londoners in the years to come?
Mrs. Bottomley: That was an enormously disappointing response. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has himself said in the past that the status quo was no longer an option. It is no longer an option. In the past 100 years, 20 reports have been produced urging radical change, and that is what we intend to bring about.
I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Sheffield did not point out to him that, if London contains 15 per cent. of the population, there is no long-term justice in its having 20 per cent. of the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has again shown himself in his true colours, as an Opposition health spokesman sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. Jobs are always put before patients.
We are going to see through firm action. The hon. Gentleman indulged in the traditional Labour pursuit of plucking a figure out of the air and then doubling it. Tomlinson recommended primary health care capital investment of £140 million; I have made available £170 million, as well as £10 million for the waiting list initiative and £7·5 million over three years for voluntary organisations. We are determined to see an improvement in primary care.
I have already referred to the generous funding for implementation of "Care in the Community". We must ensure that progress is made. We all recognise that some loved and respected London institutions will have to make difficult decisions; but it is not possible for 43 hospitals with 250 beds to remain unscathed at a time when, all over the home counties, new, high-quality hospitals are opening and providing excellent, cost-effective care.
We are not prepared to fudge this issue; we are not prepared to duck it. Any serious commentator, professional or politician will see the comments of the hon. Member for Brightside for what they are—a populist, knee-jerk, unreconstructed, destructive reaction.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and on the courage that she has displayed in grasping the nettle represented by this highly sensitive and emotive issue. As she knows, many ex-Londoners in my Hertfordshire constituency have been aggrieved for many years by the fact that too many resources have been taken by the London hospitals, while too few have gone to serve the local communities in Hertfordshire and the surrounding home county areas. How will my right hon. Friend's proposals address the problem so that I can assure my constituents that they will receive proper health care in their local areas?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. Once again, she has made an informed and authoritative contribution. Many health providers in constituencies such as hers are developing first-rate health services, and no longer wish their patients to go to London.
In the past, going to London was a free good, but an internal market means that the local health authority must pay, and pay the high prices of London. The fixed overhead costs of the London hospitals will become ever greater as health authorities in constituencies such as that
140
of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) make the understandable and sensible decision to treat patients locally. We estimate that, next year alone, £50 million worth of contracts will no longer go to London. We have to have managed change in London. We also need urgent change in London so that we can ensure a fairer distribution of health service resources across the country.
Ms. Liz Lynne: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has announced that she does not intend to close hospitals wholesale. At least she has partially taken advice and intends to go out to consultation. I do not believe, however, that the £170 million to which she referred for primary health care will be enough. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment today that the £170 million will at least be ring fenced or earmarked for primary health care? Will she also make a commitment that she will not backtrack, as she did with the alcohol and drug misuse budget? Will she make a further firm commitment that before any hospitals are closed primary health care will be in place?
I welcome the fact that £10 million has been given towards cutting down waiting lists in London, but I should like to find out exactly when waiting lists in London will be cleared with that money. Nevertheless, I am grateful that that money has been provided.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Lady. I can give her an assurance that the £170 million for investing in primary health care in London will be used only for that purpose within the London initiative zone. I remind her that Sir Bernard Tomlinson's estimate was £140 million. We are making £170 million available.
I find the hon. Lady's comparison with the drug and alcohol ring-fenced money rather strange. Apart from the fact that we ring-fenced the drug and alcohol money, we ring-fenced the whole of the community care money—£565 million, an increase of a third over what was available through social security. That will lead to £30 million more in London next year and £130 million more for community care in London by 1996.
In the discussions on the waiting time proposals, I know that the hon. Lady made the point that more should happen about waiting times in London. The sum of £10 million will be spent in London. Good progress has already been made in the past year. The number of those waiting for more than a year in London has fallen by 61 per cent. in the past year, and the overall lists have fallen by 8 per cent.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that the decision to close Charing Cross hospital will be met with horror in west London, where the facilities of that hospital are greatly needed in a very deprived part of the metropolis. Can my right hon. Friend explain why she has decided to pre-empt the specialty review in London by deciding to keep the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden hospitals independent and not to move them to the Charing Cross site, ahead of a full review of the cancer and chest specialties in London?
Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand my hon. Friend's support for his own local hospital and his concern about my statement. After studying further information during our discussions on the Tomlinson report and further appraisals that we were able to undertake, we took the

141
view that it was not a cost-effective option to move the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross site. However, my hon. Friend is right: we are establishing forthwith specialty reviews. They will be chaired by a clinician from outside London in each of the six key areas. We hope that the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden hospitals will come together as a trust, sharing costs and seeking considerable savings. They will be subject to those specialty reviews, as will all the other specialist centres in London.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statement that there are too many hospital beds in London will be greeted with ribald laughter in a large part of the capital, where long waiting lists are still growing? May I ask her, since she did not, in my recollection, mention the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children, whether good sense has prevailed in that case and that it will be left alone to carry on serving the people in my part of London in the way that it has done in the past?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's comment, since informed commentators, professionals and many politicians on all sides have recognised that there is a need to tackle the over-provision of beds in London. That over-provision can be tackled only as the primary care services develop. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there was a misuse of hospital beds in London because of inadequate primary care services. In addition, the implementation of community care must be closely tied in with further steps on hospitals.
As for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney, which I have visited a number of times, it will join with the Homerton hospital to continue to provide a good quality local service. We certainly hope that the research, staff and ties of loyalty with Great Ormond Street will continue, but when the right hon. Gentleman studies the Tomlinson report, he will see that it makes a powerful argument for ensuring that single specialty hospitals are drawn in to the local community that they serve so that they can benefit from the range of skills at the local district general hospital, as with the London Chest hospital joining the London hospital.
Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend recall a leader article in The Guardian last October or November which said that only a political ostrich could fail to take note of the fact that more money per head was spent from the health budget on London than on anywhere else but that it provided a worse service? Will she confirm that most of the London hospitals were set up nearly 100 years ago and that not only treatment but the use of day beds, instead of keeping people in hospital, has changed out of all recognition since the time when the London hospital scene was first established? Will she, therefore, take the opportunity to tell the political ostriches and dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches—they seem to be about half and half—the truth about the matter?
Mrs. Bottomley: I well remember that editorial in The Guardian. I also remember a similar report in Nursing Standard which said that the professional organizations
142
which have for years been arguing for a radical shift in resources from hospitals to primary care cannot now condemn a report which is founded on that principle.
My hon. Friend is, as ever, exactly right. The provision of health care in London is based in the past. We are determined to plan for the future. Florence Nightingale said that St. Thomas's should move out to Blackheath, and 20 reports in 100 years have urged action on us. We are determined to see exactly that action.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why does the Secretary of State talk to the House as though she thought that St. Bartholomew's and the Homerton hospital were separate hospitals? As she is the Secretary of State for Health, she must know that it is the same institution run by the same people, with the same doctors and consultants. She proposes to destroy both hospitals. Does she not understand that her announcement has shown her to be a medically ignorant political chancer who deserves the undying contempt of us all because she is putting at risk 100,000 people in south Hackney, 100,000 in Islington and 300,000 in the City? What is the virtue in that?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am sorry to have inflamed the hon. Gentleman. I am used to reading his castigation of his own party's spokesman on the matter of health reform in London.
I have announced that we wish Homerton hospital to proceed with proposals for its phase 2 development. We envisage a central position for Homerton in serving the local population and in working with joint management with the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney because we well recognise the needs of that part of London.
St. Bartholomew's will have to face the economic facts of life and the reality of health care today. It has the choice of closing, setting up as a small specialist unit or joining the London hospital. In my view, it is a choice between sentiment and excellence. It will need to consider urgently the way it wishes to proceed. I am concerned to serve local people, and the Homerton hospital is the place that will best do that.
Mr. James Couchman: As perhaps the only former London health authority chairman in the House, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. I have been the chairman of an outer London district and now represent a constituency beyond that. Both have been deprived of resources because of the over-resourcing of inner London. My constituents and those for whom I was responsible as a health authority chairman will welcome her statement. However, may I ask for her assurance that the resources necessary to ensure that people living in outer London and beyond can be treated in their own district general hospital will be provided from the savings made from London? Without those savings people will still be inclined to go to inner London for their treatment. Will she also ensure that, if some consultants will no longer have jobs in inner London, they will be steered to outer London and beyond for their new jobs?
Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of these matters, speaks on behalf of many others in the House. We estimate that next year contracts to the tune of £50 million will no longer come to

143
London because many, like my hon. Friend, wish patients to be treated more cost effectively in their local communities.
We wish to ensure that, as a result of the specialty reviews, those units which find no future for themselves in London, and particularly their consultants, should certainly have the opportunity to find a productive role in the home counties and elsewhere in the country.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the Secretary of State know that on 29 January there was a seven-hour waiting time at the accident and emergency department of the Royal London hospital, Whitechapel, two days before the accident and emergency department at Mile End was closed for good against the wishes of the population? She now proposes that the accident and emergency department at Barts should go for a burton and that its workload should also go to the Royal London hospital.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children serves children in Tower Hamlets, which has the fastest growing birth rate in the country, and that if that is merged with Homerton, those children will go to the Royal London hospital, further increasing the workload there and, presumably, the waiting time? I do not know what waiting time is considered acceptable in the document so cynically entitled "Making London Better", but the waiting time and the workload at the Royal London are becoming unacceptable.
What sense is there in destroying the marvellous work done at Great Ormond Street by taking away its research department? What sense is there in merging the London Chest hospital with the Royal London so that within five years it will be moved from its salubrious green site in Bethnal Green and rebuilt on what is a dirty, dusty and polluted site for chest patients on Whitechapel road? What nonsense is all this?
Madam Speaker: Before the Secretary of State answers, I plead with right hon. and hon. Members on the Front and Back Benches to put short questions and make speedy answers. Many hon. Members want to participate and I cannot allow questions to continue for much longer.
Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand many of the points of misinformation in the hon. Lady's question. She will be able to study the document and will in many ways be reassured when she understands the arguments behind many of the decisions.
It is appropriate for specialist hospitals to be under the organisation of a local general hospital in order to provide a broader-based health care for those in need of acute services. The hon. Lady's constituents, who may go to the Queen Elizabeth hospital with their children, will be treated at the Homerton, perhaps as a maternity or a surgical case, and we envisage the management joining the Chest hospital there. I have not announced that those hospitals will move into the buildings of the hospitals under whose management they will come.
On waiting times, the hon. Lady may not have heard me point out that in London in the past year the number of those waiting for more than a year has fallen by 61 per cent., which is a considerable achievement. The overall list has fallen by 8 per cent.
With regard to the hon. Lady's last point on pressure on accident and emergency, I have visited the accident and emergency department at the Royal London. She will be
144
aware of the tremendous unpredictability of demands on accident and emergency services, but all are agreed that one of the dilemmas in London is the inappropriate use of accident and emergency services by people who would normally go to a GP or a community nurse. The right way forward is by developing effective alternatives that local people trust.
Sir John Wheeler: It takes great courage and conviction to do what is right in the health service for people in London, and my right hon. Friend has achieved that today. Does she agree that the most important part of these changes is the development of the primary health care service, particularly in London? Will she add further to her statement on how she sees the flow of funding and the development of that service leading to the objectives that she has outlined today?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is exactly by effective and fast development of primary care that we shall achieve change. The London initiative zone offers the opportunity to pioneer and innovate and to find new ways to make sure that we have the primary care that meets the needs of Londoners.
It is well understood that London has a greater number of homeless people, of people from ethnic minorities, of people with drug addiction problems and of people not registered with GPs. GPs have difficulties on premises; there are more single-handed GPs and there are more older GPs. It is by finding new ways and new procedures for tackling those problems that we shall make progress. We shall set up a primary care forum, to be chaired by the chairman of the London implementation group, to take forward change swiftly. We anticipate spending £40 million extra on primary care services in the first year alone.
Ms. Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State not agree with me that it is a bit of a farce to talk about consultation on the amalgamation of trusts between St. Thomas's and Guy's when the chair has already been appointed and the whole thing has obviously been sewn up? Would she clarify what she means in her statement by saying that those two hospitals are consolidating? Does she mean that one of them will close, whatever is said, and will she say what will happen to those people who depend on the accident and emergency service at St. Thomas's if that accident and emergency service should ever close?
Mrs. Bottomley: At present there is statutory consultation under way on the proposal for Guy's and St. Thomas's to join together as an NHS trust. We are then asking them to go out to consultation on an independent appraisal on site options. Radical change has to go forward in London. This cannot be achieved without difficult decisions being made and on the basis of the independent appraisal. We shall certainly want them to follow through the recommendations of that appraisal, but it will be within their responsibilities and for their decisions as an NHS trust.
The hon. Lady well knows that within her constituency there is the development of initiatives such as the West Lambeth community care centre. She well knows that that is the right way to provide a modern health service for her constituents. It is not possible for her to seek development of initiatives such as the West Lambeth community care centre, as well as having, within a short distance,

145
500 hospital consultants at Guy's, St. Thomas's and King's. It is that sort of imbalance that makes hon. Members from outside London urge swift action.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will recognise that her announcement today will be the cause of qualified rejoicing at Bart's, but I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has been robust in his defence of Bart's, will recognise that we now have two viable alternatives to the disastrous Tomlinson recommendation to close Bart's and sell the site. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the consultation process is speedy and vigorous and, this time, is based on properly-based data?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend precisely that assurance. I think that St. Bartholomew's has now begun to face the economic realities. It will not be possible to persuade health authorities to send patients to hospitals that do not provide a cost-effective service. That is the reality of the NHS reforms that we have established. It will have to choose between whether it takes forward its ideas of becoming a small specialty hospital or decides to combine with the Royal London. There are strong arguments that, if it sees the future as being a centre of excellence, it will be by following the example of very many others and saying that it wants to pool the skills, resources and expertise of their teams. These decisions need to be taken swiftly, because we wish to avoid the spiral of decline outlined by Sir Bernard Tomlinson. The specialty reviews are to complete their work within three months, and the further proposals are to be ready within six months.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Secretary of State has said today that she is to initiate a new London primary health care challenge. She also said that she was looking to others to contribute to the fund. Is she prepared to tell us who those others might be? Are they to be the banks, or are they to be McDonald's and the other hamburger joints? Or are they to be the patients themselves? Having contributed to that fund, who is to decide the competitive basis on which the bids will be won? How many people in the local community will have a say in what happens at the local hospital?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am very surprised to hear the hon. Lady's prejudice against McDonald's. If McDonald's wishes to make a contribution to the primary care challenge fund, we shall certainly welcome it. We wish to have a great number of innovative ideas about where we can find premises. The real challenge for primary health care in London is the issue of premises. We certainly will explore the idea of family doctor premises becoming established in a wide range of places, and—who knows? —McDonald's may well be an option.
I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. But, of course, it is a travesty of the amount of money that I have announced: £170 million over six years for capital development; £40 million in the first year; £7·5 million for voluntary organisations; as well as the £1 million for the challenge fund.
Dame Angela Rumbold: My right hon. Friend will know that I served on one of the previous investigations into the London health service, so
146
I am more than well aware of the difficult decisions that she and her Ministers have to take in considering the London issue. I congratulate her on the very skilful way in which she has solved the problems. I believe that the answers that she has outlined to the House this afternoon will certainly provide much better services for London in the long term, and better services for hospitals outside London. I also thank her on behalf of my constituents, many of whom work in the Royal Marsden at Sutton, because they will be very relieved to understand that their jobs are secure for the time being. May I ask her, however, what she envisages for the specialty reviews? A little more clarity on those would be helpful.
Mrs. Bottomley: We shall be establishing forthwith specialty reviews in the six key areas of cancer services, cardiac services, neuro-sciences, renal services and paediatric services, to be chaired by an expert from outside London and with a manager from within London. They will report within three months. There will be further consultation on those reports afterwards.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her generous remarks. We have to see change; we have to see change to a tight timetable. At the same time, we have to go through the proper procedures of consultation. I am very appreciative of the way in which most people in the service, most commentators and most professionals have well understood the need for change. No change is no option. We need now to carry it forward.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Secretary of State aware that it will come as a surprise to my constituents to discover that London is over-funded, in the light of rising waiting lists, cancelled operations, the mentally ill wandering our streets and a constant diminution of the services for geriatrics?
Why is the right hon. Lady so concerned about saving money in the London area? The Royal Free medical school in my constituency can train a doctor for between £10,000 and £12,000 a year, as can the other London teaching hospitals, yet the universities of Oxford and Cambridge can only train for £18,000 a year. Is she perhaps not concentrating her sights in the wrong area?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am surprised that the hon. Lady for ever denigrates the achievements of the Royal Free hospital, because it is providing more high quality care to more patients. I have already informed the House that waiting lists are coming down. There is a 61 per cent. fall in the number of patients waiting for more than a year, and an 8 per cent. fall overall—
Ms. Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to take points of order at the end of the statement, as the hon. Lady knows—[Interruption.] Order. An argument about policy is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to develop better services for the mentally ill who, above all, need primary care services. They need more community psychiatric nurses, so that many of the changes that we propose will be nurse-led. Nursing will be the crucial professional group. London has twice as many consultants per head of the population as outside areas.

147
There is a distorted budget in London, focusing on inappropriate priorities. We wish to introduce changes to allow people to achieve exactly those objectives.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the House knows that she has an extremely difficult task? Does she know that I was under surgery only last Thursday for a leg and vein operation and, due to the brilliance of a young houseman at the Charing Cross hospital, Dr. Backhouse, who spotted a growth on my chest that has since proved to be cancerous, the professor of surgery there, Mr. Greenhalgh, has removed it all so that I have been given a clean bill of health—with much relief to the Chief Whip, I am told?
Will not Charing Cross be given the opportunity, with the use of the internal market, to see whether Riverside health authority and North Thames health authority and surrounding areas can provide the necessary psychiatric and community care in west London which would then allow this immensely successful hospital to survive?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend with us—I am probably as delighted as the Whips are—and I share his tremendous commendation of the doctors, nurses and others who work in the national health service. We in Britain can have confidence that we have a national health service available to all and, of course, we wish that to continue. However, a few people believe it is possible to provide a cost-effective service in future without addressing the problems in London. We will consider closely all the options at the Charing Cross and the region and try to plan for the future.
As my right hon. Friend rightly says, there are a number of beds for geriatric and mentally-ill patients for whom provision will have to be made. We cannot take forward our proposals by fudging every issue. We will take decisions in the interests of the national health service in London and elsewhere. I believe that all those who work in those great institutions know full well that change has to come. They wish decisions to be made and uncertainties to be brought to an end.
Ms. Diane Abbott: As one of the Members of Parliament representing Hackney, my concern throughout has been the level and quality of health care available to people living in Hackney. On behalf of those people, I must give one cheer to the announcement that stage 2 of the Homerton might be built, but I must stress how vital it is to health care in Hackney.
Will the Secretary of State say whether the £170 million being made available over six years is new money?
Finally, on redundancies, Conservative Members are quick to sneer when we talk about hospital workers, but let me remind them that thousands of hospital workers whose jobs are threatened are women, relatively low-paid workers, and often single wage earners in areas of high unemployment. Often, they are black women who came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s and who have given their lives to the British health service. Opposition Members should give a little more respect to, and be a little more concerned about, the issue of redundancies.
Mrs. Bottomley: 1 am pleased that the hon. Lady applauds the further plans for Homerton. We recognise that there is a need for further investment to serve that part
148
of London. I am referring to the extra £170 million for primary care, apart from all the other announcements which I have made today.
I well appreciate the point which the hon. Lady makes about staff. When we first published the Tomlinson report we sent a newsletter to all staff in London. I am now sending another letter to all those who work within the service. Of course, uncertainty is difficult for them: they need to know the full facts as soon as possible.
We are setting up a clearing house to ensure that, across London, we look carefully at redeployment, retraining and the way in which we can most sensitively and helpfully handle the human resource question. Each year, there is a turnover of about 20 per cent. in nurses in London. I hope that it will be possible to keep the redundancies to a minimum.
Mr. David Mellor: May I thank my right hon. Friend for what she said, and especially for acceding to the representations of a number of us that the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden should be allowed to continue their excellent work where they are? I am sure that there will be enormous relief about that.
I invite my right hon. Friend to recall that it was the London health consortium, under the last Labour Government, which first proposed that there should be a cut of 2,000 acute beds in London. Since then, the national health service has been transformed by the creation of hospitals of excellence throughout the nation. That makes this restructuring of London's health services—however painful—long overdue and necessary. I assure my right hon. Friend that she will have the support of all Conservative London Members if she proceeds as sensibly down that course as she has given evidence of doing this afternoon.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend for so eloquently and effectively putting precisely the argument: we have to go forward with these changes. I thank him for his comments about the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden. We are persuaded that, together with Chelsea and Westminster and the associated institutes, there is scope for the development of a Chelsea health sciences centre. As special health authorities come into the market, we will protect the research component, but it is important that they play their full part and look for the savings and efficiencies which all other members of the health service family are exploring.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State guarantee to the people of south-east London in general and the users of Guy's hospital in particular that, as a result of her announcement today, the time between referral to a hospital and treatment will be shorter and a bed will be available when they need it, but that the retention of health care both at Guy's and St. Thomas', as a result of her carefully worded announcement, is still an option for the trust to consider and a possibility at the end of any review period which a new trust will start in a few months' time?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly guarantee that, if not as a result of the announcement immediately, certainly the development of our plans for London's health service is intended precisely to provide better health care for London and Londoners.

149
Often there has been a predominance of specialist services at the expense of routine local services which local people need, whether from the primary health care team or, when appropriate, the hospital. The hon. Gentleman will know that only a short distance from his constituency, at King's College hospital, 40 per cent. of the patients attending there would normally go to a GP or a nurse. We must achieve a better balance within London and across the country.
On the proposals for Guy's and St. Thomas's, it really is a matter for the trust once it is established, if I agree to it, subject to consultation. Of course, I must preserve the legal niceties when the trusts go forward for their site appraisals.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the drop in waiting lists is tremendously welcome? Surely what matters to patients is not only the number of beds but the effective use to which they are put?
Mrs. Bottomley: How right my hon. Friend is. I agree with him.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I invite the Secretary of State to stop playing ducks and drakes with London and the rest of the country when boasting of good quality health care? Is she now aware that the Tomlinson report is seriously flawed in much of its analysis of the provision of beds in London and the use of accident and emergency departments because of the incidence of poverty and homelessness in London? Does she not recognise that increasingly inadequate primary care resources will probably lead to an increased demand for hospital places? Does she not think that it is necessary to halt the hospital closure programme and instead examine seriously the health needs of Londoners as a whole, including improvements in the primary and community care facilities, which receive only a small amount of money from her proposals?
Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am Secretary of State for the national health service. At present there is one hospital doctor or GP to every 500 people in London. The national average is one to every 1,100. There are twice as many consultants in London. All the figures are out of balance. In my view, the Tomlinson report, following as it did the King's Fund report, in which representatives of all political parties were involved, makes a powerful case which any responsible Secretary of State would want to see taken forward.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two questions. First, people in my constituency and throughout London are proud of the specialist hospitals in London, which are renowned not only in London but throughout Britain and the world. Is she aware of the depth of feeling about that in London? Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that 2,500 hospital beds in London would be taken away. Although I warmly welcome the £10 million to cut waiting lists, I have to battle every day to get people into hospital. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people in London will be slightly cynical about the idea that there is a quick way into hospitals in London?
Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is right when he says that there is great respect for the specialist hospitals. However, the issue is not necessarily the buildings but the skills of those who work there. I sometimes think that my job is supposed to be an arm of the Department of National Heritage. I do not see it in that way. There are strong cases for ensuring that specialist skills are part of a wider team with a wider range of skills, expertise and back-up facilities. That is the thrust of the Tomlinson report.
My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of his constituents in getting a hospital bed. That is pertinent to the lack of primary care in London and the use of accident and emergency departments where otherwise people would use a GP. It was estimated by one of the teaching hospitals that up to 15 per cent. of the beds were occupied by people who elsewhere would have been cared for in the community. Of course, we must get primary care right, but the combination of rationalisation of specialist services, contracts leaving London and the development of primary care will make such changes absolutely essential.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the difficulties of the Secretary of State when she makes decisions about London, but let me put it on record that it is not a case of the rest of the nation against London. I have had representations from constituents in Northern Ireland specifically about the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear, the Royal Marsden and St. Bartholomew's hospitals.
I should like the Secretary of State to consider another aspect. How will the students who are being trained obtain sufficient experience and hands-on treatment in the medical schools of London if we scatter the hospitals and research facilities for the nation?
Mrs. Bottomley: To start with the hon. Gentleman's final point, he is probably well aware that many of the London teaching hospitals have difficulty in putting enough cases through for the medical students to see. That is the dilemma. The rationalisation of the medical schools and the associated hospitals is given high priority by the Higher Education Funding Council. We want to see curriculum changes in undergraduate education. We need better primary care facilities in London to enable students to learn.
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is totally in line with our proposals. I understand his point about sentiment and loyalty to particular institutions. The issue is not the obliteration of units and teams; it is the appropriate location of teams in a setting where they can make a contribution, along with others with different skills and expertise. That is the way forward if we are continue to have a centre of excellence, famous not only in this country but also in the world.
Sir Anthony Grant: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her policy will be to the benefit of such hospitals as Addenbrookes—a teaching hospital—and Papworth, both of which are located in the fastest-growing area of the country and are just as excellent and important as London hospitals, which are in an area of declining population?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has the privilege of being served by two.first-rate hospitals. It will certainly be to the benefit of everyone in the country when we no longer

151
have to subsidise London to the extent to which it is being subsidised at the moment. We estimate that, this year, we are subsidising the London institutions to the tune of £50 million. Next year the figure is likely to be £100 million. As contracts are taken away, as patients wish to be treated outside London, the London hospitals will be left with very heavy, fixed overhead costs. Nobody is served when health resources are invested in buildings and an expensive infrastructure rather than in patients.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be discussing the report "Making London Better" rather than her statement? The report outlines clearly the fate of the London hospitals—death by a thousand cuts. The Secretary of State will not admit it to the House, but that is the Government's intention.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is wrong that the internal market should determine the pattern of health care in London, as well as in the rest of the country, which will suffer the same fate, as is detailed in paragraph 9 of the report? Does she agree that the Royal Brompton, the Royal Marsden, St. Bartholomew's and Charing Cross hospitals should not be left at the mercy of the market, to wither away on the vine, as is detailed in paragraph 62 of this report? Does the Secretary of State agree that special health authorities should not be exposed to the vagaries of the market and to certain destruction, as is detailed in paragraph 85 of the report?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the 20,000 health workers—nearly the same number as in the case of the miners—who will lose their jobs are not satisfied with the safeguards that she has announced to the House? Does she agree that any funding for London will be recycled money lost by London as a result of the introduction of weighted capitation? If that is not the case, where will the money come from? Will it be top-sliced from the regions? Will the Secretary of State confirm that UCH Middlesex and Great Ormond Street will remain in existence, that they will not be scaled down or eradicated? In this respect, I refer her to paragraph 66 of "Making London Better".
Does the Secretary of State accept that she has done nothing to arrest the decline of the health service in London and that her proposals on community care are pathetic in the extreme and will desperately disappoint GPs and primary health care workers in London, who can take no comfort from the pathetic provision of only £28 million a year to introduce and improve services?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady's remarks are such irresponsible, misleading gibberish that I shall not bother to respond to them. She has been engaging in distortion. She cannot have listened to any of the constructive and helpful discussion that we have had this afternoon. I suggest that she read the report rather more carefully.
I confirm that our proposals are based on four central principles—that people who live and work in London must have ready access to the full range of services that they need; that services must be of a good standard and cost-effective; that the internal health market should work in London as elsewhere; and that high-quality medical education and research must be sustained and fostered. Those are the principles of this report, and they are the principles that we shall see executed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that there is a time problem, but several London Members, including myself, are confronted with the closure of Queen Charlotte's hospital and with the proposed closure of Charing Cross hospital, which would have a dramatic effect on my constituency. We have not had a chance to raise these matters. May I ask for an urgent debate? As the Secretary of State herself said several times, this is not just a London issue but a national issue. The debate that I seek should take place in Government time and should be arranged soon.
Madam Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the fact that I have been unable to call more Members. I went carefully through the list of hon. Members in whose constituencies there are hospitals that are affected, and I attempted to call them. I also attempted to call Members for constituencies throughout other regions, as this is, of course, a national issue. The number of Members that I was able to call was limited by reason of long questions and, I may say, long answers. The House shares my disappointment at my having been unable to call more Members.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question that I put to the Secretary of State referred to the Royal Free hospital medical school. Much to my surprise, it seems that the Secretary of State does not realise that there is a Royal Free hospital and a Royal Free hospital medical school. She chose to centre her reply on the Royal Free hospital. She implied that I had been critical of the service provided by that hospital. In doing so, she insulted not me but the medical and nursing staff—
Madam Speaker: Order. I heard the exchange to which the hon. Lady refers. She must know that it is a matter for argument, and not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand your difficulties with regard to the business of the House, as that is, unfortunately, the responsibility of the Government. The problem is that Londonders have no means of expressing a view before the Secretary of State starts radically altering and closing hospitals throughout London. There will be no consultation. No health authority covers London. There are no elections to the bodies concerned.
I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to use your best endeavours to ensure that there is an urgent debate in which all these issues can be discussed before the Secretary of State goes ahead and implements a policy that has no support from the people of London.
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, know that the business of the House is not a matter for the Speaker. I have no doubt that these issues will be raised with the Lord President of the Council during business questions.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: And the same was read a First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February 1993; and to be printed [Bill 137.]

Justice
4.47 pm
Ms. Jean Corston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales; and for related purposes.
For many years the only thing ever said in this country about our criminal justice system was that it was the best in the world. There cannot be many people who would make such a claim now. Most people could recite part of the litany of cases involving the miscarriage of justice—the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Winchester Three, the Cardiff Three, the Tottenham Three, Judith Ward, Stefan Kiszko.
The Guildford Four were set free in 1989. Since then more than 50 people have been released from prison, their convictions having been set aside or found to be unsafe or unsatisfactory. All those people were victims of miscarriage of justice.
Last November the National Association of Probation Officers and Liberty, both of which have given me advice and assistance in the preparation of this Bill, published a dossier of 163 cases in which there was some doubt about the safety of the convictions. Further, there cannot be an hon. Member who has not received letters from prisoners protesting their innocence. Many of them give rise to disquiet and unease. The House should also be aware that such prisoners pay a high price for protesting their innocence. The parole system is based on acknowledgement of guilt. Any prisoner who maintains innocence of the crime for which he or she is convicted will usually serve a longer sentence than the guilty.
In order to understand why my Bill is vital in restoring confidence to our criminal justice system it is necessary for me to describe the present procedure in cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. A convicted person appeals to the Home Secretary, who alone has the power to refer an individual case to the Court of Appeal for consideration. The case is then considered by the division of the Home Office known as C3. In reply to written questions from me, the Home Secretary confirmed that, during 1992, C3 received 790 representations alleging miscarriage of justice and that 178 were under active consideration. The average time taken to investigate a case was 41 days, although on 1 February this year, 27 cases had been outstanding for more than 12 months. During the whole of 1992, the Home Secretary referred just seven cases in respect of conviction back to the Court of Appeal. The House will also know of the diquiet arising from the Home Secretary's recent refusal to refer the case of the Bridgewater Three.
Another disquieting aspect of the present procedure is that, after the C3 investigation, the Home Office sends the papers to the relevant police force, and neither the convicted person nor his or her legal representative has a right to see the police comment or evidence. Such decisions should be independent of political control. It is not unknown for Home Secretaries to be determined not to be seen to be soft on crime, particularly when they have to face a baying Tory party conference.
Among those who have given support for an independent body are two former Conservative Home Secretaries, the present Foreign Secretary and the right
154
hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Furthermore, in his second report on the Maguire case, presented to the House on 3 December 1992, Lord Justice May said:
"new independent machinery must be set up to carry out all those investigations and inquiries which the circumstances of a given case may require. It will be necessary for this machinery to be set up by statute. It will no doubt have its own procedural rules, but subject to these it should have the power and resources to investigate any conviction which may merit such an inquiry. These will no doubt include the fullest power to call for documents and other exhibits and to be able to enforce their production."
He went on:
"if, upon the completion of the investigation, it is concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, whatever machinery is set up will no doubt enable the case and the result of the investigations to be referred to the Court of Appeal"
My Bill provides for the establishment of just such a statutory body—the criminal justice review board. The Lord Chancellor will be required to appoint 12 members to the board. They will include people with knowledge of the criminal justice system, those with knowledge and experience of the supervision or aftercare of discharged prisoners and a psychiatrist. The board will have a proper representation of women and people from ethnic minorities.
Any convicted prisoner may refer his or her case to the board, provided that they have been through the Court of Appeal procedure or there has been unreasonable delay. The board will have power to appoint a case officer to investigate any application where it considers it is justified, and the case officer will have wide powers of investigation, search and seizure. At the end of the investigation, the case officer will be required to submit a report to a panel of board members, chaired by a High Court judge.
If the board then considers that there may have been a miscarriage of justice or that the case raises an arguable point of law, it and it alone can refer the case to the Court of Appeal, where it will be treated as an appeal against conviction. The appellant will also be entitled to receive written reasons for the board's decision.
The Bill further provides that, following any criminal conviction on indictment, all the evidence should be preserved. We are too familiar with miscarriage of justice cases where it is not possible to bring proceedings against, for example, police officers who have behaved improperly, because evidence has mysteriously disappeared. For far too long, honest police officers have paid the price of suspicion and disbelief because of those who bend the rules to get a conviction.
We should also treat with caution the assertion that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has ensured that the incidence of miscarriage of justice will be rare. There is an emerging body of evidence to show that that faith is misplaced.
Some may argue that there is no need for the House to consider the matter at present, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, chaired by Lord Runciman, is currently conducting its inquiry and will report to the House in the fullness of time. There are those who may agree with the former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who said that royal commissions took minutes and wasted years. But it cannot be denied that, even with a fair wind, implementation of any recommendations could not take place before 1996 or 1997. Further, we are entitled to assume that the Runciman inquiry will come up

155
with proposals to ensure that there will be no miscarriages of justice in the future. My Bill will ensure that past mistakes are rectified; past wrongs righted.
For too long, the protestations of innocence from behind prison walls have been as silent screams. It is about time we ensured that those pleas can be properly heard, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Jean Corston, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett; Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Barbara. Roche, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Stephen Byers, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mr. John Battle and Ms. Glenda Jackson.

JUSTICE
Ms. Jean Corston accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 6

  CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRADE UNION'S REGISTER OF MEMBERS'
  NAMES AND ADDRESSES
  '. After section 24 of the 1992 Act there shall be inserted—
  "Securing confidentiality of register during ballots.

  24A.—(1) This section applies in relation to a ballot of the members of a trade union on—

  (a) an election under Chapter IV for a position to which that Chapter applies,

  (b) a political resolution under Chapter VI, and

  (c) a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer under Chapter VII.

  (2) Where this section applies in relation to a ballot the trade union shall impose the duty of confidentiality in relation to the register of members' names and addresses on the scrutineer appointed by the union for the purposes of the ballot and on any person appointed by the union as the independent person for the purposes of the ballot.

  (3) Any duty falling upon a branch under this section by reason of its being a trade union shall be treated as having been discharged to the extent to which the union of which it is a branch has discharged the duty instead.

  (4) The duty of confidentiality in relation to the register of members' names and addresses is, when imposed on a scrutineer or on an independent person, a duty—

  (a) not to disclose any name or address in the register except in permitted circumstances, and

  (b) to take all reasonable steps to secure that there is no disclosure of any such name or address by any other person except in permitted circumstances,

  (5) The circumstances in which disclosure of a member's name and address is permitted are—

  (a) where the member consents;

  (b) where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the Certification Officer or of an inspector appointed by him;

  (c) where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the scrutineer or independent person, as the case may be, under the terms of his appointment;

  (d) where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or of criminal proceedings.

  (6) Any provision of this Part which incorporates the duty of confidentiality as respects the register into the appointment of a scrutineer or an independent person has the effect of imposing that duty on the scrutineer or independent person as a duty owed by him to the trade union.

  (7) The remedy for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is by way of application under section 25 (to the Certification Officer) or section 26 (to the court).

  The making of an application to the Certification Officer does not prevent the applicant, or any other person, from making an application to the court in respect of the same matter."'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following:

  157
  Government new clause 7—Ballots for union amalgamations and transfers of engagements: notice and voting papers to be unaccompanied by influential material
  Government new clause 8—Ballots: repeal of provisions for financial assistance and use of employers' premises
  Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58, 9, 59, 10, 60 to 62 and 11.
  Mr. Forsyth: The Government clauses tabled for consideration today, with their consequential amendments, all improve the current law on trade unions and industrial relations and in particular the conduct of ballots.
  New clause 6 protects the confidentiality of trade union members when their membership details are disclosed to external organisations in the process of ensuring that ballots are properly conducted. New clause 7 ensures that trade union members will not get propaganda material with voting papers for union merger ballots. New clause 8 will, at the appropriate time, remove obsolete provisions from the statute book.
  New clause 6 responds to important points made by hon. Members in Committee on the new requirements that the Bill makes in respect of union ballots. Hon. Members were rightly anxious to protect the confidentiality of union members' names and addresses. It is important that union members have the security of knowing that the ballots held by their union are as fair and democratic as possible. The clauses in the measure that deal with union ballots, like those in previous legislation, aim to give them that confidence.
  It is therefore necessary that independent and qualified people are involved in supervising the electoral process, both as scrutineer and as the independent person responsible for storing and distributing ballot papers and counting votes. We are equally concerned, however, that the access to names and addresses which those people must therefore have does not risk compromising the privacy of any individual. I know how such information, in the wrong hands, can be used to harass or menace individuals, for example, women under threat of harassment or prison officers in Northern Ireland.
  5 pm
  Of course, such people should be confident that their privacy will be properly safeguarded. They are certainly far from unprotected at present. Those who scrutinise union elections must already satisfy criteria that aim to ensure that only responsible people will be appointed and the majority of membership registers that are computerised are, of course, subject to the protections afforded by the Data Protection Act 1984. I should also point out that a union could take it upon itself to ensure that its contract with the scrutineer included a duty of confidentiality.
  But I accept the argument that we should take steps to ensure that there is no doubt in the minds of those who have legitimate access to, or a copy of, a union's register that they must in all circumstances and at all times be conscious of their responsibilities in this area. The amendment obliges a union to place a duty of confidentiality on the scrutineer and independent person and offers union members a remedy by means of
  158
  application to the certification officer or the court if it fails to do so. The amendment adds to the existing protections that safeguard the confidentiality of individuals and makes the duty of confidentiality abundantly clear.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: When I used to stand for election at the pits in north Derbyshire, before I became a Member of Parliament, ballots were conducted along similar lines to voting in a general election. We had little booths and we got a turnout of 75 per cent. or more on many occasions. Somehow that fact seems to have been forgotten in the arguments about trade union legislation, of which the Bill is another example. I find it strange that the Government are talking about confidentiality for trade unions when only two years ago the Tory party ballot in a Committee Room for the leader of the party, a putative Prime Minister, was conducted, not confidentially, by the 1922 Committee which could see which way Tory Members were voting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very wide of the subject.
  Mr. Skinner: It wants putting on the record.
  Mr. Forsyth: I must say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is the first time I have heard such an allegation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the scope of the Bill does not include elections for the leadership of the Conservative party. One difficulty about union ballots such as the hon. Gentleman referred to was that sometimes the number of people voting exceeded the number who might have been expected to do so.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister should give an example.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Forsyth: Before the hon. Member for Bolsover gets on his high horse, he might spend a little time studying the proceedings on the Bill and he would find out that the new clause is a direct result of a request from his hon. Friends, who asked that the Bill be amended.
  Mr. Skinner: I just wanted to get in a swipe at the Tory party.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must entertain himself in his own way, but throughout the proceedings on the Bill in Committee hon. Members on both sides tried to improve the legislation to make it more workable and effective. I listened to reasoned arguments which were put to the Government. The new clause is a direct response to the persuasive arguments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).
  Mr. David Winnick: While I recognise that there were representations on this matter, is the Minister aware that in my trade union, of which I am proud to have been a member for well over 30 years, there were elections from the time the union was set up? Does not the Minister feel any inhibitions about referring to elections in trade unions when he is an active member of a political party which is known to be the least democratic of all the major political parties in western Europe? When is the Tory party going to reform itself and become democratic?
  Mr. Forsyth: The Conservative party is not in a position where the clear majority of votes are cast by the trade unions and where people turn up to cast votes on behalf of

  159
  millions of other people. I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on the conduct of political parties. The Bill is not concerned with political parties; it is concerned with trade unions. Trade unions enjoy certain privileges and immunities which political parties do not. In return for those privileges and immunities it is appropriate that there should be a proper framework of law. That is what the Bill is providing.
  Indeed, the step-by-step approach that we have taken in the reform of industrial relations has resulted in our seeing the lowest number of days lost through strike action since records began 100 years ago. Had we listened to the advice of the hon. Gentleman, none of those measures would have been brought to the statute book. The hon. Gentleman now finds himself a member of a political party which tells the electorate that it accepts the good sense of much of the legislation which it opposed initially.
  On new clause 7, a key principle of the Government's reform of industrial relations and trade union law since 1979 has been our willingness to keep that law under review and to come forward with further measures for reform as and when experience shows them to be needed. The new clause and its associated amendment illustrate that principle in action.
  Union merger ballots are important. They affect the very future of a union and its members should have the assurance of a properly conducted, fully postal, and independently scrutinised ballot. Measures already included in the Bill will go a long way towards giving them that assurance. However, during the recent NALGO ballot on merger with other unions to form the proposed new union "UNISON", it became apparent that members needed an additional protection in the case of such ballots. We heard, from various quarters and from several individuals who had brought the matter to the attention of their Members of Parliament, that the NALGO leadership had chosen to send out campaigning material with the actual voting papers themselves. That material was clearly designed to influence voters to cast their votes in favour of the merger. It was one-sided. Given the real division of opinion within the union, it is unsurprising that some members, rightly, felt concerned that the existing law did not prevent that.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I find the Minister's example difficult to understand. In the complexities of union mergers, which will inevitably take place as part of the pattern of change in the structure of trade unions, with a continuing reduction in number over the years, members will want advice as to what is best. Is the Minister saying that he regards it as inappropriate for the elected—I stress "elected"—executive to express a point of view on the merger, or does he regard union members not really as shareholders in the union who should not get opinions from the executive?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I am not saying that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The executive should be able to express a view, but I do not think it appropriate for that view to be included with the ballot papers.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), in correspondence with me, relayed concerns expressed to
  160
  them about the matter by constituents. I am glad to be able to move the new clause, and its associated amendment, to make changes to the law which will meet those concerns.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Surely the Minister understands that the trade union leadership would come to a decision in favour of a merger for many common sense reasons. Government pressure may dictate what happens to unions. During a ballot, is not it in order for a trade union to ask its members to consider the views of the union leadership? When political parties—including the Conservative party—take decisions, I am sure that they inform their membership of the views of the executive and the leadership. The idea of a trade union leadership informing its members of its views and the reasons for an amalgamation is not too complex to accept. I am sure that the Minister understands what I am saying. The massive bulk of trade union members is likely to wish to hear the leadership's views.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The changes to be made by the new clause and the amendment will not prevent a union from communicating the views of its leadership or anyone else to members. The leadership will continue to be free to communicate such information about any issue. Nor will unions be prevented from giving members the information necessary to judge the main effects of the subject matter of a merger ballot. The law already provides that such information must be made available to voters in a union merger ballot and has done so for many years. That is secured by a notice, approved by the independent certification officer, which unions have always had to prepare in advance of a merger ballot. In future, by virtue of the provisions of schedule 7 to the Bill, that notice will have to be sent out with the merger ballot voting papers as a matter of course.
  Ms. Angela Eagle: I am intrigued at the Minister's use of the most recent example of a successful union ballot—UNISON—as when I worked for the Confederation of Health Service Employees, I was involved in the beginnings of that long and arduous process. Will the Minister confirm that he said that there have been three complaints from Members of Parliament responding to their constituents' concerns? Will he tell the House whether there have been any other complaints during that process, which has lasted three years, and, if so, how many?
  Will the Minister also confirm that by the time that UNISON comes into existence in April the union membership will be almost 1 million strong? Is he really saying that the Government are willing to legislate because of three complaints out of 1 million?
  Mr. Forsyth: A number of changes have been made to the Bill and the law because of matters that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends mentioned in Committee. The Government listened to the arguments put to them. Three Members of the House—two Conservatives and one Opposition Member—mentioned the matter to me, following complaints from their constituents. We have considered the arguments and it seems appropriate to ensure that unions considering a merger are able to put the views of the executive or the union to the membership. It

  161
  is right and proper, however, that one-sided material should not go to members when the ballot papers are sent out.
  In elections to the executive, as the hon. Lady knows, there is an opportunity for all candidates to put their views. It is important that a balanced argument should be put across, where that is appropriate.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that before the UNISON merger got near a ballot it had been discussed extensively in union conference after conference by all three unions involved? There had also been extensive branch consultation on the issue. The merger has had more discussion than many of the provisions of the Bill. By enclosing that material, the union executive was doing no more than articulating the views of the membership, which had been expressed all the way through.
  Is not it a fact that the Minister does not like the result of that merger ballot? If he does not object to campaign material being circulated, is not the amendment another attempt to make unions spend more money unnecessarily, by having to make two mailings to members when one would suffice?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use that argument. Is he arguing that there had been so much discussion in conference and elsewhere that the executive was expressing the views of the membership? In that case, what would be the point of a ballot, which is to ascertain the views of the membership? There should be proper discussion of a merger and opportunities to get the arguments across. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that it is difficult to understand why the union's view should be presented again at the final stage, when people are asked to vote in the ballot. He argued that there had already been extensive discussions and, on that basis, the membership would already be familiar with the executive's view. I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand why it is inappropriate for partisan information to be issued with ballot papers, because he is usually far more perceptive than that.
  Whether I approve of the results of the ballot in question is neither here nor there. It is not for me to take a view on whether it is good or bad. It is, however, a good thing for people to receive ballot papers without partisan views attached to them with a paper clip.
  New clause 7 provides for a new subsection, (3A), to be added to section 99 of the 1992 Act. It requires a notice about the subject matter of the ballot to be free of any statement
  "making a recommendation or expressing an opinion about the proposed amalgamation or transfer."
  That means that the independent certification officer, who polices the relevant legislation and to whom complaints about breaches of union law must be brought, will not approve any notice which, in his opinion, contains such a statement.
  Amendment No. 9 provides that only certain materials may be sent to members. They include the approved notice and the means whereby voters can return their completed voting papers.
  162
  Those changes to the Bill are modest but practical and have been prompted by consideration of events which occurred after its publication.
  New clause 8 and its consequential amendment repeal sections 115 and 116 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  In December, we announced our intention to phase out public subsidy for trade union ballots. The reasoning behind that decision was made clear—with the aim of ballot funding achieved and now that postal balloting on major issues affecting union members is widespread and well accepted, the scheme does not merit continued public subsidy.
  Ms. Eagle: The Minister is smiling.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady smiles at me, I am always inclined to smile back. If she wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way.
  We decided to phase out the scheme over three years and to announce the decision at the earliest opportunity to give trade unions maximum notice and the opportunity to make alternative plans.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister share with the House how much money has been used during each of the past few years and what consultations took place with the party or the trade unions before the Government made the announcement?
  Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend will be aware from his experience in Government, there was considerable consultation with members of the Conservative party who were also members of the Government before the announcement was made. The announcement followed the review of public expenditure commitments in the Department. All Government Departments took part in the review as part of the public expenditure survey.
  On my hon. Friend's question about the amount spent, if he consults Hansard he will find several written answers, which confirm that the figure was about £4 million during the past two years. I think that it was £4.2 million in 1992.
  Once the trade union ballot funding scheme ceases to exist in 1996, the power to establish the scheme will be obsolete. Therefore, we have decided to take the opportunity afforded by the Bill to repeal that redundant power. As the new clause makes clear, the power will remain in force until the phasing-out arrangements are concluded at the end of March 1996.
  Mr. Graham: Does the Minister believe that now is the appropriate moment to remove a subsidy of £4.2 million from trade unions? It is a time when trade unions are under pressure from rising unemployment, threats to benefits and now the issue of postal ballots—all the result of Government initiatives. How on earth can the Government have decided that now is the appropriate time? Is not it just another example of the Government putting the boot in?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must have a cynical view of the Government if he can make such a charge and he must have a short memory. He may recall that when we introduced the scheme to provide for the funding of trade union ballots, we had difficulty persuading the trade unions to accept the money. There was strong opposition to the scheme and great criticism of the trade unions that

  163
  chose to accept the money and participate in the balloting procedure when it was voluntary. It is no longer a voluntary, but a statutory, requirement.
  I know that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) works hard on behalf of his constituents and promotes many causes involving public expenditure. If we have to decide between using public funds to subsidise ballots on strike action or using them on the many other worthy causes that the hon. Gentleman draws to the attention of the House, I am sure that he will agree that we are right to consider that the continued funding of the scheme is no longer a priority.
  Mr. Burden: In a written answer on 16 December, the Minister clarified that the TUC was informed of the Government's plans to phase out funding of ballots on the same day as the public announcement was made–10 December. On 26 November in Committee the Minister said:
  "we should not put unreasonable cost burdens on trade unions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 November 1992; c. 14]
  Does the Minister believe that the proposal would result in a cost burden on trade unions? Does he accept that there could have at least been discussions about whether it was reasonable or unreasonable? Why did not he consult the trade unions before making the announcement?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman studies my words in Committee so carefully.
  Mr. Burden: I do so all the time.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman does so all the time, as he says from a sedentary position, he will also see that I said in Committee—I cannot give the exact words—that I was keen that we should give the Committee the clear position on the future of the ballot funding scheme during our consideration of the Bill. The announcement was made in a manner that enabled the Committee to be aware of the position so that it could consider the subject.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in response to representations by Opposition Members, I said in Committee that we did not wish to add to the cost burdens on trade unions. The hon. Gentleman will note, from his careful study of my words, that I was then referring to the costs of the scrutiny of ballots, not the costs of running ballots. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that my arguments are wholly consistent.
  Mr. Winnick: The Minister has a reputation for frankness, but perhaps it is difficult for him to be too frank when presenting the measure. However, does not he realise that we know that the Government loathe and detest trade unions? They can hardly make remarks about trade unions without attacking them. Of all the Ministers, none is more Thatcherite or more dedicated to Thatcherite views than the Minister of State—I suppose that he will take that as a compliment.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliment. The second part of his comments may be true, but the first part certainly is not. While at the Department of Employment, I have tried to improve our contacts and relations with trade unions. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect the taxpayer to continue to subsidise activities arising from a decision to take
  164
  industrial action. If trade unions wish to do that, it is clearly for them to find the funds to meet their legal obligations.
  As for being Thatcherite—which I take as a great compliment from the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Winnick: I was in a generous mood.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that he was in a generous mood. On the basis of the attitude that the Labour party has adopted to our trade union reforms—to embrace most of them and refuse to repeal the legislation now in place—the hon. Gentleman must find himself wearing the same mantle as me. I hope that he does so with the same conviction and enthusiasm as he attributes to me.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister never told us in Commit tee that the Government were withdrawing about £4·2 million from the balloting procedure and replacing it by funding scrutineers. Is the Minister now saying that the Government are considering funding scrutineers for ballots for trade unions?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am saying no such thing. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were ensconced in Committee, one issue raised by, I think, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Speller) was that the cost of employing scrutineers where the number of people involved in the ballot was small would create difficulties. A request was made as to whether we would consider a concession to reduce the burden of costs on trade unions. I gave an undertaking, which has been honoured, to look at that matter with a view to giving assistance. That undertaking was what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was quoting earlier—I suspect in an attempt to trap me with my own words.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am in danger of filibustering my own new clause.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am loth to impede the Minister's progress, but the Opposition's problem does not arise from the Minister's frankness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier —quite the contrary. The Minister is attempting to say that the trade unions' position has changed as they did not want to accept Government money when the systems were being introduced on a voluntary basis. Those systems are now being introduced on a compulsary basis, through legislation, in a deliberately over-bureaucratic way. The Government want to legislate to ensure that there are two separate postal circulations on a ballot, but, meanwhile, they have withdrawn the financial support for that process. The Government want to dictate the details of how trade unions should operate and, having done that, withdraw any subsidy. That is the problem and it shows how the Government's anti-trade unionism is creeping in.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the Government were anti-trade union and wanted to make life difficult for trade unions, they could have included in the Bill many provisions that they have not. We are not opposed to trade unions; we simply think that they enjoy great privileges and immunities arid that there should be a proper framework of law. We believe that it would be inappropriate to use taxpayers' money to support ballots that are about either internal

  165
  trade union matters or causing disruption in the workplace. We have made no attempt to remove the privileges of trade unions or to argue that they should not be able to go about their business.
  The ending of the ballot funding scheme also affects section 116 of the 1992 Act, which relates specifically to ballots that meet requirements of a "scheme under section 115". Clearly, once there is no scheme under section 115 —as will be the case once the phasing-out arrangements for the ballot funding scheme are complete—section 116 will inevitably fall. We are therefore taking this opportunity to repeal section 116 as well.
  These repeals are consequent on the decision to phase out public subsidy for trade union ballots. The Bill offers a timely opportunity to repeal soon-to-be redundant provisions and, in the interests of keeping statute up to date and as straightforward as possible, we have taken the opportunity to do so.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: When was the funding for trade union training introduced—mainly for health and safety —and what is its current level?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall be happy to answer that question at some point, but we are now discussing funds provided for ballots rather than funds provided for education and training, which are not affected. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those arrangements, which are also being phased out. I have asked the Health and Safety Commission to consider how it can improve the provision of training related to safety and we have made it clear that funds would be available for such purposes. If my hon. Friend tables a question, I shall be glad to set out the facts in a written answer.
  I commend the new clauses and amendments to the House.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome the Minister's reassurances about possible increases in funds for training in health and safety. That is a matter of increasing importance. The hon. Gentleman has been particularly mellow this afternoon. I am not sure whether that is due to the sense of relief that we all feel when the Report stage of a Bill is reached, or to the somewhat splendid lunch that we have all had today, but we shall find out as the night progresses.
  New clause 6 was tabled in response to representations that we made in Committee. It imposes a statutory obligation of confidentiality on the maintenance of trade union registers. As the Minister said, various statutory regulations under, for instance, data protection legislation would make it difficult for a register to be breached and information given elsewhere. We felt, however, that that protection was not absolute, and that a statutory obligation was required because of the seriousness of the matters involved—especially in relation to security, particularly in Northern Ireland, and to junk mail. We are grateful to the Minister for what he has done in that regard.
  New clause 7 can best be described as a piece of unnecessary legislation. Most Opposition Members would agree that it is a bit daft. I understand the Minister's view that only the ballot paper should be sent to trade union
  166
  members, so that nothing influences their judgment. However, given that the Government's aim has always been the amalgamation of trade unions and a reduction in their number—indeed, some Opposition Members favour that—it seems particularly perverse not to allow ballot papers to be accompanied by information about the rights and wrongs of a proposed merger. That is not a political issue between left and right; it is about good organisation in trade unions.
  It should be borne in mind that information is often provided along with ballot papers for elections to a number of organisations—including, probably, trade unions. Frequently, a curriculum vitae is included. Why should not information be contained in the envelope with the ballot paper? Surely that would be a useful way of conveying such information. The Minister may fear that it would be one-sided, but it would be easy to ensure that both sides were represented. The hon. Gentleman has made an unnecessary meal of the issue, basing his argument on representations from three Members of Parliament who have received an unspecified number of complaints. He has gone over the top to try to solve a problem that, in our view, does not exist. We should encourage the provision of information, so that trade union members can make better choices.
  It is, however, to new clause 8 that we are most strongly opposed. As the Minister said, it withdraws payment to trade unions for ballots. It exposes the Government's word to some contempt, suggesting that, to a certain extent, they cannot be trusted. The Minister has said that, at the time when ballot funding was introduced, there was a dispute within trade unions about whether the money should be taken. Indeed, there were many arguments on both sides at that time, but it was consistently said that the measure was temporary: it would never stand the test of time. Once the ballots were introduced, the funds would be withdrawn.
  Not at all, said the Government—and, unfortunately, chaps like me who supported the funding said the same. My judgment has been found wanting, which is one of the reasons for my anger at the withdrawal of the funds—which, at the time of their introduction, were supposed to be a continuing commitment. In its 1979 manifesto, the Conservative party—mentioning the matter for the first time—said:
  "We will … provide public funds for postal ballots".
  On Second Reading of the Employment Bill 1979, the then Secretary of State justified the measure by saying that funding would
  "remove financial obstacles to the holding of postal ballots." —[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 61.]
  The Bill, apparently, was telling trade unions:
  "You do not have to have a secret ballot for any of your decisions. It is up to you. But if you are thinking of having one, you do not have to worry about the cost, for the taxpayer will reimburse you."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 165.]
  First, secret balloting is a statutory obligation; secondly, the Government consider it an essential part of the framework for the nation's industrial recovery and regeneration—and for good industrial relations—for ballots to be held before strike action, and in a host of other circumstances. If ballots are as important as that, surely it is important for the taxpayer to finance them. The Minister has not justified the removal of funds.
  During the Report stage of the Employment Bill, the then Secretary of State said:

  167
  "the most likely means of achieving our aims, which are so widely shared, is by encouragement and the provision of funds rather than by compulsion."—[Official Report, 22 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 304.]
  All those nice words were said at the time, but, as we now realise, the commitment was only temporary. The Minister has told us that, now that the Government's aims have, in fact, been achieved by compulsion, the money will be taken away.
  Once again, the Government's reassurances cannot be trusted. The measure will impose a financial burden on the trade unions—a figure of £4·2 million has been given. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we spent many happy hours smilingly listening to his talk of burdens. He was never worried about the imposition of burdens on the trade unions, but, whenever we suggested imposing a duty on employers, he said that such a burden was unacceptable. Therefore, we oppose the new clause. It reneges on previous commitments given by the Government. Once again, the Government have applied double standards, under which individual trade unionists and their organisations are treated differently from business men.
  Mr. Graham: As my hon. Friend knows, the sum of £4·2 million was provided for this purpose. We are now talking about there being a requirement on every trade union to conduct postal ballots. Has my hon. Friend made an estimate of how much they will cost the unions?
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister might find that an interesting question to answer. I do not know the answer. However, my hon. Friend has brought me to my final point.
  The trade union legislation to which I referred increased the statutory duty imposed upon trade unions to conduct ballots. The Minister intends to impose additional statutory obligations that will involve additional expense but he also intends to take away from trade unions the money with which to conduct ballots. That is further evidence of his double standards.
  We approve of new clause 6. It meets some of the points that we made in Committee. We think that new clause 7 is daft, unnecessary and over the top. The Government: have over-reacted to what is not a problem. However, we shall not take the trouble to vote against new clause 7.
  On new clause 8, however, we believe that the Government have reneged on their previous commitments to trade unions and individual trade union members. For that reason, therefore, we shall vote against new clause 8.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I believe, as do other hon. Members, that new clause 6 is acceptable. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has just said that new clause 7 does not matter all that much. I should like, however, to say something about new clause 8.
  It would be useful if the Minister could tell the House how much money he expects trade unions to have to spend on postal ballots. There were good arguments for the trade union movement accepting the money that was made available on a voluntary basis. The arguments were long and hard. There was some ill-feeling between the brothers, if I may put it that way, at that time. It then came to be accepted. There are now good arguments for ensuring that that money should continue to be made available for all within the trade union movement.
  168
  Now, nobody is compelled to be a member of a trade union. For the Minister suddenly to turn round and say that this abolition is part of a bilateral deal with the Treasury within the public expenditure survey, one of the more private aspects of Government that does not involve Parliament, or the trade union movement, is wrong. Half the trade union members are in trade unions that are not affiliated to the Labour party. The issue affects the Trades Union Congress. The TUC is not affiliated to the Labour party.
  The trade unions and the TUC are together trying to put behind them the past apparent total assocation with the Labour party and to establish in the minds of their members and in the mind of Government that they—especially those that are affiliated to the Labour party—can do a better job by not constantly backing losers, as they have done in four general elections in a row.
  They have become more open to dialogue and debate, with the result that some of the Government's ideas may be acceptable to the trade union movement, after discussion. Furthermore, many of the ideas of the trade union movement have been accepted by the Government, as we shall find when we consider amendment No. 54, which provides that health and safety representatives should not be sacked for drawing attention to potential dangers to health or safety in the workplace. The Government rejected that concept at one time, but a year ago they accepted it and it is now being consolidated in legislation.
  In this case, the Government took an arbitrary decision. There was no consultation with Conservative Members who have an interest in the issue and who would have liked to take part in the debate. There were no consultations with Opposition Members, whether or not they are sponsored by trade unions. To drop it like a bombshell, especially on to those trade unions which found the provision useful, strikes me as wrong.
  What is wrong with consultation, discussion and debate? Put like that, the House should vote against the new clause. I hope that those who advise Ministers will remember that the habit, over the decades, of discussing issues in the open and having meetings with the TUC and with representatives of the trade unions, was a perfectly reasonable way of going about things. If, after consultation, the Government decide that their expenditure plans require the saving of £4 million in this way, that may be acceptable, but it is unacceptable without consultation.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman will recall that at that time there was a lot of consultation with the trade unions. They were asked to accept the money. There were an amazing number of articles in the newspapers by Tory supporters and business men, all urging the trade unions to accept the money. Everyone understood at that time that the money was to be for all time and that therefore there was no need not to have ballots—that they could be put in place and paid for. It was said then that the money would be available for all time. How can any trade union now believe that any legislation introduced by this Government is to be trusted?
  Mr. Bottomley: That takes us to a debate that I believe should have taken place before the Government announced their decision rather than now. If, as the Minister said, there will be a requirement that postal

  169
  ballots must be held, there is a case to be argued for continuing public funding. We must at least be grateful that there is to be a phasing out of the funding rather than an instant guillotine, but I repeat my point that decisions such as this should not in future be announced in this way.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Gentleman is making a particularly powerful case as a former Minister at the Department of Employment. He has a unique insight into these issues. Can he give his view of the motives behind the move? Is it to shave £4 million off a £50 billion deficit, or is it a mean, nasty attempt to cripple the trade unions financially?
  Mr. Bottomley: It will not cripple the unions financially because not all trade unions have taken advantage of it. There is a debate within the trade union movement as to whether it was right to take the money and whether it is still right to take it. That is a separate set of issues. The key point is that the Government have not been in the habit of taking arbitrary decisions without consultation. I believe that the trade unions should have been consulted. That is why I shall vote against the new clause.
  Mr. John Hutton: I shall confine my remarks to new clause 8. It is interesting to note, following the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), that the new clause was not the subject of advance consultations. That is an important point. I suspect that the reason why there was no advance consulation was that the Government were aware of what the response would be if they did consult. The response from both sides of industry would, I am sure, have been against the abolition of state funding for postal ballots.
  It is also worth pointing out that we have not heard a convincing case from the Minister this afternoon as to why state funding for postal ballots should be removed. We have not heard a convincing case because a convincing case cannot be made for it. When the scheme was introduced in 1980, the postal balloting regime introduced by the Act was voluntary. There was no compulsion to hold postal ballots. Postal ballots were the preferred method by means of which trade unions could consult their members, but they were not mandatory.
  The important point now is that almost all these ballots must be conducted by post. If we add on to the requirement that ballots should be held that they should all be postal, the Bill adds another layer of bureaucracy and requirements on to unions, for they will have to appoint professional scrutineers. The trade unions will be hit by substantial costs.
  The figures from the certification officer reveal that last year £4·2 million was spent on the postal ballot scheme, that £2·6 million was spent on the scheme in 1991 and that £1·5 million was spent on it in 1990. Therefore, we see an exponential increase in the costs that trade unions have to shoulder because of the Government's legislative policy. That financial burden on trade unions will increase in the years to come, not just because postal ballots are now mandatory, but because additional costs will be incurred, due to the requirement to appoint scrutineers. The House is entitled to take the view that this is a rather sad measure.
  170
  No convincing case has been made for withdrawing the state funding regime. The Minister has not made such a case this afternoon because no such case can be made.
  It is also worth bearing it in mind that when the regime was introduced, the then Secretary of State for Employment said:
  "it will remove financial obstacles to the holding of postal ballots."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 61.]
  That was the view of the then Secretary of State of the regime that he proposed should be established. It is logical, therefore, that the withdrawal of the scheme will increase the burdens and obstacles which, I suspect, is precisely what lies behind the new clause. It is a sad mistake. There is no case for it and it will add substantially to the financial burdens on trade unions.
  The case has often been made that trade unions are in a special position because of their ability to influence industrial policy and to cause disruption in the workplace. It is therefore argued that there is a special case for requiring unions to ballot their members in certain instances. I agree with that argument. I am and have always have been a strong supporter of balloting within the trade union movement and I support the regime for the reimbursement of the cost of postal ballots.
  Having made the balloting arrangement compulsory, why are the Government now proposing to withdraw from it? It has never been declared to be a temporary scheme. Our understanding was that it was permanent because of the special costs involved in administering postal ballots. Trade unions are voluntary organisations. Admittedly, they are in a position to have a special influence on the course of industrial policy but, as the hon. Member for Eltham said, they are voluntary associations. Therefore, there is no case for imposing a mandatory obligation to consult by means of a postal ballot on voluntary organisations and for the Government to then say that the unions must bear the cost on their own. That is grossly unfair and unreasonable.
  I am sure that hon. Members of all parties support the case for postal balloting. It is a reasonable way to consult the trade union membership, but, having imposed a mandatory obligation on voluntary associations, it is not reasonable or fair for the Government to withdraw funding just at the moment when they are substantially increasing the costs of the postal balloting scheme.
  The Minister referred to the fact that postal balloting is an accepted method of consultation and that, because the process has become accepted, now is the moment for the Government to withdraw funding. There is no logic in the Minister's argument, if that is his case. I draw his attention in particular to the Trade Union Act 1984 which made certain ballots mandatory and compulsory, especially those in connection with strikes and trade union elections. There was no choice about whether those ballots should take place in a particular way. However, the Government still applied the postal balloting funding scheme to those compulsory ballots, so there is no argument in precedent to which the Minister can turn to support his case.
  The Minister gave the game away in his opening remarks. It is clear that the reason why the Government are withdrawing from the scheme has nothing to do with the balloting practice, democracy or the question of whether the state should subsidise strike ballots, because it

  171
  was the Conservative Government who introduced the notion of subsidy for strike ballots in the first place. It is purely a matter of public expenditure.
  The Government have examined the budget and pointed out to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury £4 million that they can lose this year. They proposed to proceed quietly and without consultation and to spring the decision in the middle of the Committee stage in order to save the Department of Employment £4 million this year, probably £6 million the year after and £8 million the year after that. The cost is substantial as we are talking about many millions of pounds. It is pathetic and sad that the Government have tabled the new clause.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: As has been said, there were differences of opinion during the debates on various pieces of legislation about balloting within trade unions. I readily admit that I never was, and still am not, in favour of compulsory postal ballots, whether or not the Government agree to pay for them. We have reached a point where the deliberate interference in the internal workings of the trade union movement has become unacceptable. That has been widely recognised not only by people within the trade union movement but by the public at large.
  On a personal level, I am perhaps not as upset as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who may have accepted the argument in the first place for the introduction of postal ballots and encouraged people to take the Government subsidy. However, I believe that the Government's proposal is run through with cynicism because the Government have no intention of reducing the wholly unreasonable level of interference in trade unions, but are deliberately bringing the full impact of their legislation to bear on them.
  It is not only economic problems and the desire to cut public expenditure that is obliging the Government to do so. Vindictiveness runs through the Bill, and there is clearly a desire to punish the trade union movement. It is absolutely beyond me why the Government cannot break out of that mindset. Although it seems that one or two Conservative Members can, members of the Government Front Bench cannot.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it not be a good idea to consider asking the Government whether they will allow trade union subscriptions to have, in effect, tax relief at source? At the moment, many trade union members do not apply for it. It would save bother with the Inland Revenue, would help to raise money for the trade unions to pay for the ballot and would probably make more money than if they kept the £4 million.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I had not thought of that proposal, but I stand by the general proposition that the trade unions should be accepted as independent organisations. If the Government get involved in such legislative detail, they should be prepared to pay for it. I do not believe that they should get involved with such detail in the first place but that they should leave the trade union movement to organise itself in accordance with certain criteria.
  I have always believed that the prime aim of conducting a ballot of members was to gain the maximum participation in the decision-making process. There is clear evidence that in a wide range of decisions postal ballots do not achieve that aim. They were never intended to do so.
  172
  Well organised factory branch ballots are the way to maximise participation in trade union decisions, whether about strikes or other matters.
  Factory branch ballots are a good, efficient and cheap way for people to participate. They were made illegal by the Government who are now withdrawing the funding in order to meddle in the internal organisation of trade unions. For that reason, I deplore the new clause which is vindictive in the extreme.
  Mr. Miller: I should like to ask the Minister a simple question.
  Sections 115 and 116 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 deals with two effects. The first is the main principle that we have discussed and the second is the use of employers' premises. Section 115 describes the purposes for which the ballots are to take place. One involves strike action and the other deals with
  "the acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer in relation to the contractual terms … upon which, or the other incidents of the relationship whereby, a person works or provides services for the employer".
  Does the Minister not think that, in his haste to save £4 million or, as I see it, to make life more difficult for the trade union movement, he is putting at risk good industrial relations which could be affected by the removal of a statutory obligation, in certain circumstances, to conduct ballots in the workplace?
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are not really concerned with good industrial relations and they are certainly not concerned with any financial problems that trade unions may have? The Government forced on trade unions one type of voting. As I said earlier, the trade unions require no lectures about internal voting. Unlike the Conservative party, all unions have voting systems. The Bill aims to make it far more difficult for trade unions to operate. It is motivated by spite, as has been the case since 1979, and I hope—I am sure that my hopes are well founded—that my hon. Friend has no illusions whatever about what the Government are trying to do in eroding and undermining trade union rights, banning trade unions outright, as at Government Communications Headquarters, and in other places making it extremely difficult for working people to belong to trade unions at their place of work.
  6 pm
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is for the Minister to demonstrate that he is not so cynical towards trade unions as my hon. Friend believes. Having spent many years as a trade union official and three months in Committee, I share my hon. Friend's worries. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the conduct of good industrial relations, and bearing in mind that the new clause will damage industrial relations by damaging workplace provisions that are set out in clause 116, would it not be better to drop the daft idea to claw back a few million pounds?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate and I shall try to deal with some of the points that have arisen.
  I found myself listening to Opposition Members wanting to take me back to 1979 and I was rather puzzled by some of the comments that were made. Unfortunately, the former Member for Dunbartonshire, East, now the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg),

  173
  was not able to participate in our proceedings in Committee, although I understand that he is now back in harness in the House and I hope that he will forgive me for referring to him. What he said on 17 December 1979 as an Opposition Member is rather instructive when one compares it with some of the comments made by Opposition Members and one of my hon. Friends here today. He said:
  "I cannot understand why the Government propose that money should be spent in this way."
  He was referring to ballots—
  "The trade union movement has not asked for it, and there is no evidence that the trade union movement cannot afford to run secret ballots."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 121.]
  In addition, we have seen various reports from the TUC. In 1981 the TUC said:
  "The general council reaffirmed their policy that affiliated unions should not seek state funds under the Act to finance ballots."
  In 1982 the TUC said:
  "Affiliated unions shall observe congress policy and not seek to accept public funds for union ballots under the Employment Act 1980 ballot funds scheme."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was unkind to suggest that the Government were being precipitate. The matter is being phased out over a period to 1996. It does not require legislation to do so. The Bill does not withdraw the funding; it merely withdraws the power to provide funding. The funding would have gone in any case. That is not a legal opinion and I am confident that I shall be able to repeat it with conviction tomorrow and the day after.
  Opposition Members will find it difficult to argue the case in the House for items of expenditure which are important to them in the health service or elsewhere while at the same time arguing that the Government should continue to subsidise, for example, ballots on industrial action. That is a matter which should not be a priority charge on the taxpayer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham asked me to estimate how much trade unions will spend on such ballots. The Government hope that the expenditure will be minimal because we do not want to see ballots on strikes. We want industrial relations conducted in a way which avoids such things.
  It is perverse for the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who made so many splendid contributions in Committee, to sully his record now by suggesting that industrial relations will be helped by the taxpayer subsidising ballots to hold strikes.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that the new clause was all about a desire to punish the trade unions. I do not believe that he, in his heart of hearts, believes that. He recognises that the Government have to make choices and decide priorities and that it is difficult to justify such expenditure at present.
  Opposition Members have expressed their views cogently and I hope that they will understand why, given the current restraints on public expenditure, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate for funds to be used in this way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

  BALLOTS FOR UNION AMALGAMATION AND TRANSFERS OF ENGAGEMENTS: NOTICE AND VOTING PAPERS TO BE UNACCOMPANIED BY INFLUENTIAL MATERIAL
  `In section 99 of the 1992 Act (notice relating to proposed amalgamation or transfer), after subsection (3), there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) The notice shall not contain any statement making a recommendation or expressing an opinion about the proposed amalgamation or transfer." '—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  BALLOTS: REPEAL OF PROVISIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND USE OF EMPLOYERS' PREMISES
  '.—(1) Sections 115 and 116 of the 1992 Act (financial assistance towards expenditure on certain ballots and obligations of employers to make premises available) shall cease to have effect.

  (2) No application under regulations under section 115 (whether made before or after its repeal) shall be entertained by the Certification Officer in relation to expenditure in respect of a ballot if the date of the ballot falls after 31 March 1996 or in respect of arrangements to hold a ballot which is not proceeded with if the date of the ballot would have fallen after that date; but, for the purposes of applications made after (as well as before) the repeal in relation to expenditure not excluded by this subsection, the regulations shall continue in force notwithstanding the repeal.

  (3) In subsection (2) above, the "date of the ballot" means, in the case of a ballot in which votes may be cast on more than one day, the last of those days.

  (4) Subsection (1) above shall come into force on 1 April 1996.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 250.

  Division No. 151]

  [6.05 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Blackburn, Dr John G

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Ancram, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bates, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  175

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

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

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  176

  Pickles, Eric

  Sweeney, Walter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sykes, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Redwood, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spring, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burden, Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Coffey, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blair, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cox, Tom

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cummings, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Darling, Alistair

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  177

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Madden, Max

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Milburn, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Garrett, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morley, Elliot

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, William

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harvey, Nick

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pope, Greg

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sheerman, Barry

  Keen, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Short, Clare

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Leighton, Ron

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Soley, Clive

  Litherland, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Livingstone, Ken

  Spellar, John

  178

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Watson, Mike

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Trimble, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause 3

  REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall present annually to both Houses of Parliament a report on the pay and working conditions of employees in industries formerly covered by wages councils and in the security and private residential care industries, after having consulted the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the representatives of employers and employees in the industries concerned and such bodies concerned with low pay and equal opportunities as he shall think fit.

  (2) The first such report shall be presented within 12 months of the day on which Royal Assent to this Act is given.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 12—Protection for workers in former wages council industries—
  '—. Should the abolition of wages councils lead to wage increases in former wages council industries falling behind the pay increases recorded in the Index of Average Earnings published with the monthly unemployment figures for two successive years, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament giving details of the relevant wage rates and what action he proposes to take to secure the restoration of the value of pay settlements in former wages council industries.'.
  Mr. Dobson: The Bill proposes the abolition of wages councils, which set minimum wages for 2,700,000 of the worst paid people in Britain. They are employed mainly in the hotel, catering, retail and hairdressing industries, and about 2 million of them are women. Apparently, they have got to make sacrifices to save the British economy. The Government propose no action on City fraudsters, no action on currency speculators, and no action on property speculators, but the country is in a bad way so the lowest paid are to be paid even less than they are being paid now. It was not people serving in shops or hotels and it was not young women doing hairdressing who were selling the pound short last September or who are selling it short this week. They are the victims of Tory policies and they are being made to suffer.
  It is worth pointing out that the highest wages council hourly rate is the somewhat unprincely sum of £3.10. It is our view that the abolition of wages councils will reduce wages. The wages councils set minimum pay, and if that

  179
  minimum pay floor is taken away people will fall through. The people employed in the industries involved fear that, the Government advocate it, the supporters of the abolition of wages councils say that that is why they want it, and there is no reason to believe that anything else will happen but that people's minimum wages will fall.
  It will not be just minimum wages that fall either, because the big hotel groups have said that they do not mind paying people £2.98 an hour—which is very generous of them—but the problem is that they have to pay their supervisors so much more. So we can bet that supervisors' pay will go down when the minimum wage goes down for other people.
  As was shown by the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit's study of what happened to pay for young people in Greater Manchester, when wages council coverage of under-21s was withdrawn their relative pay went down.
  In London now, for reasons that I do not understand, chemist shops are not covered as other shops are by the retailing minimum wage set by the wages councils. That wage is about £3, but jobs for chemist shop assistants are being advertised in London at £2.50. So we can see where retailing pay is going in London.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: On the question of retail pay in London, would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the hypocrisy of top directors working in the retail industries? At Allied-Lyons, for instance, the top director's salary is £369,000; at Forte it is £249,000. That is the sort of sums these people are taking out of the retail industry. Will my hon. Friend reflect on those figures when he is talking about minimum wages, and would he like to comment on the morality and fairness of talking to the Government about introducing a maximum wage to take some of this money from those people who are taking too much out of society?
  Mr. Dobson: The rules of order which limit what we are allowed to say rather curtail the expression of my real views concerning some of the people who line their pockets by paying themselves half a million pounds a year and then write letters to the Secretary of State for Employment saying that it caused difficulties for their companies' hotels when wages went up by 4 per cent. to less than £3 an hour. Cant and hypocrisy go nowhere near describing them.
  The other problem with the abolition of wages councils is that it will be particularly damaging to women's pay. The great advantage of the wages councils from their inception was that they were unisex and awarded the same hourly rate to people working full time and people working part time. As a consequence, the gap between the average pay of men and the average pay of women is much lower in wages councils trades than it is in other trades.
  It is shocking to me that the Secretary of State for Employment, who has been given the task, so we are told, of trying to promote equal opportunities in this country, is not concerned by the likelihood of what will happen to wages in wages councils industries and the way that women are likely to suffer. This is what the Equal Opportunities Commission has to say:
  "If wages councils are abolished without alternative measures such as strengthening the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap, already wider than in most other EC countries, will increase, making it even more difficult for women to achieve economic independence and to provide for their future in old age."
  That is the Equal Opportunities Commission's view, and I am sure that it is right. I believe that the Secretary of
  180
  State, who is responsible for the Equal Opportunities Commission, should have taken a bit more notice of that and a bit less notice of the ideologues in the Tory party who have been driving this through.
  Then there are wages which prevail in other industries not covered by wages councils but which are notorious low payers. There is the well-known security industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) pointed out in Committee. He cited an advertisement in Coventry for somebody to work as a security guard at £1.80 an hour and to "provide your own dog". That is the sort of wage that these people are talking of providing.
  There are also private residential homes where a lot of very vulnerable people are supposed to be properly looked after. Following the excellent "Cutting Edge" programme on TV last night, which exposed the situation in north Lancashire with regard to underpayment, the Low Pay Unit has received approaches from many people throughout the country. It received a telephone call today from a nursing home care assistant who is being paid £1.25 an hour. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that employment Ministers are prepared to countenance such things, that social security Ministers are willing to provide finance to such places and that health Ministers are prepared to countenance people being paid such rates for providing vital care for old and vulnerable people. I do not believe that proper standards of care are likely to be provided by people who are so desperate that they have to accept a rate of £1.25 an hour.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I saw the programme and I have asked the wages inspectorate to look into the two cases which were identified. Does not the hon. Gentleman think it odd that in three months the journalist, the researcher and the production team managed to find only three cases of underpayment, one of which was resolved immediately? Does he not also think it odd that the programme makers did not ask the wages inspectorate to examine the two unresolved cases of underpayment shown in the programme?
  Mr. Dobson: I find that extraordinary. Whether or not I disagree with the Minister, I usually have some time for his intelligence, but that is one of the daftest interventions he must have made in his life. How could the young women have fitted in more underpayments except by working and discovering that the jobs were underpaid or, in one case, that she did not get paid at all unless she went loping along to the owner of the cleaning company at his grand residence in Liverpool? The Minister may recall that she had to spend quite some time going to the nursing home owner's vast ranch next to the golf course in Blackburn. When she tried to get the money that he owed her, she was told that she could not see him because he was on holiday in the Caribbean and she could see him when he got back three weeks later. So it took three weeks.
  Is the Minister suggesting that anyone should depend on the wages inspectorate to do anything to help people in those industries? Will the Minister guarantee that the employers who are underpaying will be prosecuted?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has to address the point I was making. If the programme makers were concerned about low-paid people, and if their argument

  181
  was that the existing system with the wages inspectorate should be retained in order to provide protection, does he not find it odd that none of the cases identified by the programme makers was reported to the wages inspectorate so that they could be investigated?
  As to the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I will happily say that the matter will be properly investigated, and if the wages inspectorate finds that there has been a breach of the law it will make the appropriate recommendations. However, the wages inspectorate informs me that the vast majority of employers meet their obligations and, of course, the vast majority of people are paid well above the minimum level.
  The hon. Gentleman must address my point, which he has sidelined. Why does he think that programme makers who are supposedly committed to the cause of maintaining the wages inspectorate and wages councils did not even bother to report the cases for proper investigation by the system that they are arguing to retain?
  Mr. Dobson: The programme makers were making a programme; they were not running an operation to suit the Minister and did not want to be diverted by going along to the wages inspectorate. They made an effective programme which had a great impact, and I am glad that it had.
  The Minister makes it sound as if the wages inspectorate goes around vigorously looking into things and prosecuting all the cases of wrongdoing that it finds. However, only one in 1,000 cases gets to court. Is that not the figure?
  Mr. Forsyth: Last year, a record number of cases were brought to court, far more than were ever brought under the last Labour Government. Employers are often unaware of their obligations and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the wages inspectorate operates by means of persuasion and without redress to legal measures, and when it finds clear examples of abuse it prosecutes. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the level of prosecutions, in 1991 we had a record level, considerably higher than anything under the last Labour Government. The Labour Government's record of prosecutions was considerably less than the current level, and it also abolished wages councils, so the hon. Gentleman is trying to make bricks without straw.
  Mr. Dobson: I return to the point that the wages council system is not working as well as it should. I am not its greatest supporter. I believe that the system needs to be strengthened and extended. We made that point in Committee.
  Ms. Eagle: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the wages council inspectorate's decisions for the north-west in 1991 revealed that 1,083 establishments were underpaying and that there was only one prosecution that year? Will he also comment on the fact that our legislation providing protection against unfair dismissal is now so weak and inadequate, thanks to the Government's dismantling of that protection, that many people currently in low-paid jobs are simply too frightened to report underpayment?
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was quoting the figures for the north-west when I said that there was one prosecution in 1,000 cases.
  The Minister said that the employers apparently did not know what their legal obligations were; but employers should know their legal obligations. The Minister is always ranting on about trade unions knowing their legal obligations, so if paid officials of unions are supposed to know, why not people running companies? If they do not, whose fault is it? It is the fault either of the employers or of the Department of Employment and the wages inspectorate for not getting the information through to them. They must take the blame and it is no good the Minister trying to slough it off on other people. Ignorance is no defence. That is a basic principle in English law, and I think in Scottish law as well.
  No one can live on the appalling wages that are being paid. I shall quote a very limited number of examples of low pay that the Low Pay Unit has received by telephone today as the result of last night's excellent programme. They include a hairdresser getting £2.39 an hour and being underpaid by £30 a week; a shop worker being paid £2.32 an hour and being underpaid by £31 a week; a 17-year-old working in a butcher's shop for £1.37p an hour and a 19-year-old hairdresser getting £1.50 an hour. That is the demi-paradise in which the Tories have got Britain at the moment. That is their beau ideal. That is how we will compete with the world—by paying people pathetic poverty wages which are demeaning to them and should be demeaning to any Minister of the Crown with any responsibility for it. If the Minister was not ashamed when he watched the film last night, he has lost all sense of shame.
  Most of the people who work for those wages are extremely poor and have to fall back on the taxpayer as people on low pay are sometimes entitled to benefit. If their wages are cut, they will be entitled to more benefit, so two groups of people are picking up the price of lining the pockets of Tory supporters who want the abolition of wages councils—the people who will be impoverished by low wages, and the taxpayer who will have to dip into his pocket or her handbag to make up for some of the money that has been taken away.
  Who favours abolition? Certainly some free-market freaks, some friends of the Tory party and some people who fall into both categories. There are some notorious contributors to Tory party funds who are strong supporters of the abolition of wages councils. It is a kick-back for putting money into the Tory election fund. It is at the expense of the badly off and the taxpayer.
  My hon. Friend referred to the examples of Forte, Allied-Lyons, Whitbread and Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. They paid more than £250,000 to Tory party funds in the most recent year for which the information is available. The lowest paid of the top directors in those companies took home £271,000 in a year, and they all think that £3.10 an hour threatens the future of their companies. They need some attention from some people. They have a lot of explaining to do, especially those in the hotel chains. I ask the directors in the hotel chains or the Minister to give me an explanation.
  Why are British hotels more expensive than French hotels, although the wages for French hotel workers are higher than those for British hotel workers? What is wrong? Why are we not competing with the French in hotel prices? If there is any logic in the Minister's case, we

  183
  should be providing hotel spaces at cheaper prices than the French do, but we do not. We end up charging people more because the bosses pay themselves much more and property speculators still make enormous profits out of most hotel developments. That is where much of the money is going.
  Apparently, the Tories believe that there should be no such thing as a minimum wage. They want to leave it to a bargain between the employer and the employee. When wages councils were introduced, Winston Churchill—then a Liberal but with the support of the Conservatives because there was not a vote against the introduction of wages councils—said:
  "Where…you have a powerful organisation on both sides…you have a healthy bargaining which increases the competitive power of industry and then forces a progressive standard of life. But where…you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."
  That was true then and it is true today.
  In Standing Committee, what did we get from the Minister when he was provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle)? My hon. Friend said:
  "I still await an answer to my question about how low the Conservative party thinks it is reasonable for wages to fall."
  The response from the Minister ended with the magic words:
  "The hon. Lady cannot stand the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves their terms and conditions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 January 1993; c. 605.]
  Winston Churchill talked about
  "a powerful organisation on both sides"
  and "parity of bargaining". Let the Minister consider what parity of bargaining there is in my constituency when somebody who has slept in a cardboard box all night, because the Government's policies have not found him or her anywhere to live, goes to one of the hotels owned by Grand Metropolitan or Forte—multi-million pound organisations with multi-million pound profits every year—and bargains for a job in the kitchen in London where 60 people chase every job. Is that
  "a powerful organisation on both sides"?
  Are those people who scrape out of their cardboard boxes and look for work powerful? I suggest that they are not; but the people whom they are trying to get jobs from are powerful.
  The "Cutting Edge" programme last night revealed that this does not apply simply in London. That young woman, admittedly working for a television programme, was basically forced to beg, bow and scrape to get any job at all and scarcely got enough money to pay the rent even when she did secure one. What a collection of lawbreakers we had on that programme last night.
  The Tories say that wages councils lose jobs. There is no possible justification for that statement. If the minimum rates of wages councils lead to the loss of jobs, why has the number of people working in wages council industries in the past three years increased by 90,000 while at the same time the total number of people employed in other industries has decreased by no fewer than 1,364,000? If there is any logic, sense or merit in the Minister's argument, the fall in the number of people employed in wages council industries would have been greater than the fall in other industries. But it has increased in wages council industries while it has fallen in all those industries in which there is no minimum wage.
  184
  The other argument of the Tories is that one needs to pay low pay to secure prosperity. That is typical Tory gibberish. If one looks around the world, two things go in parallel: high pay goes with prosperity and low pay goes with poverty. That has always been the case and it always will be the case. Paying poverty-level wages is no way out of Britain's problems.
  Apparently, that is the new Tory approach. The Tories have decided that we must compete with the third world and that the way to do that is to have a sort of DIY third world. We are introducing third world pay, work practices, hours and working conditions in Britain. That is shameful.
  6.45 pm
  The Labour party believes that everyone who wants a job should have one, and that when they have that job they should be able to earn their keep. They should not have to struggle in poverty or depend on benefits when they have been to work. If people have worked a full-time working week, they should be able to maintain themselves and bring up themselves and their family without being dependent on benefits or anything else from anyone. That is what all of us have wanted to do, and most of us have managed to achieve it. We are glad to do it, and we believe that it should apply to everybody else. Everyone should be able to pay his way and look after himself.
  I am not the only one who says that. This is a quotation from someone who is well favoured amongst some Conservative Members. In "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776, Adam Smith said:
  "It is but equity…that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well-fed, clothed and lodged."
  He was the great revolutionary thinker who has been sort of colonised by the right wing of the Tory party who do not read much of what he said. What he said at that time was true and it remains true today.
  We do not believe that wages councils should be abolished. If they are abolished, the Government should be required to carry out the proposals in our new clauses. It would provide some element of protection for those whom we believe will be exposed to the harshest economic and social winds unless we do something to offer them some protection.
  It boils down to this. On one side of the argument we have a few free-market freaks and Tory vested interests getting their pay-off for putting money into the Tory party. On the other side, we have Adam Smith, Winston Churchill, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the citizens advice bureaux and a legion of other people who have demonstrated over decades that they are interested in the welfare of ordinary people and in promoting equal opportunities for women. I know where we stand tonight. I think that the Minister stands in a shameful position.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman was proposing that the Government should be required to bring in a report on what will happen as a consequence of the abolition of the wages council system.
  I oppose the abolition of the wages council system. Occasionally, the Minister has asked me whether I appreciate, and did I not say in 1985, that the abolition of the wages council system would cost jobs. In 1985, I was willing to accept that the abolition would cost some jobs.

  185
  So does health and safety at work and the sort of formal and informal cartels which help lawyers to be paid a certain amount of money. So, for that matter, does the level of pay of Members of Parliament. If we were paid half as much, we could have twice as many Members of Parliament for the same wage bill. All those things are self-evident. The question is at what level is it worth taking away protection from the vulnerable where it is not possible for them to have any equality in negotiating their pay.
  I do not wish to exaggerate the effect of wages councils or the effect of abolishing them. However, if the wage levels set by wages council orders were wrong, it was open to the Government to propose, either in the Conservative election manifesto or subsequently, that they should have the power to reduce wages council orders by, say, 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or even 25 per cent.
  The House is justified in being suspicious about a proposal to abolish wages councils based on consultation in 1988 when we had a general election in 1992 at which the issue could have been included in the manifesto and debated between the parties. It could have been a determinant in how people decided to vote. I do not believe that it would have affected many votes because the issue is more a private one. Given the number of people who move in and out of wages council sectors and sectors equivalent to wages council sectors, the issue would not necessarily have been the most important one.
  However, the issue is important to more than 2 million people and to people in industries akin to wages council industries. We may hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about anomalies between raw meat and cooked meat shops. But in the high street most shops that are not covered directly by the retail orders pay wages equivalent to shops that are covered. We should ask whether abolition of the wages councils should have been declared policy at the last election.
  My recollection of the consultation in 1988 is that there was not a strong view that wages councils should be abolished. Employers did not make strong representations that wages councils had a significant effect on employment or profits. My hon. Friend the Minister has been known to say—I do not want to traduce him completely, although I do not mind in part—that it does not matter very much if wages fall because jobs covered by wages councils are mainly part time and done by women and, in any case, 80 per cent. are paid more than the basic minimum rate.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have said no such thing. I have pointed out that most people who are covered by wages councils live in households in which there is a second source of income. Therefore, the emotive arguments made by Opposition Members do not apply.
  Mr. Bottomley: As someone who is paid way above wages council rates but who produces a subsidiary income in a household, I take that as a friendly remark.
  If wages councils orders have a highly inhibiting effect on employment, one would expect to find that most people covered by them were on the minimum rate. But most people are not. I could go through the economics if my hon. Friend the Minister was interested, but I might bore
  186
  the House. That fact that most people are not on the minimum rate suggests that wages councils do not have a great employment effect.
  I have tabled various parliamentary questions asking the Government to estimate the employment effect of abolishing the wages councils. They have ducked those questions because the research reports do not indicate strongly one way or the other that there will be a significant employment effect. But we can guarantee that abolition of wages councils will have a significant effect on the pay of some individuals.
  I asked the Department of Employment to analyse the levels of underpayment. The Department has consistently answered that it would cost too much to obtain that information. I would have been entertained, if this was not such a serious issue, by the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow spokeman on employment. Perhaps a television programme could find only one or two people who were significantly underpaid, but the Department's wage inspectors find so many cases that it is not possible to give a full and useful answer to a Member of Parliament who asks how many cases of underpayment occur.
  My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the significant increase in the number of employers who are prosecuted. I suspect that, even at the current high level, one would not get through one's fingers and toes in arriving at the annual total. If I am wrong and there have been more than 20 cases in the past year, perhaps my hon. Friend will interrupt my speech and tell me. There may have been a significant increase from seven to 15 prosecutions—more than double the number—but that is insignificant in relation to the amount of deliberate, let alone inadvertent, underpayment which inspectors find.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am surprised that my hon. Friend of all people should share the views of Opposition Members. In cases where people are paid wages below the legal level, does he want the matter to be put right, people to be paid according to the rate set down and any back-payment to be made, or does he want an increase in the number of prosecutions? If my hon. Friend is worried about low pay, surely the way in which the inspectorate chooses to carry out its task in the interests of those who are paid below the legal rate is a matter for it.
  Mr. Bottomley: It would be inelegant for someone who previously held the post of my hon. Friend the Minister, but at a lower ministerial rank, to provide a running commentary. When my hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the increase in the number of prosecutions, I observed that he did not give the number. When I suggested that the increased number was below 20, he did not confirm it directly, but one can presume from his intervention that the figure is below 20. If my hon. Friend wants me to do so, I will say openly and aloud that I approve of the way in which wages inspectors have pay put right and required back-payment. Employers have been required to pay back-pay amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. I approve of that. However, I emphasise that the Department is fully aware of the level of underpayment, some of which is deliberate.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give some estimate—I support the idea of a report—of what has happened in the sectors for which wages councils were abolished. He helpfully reminded the House that various

  187
  wages councils were abolished by the previous Labour Government. One of them was the council for the motor trades. The trade unions, through both organisation and the influence of their negotiations, increased the levels of pay. The wages councils legislation provides that the Secretary of State can lay an order to abolish a wages council where there is an alternative effective means of determining pay. I support that.
  On the last Sunday of the 1979 election campaign I went to the Wembley rally as president of the Conservative trade unions. We demonstrated to trade union members and their families that they could cheerfully vote Conservative because the Conservative party understood the interests of working people and their families. Not many of them believe that we have changed much. Not many of them believe that we have changed since 1985, when I expressed to the House the views of the Government on the operation of wages councils. We struck out many of their complications. We proposed that they should not apply to people under the age of 21 because having the chance to start work is far more important than the level of pay at that age. The chance to start work becomes less important to people aged over 21.
  I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should invest more capital so that wages costs become less significant in the cost of production. When I was a Minister in the Department of Employment there was an investment of a quarter of a million pounds for each person employed in glassmaking. Increasingly in offices and retail more money is invested in the system of distribution. The level of pay is not that important. In hotels and other service organisations, investment in cleaning, catering or other equipment can be increased so that the level of pay becomes less important. Yet my hon. Friend the Minister pretends to the House that wages councils have a significant effect on employment.
  The challenge to the Government is, first, to explain why they did not make it plain before the last election that abolition of all the wages councils was on the agenda and, secondly, to make plain what they believe will be the employment effect of abolishing the wages council for those at present on or below the minimum rates. I do not want to hear about a statutory minimum wage for everyone. I do not advocate that. I want to hear what will be the effect of abolishing what we have now.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I, too, watched the "Cutting Edge" programme last night. It was about the experience of a young reporter who went underground and worked for low and, indeed, illegal pay. Her experience mirrored that of many of our constituents, particularly my constituents in Halifax and the Calder valley, which is well known as an area of low pay.
  The young woman's experience was identical to that of someone who wandered into one of my surgeries who earned £12 a day. A young man to whom I spoke a few weeks ago earned the same. That works out at £1.50 an hour, which is less than half the legal wage for that job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the legal wage is hardly a princely sum at £3.08 per hour. The employer of the boy who came to my surgery knew that he was breaking the law. This is something of which the Minister should take notice. His Government are supposed to be the Government of law and order, but they are very selective in their policy on prosecution. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for
  188
  Social Security to burst into Gilbert and Sullivan at party conferences, where he sings songs about prosecuting the poor and about the evil of the "something for nothing" society. It is quite wrong that people should claim benefits to which they are not entitled, but Ministers take a myopic view when they condone huge-scale law-breaking such as was depicted in the television programme to which I have just referred.
  Mr. David Hanson: My hon. Friend talks about law-breaking. Does she know that she could go into any job centre in the United Kingdom and find advertisements for jobs which, despite their being in wages council sectors, pay rates below the minima set by the councils for which the Minister has direct responsibility?
  7 pm
  Mrs. Mahon: That is a very relevant point, which the Minister should address in his reply.
  In 1991 in Yorkshire and Humberside, 34,996 establishments were registered with the wages inspectorate. A total of 1,639 workers in the region were found to be being illegally underpaid, with arrears assessed at £174,189—an average underpayment of about £106 per worker. I realise that the proportion of recovered arrears is quite high, but of the 1,777 establishments visited, 44.6 per cent. were found to be illegally underpaying. We know that the wages inspectors visit only a tiny proportion of registered work forces–5.1 per cent., I think. They tend to concentrate on the areas in which they feel that underpayment is most likely to occur.
  The Minister is very reluctant to give figures, but I can say that, nationally, 5,971 establishments were found to be illegally underpaying. There were just 15 prosecutions—fewer than the 20 to which we have heard reference. In Yorkshire and Humberside there were only seven prosecutions for illegal underpayment. That should be compared with the number of people prosecuted for claiming benefits illegally. Such a comparison shows where the Government's priorities lie.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: No. The Minister has intervened about four times. He is taking up the time of everybody else. Any point that he wants to make may be made in his reply.
  In Yorkshire and Humberside, inspectors found 934 establishments that were failing to display wages council notices, 259 that were failing to keep adequate records of wages paid and 825 that were failing to keep adequate records of hours worked. I wonder why. Is this a major reason for the Government's negotiating us out of the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty? It is obvious that they are now into law-breaking on a massive scale. Perhaps they think that British workers would have access to European law if they had the same rights as European workers. We have a set of seedy, shabby, unprincipled Ministers presiding over this situation. They know that the law is being broken, but they do not care. Often there is no protection whatsoever for the people least able to protect themselves.
  Last night's television programme showed how a reporter obtained a job in a private nursing home. The owner of the home—Mr. Majieson, a very wealthy man —employed the reporter as a laundry worker at £2.40 an hour, which is well below the legal wage. There are other implications for this floating work force. Their pay is so

  189
  low that they move on, constantly hoping for something better. Alternatively, they descend into a state of despair. The reporter was given no screening for any type of disease, despite the fact that she was working in a nursing home; she was given no instruction on health and safety; she even had to request rubber gloves, despite the fact that she was handling foul, soiled linen. On a number of occasions she was warned only after the event that she had been handling the soiled linen of a patient who had scabies.
  This is not a marginal problem. If the wages council were overseen properly, if the inspectorate were doing its job properly, and if we had a Government who cared about the law, the councils could play an important part in looking after the growing number of people who are working in the private sector of the care industry. In 1982, there were 18,200 residents in private nursing homes and 44,000 in private residential care homes. The numbers have escalated. We are not talking about a marginal problem. We now have 109,000 people working in private nursing homes and 155,000 in private residential homes. We know where these homes are. Every local authority and every health authority has powers of inspection. It would be relatively easy to check on the wages being paid to employees, but the Government make no attempt whatsoever to do so. I am sure that if they were to take such a step they would find hundreds, if not thousands, of people being paid illegal rates.
  The situation will undoubtedly get much worse when the wages councils are abolished. I am sure that there are many wealthy Mr. Majiesons who are breaking the law with impunity. The Minister must tell us why he and his colleagues preside over a Department that allows such a situation to continue.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Member will have noted that, now that the Secretary of State for Employment has joined her colleagues on the Front Bench, there are more Front-Bench Conservatives than Back-Bench Conservatives in the Chamber—and it is clear that the Back-Bencher who has just made such a fine speech was not invited by his Front Bench. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be many guilty consciences around the various fine restaurants and bars in the Palace of Westminster this evening?
  Mrs. Mahon: Indeed I do. The hon. Gentleman has made a very relevant point. Many of those hon. Members may have a vested interest and may want to stay out of the way because they themselves are private contractors who have done these things to people.
  Wages councils are relevant to the protection of 2.5 million, if not 3 million, workers. If we go back to a system in which employers can pay whatever they want, we shall have a new form of slave labour. The Minister has his roots in the 19th, if not the 18th, century. The abolition of wages councils will not result in the creation of any more jobs. Cuts in the pay of already low-paid workers will reduce their spending power at a time of recession and will increase their dependence on state benefits. If the Government, having listened to the arguments in Committee and in the Chamber, still make the case that low pay is necessary to a successful economy, how do they explain the success of the German economy as compared with that of a country like Bangladesh? I do not think that
  190
  there is much chance of our winning this vote tonight, but I hope that the Government will reply to some of the points that I have raised.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It is interesting to see such a dearth—indeed, a total absence—of Conservative Back-Benchers wishing to take part in this debate in support of their Front Bench. We may finish the debate having heard only one Conservative Back-Bench speech —that of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who spoke most eloquently against the Government's view. What an ironic situation.
  It seems to me that one searches Ministers' speeches in vain for one of the three cases that they might make for the abolition of wages councils. One looks for a moral case, an economic case or a political case, but one finds none. Indeed, in the 1909 speech of Winston Churchill to which reference has been made the moral case not against but for wages councils was made out very eloquently:
  "We believe that decent conditions make for industrial efficiency and increase, rather than decrease, competitive power."
  That remains true today. The Government have failed to produce any evidence, let alone any cogent evidence, to the effect that competitive power and industrial efficiency will be increased by the abolition of the wages councils. Although wages councils no longer apply to workers aged under 21, there is evidence that the difference between the wages of workers aged under and over 21 in the same industry increased after abolition.
  The Government seem to be claiming that 80 per cent. of people who work in wages council industries are in households in which another wage is coming in. I think that I heard the Minister express that view in one of his many interventions. What is the Minister really after? Is he after the sort of low-wage, many-job economy that those who visited central and eastern Europe before the political changes were used to seeing?
  I recall getting into a taxi in Budapest a few years ago and being told by the driver that he was a professor of philosophy in a Budapest university, but to make ends meet he needed at least one other job. It was common to find people with two or three other jobs, working every hour possible to eke out a living. The Government seem by their policies to be aiming for that sort of economy.
  A TUC survey suggested that four out of every five people involved in a wages council industry were female. Those statistics are undoubtedly right. It is ridiculous for the Government to suggest that all those women are secondary income earners. A 1990 labour force survey showed that 20.3 per cent. of wages council workers were single parents, compared with 13.8 per cent. of the general population. So it is self-evident that a single parent with no other source of income is 50 per cent. more likely to be employed in a wages council industry. The wages council for those single parents, female or male, is well worth having.
  It is inevitable that overall wages will decrease following the abolition of wages councils. The effect will be to increase poverty and that will most strikingly affect single parents. The Government do not put forward a moral case, but an immoral, even an amoral, case. Their case is tainted by an acceptance that poverty is an acceptable element of a supposedly civilised economy.
  Is there an economic case? In its defence—I emphasise "defence"—of wages councils, the Institute of Management says that any good employer who attempts

  191
  to maximise profits will automatically and sensibly set wage rates at a level at which the productivity and calibre of workers is reasonable. The institute accepts that wages councils give a valuable guide towards realistic wages levels. An efficient industry is surely one in which the workers are at least reasonably content and are prepared to work longer hours for their wages because they are worth having.
  I recall visiting Poland and talking to a privatised industry's chairman just after the political changes there. He described how difficult it was for him to find new workers for his factory, even though he had work for them. The reason was that wages had gone so low under the old communist regime that women in particular thought it was no longer worth working. Wages were set at such an impoverished level that it was not worth doing anything other than rely on the state. There is a danger of that happening if wages councils are abolished.
  One is left with the conclusion—if there is no moral or economic case for their abolition—that the Government are relying on a political case. But such a case has yet to be explained to us. As the hon. Member for Eltham pointed out in his powerful speech, if there was such a good political case to be made, that case and the evidence supporting it would have appeared in Doctor Major's casebook, the Tory election manifesto on which the Conservatives, by a squeak, won the election again last April. There was nothing to support that case in the Tory manifesto. We have before us a proposal that has not at any stage been supported by any cogent argument. I hope that the House will vote against abolition tonight.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Hanson: It was a pleasure to hear the contribution by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I had the privilege, with many of my hon. Friends here tonight, of discussing the Bill for weeks and months in Committee, during which not a Conservative Member showed an iota of concern for those who will be affected by the abolition of wages councils, the people whom we are seeking to help.
  The abolition of wages councils is a squalid part of the Bill, which we shall take pleasure in opposing in the Lobby. While we shall no doubt lose the vote, though not the argument, I trust that the Government will at least listen to the concerns that my hon. Friends and I are expressing as we debate the various clauses and amendments.
  We are debating a squalid piece of legislation. Like many of my hon. Friends, I support the establishment of a minimum wage. Indeed, many of us fought the last election on that basis. Some former Conservative Members lost their seats because they opposed the concept. We must have a base line below which people are not allowed to fall, especially in environments which my hon. Friends have described, in which unions are not in place and in which workers are isolated. In some circumstances, workers face tremendous odds in making their voices heard.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that wages councils are necessary even in some industries where trade unions are in place, such as in retailing, because of the nature of the trade? It is an irony that the Bill will make it harder for workers to organise into trade unions, which means that we are faced with a terrible Siamese twins-type Bill because it makes it harder
  192
  to achieve powerful trade unions and at the same time makes it more essential for there to be powerful trade unions, as every other form of protection is stripped from workers.
  Mr. Hanson: Having worked in the retail sector at the beginning of my career, I am well aware of the low wages, long hours and poor conditions that many in that sector must endure. I have been staggered during the debates on this issue by the way in which Conservative Members do not accept that Britain remains a low-paid, low-income society. The Bill, rather than strengthening people's rights and developing better pay and conditions, will continue to reduce the conditions and standard of living of many people.
  There are still 6 million women earning below the Council of Europe's decency threshold. We still have 12 million people on income support, with 2.5 to 2.6 million workers covered by the wages councils that the Government want to abolish. Wales, my region, has the lowest levels of pay in the United Kingdom, currently 87 per cent. of the national average. If the Government press their proposals, the 147,000 people who work in clothing manufacturing and who now earn the princely minimum wage of £102.86 per week, or the 492,000 licensed residential workers who earn £113, will undoubtedly find their wages reduced.
  There is overwhelming evidence that the abolition of wages councils will reduce wage rates in those industries, will have an impact on increasing family poverty, will force more people into state subsidy through benefit, will riot lead to net job creation and will remove much valuable legal protection. The Labour party has opposed the legislation from the beginning. In Committee we cited strongly the views of the Equal Opportunities Commission, a Government-sponsored body. We also cited the views of the Fawcett Society and the citizens advice bureaux. My citizens advice bureau in Flint lobbied me and put forward suggestions for widening the scope for wages councils to include private nursing homes and the security trade. The Trades Union Congress, the Low Pay Unit, the Institute of Management Consultants and many employers wrote to hon. Members during the Committee stage, saying that the abolition of wages councils was wrong, would not achieve the objectives sought by the Government and would hit hard those who were already suffering
  In Committee, with all that weight of evidence in front of him, what did the Minister produce? He produced one solitary letter from Forte, contributors to the Conservative party, who did not even have the courtesy to send the letter to every hon. Member serving on the Standing Committee. Like many of my hon. Friends, I received not one letter nor one piece of evidence to support the abolition of wages councils.
  The proposal has no logic. My region in Wales is the lowest-paid region in the United Kingdom. The abolition of wages councils will affect 109,500 workers in Wales; that is one in ten of the work force.
  Underpayment has already been mentioned. The reports of wages councils inspectors show that in different parts of Wales 32 per cent. to 41 per cent. of establishments were underpaying their employees. Those underpayments are being made even when it is a criminal offence and there is a check by inspectors. Unscrupulous employers, those

  193
  who were said by Winston Churchill to undercut good employers, continue to underpay when there are legal checks.
  I would welcome the Minister's comments on what will happen when wages councils inspectors have been removed, when underpayment goes underground, and when companies can get away with it because it is no longer a criminal offence. What will happen to the people who need support from the state to get a basic wage? We are not talking about vast burdens on employers but basic wages, low, poverty pay for people who need a strict mechanism to defend them from unscrupulous employers.
  In Wales, if wages fell by only 10p per week £394,500 or £20 million a year would be lost to the local economy; one in ten households would be affected.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Hanson: Absolutely; I am glad that we have at last provoked a Conservative Member to say something.
  Mr. Heald: When the hon. Gentleman says that the local economy would lose that amount of money, is not that only if no new jobs were created? Is it not the contention of the Government that new jobs would be created? Is not that a laudable and moral aim?
  Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman sat in Committee with me for many hours. If wages are reduced, no new jobs will be created. Workers will work harder for poorer pay and people who control the industries will take bigger profits. There will be no increase in jobs.
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will realise that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) expects people to work for 10p an hour. The Minister expects people to work for nothing; he said that in Committee.
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes an apt observation.
  As to the impact on the local economy in my region, my borough council, which is not Labour controlled, has written to me about its concern in regard to the loss of wages. If there is a knock-on effect, there will be greater unemployment. The people on wages councils rates do not go out and buy Alfa Romeos; they do not holiday in Barbados, nor do they buy Italian imports or fine suits of clothes. They go to the local shops to buy local food, they use local transport and they pay for things locally, boosting the local economy. If the money is taken out of the local economy, there will be a knock-on effect, particularly in areas like mine which relies highly on tourism.
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: We have heard much about spiteful policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is not the result of a spiteful Government policy, but rather the result of a philosophical policy? If a more caring Government tried to operate the capitalist system and the philosophy of capitalism that the Government purport to operate, it would have the same effect, with decimation of conditions for working people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are not capable of implementing a policy that is fair to working people?
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government want to force down the wages of those in the low-paid sector.
  The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has estimated that 25,000 jobs will be lost through the knock-on effect of spending cuts because of wage reductions. That will have a major effect on many industries.
  I want to give a constituency example in support of the new clause. Just after I was elected, the husband of a constituent came to my surgery because the constituent was too frightened to come. The husband said that, because the powers of the wages council for the hotel trade were being reduced, the workers were not being paid overtime. They were being forced to work overtime on Saturdays and Sundays; if they did not agree, they were told to go because there were plenty of others to take their jobs.
  I complained to the wages council inspector, who visited the hotel. He enforced the legislation and made the hotel chain pay the workers a decent overtime rate. The workers had a choice about doing overtime, because people who work in hotels have families too.
  If the Government do not accept the amendment and do not undertake to consider the social implications of the abolition of wages councils, and if they proceed to abolish wages councils, what redress will there be for my constituent who is not a member of a trade union and who is only an individual employee in a massive hotel chain? My constituent will have no redress. She will be a cork, bobbing on the waters of a large company, to be washed up anywhere the company chooses to send her. That is not right.
  We are are talking about basic rights. What is the objection to monitoring the working conditions and wages of lower-paid workers, and having a report back to Parliament? What is the objection to monitoring the effects of this vicious legislation? There should be no objections. That is why I hope the Minister will support the new clause.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I wish to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Way back in history, when I was in the Department of Employment, I was responsible for wages councils. I always supported the principle of wages councils, although I also supported the move to improve their operation by taking away many of their peripheral responsibilities which tended to cloud the issue. Certainly I supported them in looking after sectoral interests and low-paid people.
  I am well aware of the argument that the majority of people covered by wages councils earn more than the minimum level, but that does not justify their abolition because it is Parliament's responsibility—and I have always believed it was the responsibility of the Conservative party—to look after those who are least able to defend themselves, and not to stand back and allow those most able to defend themselves to roar away.
  We have had many battles with the various think tanks, which purported to support my party but which, in many ways, have led it from the origins and the true traditions of Toryism. The think tanks argued that social security is the level of the basic minimum wage. That statement is offensive, and I find it impossible to support it.

  195
  7.30 pm
  I am chairman of the Family Budget Unit, which is made up of academics and people with great expertise on living costs. We have done a great deal of work on what the family budget should be if a family is to have a minimum standard of living. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen the results as they have been published and many people are asking for them. Hon. Members should examine our report section by section. For example, we say that the food bill for a family of four will be £40 or £50. I often tell my wife, "Darling, this is what the Family Budget Unit says that you should be feeding our family of four on." She gives me a short, sharp reply and shows me the bill from Sainsbury's, which is almost always double or treble the amount that the unit thought necessary for a decent standard of living.
  I am constantly amazed that anyone can cope or have a reasonable standard of living on social security. I recognise that even those people on a marginally higher wage find it enormously difficult to sustain a family.
  To the Government's credit, they introduced family credit as a way to ensure state assistance for those people identified as living most in poverty—families with children. It seems odd for the Government to say that they want to support families through that scheme when, by abolishing wage councils, this Bill will increase the budget required to pay for it. In other words, we shall use Government money to subsidise low pay, especially for families, which seems a tremendous anomaly. Our thinking about the basic levels of social security and salaries required for people to live on ought to be much clearer, and we should think about protection for people who are least able to protect themselves.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that every worker who is responsible for a family deserves the dignity of being able to earn sufficient to provide for his family, irrespective of family credit?
  Mr. Lester: Yes, I do; but I also recognise that society has changed considerably. From working with friends in the United States and other parts of the world, I recognise that traditional forms of employment in which a man—nowadays with his wife's assistance—can earn a reasonable income are tending to change. The idea of working for the same firm for 40 years has long since gone. People have to get their salaries as and where they can.
  From his experience in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will know that the old basic industries no longer exist. We must look to a different pattern of employment, which forces me to conclude that a basic income system, which does not retract if people earn more money, is the only way forward. That, however, is another argument and I shall not develop it today.
  My third reason for not supporting the withdrawal of the wages councils is that I have had experience of running a company for 25 years, and I made a profit in every year except one. I recognise that there are considerable variations in the terms and conditions of employment within industry. The great value of wages councils is that they took into account the conditions for a sector 'when considering the basic wage. For instance, in some sectors employees receive tips, but in others they do not; and
  196
  housing may come with some jobs. One cannot directly compare one job with another, and the wages councils acknowledge that.
  Wages councils have been reviewed twice since they were formed and tended to include a majority of employers. I cannot conceive why, if employers were in the majority, they could not work within the wages council framework to set satisfactory minimum salaries for their industry—fair levels at which everyone could work.
  I have listened to the arguments of some Opposition Members about job creation and also to my hon. Friends. The truth is that if people depress wages to produce goods at lower prices to sell them, it is more likely to reduce jobs than to increase them, because such employers would undercut those offering decent wages and standards. That is not a job-creation formula.
  My last reason for not supporting the abolition of wages councils is political. At the next election it would give the Labour party a far stronger argument for introducing a minimum wage as the argument would be more powerful if there were no protection for people at the bottom of the scale. For the reasons that I have stated, I disagree with the arguments on the minimum wage. The wage would not take into account variations in terms of employment in different sectors of industry and would be too high for some industries, which would cause unemployment, or so low that it had no effect and was therefore not worth the legislation that it was written on. The minimum wage is an alternative to the wages councils, but I support the principle of sectoral minimum wages rather than a national minimum wage. The political reason is that the abolition of the wages councils would give the Opposition a strong case to introduce minimum wage legislation at the next election. I do not agree with such legislation but it has wide appeal. From a study of the opinion polls during the last election, one can learn how popular that suggestion was with the general public. The Bill is one way to make it even more popular at the next election.
  An ancillary argument is that people in this country, who have a sense of their own dignity, will not be pushed around or allow their wages to be reduced artificially arid wrongly if they feel that that is an injustice. They will do something about it. What can they do? They can join a relevant trade union, or possibly a sectoral trade union, which might well form. Abolition of the wages councils would be a recruiting sergeant for the trade union movement, which was established to protect people whose employment was without protection. That is another reason why those of my colleagues who do not think as highly of trade unions as I do should think twice before supporting the abolition of wages councils. The suggestion that people will sit back and accept such treatment is contrary to my experience of what people feel when they think that they are being unjustly treated.
  For all those reasons, I am glad to have been able to contribute to the debate. I signed the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. I hope that the Government will think seriously about proceeding on their course. As the clause suggests, we ought to be careful to monitor the results of the abolition of the wages councils. For the reasons that I have expressed, their abolition will not do employment or the protection of the work force any good.
  Mr. Graham: If anything has made me angry about the Government, it is their commitment to abolish wages councils. I come from Strathclyde, where the Government have inflicted a poverty that we thought unimaginable in a modern, high-technology country such as Britain. The levels of poverty would make anyone cry.
  Our people are unemployed in their thousands and our young people are desperate for work, yet the Government have come up with this solution. The Government are going to abolish the wages councils and they imagine that doing so will create jobs. To devise something like that to replace jobs is the product of a sick mind.
  Every single hon. Member makes a minimum of £31,000 a year. Yet people in this place have the audacity to suggest that wages from £2.59 to £3.10 an hour are too high—it is mind-boggling to say the least. In Committee, I told the Minister that I had a constituent who was expected to bring his family up on £1.85 an hour. At that time, the Minister agreed that some wages were so low as to be evil. Surely £3.10 an hour is evil pay in a modern society.
  After 14 years of the Government totally mismanaging the economy, with unemployment raging at 3 million and bankruptcies hitting our companies every single day, the Government come up with the grand policy of abolishing wages councils. They want to abolish the wages councils that have protected 2.5 million people. The wages councils may not have done as well as we would have liked, but the Government have ensured that they could not be more effective and they have reduced their power.
  In 1986, the Government started to reduce some of the wages councils' controls. The Minister knows very well what I am talking about; there has been a systematic and sinister move by the Government to reduce the wages councils' powers over the years. We have now reached the stage where they wish to abolish them. It is amazing that the Tory Government seem to want to ensure only that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. They never think about increasing the quality of life of the folk who live on social security benefit, but just talk about cuts, cuts, cuts.
  I wonder why no Conservative Member has tonight been prepared to defend the abolition of wages councils? I was absolutely delighted to hear the two Conservative Members speak in support of wages councils. They are quite correct; there is no way that the abolition of the wages councils and low wages will create new jobs. Anyone who tries to lower already low wages must be the most evil member of society. From 1906 to 1909 there was a sweated trades exhibition, but in those days they had the vision to create the wages councils. We should have learnt from that, but the Minister does not seem to have realised that there are many people who live on low wages and have to have their wages topped up. Those people are means-tested.
  Surely in a civilised society people should be entitled to decent wages to pay for rent, clothes, heating and food —why not? Surely all men and women deserve that dignity. Surely it is the right of every man and woman in this country who works to receive decent pay to allow them to afford to buy the necessities of life. However, the Government do not care and have come up with a measure to abolish wages councils. They have not given the House one example of the way in which that measure will create jobs.
  Earlier statements have suggested that value added tax might be imposed on food, which could mean familie
  198
  spaying £8 or £9 a week extra on food. Let us consider the position. We abolish the wages councils and some unscrupulous employers get together and lower wages. What will happen to the poor families? They will have to pay VAT and pay extra for their food. We will be going back to the bad old days that my mother and father have told me about, when parents went to work hungry and worked hard to ensure that their kids would be fed.
  This country has not been brought up to its present standard only to have it lowered so that impoverished mothers and fathers have to work in bad health and, ultimately, cannot work to feed their children. What have we come to? I wonder about the Government's logic.
  7.45 pm
  Earlier, I spoke about a young man who was getting £1 an hour and was expected to work seven days a week. When he asked for time off work to go to a wedding, his boss sacked him. That seems unbelievable, but it is true. I also told the Minister about the man who earned £1.85 an hour.
  I shall tell the House another important, true story. A security guard worked with his dog and got about L1.70 an hour. After he had done 17 hours work with his dog, his partner failed to turn up, so the man worked another 17 hours at £1.70 an hour. A complaint was made about the dog and why it did not get a rest. An animal welfare group said that it would take the case to court if the dog was not given a rest. The man had to give his dog a rest, but the man himself got no rest. We have laws for dogs, but no decent laws for men and women in this country.
  The Minister cannot honestly expect to create jobs out of the low paid. If the Government do not have the ability to ensure that this country re-establishes its manufacturing base and if they do not invest in young people, education and the quality of life of our people, they should give up. If the measure is the Government's only means of reducing unemployment—now at 3 million —the Minister should give up.
  The Government should give our people a break. Our people need the wages councils, which must be improved and developed. The Government should forget their sick suggestion and get people back to meaningful, fruitful work. They should give my constituent an opportunity to work for a decent wage. He deserves a decent, fair pay for a fair day's work. If the Government give him that, people like him will make Britain great once again.
  Mr. Salmond: I was struck by the contributions of the two Conservative Members, who were both against the Minister and the Government's attitude to the wages councils. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a graceful speech, obviously based on his experience and study of the issue. However, I was particularly struck by the remark of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who said that he thought that the measure was an example of the fact that think tanks now have an over-mighty influence on the Conservative party. He was right—think tanks have taken over the asylum and the personification of that process is sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  I studied economics at the same university as the Minister of State. I studied it for somewhat longer than he did and I have a theory that he has since been engaged in

  199
  a process of trying to devalue not only my degree, but the reputation and standing of one of Scotland's greatest moral philosophers, Adam Smith.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) expressed surprise that someone like Adam Smith should have railed against the concept of low wages. He should have expressed no such surprise: Adam Smith was opposed to low wages for the same reason as he opposed poll taxes. Both were indications of primitive, under-developed economies. That is what the Minister now stands for.
  The economic effects of the abolition of wages councils will probably be marginal, because a fairly small number of workers is involved and relatively few of those workers are now earning only wages council rates. It could be argued that there will be an employment effect, but there will certainly be an effect on income and demand which will depress employment. Much more important than the macro-economic effect of abolition is the micro-economic effect on individual workers. Low wages unquestionably lead to the demoralisation of the work force and to a lack of efficiency.
  The Minister should not find it particularly surprising that someone reduced to poverty-line wages, struggling to keep body, soul and family together on an income that does not sustain that effort, will feel less than comfortable about his working environment. Such a person may not put everything into being as efficient as possible. I suspect that the Minister greatly underrates the effect on individual companies of driving wages and conditions further down; I am sure that the leaders of such companies do. Many of the industries concerned already provide the worst wages and conditions in the economy.
  More revealing in an economic sense, however, is what the Government's attitude to wages councils betrays about their overall approach to the economy. Today's papers quote the Secretary of State for Scotland as saying, in an aside to his speech at Edinburgh university, that people in Scotland must price themselves back into jobs. The Minister probably wrote that speech: he is nodding vigorously in agreement.
  According to the Government, a low-wage economy provides the way to be competitive in the modern world. All the evidence suggests, however, that high- age, high productivity, high-efficiency economies are the most successful in the international environment. That is suggested not just by current evidence, but by historical evidence from Scotland. A hundred years ago, Scotland was the most prosperous country in the world per head of population and also paid the highest industrial wages in the world. Those wages were the result of a highly skilled, highly educated work force, relative to other countries at that time.
  Given that historical experience, and given all the current international experience suggesting that high-wage, high-skill economies provide the route to economic success, why should the Minister suddenly find an economic formula suggesting that low wages and low productivity present the magic solution to economic difficulties?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the desirability of a high-wage, high-skill economy and with his analysis of the Scottish economy 100 years ago. Perhaps he will now tell us how Scotland managed to pay high wages before wages councils existed.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister now arguing that wages councils are necessary to maintain high wages? If not, why on earth is he pursuing that line?
  Wages councils were introduced in the early years of the century to try to introduce some decency to the wage-bargaining process. The argument about wages councils is not an economic one, as the Minister would know if he had followed my speech more carefully. It concerns morality and decency and whether Members of Parliament can legislate, not to protect the poor against the strong, but to reinforce the power of the strong over the weak. It is about whether, instead of further reducing the standards for some of the most powerless and vulnerable sections of society, we should accept responsibility for enacting legislation designed to reinforce whatever power we can give such people.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland argued —with the Minister's agreement—that people should price themselves back into jobs. That typifies the Government's overall economic approach. Why cannot people educate themselves into jobs? Why can we not train them into jobs? Why can we not replicate the success of the economies that are currently most successful internationally and the success of Scotland 100 years ago?
  Let me end my speech as I began it, with a reference to Adam Smith. It is no great surprise that a moral philosopher like Adam Smith did not consider it appropriate for wages to be driven down—no surprise, that is, to anyone but the Minister, who has abused Adam Smith's theory and writing throughout his political career. The essential question for the House tonight, however, is one of decency. Are we going to pass legislation that will drive down further the wages and conditions of a group of people who may not have much effect on the macro-economy in numerical terms, but whose lives, interests and families are entitled to far more respect than the Minister is prepared to give them?
  Ms. Eagle: It is interesting to note that so far every Conservative Member has supported the new clause—which I, too, support—and opposed the Government's move to abolish wages councils. Unfortunately, we were not much enlightened in Committee: after some six hours of argument against abolition, the Minister dismissed what had been said in one and a half sentences. I hope that we shall now hear some explanation for the Minister's belief that the move is reasonable and will create employment—and, perhaps, some evidence for his view.
  I do not believe that any such evidence exists, and many of the speeches that we have heard so far have powerfully reinforced my view. I believe that the Government's decision was born out of purely ideological dogma—and they are one of the most dogmatic Governments of the century. The measure is being imposed without consultation, and with hardly any attempt to justify it by means of genuine argument about the effects of abolition.
  The proposal is an example of the Government's obsession with what I described in Committee as neo-classical 19th-century liberalism with a dash of Benthamite utilitarianism. I stand by that analysis. Let me add that that mixture of policy and philosophy is much older than Winston Churchill's observations in 1909—which were derided by some Conservative Back Benchers as old fashioned—and much more out of date.
  I pointed out in Committee that the mixture of policy and philosophy to which I have referred led to the creation

  201
  of the poor laws and the workhouse. In the neo-classical economic model, wages are driven down to whatever level the market dictates—which may be lower than people need in order to live, let alone enjoy life. There is no reason why wages cannot be driven down to zero or below. The Government continue to cling, however, to their outmoded dogma, despite all the evidence to the contrary —that their blessed belief in market forces leads to impoverishment. When the labour market is, as the Government would say, freed up, it fails to provide the work force with wages that can sustain body and soul. If wages councils are abolished, that is what will happen to the 2.7 million workers who now enjoy the protection of wages councils.
  8 pm
  Simply because of the way that the market operates, the abolition of wages councils will also lead to impoverishment slightly higher up the wages scale. If already low wages are pushed even lower, the wages of people in the more casualised sector of employment will also be pushed lower, which will take even more money and spending power out of the economy and create even more impoverishment. Clause 28 is an attempt to deregulate the labour market even further and to reduce wages costs, the spurious idea being that that, somehow, will create employment.
  The Government regard any kind of cost of employing anybody as a burden on business. That is the phrase that they have used. They talk about people being priced back into jobs but we have heard already in the debate that wages council rates are woefully inadequate now. Many examples have been quoted of the wage rates being paid in non-wages council areas. I do not intend to give other examples, although I could do so. I have examples of wage rates as low as £1.80 an hour and others that are as low as £1 an hour.
  We are being asked to agree to taxpayers having to subsidise bad employers, who pay poverty, exploitative wages to their work force, with their taxes, simply because people who are paid wages of £1 an hour can scarcely feed themselves on such wages, let alone try to feed and clothe their families. It is insulting that taxpayers should be asked to subsidise bad employers and that wages should then be ratcheted down so far that many other employers, who would prefer to pay higher wages, find that either they have to pay lower wages, because of the competitive pressures, or sack their workers.
  That is the way that the market mechanism works. It drives out the good and the responsible employers and replaces them with the bad, irresponsible and exploitative employers. It has happened many times in the last century and a half. If wages councils go, it will happen again and the ratcheting down of wages will accelerate.
  One of the Government's policy objectives has been to achieve a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. They have certainly achieved their objective during their period in office. There is massive poverty now, all of which helps to make it harder for the labour market to have any power. With unemployment standing at 3 million or 4 million—one can argue about the figure, but I say that the figure is closer to 4 million than to 3 million—there is a massive pool of people who are able to replace those who
  202
  make a fuss about being paid low wages. That immediately leads to another drag on the levels of wages that can be paid.
  In addition, there has been a deliberate strategy by the Government and their predecessors since 1979 to strip away, bit by bit, the employment protection measures that were on the statute book when the Conservatives first came to power in 1979. We have now reached the stage where employment protection under the law is at its absolute minimum. One has to work for two years before one qualifies for any kind of protection against unfair dismissal. Even the protection that one gains after two years in full-time employment and five years in part-time employment does not stretch as far as reinstatement. All this intimidates people and prevents them from managing to achieve even the few employment rights that they have under the law to adequate wage levels and adequate terms and conditions of employment.
  There has been a deliberate attempt to create a low-tech, no-skill and cheap economy. The result of the deregulation of the labour market—combined, on the macro-economic level, with the Government's incompetence, due to another of their obsessions that is not relevant to the Bill but which I mention only in passing, monetarism—is mass unemployment. That has led to the creation of a one third, two thirds society. The people who are in the bottom third cannot hope to do anything other than casualised, unprotected jobs for wages that, frankly, would have been a scandal at the turn of the century and that are a scandal today.
  We, as a legislature, have a responsibility to put a stop to that. The last thing that we should be doing today is dismantling the last vestiges of minimum wage protection for already poor and vulnerable groups.
  Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend overlooked the excuse that is given by the Treasury Bench—that most of these people are women, anyway, whose income is therefore subsidiary? Is my hon. Friend waiting with bated breath, as I am, for the Secretary of State for Employment and all her female colleagues to declare themselves as mere subsidiaries and that they are queuing up to take a cut in their salaries on the same grounds?
  Ms. Eagle: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The abolition of wages councils will affect women more than any other group of workers, because 80 per cent., or thereabouts, of wages council workers are women. The labour market is so segmented at the moment that women generally tend to find themselves in the lower echelons of job grades and, therefore, on lower pay.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said in his speech, wages councils lead to a unisex wage. The so-called gender gap—the gap between the average earnings of men and women in particular jobs—is consistently narrower in every wages council industry than it is in the non-regulated sector. As the Equal Opportunities Commission points out in its comments on the Government's attempts to abolish the wages councils, their abolition will have another effect. Apart from the effect on relative levels of poverty, when already low wages decline even further there will be a widening of the gender gap between men and women workers in the non-regulated sector.
  The abolition of the wages councils will put us in grave danger of being in breach of the equal rights directive. I

  203
  hope that the Minister will deal with that matter when he replies to the debate. It will run against the spirit of the equal pay legislation that has been on the statute book for 20 years. I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say about the Government's plans to ensure that the gender gap between women's pay and men's pay in this sector, as in all others, is narrowed rather than widened.
  The workers in the more exploitable areas tend to be women. They also tend to be members of the ethnic minorities. One in four of the ethnic minorities who are lucky enough to have a job find that they are confined to wages sector industries. We can also expect the gap between their pay and the average rate to widen if 'wages councils are abolished.
  As for the effect that abolition of the wages councils will have in my region, the north-west, in so far as we have been able to find out, 345,000 people are working in wages council industries. It is, however, a reasonable estimate and amounts to one in 10 households.
  If we assume that the abolition of wages councils leads to a 20p fall in wages—it is a very generous assumption given that some of the wage rates that I mentioned earlier are currently being paid in the north-west—and if we also assume an 18-hour week because of the part-time nature of some of the employment that we are discussing, the abolition of wages councils will lead to a withdrawal of £52 million from the economy of the north-west and £10–2 million from my own region of Merseyside. Clearly, that will have an effect on employment.
  What are the Department's estimates of the employment effect of withdrawing that spending power from not only the north-west but from the country as a whole if, as I believe will happen, wage rates go down in the aftermath of the abolition of wages councils? The new clause would require statistics to be kept not only on the level of wage rates within wages council industries and the areas that were covered by them but on other aspects. We should certainly appreciate some statistics that we can trust so that we can make a proper assessment of the economic effect of abolition. Neoclassical economic theory accurately predicts what will happen.
  Having listened to what the Government have said in their justifications—thin as they have so far been—for including abolition in the Bill, it is clear to me that they want wages to fall. Surely that is what "pricing yourself into a job" means in Tory-speak. I do not know how one can price oneself into a job at £1–80 an hour. I wonder whether we want such jobs. Should we be aiming for jobs that pay £1.80 an hour and which offer people absolutely no rights or dignity? Do we want such jobs in an advanced, highly technological society which purports to want to compete with some of the most advanced societies in the western world?
  I suspect that the result of the Government's obsession with their own little neoclassical dogmas and the demand and supply curve in the labour market, of their continuing obsession with deregulation and of their seeming indifference to the human effect of the ratcheting down of wages in the one third of the country that has been impoverished by their actions, will be to turn us from the workshop of the world, which we have now ceased to be thanks to the Government's wonderful industrial strategies, into the sweatshop of the world. For that reason, I support new clause 12 and oppose the abolition of the wages councils.
  Mr. Burden: I support the new clause because it is important that we have evidence of the impact of the abolition of wages councils. That impact will be not only on statistics but on people, some of the worst-paid employees in the country.
  In Committee there was a good deal of double-speak from the Government about why they want to abolish wages councils and what they think the impact of abolition will be. They argue that wages councils are unnecessary because 80 per cent. of employees covered by them are paid more than the legal minimum. That argument does not stand up to too close an examination, but, for the moment, let us accept it.
  How does that argument square with the other argument, uttered in the next breath by the same people, that wages councils are apparently a barrier to employment? The Government point to pay increases in wages council industries, allege that they are higher than the general level—although they are not—and imply that the level of wages in wages councils industries and services stop people being employed. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that wages councils are irrelevant and, in the same breath, say that they are a barrier to employment.
  If wages councils are abolished, there will be a cut in pay for some of the lowest-paid employees in the country. The Government will be giving vent to some of their worst and most grotesque ideological prejudices. They are throwing a bone to their right wing, saying, "Don't worry about Maastricht. When all is said and done, we can produce a Bill that will have a go at low-paid workers and the unions." That is what the Bill is all about.
  8.15 pm
  We have got used to the Government saying that inequality and poverty must be tolerated. We do not accept that, but we have got used to them saying it. We do not and will never accept that inequality and poverty must be deepened and increased, which is the basis of the Bill.
  It is time that Conservative Members showed some honesty about how low they are prepared to watch wages fall. We have yet to receive an answer to the question whether they think that £2–78 is too high a wage for a hairdresser. Is it? We have yet to receive an answer to the question whether £2.92 is too high a wage for someone working in a restaurant. We have yet to have some honesty from the Government about the responses that they have received to the proposal, about the fact that the majority of responses opposed the abolition.
  We have yet to have some honesty from the Government about what the employment effects will be and the fact that even some of their own studies offer no clear evidence of employment increasing if wages councils are abolished. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made clear, if wages councils were such a barrier to employment, how is it that employment in wages council industries and services has increased in recent years?
  We need the Government to show some honesty about the disproportionate effect that the abolition of wages councils will have on women. Eighty per cent. of employees covered by wages councils are women, and the only answer we have had from the Government is, "Don't worry about that because in the main they contribute a

  205
  second income." The Government then have the gall to get upset when we accuse them, rightly, of advancing the argument about pin money.
  The Government should be aware that there are challenges in Europe to the proposed abolition of wages councils and its relationship to the treaty of Rome. I have no doubt that, in a few weeks, we shall hear of another miraculous legal opinion which proves that it does not matter.
  In the west midlands, 270,000 employees will be affected if wages councils are abolished. As in other parts of the country, that means about one in every 10 households. If only 20p an hour were taken off the pay in wages council industries, £50 million would be lost to the west midlands alone. That is not about boosting the economy or increasing prosperity; it is about cutting pay. There is no suggestion among my constituents that it is the low-paid workers who cause unemployment. They know that it is Government policies and the recession that they have created and deepened.
  In my city of Birmingham, a 33-year-old cafe assistant works 25 hours a week at the rate of £2 an hour. Her legal entitlement is £73 but she received £50. That is an illegal underpayment. I wonder why the Government do not put the emphasis that they put on the Bill into tackling that sort of problem, because the Bill will make such underpayment legal. In Committee, Conservative Members said that they did not condone illegal underpayment, but the Bill will legalise underpayment.
  What will be the position of that cafe worker in the brave new world of voluntary bargaining? If she goes to her employer after wages councils have been abolished and exercises the free will, which Conservative Members impress on us that she has, to bargain with her employer for an increase in pay, her employer can sack her on the spot. When he does so, she will have no legal redress. A few years ago she would have had some legal redress, but, under present Government rules, because she has worked for only 10 months she has none.
  Why have the Government, who want to abolish wages councils, a ratio of wages inspectors to workers covered by wages councils of 1:40,950? Compare that with the Government's cause celebre, alleged social security fraud. Even on a–1 apologise for using the word—conservative estimate of the number of staff in social security offices who are engaged in tracking down alleged social security fraud, the ratio is 1:14,000.
  We have had a lot of flannel from the Government Benches, but I wonder who will be seen to have won the argument when the report of tonight's debate and our proceedings in Committee are read. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the Government are wrong to scrap wages councils. The Government have not even managed to summon one Conservative Member to defend them today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) said, in Committee we heard one and a half sentences from the Minister in answer to six hours of debate.
  I have no doubt about the will of the House tonight and who has won the argument, but I suspect that, irrespective of the argument, when it comes to the vote Conservative Members who have not been prepared to back up the Government's argument will troop through the Lobby in their support.
  I urge hon. Members to support the new clause and to reject what has been put forward by the Government. We
  206
  are in the era of citizens charters, but there seems to be no citizens charter for the low paid—quite the opposite. What we have here is a charter for poverty pay put forward by "Citizen Michael" and "Citizen Gillian" which we should reject.
  Mr. Hutton: This has been a significant debate for two principal reasons. First, if I am right and we lose the vote tonight, we will be marking the end of a consensus that has united both sides of the House for more than 80 years. That consensus is a matter in which the House can take pride. For that length of time, during two world wars and Governments of intense ideological commitment, both sides of the House have remained committed to the idea that it is appropriate and right for the House to set minimum rates of pay for the lowest-paid workers; those workers who do not have the benefit of collective organisation through the trade unions and who look to us in the House to guarantee them some basic decency and minimum rights in terms of their workplace.
  In Committee we heard arguments from the Government about the rationale behind their proposals, but their case was pathetically shallow and superficial. They presented no economic case for the abolition of the wages council and, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out tonight, there is no economic case for abolishing the wages councils. If we were to abolish them, the same or a declining number of people would simply work for less wages. There would be no stimulus or boost to the employment prospects of tens of thousands of people in our country who are currently out of work. The abolition of the wages councils would simply depress wages for the most vulnerable and exposed section of the work force. That is a contemptible and sad thing for even this Government to be attempting at this moment. When the recession shows no sign of ending and unemployment shows every sign of increasing, the Government's response is to abolish the wages councils, and that is contemptible.
  The consensus to which I have drawn attention is worth spelling out and looking at. It represents a philosophical approach, the guaranteeing of statutory employment rights, which is commendable. As part of my preparation for tonight's debate I made an effort to look at speeches made by the then Secretary of State, now the noble Lord Prior, when he spoke for the Government during the debate on the Loyal Address in May 1979. He made an observation which still commands much respect in the House. He said:
  "The law should always give full recognition to the inherent weakness of the individual worker vis-a-vis his employer".—[Official Report, 21 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 824.]
  That is a perfectly credible and coherent philosophical approach for hon. Members to embrace again tonight. Ultimately, we are discussing not just the issue of low wages, which is significant and should command attention, but a broader vision of the role of the House in establishing minimum employment rights. It is significant that, for example, when we consider other transactions, other contracts, there is no reluctance on the part of the Government or the Opposition to intervene in the marketplace and establish minimum terms and conditions on which parties can contract.
  I think, in particular, of the law relating to consumer protection which has dominated much Government thinking for the past 20 years. Consumerism has become an important issue and Governments of both parties legislated extensively throughout the 1970s to intervene

  207
  directly to protect consumers. That is perfectly credible because it recognises the fact that, in a normal marketplace transaction, the consumer is often in a weak position. He is unable to negotiate on a one-to-one basis with the supplier of goods and services, and Parliament, through a number of different devices, has intervened to protect consumers.
  When it comes to employment protection rights and to protecting the rights of workers, I am afraid that we see a completely different approach from the Conservative Benches. They embrace the notion of the market and express the idea that workers, uniquely, are in a position to negotiate on a one-to-one, head-to-head basis with employers from a position of equal bargaining strength. Opposition Members know that that is simply not the case; it is not a description of the real world. That was recognised in 1909 when the House first established the wages councils. Until this Bill was presented to the House, that was the position embraced by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The other significant thing about tonight's debate is that those Conservative Members who have spoken—we have heard two excellent speeches from Conservative Members tonight, both ex-Ministers in the Department of Employment—have spoken out against the Government's proposals. The Government have not been able to find one hon. Member to make the case in favour of the abolition of the wages councils. The Minister shakes his head, but I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate and I have not heard one speech from a Conservative Member in support of the Government on this matter. [Interruption.] The Government have not found one Conservative Member to speak in favour of their case.
  We have heard much waffle from Ministers during the past few weeks about the inherent logic of their decision to abolish the wages councils. For example, the Minister says that they are no longer necessary in the labour market of the 1990s. He has produced not a shred of evidence to support the case that the wages councils are not necessary. The Conservative election manifesto, upon which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were elected, significantly make no reference to the Government's ambition to abolish the wages councils.
  As we are debating a number of issues relating to the clause and the ethos of employment protection, it is worth pointing out that the oblique reference to the Government's philosophical commitment is to be found on page 20 of the manifesto which says:
  "The workers' rights we believe in are those which enhance the individual's status and opportunities."
  The abolition of wages councils will do none of those things. It will not enhance the rights of workers or their status, and it will expose them to what I can only describe as the real prospect of significant exploitation by a group of cowboy employers who are rubbing their hands at the prospect of being liberated from the constraints of the wages councils. That, for many millions of British people, will be a grim and horrifying prospect.
  It is also worth pointing out that the Government are unique in their isolation among civilised nations in their ambition to remove from British employment law any minimum employment protection in terms of low wages. It is significant that the International Labour Organisation convention No. 26 has 100 nation state signatories, but only this country signed the convention and then deratified
  208
  it. That shows that the Conservative Government are effectively isolated in the broad sweep of international opinion. No other country is going down this road.
  8.30 pm
  My hon. Friends and some Conservative hon. Members have drawn attention, rightly, to the remorseless drive to deregulate the labour market and have said that it will not produce the high-wage, prosperous economy that Conservative hon. Members, particularly the Government, pretend to have brought into existence after 14 years in power. We are a long way from that econony, from having that kind of society. I am sure that it is the view of all my hon. Friends that there is no doubt that abolishing the wages councils will accelerate the move towards a low-wage, low-prospect, poor-training, no-prospect labour market with increased exploitation and the prospect of many people working for wages which are disgracefully low.
  As I said in Committee, it is an appropriate exercise of our power to make rules and to intervene on behalf of those people who, if they are left to the sheer force of the labour market, will find themselves working for unacceptable wages which we as civilised law-makers should not countenance. That is not a healthy development for this Parliament.
  I hope that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that it is perfectly legitimate, in pursuit of a broad public policy objective, for this House to continue to express its support for wages councils in the full knowledge that if we do that tonight we shall not be adding to the burdens of employers nor adding to unemployment but doing something positive and constructive. I suspect that that is why most Conservative Members will not support us in the lobbies tonight, because they have a pathological aversion to doing anything that might improve the employment rights of British working people.
  It is important that we consider the abolition of wages councils against that background. They are an important part of the broad statutory employment framework that we have developed over many decades which has commanded until now a broad consensus of opinion on both sides.
  We can describe the Government's intentions as, at best, wishful thinking in that they hope that the abolition of wages councils will increase employment and improve prospects in the labour market. It will not do that. That is wishful thinking; it is a false hope. There is no evidence for it. It is a sad reflection of the Government's economic agenda that they present that case to the House tonight.
  At worst, it is an example of cynical exploitation, exposing workers who deserve and look to this House for protection to the prospect of exploitation by employers who show complete contempt for the laws on minimum wages and wages councils and who will clearly take the opportunity offered to them by this Bill to lower wages even further for people who are already in the poverty trap. That is disgraceful and a pathetic reflection of this Government's ambition and their agenda, of their lack of imagination, in that this is all that they can come up with. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will have the courage and conviction to do the right thing and will reject the Government's shameful proposal.
  Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central): This has been one of the most stimulating debates in which I have

  209
  participated during my years in the House. It has been particularly interesting to note the contributions from hon. Members not just in my party, which were excellent, but from the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) who not only made excellent speeches but have stayed to listen to most of the debate. I hope they will be in the Lobby with us.
  As to the rest of Conservative hon. Members who are here or who should be here—there are empty Conservative Benches—they should find no reason to oppose the two amendments that we are discussing; nor should the Minister. We say in those amendments that if the wages councils are abolished, as the arithmetic of the House tells us they will in the course of time, and if it has the impact which we say it will, then the Minister should come here and tell us what he will do about it. Is that a frightening prospect? If he tells us that there will be no serious effect from this legislation, what is he afraid of and why is he opposing the new clauses? As so many speakers have pointed out this evening, the abolition of wages councils fits somehow into the Government's economic policy and clause 28 of the Bill has to be seen as part of the Government's intention to drive down wages, to bring about a low-skill, low-wage security and a no-hope work force that cannot stop cowering out of fear of being out of a job, desperate to take anything.
  If ever there were an example of that, and the Minister seemed to dismiss it earlier, it was provided by that impressive and moving television programme last night, "Cutting Edge". The Minister demeaned it by making some rather trivial points about it. The programme gave a graphic description of the situation facing millions of low-paid workers. We saw a young woman desperately chasing round the country looking for work and we saw the way that she was treated. That seems inevitably to be the way in which such people will be treated, and even more so if abolition of the wages councils goes through. That surely will be the only result.
  We have heard many arguments this evening but it is about the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) argued, the key word is poverty. People are living in poverty, being paid poverty wages even if they can find work. This Government should be showing them the way out of poverty, and giving some hope but in fact they are doing the opposite and saying, "If you have not got a job we will give you a job at £1–50 an hour." I can give countless examples from my constituency of people, in the centre of a major city, working for less than £2 an hour. I am not just talking about security guards. People in a hopeless position will of course grab at any lifeline. Does that mean we should be driving them further into the mire? Should we be saying to them—and let us get the figures right—"We think that if you are being paid between £2.59 and £3.10 an hour it will dissuade employers from taking you on"? That is what the Government are saying. If there were any doubt about that, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), opening the debate, surely sank it decisively by showing that 90,000 new jobs had been created in wages councils areas at a time when unemployment was rising out of control.
  I understand that the Minister failed to answer a similar debate in Committee, although I was not on the
  210
  Committee. If he failed to do so, then he must answer it tonight and come up with a convincing reason, if he can find one, for saying that wages councils prevented employment being created and that they prevent employers taking on people they would be itching to take on if only they did not have to pay them £2.59 an hour.
  We have heard many arguments about abolition of the councils, but we have to consider the effect on women because it has been said that 80 per cent. of the 2,500,000 people who come within the remit of wages councils are women. It has to be stressed that most women still work in what are traditionally regarded as women's jobs, usually low-paid and often undervalued.
  We had a ministerial answer today showing that male workers' earnings are at present about £221 a week while women, mainly those working as hairdressers, are being paid only £110 a week on average while in the hotel and catering industry, which is also covered by wages councils, they are earning £126 a week. How can anyone say that that dissuades employers from taking people on? If the Government have an economic strategy to raise the country out of its present dire situation with unemployment about to go over the 3 million mark, even on the Government's own figures, how will they arrest that decline by this kind of measure? There are 4,500,000 part-time workers and 83 per cent. of that part-time work force have limited career prospects and involve the sort of women we saw on television last night. Despite the role they play in manufacturing and service industries, the Government give no credence or value to that area of work. I hope that the Minister will answer the points made about the typical role of women in society and in the work force.
  The Secretary of State does a great disservice to her gender by suggesting that women have no economic role and no contribution to make to production or to the economy of the country. Surely the time is long overdue for the value of women in the work force to be recognised and for the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to give some thought to the effect that the abolition of wages councils would have not just on women but on their families, and increasingly on those women who are, despite what the Minister has said, the breadwinners in many cases.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the situation in their own areas and I would like to say a few words about the situation in Scotland. Underpayments within Scotland in the period 1987–91 increased by 128 per cent. That is a higher figure—I take no pride in this—than in Wales or any of the English regions. In this connection, I would like the House to consider an aspect that has not been raised in this debate: the enforcement of the decisions of the wages councils and the rates that they have set for the past 80 years.
  In 1991, in Scotland, only 7.5 per cent. of employers were visited by wages council inspectors, and 28.6 per cent.—that is, about 750—were found to be underpaying. The wages council inspectors get round far too few employers because of the shortage of staff, but, of those 737 who were underpaying, only two were prosecuted for paying below the set rate. So nearly one third of the employers were found to be paying below the rate—breaking the law, it should be stated again. They should be thrown out of the party which claims to be the party of law and order. But only two were prosecuted, and the rest were let off scot free.

  211
  The Government consistently rail against what they call social security scroungers. They ought to turn their attention to the Scrooges who, apparently without any shame, return home every evening and sleep soundly, despite the fact that they are making their money out of paying people less than £2 an hour. What service do they perform for society? What assistance do they give to the development of the economy?
  The Government would have us believe that they are doing everybody a favour. There are no restrictions on the levels of wage that they are allowed to pay or on how they can treat people. They can hire and fire at will, and they regularly do, within the excessively long two-year period through which people have to qualify for what are normal, generally acceptable rights at work in other countries. Rather than doing the country a favour, they are doing only themselves a favour. The Government are aware of that, but those are their friends; they are the people in the companies that make contributions to the Conservative party. If there is any logic in this clause in the Bill, it is that the Government are repaying the debts which they contracted during the general election campaign. That may be some form of twisted logic, but it is not a justification.
  The situation is that evasion in terms of enforcement of the legislation triumphs over provision, sneer triumphs over fear—again a reference to the television programme last night—and greed triumphs over need. We in the Opposition at least are prepared to say that those in need are those to whom we will give tirst consideration, and that we will attempt to develop policies which will assist them in raising their standard of living and getting a decent job and a decent wage which will allow them and their families to live with some dignity.
  To some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) touched on an interesting statistic—the number of wages inspectors which is currently 61. We have to contrast that figure with the number of inspectors dealing with benefit fraud. About 2.5 million people are covered by wages councils, with 61 wages inspectors to enforce the law on their behalf. There are some 3 million unemployed, at least, yet 780 inspectors are involved in enforcing the law on benefits. That is hardly a balanced approach.
  We would not necessarily expect a balanced approach, but the prejudice which the Government show against the poor in society, the powerless and the helpless never ceases to amaze me, yet never seems to cause any kind of shame or embarrassment to Conservative Members. It is a situation which I and my hon. Friends will continue to expose at every opportunity. The Government cannot be serious about their attempts to regenerate the economy, for green shoots to begin to grow, if the only way that they act is to force people to earn less.
  I refer, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) did earlier in the debate, to the comments by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, speaking at Edinburgh university, about people pricing themselves into jobs. The Minister of State, who nodded vigorously when that point was made, should tell us what is meant by people pricing themselves into jobs. Why is it that the people at the bottom have to reduce their salaries to make themselves employable, yet directors of the public utilities now privatised, or in industry, can only price themselves into jobs by going as high as possible, by going into figures like telephone numbers for salaries? Perhaps the Minister,
  212
  in winding up, will tell us why there should be such a difference between the top and the bottom of the scale, and why, when push comes to shove, his efforts and his friends' efforts will always be against those at the bottom and in favour of those at the top. There is no logic to that, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and it has already run for some considerable time, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I am not in any sense exaggerating when I say that the "Cutting Edge" programme last night had a profound effect upon me. It was not just the woman herself, who was, of course, a journalist and to some extent was cushioned from the long-term effects of her experiences over the three months. I was concerned about the people that she was meeting on a daily basis. She was asking them about their wages and why they had never done anything about them, and it was quite clear that they were afraid to raise the matter. We did not learn whether the sectors in question were unionised; I suspect that almost definitely they were not. But the point is that those people are afraid to raise so much as a question with their employers about the rates of pay, the hours they work or the conditions that they have to face, because they are terrified that they will lose their jobs.
  That is the situation, because of the desperate state of our economy, and it is a situation that the Government seem to be prepared to accept and make the basis of our economic recovery. It is a scandalous and indefensible position.
  The woman in the programme slogged away at a number of pitifully paid jobs and, as if that were not bad enough, had to demean herself by going some 40 or 50 miles to her employer's house to beg for £75 that she had already earned and was entitled to. Then she had to make all kinds of desperate pleas before she got the money. What stuck in my mind at the end of the programme were two words which she used to describe her position and which she felt adequately described the position of the people with whom she had been working for the three months of the programme. She said that she felt powerless and invisible. That is with wages councils in existence, and she still felt powerless, invisible and unable to do anything about it. How much worse will the situation become when those wages councils are abolished?
  The Government may well be prepared to abandon these people, to be pleased that they are powerless and to regard them as invisible. Opposition Members are not; we will not abandon them; we will continue to defend them. If the wages councils are abolished, it will be scandalous. None the less, those people can find some solace from the fact that there are those of us who are prepared to stand up for them, argue for them and ensure that they get a decent standard of living and a job that enables them to live with dignity. That is something which the Government and the Ministers will have to live with if they proceed with this obnoxious suggestion of abolishing wages councils.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I shall be as brief as I can, having been allowed to speak on the earlier clause.
  We sat for a couple of months in the Committee discussing the issues and, at the end, were congratulated by the Chairman on having dealt with some politically controversial issues in a correct parliamentary way. The only time when that broke down was during the discussion on the abolition of wages councils, when there was a great deal of anger on our side of the Committee. I cannot quite

  213
  get the anger out of my system now at the proposal under discussion and I know that that feeling is shared by many of my hon. Friends.
  The proposal is born of a number of things. It is born out of right-wing ideology and, as has been said by one or two Conservative Members, originated from the think tanks. It is born out of the naked protection and enhancement of vested interests. The only company to have been quoted by the Minister in Committee as having made representations in favour of the abolition of wages councils is Forte. When we pushed the Secretary of State for Employment for a response as to who had made representations to her in favour of the abolition of wages councils, she mentioned hoteliers. The measure is the product of the representations of vested interests.
  As was said earlier, the measure is also the product of the instability in the Government. Against the backwoodsmen in their own ranks, they are attempting to push through some pragmatic policies on Europe and they are having to dress themselves up as right-wing ideologues to attempt to keep their coalition together and maintain some semblance of unity. They are doing that at the expense of the weakest people in society.
  There is no justification for the abolition of wages councils; we heard none whatsoever in Committee and we have yet to hear any tonight. We all wait with bated breath for the Minister to stand up and give us the first justification for the abolition of wages councils. What we have heard from him is Orwellian double-talk about the abolition of wages councils. He asked why, although the Labour Government abolished certain wages councils, Labour Members are now opposed to the abolition of wages councils. The position is now totally changed. If a wages council had become completely and absolutely obsolete, as many of them did because they no longer provided a safety net as the bargaining arrangements within a particular industry had taken the rates of pay way above any national minimum, at a time when standards of living had risen across the board and there was sustained full employment, there was obviously no need for certain wages councils to continue. They became an anachronism and a complete waste of time. We are now talking about the abolition of the remaining wages councils when the need for them has never been greater in modern times.
  Statistics on current living standards which have been released by a number of organisations prove that the gap between the richest and the poorest in Britain is wider than it has been since 1886. I suggest that the conditions prevailing in 1886 led right hon. and hon. Members at the time to the conclusion that there was a need for some safety-net legislation on wages. That was the reason for the introduction of wages councils in the first place. We are now moving back towards a position in which that legislation is necessary. The reason for its existence is the reason behind the proposals for its abolition.
  The only weakness in wages councils is the refusal effectively to enforce existing legislation and to extend it to areas where it is clearly inadequate. Some new industries are not covered by wages councils when they should be —the example that always jumps out at me is the security industry, where there are the most appalling rates of pay
  214
  —yet the Government have refused to extend wages councils legislation into those industries. Now we are faced with the total abolition of the system.
  In Committee we heard arguments from Conservative Members—although we have not heard any such arguments from them tonight—for the total application of the market. This is not a debate on the economy and we have to decide for ourselves whether the Government in this day and age and in a so-called democracy have any role to play in saying that a certain standard of living should apply to the citizens of our country—not an extravagant standard by any means, but some minimum standard that we believe it is our responsibility to protect. If we do not believe in that and if we do not believe that the Government have any responsibility in those matters, we should vote for the abolition of wages councils, but if we do, we should oppose it.
  We are talking about a blatant abuse of privilege and power at the expense of the weakest in our society. That is what the Government are attempting to push through the House tonight without any adequate defence of their proposals.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have been discussing amendments about producing reports to Parliament, but we have heard a number of speeches about the principle of the abolition of wages councils and I shall try briefly to deal with some of the arguments that have been made tonight.
  The most extraordinary statement that has been made repeatedly by a number of hon. Members was the criticism of my right hon. and hon. Friends for not having made speeches in favour of Opposition amendments. It is true that two of my hon. Friends did so, but it is for Opposition Members to make their own case for the new clause and amendments that they have tabled.
  A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the attendance on the Conservative Benches. I will not embarrass Opposition Members by pointing out the attendance on their side of the House. Those arguments do not advance their case.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall deal with some of the arguments first.
  There has also been a disgraceful suggestion, which came first from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), that the proposals to abolish wages councils had something to do with vested interests in the Conservative party.
  The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the position that the Labour party has taken on the matter. The Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils. They did so because the trade unions asked them to do so and it is the trade unions that run and fund the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about vested interests, he might reflect on the fact that the Labour party's position on wages councils has been stood on its head as the trade unions have changed their position from opposing wages councils to being in favour of them.
  What has brought about that transformation? I venture to suggest that the Labour Government abolished wages councils at the behest of the trade unions because the trade unions believed that they could organise collective bargaining on a scale which would mean that they would be able to recruit members. As their membership has

  215
  declined, they have decided that wages councils are quite good because the members of the unions can sit on the boards of wages councils and determine wages and conditions, although they are no longer able to attract the membership which gives them the authority to do the same. Let us not hear anything about vested interests in wages councils.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I should like to make a little progress. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House throughout the debate.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked, with an air of puzzlement, why British hotels were more expensive. He did not believe that wages had anything to do with the efficiency of the companies. Ninety per cent. of the representations that we received on wages councils from the business community supported their abolition.
  Employers and people affected by wages councils say that the councils are destroying jobs—not, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and others have suggested, because they are setting especially high rates of pay, but because they have set, in the hotel industry, for example, which seems to interest the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, increases that are well above the rate of inflation. In one year the increase was 9 per cent., which must be given not simply to those who are affected by the wages council orders but to other employees to maintain differentials. If we are in a period of economic difficulty—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members find it funny. At least the Government's policies are directed at removing the barriers to employment and creating opportunities for recovery. Only Opposition Members would advocate increasing wages by more than employers can afford in a recession.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way in a moment. The notion that a committee sitting in London can set wage levels that are above people's ability to pay, and that that will not result in jobs being lost, would be absurd and could be held only by people who have never had any experience of employing people. That is certainly true of most Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate.
  Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that many hoteliers, especially in the west country—I represent Tiverton in Devon—are not national or multinational companies? Often, they are proprietors of small, family-run hotels who do not have the enormous salaries which Opposition Members claim directors and owners have. We hope that those people will create job opportunities and we rely on them to do so. I have received representations from those people, not the Fortes of this world.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. She makes another important point: by setting national rates., wages councils do not take account of local conditions. They may set rates which are appropriate in London but which are inappropriate for regional areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made that point, but he could not quite bring himself to support the general thrust of our policy.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I want to deal with the points which have been made.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene at a later stage, I shall happily give way to him. If he thinks that I am frit of any intervention that he could make, I assume that his intervention will be a lot more plausible than his speech, with which I shall deal in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said that, when he was a Minister at the Department, he accepted the idea that wages councils would cost jobs. I hope that I am not misquoting him in the way in which he misquoted me.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise if I misquoted my hon. Friend. I quote him less often than he quotes me. Each time he has quoted me, he has left out any sense of proportion. I have accepted that the wages councils may have some employment effect. I put it to my hon. Friend —perhaps he can respond to this when he refers to economics—that if we accept the study which shows that a 1 per cent. change in real pay has a 1 per cent. effect on employment, why have not the Government, with their pay policy for public sector workers, rolled back their pay, as is likely to happen to people in the wages council industries?
  If a 1 per cent. change to employment in wages council industries is likely to be at the cost of an 18 per cent. change in the rate of pay for statutory wages orders, why does not the Minister say so explicitly so that we can see that he believes that a mere £1 in £5 reduction in pay may lead to a 1 per cent. increase in employment?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is barking up the wrong tree. The argument put forward by employers to the Department—it is one that has certainly persuaded me —is that, by setting increases for those workers who are within the scope of wages councils orders, which, to maintain differentials, are above the rate of inflation, the pay bill is increased by more than would otherwise be the case and jobs are lost.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham acknowledges that wages councils may cost jobs. He said that he was not prepared to accept the consequences of the abolition of wages councils. It is easy for people who have the comfort and security of employment to advocate policies that will result in jobs no longer being available to the people involved.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who is not in her place, gave the House a great lecture on the evils of law-breaking. She complained about the failure of wages councils' inspectors to enforce the law. I said that the cases outlined in the programme were not referred by the journalist to the wages council inspectorate. I referred those cases to the inspectorate as soon as I saw the programme. I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not here. It ill-behoves someone who was a leading proponent of non-payment of the poll tax to lecture the House on the virtues of obeying the law.
  Mr. George Foulkes: So the Minister supported the poll tax?
  Mr. Forsyth: Of course, as a loyal member of the Government, I supported the poll tax.

  217
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) talked about poverty and said how worried he was about the abolition of the wages councils in the context of poverty. The greatest single source of poverty is unemployment. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates a policy which would result in fewer people being in work. People in work whose income is insufficient for their needs will be given support through the benefits system in the form of family credit or other benefits. From the point of view of poverty, it is better for people to be in a low-paid job than in no job at all.
  The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) talked about the importance of wages councils in his constituency. Listening to the speeches of Opposition Members, one could be forgiven for thinking that wages councils covered the whole economy—everyone in every area. One would not imagine that we were talking about bodies which provide protection for 10 per cent. of the work force. If that protection is so essential, how do the other 90 per cent. of the work force get by without them?
  Mr. Graham: The Minister suggests that the 10 per cent. of the work force covered by wages councils is unimportant. Eastwood district council is a well-known Tory council. The Member of Parliament for that constituency is a Minister. Yet it sees the importance of maintaining the wages councils. If some Tories do not see the reason for that, why do the rest?
  Mr. Forsyth: Eastwood is a splendid council. It is right on most things. If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, it goes to show that the exception proves the rule.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester) spoke about the importance of the wages councils and said that he could not agree with the change that we were introducing. He said that he was against a minimum wage, but in favour of wages councils because they set minimum wages in different sectors of the economy. He argued that a minimum wage would not be appropriate across the economy. I agree with that.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend might reflect on the argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) put to the House. Just as one cannot set a fixed floor for wages across the economy because of the differing nature of industries, one cannot set wages across the country because it varies from one part to another in particular industries. That is the difficulty with wages councils. It is exactly the problem that he identified.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) talked about the problems of poverty in his constituency. I sympathise entirely with the difficulties that he described, but wages councils add to those difficulties. They do not make them better.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Who says?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman wished to listen to the arguments, he could have attended the debate. He was not here. He sails in and finds it possible to comment on a debate that he did not hear.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told us that 100 years ago Scotland set the highest wages in the world and had a high-productivity, high-efficiency economy. That was before wages councils existed. The hon. Gentleman should learn the lesson to which he drew
  218
  the attention of the House: that if one wants to have a high-wage economy, one must have a competitive economy. That is what we had in 19th century Scotland, as he told the House.
  Mr. Salmond: We do not argue for Victorian values; we prefer the Edwardian values of Winston Churchill. This is not an argument about the economy; wages councils are a matter of decency—a matter that the Minister has not addressed at all. Throughout the debate, the Minister has swept aside the argument that no other Conservative Member has been prepared to argue the Government's case. Can he, having been in the House of Commons for 10 years, recall another reasonably substantial debate in which all speeches, except those of Ministers, have been against the position of the Government? Can he recall one such debate?
  Mr. Forsyth: When I was at the Scottish Office, it seemed that all the debates were like that.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) made a very emotional speech, in which he said that tonight we were breaking a consensus of 80 years. He completely forgot that the consensus on wages councils was first broken by a Government of his party, when they abolished 11 councils covering 500,000 workers.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that this was all a plot by right-wing ideologues in the think tanks. Opposition Members should think very hard at a time when large employers in Britain say that wages councils are keeping and putting people out of work. The Government's first priority is to get Britain back to work. If that means removing barriers to employment such as wages councils, we shall do so.
  I urge the House to reject the new clauses and amendments.
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister has given a totally inadequate response to the points made during the debate. The Tory party has managed to put up one Member in support of the abolition of wages councils. It is totally unsatisfactory to suggest that 2·7 million of the worst-paid people in this country–2 million of them women—should be put in danger of having their wages cut to enable the Tory party to pay off its general election debts to a few rich bosses. If the Minister denies that that is what is happening, why will not he publish all the representations that have been made? Is not the reason that too many of those people are saying, "Thank you for abolishing wages councils. That is why we gave you the money before the general election"?
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 290.

  Division No. 152]

  [9.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Dianec

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Alton, David

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blair, Tony

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Battle, John

  Boyes, Roland

  219

  Bradley, Keith

  Hardy, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harvey, Nick

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

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

  Heppell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Caborn, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hume, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cryer, Bob

  Keen, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leighton, Ron

  Darling, Alistair

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McGrady, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Mallon, Seamus

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meale, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gould, Bryan

  Morley, Elliot

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  220

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spellar, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Parry, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Straw, Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Trimble, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tyler, Paul

  Radice, Giles

  Vaz, Keith

  Randall, Stuart

  Wallace, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Reid, Dr John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Watson, Mike

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  221

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Merchant, Piers

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Milligan, Stephen

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Speed, Sir Keith

  222

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trend, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Walden, George

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stephen, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whittingdale, John

  Sykes, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thomason, Roy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

  PATERNITY RIGHTS
  '.—(1) An employee whose wife or partner has given birth shall be entitled to take ten working days leave (referred to in this section as paternity leave).

  (2) Paternity leave can be taken at any time from the birth until the end of three months following the birth.

  (3) An employee on paternity leave shall be entitled to full pay.

  (4) The employee has the right to decide when to take paternity leave except that the employer must be given:

  (a) 21 days' notice of the expected week of confinement of the employee's spouse, and

  (b) reasonable notice of the time when paternity leave is taken where that is practicable.

  (5) For the purposes of this section a partner includes a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as man and wife.'.—[Ms. Quin.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, I understand that it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 11—Parental leave—

  '().—(1) Following the period of maternity leave laid down in section 19 above, each parent shall be entitled to a period of parental leave of either three months full time or six months part-time, such leave not to be taken by both parents concurrently.

  (2) The parental leave referred to in subsection (1) above must be completed before the second birthday of the child, save where a registered general medical practitioner certifies that the health of the child requires an extended permit.

  (3) The parental leave referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above shall also be available to adoptive parents.'.

  New clause 10—Maternity employment rights report—

  '(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a report to Parliament annually, to be called "The maternity employment rights report" on the effects of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

  (2) The Report shall assess the effects of the Act on:

  (a) the employment opportunities for pregnant working women

  (b) access to time off for ante-natal care (including relaxation classes and parentcraft classes)

  (c) the operation of remuneration during 14 weeks maternity leave

  (d) the number of women returning to work after the 14 weeks maternity leave

  (e) the adequacy of 14 weeks maternity leave for the health of the mother and the baby.

  (f) the operation and complexity of the scheme

  (g) the number of women successfully claiming, unfair dismissal because of pregnancy under this Act

  (h) the number of women medically suspended for health and safety reasons each year

  (3) Before publishing the Report, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be concerned.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
  Amendment No. 63, in clause 19, page 37, line 26, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'eighteen'.
  Government amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 4.
  Amendment No. 71, in page 38, line 19, at end insert—
  '(1A) An employer may apply to an industrial tribunal to set aside this provision on the ground that greater unfairness would be caused to another employee.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 43, 44, 39 to 41, 7, 8 and 42.
  Ms. Quin: New clause 5 heads a group of new clauses and amendments that deal with maternity rights for women at work, sharing family responsibilities by recognising fathers' rights to paternity and parental leave, and the need for society to support adoptive parents and to take account of their contribution to children's welfare and to that of the community.
  In Committee, the Opposition sought via amendments and new clauses to create a comprehensive system of maternity rights. We also aimed to create a system that would be easy to understand and to implement—in stark contrast to the existing confusing and complex system, which in some ways will be made more complex by the introduction of the clauses relating to maternity rights in the Bill.
  Opposition Members believe that we should seek to create an effective system of rights that would at least equal, if not surpass, best practice in Europe—something that the Opposition are determined eventually to implement for working women in our country.
  New clause 5 deals with paternity leave and stipulates that:
  "An employee whose wife or partner has given birth shall be entitled to take ten working days leave … Paternity leave can be taken at any time from the birth until the end of three months following the birth … An employee on paternity leave shall be entitled to full pay."
  The new clause also deals with the notification requirements that we envisage would be a feasible means of introducing a system of paternity leave.
  One of the reasons why we have tabled the new clause is that we deplore the present situation in which fathers have no legal right to paid leave at the time of the birth of their children. That is not good news for fathers, mothers
  224
  or babies. Paternity leave requirements of the kind envisaged would allow the sharing of child care responsibilities and would help to establish strong paternal bonds at the birth of the child.
  An Equal Opportunities Commission study found that 91 per cent. of fathers favoured the introduction of statutory paternity leave. By introducing such leave, the Government would be taking a step towards implementing article 6 of the European Council's recommendations on child care, which I understand that they supported when it was dealt with in the European Council of Ministers.
  The cost of introducing paternity leave would be modest. In a workplace of 500 employees, consisting of 60 per cent. men and 40 per cent. women, it has been calculated that 12 or 13 employees are likely to use it in a year. We believe that the cost would be negligible, and the good will created by employers introducing paternity leave would be great.
  A number of paternity leave arrangements already exist in many firms throughout the country. The Minister may respond to the new clause by referring to the good practice that already exists on a voluntary basis, where employers have decided to introduce such arrangements. Although 1 am glad that some employers are enlightened, the argument that was effectively advanced by my hon. Friends in the previous debate about the abolition of wages councils—that the good employer will be undercut by the bad—is just as valid for paternity and parental leave.
  9.30 pm
  New clause 11 deals with the subject of parental leave. The ideas contained in the new clause are taken from the proposed European Community directive on parental leave which was blocked by the Government in the European Council of Ministers six years ago. We do not pretend that the wording of new clause 11 is perfect. We wanted to embody the principle of parental leave in the new clause. If the Government were prepared to accept the new clause, we would be delighted to negotiate with them and come to a common agreement about the details of the parental leave system.
  It is highly regrettable that the Government have always chosen to block the initiative in the European Council of Ministers. That may explain why some of our partners are so keen on the social chapter, which at least allows the other 11 countries to make progress on many of the matters that have been blocked by our Government's negative stance on so much social legislation in the European Community.
  Parental leave is common in other European countries. When the matter was last debated in Parliament—I think it was in 1985–10 out of 12 European Community countries already had some form of parental leave entitlement. It is interesting to recall that in the other place their Lordships also favoured the introduction of a statutory period of parental leave. I think that they were in favour of paid parental leave for one month. They certainly did not rule the European proposals out of court in the way that the Government unfortunately did, and continue to do.
  Some of the comments that I made about paternity leave on new clause 5 also apply to new clause 11, which specifically refers to the rights of adoptive parents to have some form of parental leave. The European Community draft directive stipulated that adoptive parents would be

  225
  able to have such leave at any time within the child's first five years of life, taking into account some of the special circumstances that can surround adoption and the fact that parents do not always adopt newly born babies.
  The European Community directive also referred to longer leave for single parents, parents of a handicapped child or where difficulties existed. The Equal Opportunities Commission produced lengthy reports and recommendations supporting the parental leave directive. They are a few years old, but I believe that they are still valid. It also did a cost analysis of the possible effects of introducing parental leave. It said that it would increase the total wages and salaries bills by less than 0·01 per cent. The costs were contested in the House at the time. However, we believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission undertook a serious study on the subject which deserves the Government's attention.
  Unfortunately, there has been no progress on the matter since 1986. That is very sad and shows the hypocritical attitude of the Government, who have introduced such initiatives as Opportunity 2000, and who supposedly have a commitment to equal opportunities policy. The sharing of family responsibilities is a crucial way of ensuring that women can play a full part in the workplace. Such measures are vital if having a baby is not to penalise a working woman, and cause her and her family to miss out financially.
  I have mentioned leave for adoptive parents. We had an interesting debate on that in Committee: it was one of the occasions when Opposition Members were supported by certain Conservative Members—although, unfortunately, they were not supported by the Minister. The new clause on adoptive parents was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and one or two other Conservative Members.
  Sadly, the Minister turned a deaf ear to our views. I should be delighted if he announced tonight that he had been converted, for this is yet another area in which we are out of step with many other European countries. Most of them make some provision for leave for adoptive parents. Although some companies in Britain adopt good practice in that respect, the Government's offer in Committee to publicise examples of best practice among employers generally goes nowhere near meeting our concerns. We remain strongly attached to the idea of a statutory right for adoptive parents, and I hope that some Conservative Members will support us.
  New clause 10 proposes a maternity employment rights report. We are anxious that the Bill—which, unfortunately, seems likely to come into effect in the form that the Government wish—should at least be evaluated in terms of its effects on women at work, especially in regard to maternity rights. In new clause 10, we ask the Secretary of State to publish an annual report to Parliament on maternity employment rights, and specifically request that the report assess the effects of the Bill—when it is enacted —on different aspects of maternity rights.
  For example, we want the report to consider the effects on employment opportunities for pregnant working women, and on access to time off for ante-natal care, including relaxation classes and parentcraft classes. We feel that the Minister's response in Committee was unsatisfactory. He said then that existing United Kingdom legislation was adequate, but he missed the point that
  226
  many people are unable to exercise their right to ante-natal care, because their employers will not allow them time off. At present there is no satisfactory remedy in law.
  In the new clause, we also ask for information about the operation of remuneration during 14 weeks of maternity leave. We have been concerned all along at the Government's failure to deal with the question of maternity pay. We also regret the fact that, throughout the negotiations on the European directive, our Government were alone in wanting maternity pay to be linked with sick pay rather than salaries. We consider that a disgraceful attitude, which represents a lost opportunity for the women of Britain and, indeed, others in the European Community.
  We also want information about the number of women who return to work after their 14 weeks of maternity leave —and, moreover, about the adequacy of 14 weeks' leave for the health of mother and baby. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, we argued strongly that 14 weeks was far too short a period. We continue to believe that. One of our amendments would replace 14 weeks with 18 weeks. Although we shall not ask the House to divide on the 18 weeks amendment, we shall divide the House on new clause 10 in order to make clear that we are in favour of 18 weeks rather than 14 weeks.
  If the Minister were suddenly to say in reply that he accepts our argument and those of all the other organisations that have lobbied hard for the period of 18 weeks rather than 14 weeks, I should be only too happy not to divide the House on new clause 10. I have the feeling, however, that the Minister is unlikely to give us what we want. Nevertheless, the Government are very much in the minority on this issue. Most people feel that 18 weeks is the minimum period needed if the health of the mother and the baby are to be protected properly. Many women who have worked the statutory period for their current employer have the right to return up to 29 weeks after the birth of their baby. Therefore, it is absurd for the Government to believe that a maternity leave period of only 14 weeks is right for other women. We feel very strongly that that is unsatisfactory. I am sure that my hon. Friends will reinforce that point during the debate.
  In asking for a report, we also want information about the operation and complexity of the scheme. We feel that the existing scheme is muddled because of the different periods of maternity leave and also because of the different requirements about the giving of notice. It will not be easy for employers to understand exactly what they will have to comply with. If it will not be easy for employers, it will be even more difficult for pregnant employees—who probably have got other things on their mind than checking notification periods and their entitlement to maternity leave—to understand these complexities. I hope that the Government will take due note of that point.
  We should also like information about the number of women who have successfully claimed that they were unfairly dismissed because of pregnancy. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the rules governing pregnant women at work and unfair dismissal. Some progress was made. We were glad, for example, that the Government accepted that the unfair dismissal period should be extended after maternity leave for a further period, particularly if the mother is suffering from health problems as a result of having given birth. Nevertheless, we still believe that the position over unfair dismissal is unsatisfactory.

  227
  I was not entirely reassured by the letter that the Minister sent to me on this matter on 28 January. It dealt with the amendment that we tabled in Committee whose purpose was to ensure that the burden of proof would be on the employer rather than the employee in dismissal cases. The position is still very unsatisfactory for those women who do not meet the qualifying period of two years full time and five years part time. The employer could simply say that dismissal was for reasons other than pregnancy. The employee would have no protection against unfair dismissal for those other reasons because she would not have worked for the qualifying period.
  Although the Minister has taken a decision about the issue, I hope that he will be open to further representations as the Bill goes through the other place. I know that many organisations are concerned about the matter, including the Maternity Alliance and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They are keen to take up this matter again with the Minister. They feel that the assurances that we were given in Committee do not go far enough to meet the real needs of some women who have found themselves in a difficult position at work, we suspect because of their pregnancy, because employers have been able to say, "Oh, well, it's for other reasons"—for lateness or anything else that they could think of in order conveniently to dispense with the services of those women rather than have to guarantee their employment after they return from maternity leave.
  I deal now with the Government amendments to this part of the Bill. Some were clearly tabled in response to concerns that we expressed in Committee and in response to representations that have been made to them. We are pleased about some of the amendments but feel that others could go further.
  9.45 pm
  We are pleased that the Government have altered the rules about the triggering of the maternity leave period. In that respect, the original draft of the Bill seemed very strange and would have meant that women were forced to leave work when neither they nor their employer wanted them to. It seemed absurd, so we are glad that the Government have taken the opportunity to harmonise part of the existing maternity pay scheme with the new maternity leave scheme by allowing a woman to receive sick pay if she is ill between 11 and six weeks before the baby is due. However, it would have been far more sensible for the Government to have harmonised the two schemes further by extending maternity leave to 18 weeks. This is another reason why we believe that it is important to have an 18-week leave period.
  I refer the Government to a National Audit Office report on statutory sick and maternity pay which was published in January after the Committee had covered this part of the Bill. The report makes it clear that the stated objective of the statutory maternity pay scheme is
  "to encourage women not to endanger their or their babies' health by working too late into their pregnancies, or returning to work too soon after their babies are born".
  Again, we believe that 14 weeks' leave is insufficient. Even if a woman starts her maternity leave six weeks before the birth, she will have only seven or eight weeks' maternity leave after the week of the baby's birth, which could well be too short in some circumstances.
  The Government have introduced changes to the notice requirement for the 14 weeks' maternity leave, but we still believe that the changes, contained in amendments Nos. 1,
  228
  3, 4, and 8, are too complex because different notification requirements will apply to women taking 14 weeks' leave and those taking up to 40 weeks' leave. The Government have again missed an opportunity to simplify the scheme for the benefit of all involved.
  Women will have to rely on employers to provide information on maternity leave. The same report from the National Audit Office revealed that half of the employers contacted did not provide adequate information on the SMP scheme. Clearly the Government have a great deal of work to do to ensure that the provisions will be implemented correctly but, up to now, there seems little evidence that the Government are prepared to do it.
  I mentioned the Government's changes to the protection for women against unfair dismissal if women cannot return after maternity leave because they are unwell. Although we welcome the provision, we agree with organisations such as the Maternity Alliance, which feel that it is very limited because the protection will last for only four weeks. Perhaps the Minister will explain why he decided to offer protection for four weeks and no more.
  We should also like the Minister to explain what would happen to a woman who, through no fault of her own, was unable to provide a medical certificate before the end of her maternity leave. For example, what would happen if her leave ended at the weekend and she fell ill during the weekend and therefore technically missed the date for notifying her employer that she was applying for extended leave on medical grounds?
  The Government also tabled a wholly unsatisfactory amendment in response to concerns that we expressed in Committee. We were concerned that it was technically possible, due to the strange drafting of the Bill, for a woman to be forced back to work before her child was born.
  The Government have sought to deal with that by providing that an employee's maternity leave will continue for 14 weeks or until the birth of the child if later. On superficial reading at least, that suggests that the minute a woman had given birth she would have to go back to work. Would she be expected to go back to work straight from the hospital? There is the additional four-week protection against unfair dismissal, but it is not right that a woman should have to rely on what is effectively sick leave to obtain adequate maternity leave in those circumstances.
  I refer the Government to the EC pregnancy directive. It does not specifically require a period of leave after the birth because the relevant article refers to before and/or after the birth, but the whole purpose of the directive is to safeguard the safety and health of workers who have recently given birth.
  It could be argued that the Government are failing properly to abide by the terms of the EC equal treatment directive which talks about the period during which problems due to pregnancy and confinement may arise, and which obviously therefore refers to the period before and after the birth.
  Certainly the National Audit Office report, to which I have referred, states that the purpose of the statutory maternity pay scheme is to encourage women not to return to work too soon after their babies are born. The Government's amendment does not seem to comply with that commitment. If the Government are not prepared to change it tonight, they should at least undertake to

  229
  consider the matter further so that it can be dealt with satisfactorily at a subsequent stage in the Bill's proceedings.
  Amendment No. 63 reiterates our strong feeling that the maternity leave period should be 18 weeks rather than 14 weeks. I pay tribute to the Maternity Alliance campaign on the matter and, in particular, its publication "One last push for 18 weeks" in which it gives some strong reasons why the leave period should be 18 rather than 14 weeks.
  The Maternity Alliance says that the primary purpose of maternity leave is to protect the well-being of mother and baby and it questions whether 14 weeks is long enough to do that. It says, rightly, that it is Government policy to encourage breast feeding for the first four to six months of a baby's life and a 14-week maternity leave period is not consistent with that.
  The Maternity Alliance says that finding child care for young babies is particularly difficult, making it unlikely that many women with a baby a few weeks old would be able to return to work. It also says that many women stop work about 11 weeks before the birth of the baby because of tiredness or illness and such women would have to resume work when their babies are only about three weeks old.
  Therefore, 18 weeks makes great sense. It also makes sense because, as I have said before, many women in Britain are entitled to a longer maternity leave and, on average, British women take 20 weeks' maternity leave. Therefore, it would be much more sensible to harmonise upwards rather than downwards. As employers already administer for 18 weeks statutory maternity pay, it makes sense for 18 weeks to be the general leave period.
  We believe, with the Maternity Alliance, that the cost to employers and the Government of extending maternity leave by four weeks to 18 weeks would be minimal and it would be offset by savings. More women would return to work saving employers recruitment and training costs and saving the Government tax income and benefit cost.
  In conclusion, women's working lives are greatly affected by having children and we do not want the fact of giving birth to mean that women lose out. We do not want them to lose an interesting and worthwhile job. We do not want them to lose the chance of promotion, and we do not want them to handicap themselves, sometimes severely from a financial point of view, simply because they have chosen to have children.
  Working mothers need a better deal than is being given to them in the Bill. If they are given a better deal, not only they but society will greatly benefit.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to say a few words, particularly in support of new clause 5, but first I thank the Minister for introducing changes in the rules triggering maternity leave. Some improvement is better than no improvement at all.
  Times have changed a good deal since those pictures which we see exemplified in old episodes of "Doctor Finlay's Casebook" and "Doctor in the House", when the midwife turned up, the kettle was put on and the expectant father was sent out to the pub while mother and the midwife arranged for the baby to be born, and then the father returned to look at his son and heir, or so he hoped.
  Fortunately, things have changed a good deal since then and when a child is born into a family—we should all be aiming to uphold the integrity of the family in these ever-more difficult times for family life—it is now
  230
  recognised as very desirable that, not just the mother, but the father of the child should form a relationship with the baby quickly and take an active part in looking after the baby. Fathers do much more than merely change nappies these days. That in itself is an advance on the situation 20 or 30 years ago. Fathers play an active and significant role in the upbringing of babies, and it is right that they should.
  So new clause 5 recognises the changing times. Secondly, it recognises the realities of modern life, with particular reference to work and the workplace. For many families now it cannot possibly be taken for granted that the father is the breadwinner. In many families the father and the mother of the child have more or less equal incomes and in many families the mother of the newborn child is the breadwinner. If the father is to become the house husband and if, as in an increasing number of families, he is to stay at home and look after the child, or to spend a considerable time at home looking after the child, it is desirable and sensible that the father should form a bond with the baby as quickly as the mother. Paternity leave seems to be a sensible way of achieving that.
  I apprehend that there are some Conservative Members, male hon. Members, who find this a faintly hilarious subject but it is not. It is extremely important that babies should be brought up, from the beginning, in stable homes and if that means that we should recognise what has already been recognised in other countries, that paternity leave is a contributory factor towards that, we should not lag behind other countries in Europe in introducing paternity leave.
  The third point that I wish to raise on new clause 5 is one that was not raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) in her full and excellent presentation of the case on a number of issues, including this clause. My point relates to the all too frequent and sometimes extremely sad onset of puerperal depression. In my professional life as a lawyer, I have had the misfortune to come across the sometimes tragic effects in a family of post-natal depression, particularly in cases where there has not been the support and involvement of the father that one would have hoped for.
  I believe that paternity leave would mean that both parents would be together, at least for a time, after the birth of a child and that the support that the father would give the mother would lessen the prospects of serious post-natal depression. That is an important point because, as the Minister knows and I suspect all hon. Members know, puerperal depression is a very common incident of childbirth.
  I would also like to say a word about new clause 10. Whether the precise wording is right, in my view, matters not. What new clause 10 would achieve is a way of measuring the success of maternity leave. It would provide a method of producing statistics which would enable not only us, but, more important, the medical profession, employers and trade unions to measure the success or otherwise of the maternity leave regime. It would enable us to know whether justice was being done to mothers and, of course, to their children. Without statistics of the sort that would be provided by the report suggested, we are not really in a position to judge.
  Hon. Members who put down parliamentary questions—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—["Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Carlile: Hon. Members who table questions to Ministers know that it is sometimes difficult to obtain the types of statistics which are referred to in the categories set out in new clause 10. This would enable us and others to have those statistics. I really cannot understand why the Government appear to want to resist the preparation of a report of a type which has now become very common as an adjunct of new statutory provisions, and I hope that the Minister will reflect afresh upon this matter.
  Mr. Miller: I shall be brief, bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Referring first to new clause 5, many progressive employers provide some form of paternity leave. My progressive previous employer—the Minister made a number of jokes about it in Committee—provided me with paternity leave some 14 years ago when my daughter was born. I and my family found that, and my daughter found it eventually, a very beneficial provision. The arguments are clearly set out in the clause. But, aside from odd employers, as the Minister would probably consider trade unions, many good employers provide some form of provision for paternity leave.
  It seems to me that it would disadvantage those good employers if the cowboys were allowed to maintain standards lower than those applied by the best. So I think that there is an economic argument that supports the development of a clause creating a consistent provision and a right throughout our society.
  With regard to new clause 10, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a good point about the need to collate statistical evidence. It is only when that evidence is collated properly that we will know whether the Government's attempts at reform in this area, some of which are opposed and some of which are accepted by Opposition Members, are appropriate and will be able to analyse the facts and make some progress.
  I draw the attention of the House in particular to paragraphs (g) and (h) of subsection (2) concerning the number of women successfully claiming unfair dismissal because of pregnancy. This is particularly important. A number of cases have gone through the tribunal and higher courts relating to dismissals that have been alleged redundancies during periods of maternity leave, and so on. This information is loosely collated. I believe that it needs to be collated in the context of this clause rather than in the generality of overall case law statistics.
  If we look at it in the context of other aspects of the clause, we will begin to understand the meaning of the statistics. Equally, and in some respects more importantly, the same argument applies to paragraph (h). Inevitably, there will be cases in which women are suspended for health and safety reasons. However, it is important. to separate genuine health-related reasons from concocted reasons because, in the later stages of pregnancy, a woman
  232
  may not be able to fulfil a task at the same pace as, for example, young, fit Ministers; but perhaps that is not the case.
  Against that background, and for the powerful reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I shall support new clause 10.
  Ms. Eagle: I shall spend a short time on some of the history of the new rights established in the Bill. Clearly, the Opposition welcome any conversion of the Government to improving employment rights, albeit in a grudging and technical way. They have reacted to being dragged kicking and screaming by the European Commission into making at least some concession to the needs of women in the work force.
  Let us examine the history of the provisions and why the Government, who spend most of their time wanting to reduce what they euphemistically call burdens on business, have suddenly introduced a measure which, albeit grudgingly, slightly increases those burdens on business. That has come about simply because of the EC directive on maternity leave in which the British Government played a pretty villainous role, first in holding up its progress through the EC institutions and secondly, when they realised that they could not hold it up much longer, in watering it down. They insisted that they would not agree to the original draft of the directive which granted maternity pay at 90 per cent. of earnings and would support the directive only if maternity pay was reduced to the level of sick pay. Far from being 90 per cent. of what a pregnant woman was earning before her pregnancy, levels of statutory sick pay in Britain are about 15 per cent. of average earnings, which in real and proportional terms is a much lower level than that which could have been achieved had the Government been less destructive in its dealings with the EC.
  Having held up the directive and then watered it down, the Government then abstained on it, so they did not even vote for it. The Government have accepted pretty grudgingly that increased maternity rights should be granted to millions of women in the work force today and the millions of women who may want to join the work force if they are given equal treatment and rights by British laws.
  Although we must congratulate the Government on the rights they are bringing in, our congratulations must be fairly narrow. The Government have brought in those rights in a typical technical and grudging way.
  The law contains a right to maternity leave somewhere. However, one must search high and low, and one must be virtually a lawyer of international repute to understand those rights, much less attempt to exercise them.
  What we have is a technical granting of a right with absolutely no attempt being made by the Government to tackle the real problem of the piecemeal approach to equal opportunities legislation in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Government have introduced the right to maternity leave—which is welcome—in the most complex way possible in the hope that it will be so perplexing that many people will not, first, realise that they have the right and, secondly, be able to work out how they should exercise it. That applies to both employers and employees.
  I would prefer to see—the Equal Opportunities Commission is on record as saying this about the Bill—the Government make a genuine attempt to deal with their

  233
  piecemeal approach to current equal opportunities legislation and simplify it rather than introduce a third tier to an already complex system. The Government should simplify the system to one tier so that people may know that they have a simple right which is easily applied for. People would know what they were entitled to and they could go on to deal with the normal everyday problems with pregnancy and the arrangements which they must make as they approach confinement in a more optimistic way without the uncertainty and insecurity which currently surround maternity leave at work.
  The rights introduced by the Government should be more generous. I certainly support the view that we should have an 18-week leave period rather than 14 weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has dealt effectively with some of the more bizarre aspects of the way in which the legislation is drafted. There are many issues which we will want to assess. We will want to see how the right is being used and whether it makes much practical difference.
  The reason for new clause 10 is to produce a statistical digest to deal with some of the issues—how complex the scheme is, whether people are able to use it and the number of women who successfully claim unfair dismissal because of pregnancy, as they are given a right to do so under the legislation. That right is grudgingly given in the same way as maternity rights are given. Women must prove, rather than the employer having to disprove, that they were sacked for being pregnant, which is a difficult thing to do. If the Government intended to give proper and appropriate protection to women in the work force, they would have switched the burden of proof in the way in which the new right was introduced. New clause 10 deals with those issues.
  It gives me a sense of pride and a special feeling that, as one of only 10 per cent. of women Members in the House, I can represent the interests of women on this important issue. Women can take their rightful place in society only with a guarantee of proper equal treatment. The Government's attempts to introduce some sort of limited new employment rights are woefully inadequate. I look forward to their doing much better in the near future.
  Mr. Burden: I rise to support the new clauses and the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). I want to speak to new clause 10 because it seems to be especially important that we compile the sort of statistics which are being advocated on the impact of the maternity leave changes which the Government wish to introduce.
  To hear Ministers talk, one would think that they were introducing proposals which would transform the rights of working women. In Britain, not only will the impact of what is being suggested—welcome though it is—be somewhat more limited: it will produce a rather selective view of how the legislation came to be before the House in the first place.
  10.15 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) catalogued what took place when the European Commission and the Council of Ministers considered the pregnant women at work directive. The delays caused principally by the British Government held up that
  234
  directive for no less than two years. Indeed, the timing was so tight by the end of that period that in order to ratify the directive before it lapsed, Ministers had to do so at a meeting about fisheries. As we have heard, even at that stage the Government, having watered down the directive, could not bring themselves to vote for it and abstained. One would think that it was hardly worth the air fare for them to go over there to do it.
  If the Government had not watered it down, the directive could have provided women with the right to 16 weeks paid time off for maternity. The Government not only reduced that to 14 weeks but watered down the pay provisions. They do not even mention maternity pay in the Bill. Indeed, they have ruled out any consideration of maternity pay as if the issue were irrelevant to maternity leave.
  It is instructive to examine why it was so important to the Government to rule out consideration of maternity pay. A quick look through the level of maternity pay in other countries in Europe shows why the Government are so bashful. The total equivalent maternity pay in other European countries is as follows: Denmark 22 weeks, Italy 17 weeks, Luxembourg 16 weeks, Greece 16 weeks, the Netherlands 16 weeks, Germany 14 weeks, France 13½1 weeks, Spain 12 weeks, Belgium 11 weeks and Ireland 10 weeks.
  Ministers will probably say that the directive advocated at least 14 weeks and many women will receive more than that. True enough, but in Britain the equivalent total weeks of maternity pay for women who have worked full time for more than two years is the princely period of eight weeks. Women who do not meet that requirement receive the equivalent of four weeks in total. That is the reality of maternity leave in Britain. That is why new clause 5 and the other new clauses in the group are important.
  One cannot separate out the issue of maternity pay, all the more so because the Government have insisted on scrapping the wages councils. The effect of that will be to drive the earnings of many thousands of women below the national insurance threshold. That will remove their entitlement to the higher rate of statutory maternity pay. So it will increase the problems of poverty among women employees.
  We have already heard that the maternity leave period advocated by the Government is too short. All expert opinion agrees that 14 weeks simply is not long enough for the health of the mother, the family or the baby. In Britain the need to extend the period from 14 weeks to 18 weeks is even more important than in other parts of Europe because the Government have refused and refused again to introduce any scheme of parental or paternity leave. That makes the need for a decent scheme for maternity leave that much more important.
  In eight out of 12 European countries there is some provision for paternity or parental leave. Why in Britain do we come up against a brick wall when we seek such provisions? In the United States of America there is movement on leave for family reasons. The measure is supported by large parts of the Republican party. So why in Britain does a brick wall still go up on paternity and parental leave?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey also described the complexity of the rules introduced in the Bill. That is yet another reason why we must consider the impact of the Bill. If a woman is to find her way through the myriad rules, regulations and laws on maternity leave

  235
  she needs to be an expert in employment law and pretty good at lateral thinking. If she works for one length of time she qualifies for something called maternity leave. If she works for another period she has no entitlement to maternity leave beyond 14 weeks but she qualifies for something called the right of return.
  The notification requirements are different, as are the rules and regulations about what one is able to accrue in terms of contractual rights. That is the effect of provisions of this type. Under the Bill in its original form we had the crazy situation of a woman having to go back to work before having her baby. Fortunately, the Government saw sense to some extent and removed that provision. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East pointed out, a woman might now have to return to work the day after having her baby. I suppose that that is an improvement, but it will not be much consolation to the women involved.
  A woman has to jump through very difficult hoops in order to find reality in terms of the rights that she will receive under this Bill. In Committee we heard about a woman whose employer had denied her access to ante-natal classes on the ground that such an arrangement was not company policy. That is not unique. We have heard about women whose employers dissuaded them from claiming even the limited rights to which they are currently entitled under statute. That is the reality of irresponsible employers in Britain.
  Despite all this, the Government continue to resist the case that we put forward in Committee and are urging tonight. We say that the burden of proof in cases like this should he on the employers. If an employer dismisses someone because that person is claiming her rights under maternity leave provisions, or because he, the employer, does not want to have the hassle of having such a woman on his work force, can anyone seriously suggest that he, with hand on heart, would state that that was the reason for dismissal? Of course not. The evidence that Conservative Members, as well as Opposition Members, have been receiving from citizens advice bureaux, the Equal Opportunities Commission and many other organisations indicates that, in respect of matters of this sort, employers do not always tell the truth.
  Why is it regarded as unreasonable to put on the employer the onus to prove that he acted unreasonably in dismissing a woman employee? The Government are resisting such action, and, like my hon. Friends, I have been forced to the conclusion that the reason is that they did not want to have these rights in the first place. They resisted them in Europe. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), when he was at the Department of Employment, gave evidence suggesting that the Government did not want them, and in the final vote, the provisions having been watered down, they abstained.
  On the front page of the last issue of The Independent on Sunday is a report to the effect that—surprise, surprise —employers are now discovering that their commitment to equal opportunity lasts only so long as they think that, from the labour market point of view, it is necessary to employ more women. As soon as they feel that unemployment is at such a level that the issue of equal opportunity and rights for women can be disposed of, the tendency will be for that commitment to disappear. That is why we need effective maternity rights and effective legislation against sex discrimination. It is also why we
  236
  need effective rights for working parents in general. This Bill's provisions on maternity rights represent an improvement, but that is testimony to the inadequacy of the current provisions rather than to a commitment to improvement.
  I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will take account of what was said during many hours in Committee. They have not argued effectively against the cases that have been put to them. I hope that they will at least agree to collect statistics so that it may be seen whether we are right and what effect this legislation will have. If the Government claim to have any regard at all for the rights of working parents, they should take on board the comments of hon. Members in favour of paternity leave and effective parental rights.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Some Opposition Members have simply reiterated tonight the comments that they made in Committee. I was glad to hear the welcome that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) gave to the many concessions that the Government have made following representations made to us. As she dealt with most of those concessions and basically welcomed them, I shall, at the appropriate time, simply move formally the provisions which apply them. That will probably be for the convenience of the House because, as the hon. Lady recognised, those concessions go a considerable way to meeting many of the concerns that were expressed.
  Opposition Members should get their position clear on the EC directive. It is nonsense to suggest that the United Kingdom watered down that directive. The common position text agreed last December was produced by the Dutch presidency because it was clear that the Commission's original proposals were unacceptable to the great majority of member states. The treaty base for the directive provides for qualified majority voting, riot unanimity, and the United Kingdom was never in a position of being able to threaten to use a veto. No member state voted against the text of the directive agreed last year and the subsequent negotiations which led to the adoption of the directive on 19 October had not changed in any essential respect. Indeed, it was to the great credit of the Secretary of State that the matter was brought to a conclusion during the United Kingdom's presidency. So I cannot accept that in some way the United Kingdom was responsible for watering down the directive.
  Ms. Quin: Is not it a fact that the British Government were the only Administration who wanted maternity pay to be allied with sick pay, and in that respect did water down the directive?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I said in Committee that the Secretary of State for Social Security would be making a statement on maternity pay and, in so doing, would make the position of the Government clear.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will persist in the fantasy that, somehow, the treatment of pregnant employees in the United Kingdom is inferior to such treatment in other EC member states. At 14 weeks, Britain has the longest period of maternity absence in Europe and, at 18 weeks, one of the longest periods of paid maternity absence. In addition, all pregnant employees in the United Kingdom have had the right to paid time off for antenatal care since 1980, a right which Spanish and

  237
  French women will enjoy as a result of the directive. I might have added that that will apply in socialist France and Spain—[Interruption.] It is for the French and Spanish people to reach their own decision on the matter.
  I cannot accept new clauses 5 and 11. The purpose of the statutory maternity provisions is to safeguard the mother's career, while also giving her a period of time to prepare for, and recover from, childbirth and to nurse and care for her baby in its early life. The same considerations do not apply to paternity and parental leave. I do not consider that the measures proposed in either new clause are suitable for legislation.
  Having listened to Opposition Members at Question Time continually asking us to ensure that we have the right conditions for employment growth, it is a bit rich of them to try to impose yet more burdens on employers, burdens that would lead to exactly the opposite of what they desire in terms of employment prospects in Britain.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin: I will not give way because we must make progress and the hon. Gentleman spoke for a considerable time.
  I recognise the concerns that new clause 10 and amendment No. 63 seek to address. It is important that we keep track of how new legislation is working in practice. I assure hon. Members that we shall keep the Bill under review, as we are anxious to do with any new legislation. But I see no justification for a statutory requirement to produce a report. It is clear that the real concerns of Opposition Members are less that we should publish an annual review of the working of the valuable new rights and more that we should greatly add to the costs of employers by increasing those rights in a wholly unacceptable way.
  Opposition Members do not know a good deal when they see one. The Bill will ensure that every employee, no matter what her hours of work or how long she has been with her employer, will be entitled to take 14 weeks off work to have a baby. Currently anyone with under two years' service must look purely to the contract of employment for any rights at all to take time off work.
  The changes are an important step forward and will go a long way to ensuring that rights for mothers and women expecting children are greatly enhanced. I commend the Government amendments to the House and hope that it will vote against the new clauses put forward by the Opposition.
  10.30 pm
  Ms. Quin: We have had an interesting debate, although it has been staggering that no hon. Member on the Government Benches, apart from the Minister, has intervened on the important subject of maternity rights. I do not know whether that means that Government Back Benchers are not interested, or that they do not support the Government's view. Some of my hon. Friends correctly pointed out that the Government had been dragged kicking and screaming by the European Community to accept some of the limited and modest gains. Perhaps that is why none of the Minister's hon. Friends have supported him by speaking in the debate.
  238
  The Government have been isolated on many issues in the European Community. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friends about that.
  I welcome the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, on the issue and the additional arguments which he put forward.
  The Minister stuck rigidly to his brief, as we came to expect in Committee. None the less, we hope that he will consider some of our arguments, particularly about some Government amendments which do not go far enough. At the very least, we hope that the Government will listen to representations from outside organisations.
  Having said that, we do not wish to press new clause 5 to a vote, but when the time comes, we would like to vote on new clause 10. It is a modest amendment, calling for a report on the implementation and the working of the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government will not accept the new clause and it is important to vote on it.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New clause 10

  MATERNITY EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS REPORT
  `(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a report to Parliament annually, to be called "The maternity employment rights report" on the effects of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

  (2) The Report shall assess the effects of the Act on:

  (a) the employment opportunities for pregnant working women

  (b) access to time off for ante-natal care (including relaxation classes and parentcraft classes)

  (c) the operation of remuneration during 14 weeks maternity leave

  (d) the number of women returning to work after the 14 weeks maternity leave

  (e) the adequacy of 14 weeks maternity leave for the health of the mother and the baby.

  (f) the operation and complexity of the scheme

  (g) the number of women successfully claiming unfair dismissal because of pregnancy under this Act

  (h) the number of women medically suspended for health and safety reasons each year

  (3) Before publishing the Report, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be concerned.'.—[Ms. Quin.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 298.

  Division No. 153]

  [10.32 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Alton, David

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blunkett, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Beggs, Roy

  Burden, Richard

  239

  Byers, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoyle, Doug

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hume, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cox, Tom

  Keen, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cummings, John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Leighton, Ron

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dowd, Jim

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McGrady, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Etherington, Bill

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Mallon, Seamus

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meacher, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Meale, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  240

  Olner, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Neill. Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Soley, Clive

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Parry, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgtd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trimble, David

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis

  Randall, Stuart

  Tyler, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wallace, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Watson, Mike

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Short, Clare

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

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

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  241

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Fry, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  242

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tracey, Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Speed. Sir Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spring, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

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

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived

Clause 1

  ELECTION SCRUTINEER TO CHECK REGISTER
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 2, line 28, at end insert—
  '(3C) The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in the scrutineer's appointment.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 2

  COUNTING OF ELECTION VOTES ETC. BY INDEPENDENT PERSON
  Amendment made: No. 57, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
  '()The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in an appointment under this section.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 4

  BALLOTS FOR UNION AMALGAMATION AND TRANSFERS OF ENGAGEMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 58, in page 6, line 29, at end insert—
  '() The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in the scrutineer's appointment.'.
  No. 9 in page 8, line 8, at end insert—
  '(4A) No voting paper which is sent to a person for voting shall have enclosed with any other document except

  (a) the notice which, under section 99(1) is to accompany the voting paper,

  (b) an addressed envelope, and

  (c) a document containing instructions for the return of the voting paper, without any other statement.'

  No. 59, in page 8, line 37, at end insert—
  `() The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in an appointment under this section.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 6

  STATEMENT TO MEMBERS FOLLOWING ANNUAL RETURN
  10.45 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 25, leave out from 'Officer' to end of line 27 and insert
  'all the members of the union are provided with the statement required by this section by any of the methods allowed by subsection (1A).
  (1A) Those methods are—

  (a) the sending of individual copies of the statement to members; or

  (b) any other means (whether by including the statement in a publication of the union or otherwise) which it is the practice of the union to use when information of general interest to all its members needs to be provided to them.'

  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 65, in page 11, line 37, leave out
  'and other benefits provided to'.
  Government amendment No. 13.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 respond to concerns expressed in Committee on 3 December. They fulfil the Government's commitment to table amendments that would address the issues raised in amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister is right in saying that Government amendment No. 12 fulfils obligations made in Committee to deal with the means by which members can be notified about accounts. Amendment No. 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who will wish to speak to it. We have already discussed the issues in Committee, and we support the aim of the amendment, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to raise again later.
  As for Government amendment No. 13, will the Minister explain why the copies of the statement should be provided free of charge if a copy has already been provided, either directly or through publication? Why should a member be able to request a copy without at least paying for delivery?
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I tabled amendment No. 65 because I fear that the Government's definition of "other benefits" may be too broad. I should be interested to know whether there is a greater requirement to add up all the small benefits that trade unions might have in theory, compared with the requirement for company directors to have their package put together.
  If we are talking just about pay and pensions, that seems fine; if the provision goes wider than that, I feel that we should be given an explanation why we are picking out trade union leaders and assuming that they are far more likely to go off with the family silver than a director of a public company.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Let me deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). His point was that we originally said that copies had to be provided directly to all members. We have now accepted the points made by the Opposition in Committee, but we have said that, if someone wants a more specified account, that person will have a right to it
  244
  free of charge. I think that our amendments go some way towards meeting the concerns expressed by Opposition Members.
  As for amendment No. 65, I have already said that the Government welcome the fact that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) expressed support for the new rules. We consider them important. There would be little point in setting up arrangements meaning that, for example, a union could legitimately avoid having to tell its members the value or nature of the personal benefits received by its leader; yet that is exactly what the amendment would do.
  I should make clear the nature of the information that will have to be given—as, indeed, was made clear in Committee on 1 December, during debate on amendment No. 20. In order to satisfy the new duty, a union must do its best to give details of all salary payments expressed in cash amounts and all other benefits that could either be expressed in terms of cash equivalent figures or in terms of an adequate description of the benefits concerned, if that is more appropriate or practical. The Government are grateful for the way in which the Opposition addressed these particular points. The principles, while providing the unions with more flexibility and options in respect of the discharge of their new duties, are acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but if Bill Morris, the general secretary of my trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, is provided with a flat—I do not know whether he is or not—would that be counted? If, for example, the chief operating officer of ICI is provided with a flat, would that be counted in the company's report and accounts? If there is a difference in treatment, why?
  Mr McLoughlin: My hon. Friend needs to look only at the way that this issue was dealt with in Committee. If a benefit to a person is a benefit over and above what is regarded as for his official duties, it should be shown.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 12, line 51, at end insert—
  '() If at any time during the period of two years beginning with the day referred to in subsection (1) any member of the trade union requests a copy of the statement required by this section, the union shall, as soon as practicable, furnish him with such a copy free of charge.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 8

  OFFENCES
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 19, line 6, leave out '(1)'.
  As hon. Members know, clause 8 makes further provisions relating to offences by amending, and adding to, section 45 of the 1992 Act. This amendment modifies provisions in new section 45A(2).
  New section 45A(2) deals with prosecution time limits for offences under section 45(1) relating to the duty imposed by section 32(1). This duty requires trade unions to send the certification officer an annual return relating to its financial affairs. As they appear in the Bill, the provisions allow proceedings for an offence relating to the duty to be commenced within three years of the date when the offence was committed.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

  RIGHT NOT TO BE EXCLUDED OR EXPELLED
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 22, line 17, leave out 'or'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 16.
  Mr. Forsyth: These amendments were introduced in response to a valuable suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and were
  246
  welcomed on both sides of the Committee when we debated this clause. Essentially, the amendments ensure that it is not possible to exclude someone from membership of a trade union because of his or her membership of a political party. This was welcomed on both sides of the Committee. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 16, in page 22, line 19, at end insert—
  `(iii) a member of a political party, or'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 11

  RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER DEDUCTION OF UNAUTHORISED OR EXCESSIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 25, line 8, leave out 'remains in force' and insert 'is current'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
  No. 67, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert `seven'.
  No. 83, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'ten'.
  Government amendment No. 20.
  Mr. Forsyth: Government amendments Nos. 17 to 20, like many others for consideration today, have been introduced as the result of the constructive discussion of the Bill's provisions that took place in Standing Committee F.
  When what is now clause 11 was debated in that Committee, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) stated that it would be helpful if we adopted what he termed the "big bang" approach to the renewal of consent to check-off deductions from salary—that is, that employers should be able to seek renewed consent from all their work force at once.
  It is an essential point of principle underpinning this clause that individuals who pay their union dues through the check-off should have the opportunity periodically to reconsider their consent and renew it, if they so wish. It is no part of this policy, however, that unnecessary administrative burdens should be incurred by employers. Let us remember that we are not imposing any unavoidable duty on employers; employers are free to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter into an agreement with a trade union to operate check-off arrangements.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it open to an employer, as a consenting organisation, to come to an agreement with a trade union and employees that they do not have to renew the arrangements every three years or after any other specified period? Is there any reason why it should not be left to employers, trade unions and employees?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is extremely important that, if deductions are being made from individuals' pay packets, consent is obtained on a regular basis. When my hon. Friend invites me to speculate about the type of agreement, it sounds like a remarkably collectivist approach. Perhaps he will explain what he means.
  Mr. Bottomley: I know that one of my difficulties is that of communicating clearly. Is there any reason why an employer and his employee should not make an agreement that the consent will run for more than three years? Why should the House say that, whatever the two of them may want to agree, they are not allowed to?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend needs to recognise the fact that the agreement is between not the employer and the employee but the employer and the trade union. The employer agrees to take money out of the employee's pay packet and give it to the trade union. During and prier to
  248
  the general election campaign, the Government made it clear that it was their policy that there should be a requirement to obtain individual consent from an employee on a regular basis before money was deducted.
  Mr. Bill Olner: Does not the Minister realise that any check-off agreement is an agreement between the employer, the employee and the trade union? Three groups make the agreement possible. For the life of me, I cannot see why renewal has to be applied for after a specified number of years, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said.
  When we paid rates, I signed a direct debit to have my rates stopped from my account. That direct debit did not end when I unfortunately had to pay my poll tax and it will continue when I pay my council tax this year. I cannot understand why there has to be so much interference and over-regulation, with the Government insisting that an agreement must be renewed every three years.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted to hear of the direct debit arrangement that the hon. Gentleman made for his poll tax as he calls it. There is nothing to stop such an agreement being made by an employee and a trade union. An employee could perfectly well pay his subscriptions by direct debit, which would not be affected by this or any other legislation.
  What is at issue is the situation in which the trade union tells an employer that it would like him to deduct union subscriptions from an individual employee's—
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: When I have answered the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner).
  When a union has agreed with an employer that the employer will deduct subscriptions from the employee's wages before they are paid to the employee, there should be a requirement for written consent to be given by the employee and that it should be renewed. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that because the amendment has been tabled in response to representations made by his colleague for renewal of consent to be obtained within a three-year period.
  Mr. Miller: What if the agreement is specifically between the employee and the employer, and the employee fills in a form saying, "Please deduct the following sums of money and pass them to my trade union"? The trade union is not involved. In that case, there is no three-way discussion as in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), because the employee freely passes the form on to a third party for it to be collected like a direct debit. Those circumstances are distinct from those that the Minister tried to portray, in which a monolithic trade union tells the employer to make large deductions from the employee's pay packet and pass them to it. Is the Minister prepared to accept that, if an employee freely enters into an agreement, that agreement can last for the length of time that the employee or employer is prepared to live with it?
  Mr. Forsyth: No. The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that, as it is late, he can get me into a muddle so that I agree to what he would like to happen. The hon. Gentleman would like dues to be deducted from the employees' pay packet without their express consent on a regular basis—
  Mr. Miller: I did not say that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, he is at liberty to do so, but not from a sedentary position.
  11 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: The provisions in the Bill are clear and they are perfectly reasonable and responsible. They are that if a trade union wishes an employer to deduct subs from an employee's pay packet, consent is required initially, and that consent needs to be renewed on a three-year basis.
  The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question related to an arrangement between the trade union and the employee. If a trade union arranges with employees to pay direct by direct debit subscriptions, none of these provisions applies. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear and simple and perfectly acceptable to any right-thinking person.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister, who has given way a number of times. Why does not he admit that there has been no pressure from employers for this change and that the real explanation is simply the Government's spite? Moreover, if the Minister, his colleagues and supporters are really concerned about finance, would it not be worthwhile for them to publish the accounts of their own party? Secretive methods are used to finance the Conservative party, and its accounts are not published in the same way as those of other political parties. That is the problem that should be addressed, and as soon as possible.
  Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not followed our proceedings particularly carefully, but this has nothing to do with the political levy. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to consider the political levy and those matters which, so far, in the process of considering the Bill, we have avoided. This is about the payment of subscriptions using the check-off system.
  As to the point that the hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm, that not a single employer had made representations, no, that is not the case.
  Mr. Winnick: I said that there had been no pressure from employers.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no pressure from employers or employers' organisations for this change. Had the hon. Gentleman followed the proceedings, he would know that we have made a change. Instead of requiring annual renewal of consent, it will be required every three years, as a result of representations from the Institute of Personnel Management.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend said that some employers had asked for this. My understanding is that the Institute of Personnel Management employs a small number of people in Wimbledon. When I asked
  "which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades unions to be required to review members' written authorisations to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years",
  my hon. Friend's answer was:
  "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no such representations."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160–61.]
  Mr. Forsyth: I am rather puzzled by my hon. Friend's description of the Institute of Personnel Management, which has something of a reputation in this area. I said that it made representations for the change that is incorporated in the Bill which requires consent on a three-year basis. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to respond to representations from such a body. The CBI and others originally pressed for an extension of the time scale to every five years. I now understand that the CBI and the Institute of Personnel Management accept that three years is a reasonable compromise, which I should have thought would have been acceptable to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bottomley: As a Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, may I say that what my hon. Friend is saying does not reflect the general view of those at the top of the profession. It may be that he has better and further particulars, but in another answer he said that the proposal was made to him in the first place in the response of the Institute of Personnel Management to the Green Paper. I suspect that if he dug rather more deeply he would find that the IPM may have said it, but that there is no weight of support for the measure within that organisation. I suspect that the CBI would much prefer seven or 10 years, and that most employers do not want the provision at all.
  Mr. Forsyth: It is a basic principle, on which we fought the general election, that trade union subs should not be deducted without the consent of members, and the Green Paper set out our plans, which were originally for annual consent. I find it slightly odd that my hon. Friend appears to be criticising the Government for responding to representations from the Institute of Personnel Management which has made the Bill closer to the position that he evidently supports.
  Mr. Dobson: Having confirmed that no employers asked for check-off to be fouled up, can the Minister confirm that the Government have received representations from employers asking them to leave things alone?
  Mr. Forsyth: We have been round this course so many times. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of the support which that splendid organisation the Institute of Directors has given in respect of this. Perhaps I could read a brief extract from the evidence that it provided. I am not sure how many people it employs, but it represents a number of businesses and business interests. The evidence reads:
  "The collection of trade union subscriptions by employers through the check-off system represents a substantial subsidy to trade unions by employers. The 1989 dispute in the engineering industry where a strike levy had to be deducted through the check-off system by the very employers who were targeted in the dispute supports the IOD's contention that the process cannot be justified."
  The institute cannot be clearer than that.
  My hon. Friend quoted from a parliamentary answer that I gave him. The question that he asked was
  "which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades unions to be required to review members' written authorisations to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160 –61.]
  I said that we had received no such written representations and pointed out that, under the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, it was employers who were

  251
  required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years, and not the unions, as his question implied.
  Mr. Dobson: Setting aside employers' organisations, which I did not mention, will the Minister confirm that the Government have received no representation in favour of this overall policy from any employer, and that the Government have received several representations from employers against what they are proposing?
  Mr. Forsyth: Labour hon. Members may do what trade unions tell them, but, on this side, we do not necessarily do what employers tell us. The process by which we have brought about the reforms which have produced a transformation in industrial relations in this country has been a step-by-step approach which has been based on enhancing the rights of individual trade union members. If the hon. Member is seriously arguing that it is wrong to give individual trade union members the right to consent to deductions being made from their pay packets on a regular basis, and that I need to justify that by pointing to employer interest, then I have to say that earlier this evening the hon. Member was arguing that we were doing everything because we were responding to the Nested interests of employers. Now he is criticising me because he cannot demonstrate that we are doing this in response to representations from employers—[Interruption.] The consistency which the hon. Member seeks is the consistency of standing up—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a private conversation. [Interruption.] Well, not with me.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was tempted into straying into a debate with the hon. Member. The point that I was wishing to make is that the golden thread, the consistency of our policy, is standing up for trade union rights of individual trade union members instead of speaking for trade union leaders and barons on whom the Labour party is so heavily dependent, and controls.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is, under existing law, a criminal offence for an employer to deduct any sum of money from an employee's pay packet without his or her previous consent?
  Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, I can confirm that. But the hon. Gentleman did not go on to point out that, if employees are bound by a collective agreement, that can be taken as individual consent. [Interruption.] We have had this debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and members of the TUC and others have acknowledged the position. We are making it absolutely clear that individual consent will be required on a regular basis.
  What is it that the Labour party is so afraid of—or perhaps not just the Labour party—when individuals have to give their express consent before money is paid—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: Very well, I give way.
  Mr. Bottomley: The Government are in a weak position; they ought to try to sort out their arguments. In an answer, my hon. Friend said to me that there was no reason why clause 11 should entail any extra work for employers. Just now he said to me that he thought that his answer previously related to the fact that trade unions did
  252
  not have to provide this renewed consent. If it is the employers who have to do it, how can he say that there is no reason why this measure should entail any extra work for employers?
  Mr. Forsyth: Because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is nothing in the legislation which requires employers to operate check-off. If they decide to operate check-off, they do so on a voluntary basis; it is an agreement between them and the trade unions. There is no statutory requirement to do so. All we are saying is that, if the employers and the trade unions decide to reach such an arrangement, there should be a proper framework to protect the rights of the individual trade union member. Indeed, it is open to employers, if they wish to operate check-off, to make a charge to the trade unions to cover this.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: Well, it is getting late and we have been round the course several times. I have given way a number of times, but I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Winnick: If there is any ambiguity whatsoever—and my hon. Friends and I tend to disagree that there is —the present legal position is that an employee has to sign a statement that he is willing for the deduction to be made. The Minister says that that is not necessarily so, if I understand him. Will he therefore accept that we would have no opposition whatsoever to making the law absolutely clear that, whatever may be the collective agreement, the individual concerned should and must give his agreement? There would be no opposition from me, and I cannot imagine there would be from any of my hon. Friends. But, once having given his agreement in writing, there is no reason, except spite, why that should have to be renewed every three of four years. Why not accept that this is an agreement that has been given by the employee, and, unless he or she wants to change it, there is no reason why the law should interfere?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least acknowledging that individual consent should be required, and I look forward to his support. But what a damning indictment of the trade union movement that the hon. Gentleman feels threatened in some way by the fact that individual consent is required to be renewed on a regular basis. The hon. Gentleman sounds like an inertia salesman arguing that, because he signed the form once, it will be held that he will always wish to be a member of the trade union. What the hon. Gentleman calls spite I would call ensuring that the individual is aware of the amounts being paid and is given the opportunity to renew his consent.
  I am glad to commend these Government amendments to the House.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been a member of a trade union, an employer —although I may be wrong about that—or that he is qualified in personnel management. I have had experience of all three. I do not profess to know it all and I may occasionally make mistakes. However, if I signed up for give as you earn, I would not expect the Government to

  253
  say that I had to renew my consent to that, although the money that I would be giving away was likely to be more than my union subscription.
  I suspect that the reason for the provision was a strike levy and some employers found that they were making deductions to run a strike against themselves. If the Government want to tackle that issue, it should be targeted. The Government have found it perfectly possible in this Bill and in others to target particular issues which upset one of the consenting parties, although it is open to an employer to decide not to continue with the check-off deductions from wages.
  I suspect that we have been carried away. I also suspect that there has been some confusion and that, when I check with the Institute of Personnel Management, I will find that it suggested renewal every three years rather than annually. That was not the answer which I understood from my hon. Friend, but that was probably my mistake.
  11.15 pm
  I thought that when I asked my hon. Friend who suggested it, he replied that the Institute of Personnel Management had suggested renewed consent, but I am sure that that was my mistake.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the position. I assumed that my hon. Friend would be aware of the commitments that we made before the general election and during the election campaign.
  Mr. Bottomley: I spend my time supporting some and saying that I do not support others. One reason for getting elected to the House is not just to be a nodding toy in favour of whatever the Government propose. It strikes me as a good idea to bring forward one's own ideas and commitments, especially if they are long term and consistent. Without straying too far from the terms of the order, that is what I did in regard to child benefit, to get the Government to adopt their old policy rather than sticking to their medium-term policy.
  When I asked my right hon. Friend
  "what assessment she has made of the extra work required by employers as a result of clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill",
  my hon. Friend replied:
  "Clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives individuals a greater right to belong to the union of their choice."
  That is not quite right unless the order of the clauses has changed, because clause 11 deals with the right not to suffer deductions of unauthorised or excessive subscriptions and I do not see how that clause deals with greater rights for individuals to belong to the union of their choice. The second sentence of my hon. Friend's reply stated:
  "There is no reason why this measure should entail any extra work for employers."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 60.]
  I may have asked the wrong question when I asked
  which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades' unions to be required to review members' written authorisation to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years."
  My hon. Friend replied that our right hon. Friend
  "the Secretary of State has received no such representations. Under proposals in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill it is employers who will be required
  254
  to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160–161.]
  Those two replies are inconsistent; they cannot both be right. Either the trade union or the employer has to do the work. In practice, I suspect that both will have to do the work.
  When I was a member of the Government I used to attend a committee trying to reduce the burden on business. If the committee had come across issues involving employers having to go out 4 million or 6 million times—whatever the figure may be—every three years, my noble Friend Lord Young would have said that it should stop and that we should carry out a survey of 100 employers, 10 employers or even ask the next person in the bus queue, "Are you an employer? Do you want every three years to get a renewed consent to a deduction when an employee has voluntarily asked an employer to deduct his union subscription?" The proposal would not have lasted a moment.
  I suggest that, whatever the result tonight, the Government take away their proposal and, before the Bill reaches another place, they should ask employers about it. I have done a survey, but I have not asked the employers for their consent to give their views. Every employer that I asked—the major ones feel more strongly than the small ones as they deal with larger numbers—does not want it. If they must have it, they do not want three years: they want five years, seven years or 10 years.
  I have approached some issues in the Bill from the point of view of trade union members or low-paid employees. I have approached this issue from the point of view of employers. Employers agree that it is necessary to get written consent from employees who are trade union members, but they do not want to do any more.
  I shall make two suggestions to the Minister. First, the provision must be modified in such a way that, if there is to be a variable sum not linked simply to how much people earn but possibly annual, semi-annual or biannual changes to union subscriptions, it can be let through without renewed consent as long as the employee, the member, is told what the new sum will be. That is much the same way in which I pay my electricity, gas and telephone bills. Information about any change in the figure is worth while. That is the smallest requirement which is needed.
  Secondly, the Government should start treating those who vote for trade union leaders through secret or postal ballots as grown-ups and people who make up their own mind as to whether they want to stop or continue being a member of a trade union or whether they want to change the way in which they pay their subscription. It strikes me as common sense, fair and reasonable.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is difficult for me to say much more, following the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). As the Minister said, we have been round the issue many times. Although we have come back to it, the Minister is still in as much of a muddle as he was in Committee. His position is still as rocky and difficult as ever. He has failed to provide any justification whatever for the check-off arrangement and its renewal.
  Let us be clear what the Conservative party manifesto said.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman has made that point because my heart leapt for joy when I saw amendment No. 83, in which the Labour

  255
  party seems to accept the principle that there should be renewed consent. Although the Government's proposal is for consent every three years and the proposal of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is for consent every 10 years, the Opposition, by tabling the amendment, have accepted the principle of renewed consent.
  Mr. Galbraith: I never thought the Minister was quite so silly, but he is certainly demonstrating his ability tonight. We tabled the amendment because sometimes we accept the lesser of two evils and try to ameliorate what is inevitable from the Government. In Committee, we made it clear that we oppose the repeated renewal of the check-off arrangement and that has been the basis of our argument against it. The Minister should not be so silly, making such a cheap political point which will not find him favour with anyone.
  The Minister, by sleight of hand, tried to imply to Conservative Members that there was something in the Conservative election manifesto which imposed a time limit on the regular renewal of union subscriptions. The manifesto says:
  "We will make automatic deduction of union membership dues without written authorisation unlawful."
  It says nothing whatever about a time scale. Conservative Members should be clear on that matter.
  Sometimes I wonder why that statement is in the manifesto because, on our understanding of the law, it is unlawful to take money from people's salaries without their express written consent. There is no need to change the law. The election manifesto commitment has been fulfilled and therefore the clause is unnecessary.
  The Labour party is not opposed to members being notified of any increases in their union subscriptions. We do not object to employers notifying members that they can withdraw from the arrangement at any time. The present position is that subscriptions cannot be deducted without the member's express written permission and changes to the law are not necessary. We object to the time scale, especially the three-yearly renewal that is required. It is bureaucratic and unnecessary and it places burdens on both employers and trade unions.
  We asked the Minister again to tell us who supported the idea. Again, he had trouble. He brought in the Institute of Directors, the provisional wing of the Tory party. We would expect it to support almost anything. But he found it difficult to find anyone else who has pressed for the restriction. Some employers' organisations realised that they would face a yearly renewal and therefore decided to go for something less damaging. We are willing to accept five or three years.
  Let us hear some of the words of some of the employers' organisations in response to the suggestion that there should be annual renewal. The Engineering Employers Federation said that it was
  "an unnecessary administrative nightmare without any commensurate benefits."
  The British Institute of Management echoed that and said:
  "It will lead to administrative burdens on employers."
  The Institute of Personnel Management, whom the Minister tried to call in to support his case, said:
  "There has been no groundswell of support from our members for a change in the check-off arrangements."
  The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, that well-known left-wing organisation, said:
  "Many Chambers have difficulty in seeing what advantage this proposal has for the employers."
  256
  So there is no groundswell of support for the measure, even from the employers' organisations.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have asked another parliamentary question on the matter. I asked the Secretary of State
  a"if employers are presently prohibited from checking at any time and at any interval whether any employee maintains consent previously given for deductions of union subscriptions."
  My hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that employers could do roughly what they liked. But he went on to say—the hon. Gentleman might like to test the Minister on this—
  "Existing law on the operation of the 'check-off' offers little protection to employees who pay their union subscriptions through the check-off."—[0fficial Report, 9 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 590.]
  Presumably they have all consented to pay. What can he possibly have meant?
  Mr. Galbraith: There is no need for me to ask the Minister the question again. He might like to answer it in his reply.
  The question remains why trade unions have been taken out and given special consideration in the matter of having to renew an agreement for a financial deduction. Never mind that we are not required to make annual, three-yearly or even 10-yearly renewal of the direct debit arrangements which all of us have for paying electricity bills and gas bills and some of us even for paying Access bills—although not necessarily everyone. Other deductions are made from employees' wages which do not require annual, three-yearly or even 10-yearly renewal. Such deductions include payments to charities. It is not necessary for them to be renewed every three years. Why are they different? They also include deductions for sports club subscriptions. Why do not they have to be renewed every year?
  Why is it that the trade unions have been singled out? What is the basis of the measure? Is some abuse of the system taking place? If so, let the Minister tell us what it is and why he is not taking corrective action. In our view, if there is abuse, those involved in it are breaking the law and it is up to the Government to ensure that the law is enforced. If that is not the case and he cannot give us the details of any abuse, why does he persist with the measure?
  Is the reason that suggested by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and that which the Minister slightly suggested again tonight? The employers are under no obligation to operate check-off. Therefore, the Government hope that if they make it bureaucratically difficult, employers will stop operating it and so damage the trade unions. Of course, that is just a cynical view not held widely among Opposition Members. We think it is a piece of utter stupidity introduced by the Minister with no justification whatever. That is the reason why we shall ask the House to support amendment No. 83 in the Lobby tonight.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we be sure which amendment we are voting on?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: A decision has just been taken on Government amendment No. 17.
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 25, line 10, leave out `remains in force' and insert 'is current'.
  No. 19, in page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert
  `if that day falls within the period of three years beginning with the date of the document containing the authorisation and subsection (3A) does not apply.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 83, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert `ten'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 296.

  Division No. 154]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Battle, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Margaret

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, David

  Fraser, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Galloway, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hume, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  258

  Jamieson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leighton, Ron

  Reid, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Terry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGrady, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallon, Seamus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Trimble, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Olner, William

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Ancram, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  259

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Booth, Hartley

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Harris, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, 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

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Fry, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  260

  Marlow, Tony

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Milligan, Stephen

  Spring, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stephen, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan

  Needham, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sykes, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thomason, Roy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tracey, Richard

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walden, George

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Richards, Rod

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Willetts, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Andrew Mackay.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 25, line 15, at beginning insert—
  '(3A) This subsection applies if'.
  No. 21, in page 25, line 27, leave out 'an' and insert 'a relevant'.
  No. 22, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
  '() so much of the increase referred to in subsection (4)(b) is relevant as is not attributable solely to an increase in the wages payable on the relevant day.'.
  No. 23, in page 25, line 33, at end insert—
  , subject to subsection (5A) below'.'.
  No. 24, in page 25, line 40, at end insert—
  '(5A) Where the relevant increase is attributable to an increase in any percentage by reference to which the worker's

  261
  subscription deductions are calculated, subsection (5) above shall have effect with the substitution, in paragraph (a), for the reference to the amount of the increase and the increased amount of the deductions of a reference to the percentage before and the percentage after the increase.'
  No. 25, in page 25, line 45, at end insert—
  '() Where arrangements, whether included in subscription deduction arrangements or not, exist between the parties to subscription deduction arrangements for the making from workers' wages of deductions representing payments to the union which are additional to subscription deductions, the amount of the deductions representing such additional payments shall be treated for the purposes of this section (where they would otherwise not be so treated) as part of the subscription deductions.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 12

  EXTENSION OF RIGHT NOT TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLY DISCIPLINED
  Amendments made: No. 26, in page 27, line 14, leave out `or'
  No. 27, in page 27, line 18, at end insert `or
  (j) requiring the union to do an act which the union is, by any provision of this Act, required to do on the requisition of a member.'
  No. 28, in page 27, line 18, at end insert—
  `(2) In section 65(7) of the 1992 Act (definitions), at the end, there shall be inserted the following—
  ""require" (on the part of an individual) includes request or apply for, and "requisition" shall be construed accordingly".'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 13

  REQUIREMENT OF POSTAL BALLOT
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 27, line 22, at beginning insert
  'Except as regards persons falling within subsection (2A)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 30, 33, 31, 34, 35, 32 and 36.
  Mr. Galbraith: Is it permissible for me to talk about Government amendment No. 33 at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is in order.
  Mr. Galbraith: Thank you. I shall not delay the House long. As the Minister will point out, the amendment is one of the concessions that the Government made to the Opposition, following our frequent well-reasoned and eloquent propositions in Committee.
  The following issue is at stake: according to the wording in the Bill, when employers are notified of people taking industrial action, is it necessary for them to be informed of the employees' names and addresses? The Minister and I had a long debate on the matter and he agreed to consider it.
  As a result of the amendment, the word "identify" has been changed to "ascertain". Of all the amendments that the Minister has given to us, this is the least satisfactory. There is a subtle difference between identify and ascertain. For example, in the House we have to identify the Minister by the area that he represents. Ascertain is similar to identify but leaves the second party with an element of investigation if he wishes to identify the hon. Member concerned. Will it not be necessary to give the employees'
  262
  names and addresses to the employer if he or she is to ascertain their identities? The amendment does not deal with our worries.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that the amendment, which was the result of representations made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), met the requirements requested of us. However, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned, I shall look at the amendment again to ascertain that it meets his requirements.
  Mr. Galbraith: Having identified the Minister's generosity, I have been able to ascertain that that is a splendid response and I am happy not to pursue the matter any further.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 30, in page 27, line 27, at end insert—

  '(2A) Where a merchant seaman to whom this subsection applies is entitled to vote in the ballot he must, so far as is reasonably practicable—

  (a) have a voting paper made available to him while he is on board the ship or is at a place where the ship is;

  (b) be given an opportunity to vote while he is on board the ship or is at a place where the ship is.

  (2B) Subsection (2A) applies to a merchant seaman who the trade union reasonably believes will, throughout the period during which votes may be cast in the ballot, be employed in a ship either at sea or at a place outside Great Britain.

  (2C) In subsections (2A) and (2B) "merchant seaman" means a person whose employment, or the greater part of it, is carried out on board sea-going ships.' —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 14

  NOTICE OF BALLOT AND SAMPLE VOTING PAPER FOR EMPLOYERS
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 28, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert —
  '(c) describing (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer who it is reasonable for the union to believe (at the time when the steps to comply with that paragraph are taken) will be entitled to vote in the ballot.'
  No. 31, in page 28, line 33, at end insert—
  '(5) This section, in its application to a ballot in which merchant seamen to whom section 230(2A) applies are entitled to vote, shall have effect with the substitution in subsection (3), for references to the voting paper which is to be sent to the employees, of references to the voting paper which is to be sent or otherwise provided to them.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 16

  SCRUTINY OF BALLOTS
  Amendments made: No. 34, in page 29, line 37, at end insert—
  `(a) state the name of the independent scrutineer,'.
  No. 35, in page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to `clearly'.
  No. 32, in page 29, line 45, at end insert—
  'This subsection, in its application to a ballot in which merchant seamen to whom section 230(2A) applies are entitled to vote, shall have effect with the substitution, for the reference to the address to which the voting paper is to be returned, of a reference to the ship to which the seamen belong.'
  No. 36, in page 30, line 27, at end insert—
  '(4) After section 226B of the 1992 Act there shall be inserted—

  Exclusion for small ballots.
  226C. Nothing in section 226B, section 229(1A)(a) or section 231B shall impose a requirement on a trade union unless—

  (a) the number of members entitled to vote in the ballot, or

  (b) where separate workplace ballots are held in accordance with section 228(1), the aggregate of the number of members entitled to vote in each of them, exceeds 50".'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 19

  RIGHT TO MATERNITY LEAVE AND RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK
  Amendments made: No. 1, in page 36, line 44, after 'shall' insert
  'subject to sections 36 and 37'.
  No. 2, in page 37, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) An employee who has both the right conferred by this section and a corresponding right conferred by her contract of employment or otherwise may take advantage of whichever right is, in any particular respect, the more favourable.'
  No. 3, in page 37, line 8, leave out from 'with' to end of line 14 and insert—

  '(a) the date which, in accordance with section 36, she notifies to her employer as the date on which she intends her period of absence from work in exercise of her right to maternity leave to commence, or

  (b) if earlier, the first day on which she is absent from work wholly or partly because of pregnancy or childbirth after the beginning of the sixth week before the expected week of childbirth.'

  No. 37, in page 37, line 26, at end insert
  'or until the birth of the child, if later'.
  No. 38, in page 37, line 32, leave out from first of' to 'by' and insert
  'the period mentioned in subsection (1)'.
  No. 4, in page 37, line 43, at end insert—

  'Notice of commencement of leave.
  36.—(1) An employee shall not have the right conferred by section 33 unless—

  (a) she notifies her employer of the date (within the restriction imposed by subsection (2)) ("the notified leave date") on which she intends her period of absence from work in exercise of her right to maternity leave to commence—

  (i) not less than twenty-one days before that date, or

  (ii) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable,

  (b) where she is first absent from work wholly or partly because of pregnancy or childbirth before the notified leave date or before she has notified such a date and after the beginning of the sixth week before the expected week of childbirth, she notifies her employer as soon as is reasonably practicable that she is absent for that reason, or

  (c) where childbirth occurs before the notified leave date or before she has notified such a date, she notifies her employer that she has given birth as soon as is reasonably practicable after the birth,

  and any notice she is required to give under paragraphs (a) to (c) shall, if her employer so requests, be given in writing.

  (2) No date may be notified under subsection (1)(a) which occurs before the beginning of the eleventh week before the expected week of childbirth.

  (3) Where, in the case of an employee, either paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) has fallen to be satisfied, and has been so satisfied, nothing in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall impose any requirement on the employee.'.

  No. 5, in page 38, leave out lines 33 to 37. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 20

  DISMISSAL RIGHTS
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 39, line 6, at end insert—
  '() the reason (or, if there is more than one, the principal reason) for her dismissal—

  (i) where, before the end of her maternity leave period, she gave to her employer a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that by reason of disease or bodily or mental disablement she would be incapable of work after the end of that period, and

  (ii) her contract of employment was terminated within the four week period following the end of her maternity leave period in circumstances where she continued to be incapable of work and the certificate relating to her incapacity remained current,

  is that she has given birth to a child or any other reason connected with her having given birth to a child,'
  No. 43, in page 39, line 39, leave out '(a)'.
  No. 44, in page 39, line 46, leave out '(a)'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 29

  CONSTITUTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
  Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 44, line 29 at end insert—
  '() No order shall be made under subsection (2D) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I wish to speak to the amendment as I believe that legislation passed in the House should have our constituents' footprints across it. While the title of the clause to which the amendment relates is: "Constitution of industrial tribunals", one should rightly call it the "unibunal" clause as I cannot think of another word to describe a tribunal which has one person sitting alone. The amendment is important as the factors set out in subsection (2D) can be brought into effect only by an affirmative resolution.
  I wish to illustrate with a constituency case why the House must be careful before it allows a tribunal to become a "unibunal", especially in a case which is not contested, where the employer does not turn up. It is a case with which Ministers, particularly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, should be familiar, as he has dismissed most of the parliamentary questions that I have asked on the matter in recent months. I have corresponded with Ministers, asked parliamentary questions and even contacted the chair of the tribunal, which took me back to where I started, as he said that he could not tell me any more than he had already said.
  I shall take a few minutes to outline the case, as it is crucial. One of my constituents, Mr. Colin Yates, was dismissed by his employers in January 1991 on the ground of redundancy. He appealed to a tribunal against the dismissal, claiming that it was unfair as he had not been consulted or offered alternative employment, which was available.
  He won his case at a tribunal hearing in July 1991. The employer did not turn up. The tribunal did not even make a basic award because my constituent had already received

  265
  a redundancy payment, but it made a very large compensatory award—more than £33,000—for the loss of salary. That is the highest award made by a tribunal that I have located in my researches. That led my constituent to believe that he was due to obtain a considerable amount of compensation.
  At the time of the award there was a maximum statutory level on compensatory awards of £8,925. Yet the chair of the tribunal awarded more than £33,000. My constituent lost £1,400 in unemployment benefit, leaving an expectation of over £7,500.
  Here comes the rub. The firm, Bygging Rust Proofing, went into voluntary liquidation in 1991. The law does not allow compensatory awards in respect of unfair dismissal to be paid out of the national insurance fund: the employee goes to the back of the queue, which means that he will never see a penny piece.
  That strikes me as ludicrous. In the instance that I have raised, one party did not turn up to contest the case, as set out in new subsection (2C)(f), and a huge compensatory award was made on the merits of the case. Yet, by means of a quirk—the wheeze of voluntary liquidation—the firm was able to avoid paying a penny to an aggrieved ex-employee. I might add that the company is still operating under another name, and that its chief director, Henry Gold, is still a director of what is effectively the same company.
  In correspondence, Ministers and—before the general election—their predecessors have dismissed my constituent's case out of hand. They have flatly refused to say that compensatory awards should be met from within the national insurance fund, as is the basic award in unfair dismissal cases.
  We may legislate tonight to allow tribunals to engage in City-style procedures, whereby a single person can make a decision which will apparently be fairly easy to accept if it is not contested. Because an employer did not turn up and thus avoided contesting the case that I have cited, a huge award will never be paid. My constituent will not receive a penny.
  If the Minister is not prepared to answer my point now, I hope that he will go away and think about it. Perhaps he will look at the volumes of correspondence. It is grossly unfair that, following the making of an award in a public tribunal, a citizen who expects to receive some, if not all, of the money should not receive a penny because of a quirk in the law.
  I am sorry to have detained the House at this late hour, but I promised my constituent Colin Yates that, if an occasion arose for me to put his case to the House succinctly without going into laborious detail, I would do so. I have tried every other avenue: I have tried correspondence, parliamentary questions and even writing to the chairman of the tribunal, which got me nowhere. The amendment seemed to be the best hook on which to hang what, in other circumstances, would have been an Adjournment debate. I am grateful to the House for its tolerance.
  Mr. McLoughlin: We are to allow industrial tribunal chairmen to sit alone in some very specific cases. As the hon Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, the change that we are making is to invoke the affirmative-resolution procedure, which was welcomed by
  266
  the Committee and, indeed, will probably be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. The case to which he referred raises serious questions; perhaps we could meet and discuss it more fully.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome the amendment, which improves new subsections (2C) and (2D). I hope that the Government will continue to find ways in which initial tribunal claims can be heard more quickly, and that they will find more ways of keeping the lawyers out whenever possible. In particular—this applies to a certain extent to clause 30—I hope that there will be some way of ensuring that the appeal tribunal waiting time no longer remains at two years in England and Wales, when it is only five months in Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33
  FEES FOR EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY ACAS
  Amendment made: No. 46, in page 47, line 24, leave out from 'person' to 'unless' in line 26.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Clause 34

  CAREERS SERVICES
  Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 48, line 8, at end insert—
  '(1A) In exercising his functions under subsection (11) the Secretary of State shall meet the requirements of disabled persons or persons having learning difficulties.'
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 85, in page 48, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3A) For the purposes of this section a disabled person is defined in section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, and persons having learning difficulties as defined under section 120, subsections (11) and (12), of the Education Reform Act 1988.'.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but it is an important principle that if the Government are to privatise the schools careers service they should write into law requirements to meet the particular needs of disabled persons, or persons with learning difficulties. The Government do not want to accept our amendment at this stage, but I should like an undertaking from them that they will reconsider the issue and possibly table amendments in the other place.
  Mr. McLoughlin: We have covered some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Committee. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the amendment. I think that we have the powers to deal with the matter. However, I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and also the representations that have been put to me by my hon. Friends. I very much hope that we can come to an agreement. I hope, too, that, even though we cannot accept the amendment, we shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by means of orders and the way that we implement the changes.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way he has responded to the sensible points that have been made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in trying to meet the requirements of disabled people, or people with learning difficulties. I

  267
  understand why it is not possible to debate my suggestion that there should be an annual report from the careers service in its new form. If that point could be discussed in another place, it would be possible to consider how the careers service would want to adapt to the changing situation. This, however, is not the time to do that.
  Mr. Dobson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41
  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 10, in page 54, line 7, at beginning insert 'Subject to any other commencement provision,'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Schedule 1

  POLITICAL FUND BALLOTS
  Amendments made: No. 60, in page 56, line 43, at end insert—
  '(3C) The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in the scrutineer's appointment.'
  No. 61, in page 57, line 35, at end insert—
  '() The duty of confidentiality as respects the register is incorporated in an appointment under this section.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 3

  SUSPENSION FROM WORK ON MATERNITY GROUNDS
  Amendments made: No. 39, in page 62, line 22, leave out from first 'employee' to 'the' in line 23.
  No. 40, in page 62, line 24, at end insert—
  '(1A) For alternative work to be suitable for an employee for the purposes of this section—

  (a) the work must be of a kind which is both suitable in relation to her and appropriate for her to do in the circumstances; and

  (b) the terms and conditions applicable to her for performing the work, if they differ from the corresponding terms and conditions applicable to her for performing the work she normally performs under her contract of employment, must not be substantially less favourable to her than those corresponding terms and conditions.'

  No. 41, in page 62, line 45, leave out from beginning to
  'and' in line 47 and insert
  'work which is suitable alternative work for the purposes of section 46.'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 4
  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS I TO 6 OF 1978 ACT
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 66, leave out lines 26 to 49.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
Schedule 5

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION IN HEALTH AND SAFETY CASES
  Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 68, line 10, at end insert—
  '(bb) being an employee at a place where—

  (i) there was no such representative or safety committee, or

  268

  (ii) there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means,

  he brought to his employer's attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 47, 48, 55, 49 and 50.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If I may speak briefly to the amendment, it brings us to the end of the Report stage and also to what I call the social aspect of the European Community. It is worth recognising that the United Kingdom has one of the best health and safety records in the Community.
  Amendment No. 54 deals with an employee at a place where there is no such representative or safety committee. Our law builds on the Act that makes provision for health and safety and on the work of the Health and Safety Executive. It also builds on the tripartite Health and Safety Commission.
  I hope that those who are considering the social policy of the European Community in the context of other Bills understand that one of the reasons why our health and safety performance is better than that of most other countries is the co-operation at work between representatives of employees and representatives of employers. As well as the responsibility at individual workplaces, the framework of the Health and Safety Commission is built upon recognition of the expertise, interests and responsibility of people at work.
  I recommend that the Treasury Bench should try to build on that as a way of resisting some of the amendments to other Bills and should try to recognise the role of trade unions and the hundreds of thousands of people within the trade union movement who give of their time to represent their fellow workers and, for that matter, who help to protect their own employers from the health and safety risks that would otherwise threaten their businesses.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 47, in page 68, line 11 leave out 'was' and insert 'he reasonably believed to be'.
  No. 48, in page 68, line 17 leave out from 'of' to 'he' and insert
  'danger which he reasonably believed to be serious arid imminent,'.
  No. 55, in page 70, line 5, at end insert—
  `(bb) being an employee at a place where—

  (i) there was no such representative or safety committee, or

  (ii) there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means,

  brought to his employer's attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,'.
  No. 49, in page 70, line 6, leave out 'was' and insert 'he reasonably believed to be'.
  No. 50, in page 70, line 12 leave out from 'of' to end and insert
  'danger which he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent,'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 7

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 85, line 6 leave out second 'and'.
  No. 8, in page 85, line 10, at end insert—
  '(v) after that definition there shall be inserted—
  "" notified leave date" shall be construed in accordance with section 36;",'.
  No. 42, in page 87, line 5, after 'begins' insert
  'or where that day falls within an employee's maternity leave period or within the further period up to the day on which an employee exercises her right to return to work under section 39, the day before the beginning of the maternity leave period.'
  No. 62, in page 88, line 2, at beginning insert—
  '. In section 25 of the 1992 Act (application to Certification Officer as respects failures in relation to the register of members)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after the words "section 24" there shall be inserted the words "or 24A"; and

  (b) after subsection (7), there shall be inserted—

  "(8) The Certification Officer shall not entertain an application for a declaration as respects an alleged failure to comply with the requirements of section 24A in relation to a ballot to which that section applies unless the application is made before the end of the period of one year beginning with the last day on which votes could be cast in the ballot".
  In section 26 of the 1992 Act (application to court as respects failures in relation to the register of members)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after the words "section 24" there shall be inserted the words "or 24A"; and

  (b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted—

  "(7) The court shall not entertain an application for a declaration as respects an alleged failure to comply with the requirements of section 24A in relation to a ballot to which that section applies unless the application is made before the end of the period of one year beginning with the last day on which votes could be cast in the ballot".'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 8

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Amendments made: No. 52, in page 98, line 36, at end insert
  `; and subsections (2) and (4) of that section shall apply accordingly.'.
  No. 53, in page 98, leave out lines 37 to 44.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 9

  REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 11, in page 103, line 20, column 3, at end insert 'Sections 115 and 116'.
  Bill to be read the Third time this day

  Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances)
  12.4 am
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 70), dated 18th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be annulled.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is notification on the Order Paper that the
  "Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the Instrument."
  That rubric is no longer true because this afternoon, at a meeting of the Joint Committee, we completed our consideration. In the Vote Office, a very brief extract from our report is available to hon. Members. However, I must point out that the terms of the Standing Order under which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is established places an obligation on that Committee to provide a report for the House. Had the matter been more complicated or had it required evidence or a further memorandum, it would not have been possible to have provided the information in time for the debate. That would have negated the whole purpose of having a Joint Committee to review statutory instruments and report to the House. I hope that the Government will note that they should seek to lay instruments on the Order Paper only when the Joint Committee has reported.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters. He will know that the arrangement of business is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that Ministers will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Dr. Strang: Successive Governments have recognised the need to provide special assistance for livestock farmers in our hill areas. That assistance is necessary to compensate them for the difficult farming conditions in our hills and uplands.
  It was the post-war Labour Government who enacted the Hill Farming Act 1946, which was introduced to rehabilitate hill farming land. Farmers who adopted hill improvement schemes received capital grants for farm buildings, houses, roads, fencing and land improvement. The Act also made long-term provision for headage payments for hill cows and hill sheep.
  In 1972 it was the Conservative Government who negotiated an annex to the treaty of accession to the European Community which enabled the British Government to continue the hill subsidies. Again, a Labour Government were in power in 1975 when the hill livestock compensatory allowance directive was negotiated.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: In a moment.
  That directive enabled the hill subsidies to be put on a European Community basis.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten Joe Godber's work on this

  271
  matter. On 1 May 1973, the Council, at his behest, agreed a resolution about farming in poorer areas. He had to fight very hard for that. The hon. Gentleman omitted that little bit.
  Dr. Strang: No, the hon. Lady has got that wrong. I remember putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister for Agriculture. He made a contribution when the Conservative Government were in power from 1970–74.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I know, at column 997.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a private conversation.
  Dr. Strang: It is important to recognise that hill livestock compensatory allowances are paid to compensate farmers for the natural handicaps in the hills. Hon. Members who represent constituencies with hills and uplands well know the severe conditions with which the farmers have to cope. They know that hill farmers cannot be expected to compete with farms in the lowlands without special Government assistance. They also know that the hill farming measures have been successful in maintaining the population in our rural areas and in supporting the rural economy.
  The purpose of the Opposition's prayer is to reject the cut in the hill livestock compensatory allowances for sheep in severely disadvantaged areas announced by the Government in December. If the prayer is carried, the Government's regulations cutting the HLCAs will be annulled. In those circumstances, the Government would have a duty to implement the wishes of Parliament and table new regulations maintaining the HLCAs at their current levels.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the position for those of us who are concerned about the reduction in HLCAs? If the prayer is carried, will it be possible to make HLCA payments, or will they be stopped from tonight?
  Dr. Strang: I have just explained that. This is the proper procedure for voting against the cuts. The Government have an obligation to implement the wishes of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up for his hill farmers and their families tonight, he must vote with the Opposition.
  The Government have advanced two arguments to justify the cuts in the HLCAs. First, they have referred to an improvement in hill farm incomes in recent years. Secondly, they have pointed to the increase in the hill ewe premium and to the less-favoured areas supplement to that hill ewe premium.
  But the Government must recognise that, while it is true that on their own figures hill farm incomes are estimated to rise this year and the previous year, that increase is from a desperately low level. The average incomes are well below the 1988–89 level and significantly below the average in the five years from 1983–84 to 1987–88.
  According to the Government's figures for the distribution of farm incomes for 1991, the most recent year for which figures are available, 48 per cent. of English LFA farms produced for their occupants a cash income of less than £10,000. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the corresponding figures were respectively 42 per cent., 37 per cent. and 62 per cent.
  272
  Some farmers earn a great deal less. A recent survey showed that in Wales 17 per cent. of farmers in the less-favoured areas earned less than £5,000 a year. We welcome the evidence that hill farm incomes are increasing, but they are rising from a dismally low level.
  We also welcome the increase in the hill ewe premium, arising from the devaluation of sterling in October and the consequent devaluation of the green pound in January, and in the less-favoured areas supplement, agreed at the Agricultural Council in December.
  It is true that the combined effect of those increases more than offsets the cut in the HLCAs. But the Minister must appreciate that it is unfair to tell hill farmers that, because their incomes now show some prospect of rising after such desperately low levels during the 1980s, the HLCAs will be cut.
  Why did farmers from throughout the United Kingdom converge on Parliament earlier this year to protest against the cuts in the HLCAs? It was because they saw the cuts as unprecedented. It is true that previous Governments had failed to increase the HLCAs in some years, but the farmers regarded it as unprecedented for a Government to cut them in cash terms.
  It is true that farmers hoped that their incomes were beginning to rise again, but from the Government's statements it seemed clear that they had no idea of the level of poverty and misery which had occurred in the hill areas throughout the 1980s because of the total collapse in those incomes. When an income falls by 50 per cent., as these incomes fell between 1988–89 and 1989–90, one needs an increase of 100 per cent. to return to the original level. That is something which the Government do not seem to appreciate in all their statements about this.
  We shall vote for this motion because we want a fair deal for hill farmers and their families. We shall vote for it because we shall be voting against depopulation in the hills and the uplands. We shall vote for it out of our recognition of the crucial importance of hill farming to the rural economy in some of the most beautiful parts of these islands. I urge all hon. Members to support the Opposition motion.
  12.16 am
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether there has been any explanation of why the Minister of Agriculture is not here—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member well knows that that is not a point of order for me.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): It seems to me to be both natural and right that a member of the ministerial team in the Ministry of Agriculture who has a very large number of hill farmers in his constituency and knows them well should seek to reply to this debate, because—[Interruption.] Well, let me finish my point. Because it is natural that my personal experience of my constituency leads me to want to do so. I asked my right hon. Friend that I should speak in this debate, and he agreed that I should. It is my responsibility, and I will take that responsibility. I cannot see why anyone at all should complain.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Perhaps the Minister is unaware of the great insult felt by hill

  273
  farmers because of the words and pronouncements of the Minister of Agriculture. That is why we want him here. It is he who insulted hill farmers.
  Mr. Curry: We have had the thinnest speech that I have heard from an Opposition spokesman for a very long time. We have now had an entirely irrelevant point from the hon. Lady. Clearly, the Opposition have not got their hearts in it. I think that they are beginning to regret that they launched this operation.
  Dr. Strang: What concerns Labour hon. Members is that the Minister was seen in the Chamber during the previous Division. Why is he not present for the debate?
  Mr. Curry: This is typical of the Opposition. They are not concerned about hill farmers at all. If they are so concerned about hill farmers, why have they spent the past five minutes talking about my right hon. Friend?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise and now too much heat is being generated. Perhaps the hon. Member can now continue with his speech. May I add that a number of hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this fairly short debate.
  Mr. Curry: The decision on HLCAs has to be seen in the context of the total support for farmers in the uplands which is directly linked to production. I am not talking about the environmentally sensitive areas; I am not talking about the countryside stewardship; I am talking about the totality of support. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a choice. I do not mind giving way. I often give way. It simply eats into the time that other hon. Members have to intervene in the debate. I will give way once more, and that will be 50 per cent. more than the Opposition spokesman did.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I was wondering whether the Minister would like to meditate on the significance of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said that the market conditions had improved to such an extent that the HLCA must be cut. As chairman of the Agriculture Council, he suggested that the sheep annual premium supplement needed to be increased because of the difficult conditions in the sheep meat market especially for producers in the uplands.
  Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman waits, I will come to the figures. My right hon. Friend was an excellent chairman of the Agriculture Council for three—[Interruption.] I hope that farmers will listen to the irrelevant babble coming from the Opposition Benches and judge how seriously they take these matters.
  There are three sources of support for farmers. There is the market place, which is sometimes forgotten; there is the ewe premium, and that obviously depends on the pound-ecu rate and the supplement; and there is the HLCA payment. When all these are taken into consideration, as they all were taken into consideration at the beginning of this calculation, the hill sheep farmer is significantly better off.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Curry: I will not give way; I want to make some progress.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Member must resume his seat, as I am sure he knows.
  Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for a Minister to misinform the House? The fact is that hill farmers will be worse off this year. Next year there may be a marginal improvement. Why will he not tell the truth to the House, or leave it to his Minister of Agriculture to do so?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member raised that as a point of order. The accuracy of what the Minister or anybody else says is not a matter for the Chair—thank goodness.
  Mr. Curry: The figures that I will give are absolutely accurate. There is no purpose whatsoever in my seeking to misrepresent the situation. I cannot think why the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that there would be the slightest profit in that, and I do not intend to do it.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I would be most grateful if my hon. Friend could explore the question of the returns from the market place. I have to say in all honesty that my hill farmers are puzzled as to how their figures match up with his. I do not doubt that there is an adequate explanation, but the sort of figures that I am quoted are these. Between 1991 and 1992, one farmer dropped 13.2 per cent. in the market place, another 17.2 per cent., another 7.6 per cent. and another 21.7 per cent. So, if they are supposed to have had a better return from the market place for fat lambs, possibly there is some aspect that I am not taking into account. Can my hon. Friend help?
  Mr. Curry: I will try to help my hon. Friend. I will give him the figures, which are, of course, arrived at by independent academic authorities. Those are the figures on which we have based all our calculations in the past and they have not changed in this circumstance.
  It is entirely wrong to isolate the HLCA from the totality of support that farmers get, as if there were a moral virtue in the HLCA payment which does not obtain with any other payment. The decision on the HLCA was taken after the pound had left the exchange rate mechanism, when the consequent devaluation was clearly signalled, and when the imminent abolition of MCAs meant that that would work through very rapidly indeed into the price farmers received. The three factors are income, the ewe premium and the HLCAs. I will deal with them in turn. The income survey is conducted by universities and colleges, except in Northern Ireland, where it is conducted by the Government Department there. It is based on 850 hill livestock farms in the less-favoured areas. The survey has been carried on for 50 years and this particular method has been carried on for over 10 years. Nobody, and that includes the National Farmers Union, disputes the methodology used or the legitimacy of the survey.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I thank the Minister for giving way in this short debate. If the methodology is accepted—and I do not believe that it is accepted by my farmers—can he explain why all the farmers in the severely disadvantaged areas, who do not seem to be singled out in the surveys, are of one mind in believing that their position, as expressed to Members by their bankers, their accountants and those in the Benefits

  275
  Agency who are having to pay out family credit to farmers this year, is so much worse, and that their plight seems not to be appreciated at all by the Government?
  Mr. Curry: That is not true on any count. We carry out surveys on income. They are not disputed in their base because they are carried out by academic institutions and not by the Government. They are not rigged. The NFU and the Scottish NFU have not disputed their validity. I do not deny that the income increase is from a low base. I am not trying to pretend that is not the case. However, it has been an increase from a low base and refers to representative farms.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Minister mentioned the Scottish NFU. Just last night I received a call from a member of the executive of the Forth Valley NFU telling me that the figures for Scotland that the Minister quoted misrepresented income figures, as income for the year 1992 did not relate to a 12-month year but to the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1993. Suddenly we had a 15-month year. Those figures were quoted in the House and denied by the Scottish NFU.
  Mr. Curry: All the figures are in the Library of the House of Commons, so the hon. Gentleman can examine them, but those income figures are identitical to those which we have used in the past. When we use them as the basis for demanding an increase, the complaints are far fewer than when they are used to justify a decline.
  Livestock farms in the severely disadvantaged areas throughout the United Kingdom—that is 90 per cent. of the less-favoured areas—have seen their income go up by 35 per cent. in real terms in the two years to mid-February 1993. In England, the net farm income on specialist sheep farms has gone from £6,600 to £14,200. That relates just to the farm and does not include bed and breakfast or the wife's activities. It takes into account the costs of depreciation, unpaid family labour, valuation charges and imputed rent for owner-occupiers. In Scotland the equivalent figure has risen from £8,100 to £11,400 and in Wales the same survey shows that the figures have increased from £10,500 to £18,700 and for Northern Ireland, where all the farms are livestock farms, the figure has increased from £4,000 to£6,800—[Interruption.]Hon. Gentlemen should complain to the University College, Aberystwyth, because that institution provided the figures.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is misinforming the House about the figures for Northern Ireland because the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland stated quite recently that the average hill-farm income for Northern Ireland is exactly £3,761. If the Minister considers that to be an adequate income, he is being ridiculous.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told another hon. Gentleman that accuracy is not a matter for the Chair and is not a point of order.
  Mr. Curry: The figures—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Mr. Curry.
  Mr. Curry: The figures are in the Library of the House of Commons. I am quoting figures which are in the public domain and which are the results of the surveys upon which we have always based our actions in the past. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen do not like the outcome of the figures, but they remain the same, and the figures for cash in hand are proportionately larger.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall not give way again because it would not be fair to those who wish to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The matter in dispute is central to the case that will be made by Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. The Minister with responsibilities for agriculture in Northern Ireland is sitting next to the Minister of State. Can he confirm or deny the figures presented by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland? Would it not be advisable to ask him to clear it up now and take the opportunity to stand by his figures—or not?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it quite clear that the accuracy or otherwise of figures has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair and is not a point of order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is not the same point of order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No. If the Minister is giving figures from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, let him give the figures and not misrepresent what he is saying to the House.
  Mr. Curry: I am misrepresenting nothing; I am reporting the outcome of the surveys.
  The ewe premium is paid in three instalments. Without any devaluation, the ewe premium would have been £14·61. After devaluation, it comes to £17·25. The supplement for less-favoured areas was £4·37. After devaluation plus the additional £1.05, this takes the figure to £6·57. The overall net gain on that subsidy is £4·84 per ewe.
  The final payment for the ewe premium and the supplement is £23·82 per ewe. That is the supplement for hardy ewes in severely disadvantaged areas. When the third instalment of the ewe premium is paid in early April, the overwhelming majority of 90,000 claims will receive a sum of about £10·50.
  The third strand is the hill livestock compensatory allowance. The high rate was £8·75, and that has gone down to £6·50. The lower rate, which is for non-hardy ewes, has gone down by the same amount proportionally to £3·60. In the disadvantaged areas, there has been no cut in the hill livestock compensatory allowance; it has been increased to £2·86.
  If we net all that out, we find that farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will be £2·59 per ewe better off with regard to their hardy ewes, which are 58 per cent. of the flock. They will be £3·54 per ewe better off for their non-hardy ewes, which are 28 per cent. of the flock. In the

  277
  disadvantaged areas, farmers will be £5·25 per ewe better off with regard to about 14 per cent. of the flock. Hill farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will get £13 per hardy ewe more than farmers in the low land. It is worth while reporting that that is the case.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his full explanation. I represent hill farmers and those in less-favoured areas. If the figures are so good in my hon. Friend's view, why are the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England—none of them really anti-Tory organisations—so worried about the income of hill farmers and their ability to maintain themselves and the countryside which many of us consider so important?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is not an anti-Tory organisation, either. Did he really expect any of those organisations to applaud the cuts? We know that they do not applaud them. They would prefer the cuts not to be made.
  What I am saying to those organisations and many individual farmers is that the net effect of the cuts will leave them better off than many anticipated when they made their farm plans. When they made their farm plans, I am sure that they were not banking on a ewe premium at the present rate.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has just accepted that there is a cut. In the figures which he has just given—even if we accept his figures as to the net effect—he made it perfectly clear that the positive net effect is much less for those in severely disadvantaged areas than for those in disadvantaged areas. Surely the whole point of the hill livestock compensatory allowance is to give specific advantage to those who have difficulties because of transport and other factors. The Minister is eroding the differential, and that is the whole point.
  Mr. Curry: In certain respects, low-land sheep producers found themselves in the most difficult circumstances recently. Upland farmers have the push in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for the less-favoured premium. The differential between the allowances for upland farmers and some lowland farmers is significant. Lowland farmers have found themselves in some difficulties.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Curry: I shall give way to my hon. Friend. It will be the last time that I give way, otherwise no one else will get a chance to speak.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As I do not come from Cheshire, and I have farmed 1,600 feet up, I know something about sheep. My farmers appreciate the battle that my hon. Friend the Minister had to get the extra 79p. It was a bit of very smart footwork on his part. He got it a year early. But the sting is in the tail. Devaluation gives us a bonus for now. But what will happen if it goes the other way? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that we will then get the benefit? If the pound goes the wrong way, will he increase the compensatory allowance?
  Mr. Curry: I had better not speculate about which is the right way for the pound to go. Just as on this occasion we examined all the factors in determining the final conclusion, so next year we shall examine all the factors present in determining the recommendations that we make. That would be a sensible thing to do.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No. I have given way infinitely more frequently than the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister.
  Mr. Curry: No. I shall not give way.
  Some farmers will not receive the sums that I have quoted. I wish to make that clear to the House so that I am not accused of misrepresentation. They include those with more than 1,000 ewes, to whom the ceiling applies if they have not organised their partnership schemes—but most of them have. They also include those with un-tupped Herdwick shearlings. I will translate for those who might have a problem with that. The Herdwick is a sheep; un-tupped means that it has not yet had the pleasure of a ram; shearling means that it has been sheared once but is less than two years old. Such sheep receive only a 70 per cent. premium. But there are only 25,000 sheep in the country to which that applies.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No.
  I shall give some typical consequences of the change. Farmer No. 1 claims on 662 ewes, as against 652 last year and 40 cows, which is the same as last year. His total subsidy from HLCA and the ewe premium will be £22,485. That is £3,868 more than the previous year—an increase of 20·1 per cent.
  A second farmer has 483 ewes, on top of which are 102 Herdwicks. Last year he had 439, on top of which were 84 Herdwicks. He has five cattle—unchanged from last year. He will receive £17,512 in support from the two schemes. That is £3,879 up on the previous year—an increase of 28·5 per cent.
  A third farmer has 607 ewes, as against 590 the previous year. His number of cows is unchanged at 72. He will receive £21,318—an increase of £4,235. A farmer with 683 ewes, against 696 the previous year—so he has destocked somewhat—with no cattle, against six the previous year, will receive £19,835. That is an increase of £3,031, or 18 per cent.
  Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate in this debate to refer to the problem of the hill shipyard workers, the hill steel workers and other workers who apparently do not get all this nonsense? They would not know—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The answer is no.
  Mr. Curry: The four cases that I have quoted are not taken entirely at random. They are the four farmers with whom the National Farmers Union invited journalists to discuss their position at the mass lobby of Parliament. Every one of them is substantially better off as a result of the change that we have made.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: Farmers will be paid the HLCAs. The first batch of cheques is ready to go out today. We shall pay as soon as the applications come in. The third instalment of the ewe premium will go out in early April. It will be about £10·50. It will go to 90,000 eligible farmers. So the Government's commitment is clear. Half a billion pounds a year of public support goes to hill farmers.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on his persistence but not on his success.
  We support hill farmers and we are proud to do so. We support the landscape and we are proud to do so. We promote the food which a farmer produces and we seek an ever wider market for it. We are proud to do that. We have husbanded agriculture through an intensely difficult period of change and challenge. We are passionately committed to doing that.
  Hill farming is tough; we do not deny that. The conditions are hard, and the rewards are rarely generous, and often meagre. We know that the contribution that farmers make to the community is essential, and we shall sustain them in that role. In this regard, we have kept faith with them, and we shall continue to do so. By their baying tonight, the Opposition have shown that this motion is opportunistic, outrageous and ill-informed. Their concern is simulated, and I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As a great many hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate, I make a plea for short, succinct speeches.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Martyn Jones: During agriculture questions on 3 December I asked the Minister if he could give an undertaking that the GATT negotiations would not affect support for hill farmers. I received the very comforting answer that those negotiations would not affect HLCA payments. I should have asked the Minister whether he would tamper with HLCA payments, as, two or three weeks later, he announced that he would cut them. This was a bombshell to my farmers, who attempt to make a living in the upland areas of Clwyd. Farmers in those and other severely disadvantaged areas throughout the United Kingdom are trapped by the conditions in which they find themselves. They depend on traditional methods, and have little opportunity to diversify. For years they have been at the bottom of the incomes league table. This has taken its toll on hill farming areas in economic, cultural and social terms.
  Farming is absolutely necessary to maintenance of the current condition of the countryside—the state in which the city dweller expects to see it—and to preservation of the fabric of rural areas already eroded by Government policy on the privatisation of bus services and by cuts in education and in council services. The need for hill farms has been recognised by successive Governments and by the European Communities, and the HLCAs go some way towards helping to maintain the upland farmers. But these were cut for the first time ever by the Minister. After my farmers had got over the shock of this unprecedented move, they were astonished—nay, incredulous—to be told
  280
  that the cut was justified by some massive rise in incomes that they were supposed to have enjoyed over the pass. 18 months. Such farmers are hardy folk. They may spend most of their working lives on the hilltops by themselves, but they are not stupid. They know that in some cases incomes have improved, but they know also to what levels incomes sank in the previous two years.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State have acknowledged that incomes have risen from a low base, but they are very coy about describing how low that base has been. In 1991, statistics showed that farm businesses in Wales suffered a net drop in income of more than 25 per cent., to £7,500. Of hill farmers, 45 per cent. are on zero net incomes and a further 40 per cent. have incomes of less than £10,000. In other words, 85 per cent. of all farmers in the less-favoured areas have incomes of £145 or less a week—only 56 per cent. of the average industrial wage.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sure that the experience of the hon. Gentleman's farmers is the same as that of mine: that about 40 per cent. of them are on family credit schemes. Those are the ones who are eligible. The worry is that the next generation simply will not go into this work unless the recompense is better.
  Mr. Jones: I agree entirely. And family credit is means-tested. This tends to give the lie to figures such as those that we have heard from the Minister. We all know that statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything.
  I have here a sheaf of letters from my farmers, all of whom are suffering real problems. This is not a joke. It is not spurious or made up. We know that farmers in general have a reputation for crying "Wolf", but this time the farmers in the less-favoured areas of my constituency are indeed badly affected. They are in real trouble. On one clay in Ruthin market I received a petition signed by 150 farmers. Typically, they are facing small cuts—£350 to £500 a year—in income. When their income is so low that that constitutes 10 per cent. of their net income, they are in real trouble.
  The use of percentages by the Minister is also misleading. A 50 per cent. reduction in income needs a 100 per cent. increase just to return to the previous position. There has also been a reliance on figures relating to sheep farms. Thanks to the Government's failure to stay within the ERM and the resulting devaluation, sheep farmers have benefited slightly from the devaluation of the green pound. But most LFA farms are sheep and cattle farms and have done considerably worse, and—like the rest of us —they all are facing higher bills for inputs, council tax and so on.
  To add insult to injury, most farmers, even some of the least well off, face council tax bills based on being placed in band G, giving a valuation of between £160,000 and £320,000. That is crazy. I would develop the point if there were time, but I am aware that other hon. Members are anxious to speak.
  Never have HLCAs been cut. I am not aware of such cuts being made by other member states, so it is hardly surprising that hill farmers feel let down. It is true that the HLCAs represent a compensatory allowance, but they are not, as the Minister implied, a direct compensatory allowance for fluctuations in prices or incomes. If they were, they would have been reduced long ago. They represent compensation for farming in some of the worst

  281
  and bleakest farming conditions in northern Europe. Even so, those farms are essential for the maintenance of the rural uplands.
  The proposed cut is nothing but a Treasury-inspired money-saving plan because the Government are in desperate financial trouble, in a hole of their own digging, and they expect the most vulnerable farming sector to get them out of it. I urge the Minister to reconsider the cut in HLCAs for the benefit of all who enjoy the countryside and for the culture of rural Wales. He should give the money to those who desperately need it.
  12.46 am
  Mr. Paul Marland: It is refreshing to note that there is at least one area of agreement between the two sides of the House—that we should seek to keep the rural and difficult areas populated. But am I the only person who is wondering whether there is a limit to which we can ask the taxpayer to contribute when it is possible for hill farmers to get income from other sources? [Interruption.] I shall explain what I mean.
  Farmers today are living in a different world. The farm gate mentality is nearly dead. That applies in every sector of farming. No longer can they simply produce goods and get them to the farm gate, and then leave it to someone else. Farmers recognise that they must grow for a market, and that applies even in very difficult areas. A friend of mine farms in the Inner Hebrides, on the Isle of Mull. He is a west highland sheep farmer who has discovered a way to finish his sheep, by changing their diet, in such a way as to fill a niche in the Spanish market. He is making extra money by going after that market.
  As David Naish, president of the National Farmers Union, said at the NFU's annual general meeting this week:
  "Farmers must innovate and differentiate and promote their own products."
  We must urge farmers to do that, in whatever part of the country they live. In their turn, the Government must produce sound and sensible economic policies in which farming can flourish, and that they are clearly trying to do. Inflation has dropped from 11 to 1·7 per cent. and interest rates have come down from 15 to 6 per cent. Marketing grants are available to help farmers market their products.
  We are witnessing an onslaught on over-regulation and a massive cut in red tape. Opposition Members say that HLCAs have never been cut before and that farmers are working from a very low base. Both statements are correct. But thousands of other businesses in difficult areas are working from a low base. Consider, for example, garages, retail shops and hotels. They are all suffering in what is a world recession. But we do not say that garage proprietors or hoteliers in difficult areas should receive a massive subsidy from the Government to enable them to keep going.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminding the House that HLCAs are reviewed annually with interested parties. So those who are worried that the reduction in HLCAs is set in concrete for ever need have no worries because they are reviewed annually. This year the currency changes will have a major influence on farm incomes. That view is supported by the most recent edition of Farming News which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr.
  282
  Jopling) and I know, is not a paper that is necessarily well disposed towards the Government. Its leader in this week's issue says:
  "Currency changes put back a bit of bounce. Sterling's exit from the exchange rate mechanism is putting some bounce back into British agriculture. Seven straight devaluations of the Green £, allied to almost as many cuts in interest rates, have not only taken the sting out of the MacSharry reforms, they have left many of us better off than before … the currency realignments will work similar magic on livestock returns, helping to restore battered confidence there. This week's announcement of an extra 79p on the hill sheep supplement, worth some £10 million, is a case in point."
  Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can read!
  Mr. Marland: I can read.
  "So, for the moment at least, the news is good, and far better than we dared hope only five months ago. Long may it continue so."
  Mr. Connarty: I notice in Vacher's that the hon. Gentleman's previous occupation is listed as a farmer and that he owns a farm. If it is so lucrative, why has he got out of farming?
  Mr. Marland: I am happy to give way to useful interventions—but what a feckless, useless and unnecessary intervention! My hon. Friend the Minister has given details of the changes in pounds and pence. I am ready to back him. Suffice it to say that hill farmers are getting more money. It is worth mentioning that the total payment per ewe to hill sheep farmers in difficult areas will be £30·92. So a hill sheep farmer with 500 ewes will get a subsidy from the taxpayers of more than £15,000 per annum, and a man with 1,000 ewes will get a subsidy of more than £30,000 a year. As I have said, there is plenty for the sheep farmers but nothing for the garages, the hotels or other businesses in difficult areas.
  Mr. Dafis: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the shift in emphasis from the HLCA to the annual premium means that the British Treasury will make a substantially reduced contribution, with the weight of the contribution coming from the European Community? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that, and is he aware too that that means that the Treasury is trying to offload the responsibility on to the European Community?
  Mr. Marland: Whether the money comes in theory from the European Community or from the British taxpayers, my point, which I think is supported by my hon. Friends, is that it is still coming from the British taxpayers. We have a duty to look after their interests. Opposition Members may be willing to ignore that duty, as they have done in other cases, but my hon. Friends are not. We are the guardians of the taxpayers' purse, and it is fair and reasonable that we should do everything we can to protect it. How much more do Opposition Members expect the British taxpayers to pay out?
  If I did not know as much as I do about the tactics of the Opposition, I would be deeply shocked by what I have heard in the debate. Once again we have an example of Opposition parties seeking to create the maximim misunderstanding and confusion in the minds of sheep farmers. Once again they are seeking to muddy the waters and distort the truth in an effort to pretend to be the

  283
  farmers' friend. Not for the Labour party the clear and concise exposition that we have had from my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  When the money starts to flow, farmers will see how much better off they are. When they recognise that farmers are better off, I hope that Opposition Members will have the good manners to come back and apologise to all hon. Members for the disgusting performance which they have put on this morning.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: This debate is remarkable both for the Members who are here and for those who are not here. We have had the benefit of the presence of the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales—but lo and behold, where is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I have some sympathy for the Minister of State, who has had to take his place. Obviously he has been selected to be ducked in the pond.
  We must take the figures that have been put before the House with a large pinch of salt. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) clearly does not come from an upland area, a less-favoured area, or one of the areas where farmers have been very angry, not merely about what has happened, but about the manner in which it has happened.
  I come from an upland area and live among the hills of Bodmin moor. I am not a farmer and do not have to declare that interest, but I am passionately interested in the future health of upland communities. The hill livestock compensatory allowances were originally introduced—and have been maintained by successive Governments—to try to help such communities, and not as a form of income support. They are unrelated to other forms of subsidy. The HLCAs are there to try to ensure that such areas remain working communities and that people can make a realistic living there.
  If the hills are to continue to be alive environmentally, economically and socially, the HLCA system has to be in place. That is what has gone wrong and what has caused so much consternation.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West is wrong. No one had to stir the hill farmers into protesting about that outrageous decision—they were stirring us. If he had attended the lobby a couple of weeks ago, he would have found that evident. My Scottish colleagues have received representations from their constituents and from the Scottish National Farmers Union. My Welsh colleagues have received submissions from Wales. Many upland areas happen to be represented by Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: What about Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Tyler: We have not received representations from Northern Ireland, but we would have been pleased to do so. No doubt the right hon. Member for Strangford will speak about that later.
  The key issue is where does one start from? The figures for the past few years are immaterial. The Minister's Department has given us figures that show a dramatic drop, of about 75 per cent., in average farm incomes for
  284
  the upland areas over the past 10 years. What would the Minister say if his salary level had dropped by three quarters, in real terms, between 1982 and 1992?
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps it should have.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member may be right. That is the level of the reduction.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not, as I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to enter into the debate and I am trying to be as brief as I can.
  The long-term viability of very vulnerable rural communities is at stake and the HLCAs are the only safeguard against those fragile economies being destroyed.
  The Farmers Union of Wales has rightly pointed out that
  "hill farmers have no recourse to alternative enterprises. They are trapped within a restrictive environment and terrain, which will only support hill livestock production."
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West mentioned diversification; but clearly he has never been to an upland area. What sort of diversification could there be?
  Mr. Marland: I was not talking about diversification; I was simply talking about trying to add value to what the farmer was producing.
  Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has visited Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmin moor and the Brecon Beacons. One cannot add value in those terrains. The HLCAs were designed to demonstrate clearly that there are areas of Europe, and not merely of the United Kingdom, that need special support if we are going to maintain a working and environmentally acceptable countryside. A derelict countryside is not acceptable.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he mentioned Exmoor in my constituency. When the first announcement about the cut in the HLCAs was made there was great anger among farmers, which affected a number of my hon. Friends who represent hill farming areas. However, since then it has become apparent that there has been a significant increase in the ewe premium, we have felt the full effects of the green pound devaluation and, most recently, thanks partly to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the pressure that he and others have placed on Ministers, we have experienced the 79p supplement. Finally, we had the details of the environmentally sensitive areas which affect Exmoor and other places. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that all those factors have counterbalanced the initial shock of the HLCA cut?
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we shall not have a devaluation every year and we shall not be able to cover all the upland areas with ESAs; it is physically impossible. The HLCAs stand alone as a policy that successive Governments have used to support the upland communities. The other factors—many of which affect lowland areas as well—are irrelevant to the decision.
  Sir Roger Moate(rose)—
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way as I have done so several times and I want to allow time for other hon. Members to speak.

  285
  The declared aim of the subsidies was clear. I am sure that hon. Members who have intervened in the debate have read about the purpose of the subsidies, which was
  "to ensure the continuation of livestock farming, to maintain a viable population in the LFA and to conserve the countryside".
  They were not, and have never been, intended as a direct income support system. Therefore, the overall level is of critical importance in maintaining the healthy economy of those areas.
  It is extremely important to recognise that the figures that we have been given this evening must be seen against a backdrop of steady decline in recent years. In an answer to a recent question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), the Minister said that, in real terms, the value of the allowance for higher rate sheep in severely disadvantaged areas had fallen by 45 per cent. and for the lower rate, by 60 per cent. since 1980. We are not considering the figures against a pattern of two years of looking slightly better, but against a steady decline over a decade.
  When I posed questions to the Minister about farmers' incomes on hill and upland livestock holdings, he demonstrated that they were consistently below that of the earnings of full-time adult manual workers in the country —they continue to be so and they continue to fall relatively. Since 1982, the income of LFA livestock farmers has collapsed by 75 per cent. Therefore, whatever rise now occurs, it will be only a modest upward blip against the depressing trend.
  In Scotland the effect is felt even deeper than in the rest of the United Kingdom–98 per cent. of Scottish LFA ewes were in the severely disadvantaged areas in 1992. Therefore, 98 per cent. of the Scottish LFA stock will experience a reduction in HLCAs in 1993—a fall of 12 per cent. in income from an already low base.
  We have heard quite a lot this evening about the devaluation of the green pound. What would have happened if there had not been a black Wednesday and a devaluation of the green currency? Would the Minister now be suggesting a major increase in the HLCAs and, if so, by what amount? If he is suggesting that the two are directly and inexplicably linked, we should be told what the figure would be. Unless the Minister is now assuming a continual devaluation—a creeping devaluation—of the pound, the rise is one-off and is irrelevant to the long-term future of these areas.
  It is extremely important that we view every calculation as a continuation to the factors that can turn the tide. The tide is not currently being turned in the hill areas. What is especially difficult to understand, given the background of Government support from both major parties, is why the Minister chose now to target the cuts on the hill areas—the most vulnerable of all the disadvantaged groups in farming. The cuts should either be spread equitably across all sectors or they should be targeted at other, less vulnerable areas and less disadvantaged groups, or the benefits of indiscriminate improvement in prices should be narrowed so that help can be concentrated where it is most needed.
  The latest announcement of a ewe premium supplement for LFAs, made in the past few days, was obviously helpful; but it is important for the Minister to explain why he intends always to link the ewe premium with HLCAs.
  286
  Surely there should be no such direct link. The one cannot simply be substituted for the other. Moreover, that is yet another one-year adjustment. The hill farmers will want to know what is to happen next year.
  The most anger and resentment was caused by the lack of consultation. Conservative Members nod: they must be well aware that the way in which the decision was leaked in the farming press, the subsequent announcement just before the Christmas recess and the back-tracking statements that followed it caused immense damage to the reputation of the Minister, his team and the Government as a whole. That is evident from the number of contradictions in the statements that we have heard in the past few days.
  Real offence was caused by the lack of consultation. The National Sheep Association—again, not a radical socialist group—said:
  "It would have given the sheep industry more confidence, and the Government more credibility, if they had consulted more fully with the industry and explained in more detail their change in direction."
  The proposal to cut HLCAs is an attempt to undo the good work of successive Governments who have tried to protect and enhance the economic viability of the hills and hill farming. There has been a steady decline in the past 10 years; given the devaluation of the green pound, this was a good opportunity to reverse that trend. We hope that Conservative Members who have been critical of the Government's decision will carry their criticism into the Lobby and that—instead of being present at this late hour simply at the behest of their Whips—they will vote for their hill farmers.
  1.6 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I think you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I first raised this matter on the Floor of the House some nine weeks ago, on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment. I think it significant that, on that occasion, my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spontaneously supported what I had to say. I do not recall much interest being expressed by Opposition Members. I doubt very much that many of them understood what we were talking about, and some of the interventions that we have heard tonight—this applies less to the speeches—suggest that, nine weeks later, not many of them understand it now.
  I felt at the time that we could draw three clear conclusions. First, farmers in the uplands were deeply angry and upset by the decision: I said that forcefully at the time. Incomes had shown some improvement, but from a very low base. Secondly, it was clear to me that the HLCA settlement must be part of the overall public expenditure round, in which agriculture generally did extremely well. We all knew, I think, that we were unlikely to get much additional money from the Treasury, if any. We must face the inevitable fact that, when public expenditure is extremely tight, we cannot pick and choose which parts of an overall settlement we like and which we do not.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No; many other hon. Members wish to speak.

  287
  My third conclusion was that something must be done. The position, as it stood nine weeks ago, was not sustainable: in some way, income would have to be made up. Lo and behold, within a week my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came back from the Farm Council and announced that the EC would help with a 1·5 ecu increase in the rural world supplement. The question of what that was worth was extremely complicated, as was the arithmetic involved in sorting out the effect of the green pound devaluation. My right hon. Friend then suggested that it was worth £1·41 per ewe. I made some inquiries and did some sums. Some weeks ago, I suggested to my right hon. Friend that the total value was understated by about 80p a ewe. It transpired that it was 79p a ewe. I am happy to settle for that.
  We have deducted £2·25 for hardy ewes under the HCLA payments and only £1·35 for the less hardy ewes, but both will get £2·20 more as a result of the rural settlement. In addition, as the Minister pointed out, there is a green pound devaluation that will provide a much-needed boost to hill farmers. I look forward to talking to mine again when they get the money. Will the Minister please ensure that they get it on time?
  In all the circumstances, we have to accept the position now arrived at for this year. I am tempted to suggest that, had we been in this position nine weeks ago when this first leaked out and the Minister had to make a formal announcement, we might have avoided a lot of fuss, but such a facile view underestimates the difficulty that the ministerial team had in Brussels during the negotiations. Opposition protests are due to their lack of experience in these tough negotiations. We must now concentrate our efforts on the future. I have already said that the payments need to be on time. There is also a need for stability.
  Can the Minister confirm that in the case of the rural world supplement, initially proposed by the Council of Farm Ministers to be for one year, the agriculture committee of the European Parliament has reported that, in its view, it should be for two years. That would provide welcome stability. I hope that the Minister will fight for that and get it.
  There has also been criticism tonight of the fact that EC funding might not be as advantageous as United Kingdom domestic support. I do not accept that. I have talked at length to my farmers. They seem to think the exact opposite. We have a very tight United Kingdom public spending round. Although I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting money in Brussels for our farmers, the fact remains that there is greater certainty of payment. I accept that the value of sterling is a factor, but all that has to be taken into account in future reviews. Whether it is the HLCA mechanism, or whether it is the rural world supplement, the plain fact is that both mechanisms are income substitution. For that reason, they can be negotiated and agreed only on an annual basis.
  I welcome also the fact that the Agriculture Select Committee is to look in detail into this matter. One of the points that I made during the Christmas Adjournment debate was that we needed to get rid of some of the mystery that surrounds the true figures. There should be a much more open review of the hill farm position.
  We need also to consider the environmental dimension. Those of us who represent hill farm areas understand just how important hill farming is to the environment. We have some important caveats—particularly that there should be no over-grazing and that we need to conserve the
  288
  landscape. That must be worth a price to the farmers. We have environmentally sensitive areas in some hill farm areas. We have the north York moors farm scheme in my constituency. We have the Department of the Environment stewardship scheme. It is time that all this was rationalised so that farmers know just where they stand.
  Finally, and above all, it is very much now a case of restoring confidence among hill farmers in the future of hill farming. The events of the past nine weeks demonstrate that, while it is possible to make a lot of hot air and fuss about the issue, it is Conservative Members who have seen fit to take a very close interest in it. That is what we do week in, week out, month in, month out. That is why I believe that we should continue to support the hill farmers. Then they will continue to support us.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It must be extremely difficult in the Chair for you tonight. During a very short debate of an hour and a half, it is difficult for the many hon. Members who want to support the hill farmers in this campaign but who have not had the opportunity to make their views known. It is an extremely short debate for a very important matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not decide the length of the debate.
  Mr. Mallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise the difficulties that you face, but the measure is much more punitive in Northern Ireland than it is in England, Scotland or Wales because of our agricultural structure. Unfortunately, because the debate is to last only for an hour and a half, no one from Northern Ireland has been able to make that case. I realise that it is not within your competency or ability at this stage to ensure that the case is made, but it is regrettable because of the terrible punitive effect in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that the measure applies only to Great Britain, not to Northern Ireland. Therefore, if the Opposition would care to table another prayer on a Northern Ireland order tomorrow, we could have a further hour and a half's debate.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister made certain remarks about the statistics pertaining to Northern Ireland, but it should be put on record that the statistics that he gave were misleading and a slander on the hill farmers of Northern Ireland.
  1.16 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Hon. Members will have noted that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has failed to attend the debate. We are bound to ask whether he intends to vote—perhaps he is still filling envelopes with hill livestock compensatory allowance payments.
  We have had an interesting debate, once again characterised by the Government's questionable use of figures. We believe that the Government stand accused of an inexcusable error of judgment only partially offset by the convenient reconsideration of rules, which has enabled Ministers to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the form of an

  289
  extra 79p. I am afraid that the House will not be fooled. The Government have sought to justify their original error with a spray of statistics which, when tested, misrepresented the truth. Farmers, the Opposition and a large number of hon. Members rejected them.
  Who in their right mind could argue that a 25 per cent. reduction in the ewe price between 1988 and 1992 was in fact an increase, and then have the cheek to suggest that the worst year in living memory in the less-favoured areas be used as a baseline for calculating income growth? Who in their right mind could argue that special sheep annual premium payments offset HLCA cuts, without admitting that SAPs are variable payments which can be reduced as readily as increased? Indeed, we need a guarantee that if SAPs are ever reduced, HLCA payments will be increased to compensate.
  Hon. Members have given innumerable examples challenging the Government's statistics on farm incomes. I commissioned some interesting research from the National Farmers Union in Cumbria. We took six farms and analysed incomes from 1983 to 1992. A representative sample of the research showed that in the period studied, on a farm of 500 breeding ewes, where livestock sales remained static in cash terms at just over £11,000, the net profit after subsidy, depreciation and interest on a £5,000 loan rose from £5,000 in 1983 to £7,000 nine years later in 1992. That farmer has been running a charity. No one else could have farmed more efficiently. He was and still is doing society a favour managing that land in the heart of the Lake District. We have exploited his good will.
  David Keddie's work at Swansea university confirms that the position is the same in Wales. He shows in his detailed and exhaustive research of 400 households in several regions that farm incomes are miserly and far too dependent on peripheral activity. He shows that the more precarious the income the greater the pressure to increase stock levels. The fear of indebtedness is dominant.
  The reality is that, despite all the evidence, the Government have sought repeatedly to hide the truth. The truth was never an argument about offsetting national subsidy with European subsidies and green pound devaluations. It was a decision born in Whitehall to save money on the back of hard-pressed hill farmers.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not possible this evening.
  In evidence of that I quote a letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dated 6 November 1992 which says:
  "Cuts in the HLCA rates will inevitably provoke strong criticism from the farming industry. The farming unions have made very clear to us that the industry's confidence will be dealt a severe blow if the recovery of incomes is undermined by Government action. They have pointed out that real hill incomes remain below their levels of a decade ago. And even following the recovery hill farm incomes remain at very low levels in absolute terms."
  Then the Minister says:
  "There is undoubtedly merit in the union's case."
  That was a clear admission by the Government of the collapse in hill farm incomes in the United Kingdom. The letter proves that the Government desperately wanted the cuts and they did not care a damn if the hill farmers paid the price.
  290
  I come now on a more constructive note to the wider issue of farm incomes. There is, without doubt, throughout the farming community, a developing consensus that farm incomes should not be overdependent on public subsidy. That is the Opposition's view. Farmers have another option open to them and that is to secure a higher price for their products in the market place.
  Lamb prices in the United Kingdom at auction are grossly depressed. British lamb is nearly the cheapest in Europe but the retail price of lamb throughout the Commuity is grossly inflated. Dead-weight United Kingdom prices are often half and less what they are in other parts of Europe, particularly in southern Europe.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, I do not have time. Perhaps the hon. Lady can intervene next week on the Agriculuture Bill.
  The explanation is not only to be found in the demand for smaller lambs and seasonal buying, but equally in the nature of a meat trade in Europe which loads the lamb price at retail on the basis of it being a specialist product. Within 200 yards of the European Commission's offices in Rue de la Loi in Brussels three weeks ago, I found lamb being sold at £11.50 a kilo. The United Kingdom dead-weight carcase price on the same day was £1.80 a kilo.
  British lamb producers must break the stranglehold of a highly restrictive retail meat distribution network in Europe. That network, in the absence of real competition, is denying the European consumer cheap meat. United Kingdom meat exporters must rise to that challenge. United Kingdom lamb production must become far more market oriented. In a more buoyant market, arguments over subsidy will inevitably recede in importance.
  The Government should take a far more hands-on approach to the development of United Kingdom meat exports. Exhibitions and the impressive work of the Meat and Livestock Commission are not enough. We need a meat export strategy which positively carves out a major proportion of EC markets for United Kingdom producers. If we cannot work through the existing retail networks, British multiple meat retailers should expand overseas. The Government can take the lead. The answer to this whole question is to be found not only in public subsidy, but in the wider European market place. In the absence of such a strategy, hill farmers will unfortunately need more and more help. That is why HLCA payments at this time are critically important to their survival.
  The whole strategy has to change. Hill farmers need Government help. The Government must take the lead. The disequilibrium in the EC sheep market must be brought to an end.
  Tonight's debate has been objective and constructive. Hon. Members of all parties have recognised the difficulties. We all want the industry to survive. In that light, I invite all hon. Members to support our motion. The hill farmers need our support. It will enable Ministers to bring back an order. If we win the motion tonight, that would be the radical, tactical and popular position to take.
  1.25 am
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Curry.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have an obligation to protect minorities in the House. You are aware that hill areas are concentrated in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yet there have been no speakers from Scotland or Northern Ireland. What is more, the Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have sat silent like stookies throughout the debate. We are about to be misinformed for the second time by the English Minister. This is abuse and I invite your protection and intervention.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a 90-minute debate and that the Chair cannot control the length of speeches. I made a plea and I regret that hon. Members did not totally respond to it.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Minister of State can speak only with the permission of the House? He has already spoken and since we have here the Secretary of State for Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, all of whom deal with agriculture, they could adequately reply. I object to the Minister of State speaking again and I do not think that he has the permission of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I formally check that the hon. Member is objecting to the Minister of State responding?
  Mr. Foulkes: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then the leave of the House is not granted. The debate may continue. I call Mr. Bill Walker. [Interruption.] Order. The House has requested an hon. Member from Scotland to speak and I have called one.
  1.28 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can be assured that I speak for a part of Scotland that has uplands, mountains, and lots and lots of sheep. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) illustrated the humbug and hypocrisy that we often see in the House. [Interruption.] In the debate before Christmas, which I, my hon. Friend and others attended, we noted the absence of all those caring faces that I see tonight. What has brought about the transformation? I believe that it has been brought about because there is a three-line Whip: all these individuals who in the past have shown their enormous interest in the problems of my hill farmers by their absence are here tonight because the Labour party saw an opportunity to put on a three-line Whip. That was in the hope that they could exploit a situation that had developed, as is often the case where negotiations are required in Europe, so that agreements can be made in Europe and payments—
  Mr. Llwyd rose—
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is patient.
  They saw an opportunity to exploit it, but they were mistaken, because when they tabled the motion they failed to realise that negotiations were continuing and that figures had been arrived at which were different from what they thought they would be.
  Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the hon. Member recalls that I am not a member of the Labour party, but it was in response to my question that the Minister made his statement about the HLCAs. We in Plaid Cymru and the SNP are concerned about what is going on and I dare say our Labour colleagues are as well. It is not good enough to say that it is convenient for all of us to worry about it. It is a great worry in the whole of Britain and it is time that the Conservative party grew up.
  Mr. Walker: Where was the hon. Gentleman when we took the opportunity to debate this matter late last year? He was not showing his care then.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: In support of my hon. Gentleman, does he agree that the Opposition spokesman knew nothing about what he was saying? He was reading from a brief which did not bear any resemblance to reality. He was talking, for example, about the dead carcase weight price of lamb in English markets, and I assume in Scottish markets also, without realising that the point about hill-farmed lamb is that it is exported live and on the hoof, killed in the importing countries, such as Spain and France, and then stamped Spanish or French lamb and sold at a premium price.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. One of the great tragedies in the House is that often Members speak who have no background or experience. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of that, because I recall standing with him in the Falkland Islands, when we looked out at a sheep farm. The hon. Gentleman said that it could be his constituency and I said that it could be mine, because we both represented hill farm constituencies. So I do not charge the hon. Gentleman with not knowing what is happening in his constituency, because he has always impressed me as knowing that.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that on many occasions in my six years in the House the issue of HLCAs has been raised at Question Time and during debates by hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the population and agricultural communities in the upland areas. On every one of those occasions there has been cross-party support for the concept of maintaining HLCAs, because everyone who cares about this subject realises that when we start eroding the HLCAs, we are eroding the ability to sustain populations in those areas. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only thing that has changed tonight is that Opposition Members are still saying what we have been saying throughout the years and that Conservative Members are having to find reasons to rationalise a complete change of position?
  Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he is quite right. But—
  It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [12 February].
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 283.

  Division No. 155]

  [1.35 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Alton, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  293

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bayley, Hugh

  Graham, Thomas

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beggs, Roy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Benton, Joe

  Hain, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hall, Mike

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hanson, David

  Betts, Clive

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Henderson, Doug

  Boyes, Roland

  Heppell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Burden, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug

  Byers, Stephen

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hume, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hutton, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ingram, Adam

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jamieson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'slde)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jowell, Tessa

  Connarty, Michael

  Keen, Alan

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Darling, Alistair

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

  Denham, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Mallon, Seamus

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Meale, Alan

  Fraser, John

  Michael, Alun

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Galloway, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Garrett, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  294

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Simpson, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Snape, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, William

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trimble, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Turner, Dennis

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Short, Clare

  NOES

  Adley. Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Rlpon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  295

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Elletson, Harold

  Hunter, Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Jessel, Toby

  Evennett, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Faber, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kellett-Bowmari, Dame Elaine

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Key, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Forth, Eric

  Knapman, Roger

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Freeman, Roger

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

  French, Douglas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Gale, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Gallie, Phil

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Garnier, Edward

  Legg, Barry

  Gill, Christopher

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Lidington, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lightbown, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lord, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Luff, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  MacKay, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Maclean, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Madel, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hannam, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mans, Keith

  Harris, David

  Marland, Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Heald, Oliver

  Merchant, Piers

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hendry, Charles

  Mills, Iain

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nelson, Anthony

  296

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Streeter, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Willetts, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Sidney Chapman and

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Gamston Airfield, Nottinghamshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  1.45 am
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I am glad that at this late hour I am joined by many hon. Friends, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is a Nottinghamshire Member.
  Gamston airfield is a small, privately owned airfield in the Newark constituency. It is about one and half miles from the major county town of Retford. It is surrounded by several quiet villages, each with 100 or so inhabitants. Since 1967, the airfield has been used for light aircraft on business. No club flying and no tuition was ever permitted. The permitted weight was raised to 5,700 kilos in 1979 and again in 1987 to 12,500 kilos. That was still the weight of a small, twin-engined executive business plane.
  In the granting of each consent, Bassetlaw district council made specific reference to the fact that in the district plan for east Bassetlaw, Gamston was designed as a conservation area. Since the increase in permitted weight in 1987, there has been an awareness of some nuisance. However, the limit of flying hours to between 6.30 am and 9 pm Mondays to Fridays, and 8 am to 9 pm Saturdays and Sundays, together with the limit of 10 take-offs and landings, meant that the position was tolerable.
  On 29 January last the owner of the airfield applied to the district council to amend the conditions of the 1987 consent. That application was to introduce flight training for professional and private commercial purposes, pleasure flying and charter flights. The weight limit was to be increased to 50,000 kilos—a fourfold increase of the previous limit of a few years past. There were to be an additional 20 aircraft movements a week outside the operational hours. Those hours were to be extended to 10 pm Mondays to Fridays and 9 pm Saturdays and Sundays.
  The clear implication to the local residents—I make no personal judgment on it—was that the application paved the way to Gamston becoming a regional airport. The incremental process over the years has certainly given them grounds for believing that. One can understand the anxiety of local residents in not only the village of Gamston but all the surrounding villages and much of the residential area of Retford, over which many of the flights would pass, particularly when descending.
  However, my purpose is not to list the arguments why planning permission should or should not be granted; that is not for me and it is not for my hon. Friend the Minister who will reply. I am here to argue that the way in which the application was determined by the local council left a great deal to be desired. I argue that the matter has wider effects beyond the immediate locality.
  I alerted the then Secretary of State to the widespread local concern on 5 March 1992. I understand that the local authority received more than 200 letters of objection. The Nottingham office of the Department of the Environment was clearly concerned and alarmed at the extent of those objections. Before the district council could deal with the application the Department issued an article 14 direction. The effect of this was that, although the council could hear the application, it would not implement it, or allow it to be implemented and put into effect, until the direction was withdrawn.
  298
  I come now to the first point of grave concern about the handling of this contentious application. On 16 December last the planning sub-committee of the council's development services committee met to consider the application formally. Despite the contentious nature of the application, despite the existence of the article 14 direction, despite the huge local implications of a much larger airport, the council left the matter to a sub-committee. The full committee—let alone the full council, where councillors could have had a proper say and a proper vote—played no part at all. The matter was left to a small group of 10 people, three of whom, including the leader of the council, were ex-offico members.
  On the day of decision, following the discussion, all the Retford-based councillors, including members of the majority Labour party, voted against the application. Five councillors—all of them from an area away from Retford: the Worksop area—voted in favour. That meant a tie in the sub-committee. The Worksop-based chairman, who had already voted in favour of the application, used his casting vote, and the matter was passed. What a way, irrevocably and without appeal, to change the face of an area and disrupt the lives of thousands of people for ever.
  During the discussion the chairman said that the sub-committee had had the benefit of two expert reports suggesting that there would be no adverse effects if the application were granted. A representative of one of the expert companies sat at the table with the councillors and participated throughout the discussion of the agenda item. The committee knew that Gamston parish council had commissioned another expert report, but that council's expert was refused permission to speak. The parish council chairman was given a few minutes to state his objections. So that decision was reached not only without the full council's having its say but also without the admission of expert evidence that would be contrary to the majority's preconceived conclusion on the application. Half of the sub-committee, therefore, approached the application with totally closed minds.
  Immediately this travesty took place I protested to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 December and 4 January, urging that, in view of the way in which the decision had been made, he should not withdraw his article 14 direction. I was saddened and, indeed, astonished to receive on 27 January from the Minister who is to reply tonight a response declining my request, on the ground that the council had obtained specialist advice. I assume that the council had not told my hon. Friend that there was in existence equally eminent specialist advice giving the council a contrary opinion. Did my hon. Friend, when he wrote to me, know of this contrary advice? If so, perhaps he will explain why he did not refer to it in his letter. Legal moves to apply for a judicial review of the decision are already under way, and I do not ask my hon. Friend to make any comment on those. The legal representatives were amazed when they heard that the article 14 direction had been lifted. I hope that the local people will not have to go to the expense of a judicial review and that, at the least, the Minister will explain the grounds on which he took that decision.
  I was saddened in reading the Minister's response to note that, because there was already an existing airfield in operation, there was in this case no more than local impact involved. He mentioned that, almost by definition, any airfield activity may be regarded as having more than local impact, and I agree with him.

  299
  I stress that my object today is not to list the reasons why planning should or should not be granted. I am drawing attention to the cavalier way in which local objections were dealt with locally and to stress why the matter should proceed to a public inquiry. No environmental impact assessment was called for by the district council before it made its decision. The high-minded intentions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ring hollow in the ears of some of my constituents.
  The application gives cause for concern over a much wider area than that of the airfield. I remind the House that it would involve a fourfold increase in aircraft weight. It would mean that charter aircraft the size of early versions of the Boeing 737 would be descending rapidly over houses in Retford at below 200 ft., falling to 100 ft. over Ordsall and to almost ground level when passing over the village of Eaton.
  The end of the runway is only 200 yds. from the A1, which is shortly to be upgraded to motorway standard. A whole range of permitted flying activity must have adverse effects over a much wider range and area than has been the case previously.
  I urge my hon. Friend not to be content to leave this major decision to a sub-committee and the casting vote of its chairman. That is unsatisfactory. I urge the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend to call in the application before it is too late. Let us have a proper public inquiry, with a full environmental impact assessment. No development of such magnitude and importance should occur anywhere without a public inquiry, and, on behalf of my constituents, I urge the Government to ensure that a public inquiry is held in this case.
  1.58 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) raised issues of concern to his constituents and himself. He dealt with two main issues, and I will deal with both of them.
  The first was about the way in which the planning application before the district council was dealt with. The second—they were clearly related issues, according to the way in which he argued them—was that, partly as a consequence of the way in which, he claimed, the district council had dealt with the application and partly for broader reasons, the application should be called in.
  I will deal first with the way in which the application was considered by the local planning authority.
  If a local planning authority in any way conducts itself not in accord with the law or with its statutory responsibilities, the Secretary of State does not act as a court of appeal. A planning permission which is granted by a local planning authority is a valid planning permission until it is challenged and deemed to be otherwise by the courts.
  I appreciate that, because of local controversy, many of the residents who objected to the proposal attended the meeting on 16 December of the planning sub-committee of Bassetlaw district council when the application was formally considered. Subsequently the Secretary of State and the Department received letters complaining about the way in which the meeting was conducted. It was alleged that the chairman was not impartial and that the meeting was not conducted in a democratic manner, especially in
  300
  that the council's consultants were allowed to present their views, but the objectors' consultants were denied any opportunity to challenge the basis of their findings or to present contrary views. The use by the chairman of his casting vote, when members were evenly divided over the application, was also criticised.
  While I appreciate the concerns of the local people who feel that their views have not been fully and fairly considered, those are not of themselves matters for the Secretary of State to consider. If any person believes that there has been maladministration by the council, that the council has not acted in accordance with its statutory powers, or that other matters warrant further investigation, that person may wish to consider reference to the local ombudsman or to seek judicial review. Either route is available.
  My hon. Friend has said that it is possible that some local people will wish to consider judicial review. That is entirely a matter for them to take forward, if they so desire. But it is not for the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to put himself into the position of the court in those matters.
  The second concern of my hon. Friend is that, largely because of local controversy and other concerns, the application ought to be called in. Because of the representations by my hon. Friend and the way in which he argued his case to Ministers, we were aware of local concerns. In addition to the forceful representations made by my hon. Friend, and the objections of large numbers of local people—about 120 objections were received by the Secretary of State requesting that the application be called in—the matter was given careful consideration.
  If people feel that their legitimate concerns and interests have not been taken fully into account or, worse, have been ignored by the local planning authority, it is understandable that they turn to the Secretary of State and press him to use his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to intervene by calling in the application for his own determination.
  However, it is important to explain that Parliament has made it clear that planning is essentially a local matter. The Act provides for applications for planning permission to be made to the local planning authority, and for that authority to determine them. Local planning authorities every day have to determine sizeable applications, and often applications which involve local controversy. That is a duty which Parliament has placed upon local planning authorities. The vast majority of applications are dealt with in that way.
  About 532,000 applications were made in 1990–91 and the figure for 1991–92 was 511,000. Only 132 were called in in 1990–91 and, in the subsequent year, only 140. That gives some indication to the House of how sparingly the Secretary of State exercises his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to intervene by calling in applications for his determination. Of those 132 and 140, less than one fortieth of 1 per cent. were called in for determination by him.
  My right hon. Friend and I believe that it is wrong to interfere with the jurisdiction of the local planning authority unless it is clearly necessary to do so. Our policy on calling in planning applications, therefore, continues to be very selective. Each case must, of course, be considered on its merits, but my right hon. Friend will generally only call in planning applications if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need

  301
  to be decided by the Secretary of State, rather than at local level. We have given as examples of cases where call in may be considered those development proposals which could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, those which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of national security or of foreign Governments are involved.
  I assure the House and my hon. Friend that we considered carefully whether to call in the case. The decision not to intervene was taken only after careful consideration of the issues related, as well as all the representations received, including that from my hon. Friend.
  Having regard to all the issues, we concluded that the proposed development did not raise planning issues of more than local significance, or issues that needed to be
  302
  decided by the Secretary of State, and that it was right to leave the local planning authority to determine the application. The power is exercised by the Secretary of State, and if any party feels that he has not exercised his discretion in accordance with the powers that Parliament has given to him, it is possible for any person who feels aggrieved to seek to refer that matter to the court by way of judicial review.
  We have considered the matter extremely carefully. We have already decided not to call in the planning application. As far as Ministers are concerned, that is where the matter rests. If any individual or individuals feel concerned, either about the way in which the local planning authority has determined the planning application, or the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his statutory powers to decide not to call in the application, those are matters that they will have to refer to the courts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Georgia
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to collect payment from ex-Soviet fishing operations off South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are actively pursuing, with some success, debts owed by vessel owners for the transhipment of their catches off South Georgia. The majority of outstanding debts are owed by vessels of the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many landings have occurred in prohibited areas by tourists in South Georgia over the last two years.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There was one unsubstantiated report during 1992 that a cruise vessel had landed passengers in a prohibited area.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sources of income for South Georgia for the last three years.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The main sources of income over the last three years have been transhipment fees paid by fishing vessels, port and harbour dues, investment income, money from the sale of stamps and income from tourist charges.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has had about the need for a tourism management plan for South Georgia;

  (2) if he will list the detailed requirements for a South Georgia management plan;

  (3) when he expects to publish a management plan for South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are studying the case for commissioning a detailed management plan for South Georgia and have received representations about the introduction of such a plan from various interested individuals and groups. Any plan would need to cover a range of issues, including the impact of tourism on the environment of South Georgia. In the light of advice from our environmental advisers we shall examine whether existing legislation should be updated and any further measures which may be necessary.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce a charge for tourist visits to South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  During 1992, a charge of US$50 per head was introduced for all tourists visiting South Georgia.
  112
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to apply for a world heritage listing for South Georgia; and if he will list the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining a world heritage listing for South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The World Conservation Union is considering which sub-antarctic islands meet the criteria for world heritage listing. We will examine the case for the listing of South Georgia in the light of their recommendations.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the reasons why the United Kingdom has delayed the extension of maritime zones in Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The sea areas around the British Antarctic Territory are included within the scope of Antarctic treaty instruments to which the United Kingdom is a party. These instruments provide a legal regime for sustainable and non-sustainable resources. We see no advantage in extending maritime zones.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his officials have made of the Macquarie island plan.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have studied the Macquarie island nature reserve management plan of 1991 prepared by the Tasmanian Government's department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage. This provides a prescriptive framework which takes account of the conservation and management needs of that island.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to extend the maritime zones of the South Sandwich islands, the South Orkney islands, South Georgia, Gough islands and Shag rocks.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A fisheries zone of 200 nautical miles has already been created around Gough island as part of the Tristan da Cunha island group. The territorial sea around South Georgia, which includes Shag rocks, and the South Sandwich islands was extended to 12 miles in 1989. The situation is kept under review. There are no plans to extend maritime zones off the British Antarctic Territory which includes the South Orkney islands.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those Antarctic islands together with their parent country that have had their maritime zones extended; and from what date this took effect in each case;

  (2) if he will list those Antarctic islands and their parent country that have not had their maritime zones extended.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  On the basis of the published information available, it appears that the islands within the Antarctic treaty area and the following sub-Antarctic islands have the fishery zones or economic zones which are listed in the table, with effective dates indicated where available.
  113

  Island

  Nationality

  Zone

  Effective date

  Heard Island

  Australia

  200 mile fishing zone

  1979

  McDonald Island

  1979

  Macquaire Island

  1979

  Auckland Island

  New Zealand

  200 mile economic Zone

  1977

  Campbell Island

  1977

  Prince Edward Island

  Republic of South Africa

  1977

  Marion Island

  1977

  Crozet Island

  France

  1978

  Kerguelan Island

  1978

  Amsterdam Island

  1978

  Saint Paul Island

  1978

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following number of statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the years 1980 to 1992:

  Number

  1980

  30

  1981

  45

  1982

  22

  1983

  21

  1984

  22

  1985

  28

  1986

  20

  1987

  27

  1988

  31

  1989

  24

  1990

  24

  1991

  10

  1992

  23

  Island Groups
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies he has made of the management plans for the Campbell and Snare island groups; and what input his officials have had into the plans for the Antipodes and Bounty island group.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have not received copies of the management plans for the Campbell and Snares island groups and have not been asked to comment on the plans for the Antipodes and Bounty island group.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the recent decision by the diplomatic service to reduce the number of Rolls-Royce motor cars; and why this decision was taken.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A number of representations have been received since the decision was taken in 1990 to reduce the number of Rolls-Royce cars used in diplomatic posts overseas. The most recent of these approaches have been from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and from Mr. Nigel Cornelius, director of UK and Pacific operations Rolls-Royce Motor Company Ltd.
  114
  The decision was taken in the context of tightening financial constraints which made it necessary to make substantial savings in the provision of vehicles for overseas posts.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Rolls-Royce motor cars are currently owned and used by the diplomatic service overseas, and at which embassies, consulates and other units.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic service at present owns and uses eight Rolls-Royce motor cars. These are in the following overseas posts.

  Bonn

  Canberra

  Moscow

  Paris

  Pretoria

  Riyadh

  Tokyo

  and Washington

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Overseas Affairs if he will make a statement of his policy on(a) providing assistance with the promotion of the products of United Kingdom manufacturers through the diplomatic service and (b) the criterion by which value for money in diplomatic service purchasing policy is assessed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The promotion of Britain's economic interests overseas, including visible and invisible exports, is one of the basic aims of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A variety of services is provided by our overseas posts and the Department of Trade and Industry for exporters of British goods and services.

  In accordance with Government guidelines, the purchasing policy of the FCO is based on obtaining value for money through competition. British suppliers are used where they are competitive on quality, price and delivery.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with other members of the UN Security Council and EC member states about sanctions against the former Yugoslavia; what decision has been taken as to the circumstances in which sanctions might be applied to Croatia; what assessment he has made of whether Russia will continue to support sanctions against Serbia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close contact with our European partners and members of the United Nations Security Council on this issue. No decision has been taken on what circumstances would require sanctions against Croatia. Russia has repeatedly made clear its full support for the enforcement of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

  The Edinburgh European Council made clear that unless there were a radical change of policy in Belgrade, and genuine co-operation with the peace process, the international community would continue to take stern action against the authorities there, isolating Serbia for a long time to come.

  Visas
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of appeals in each of the last five years against refusal of visitor's visas to people visting the United Kingdom in order to visit relations or friends in Walthamstow; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not centrally recorded and could not be provided except at disproportionate expense.

  Serbia
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many identified detention centres have been set up by the Serbian administration; and what evidence he has of the prevailing conditions and the welfare of the prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Committee of the Red Cross has not been able to identify any detention camps set up by the Serbian administration. The ICRC has, however, identified five detention camps in Bosnia administered by Bosnian Serb authorities. It has access to all five.

  Foreign Policy
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last conducted a general review of British foreign policy; and what were its conclusions.

  Mr. Hurd
  My Department keeps British foreign policy under almost constant review, adapting policies and redeploying resources whenever necessary. The FCO departmental report, which describes recent developments and future priorities, was published on 10 February. I have agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during this year we shall be studying ways in which this country's diplomatic and related work overseas can be enhanced.

  Diplomatic Missions
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals exist to close British diplomatic missions over the next 10-year period; in which countries these missions are scheduled for closure; and with what savings proportionate to his Department's total budget.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are studying carefully a range of options for reducing expenditure in line with the public expenditure plans announced in the 1992 autumn statement. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the Government are giving to the Falkland Islands Government, GECO-PRAKLA and Spectrum to explore and survey for hydrocarbons in the waters around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs approved 116
  the issue of licences to both companies to enable them to carry out seismic surveys in the Falkland Islands designated area. Surveying has begun.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the statement made by the Governor of the Falkland Islands to the executive council on 23 December 1992, with regard to seismic licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Meetings of the Falklands executive council are confidential.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he has done to counter the claims made by the Argentine Government over waters currently the subject of seismic licences held by GECO-PRAKLA and Spectrum to survey for hydrocarbons, since the granting of those licences.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Argentines are well aware of our position regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and their surrounding maritime areas. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey in another place regarding our sovereignty of the Falkland Islands:"Sovereignty is not for negotiation. I cannot underline that too strongly".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1993; Vol. 542, c. 8–9.]

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue a letter of comfort on behalf of the British Government to enable the oil industry to further explore for hydrocarbons in the waters around the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 10 February 1993,Official Report, column 681.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Argentine Government, during his last visit to the Argentine, in respect of(a) the Falkland Islands continental shelf, (b) the exploration for hydrocarbons in the waters of the Falkland Islands and (c) the entry of the Argentine into the squid licensing market in waters around the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  During the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Argentina in January, he made clear to Foreign Minister di Tella our concerns about the potential over-fishing of the vulnerable illex squid stock as a result of extra fishing effort in Argentine waters and agreed with Dr. di Tella that we should work to achieve a long-term fisheries agreement. He also took the opportunity to update Dr. di Tella on the seismic surveying in the Falklands designated area. He gave no undertaking that oil exploitation can only go ahead after prior agreement with Argentina. Dr. di Tella understands this position fully.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the effect of Argentina's entry into the squid licensing market on squid stocks in waters around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.
  117
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Increased fishing of illex squid in Argentine waters this season may put extra pressure on the vulnerable illex squid stock. The agreement we reached with Argentina in December whereby they will issue 45 permits in response to applications for more than twice that number will mean that the risk is considerably less than it would otherwise have been.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None of the non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible has such powers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Trade Deficit
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the main types of consumer goods which contribute to the United Kingdom trade deficit.

  Mr. Nelson
  Overseas trade statistics suggest that "apparel and clothing accessories", "passenger motor cars" and "household fixtures and fittings" contributed significantly to the deficit in our trade in consumer goods in 1992.

  Public Sector
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those industries, businesses and enterprises remaining in the public sector.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following enterprises are currently in the public sector:

  Audit Commission

  Bank of England Banking Department

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  British Coal

  British Railways Board

  British Waterways Board

  The Buying Agency

  Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd

  Central Office of Information

  Channel Four Television Company Ltd

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Companies House

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  Crown Agents and Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  Crown Estate Office

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Driving Standards Agency

  English Industrial Estates Corporation

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  Forestry Enterprise

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  118

  Housing Action Trusts

  Housing Corporation

  Housing for Wales

  Industrial Training Boards

  Land Authority for Wales

  Local Authority Airports

  Local Authority Bus companies

  London Regional Transport

  National Health Service Trusts

  New Town Development Corporations and Commission

  Northern Ireland Electricity Service

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  Northern Ireland Trust Ports

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  Passenger Transport Executives

  Patent Office

  Post Office Corporation

  Remploy Ltd

  Royal Mint

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd

  Scottish Transport Group

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Urban Development Corporations

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Fourth Channel Authority

  Also included in the public sector are local authority enterprises other than those in the table. No comprehensive list is held centrally; however the information that is available is published in the Business Monitor MA23, "Sector Classification for the National Accounts", which is available in the House Library.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received concerning the impact upon the purchase of company cars of uncertainty about the future arrangements for company car taxation; and what assessment he has made of the effect of that uncertainty upon company and fleet car sales by United Kingdom manufacturers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  United Kingdom car manufacturers have generally welcomed the proposal to move to a price-based system for taxing company cars. Some recent representations have noted the effects of future uncertainty on sales and sought decisions on the details and timing of the change at the earliest possible date. These effects are by their nature not directly measurable. We appreciate however the importance to the industry and others of certain and stable arrangements for company cars.

  Budget Proposals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has had with hon. Members to discuss representations by their constituents on proposals being considered for his Budget.

  Mr. Lamont
  I have had several such meetings.

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he will publish the 1993–94 supply estimates.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tuesday 9 March.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, in respect of the current and next three financial years, the cost to the Exchequer of redundancy payments in respect of job losses and redundancies(a) in mining and related industries in the event that the proposals of 13 October 1992 are implemented, (b) in the armed forces under "Options for Change" and (c) in other fields; and what is his estimate of the overall cost of unemployment and other social security benefits to which those redundancies will give rise for each year that those made redundant remain unemployed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The amount and timing of grant payments to British Coal in respect of redundancies will depend on the pattern of voluntary redundancies and on the decisions about pit closures taken by the corporation in the light of the coal review, the outcome of which will be announced in a White Paper to be published shortly. The effect on related industries will depend on these decisions.

  Payments to the armed forces under "Options for Change" are:

  £ million

  1992–93

  160

  1993–94

  370

  1994–95

  350

  1995–96

  —

  (Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  These figures are the sum of the special capital compensation payments to armed forces personnel made redundant as part of the transition to new force structures, together with the net present value of the extra costs associated with the early payment of both their pension lump sums and their annual pensions.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs of paying benefits for each year those made redundant remain unemployed; it is not known how quickly they will get jobs and the level of social security benefits payable depends on the characteristics of the individuals.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of a reduction of one penny in the basic rate of income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About £16 billion in 1993–94, and £1.7 billion in 1994–95, if the reduction applied from the beginning of the 1993–94 tax year. The costs include the effect of the reduction in receipts of advance corporation tax, and the consequent effect on receipts of mainstream corporation tax. They are based on the same assumptions as those used in table 5.6 of the "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm. 2096 but have been corrected to allow for an error which applied only to these two figures.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in tackling the problem of developing countries' external debt during 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have made substantial progress in dealing with developing country debt issues during 1992.
  120
  The Government are directly responsible for official bilateral debts. Proposals for rescheduling or restructuring such debts are dealt with multilaterally through the Paris club of creditor countries.

  The Paris club reached agreements with 18 countries during 1992, involving the rescheduling or restructuring of over US$10½ billion of bilateral official debt. Three agreements were with middle-income countries— Argentina, Brazil and Bulgaria—and a further four were with lower middle-income countries—Cameroon, Ecuador, Jordan, and Morocco—which benefited from more generous rescheduling arrangments involving longer grace and repayment periods, known as "Houston" terms.

  I am delighted to announce, however, that the majority of agreements, 11 in all, were concluded on Trinidad terms. The countries concerned were Bolivia, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Honduras, Mali, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. This follows from the Paris club's decision in December 1991 to begin implementing the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for providing concessional relief to the very poorest indebted countries.

  In addition to the countries listed, Nicaragua and Benin benefited from Trinidad terms in 1991, and Mauritania in 1993, making 14 beneficiaries in all so far.

  Trinidad terms provide for the equivalent of cancellation of up to half the eligible debt consolidated by the agreements. Each agreement contains an undertaking by creditors to consider the case for a reduction in the whole stock of the debtor countries' eligible debt to the Paris club after a period of proven economic and financial responsibility. During 1992 Trinidad terms agreements covered over US$3 billion of debt entailing the forgiving of over US$1 billion over the life of the agreements. Including Nicaragua, Benin, and Mauritania, over US$4 billion of debt has been restructured under Trinidad terms, and about US$1½ billion forgiven over the life of the agreements.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 26 January to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan),Official Report, column 606, if he will place in the Library the Government's papers to the December European Community Council on the future management of research programmes and the evaluation of existing research programmes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A copy of the evaluation of the second framework programme was placed in the Library in October last year. The United Kingdom's paper "Excellence in EC Programme Management—Looking ahead to Framework Programme IV" was an informal discussion document. However, given the general interest, I have on this occasion placed a copy of the paper in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what change there has been in the proportion of women being appointed to public bodies between the last year for which data are available and the previous year.
  121
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The percentage of appointments to public bodies held by women has increased from 23 per cent, in 1991 to 26 per cent, at 1 September 1992. Further details are available in the 1992 edition of "Public Bodies" published recently, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No non-departmental public body for which my Department is responsible has such a power.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The market tests completed since November 1991 by the Office of Public Service and Science, including its agencies, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information and the outcome of these tests is as follows:

  Activity tested (and area)

  Outcome

  Conference and event management (CCTA)

  Contracted out to Viewplan Ltd

  Data preparation (Chessington Computer Centre)

  Contracted out to Alpha Numeric

  Reprographic services (COI)

  Contracted out to Williams Lea Ltd

  Security and reception services (Recruitment and Assessment Services)

  Retained in-house

  Training (Chessington Computer Centre)

  Contracted out to Skill Advance and to Data Training

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are seven full-time and 41 part-time staff currently engaged on market testing in the Office of Public Service and Science, including its Agencies, HMSO and COI The cost of market testing since November 1991 has been £705,000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the amount of money paid out by the Legal Aid Board area offices at Newcastle upon Tyne and Leeds during the last financial year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board makes all payments centrally through its accounts office in London. It is therefore only possible to make estimates of the amount attributable to each area office. Estimates for the year ending 31 March 1992 for the area offices in question are as follows:

  £ million

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  40·7

  Leeds

  52·9

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1992,Official Report, column 25, when he expects to write with the details of the countries which have been subject to the United Kingdom's arms embargoes over the last 20 years.

  Mr. Needham
  I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 13 January giving the information he requested.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future world demand for new merchant ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to make an accurate forecast of future world demand for merchant ships. However, it is generally expected that there will be an upturn in demand in the second half of the decade. It is likely that existing world merchant ship capacity will be adequate to meet the demand.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision his Department has made to approve infrastructure projects during the course of 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has powers to approve the development of infrastructure in a number of areas. In 1992, following the merger of the Department of Energy with the DTI, he approved the construction of two power stations, the extension of three power stations, 954 overhead power lines, two cross-country gas pipelines and one gas pipeline landfall. The President also granted licences which will allow 12 companies to develop fixed telecommunications networks in the United Kingdom.

  Overseas Markets
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been made within his Department concerning the obtaining of access for British companies to overseas markets by way of goods, services and finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department continually monitors overseas market access for United Kingdom traders and takes action as and when appropriate.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how his Department is monitoring the tendering of contracts by Governments of EC member states within the framework of the single market.

  Mr. Needham
  Responsibility for monitoring the application and effectiveness of EC law on public procurement lies with the European Commission in co-operation with member states. Her Majesty's Treasury represents the United Kingdom in that context and co-ordinates responses to alleged breaches of the rules in the United Kingdom. My Department's single market compliance unit is available to provide advice to any United Kingdom supplier who suspects that the rules are being broken by a purchaser in another member state. The principal means of enforcement, however, lies in the hands of potential suppliers and contractors who can take direct legal action if they are harmed by a purchaser's failure to follow the rules.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasion since February 1992 Her Majesty's Government have been consulted by the European Commission regarding the importation of Chinese bicycles; what representations were made to the Commission by the Government; what was the result of the Commission's preliminary investigation; when it was received by the Government; what action has been taken by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Last December the Commission consulted member states about the preliminary findings of their anti-dumping investigation into bicycle imports from China and Taiwan. For China, dumping causing injury to European Community producers was established and the Commission proposed a provisional anti-dumping duty of 34·4 per cent, to prevent further injury while the investigation was completed. For Taiwan, dumping was found to be de minimis and so no action was proposed. The Government informed the Commission on 21 December that we accepted its conclusions. It is now for the Commission to decide whether to adopt its proposals.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the import of bicycles from China and Taiwan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has received representations from United Kingdom bicycle manufacturers arguing for restrictions on Chinese and Taiwanese imports as well as from United Kingdom importers and retailers 124
  who consider that trade should remain unimpeded. Other issues raised include the safety of imported bicycles as well as the customs duties imposed on both complete machines and their components.

  Access to British Markets
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been made within his Department concerning the control of access to the British market by way of goods, services and finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Import policy issues are regularly and frequently analysed by my Department.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what capacity his Department has to evaluate the post-sale veracity of end-use commitments made in export licence applications for sensitive and dual-use military equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  My export control organisation has the capacity to evaluate information from a wide range of sources—not least from exporters themselves—about the actual end-use of controlled goods. This information is taken into account in considering what action should be taken against evasion of controls, and what decisions should be made on future export licence applications where similar evasion might be attempted.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to investigate which of the exports to the former Yugoslavia—listed by the Minister of Trade to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent in his letter of 5 February—were in fact sent to the former Yugoslavia having been awarded an export licence.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the Official Report the schedule of licences granted for the export of military goods to Yugoslavia for the period 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1992 included in the letter of 5 February to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent by the Minister of Trade.

  Mr. Needham
  Following is the schedule and my covering letter to the hon. Member:Dear Llew
  I am now able to let you have the attached schedule of licences granted for the export of military goods to Yugoslavia, as promised in the Prime Minister's reply to your Parliamentary Question (Hansard 23 November, column 456).
  Your request for quantities has necessitated an examination of individual licences, which is extremely time-consuming; to go back to 1979 as you requested would take too many staff off normal licensing duties for too long, and the schedule therefore gives full details for 1 January 1989–31 December 1992. In many instances the number and range of items involved in shipments made under a licence makes it impossible to state quantity and value has therefore been given. I should also emphasise that the issue of a licence does not mean that the export took place.
  Armaments and military equipment during that period fell within Group 1 of Part II of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991 or its predecessor, the 1989

  125
  Order. The 1992 Order came into force on 31 December 1992 and no licences for former Yugoslav Republics were issued on that day.
  All Group 1 licences were revoked on 3 July 1991 as a precautionary measure and any licensed goods not exported by that date would have been stopped from leaving the UK.
  Following UK action, the EC embargo on exports of military goods was imposed on 5 July 1991 and the UN

  Exports to the territories which comprise the former republic of Yugoslavia Military, security and para-military goods and arms, ammunition and related material

  Goods

  Quantity or value

  End-use/User

  AIRCRAFT PARTS AND SPARES

  1989

  Jet engine parts

  £1,500,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen equipment

  £231,500

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £69,500

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,500,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,500,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £100,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £150,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £200,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £5,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £5,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £1,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £300,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Air conditioning equipment

  £2,800

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,500,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,500,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £300,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Tachometers

  168

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Turn and slip indicators

  85

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Air conditioning equipment

  £6,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Valves

  £41,200

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £250,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oil pressure indicators

  1

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Tailplanes

  6

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ailerons

  12

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft parts

  £15,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,680,700

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oil pressure indicators

  58

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ailerons

  18

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Various indicator equipment

  £313,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oil pressure indicator

  1

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £25,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Navigation system parts

  5

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £69,500

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Test equipment for aircraft sighting system

  £142,250

  Testing of military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector Seat Cartridges

  31

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen equipment test sets

  13

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  1990

  Aircraft spares

  £4,250

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Test equipment for jet engines

  £344,000

  Testing of jet engines/Yugoslav Air Force

  Autostabiliser computer

  12

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Navigational equipment

  £5,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft instrument spares

  5

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft spares

  £200,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft spares

  £300,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Parts for gyro platform system

  £1,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector Seat spare cartridges

  232

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Spare parts for military aircraft

  £607,450

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Valves

  80

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Valves

  60

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Valves

  60

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Spare parts for military aircraft

  £10,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen equipment

  £97,750

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Starter generators adaptors

  20

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen supply test equipment

  £80,750

  For test purposes/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector seats and equipment

  £1,850,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector seats and equipment

  £179,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £1,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Spare parts for military aircraft

  £250,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  126
  embargo on 25 September that year; UN sanctions on all trade with Serbia and Montenegro were imposed on 30 May 1992.
  Applications since 3 July 1991 for Group 1 goods destined for former Yugoslav Republics have been refused unless for lifesaving equipment, must of it for UN operations.
  127

  Goods

  Quantity or value

  End-use/User

  Temperature indicators

  3

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  1991

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Tail planes

  6

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ailerons

  18

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ailerons

  12

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft indicator equipment

  £253,600

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Jet engine parts

  £2,000,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft indicator equipment

  £235,750

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Aircraft ignition and switchgear spares

  £100,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector seats and equipment

  £800,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Ejector seat parts

  £2,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen equipment

  £25,500

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Oxygen equipment

  £223,750

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  Engine air inlet ice protection equipment

  £76,000

  For military aircraft/Yugoslav Air Force

  1992

  Ballistic blankets for helicopter seats

  30

  Helicopter seat protection/United Nations Forces

  AMPLIFIERS

  1990

  Various amplifiers and voltage stabilisers

  £38,250

  Development of electronic counter measures receiver/Institute of Microwave and Electronics

  BODY ARMOUR

  1990

  Armoured jackets, helmets, ceramic plates

  £24,120

  Personal protection/Yugoslav State Police

  1991

  Armoured jackets, helmets, ceramic plates

  £18,600

  Personal protection/Yugoslav State Police

  1992

  Armoured jackets, plates etc.

  £26,300

  Personal protection/Staff of United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  Armoured jackets, plates etc.

  £8,500

  Personal protection/Staff of United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  CAMERAS

  1989

  Cameras for aerial photography

  2

  For remote piloted vehicle/Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement

  DETIONATORS

  1991

  Detonators and fuses

  500

  To activate fire detection/suppression systems in hazardous environment/rubber manufacturer

  COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT

  1989

  Spares for transceiver

  £2,500

  Radio communications/Yugoslav Army

  Spares for minehunting command and navigation systems

  £15,000

  Federal Secretariat of National Defence

  COMPASSES

  1989

  Tubular compasses

  40

  Attachment to surveillance equipment/ Yugoslav Ministry of Defence

  ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS

  1989

  Hysteresis Motor

  45

  Manufacture of test equipment/Federal Secretariat of National Defence

  Hysteresis Motor

  16

  Manufacture of test equipment/Federal Secretariat of National Defence

  Torque Motors

  4

  For simulation training equipment/Federal Secretariat of National Defence

  128 129

  Goods

  Quantity or value

  End-use/User

  1990

  Hysteresis Motor

  44

  Manufacture of test equipment-Federal Secretariat of National Defence

  EXPLOSIVES DETECTION EQUIPMENT

  1989

  Explosives detector

  1

  Demonstration only/Yugoslav Institute of Security

  Explosives vapour detector

  2

  Yugoslav police

  INFRARED, THERMAL IMAGING AND IMAGE, INTENSIFIER EQUIPMENT

  2

  Yugoslav police

  1989

  Second generation image intensifier

  1

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Passive driving periscope (2nd generation image intensifier tubes)

  1

  Demonstration/night optics manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifier

  1

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Steady scope with night vision (second generation) attachment

  1

  Demonstration only/Yugoslav Police

  Processing equipment for second generation image intensifies

  £1,503,700

  Manufacture of night vision equipment/ Yugoslav Army

  Image intensifier tubes (second generation)

  6

  Night vision equipment/Yugoslav Ministry of Defence

  Second generation image intensifies

  150

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifies

  66

  Night vision goggles/Yugoslav Army

  Second generation image intensifies

  40

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifies

  60

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifies

  8

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifies

  200

  Night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  Cryogenic equipment for thermal imaging equipment

  12

  Thermal imager/thermal electro-optics manufacturer

  1990

  Night vision goggles and equipment (second generation tubes)

  6

  Demonstration only/optical manufacturer

  Second generation image intensifers

  2

  For night vision goggles/optical manufacturer

  LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

  1991

  Marine distress equipment (flares, Very pistols, etc.)

  £91,500

  Marine rescue/leisure and commercial shipyards

  1992

  Smoke canisters, cartridges, pistols

  £1,900

  Ground-air/ground-ground signalling marking for landing dropping zones/United Nations forces

  Marine distress equipment (flares, smoke canisters, etc.)

  £124,350

  Marine rescue/leisure and commercial shipyards

  Smoke signalling grenades

  £18,115

  Smoke signalling United Nations forces

  LITHIUM BATTERIES

  1990

  Lithium reserve batteries

  £10,000

  For mines, grenades, etc/Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement

  LITHIUM BATTERIES

  1990

  Periscope spares

  £3,190

  Yugoslav Navy

  RADAR RQUIPMENT AND SPERES

  1989

  Miscellaneous spares for military mobile radar systems

  £22,700

  Spares for existing equipment/Yugoslav Air Force

  Miscellaneous spares for military mobile radar systems

  £755,500

  Spares for existing equipment/Yugoslav Air Force

  Switches

  270

  Radar simulation/Secretariat of National Defence

  Switches

  270

  Radar simulation/Secretariat of National Defence

  1990

  Miscellaneous Spares for military mobile radars—air defence

  £72,160

  Support spares for existing equipment/Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement

  Isolators

  5

  Repair of radar equipment/Secretariat of National Defence

  130 131

  Goods

  Quantity or value

  End-use/User

  Miscellaneous radar equipment and spares

  £24,286,700

  For existing radar stations/Yugoslav Air Force

  1991

  C—Band magnetrons

  20

  Spares for existing radar equipment/Yugoslav army

  Isolators

  5

  Spares for existing radar equipment/air traffic control

  Gunn diode

  8

  Spares for existing radar equipment/Institute for Microwave Technology

  Miscellaneous spares for military mobile radar systems

  £755,500

  Spares for existing equipment/Yugoslav Air Force

  Spares for mortar-locating radar

  £25,000

  Spares for existing equipment/Yugoslav Army

  RANGEFINDERS (LASER)

  1989

  Hand held laser rangefinder

  1

  Evaluation purposes/Yugoslav defence contractor

  Hand held laser rangefinders (non-functioning)

  4

  Interface checks/Yugoslav defence contractor

  SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION

  1989

  Metal-filled plastic bullets (heads)

  Sample quantity

  Production of frangible training ammunition/ Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement

  Smith & Wesson revolver

  1

  Target shooting/tourism company

  9mm sports pistol

  1

  Sporting use/private buyer

  Shotgun primers

  £10,000

  Sporting ammunition manufacture

  1990

  ·22 rifle barrels and actions

  2

  Sporting use private buyer

  Shotguns and blank ammunition

  £5,200

  Production of cinema film/film company

  MG34 7·9mm rifle

  1

  Production of cinema film/film company

  BAR 30·06 auto rifle

  1

  Production of cinema film/film company

  Sporting rifle, shotgun and pistol, and ammunition

  3

  Sporting use/private buyer

  1991

  Revolver (·357)

  1

  Personal protection/private buyer

  Smith & Wesson revolver

  1

  Sporting use/private buyer

  Sonar equipment spares

  1989

  Spares for sonar equipment

  £4,000

  Repair of equipment/Yugoslav Navy

  Spares for sonar equipment

  £15,700

  Repair of equipment/Yugoslav Navy

  Transistors

  1989

  Field effect transistors

  £3,000

  For instrumentation/Federal Secretariat National Defence

  Companies (Environmental Disclosure)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he intends to make to the proposal from his advisory council on business and the environment that all companies should adopt environmental disclosure as a requirement for listing on the stock exchange.

  Mr. Eggar
  The advisory committee's recommendation is directed at the stock exchange and it is for that body to consider and decide on its appropriateness. The recommendation has been brought to the attention of the stock exchange and I await its response with interest.

  Expo '92
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has received for the future use of the British trade pavilion used at the Expo '92 exhibition in Seville; and what decisions he has taken.
  132
  Mr. Needham
  Negotiations are now at an advanced stage with a private sector buyer for sale of the United Kingdom's Expo '92 pavilion. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the purchaser intends to dismantle the pavilion and relocate it in the United Kingdom. It is hoped to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion by the end of March 1993.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent communications he has received from HHL Publishing regarding its participation at the British pavilion at the Expo '92 exhibition in Seville.

  Mr. Needham
  Solicitors representing HHL Publishing wrote on 27 November 1992 about various aspects and received a detailed response to all points on 18 December.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent communications he has received from Farrow and Humphreys Ltd., in regard to services provided to the British pavilion at the Expo '92 exhibition in Seville.
  133
  Mr. Needham
  Farrow and Humphreys Ltd. wrote on 13 January concerning the loss incurred in supplying the company that ran the pavilion shop, which is now in voluntary liquidation. I replied on 31 January.

  Republic of China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total exports and imports between the United Kingdom and the Republic of China in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Insolvency Service expects to complete its review of its funding and fee charging policy.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The review is nearing completion and I will make known my conclusions in due course when I have had an opportunity to consider all the issues.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the accounts of the Insolvency Service for 1991–92.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The statement of receipts and payments of the Insolvency Service's account for 1991–92 is expected to be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 24 February.

  Steel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to hold discussions with(a) the Luxembourg Government and (b) the European Commission concerning state aids to Messrs. Arbed, steel producers, of Luxembourg and its subsidiaries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans at present to hold discussions with the Luxembourg Government. Arbed has made applications for research grants which are permitted under the ECSC state aid code, and these have been discussed between member states and the Commission. However, if evidence exists to suggest that Arbed is benefiting from illegal subsidies, the Government will pursue the matter vigorously with the Commission.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hearing Aid Council is the only non-departmental public body for which my Department is responsible which has these powers.

  Digital Audio Broadcasting
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote the introduction of digital audio broadcasting in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Digital audio broadcasting—DAB—is recognised as a very important development in sound broadcasting, and I am anxious to ensure that its benefits and opportunities are made available in this country. I am therefore establishing a United Kingdom DAB forum to co-ordinate and promote plans for the introduction of DAB in this country and to liaise with those with similar interests in other countries, particularly elsewhere in Europe.

  Participants will include broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, retailers, service providers and other interested parties. The aim is to enhance the potential benefit for United Kingdom industry and ensure that British people will be able to enjoy the benefits of DAB, including high-quality reception in cars and on portable receivers, and additional services that the new technology will make possible.

  My officials will continue their efforts to secure sufficient radio spectrum for the first terrestrial DAB transmissions to begin when the first receivers become available, which is expected to be around 1995.

  Ammonium Nitrate
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to prevent the dumping in the United Kingdom of low-quality ammonium nitrate by the former eastern bloc countries; and if he will ensure that imported ammonium nitrate is bagged and labelled correctly.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: Anti-dumping action is a matter for the European Commission, which is currently investigating a complaint by the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association that ammonium nitrate is being dumped in the United Kingdom by certain republics of the former Soviet Union. The Government have urged the Commission to complete its investigation quickly and will consider carefully any proposals for anti-dumping measures which the Commission then makes. As regards bagging and labelling of dangerous substances such as ammonium nitrate, imports must comply with the relevant United Kingdom legislation and inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are responsible for checking on this during visits to ports.

  HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the weekly budget allocation per prison inmate for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper on 1 January 1973, 1 January 1983 and 1 January 1993; and what account is taken of inflation in uprating the allowance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no weekly budget allocation per inmate for food. Inmates are fed to a predetermined dietary scale which provides them with a set quantity of food and is therefore not affected by inflation. The items
  135
  on this scale are either purchased from centrally negotiated call-off contracts or provided by Prison Service farms and gardens group.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which have contracted out their catering functions; what arrangements have been made for monitoring the carrying out of the contract; and what system is in place to respond to complaints about the service provided.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The catering function is contracted out in the following prisons:

  Belmarsh

  Bullingdon

  Down view

  Highdown

  Holme House

  Woodhill

  Lancaster Farms

  Prison Service area catering managers inspect and report on technical standards in all prisons. This includes monitoring contract caterers for their compliance with the contract. Contractors are responsible to governors for the satisfactory overall performance of the contract.

  The system for dealing with complaints about the service provided by a contract caterer is the same as for prisons with an in-house catering service.

  Wolds Prison
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and previous employment of(a) the governor and deputy governor of Wolds remand prison, (b) the governor and deputy governor of Blakenhurst prison and (c) the director and assistant director of Group 4 Court Escort Services; Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A contracted-out prison is run by a director not a governor. The director of Wolds remand prison is Mr. Stephen Twinn. Wolds has no deputy director, but the head of custody is Mr. David McDonnell. The director of Blakenhurst is Mr. David Brooke, and the deputy director will be Mr. Bernard Higgins, who has yet to take up post. All were formerly members of HM Prison Service. Immediately prior to taking up his post at Blakenhurst, Mr. Brooke was on secondment to HM inspectorate of prisons. The director of Group 4 Court Services Ltd. in the east midlands and Humberside is Mr. Michael Hirst. There is no assistant director, but the two senior controllers are Mr. Ken Tuckwood and Mr. David Adams. All are former police officers.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the absconding of a man on remand at the Wolds on 9 February; and if he will institute an inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 9 February a prisoner escaped from Hull royal infirmary where he had been taken, under escort, from Wolds remand prison. He was re-arrested by the police during the night of 10 February.

  The contractor's staff are carrying out a full inquiry into the causes of the escape. I have also instructed the controller to initiate an inquiry into matters connected with the escape.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Group 4 pays for the cost of providing gas, electricity and water at the Wolds remand prison.
  136
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No, but these are met from within the £6·9 million estimated cost of running the prison published on Budget day last year. Because Wolds is of a unique design, it was not possible to set benchmark levels of energy and water consumption for inclusion in the contract, but the contractor's efficient use of public utilities is monitored by the Home Office controller based at the prison who is assisted by the Home Office energy efficiency unit. Once energy consumption for the Wolds buildings over a full year has been established, it is intended to amend the contract so that the cost of public utilities becomes the contractor's responsibility.

  Court Escort Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the contracting out of the court escort service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Invitations to tender for the contracting out of the court escort service in the Metropolitan police district are to be issued later this year. Subject to the tenders received demonstrating value for money, it is intended that contracted-out operations should commence in 1994. Next year, it is expected that tenders will be sought for three contract areas outside London, with the aim that the service should begin in those areas in 1995. It has not yet been decided which three areas will be covered.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As police authority for the metropolis, I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure of £1,597,684 million in 1993–94. There will be a cash limit on current expenditure of £1,555,397 million. This is an increase of 5–2 per cent, on the budget estimate for 1992–93. Capital expenditure is subject to separate control.

  I have also approved the issue of a precept of £128·15 per property in band D of the council tax valuation bands for Metropolitan police purposes.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has had on the time taken for the market testing of Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The original deadline for receiving bids for the operating contract of Her Majesty's prison Manchester was 18 January 1993. This has been extended while we consider the implications of applying the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. No new deadline has yet been set.

  Winston Silcott
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what examination he has given to the new evidence in the case of Winston Silcott presented to him on 16 June 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Following representations made to my right hon. and learned Friend on 16 June 1992 about Mr.
  137
  Silcott's conviction for the murder of Mr. Smith, the Metropolitan police were asked to make inquiries. These have since been extended to take account of further representations received on 27 October 1992 and 25 January 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend will give further consideration to the case once the police inquiries have been completed.

  Squatting
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when legislative proposals will be brought forward on the squatting of residential property.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 3 February, at column 203.

  MFV Pescado
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions the salvage of the MFV Pescado has been attempted; and what is now the earliest expected date for raising the MFV Pescado.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There has been no attempt to raise the Pescado for the past two months because of bad weather conditions. A further attempt will be made as soon as the tide and weather conditions are synchronised in such a way that a lift would be possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained by immigration officers on seeking to exit from the United Kingdom for a period in excess of one hour over the past 12 months; and what reasons were given for the detention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of immigrants to, and emigrants from, the United Kingdom for each year for the period 1980 to 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: For a description of the available information on migration to and from the United Kingdom, and data for 1991, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my

  Number and percentage of persons convicted of indictable drug offences and all indictable offences in the Northumbrian police force area by age 1982 to 1991

  Aged 10 and under 18

  All ages

  Year

  Indictable drug offences

  Total indictable offences (=100 per cent.)

  Indictable drug offences

  Total indictable offences (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  1982

  3

  0·1

  4,098

  121

  1·0

  12,037

  1983

  —

  —

  3,698

  82

  0·7

  11,830

  1984

  2

  0·1

  3,572

  111

  1·0

  11,599

  1985

  5

  0·2

  3,282

  118

  1·1

  10,621

  1986

  1

  0·0

  2,528

  90

  1·0

  8,985

  1987

  2

  0·1

  2,449

  115

  1·3

  9,076

  1988

  3

  0·1

  2,253

  86

  1·0

  8,880

  1989

  3

  0·2

  1,702

  113

  1·4

  7,815

  1990

  10

  0·6

  1,642

  132

  1·7

  7,760

  19911

  12

  0·8

  1,557

  137

  1·7

  7,991

  1 Provisional.

  138
  right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on 15 February at columns 19·20. Data for 1980–90 are given in table 2·1 of the 1989 and 1990 issues of the OPCS publication "International Migration", copies of which are in the Library. Data for 1992 are not yet available.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities and activities of the group of co-ordinators on the free movement of persons referred to in the report of the immigration and nationality department 1991–92.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The co-ordinators' group is a group of senior officials set up by the European Council in 1988 to co-ordinate member states' action relating to the free movement of persons. It also has direct oversight of the work of the horizontal group on data processing, which is looking at the creation of a European information system for the exchange of information of inadmissible aliens, missing persons, stolen vehicles and other goods. The group also has a remit from the Maastricht European Council to plan for the implementation of title VI of the treaty on European union. It reports direct to the European Council.

  Drugs, Northumbria
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to prevent the flow of drugs into Northumbria.

  Mr. Jack
  Drug dealers and traffickers are the subject of investigations by the Northumbria police drug squad and by No. 2 regional crime squad, in liaison with Her Majesty's Customs, and supported by the drugs division of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Additionally, divisional officers are trained to recognise and deal with drug problems at street level. The outcome in 1992 was a significant increase over 1991 in the number of arrests for drug-related offences in the Blyth area. Northumbria police also give regular briefings on drugs to teachers to assist in informing children of the dangers of drug misuse.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of convictions in the Northumbrian police area involving under 18-year-olds and in total were for drug-related offences in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in prisons in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland who were held as category A prisoners on 1 January 1992 were removed from this category during 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During 1992, 56 category A inmates in England and Wales were downgraded to category B following review by the category A committee.

  The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who were held in prisons in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland were category A prisoners during 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 December 1992, there were 554 male and four female category A prisoners in prison custody in England and Wales.

  The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the status of an inmate being held as a category A prisoner in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland is reviewed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In England and Wales the security category of category A prisoners is liable to review at any time in the light of security or other information. Usually a category A prisoner is held in the category on a provisional basis until conviction and sentence, when the case is put to the category A committee for formal review. Cases are reviewed at least annually thereafter.

  The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the longest period of time an inmate at present being held in prison in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland has been in category A status as at 1 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twenty-six years in England and Wales. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are being applied in selecting areas for resettlement of Bosnian refugees once they leave reception centres.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The areas selected will be those where support can be made available from refugee and other voluntary organisations, and where there is suitable accommodation.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he expects to spend in the next six,140
  12 and 18 months on resettlement programmes associated with Bosnian refugees; and how much local authorities will be expected to pay.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Firm forecasts are not yet possible and depend on how quickly the international organisations are able to arrange the arrival of further groups from Bosnian detention camps and the tracing of their dependants. The proposed settlement of the Bosnians in various parts of the country seeks to avoid imposing undue burdens on individual local authorities.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the destinations and the arrangements for catering for the Bosnian and other former Yugoslav refugees admitted to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The areas provisionally identified for the resettlement of both former detainees and their dependants accepted by the Government at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are listed in the table. The Government are providing funds to the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to find suitable housing and to provide support to the Bosnian families in conjunction with refugee and other voluntary organisations in the areas concerned.

  Provisional resettlement areas

  The West Midlands

  The East Midlands/East Anglia

  The North

  The North-East

  Central Scotland

  London

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the immigration rules which prescribe that a person wishing to set up a business in the United Kingdom must leave the United Kingdom to make the application as part of the exercise in looking at regulations which unnecessarily inhibit business.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to set aside the entry clearance requirement for non-EC nationals wishing to establish themselves in business or self-employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to modify the immigration rules so that under the European Community's association agreements with Czechoslovakia, Hungry and Poland self-employed persons from those countries who own and direct their own businesses will be free to establish themselves in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering what changes will need to be made to the immigration rules in order to comply with the provisions in the EC association agreements with Hungary and Poland on the establishment of their nationals in this country once the agreements come into force.

  Police Radios
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to counter the use of scanners by criminals to monitor police radios.
  141
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Specialist units already use encrypted radios and many police forces are now purchasing such radios for more general use. This is the most effective way of protecting police communications.

  East-West Migration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what follow-up action the Government are taking on the conference on east-west migration arising from the Berlin conference referred to in the report of the Immigration and Nationality Department 1991–92.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend attended a ministerial conference in Budapest on 15 and 16 February. This was a follow-up to the Berlin conference, and among other things considered a series of recommendations for tackling illegal immigration from and through central and eastern Europe.

  Number and percentage of offenders cautioned and found guilty at all courts in the North West region and England and Wales by age and type of offence, 19911

  Aged under 21 years

  All ages [= 100 per cent.]

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Total found guilty or cautioned

  cautioned

  Found guilty

  Total found guilty or cautioned

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  North West Region

  Indictable offences

  17,324

  68

  19,197

  36

  26,521

  46

  25,316

  53,917

  79,233

  Summary non-motoring offences

  6,364

  52

  10,023

  16

  16,387

  22

  12,169

  62,527

  74,696

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  23,688

  63

  29,220

  25

  52,908

  34

  37,485

  116,444

  153,929

  England and Wales

  Indictable offences

  119,424

  66

  115,376

  34

  234,800

  46

  179,885

  335,394

  515,279

  Summary non-motoring offences

  38,649

  39

  63,279

  14

  101,928

  19

  98,880

  450,558

  549,438

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  158,073

  57

  178,655

  23

  336,728

  32

  278,765

  785,952

  1,064,717

  1 Provisional.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Art Collection
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give details of the charitable trust set up to administer the royal art collection.

  Mr. Key
  This is a matter for the director of the royal collection, who is secretary of the Royal Collection Trust and to whom the hon. Lady may wish to write.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what offers in lieu of tax allocated there have been since his last announcement on 14 January,Official Report, column 774.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my announcement on 14 January, I am pleased to inform the House of the allocation of items offered in lieu of taxation. A painting, "San Bernardino preaching in the Campo at Siena" by Domenico Beccafumi, together with a chalk study of the painting, will be allocated to the Fitzwilliam museum. Two diagrams by Michelangelo will be allocated to the British museum.

  Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
  Mr. Con way
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prosecutions under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Records available centrally show no prosecutions in England and Wales from 1979 to 1991, which is provisional, under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders in(a) the north-west and (b) England and Wales were aged under 21 years in the last year for which figures are avilable.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1991, which is provisional, is given in the table.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a further statement on an independent fund for the restoration of Windsor castle to which he referred in his oral answer to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on 25 January,Official Report, column 695.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am pleased to say that following inquiries from a number of people who wish to assist with the restoration of Windsor castle, Coutts and Company, bankers are establishing a trust fund to receive donations for that purpose. This fund will be entirely independent of the royal household and the Government.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage was established in April 1992 since when 27 industrial posts have been lost as a result of contracting out. There has been no loss of posts at the Historic Royal Palaces Agency in this period.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.
  144
  Mr. Key
  My Department is responsible for five non-departmental public bodies which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions. These are:

  British Library

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission

  Broadcasting Standards Council

  Football Licensing Authority

  English Heritage

  Of these, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission recovers the costs incurred for adjudications from the broadcasters.

TRANSPORT

  Unseaworthy Vessels
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships' owners were gaoled for letting unseaworthy vessels sail as allowed for by the Merchant Shipping Acts in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Inshore Waters Forecast
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to Her Majesty's coastguard concerning issuing to the public, or answering telephone inquiries from the public about, the inshore waters forecast for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  Each coastguard rescue centre broadcasts on marine VHF radio Marinecall inshore weather forecasts for their local areas at four-hourly intervals, or every two hours when a strong wind warning is in force. The Shetland isles is an exception and is covered by an inshore forecast especially provided by the Meteorological Office and paid for by the Department of Transport. Marinecall information is a commercial undertaking through a British Telecom recorded message service and is supplied free to Her Majesty's coastguard for promulgation by VHF radio only. Her Majesty's coastguard has undertaken not to compromise the service provided and, therefore, directs telephone callers to the Marinecall recorded service. However, BBC inshore waters forecasts, which are in the public domain, are given by Her Majesty's coastguard upon request via radio or telephone.

  MFV Pescado
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the precise position of MFV Pescado at the time of its sinking; and whether this position is outside British territorial waters.

  Mr. Norris
  The wreck lies at Lat 50° 00·5'N, Long 4° 43·9'W which is outside United Kingdom territorial waters.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to investigate possible submarine damage to MFV Pescado.

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch inspectors considered every possibility during their investigation.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the deadline for the submission of compensation claims arising out of the sinking of MFV Pescado; and who is entitled to claim compensation.

  Mr. Norris
  Under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 claims in respect of death or personal injury have to be made within three years of the incident. Other claims in tort have to be made within six years. The dependants of any person who died may be in a position to make a claim; if they are minded to do so they should seek legal advice. If claims are made against the owner he cannot limit his liability in respect of crew members employed on the vessel.
  146
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to arrange for the MFV Pescado to be raised before the expiry of the deadline under which compensation claims must be made.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce automatic speed limits in rural villages between village signs.

  Mr. Carlisle
  The Department issued a policy document on speed limits and revised guidance on the criteria for setting local speed limits on 13 January. There are no plans to introduce automatic speed limits between village signs, as used in some other countries. The factors which determine the best site for a village name sign invariably differ from those for deciding the start of a speed limit. Speed limits need to be seen by drivers as reasonable if they are to be obeyed and combining the village and speed signs could result in many instances in a speed limit being applied before it is appropriate. There are severe penalties for breaking limits and drivers should know when they enter a new speed limit zone by passing a sign displaying a speed limit roundel.

  MV Goldeneye
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions exist on a vessel of the type of MV Goldeneye attending a salvage outside United Kingdom territorial waters.

  Mr. Norris
  Restrictions on the salvage operations of vessels of the type of MV Goldeneye are governed by the terms of the load line or load line exemption certificate.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish further papers considered by the high-level forum for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies have been placed in the Library of the two papers considered by the high-level forum that I chaired in December. These are entitled "Proposed Consultation Arrangements" and "Developing Station and Junction Proposals".

  Shipping (Radar Surveillance)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the cost of operating radar surveillance of shipping in the English channel in each of the last three financial years;

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the capital cost and annual running costs of installing radar surveillance equipment to monitor shipping traffic in the Fair Isle straits, the Minches, the Pentland firth and the North channel.

  Mr. Norris
  The operating costs of the channel navigation information service—CNIS—comprise extra manpower required by Her Majesty's coastguard at Langdon battery Dover and at the technical services unit at Highcliffe, the maintenance of the radar system and ancillary equipment, and an aircraft to identify vessels
  147
  infringing the traffic separation scheme. Figures for the last three years, in £000s, and the estimated outturn for 1992–93 are as follows:

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Manpower

  87

  89

  101

  113

  Maintenance

  357

  303

  389

  550

  Aircraft

  129

  120

  139

  100

  1 Estimate.

  The manpower figures are estimated because they are not recorded separately within the budget for operating Langdon battery.

  The radar system is being overhauled, with a new computer system being installed, at a total cost of £4·5 million. The maintenance costs this year have been higher because of this exercise but are expected to fall sharply when the new system is commissioned in April 1993.

  The Department has not estimated the costs of installing and operating a similar system in any other area: this could be done only after a detailed study of the area concerned to determine what sites and equipment would be needed. The figures given for CNIS may not be indicative because some sites and equipment already available have been used, but they show the order of cost.

  Radio Transponders
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the International Maritime Organisation on the subject of equipping vessels with radio transponders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No representations have been made to the International Maritime Organisation—IMO—with regard to equipping vessels with radio transponders. However, the Department is actively considering their use in vessel traffic services at the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, which has been tasked to undertake this work by the IMO.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Norris
  None of the non-departmental public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible has such power.

  Northern Ireland Railways
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 418, if he will list the property owned by British Rail in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official
  148
  Report, column 418, if he will make a statement as to the implications for Northern Ireland of clause 132(3) of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  The implications for Northern Ireland of section 132(3) of the Railways Bill are minimal. The main provisions of part I of the Railways Bill do not extend to Northern Ireland. The restructuring provisions in part II and associated provisions in part III, which apply to the British Railways Board, are extended to Northern Ireland to enable the board to deal with any property, rights and liabilities it may have in Northern Ireland. Other provisions extend to Northern Ireland where they amend legislation which so extends.

  Vehicle Testing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he has issued to vehicle testing stations; and if he will place the full details in the Library;

  (2) what information he has on how many diesel cars have suffered engine damage as a result of the new smoke emission tests in the MOT test;

  (3) what steps he has taken to inform the public of the diesel engine new smoke emission tests; what evaluation of alternative test methods which are less liable to cause engine damage has been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  MOT testing stations have been advised how to test diesel-engined vehicles, and with what equipment. They have been specifically instructed not to test vehicles where the engine is not in a satisfactory condition, and they have also been given guidance on how to establish this. I have placed in the Library a copy of the advice to MOT testing stations about the MOT diesel smoke check, together with the relevant extract from the MOT tester's manual about the test procedure.

  The test involves measuring smoke density while the enigine is run to its maximum governed speed so as to impose a similar sort of load on the engine as it experiences in normal driving conditions. The only alternative to measuring smoke density during a free acceleration test would require the use of a dynamometer. This would be a very much more expensive investment than the smoke meters which have been in use since 1 January.

  The purpose of the test and.the procedure are described in an advisory note which MOT testing stations have been providing to applicants with diesel-engined vehicles before tests have been carried out. As the note explains, the test procedure is not harmful to properly maintained engines, but an engine may well need prior attention where it has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

  Unfortunately I have received reports that there have been some cases where light-duty diesel engines have suffered damage during the metered test of smoke levels while the engine is under load, and I have therefore decided to suspend that part of the test temporarily as from today pending an investigation into these matters.

  In the meantime motorists should continue to take diesel-engined vehicles only to MOT testing stations which have been authorised to test diesels, since they will still be continuing to check by eye that vehicles are not emitting excessive smoke or vapour at normal idling speed. Taken by itself, this visual check is not such an effective test because it does not indicate how an engine performs when

  149
  a vehicle is out on the road. However, it will at least identify those vehicles with serious in-service performance deficiencies.

  I hope that it will be possible to reinstate the metered test a little later in the year. Emissions testing during roadworthiness tests is an important feature of our policy on improving the environment, and if a diesel engine is putting out too much smoke we have a responsibility to ensure that the problem is rectified.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will require all vehicle testing stations to undertake MOT tests of diesel engines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No, the decision on whether to invest in smoke-measuring equipment must be a matter for individual MOT testing stations to make. If we were to introduce a requirement that all stations should be able to test diesel-engined vehicles there would be substantial over-capacity, and a lot of equipment would be left standing idle for long periods of time.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to inform the owners of diesel cars and diesel light commercial vehicles of the need to ensure that their vehicles are serviced before being submitted for the Ministry of Transport test diesel smoke emission levels test.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Diesel-engined vehicles do not necessarily need to be serviced before the MOT test, although an engine may well need prior attention where it has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. MOT stations have been providing an advisory note about this to all test applicants with diesel-engined vehicles before a test takes place. The note explains the purpose of the smoke check; the procedure involved; and it also advises against proceeding with a test in any case where an engine may not be in a fit state to be tested. In addition, testing stations have been instructed to review the service history of a vehicle with the applicant before starting the test, and to carry out a number of preliminary safety checks on the engine. I have placed a copy of the note and our instructions in the Library.

  Unfortunately, notwithstanding the various precautions which have been taken, I have nevertheless received reports that there have been some cases where light-duty diesel engines have suffered damage during the metered test, and I have therefore decided to suspend that part of the test temporarily as from today pending an investigation into these matters.

  East Coast Motorway
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed east coast motorway from the Humber bridge towards London.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 9 July 1992,Official Report, columns 321·22.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Birmingham northern relief road was expected to have been begun and completed before the tolling decision was taken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In May 1989, when it was announced that the Birmingham northern relief road would be privately financed, the Department estimated that a public sector scheme could not have opened until the mid-1990s, allowing for a three-year construction period. That estimate was however very tentative: the statutory procedures for the public scheme had not been completed; the implications of new national traffic forecasts had not been incorporated; and the availability of public finance could not be guaranteed.

  Behavioural Research
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the behavioural research programme announced in the 1980s and on its progress and interim results.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The behavioural studies research programme was initiated in 1986. Its aim is to quantify how the accident risk of individual drivers and motor cyclists depends on age, driving experience, gender and a range of social and psychological factors.

  The programme has identified those skills and attitudes which are important for safety on the road. It is now exploring the ways by which key skills such as hazard perception can be taught, and how attitudes and behaviours can be influenced. It is providing a sound basis for measures to help reduce the number of casualties on our roads, in particular those associated with young or inexperienced drivers.

  There is a continuing programme of work, involving the Transport Research Laboratory and 10 universities, which so far has resulted in more than 40 publications in the scientific press.

  Heathrow Express
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current forecast timetable for(a) the rail track charges for the Heathrow express to be agreed and (b) the Heathrow express to start operating.

  Mr. Norris
  I hope that negotiations between the British Airports Authority and British Rail on track access charges and other matters will be concluded shortly. It ought then to be possible for the service to begin operating in 1997.

  Rail Improvements
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the capital cost and the net present value of the proposed rail improvements at Borough Market and of the Thameslink 2000 project.

  Mr. Norris
  Preliminary estimates by British Rail suggest that the net capital cost of the Thameslink 2000 project as a whole would be about £1 billion; that it would have a negative financial net present value, discounted at
  151
  8 per cent., of about £600 million but positive net present value of about £1 billion if non-priced benefits were taken into account.

  The element of capital costs in the Borough Market area is estimated to be in the order of £80 million to £90 million; no meaningful net present value can be attached to this element of the project in isolation.

  British Rail is continuing its appraisal work.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of employees in his Department are registered disabled.

  Mr. Norris
  At 1 July 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 1.3 per cent, of the total work force of the Department of Transport and its agencies were registered as disabled. It is not possible to establish the total number of departmental staff with disabilities because many people with disabilities prefer not to register.

  Plutonium
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the transportation by air of plutonium in containers which do not meet the standards stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency; when this method of transporting plutonium began; why this method of transportation was chosen; and what assessment has been made of the likely effects if any of the aeroplanes which are used to transport plutonium were to be involved in a crash.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I know of no instance when plutonium has been transported in or over the UK in containers that did not meet the standards stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  In its report "The Transport of Civil Plutonium by Air", published in 1988, the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive material concluded that the health risk to people from the current transport of civil plutonium by air to and from the United Kingdom is not only extremely remote but also acceptable.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We will, however, be reporting on the outcome of this year's market testing programme.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by my Department in each of the years 1980 to 1992 was as follows:
  152

  Number

  1980

  66

  1981

  76

  1982

  57

  1983

  64

  1984

  98

  1985

  99

  1986

  148

  1987

  74

  1988

  86

  1989

  114

  1990

  85

  1991

  123

  1992

  127

  Air Freight Facilities
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve air freight facilities between Scotland and EC member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The third package of aviation liberalisation measures, which came into effect on 1 January, has introduced a fully liberal air freight market in the EC. This means that routes between the United Kingdom and other EC member states can be operated by any EC licensed air carrier. The provision of facilities for such operations is for the carriers and airports concerned.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of how much time it would take for a sea-going tug to render assistance in the event of a tanker getting into trouble in the Minch.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]Such an assessment is not possible without defining the particular circumstances of the case including weather and the location of the casualty. Provision of emergency tug assistance is a matter between the owner or master of the casualty and tug suppliers.

  Tankers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the environmental impact of tankers flushing out their tanks in the North sea.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: Efforts continue to deter tankers from illegally flushing their tanks in the North sea and to detect tankers that may do so. It is impracticable to undertake an assessment of the environmental impact of such flushing because of the difficulties of distinguishing between traces of hydrocarbons present in sea water due to tank flushing and those from other sources.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance his Department has given regarding implementation of the requirement of imported bicycles to meet current trading standards regulations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As the question falls to the Department of Transport, I have been asked to reply.

  The sale of bicycles is regulated by the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984/145 as amended by

  153
  SI 1984/1057) made under what is now the Consumer Protection Act 1987. These apply the relevant British Standard—BS—and will shortly be updated in line with the latest BS published last year. The regulations, which are enforceable by trading standards officers, cover the supply of all bicycles, whether imported or not.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the proposal for a Council regulation on shipments of radioactive substances within the European Community (Com (92) 520 final) delivered by the European Commission to the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Council on 7 December 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory memorandum number 11035/92 submitted by the Employment Department on 10 December 1992. A further supplementary explanatory memorandum will be submitted shortly.

EDUCATION

  Further Education Colleges (Auditors)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what restrictions there are on colleges of further education after 1 April appointing the same firm of auditors to undertake both internal and external audit functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Colleges entering the new further education sector on 1 April may use one firm to provide internal and external audit services. The Further Education Funding Council has advised colleges intending to use only one firm that they should satisfy themselves that the arrangements will provide an effective service; and that they should be able to satisfy the council's audit service that each role is clearly defined, that both sets of reporting requirements are fully met and that the internal audit coverage will not be limited to an assessment of the systems and controls that are carried out by an external auditor in forming an opinion. Colleges have also been advised by the council to ensure that their selection process ensures real competition.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he is making to extend the responsibilities of the Audit Commission to encompass colleges of further education and grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament includes proposals to allow the Audit Commission to carry out value-for-money studies for the Funding Agency for Schools. The commission is already empowered to undertake similar work for the Further Education Funding Council. The district audit service may, under current arrangements, compete with other companies to provide audit services for grant-maintained schools and, after 1 April, further education corporations, if it chooses to do so.

  Primary and Secondary Education (Funding)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the basis for the difference between funding of primary and secondary school children; if he will make it his policy to fund children from the ages of five to 16 years on a national curriculum basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The current balance of funding between the primary and secondary phases reflects local education authorities' decisions about relative needs and priorities. Similarly, it is for local education authorities—LEAs—to decide the basis of funding for compulsory school education, within the resources available to them. Spending available per pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools increased in real terms by over
  45 per cent, between 1979–80 and 1990–91. LEAs' planned spending in 1992–93 was around 5 per cent, higher in real terms than LEA spending in 1990–91.

  GCSE (Science)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of pupils achieved the highest grades in Sc 1, Sc 2, Sc 3 and Sc 4 in the recent pilot studies for the new GCSE science exam.

  Mr. Forth
  The purpose of these pilots was to test the examining and awarding processes, not the pupils. Those who took part will be taking GCSE examinations this summer, and had not completed the GCSE syllabus at the time of the trials. The marks are not therefore significant as predictors of GCSE grades.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the criteria to be applied in assessing Sc 1 —the practical investigations—GCSE science.

  Mr. Forth
  Criteria for GCSE syllabuses in science were published by the School Examinations and Assessment Council in June 1992. I know of no reason why my right hon. Friend should review those criteria.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations his Department had with organisations representing experienced teachers before introducing GCSE science.

  Mr. Forth
  Before the GCSE was introduced for all subjects in 1986, the Department undertook extensive consultations with a wide range of organisations and individuals, including teachers and their representative bodies.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated annual cost of providing the helpline to answer questions from the public on grant-maintained status for schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The helpline is a pilot scheme which began on 1 February and will run for at least six weeks. Decisions about extending the service will be made in due course in the light of experience of the pilot.

  The estimated running costs of the pilot are £25,000. A further sum, estimated at £200,000, is being spent to inform the public of the availability of the service in the national press and magazines.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Boswell
  None of the non-departmental public bodies for which this Department is responsible may compel anyone to carry out instructions at their own expense while at the same time charging fees to cover costs incurred for assessing work deemed necessary by a public body.

  Academic Results
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out academic results as indicated by five GCSE A-C grades, aggregated for grant-maintained schools and aggregated for non-grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In England, the proportion of pupils aged 16 at the end of the academic year 1991–92 in grant-maintained secondary schools gaining five or more grades C or better at GCSE was provisionally 45.2 per cent. The corresponding proportion for other maintained schools was 35 per cent.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what statistics are available on the educational achievements of children who received pre-school nursery education relative to children who did not receive nursery education.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not collect statistics on this issue. Various research findings suggest that nursery education has benefits in preparing many children for their primary schooling. There is no conclusive evidence of its longer-term benefits or of its cost effectiveness relative to that of other forms of under-five provision.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Family (Taxation)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 February,Official Report, column 1111, at which tax office the tax affairs of Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be administered; if any additional (a) training and (b) security measures are proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who is a signatory of the memorandum of understanding, is responsible for the administrative arrangements relating to the tax affairs of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I have no doubt that he will ensure appropriate levels of training and security.
  156
  As with other taxpayers, confidentiality and security are important considerations. That is why details relating to where the tax affairs of the Queen and Prince of Wales will be administered will not be released.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans an official visit to Southwark or Bermondsey.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  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.

  Ministers (Resignation)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the circumstances in which he would require Ministers to resign.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I would not expect to have to do so. All ministerial offices are at the disposal of the Prime Minister.

HEALTH

  Regional Allocations
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department will undertake the review of weighted capitation for regional allocations referred to in paragraph 232 of the report of the inquiry into London's health service, medical education and research; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The review will take place during 1993–94 with a view to implementing any agreed changes to the formula in 1995–96 allocations.

  Brook Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the constituent of the hon. Member for Woolwich, national insurance No. PW13O335D, cannot be discharged from the Brook hospital to appropriate care in the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Magnetic Resonance Scanners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the number of magnetic resonance scanners in each NHS region per 1,000 population and the number of procedures carried out on each scanner between April and October 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of magnetic resonance scanners, including both national health service and private in each NHS region per million population is as follows:
  157

  England:

  Number

  East Anglian

  0·96

  Mersey

  1·25

  Northern

  1·30

  North East Thames

  3·17

  North West Thames

  3·63

  North Western

  1·75

  Oxford

  1·95

  South East Thames

  1·09

  South West Thames

  2·69

  South Western

  1·84

  Trent

  1·28

  Wessex

  0·68

  West Midlands

  1·15

  Yorkshire

  0·82

  Scotland:

  2·16

  Wales:

  1·04

  Northern Ireland:

  0·35

  Details of the number of procedures carried out on each scanner between April and October 1992 is not held centrally.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 152, if she will name the pharmaceutical companies on whose behalf assurances were sought that the limited list regulations would not be extended; and on what dates the inquirers were informed by her Department that at that time there were no plans to extend the selected list scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such detailed information about correspondence between the Department and individual pharmaceutical companies is treated in confidence.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make a statement on the precise arrangements for the inclusion of a further 10 therapeutic categories of drugs which may now be included on the selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall make an announcement after we have received advice from the advisory committee on national health service drugs.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drugs are on the market in each of the 10 categories proposed for addition to the limited list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available relates to the number of different preparations dispensed in 1991 under the national health service in England in each of the categories. The following figures are for items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration.

  Number

  Antidiarrhoeal drugs

  43

  Antihistamines, hyposensitisation, and allergic disorders

  156

  Hypnotics and anxiolytics

  156

  Appetite suppressants

  12

  Treatment of vaginal and vulval conditions

  52

  Contraceptives

  60

  Anaemias and some other blood disorders

  146

  Drugs for the relief of soft-tissue inflammation

  112

  Drugs acting on the ear and drugs acting on the nose

  130

  Skin

  1,776

  Road Accidents (Charges)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics she keeps on the extent to which health authorities levy a charge for treating patients involved in a road accident.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information concerning charges levied under the Road Traffic Act 1988 is contained in the summarised accounts of health authorities and national health service trusts.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds there were in 1986 and at the most recent date in(a) rural areas and (b) urban areas.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to respond to the first report from the Health Committee of Session 1992–93 on "NHS Trusts: Interim Conclusions and Proposals for Future Inquiries", House of Commons Paper No. 321.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect to respond shortly.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of cumulative savings to the national health service from the contracting out of support services; and what plans she has to extend contracting out.

  Mr. Sackville
  Support services in the national health service have been contracted out since the earliest days and we have no estimate of the cumulative savings involved. It is estimated that in 1990–91 there were savings in excess of £125 million as a result of the market testing initiative started in 1983.

  The plans for extending market testing in the NHS were set out in chapter 4 of the White Paper "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730 November 1991.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by her Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to previous years is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of statutory instruments laid

  1991

  1992

  91

  112

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in locked wards for mentally ill patients in(a) 1984 and (b) 1992–93.
  159
  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally. Reports from health authorities suggest that there were 639 such beds in local district facilities in 1991, compared with 1,163 in 1986. This excludes places in regional secure units and other facilities for patients needing care in conditions of medium security.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what is the percentage change in the number of home helps in Northumberland since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information, at 30 September 1991, shows 513 whole-time equivalent home helps employed by Northumberland social services, an increase of 33 per cent, since 1979.

  Schizophrenia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to GPs in diagnosing schizophrenia.

  Mr. Yeo
  During basic medical education and vocational training, general practice trainees are trained to recognise psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia. Of the three years of formal general practice vocational training, two years are hospital-based. During this lime over 40 per cent, of trainees currently choose a six-month period in a psychiatric department as a senior house officer.

  Principals in general practice update and extend their knowledge of psychiatric disorders under the system of continuing education funded in all national health service regions.

  All general practioners can refer patients for specialist attention both to confirm a diagnosis of schizophrenia and to obtain assistance in the management of this disorder.

  Additionally community psychiatric nursing posts have been established in many districts to provide a psychiatric input into primary health care and can act as a resource for all members of the primary health care team, including GP trainees.

  Contraceptive Pill
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has done into the medical effects to women of restricting the prescription of the oral contraception pill to the cheaper varieties.

  Mr. Sackville
  In advising the Health Departments on which contraceptives should not be available for prescription under the national health service, the advisory committee on NHS drugs will be required to ensure that all clinical need can be provided as economically as possible. In formulating its advice, I would expect the committee to have regard to the findings of relevant research.

  Merseyside Ambulance Service
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of Merseyside ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mersey regional ambulance service national health service trust consistently achieves the national standard laid down for emergency call response times. The trust is constantly striving to improve services to patients.
  160
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital calls were made by the Merseyside ambulance service in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on hospital calls is not held centrally. Information is available on patient journeys conducted by the Mersey regional ambulance service as follows:

  Patient Journeys (thousands)

  Emergency

  Urgent

  Special Planned

  Total

  1987–88

  108·5

  29·0

  649·0

  786·5

  1988·89

  101·4

  28·0

  641·3

  770·7

  11989·90

  101·4

  24·0

  433·0

  558·5

  1990·91

  103·4

  27·2

  576·0

  706·5

  21991·92

  102·1

  38·4

  561·0

  701·5

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

  2 Figures are provisional.

  Rehabilitation Facilities Elderly People (Care)
  Mrs. Dun woody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will lay down guidelines on basic minimal standards of service for elderly patients discharged into community care;

  (2) if she will establish a policy of active rehabilitation for those people who require a short period of more integrated and intensive care than is possible in their homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  A wide range of rehabilitation facilities exists within the national health service and local social services authorities. Decisions about rehabilitation services are for the professional judgment of those concerned with the individual case.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free prescriptions were dispensed in the year 1991–92; what was the figure in 1978–79; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. In 1979 an estimated 185·5 million prescribed items—about 60 per cent, of the total number —were dispensed free of charge by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. By 1992 the number had risen to 311.9 million—about 80 per cent, of the total.

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given local authorities about their duty in law to instal minicoms in the homes of people with severe hearing impairment where need is being assessed and irrespective of whether the individual disabled person already has a telephone; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We expect local authorities to be aware of their statutory duty, under section 2(1)(h) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to provide assistance to disabled people with the provision of a telephone, and any special equipment needed to use it, irrespective of whether the individual disabled person

  161
  already has a telephone, where they accept that there is an assessed need. Each case is assessed on its own merits by the local authority.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which her Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are two non-departmental public bodies for which the Department is responsible which have such powers. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, under section 16 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, has the power to charge a fee for granting licences. Licences are required by centres providing treatments involving IVF, AID, egg and embryo donation and centres undertaking embryo research and storage of gametes and embryos.

  The National Radiological Protection Board, under section 1 of the Radiological Protection Act 1970, has the power to charge for providing technical services to persons concerned with radiation hazards, but no power to compel such persons to comply with that advice.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of severance payment was approved by her Department in connection with the resignation of Sir James Ackers as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 15 February at column 81.

  Wessex RHA
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to hold a full investigation of mismanagement in the Wessex regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Like any other regional health authority, Wessex regional health authority is held to account through the national health service management executive which monitors its performance throughout the year.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all regional health authority chairmen who have received payments on retirement additional to their salary in the last five years, and the amounts of such payments in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  With the agreement of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to make a payment of £10,000 to Sir James Ackers under the provisions of paragraph 9(3) of schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977. There have been no other such payments in the last five years.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the recent guidance issued by the management executive on extra-contractual referrals and the information to be made available to patients in the light of any deferral of treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. It is not appropriate to publish guidance which simply deals with the administrations of the extra-contractual referrals system. Current good practice requires patients to be kept informed of decisions affecting their treatment.

  All health authorities have set local charter standards and many have published their own local charters. These include access to detailed information about local health services including waiting times for treatment.

  GP Practices (Staff)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) community nurses, (b) health visitors and (c) social workers employed in (i) fund-holding general practitioner practices and (ii) non-fund holding general practitioner practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. Data on practice staff employed by all general practitioner practices are available, but the categories of staff are differently defined. The total whole-time equivalent numbers in England in these categories as at 1 April 1992 are given in the table.

  Number

  Management and Administration

  6,069

  Secretariat and Clerical

  12,539

  Receptionist

  19,508

  Computer Operator

  1,133

  Practice Nurse

  8,945

  Dispenser

  1,014

  Physiotherapist

  77

  Chiropodist

  9

  Interpreter/Link Worker

  24

  Counsellor

  168

  Message Taking

  38

  Other Duties

  615

  Total

  50,139

  Hygiene Regulations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure sensitive and appropriate enforcement of hygiene regulations.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991 the Department of Health issued statutory code of practice No. 9 advising environmental health officers to conduct food hygiene inspections according to the relative risk posed to public health. A copy is available in the Library.

  The Department works closely with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Food and Trading Standards—LACOTS—a local government central body whose purpose is to co-ordinate trading standards and food hygiene activity throughout the United Kingdom. It gives advice to local authorities on common enforcement problems.

  LACOTS has, with our encouragement, recently issued a circular to all environmental health departments giving

  163
  advice on the enforcement of hygiene requirements in premises run by voluntary and charitable organisations. The circular advocates sensible enforcement based on assessment of risk to public health. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of capital expenditure in the NHS in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what was the split between hospital building and equipment.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 February 1992, c. 72]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The corrected and updated figures are as follows.

  Gross NHS capital expenditure in 1990–91,1991–92 and 1992–93 was £1,603 million, £1,645 million and £2,089 million respectively—the figure for 1992–93 is the estimate made for spring supply.

  In 1990–91 capital spending within hospital and community health services was divided as follows:

  Per cent.

  Building and engineering works

  61·3

  Equipment and furniture

  12·8

  Vehicles

  1·6

  Other

  24·4

  Figures for later years are not yet available.

SCOTLAND

  GP Fund Holders
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new services will be provided by fund-holding general practitioners; and if he will publish the proposed remuneration scales.

  Mr. Stewart
  The regulations providing for the new services announced by my noble Friend the Minister of State on 26 January are in the process of being compiled. In broad terms they will permit GP fund holders, where appropriate and qualified and with the prior approval of the health board, to be reimbursed from the fund for providing certain specified diagnostic and minor surgical procedures for their own patients. There will be further discussion with health boards and the profession before the details of how the new services will operate are finalised

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fund holders he expects there to be in each health board area by January 1994; and how many there are currently in each area.

  Mr. Stewart
  Latest information from health boards indicates the expected numbers of general practitioner fund holders from January 1994 will be as set out in the table.

  Number of GP fund-holders

  Health board

  Currently

  Expected by January 1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Nil

  3

  Borders

  Nil

  1

  164

  Number of GP fund-holders

  Health board

  Currently

  Expected by January 1994

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Nil

  Nil

  Fife

  Nil

  3

  Forth Valley

  Nil

  5

  Grampian

  5

  25

  Greater Glasgow

  2

  4

  Highland

  Nil

  1

  Lanarkshire

  Nil

  14

  Lothian

  1

  7

  Orkney

  Nil

  Nil

  Shetland

  Nil

  Nil

  Tayside

  1

  8

  Western Isles

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  10

  76

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the admission policies of intensive care units to ensure surgical patients are not deferred or transferred to another hospital pre-operatively because of budget requirements.

  Mr. Stewart
  Admission policies for intensive care units are primarily the responsibility of the relevant health board. Admission to an intensive care unit or transfer to another hospital should be determined by clinical decision.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has received of general practitioners using the emergency bed service for obtaining admissions because of ward closures by providers.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. The admission procedures employed by the health boards in Scotland work well.

  Health Service Property
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate has been made of the cost of undertaking all the identified backlog in repairs and maintenance to health service properties.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards estimate that at 31 March 1992 the expenditure required to put the essential estate in a sound physical condition was £240 million. This figure embraces backlog maintenance and such other work as the replacement of building elements which have reached the end of their useful life.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the reduction in personnel as a result of contracting out work for the period 1979 to 1986–87 is not readily available. In the years 1987–88 to 1991–92 there was a reduction of 117–5 full-time equivalent posts in my Department and agencies as a result of contracting out.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Genetic Fingerprinting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are available to Scottish police forces in relation to genetic fingerprinting techniques; what plans he has to increase or develop these facilities; if he will list the resources he has allocated to(a) research and development and (b) provision of such services in the current financial year; what consultations he has had with chief police officers about genetic fingerprinting; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: Scottish police forces have access to DNA testing or "genetic fingerprinting" facilities provided by police forensic laboratories, the Forensic Science Service for England and Wales and the private sector. Police authorities determine the resources allocated to their forces, on which police grant is paid at 51 per cent, of net expenditure. It is for chief constables to decide how the resources available to them are deployed. Scottish Office officials have discussed the issues relating to the holding of DNA test records with chief constables in the Scottish criminal record office controlling committee.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken in his Department to implement the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]These regulations, in so far as they embrace Scotland, apply to employers who conduct undertakings in relation to which a radiation emergency is reasonably foreseeable, and to regional and islands councils. The Scottish Office has no direct responsibility for their implementation.

  Ambulance Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise an inquiry into the management of the ambulance services in Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]No.

  EC Initiatives
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, columns 465–66, if he will list the projects.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The information requested is given in the tables:
  166

  £

  Approximate per cent, of Strathclyde allocation

  Inverclyde

  World Yachting Grand Prix

  211,000

  1·2

  Property Improvement Grants

  205,000

  1·2

  Industrial Units at Larkfield Industrial Estate

  131,500

  0·8

  Small Business Assistance Scheme

  94,000

  0·5

  Capping Blairmore Road Tip

  34,500

  0·2

  Custom House Quay:

  Environmental Improvement Phase 1

  215,000

  1·3

  East India Harbour: Improvement Phase 1

  50,000

  0·3

  East India Harbour: Infrastructure Works Phase 1

  470,000

  2·8

  Custom House Quay:

  Infrastructure Works Phase 2

  324,000

  1·9

  Srathclyde Business Centre, Ladyburn

  350,000

  2·0

  TOTAL

  2,085,000

  12·2

  Strathclyde excluding Inverclyde

  Clydebank Environmental Improvements

  741,000

  4·3

  Geotechnical Survey

  20,000

  0·1

  Linthouse Workspace

  365,500

  2·2

  TOTAL

  1,126,500

  6·6

  As yet unattributed

  13,896,793

  81·2

  Total Strathclyde Allocation

  17,108,293

  100·0

  £

  Approx percent of Fife allocation

  Fife

  Burntisland Environmental Imp Phase 1

  344,000

  12·5

  Regional Enterprise Grant

  187,500

  6·8

  Robinson Crusoes Underwater World

  175,000

  6·4

  KDC Small Firms Assistance Schemes

  100,000

  3·6

  Business Development Grants

  94,500

  3·5

  Enterprise Levenmouth

  93,000

  3·4

  Regional Enterprise Grant

  33,433

  1·2

  Start-up Business Assistance Grant

  30,000

  1·1

  Forth Rail Bridge North Cantilever Env Imp

  28,000

  1·0

  Meadowfield—Refurbishment of Administration Block

  3,500

  0·1

  TOTAL

  1,088,933

  39·6

  As yet unattributed

  1,660,986

  60·4

  TOTAL FIFE ALLOCATION

  2,749,919

  100·0

  Note: The authentic figures for allocations are expressed in Ecu. The totals expressed in sterling at the exchange rate of £1 = 1.23 Ecu are for illustrative purposes only. The final sterling sums available to the programmes will depend on the exchange rates at the time payments by the Commission are received.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  167
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: A new division was established in my Department in August 1992 to co-ordinate the market testing programme. The six staff in the division are not exclusively assigned to market testing work. The division calls on the assistance of other Scottish Office staff and external consultants when required. The cost of the programme, including staff costs and fees for consultancy work, for the period November 1991 to the end of December 1992, is estimated at £425,000.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Market tested activity

  Result

  Name of contractor

  Property management at Scottish Police College

  Contracted out

  Povall Worthington

  Toll collection at Erskine Bridge

  Contracted out

  Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd

  Management and Maintenance of Court Houses (5 contracts)

  Contracted out

  Webster and Company Bernard Thorpe Ryden (3 contracts)

  Solicitor's Office: conveyancing, debt recovery and court work (part)

  Retained in house

  Building and plan maintenance for the Scottish Fire Service Training School

  Contracted out

  Bell-Ingram

  Property management, Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen

  Contracted out

  Bell-Ingram

  Audit of 2 National Health Service Trusts (2 contracts)

  Contracted out

  Coopers and Lybrand KPMG

  (i) Expenditure (£ millions)1

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  South East (excluding London)

  183

  186

  361

  245

  London

  213

  225

  290

  209

  North (including Cumbria)

  90

  97

  181

  130

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  117

  128

  217

  164

  East Midlands

  87

  87

  182

  136

  East Anglia

  35

  38

  80

  70

  South West

  74

  82

  173

  126

  West Midlands

  149

  159

  273

  209

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  212

  234

  372

  279

  England

  1,160

  1,237

  2,131

  1,568

  Wales

  48

  51

  94

  44

  Scotland

  170

  209

  224

  168

  Note:

  1 The expenditure figures are from information supplied by local authorities and represent the authorities' claim for benefit paid and not subsidy received. The 1991–92 are mainly from pre-audit claims.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. McMasterster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the advantage allowance(a) including and (b) excluding expenses paid to elected members of (i) regional and (ii) district councils in Scotland in the last financial year; what is the projected average in each of the same categories in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The Scottish Office Environment Department does not hold details of the allowances paid to individual local authority members. Each authority decides on its own scheme within the requirements of the Local Authorities Etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, as amended. Similarly, the Department does not hold details of the payment of travelling, day or night subsistence allowances to members which are payable outwith the scheme.

  Rates of all allowances will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis.

  KS Properties
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Offical Report, column 457, what information his Department had on sales by KS Properties Ltd. of extensive land and buildings assets immediately prior to approving the writing-off of moneys due under mortgage deed by that company to the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: I shall write to my hon. Friend.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list (i) the expenditure on housing benefit rate rebates or poll tax benefit or community charge benefit in each region and nation for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 and (ii) the number of claimants of each benefit in each region or nation; and if he will express the payments as a figure of expenditure per head in each region or nation.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables:
  169

  (ii) Caseload (Number of claimants)1

  Region

  1988–89

  21989–90

  31990–91

  1991–92

  South East (excluding London)

  666,200

  637,200

  929,000

  891,000

  London

  645,300

  620,800

  724,400

  732,700

  North (including Cumbria)

  365,900

  356,500

  504,200

  446,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  504,500

  493,300

  664,500

  635,100

  East Midlands

  325,000

  313,000

  430,300

  392,100

  East Anglia

  148,200

  141,700

  279,000

  257,700

  South West

  326,300

  319,300

  477,100

  453,400

  West Midlands

  522,400

  498,900

  687,800

  691,000

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  700,200

  694,100

  960,300

  875,500

  All England

  4,204,000

  4,074,700

  5,656,600

  5,734,900

  Wales

  253,700

  251,800

  383,700

  324,600

  Scotland

  624,700

  850,300

  690,600

  640,300

  1 The numbers given are in benefit units and are averages of the four quarters figures for each year, including estimates for non responding authorities. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  2 The Community Charge was introduced in Scotland in April 1989. The figure given for Scotland for 1989–90 is the Community Charge rebate caseload.

  3 The Community Charge replaced domestic rates in England and Wales in April 1990. AH figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92,therefore, refer to Community Charge Benefit.

  (iii) Expenditure per case (£/year)1

  Region

  1988–89

  21989–90

  31990–91

  1991–92

  South East (excluding London)

  270

  290

  390

  280

  London

  330

  360

  400

  280

  North (including Cumbria)

  250

  270

  360

  290

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  230

  260

  330

  260

  East Midlands

  270

  280

  420

  350

  East Anglia

  240

  270

  290

  270

  South West

  230

  260

  360

  280

  West Midlands

  280

  320

  400

  300

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  300

  340

  390

  320

  England

  280

  300

  380

  290

  Wales

  190

  200

  240

  140

  Scotland

  270

  250

  320

  260

  1 The caseloads and expenditures from which the average amounts per case are derived are not measured in the same way. The caseloads are from four point in time counts for each year.

  Expenditure figures refer to the whole year.

  Amounts of benefit refer to the benefit unit (including couples)
  and, therefore, in 1990–91 and 1991–92, should not be linked with average Community Charges, which are expressed as the charge per person.

  2 Due to the introduction of Community Charge in Scotland in April 1989, the 1989–90 figure for Scotland is for Community Charge rebate.

  3 All figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 refer to Community Charge Benefit.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the changes in income each year of pensioners who retired in 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Data on the average incomes of the same cohort of pensioners for successive years are not available.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of employees in his Department is registered disabled.
  170
  Mr. Burt
  On 1 July 1992, 1–7 per cent, of staff employed in the Department of Social Security were registered disabled. This figure excludes staff with disabilities who choose not to register.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional revenue generated in a full year from the abolition of employees' national insurance contributions upper earnings limit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions was abolished, the additional revenue yield for 1993–94 would be about 2·9 billion. About 3 million employees would have to pay extra national insurance contributions as a result.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the basic state pension as a proportion of gross average earnings in the United Kingdom for each year since 1978.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested in relation to Great Britain is in the table.
  171

  Basic State Pension as a per cent. of gross average earnings1

  Year

  Age

  Single per cent.

  Couple per cent.

  November 1978

  under 80

  23·2

  37·1

  80 and over

  23·5

  37·7

  November 1979

  under 80

  23·2

  37·1

  80 and over

  23·4

  37·6

  November 1980

  under 80

  22·6

  36·1

  80 and over

  22·8

  36·6

  November 1981

  under 80

  22·4

  35·8

  80 and over

  22·5

  36·1

  November 1982

  under 80

  23·1

  36·9

  80 and over

  23·2

  37·3

  November 1983

  under 80

  21·7

  34·8

  80 and over

  21·9

  35·1

  November 1984

  under 80

  21·4

  34·3

  80 and over

  21·6

  34·6

  November 1985

  under 80

  21·4

  34·3

  80 and over

  21·6

  34·6

  July 1986

  under 80

  20·5

  32·8

  80 and over

  20·6

  33·0

  April 1987

  under 80

  19·9

  31·8

  80 and over

  20·0

  32·1

  April 1988

  under 80

  18·8

  30·2

  80 and over

  19·0

  30·4

  April 1989

  under 80

  18·2

  29·1

  80 and over

  18 3

  29·3

  April 1990

  under 80

  17·8

  28·5

  80 and over

  17·9

  28·7

  April 1991

  under 80

  18·3

  29·2

  80 and over

  18·4

  29·4

  April 1992

  under 80

  17·8

  28·5

  80 and over

  17·9

  28·6

  1 Average earnings are derived from the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey (Great Britain) estimates of all adult earnings. Equivalent figures for the UK are not readily available.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has about the value of state pensions as a proportion of gross average earnings in each member state of the European Community.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no comparable statistics available on average earnings for the United Kingdom and the other member states of the European Community. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged 60 years and over began employment in his Department in 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  A total of 25 such people started employment in the Department and its agencies in 1992. This figure excludes casual staff, but includes nine staff who transferred from other Government Departments.

  Carers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to raise the earnings limits on benefits available to carers.

  Mr. Scott
  The earnings limit for invalid care allowance will be increased from £40 to £50 per week from April 1993. This will be the fourth substantial increase in successive years. Also from April, a £15 earnings disregard will be introduced for all carers receiving income-related benefits.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of income that the compensation recovery unit will lose as a result of the Lord Chancellor's proposed changes in eligibility for legal aid.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available. Details held by the compensation recovery unit do not distinguish between those cases which have the benefit of legal aid and others.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many grants and loans have been made from the social fund in Walthamstow in each of the last three years for which figures are available; how many applications were made; and what were the total sums involved.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library for the years 1989–90, and 1990–91 by former departmental local office. Information is also in the Library for 1991–92 for the Benefits Agency's Lea-Roding district, of which Walthamstow is part.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the ability of the social fund to meet the needs of the poorest claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  The operation of the social fund is closely monitored by the Department. We also commissioned detailed research from the university of York's social policy research unit, which we are currently considering along with other recent reports about the scheme.

  Income support is the main help which the Government give to people who have insufficient income to meet their general needs. The social fund complements income support by helping people with specific expenses in certain circumstances, which may not necessarily be related to their general financial circumstances alone.

  Sick and Maternity Pay
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about current arrangements for the payment of statutory sick pay and maternity pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Following publication of the National Audit Office report on the operation of the statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes, two parliamentary questions have been tabled by hon. Members and a letter about the schemes has been received from the general secretary of the TUC.

  Since the EC pregnant workers directive was adopted last October, one hon. Member has tabled three parliamentary questions about the maternity pay aspects of the directive. Correspondence raising or referring to issues contained in the directive have been received from three hon. Members and one MEP, and a number of employers, employers' organisations and members of the public have asked questions about particular aspects of the directive's requirements. The Government are considering the maternity pay aspects of the directive.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Certain occupational and personal pension schemes are required to register, at their own expense, with the Occupational Pensions Board acting as pensions registrar and to pay a levy which is collected by the registrar to meet part of the cost of various consumer protection measures.

  Voluntary Workers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security applicants had applications refused or reduced because of the number of hours worked in the voluntary sector in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no legislation limiting the amount of hours an unemployed person may spend working in the voluntary sector. Unemployed people who undertake unpaid voluntary work in this country may continue to receive benefits provided they satisfy the conditions of entitlement. These are that a person must be available for work and take reasonable steps, each week, to seek work.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to provide financial assistance for domiciliary care for those who would be in principle eligible for assistance from the independent living fund for the first time between 31 December 1992 and 31 March; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of domiciliary care comparable to that provided by the independent living fund to those of pensionable age after 31 March.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of domiciliary care is a matter for local authorities and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of Social Security what elements of water charges have been included in the Rossi index for each year since April 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  Since April 1992 variations in the cost of water, sewerage and environmental charges have been included in the Rossi index.

WALES

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Wales Enterprise regarding the development of one-stop shops for business and technology support in Wales.
  174
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The chairman of Wales Enterprise is a member of the enterprise and business support working group and therefore takes part in the discussions regarding the development of a co-ordinated approach to business and technology support in Wales.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total accumulated surplus of the seven Welsh training and enterprise councils since 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest published annual accounts of the seven Welsh TECs show that at 31 March 1992 there were accumulated surpluses of £15,599,643. The TECs have plans to spend over £13·5 million of accumulated surpluses in the 1993–94 financial year in support of a range of training and enterprise measures.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of employees in his Department are registered disabled.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As at 1 January 1993 1·7 per cent, of staff in my Department had registered as disabled. These are the latest available details.

  My Department also employs several unregistered disabled people.

  Selective Assistance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of regional selective assistance offered to the projects listed in his press release of 1 February; and when he intends to publish the details of the individual offers to the companies concerned.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total of regional selective assistance offered is commercially confidential although details will be published in due course in the Employment Gazette, as indeed will details of all offers of RSA of £75,000 or more, but only when the first payments of grant have been made.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing units have been built in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available information is published in "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 12 1992", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of homeless people in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information is available for those persons accepted as homeless by local authorities for each year since 1979 and are shown in table 7.1 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 12 1992", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of outbreaks of sheep scab, by county and divided into less-favoured areas, in each month from October 1991 to the last month for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of the distribution of sheep scab outbreaks in favoured and non-favoured areas could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. Information on sheep scab outbreaks is available up to May 1992; the figures between October 1991 and May 1992 are as follows:

  Month

  County

  Number of outbreaks

  October 1991

  —

  0

  November 1991

  —

  0

  December 1991

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwynedd

  1

  January 1992

  Clwyd

  1

  Dyfed

  2

  Gwynedd

  3

  February 1992

  Dyfed

  2

  March 1992

  Dyfed

  2

  Gwynedd

  1

  April 1992

  Clwyd

  1

  Powys

  1

  May 1992

  —

  0

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of sheep affected by sheep scab, by county and divided into less-favoured areas and non less-favoured areas, in each month from October 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the number of sheep affected in outbreaks of sheep scab is not available.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A number of the 16 Welsh Office-sponsored executive non-departmental public bodies have statutory powers to require action by individuals, firms, companies or other institutions. This may involve some additional expense to those concerned, for which compensation is sometimes payable. In practice it is rarely necessary for the bodies to invoke such powers, and none charges fees for the cost to the NDPB of assessing any associated work.

  Manufacturing Statistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the change in the value of manufacturing(a) production, (b) employment and (c) investment in Wales from 1979–80 to 1991–92, in money and percentage terms after allowing for inflation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Changes in manufacturing production are best measured by the Welsh index of production.176
  Average quarterly manufacturing output rose by 23·9 per cent, between 1979–80 and 1991–92. The index of manufacturing production in the third quarter of 1992 stood at 126·3. The comparable figure for 1979 was 100·7.

  The average number of employees employed in manufacturing fell by 91,000, 29 per cent., between 1979–80 and 1991–92. The estimated income from employment in manufacturing in Wales in 1979 was £1,728 million and in 1991 was £3,639 million, a rise of 110.6 per cent. Regional deflators are not available.

  The available information on gross domestic fixed capital formation in Wales, by industry, was published by the Central Statistical Office in "Economic Trends No. 470, December 1992", which is available from the Library of the House.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3, corrected by corrigendum on 8 February, Official Report, columns 785–88, (1) what consultations he has had with the chairmen of (a) British Coal Enterprise, (b) British Steel Enterprise, (c) the Land Authority for Wales (d) the Cardiff Bay development corporation, (e) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (f) the Welsh Development Agency, in relation to accessing the £70 million European regional development fund gross capital expenditure allocation in Wales in 1993–94;

  (2) which agencies and which main projects will provide the principal components of the £70 million European regional development fund gross capital expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The amount of ERDF available to Wales is determined by the European Commission under the agreed operational programmes.

  In October last year my officials wrote to all public sector bodies in Wales notifying them of the new arrangements for ERDF grants. However, ERDF is available to a wide range of local and other public authorities, charities and voluntary organisations and it is too early to estimate the distribution of this grant between those bodies, or to say which projects will be funded, since it is for the relevant monitoring committees, comprising representatives of the sponsors concerned, to decide during the remainder of 1993 how to allocate the available resources.

  I will make available full public expenditure cover for any sponsor receiving an allocation of ERDF from the programme monitoring committees.

  A55, Pen-y-Clip
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the main elements of overspending on the A55 Pen-y-Clip tunnels construction contract.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no elements of overspending on the A55 Pen-y-Clip tunnel construction contract. All payments on this contract have been made within the provisions of the contract.

  Contracts lasting more than two years, as in this case, are subject to an allowance for the increase in cost of plant, labour and materials throughout the period of the works. The contract also allows for variations and additions to overcome any problems or difficulties encountered during the execution of the works.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 341, what proposals he has to provide financial assistance for domiciliary care for those who would be in principle eligible for assistance from the independent living fund for the first time between 31 December and 31 March 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The provision of domiciliary care is a matter for local and health authorities.

  Capital Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3 and Official Report, 8 February, columns 785–88, what consultations he has had with the local authority associations in Wales concerning the estimate for local authority gross capital expenditure in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under long-standing arrangements the local authority associations in Wales assess the level of provision needed in the settlement year to support the range of services which they provide. I take account of that assessment when deciding how much central Government support should be made available to them out of the Welsh block. My decision also takes into account my assessment of the ability of local authorities to finance expenditure from their own resources as demonstrated by outturn data for earlier years. For 1993–94 I further took into account the additional receipts available to authorities as a result of the temporary relaxation in controls on the use of capital receipts.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he had for tolls to be charged on each of the roads listed as major projects in his announcement of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government expect to publish a Green Paper on road pricing in the spring of this year. It is too soon to speculate on the content.

  "Roads in Wales"
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he estimates he will publish the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales".

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Soon.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the feasibility study commissioned by Cardiff Bay development corporation into the possibility of creating a major bird reserve on the Gwent levels to compensate for the loss of feeding grounds associated with the proposed barrage.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have now received the report of the feasibility study, copies of which are in the Library of the House. It concludes that the proposed freshwater habitats at Redwick and salt water ponds at Goldcliff have the potential to create an area of wetland of outstanding value for wintering and breeding waterfowl and for other rare or threatened bird species.
  178
  It is very encouraging that the consultants assessed the proposals to have such significant potential for wild birds. We are grateful to the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have given constructive advice throughout this exercise. Planning permission will now have to be sought and the land acquired and, if this is successful, the Government will be making the necessary funding available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the expected contribution from the Exchequer towards the cost of a decommissioning scheme; and what part of this will be paid for from EC funds.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have made provision of £25 million for the decommissioning scheme over a period of three financial years commencing April 1993. Council regulation (EEC) 4028/86 as amended provides for 70 per cent, of eligible expenditure to be reimbursed by the Community if vessels are scrapped and 50 per cent, in other cases. However, the operation of the Community budget means that the greater part of any such reimbursement is funded by the Exchequer.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Calendar year

  Number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament

  1985

  67

  1986

  100

  1987

  87

  1988

  73

  1989

  95

  1990

  108

  1991

  84

  1992

  106

  Details for the years 1980 to 1984 are not readily available.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of employees in his Department is registered disabled.

  Mr. Curry
  Counting part-time staff as whole units, MAFF and its agencies currently employ 155 registered disabled staff. This represents 1·5 per cent, of total staff but does not take into account staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Dangerous Animals
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each year since 1980 licences issued under the Dangerous Imported Animals Act 1932 have been revoked or individual farmers prosecuted.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1980, no licences, issued under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, have been revoked and no prosecutions have been taken.

  Live Exports
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the European Commission proposals on the transport of live animals are expected to have on maintaining the United Kingdom transportation of live animals regulations.

  Mr. Soames
  Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport sets a framework of controls which are to be supplemented by additional Community rules. Commission proposals for these additional rules are still awaited. In the meantime the directive permits national measures to apply in the relevant areas. Such measures are contained in the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992 which came into force on 1 January 1993.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis he exercises his discretion in(a) paying in full, (b) paying in part and (c) refusing late applications for suckler cow premiums.

  Mr. Curry
  Suckler cow premium is paid under Council regulation (EEC) 1357/80 as amended and Commission regulation (EEC) 1244/82, as amended. The time limits are strict. Applications received 10 working days after the closing date, which are otherwise eligible, may be admitted but premium is reduced by 30 per cent. Applications received after this 10 working day "period of grace" cannot be accepted unless there are valid force majeure reasons for doing so.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on how his Department will pursue the deregulation initiative with regard to regulations affecting the fishing industry; and what resources he has devoted to it;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the scope for reduction in the number of regulations affecting the fishing industry and of the consequent effect on the manpower of his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Each of the policy areas for which my Department has responsibility is being studied with a view to identifying where the burden of regulation is heaviest and can most easily be relieved. The fisheries sector is currently being studied within this overall review.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what treaty basis the common fisheries policy is established; how that basis will be changed under the treaty of Maastricht; and if he will make a statement.
  180
  Mr. Curry
  The common fisheries policy is established under article 43 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. This treaty basis would not be affected by the treaty of Maastricht.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Curry
  The following non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—are funded primarily from industry levies and have powers to compel individuals etc. to carry out instructions:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Horticultural Development Council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Sea Fisheries Industry Authority

  In addition, Food From Britain, through its subsidiary body, the United Kingdom register of organic food standards, is designated as the authority responsible for the inspection system and the approval of private inspection bodies under EC regulations on organic food standards. Producers, processors and importers who wish to market their goods as organic must comply with EC standards and bear the inspection costs. The following NDPBS have power to compel but have no powers to charge:

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Wine Standards Board

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  Apple Juice
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the matter of patulin in apple juice was considered by the Food Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Soames
  The Food Advisory Committee considered this matter at its meetings on 18 September and 29 October 1992.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response was given by officials in his Department in September 1992 to outside inquirers relating to the finding of patulin in apple juice.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry published on 3 September the agenda for the Food Advisory Committee meeting on 18 September. The agenda made clear that patulin in apple juice was an item for discussion by the committee. On 14 October the Ministry published a short note recording the points discussed by the committee at this meeting. The Ministry has no record of receiving any inquiries about patulin during this period.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date in December 1992 he or his officials met representatives of the fruit juice producers to discuss the advice of the Food Advisory Committee in relation to apple juice.
  181
  Mr. Soames
  I met representatives of the fruit juice producers on 17 December 1992.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the scale of the testing of all batches of apple juice to the limits laid down for patulin following upon the finding of four contaminated samples.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom producers and retailers have undertaken to ensure that all supplies of apple juices meet the advisory level. The major producers have been testing every batch of apple juice.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the British Soft Drinks Association was first informed of the finding of patulin in samples of apple juice.

  Mr. Soames
  The British Soft Drinks Association was first informed of the findings in a letter dated 21 July 1992 summoning the industry to a meeting with scientific and medical officials of the Ministry and the Department of Health.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates(a) samples of apple juice were found to contain higher than acceptable levels of patulin, (b) the samples were referred to the committee on toxicity and (c) the committee decided that there was no need to withdraw apple juice from sale.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry received the results on 5 June 1992 and referred them to the next meeting of the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment on 21 July 1992. The results had meanwhile been assessed by the scientific and medical staff of the Ministry and the Department of Health who had concluded that there was no risk to health. The committee's advice was passed to officials of the two Departments on the day of the meeting. The results and the committee's comments were subsequently considered by the Food Advisory Committee at its meetings in September and October 1992.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions relating to press inquiries on the incidence of patulin in apple juice took place at the meeting in August of departmental officials and the British Soft Drinks Association.

  Mr. Soames
  A meeting between officials from my Department and trade representatives, including the British Soft Drinks Association, took place on 23 July 1992.

  At the conclusion of that meeting my officials told the trade that they had no plans to issue a press notice at that time, but that the results would be published as a food surveillance paper in the usual way, following consultation with the Food Advisory Committee.

  There was no other such meeting, until my officials and I met the industry to discuss this matter further on 17 December 1992.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for arbitration in the case of disputes between successor bodies to the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trades Federation.

  Mr. Curry
  On the ending of the milk marketing scheme all parties engaged in milk trading will operate within the legal framework applying to commercial trading bodies generally. The normal procedures for settlement of disputes, through the courts or by arbitration, will apply.

  Food Additives
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities are available to his Department in Harpenden for the testing of food additives and related drugs.

  Mr. Gummer
  The testing facilities I have at Harpenden are within the Central Science Laboratory. They are dedicated to the analysis of commodities for pesticide residues and preservatives.

  Fruit Juice
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what testing takes place of imported fruit juice for toxic substances including patulin.

  Mr. Soames
  Responsibility for the general safety of imported food lies with the port health authorities and local authorities. Imported fruit juices are included in food surveillance programmes undertaken by the Ministry.

EMPLOYMENT

  Betting Shops (Evening Opening)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what protection is available to employees of betting shops who are faced with unilateral changes to their contract of employment as a result of evening opening hours being introduced.

  Mr. Michael Fosyth
  Employees could seek redress in the civil courts by suing for damages for breach of contract, or through an industrial tribunal for infringement of statutory rights, depending on the circumstances.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received on plans to abolish the wages councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has continued to receive representations both for and against abolition of the councils.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and what is the average rate in European Community member states.
  183
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  10·7 per cent, and 9·6 per cent. respectively, excluding Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people were placed by the Employment Service during each quarter of 1992; and what were the targets set for the year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Employment Service placed 312,000 unemployed people in the first quarter of 1992; 350,000 in the second quarter; 379,000 in the third quarter; and 367,000 in the fourth quarter. This is 10 per cent, more than the planned level. The agency is well on course to achieve its 1992–93 target of more than 1·4 million job placings by March this year.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Cornwall.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In December 1992 there were 28,606 claimant unemployed people in the county of Cornwall. This figure is on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the Carlisle travel-to-work area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In December 1992 there were 4,133 unemployed claimants in the Carlisle travel-to-work-area. This figure is on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in Ilford, South in January 1979, January 1990, January 1991, January 1992 and January 1993; and how many registered job vacancies there were on the same dates; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unadjusted claimant unemployed in the Ilford, South constituency was 1,762 in January 1990, 2,615 in January 1991 and 4,259 in January 1992. The corresponding numbers of jobcentre vacancies were 102, 42 and 42 respectively. However, the latter represent only a minor proportion of the total number of jobs available to the unemployed of Ilford, South.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the United Kingdom; and if she will provide a breakdown by age.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In December 1992, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 2,973,500 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. In October 1992, the latest date for which figures by age are available, those aged 24 and under, and those aged 40 and over each constituted just under one third of the total. More details can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Lambeth have been unemployed for(a) more than six months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than two years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is contained in the table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the Library.
  184

  Duration of unemployment in the Lambeth local authority district (October 1992)

  Duration of Unemployment

  Number of Claimant Unemployed

  Over 6 months

  15,119

  Over 12 months

  9,824

  Over 2 years

  4,225

  Note:

  Claimant unemployment figures by duration are available on a quarterly basis for the months of January, April, July and October and are not adjusted for seasonal influences.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the(a) number and (b) rate of long-term unemployed for more than one year in the Blyth Valley area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1992, the latest date for which claimant unemployment figures by duration are available, 1,243 people—or 33 per cent. of all unemployed claimants—in the Blyth Valley parliamentary constituency had been unemployed for over one year. An official unemployment rate is not available.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate has been made of the effect of United Kingdom employment legislation on inward investment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such estimates have been made. However, we believe that the United Kingdom's employment legislation is one of many factors contributing to our good record in attracting inward investment.

  Unemployment (Greater London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives she has taken this year specifically aimed at reducing unemployment in Greater London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people find the best and quickest route back to employment. These programmes are available for unemployed people in Greater London, as elsewhere.

  Prince's Youth Business Trust
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much her Department has given to the Prince's Youth Business Trust in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Expenditure by the Department on the Prince's Youth Business Trust was £2·7 million in 1989–90, £4 million in 1990–91 and £3·2 million in 1991–92. The Department's expenditure matches funding raised by the private sector.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to investigate the effect on wages and conditions of employees of companies which win contracts for public services under the compulsory competitive tendering regulations.
  185
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None; pay and conditions in private companies are matters for the employers and employees concerned.

  Employment Growth
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made as to which sectors of employment show the most potential for employment growth in 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government do not forecast employment or unemployment.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the levels of funding for training and enterprise councils in London in 1993–94.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The regional director for London is currently discussing levels of funding for 1993–94 with the London TECs.

  Unemployed People
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she last met a representative group of unemployed workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During the course of our work, my ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet, or receive representations from, individuals and organisations concerned with the problems of unemployment and those it affects.

  Job Advertisements (Pay)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it a requirement for job centres to include in all job advertisement details of pay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of rates of pay are important to jobseekers considering vacancies. Jobcentres always encourage employers to state the rates of pay, together with other information about the job. However, some employers prefer to discuss and agree exact rates of pay with the applicant and I believe they must have this flexibility.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring has taken place(a) in London and (b) elsewhere of young people graduating from youth training schemes to establish how useful these schemes have been in enabling young people to find employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A variety of information is collected about what happens to young people after leaving their youth training scheme. Information is collected from both training providers and from the trainees themselves. Local training and enterprise councils—TECs—may collect further information about their trainees but this is not held centrally. A regular monthly report containing information at national and regional level about the success of youth training trainees obtaining employment and qualifications is placed in the Library.
  186
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what statistics her Department collates with respect to youth training schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the organisation of youth training lies with TECs and information about individual training schemes is not held centrally. TECs are required through their contract with the Secretary of State to provide only summary information. A copy of this contract is available in the Library. Although information on schemes is not available, information about trainees and their training is collected and held centrally.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of whether youth training schemes nationwide are achieving the goals for which they were established; and what criteria the Government use to determine the success or failure of youth training schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's annual report, Cm 2205, explains the objectives of YT and how progress towards achieving these is measured. A copy of the current report is available in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in(a) London and (b) England are currently registered on youth training schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At December 1992, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 19,300 people registered on youth training in London and 242,000 people registered on youth training in England. Both figures include youth credits.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 2 December 1992,Official Report, columns 221–22, how many accidents were reported to the Health and Safety Executive under the provisions of regulation 5(1) of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 in each year since 1984; and if she will list for each accident the dangerous substances involved and for each substance the number of accidents in which it was involved; in which accidents members of the public were (a) requested to remain in their homes or (b) asked to leave their homes for the duration of the incident; and in which accidents restrictions were placed on (i) the consumption of foodstuffs, (ii) the consumption of drinking water and (iii) the use of water for agricultural or industrial purposes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table shows the number of accidents which occurred between 1985 and 1992 that were reported to the Health and Safety Executive—HSE— under the provisions of regulation 5(1) of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 and the dangerous substances involved in each accident:

  Year

  Accident

  Dangerous substances involved in accident

  1985

  1 accident:

  this involved:

  methane

  1986

  7 accidents:

  2 involving:

  cholorine

  1 each involving:

  isoprophylalcohol and methylalcohol

  187

  Year

  Accident

  Dangerous substances involved in accident

  hydrogen peroxide ethylene oxide and isobutane toluene

  compound fertilisers containing super Phosphate and ammonium nitrate substances

  1987

  5 accidents

  1 each involving:

  hydrogen gas, petroleum gas and hydrocarbon liquids propylene oxide

  petroleum liquids and spirits carbon disulphide methane

  1988

  2 accidents:

  1 each involving:

  300 different chemicals including oxidising materials, highly flammable liquids, chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent

  ortho-nitro-benzaldehyde

  1989

  3 accidents:

  1 each involving:

  ammonium nitrate fertilisers

  ammonia

  propane

  1990

  6 accidents:

  1 each involving:

  2, 4, dichloronitrobenzene, potassium fluoride, dimethylacetamide, tetramethylammonium chloride and xylene

  isobutane and hydrofluoric acid white phosphorus toluene

  natural gas/methane propane, propylene, butane and butylene

  1991

  5 accidents:

  2 involving:

  methane

  1 each involving:

  acetone

  naphtha dimethyl aniline, toluene, dimethyl amino acid

  1992

  4 accidents:

  1 each involving:

  azodiisobutyronitrile (AZDN), ammonium persulphate and sodium persulphate

  hydrogen fluoride, chlorine, hydrogen chloride and trichloro-trifluoroethane ethylene

  aluminium silicate catalyst gave rise to hydrogen light hydro-carbon gases and carbon monoxide

  The additional information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Statistics
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people aged 16 and 17 years old in Walthamstow are(a) on youth training schemes, (b) in full-time education and (c) in employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the status of young people in Waltham Forest is not available from the Department in the form requested.

  Tribunal Decisions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what time the 10 and 90 percentiles and median cases for(a) industrial tribunal and (b) employment appeal tribunal decisions took from first application, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that the information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The average length of time for an appeal to come to hearing at the employment appeal tribunal in England and Wales is two years and in Scotland five months. The table shows the percentage of cases coming to first hearing at the industrial tribunals in various given periods of time for the 12 months ended 31 March 1992:

  Percentage

  Less than

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  10 weeks

  10

  8

  12 weeks

  20

  24

  16 weeks

  41

  55

  20 weeks

  61

  75

  26 weeks

  80

  90

  Engineering
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures she has for the numbers employed in the engineering sector.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment in the engineering industries in Great Britain: November 1992

  (Not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Mechanical engineering

  626

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  471

  Instrument engineering

  88

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by the Department of Employment in each year of the years 1980 to 1992 is as follows:

  Year

  Total number of Statutory Instruments

  1980

  41

  1981

  48

  1982

  49

  1983

  34

  1984

  29

  1985

  31

  1986

  25

  1987

  30

  189

  Year

  Total number of Statutory Instruments

  1988

  40

  1989

  41

  1990

  30

  1991

  35

  1992

  41

DEFENCE

  Naval Engineering College, Manadon
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-engineering Royal Navy officers attended courses at Manadon in maritime technology in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the academic year 1992–93, 45 non-engineering Royal Navy officers and one Royal Marines officer are studying courses in maritime technology.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current student enrolment at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon; what was the annual intake in 1992–93; what is the current complement of(a) civilian and (b) service personnel; and what are the current annual running costs categorised as appropriate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For the academic year 1992–93 there are 444 students at Manadon, excluding students who attended short courses of less than one year's duration. The new intake comprised 291 students, excluding short courses. The current complement of the college is 176 civilians–67 industrials and 109 non-industrials—and 148 service personnel–102 officers and 46 ratings. The current annual running costs are £10 million broken down as follows:

  £ million

  Service pay

  4·00

  Civilian pay

  2·40

  Duty travel and subsistence

  0·20

  Utilities and fuels

  0·50

  Education fees

  0·30

  Office machinery, stationery and telephones

  0·15

  Works

  1·20

  Repairs/maintenance

  0·60

  Accommodation services

  0·80

  Computer software, stores and miscellaneous

  0·05

  10·20

  Less income from research

  0·20

  TOTAL

  10·00

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign students are currently enrolled at Manadon; and what was the fee income from such students in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 9 February 1993 there were 53 foreign and commonwealth students enrolled at Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon. The income from the tuition of foreign students in the financial year 1991–92 was just under £500,000.
  190
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what higher-level degrees or their equivalent are awarded as a result of study at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon; how many were awarded in 1991–92; and what is the normal period of study for such degrees.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon awards two MSc degrees—the advanced marine engineering course—AMEC—and the advanced marine defence technology course—AMDTC. Fourteen AMEC and seven AMDTC degrees were awarded in the academic year 1991–92. The normal period of study for MSc degrees is 54 weeks, including leave periods.

  Sandhurst
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total student intake into Sandhurst in academic year 1991–92; what were the target intakes for(a) school-leavers and (b) graduates at each point of entry in academic year 1992–93; what have been the actual figures to date; how much has been spent on unprogrammed advertising for entrants to Sandhurst in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  The total student intake into Sandhurst in academic year 1991–92 was 808. Since September 1992 when the common commissioning course was introduced officer recruiting targets are set for the year as a whole and do not distinguish between graduates and school leavers. A total of 537 officer cadets entered Sandhurst during 1992–93 against an annual entry target of 611. No money has been spent on unprogrammed advertising for entrants to Sandhurst in 1992–93, although £186,000 was spent last November on an advertising campaign directed at the May intake.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other insititutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Oil and Pipelines Agency is the only Ministry of Defence executive non-departmental public body which has powers—under the Land Powers Act 1958—to compel third parties to carry out its instructions and to raise fees, in connection with preparation and organisation, for the directed work.

  Tay House, Glasgow
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what day a conditional missive was finalised between his Department and the vendors of Tay House, Glasgow; and if a financial penalty to his Department is incurred if the purchase is not completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No conditional missive has been finalised, nor any other form of legal agreement reached,
  191
  with the vendors of Tay House or any other building in Glasgow or elsewhere which might meet the Army personnel centre requirement. No binding agreement on any building will be reached until consultation has been completed and final decisions have been made. There would be no financial penalty if, in the event the final decision were not to locate the centre in Glasgow. All speculation to the contrary is mistaken.

  Barracks
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the potential additional accommodation available to soldiers in barracks which are not currently used by the Regular Army; and which barracks these are.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: In general, empty barrack accommodation in the United Kingdom is either not required and therefore in the process of disposal, or is being prepared for, or awaiting occupation by, incoming units. In addition, barracks at training camps will be empty from time to time when no units are undergoing training at those sites. As at 12 February 1993 the following barracks were empty:

  Barracks

  Remarks

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  Redford

  Under refurbishment

  Lanark

  Winston

  Awaiting disposal

  Kirkcudbright

  Kings

  Awaiting disposal

  Eastern

  Strensall

  Training Camp

  Wathgill Camp

  Training Camp

  Southern

  Deepcut

  Alma/Dettingen

  Under consideration

  Aldershot

  Lands Yard

  Awaiting refurbishment

  Aldershot

  Mons

  Awaiting refurbishment

  Arborfield

  Rowcroft

  Under consideration

  Dover

  Old Park

  Awaiting disposal

  Tidworth

  Mooltan

  Under refurbishment

  Wales and West

  Crickhowell

  Training Camp

  London

  Horse Guards

  Under refurbishment

  Windsor

  Victoria

  Under refurbishment

  Small Firms Research Initiative
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the small firms research initiative.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has for many years used the services of small firms, particularly to aid its applied research programme. One vehicle developed to foster such connections was the small firms research initiative—SFRI —launched in 1987 as part of the Government's small firms initiative and with an annual budget of some £1 million. Since then, however, a number of developments have occurred, in particular the formation of the Defence Research Agency—DRA. This organisation is already being run under commercial disciplines, introducing primary competition and more significantly secondary —sub-contract—competition.

  The DRA has recently launched a new scheme, Pathfinder, through which it invites industry to put
  192
  forward research proposals that meet both MOD customer needs and firms' own research priorities for up to 100 per cent. funding. The aim is to achieve a better return on the total research expenditure made by MOD and industry, to mutual benefit. Pathfinder embodies the concept of strategic alignment with industry and aims to improve the capability of industry as a supplier of defence equipment while simultaneously providing a degree of competition at research team level to stimulate cost efficiency.

  The Government's policy on the support of small firms remains unchanged. But in the particular circumstances no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the SFRI given the launching of the new Pathfinder scheme, and no further funds will be allocated to it.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Property
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority(a) the amount spent on council house repairs and maintenance, (b) the number of council-owned properties and (c) the average spent on repairs and maintenance per council-owned property in the latest available year.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have deposited a copy of a table showing the information requested by the hon. Member in the Library of the House. The table shows for 1992–93 each authority's estimated expenditure on repairs and maintenance debited to the housing revenue account including, where applicable, any expenditure via the housing repairs account; the average number of properties owned by each council during 1992–93; and the amount of repairs and maintenance expenditure per property.

  Housing Investment, Waltham Forest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the housing investment programme allocation for the London borough of Waltham Forest for each of the last 10 years, expressed at constant prices.

  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) allocations by Waltham Forest borough council and capital expenditure, 1983–84 to 1992–93

  £ thousands

  HIP allocations1

  Housing capital expenditure

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  1983–84

  8,627

  14,323

  13,279

  22,047

  1984–85

  8,945

  14,134

  16,135

  25,495

  1985–86

  8,270

  12,391

  12,739

  19,087

  1986–87

  7,971

  11,571

  14,462

  20,993

  1987–88

  7,600

  10,458

  18,568

  25,550

  1988–89

  9,651

  12,379

  21,881

  28,065

  1989–90

  6,926

  8,335

  35,921

  43,231

  New capital finance system3

  1990–91

  17,138

  19,101

  23,744

  26,463

  1991–92

  13,859

  14,448

  418,881

  419,683

  1992–93

  17,752

  17,752

  524,827

  524,827

  193

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, i.e., the initial 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.

  2 Cash 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 or relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a direct borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Estimated.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the responses to the consultation paper "Local Authority Housing in England-Voluntary Transfer".

  Sir George Young
  Approximately 200 responses to the consultation paper have been received to date, some of which were submitted in confidence. A list of the responses will be placed in the House Libraries this week. The responses will be held for six months in the Department's central library, where inquirers may get access to them.

  Primary and Secondary Education (Funding)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the basis for the difference between funding of primary and secondary children; what weight he gives to different age children in determining education standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The methods used for calculating the standard spending assessment (SSA) for primary and secondary children are set out in the "Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94" which was approved by the House on 3 February—copies are in the Library.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Howard
  None of the NDPBs sponsored by my Department has this combination of powers. Within the Department, however, Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution exercises powers of this kind in the authorisation and regulation of industrial processes and of the use, storage and disposal of radioactive material.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his departmental annual report 1993, Cm 2207, have been printed; at what cost; and to whom it has been distributed.
  194
  Mr. Howard
  A total of 3,750 copies of the Department of the Environment annual report 1993 (Cm 2207) were printed. The costs of printing and publication were borne by HMSO, which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue. In addition to commercial sales and distribution within Parliament, copies of the report were sent to the chairmen and chief executives of the Department's non-departmental public bodies, to the chief executives of every English principal local authority and to a number of other interested bodies.

  Leicestershire Structure Plan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the validity of the advice from Leicestershire county council to his Department's inspector for the Leicestershire structure plan inquiry in October and November 1992 to consider the planning and transport submission as a whole rather than individual road schemes; what further action is planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, it is for a county planning authority to select matters for disucssion at an examination in public of its structure plan, in consultation with the chairman of the EIP panel. It is then for the county council to consider the report of the panel before deciding whether to modify the plan. In the recent EIP for its replacement structure plan, Leicestershire county council chose to examine its overall strategy for transport rather than any individual road schemes. The Department was not requested to intervene in the matter and will not be further involved until the county council publishes its proposed modifications later this year.

  Empty Properties (Manchester)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage of empty properties in Manchester's housing stock.

  Mr. Baldry
  Based on Manchester city council's most recent housing investment programme return, 5.4 per cent, of council housing stock was empty at 1 April 1992.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 762 when the proposed Government/industry review of contracting and procurement arrangements in the construction industry is expected to report.

  Mr. Baldry
  Once an independent expert is appointed and begins work, I hope the report will be available within 12 months.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what type of computing system is used by the Property Services Agency accounts department; when it was installed; at what cost; and how has it affected the time taken to deal with accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The PSA services runs the Ross systems integrated accounting package on a developed DEC VAX
  195
  hardware platform. The new systems, providing fully auditable commercial and vote accounting, went live on a phased basis for resource accounting between January and April 1991. Works bill payment and recovery was also transferred onto the Ross systems from the agency's centralised accounts division on a phased programme, which was completed in February 1992. The full strategic accounting system project cost £10·3 million; the later works bill payment project cost £1·5 million.

  The new systems enable the PSA businesses to operate on an autonomous basis and improve financial discipline in PSA. The advantages of the new devolved accounting systems include the improved quality of local invoicing and the elimination of any delay in moving paperwork to a central location. Improvements in the payment cycle rely as much on the certification procedures and handling processes involved as on the systems themselves. The businesses are working to ensure that subcontractors are paid within 30 days of validation.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Property Services Agency owes Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance Ltd., of Trescan, Wembury Road, Wembury, Plymouth; if he will instruct the Property Services Agency to pay its outstanding debt; what is his policy on late payment of debts by the Property Services Agency; when the Property Services Agency last paid the company; and for what period of work.

  Mr. Redwood
  Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance Ltd. will be paid £30,590 later this week in respect of work let under a measured term contract. The company was last paid on 4 February 1993 for work done up to the end of November 1993. New payment arrangements are being implemented by the PSA building management businesses, where it is acting as agents for the Ministry of Defence for payment purposes under MOD property management contracts, such that subcontractors are paid no later than seven days following receipt of payment from the client, MOD. There is an existing obligation on the MOD to pay promptly and this together with the new payment arrangements being adopted by the PSAS will ensure that subcontractors should be paid within 30 days from validation.

  The development of appropriate systems and procedural changes is underway so that by 1 April 1993 the five BM businesses are operating on this new basis. As these arrangements are introduced, I am demanding better performance from PSA in reducing delays in payments to contractors by getting invoices to MOD more promptly.

  These arrangements create a contractual commitment on the managing contractor to make payment to subcontractors whose invoices have been accepted for
  196
  payment by MOD and should be distinguished from other forms of "pay when paid" for capital works contracts whereby main contractors may withhold payments to subcontractors. This latter practice is inconsistent with the Government's prompt payment policy.

  While the building management businesses are still in Government ownership, and they retain the obligations of the Government's prompt payment policy in their own right, a safety net will be in place so that PSA can ensure prompt payment to its contractors even where MOD had not paid PSA.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will provide details of the pay when paid policy of the Property Services Agency and of its purpose and origins; and if he will make a statement on the application to this policy of the Government's requiring Departments to pay their private contractors as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Redwood
  New payment arrangements are being implemented by the PSA building management businesses, where they are acting as agents for the Ministry of Defence for payment purposes under MOD property management contracts, such that subcontractors are paid no later than seven days following receipt of payment from the client, MOD. There is an existing obligation on the MOD to pay promptly and this together with the new payment arrangements being adopted by the PSA will ensure that subcontractors should be paid within 30 days from validation.

  The development of appropriate systems and procedural changes is under way so that by 1 April 1993 the five BM businesses are operating on this new basis. As these arrangements are introduced, I am demanding better performance from PSA in reducing delays in payments to contractors by getting invoices to MOD more promptly.

  These arrangements create a contractual commitment on the managing contractor to make payment to subcontractors whose invoices have been accepted for payment by MOD and should be distinguished from other forms of "pay when paid" for capital works contracts whereby main contractors may withhold payments to subcontractors. This latter practice is inconsistent with the Government's prompt payment policy.

  While the building management businesses are still in Government ownership, and they retain the obligations of the Government's prompt payment policy in their own right, a safety net will be in place so that PSA can ensure prompt payment to its contractors even where MOD had not paid PSA.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Food Imports: Standards
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they allow the import of food products of a standard lower than that which it is legal to market if produced in this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, all food marketed in the UK, whether it is imported or home produced, must meet the food safety requirements set out in UK food law. Much of that food law has been harmonised at European Community level and thus common standards operate in all member states. Where food law has not been harmonised member states must accept into circulation food which has been legally produced and marketed in another member state unless public health or animal health reasons can be shown for any refusal.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that regulations imposed by this Government and not—and, I repeat, not—by the Commission as is popularly supposed, and with which none of our competitors have to comply, are causing serious rural unemployment and the closure of innumerable small, effective and profitable businesses? Is the noble Earl further aware that that is inhibiting the food producing industry in this country from participating in sensible import saving?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord's statement. The single market has effectively swept away a whole raft of regulations dealing with exports. Where there is new regulation it is chiefly to protect the UK's high animal and plant health status. There is no reason whatever to believe that any businesses will have to close down because of regulations related to the single market.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a need to develop a system of certification or accreditation whereby the results which are submitted from one country to another are accepted as being true statements?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords. That is a matter which the Commission is currently addressing, at our instigation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the standards required under the CAP are for the most part more stringent or less stringent than our own?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, much of our food law has been harmonised at European Community level and therefore common standards operate. However, there are various areas where those common standards do not apply. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, I contend that our regulations are no more stringent than those which operate in other member states.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of the instances of serious concern are the result of inaccurate information purveyed by both officials and the press and do not reflect what is written in the appropriate statutory instrument?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. All government departments have to be alert to that concern. The distinction between what is a legal requirement and what is considered to be best practice is often overlooked. It is open to traders, through the conditions which they agree in contracts, to demand conditions which are more stringent than those which the law requires. That is the policy of a number of supermarket groups, for example. It is a commercial matter. Official inspection and enforcement should only seek what the law requires.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said, a large number of businesses in this country have had to close as a result of the regulations? Will the noble Earl confirm that fact and tell the House the reason for the closure of those businesses?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, I do not accept that proposition. If particular instances are known to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I should be glad to know of them. However, I believe that all the stories on that front so far are very much in the realm of the anecdotal.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are cases of the kind he wished to know about. I can tell him of one in my own area concerning a small business involved in bacon curing and manufacturing. Conditions relating to a slaughterhouse, which has been improved up to our previous standard, are such that it is having to contract from a business employing 30 people to a retail business employing about 10 people. Is the noble Earl aware that his colleagues in the Scottish Office are doing their best for that particular business but are hampered by the regulations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should be happy to look into the specific case which the noble Lord cited. I am not personally aware of it. I assume that there are underlying reasons which have led to that decision to contract which do not bear directly on the regulations.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if anecdotal evidence means people giving their views on the basis of what they personally have seen or experienced then there is a terrific amount of anecdotal evidence to show that the officials who

985
are supposed to apply the regulations sometimes do not do so with the necessary good sense and impartiality?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I accept that there is inconsistency of enforcement of regulations around the country by various local authorities. That is a concern to which we have to be alive, and it is one which was raised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his deregulation seminar recently. However, I also believe that many of the press reports which we read about businesses which have had to close down due to the burden of regulations are either unsubstantiated or inaccurate.

Plutonium: Storage
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been their response to the offer of the International Atomic Energy Agency to arrange the storage or disposal of plutonium and to place it under international supervision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the International Atomic Energy Agency has made no recent proposal to arrange facilities for the storage or disposal of plutonium.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am aware of that. However, is the noble Baroness aware of the speech made in Japan last year by the deputy director general of the agency? If she has not made herself aware of it, will she do so? British Nuclear Fuels has demonstrated once again that it is completely untrustworthy. Will she read Mr. Dircks's speech, to which I referred, and write to me when she has done so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am well aware that in December last year there was an informal exchange of views between representatives of the UK and other countries involved with plutonium use. The adequacy of existing safeguard arrangements was not called into question. However, we should of course be willing to consider any proposals from Vienna for which a consensus emerged.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, has it not always been part of the statute of the IAEA safely to store and distribute nuclear materials including plutonium? Is it not true that the lecture given by the deputy director general last year was not a formal request? Was there any reason why he should have made the observation in the address to which the noble Lord referred?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord points out accurately that it was a personal statement. Discussions were taking place informally.
986
Of course, the storage of civil plutonium in the European Community and Japan is held under international safeguards.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious and genuine problem with the storage of plutonium due to the glut? There are enormous unwanted supplies in Europe. More are coming from the ex-Communist empire. The chairman of Nuclear Electric stated recently that the UK has supplies for 100 years. Have the Government any proposals to assist internationally in dealing with the storage problem? As a related question, when do they expect the report from the pollution inspectorate on radioactive releases with regard to THORP?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that the safety has to be impeccable whether it is for one tonne or 35 tonnes. Once we store plutonium, we store it safely. The report from Her Majesty's inspectorate is a matter for my noble friend at the Department of the Environment. But we are delighted that the issue has been examined. The report will come in due course. Of course we are working and are prepared to work with Russian authorities on the subject of their storage.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the safest place to store plutonium is a fast breeder reactor, and that the sooner we get on with the matter the better?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Earl has put forward his opinion very forcefully. I can assure him that the issue has not been abandoned.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the fast breeder reactor is a total flop and will never come to fruition? Is she further aware that a serious problem exists? While I recognise, as she does, that it is difficult to achieve international consensus, in particular when commercial considerations are involved, someone at some stage has to take an initiative; otherwise the problem will be on top of us. She will be as aware as I am of the seriousness of that situation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not doubt the noble Lord's personal concern about these matters. However, he expresses a personal view on the future of the fast breeder reactor. We have a validated design which, when it becomes economically viable, will be available to be deployed. As regards plutonium, it can be used to generate electricity in ordinary as well as fast reactors. I would also point out that the noble Lord's views are not those of his colleagues on the Front Bench in another place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the name "fast breeder reactor" is a misnomer? Such a machine can be designed to be a fast consumer reactor.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I was concerned with the question on storage. I am sure that we can look at fast reactors on another occasion.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the personal views of my right honourable friend Dr. Cunningham have had reason recently to move sharply in the direction of my views?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not wish to become an expert on the politics of noble Lords opposite. I should point out that I was referring to the shadow spokesman for energy.

Art Exports: Review Body Membership
2.51 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria are used in determining the membership of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, seven permanent members of the reviewing committee are appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. They provide a broad base of intellectual and practical experience in works of art, antiques and collectors' items.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, in view of increasing evidence of the illicit export of, and trade in, British antiquities, does he feel that it might be appropriate to have an archaeologist as a member of the reviewing committee on which the antiques and art trade is so well represented? Is he aware that there is anxiety that where heritage exports are concerned, the Government seek advice consistently from the antiquities trade and do not seek advice from those whose business is conservation, such as the Council of British Archaeology or English Heritage?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, where the case under review is an archaeological item, three independent assessors are always co-opted on to the committee for that case. They will have a specific expertise and will have a full vote on the committee as to the Waverley status of the item. Over the past three years, seven archaeological objects have been referred to the committee. Five were deferred and purchased by institutions for retention by the nation.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that there have been cases recently where the importance of archaeological objects has been assessed by the expert witness—an expert from the British Museum—under the Waverley criteria? The assessment has then been downgraded by the reviewing committee. Would that not be less likely to happen if the Government were to appoint an archaeologist to the committee who had experience in that field?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, expert advisers are often enthusiasts in their own subject, but the committee as a whole must take a broader look as to whether the object meets the Waverley standards. I point out to
988
the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that out of 10 experts in a room, one is usually liable to disagree with the other nine.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, as a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, I wish to ask my noble friend a question. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that we commissioners share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renfrew about the illicit excavation and export of archaeological material from the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government will now take the opportunity afforded by the new EC directive on the restitution within the EC of objects designated as national treasures to give greater protection generally to our archaeological heritage.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, under that directive all British archaeological items of Waverley standard will be able to be recovered if they have been smuggled out of the country to another member state. Under the directive they may be brought back to this country.
Further, with regard to the regulation, a small working group of museum and trade interests has been established to consider guidelines for the trade and museum world with the use of the discretionary power which is now allowed under the regulations. The British Museum has four members and my noble friend Lord Renfrew has kindly agreed to join the group.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, given the volume of illegal archaeological exports cited by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and many other distinguished archaeologists, is there not a strong case for a review of the existing legislation and also legislation on treasure trove? If that is agreed to, as I feel it will be, surely it would further strengthen the case for having an archaeologist on the main reviewing committee rather than just on the advisory council or the panel of experts.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a separate question about treasure trove. What I can tell her about the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art is that only three places are set aside to represent specific interests: the manuscripts and documents member, who chairs the working party on documents; the Scottish representative; and one member of the art trade. They are the only members who represent particular areas. All the others are appointed to the committee because of their general expertise.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England to some extent shares the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renfrew? Less than one-tenth of the tens of thousands of sites in the national monuments record have statutory protection. Many Roman villas, Saxon burial grounds and so forth are likely to contain valuable artefacts. If they are to be excavated legally, they will come before the reviewing committee. It seems proper for a qualified archaeologist to sit on that committee to help inform its views.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, in each case which comes under review three independent assessors are always co-opted on to the committee. If a particular archaeological item from, for example, East Anglia, comes up, then someone with expertise in that area is co-opted on to the committee. If there is just one archaeologist, he may not have the expertise in the area that comes up. That is why it works well at the moment.
I should also tell my noble friend that the regulation and the directive which were agreed in Europe will shortly come into force. The regulation will come into force in April and the directive by the end of the year. That will be a great help.
Lord Annan: My Lords, did I understand the noble Viscount to say that on the whole the archaeologists have not done badly in the decisions taken by the reviewing committee in preventing export for a limited number of months? He suggests that the committee has been successful in keeping archaeological objects in the country, in marked distinction to other objects. I understand that members of the reviewing committee are in despair because so few objects of great worth, particularly paintings, can be kept in this country because the Government will not provide the funds.
Is the noble Viscount further aware that we now have 3 million unemployed, hundreds of thousands of whom are passionately keen on art? The British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery have not been bullied by the Government into imposing entrance charges and they are places where the unemployed can go. Those collections badly need enriching through the operations of the reviewing committee.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's remarks. The committee has afforded sympathetic treatment to archaeological objects and I believe that the archaeologists have done well. Of course, the noble Lord makes an important point. When a case is referred to the committee and the committee believes that export should be deferred, it is always a problem for institutions to raise the sometimes considerable amounts of money to ensure that the object remains in the country.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue at the heart of the Question is not the appointment of the odd archaeologist but the fact that our archaeological inheritance, which is irreplaceable, is being looted and made subject to illicit exporting, and that that must be stopped? Is he aware that the 1991 export review committee made 20 recommendations of which the Government have replied to only one—on listing? Is it not time now to respond fully to the report? I have especially in mind Recommendation 3 about exports and Recommendation 18 about treasure trove. Would that not offer the opportunity to put our export procedures on a sound, clear and proper basis?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was glad that it was the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who called archaeologists odd and not me. I believe that many of the points
990
he mentioned will be covered when the EC directive and the regulation come into force. That will be a great help as regards items in this country which are currently either smuggled out or taken out in some way they should not be.

Salmonella in Eggs: Statistics
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost to public funds, in the latest period for which figures are available, of the policy of slaughtering laying hens in an attempt to reduce salmonella food poisoning, and what was the incidence of egg-related salmonella food poisoning in the same period.
Earl Howe: My Lords, expenditure in 1992 on compensation to owners of laying flocks compulsorily slaughtered because of infection with salmonella enteritidis totalled £435,000. The number of human salmonella infections confirmed by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the calendar year 1992 was 31,352, of which 16,981 were salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. It is not possible to determine how many of these were related to the consumption of eggs or products containing eggs.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the total cost to public funds of the slaughter policy is in the order of £10 million—that is, £5 million in total to farmers, and another £5 million in the departmental and the local authority cost in laboratory testing, inspection and slaughtering? After the slaughter of three-and-a-quarter million hens, and a spend of between £5 million and £10 million of public money—and the relevant strain of salmonella food poisoning increasing in the same period by 82 per cent.—do the Government now wish that they had heeded the advice of the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place? The committee reported in January 1989 that:
"a policy of slaughtering flocks with the aim of eradicating salmonella would not have a realistic prospect of success".
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions. Let me make one thing clear. The measures that we took in 1989 were absolutely right and necessary. Those measures were considered vital to restore confidence in British eggs and to combat salmonella in eggs and poultry. As noble Lords will remember, the background was of sharp rises in the number of food poisoning incidents caused by salmonella enteritidis, linked epidemiologically with the consumption of eggs and egg products. Those measures were endorsed by the Agriculture Select Committee.
In the light of the knowledge we have gained in the intervening three years, and recognising all the recommendations contained in the report from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food on salmonella in eggs, the Government are now proposing to end the controls on laying flocks,

991
including compulsory slaughter. I see no reason for revising our view that what we did was right at the time.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government had to take some action at the time because of the pronouncements of one of their Ministers? I seem to remember that at the time there was no evidence that salmonella had been found inside fresh eggs. Can the Minister advise the House whether any incidence of salmonella has yet been found inside a fresh egg?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the short answer to that is yes. The ACMSF report acknowledges that eggs are an important source of human salmonella infection. But the contribution that they make to current levels of human salmonellosis cannot be quantified precisely. Studies have shown that the number of infected eggs produced by an infected flock and the level of infection in contaminated eggs are low. If such eggs are handled, stored and used properly, they need not constitute a significant health risk for the majority of individuals.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the period of the Gulf War the incidence of salmonella food poisoning decreased? Does he agree that that was largely due to the reduction in tourism?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. There has been a rise in the total cases of salmonella enteritidis, as the noble Lord indicated earlier, but I do not think that the figures that are sometimes quoted should be taken in isolation. The type of salmonella that causes most human infection—salmonella enteritidis—has increased by a much smaller proportion than the total of salmonella cases.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of the NHS in London.

Medical Ethics: Select Committee
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The House will recall that, in approving the report from the Liaison Committee on 7th December, the House agreed in principle that an ad hoc committee should be established to consider the subject of euthanasia. Since then, consultation has taken place to establish appropriate terms of reference for such a committee. The Liaison Committee has itself now proposed to your Lordships the terms of reference on the Order Paper today. A number of amendments have been tabled to those terms of reference. It may be for the convenience of the House if we debate all the
992
amendments together when the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, moves his first amendment and that at the same time your Lordships might raise any general points which may assist the committee in its deliberations. The questions on each amendment can then be put after our debate.
Perhaps I may add a word or two of explanation. First, I should like to stress that the establishment of this committee should by no means be taken to imply that any change in the law is intended. I realise that opinions on all sides about this sensitive subject are very strongly held. There is no question but that the House would wish to respect those views, and if I may speak for a moment as a Member of the Government, I know that my colleagues are equally sensitive to the legitimate worries which exist. But recent events—and I am obviously thinking in particular of both the case of Anthony Bland and the conviction of Dr. Nigel Cox—have shown that the question of what we expect from doctors and those placed in a position of care, and the appropriate response to such expectations, raise fundamental questions for all concerned, not least in the light of continuing developments in medical technology and the care of the terminally ill. It is therefore my hope that the committee might provide a forum for serious and thoughtful consideration of the range of difficult issues encompassed by its terms of reference, and that its report, supported by the evidence which it will no doubt wish to receive, will provide a focus for informed public debate. It is my understanding that, in this country at least, no such wide-ranging study has ever been undertaken at this level.
The terms of reference which I am now proposing to your Lordships, on behalf of the Liaison Committee, have deliberately been drawn widely to enable the committee to consider a variety of circumstances in which patients, doctors and others are called on to make decisions of great sensitivity. I realise that this is a matter of concern in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. But I suggest that the committee's remit should be broad, and should in particular cover not only euthanasia as commonly understood—that is, the commission of an act which may be expected to shorten life—but also circumstances in which treatment can legitimately be withheld—that is, the omission of an act which might prolong life. The reason for this is that, although cases differ, the underlying ethical and moral questions of administration and omission of medical treatment are, I think, similar; and it would be regrettable to limit the committee to consideration of any one set of circumstances.
I would particularly point out that the terms of reference are broad enough to allow consideration of the kinds of circumstances which were recently the subject of the judicial appeal to the House in the case of Anthony Bland and which some members of the Appellate Committee specifically suggested might with benefit be considered by Parliament. They also allow for a wider consideration of separate arguments for and against so-called "mercy killing" that different cases have provoked.

993
The terms of reference have also been drafted so as to enable the committee to consider so-called advance directives, or living wills—by which people may express in advance views as to the sorts of treatment that they would or would not wish to receive in the event that they were no longer able to give or withhold consent. I understand that a Private Member's Bill on advance directives, and indeed a further Private Member's Bill on the termination of medical treatment, are currently being considered for introduction to your Lordships' House. It would certainly be open to the House to refer such Bills to the committee after Second Reading, should that be thought desirable.
Lastly, perhaps I could say a word about the timetable for the committee's deliberations. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that it is preferable that the committee should itself determine its timetable. I hope, however, that the committee may be in a position to report to the House by the end of this year; too long an inquiry can lose its momentum and topicality. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the ethical, legal and clinical implications of a person's right to withhold consent to life-prolonging treatment, and the position of persons who are no longer able to give or withhold consent; and to consider whether and in what circumstances actions that have as their intention or a likely consequence the shortening of another person's life may be justified on the grounds that they accord with that person's wishes or with that person's best interests.—(Lord Wakeham.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 1, as an amendment to the Title of the Motion:
Leave out ("Medical Ethics") and insert ("Euthanasia")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to my amendment I must state what is obvious. I am not legally qualified, nor do I speak as a member of the Bar. I am not medically qualified so I do not speak as a physician. I am a simple layman. Perhaps at another time and when adequate transport schemes were available I would have been called "the man on the Clapham bus". In the absence of the Clapham bus, I do not know what the current term would be.
I share with ordinary folk, of whom I know many and from whom I have received thousands of letters, their confusion, their worry, their suspicions, their cynicisms and many other problems that they consider to be involved with the whole question of euthanasia—call it what we will at this moment. I share their anxiety about the need for adequate safeguards (and that is a big subject) not only for patients, but also for relatives and the medical profession—the doctors and nurses involved in the whole situation. There are millions of people who doubt the moral rectitude of the proposals in the first instance.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave out "Medical Ethics" and insert the word "Euthanasia" as the title of the Motion. That is to make sure that both the House and the public are in no doubt as to what the committee will be considering. It may be helpful to
994
recall the history. On 24th November 1992 the Liaison Committee recommended, under paragraph 8 of its First Report, that an ad hoc committee be set up to discuss euthanasia. That was to be the title of the Motion.
Members submitted their names to the Whips' Office to serve on the committee. When the proposals to establish a committee were being discussed the Leader of the House told us that flexibility in all matters was the order of the day. It seems to be stretching flexibility a bit too far when we go from the title that had been agreed by the House as "Euthanasia" and broaden it to the extent that it will deal with a whole range of medical ethics. That is a big subject. If we were to table amendments to that title, I do not know where we would stop.
It may be that we could suggest for discussion in that wider title the question of sex selection. Medical ethics must come into that. If that was tabled as an amendment, would it be accepted or discussed? What would be the position? After all, the title is "Medical Ethics". The public do not want the debate to be fuzzed; they do not want the real issue to be lost.
I understand and accept that the Law Lords' judgment mentioned by the noble Lord in his opening remarks pointed to a number of grey areas in the law as it stands. They suggested that legislation may be needed to tidy up various aspects, as they saw them, proceeding through the course of the judgment. But this seems to be a rushed effort to change the title and change the emphasis. It is an effort to give that judgment further support so that the Law Lords can be satisfied with regard to those difficulties.
I have heard it said, and read, that it is perhaps also to help the Government and the authorities out of a difficulty. I understand that there are over 1,000 outstanding cases similar in many respects to the case discussed by the Law Lords. I understand also that it costs £40 million a year to keep those people alive. It may be cynical, but it may be said that that is another good reason for the present Government, with their services, cost-cutting and everything else, to be attracted to a debate wide enough to cover the whole area. We were promised a debate on euthanasia and that is what it should be.
The noble Lord also said that a widely accepted definition of euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission, or both, of a person whose life is felt not to be worth living. But matters of life-prolonging treatment and the shortening of another person's life are best described by the term "euthanasia"—the original term. In my view there should be no confusion as to what the committee is considering. If it starts with a confused title and a title that is capable of provoking argument, then it will not have a good start. Everybody in the country will understand what is meant by "euthanasia", whatever their fears or views.
My views are well known. I will not support euthanasia and I do not hide that view for a moment. However, I would welcome a debate on euthanasia so that all the points may be put, and that would be a different debate from the one that would take place on the broad platform of "medical ethics". Somebody

995
said that the title does not matter as long as the terms are accurate; but it does matter. The title is definitely "Euthanasia". That is the title we were promised; it is the title we expect. Certainly the other title has never been discussed by the House. It has never been brought back and said that the Standing Committee, the Select Committee, the Liaison Committee, the normal channels or anybody else has decided that we should change the recommendation in paragraph 8, which is quite clear. It said that an ad hoc committee should be set up to discuss euthanasia. It did not mention medical ethics. There were sufficient medical people present at the time to have brought up medical ethics if that is what they meant, but they did not. There was obviously a lot of clarity on their point, as there is on mine, as to the meaning and reasons for the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not know whether it was accidental but my noble friend the Leader of the House seemed to agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. When he moved his Motion a few minutes ago, instead of using the words "legal and clinical implications" in the Motion, he referred to euthanasia. As he wanted to make himself clear to the House he used a word which seemed to encompass all things. Later on he seemed to suggest that the words which he had not used covered a wider area that ought to be discussed. There seemed to be a little confusion. If in order to be clear he thought fit to use the word "euthanasia", why not have that word as proposed in the amendment?
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the amendment should be rejected. One of the problems in this whole area is that all language is loaded. The word "euthanasia" is itself an ambiguous term which has been used in a wide variety of senses. It seems to me, therefore, very much better to leave the Select Committee with a wide brief which is clearly set out in the statement about it but with a title which does not assume any answer to precisely what the word "euthanasia" means.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I venture to agree with the most reverend Primate. I do not think that the suggested amendment is the right one. Some few years back I was asked to conduct an investigation into the working of a body called the Institute of Medical Ethics. I think that I was invited to do this because it was felt that I did not know a great deal about it and could come to it with a fresh mind. Most of the subject of my investigation is not for this occasion, nor, I suspect, for this House. As I met the people who were concerned with and involved in writing about, studying, researching and publishing information about medical ethics I became aware of the enormous importance of the subject not just to the practitioners—the doctors who are primarily concerned—but to everyone.
As medical science has advanced over recent years the opportunities open to make decisions about the treatment of patients have greatly enlarged. I believe that "medical ethics" is exactly the right term. But we are not inviting the committee to look at the whole of
996
medical ethics. That would indeed be an impossible task. My noble friend's Motion seems to express exactly the ambit which we are inviting the committee to investigate. To label it at the beginning by calling it euthanasia, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggests in his amendment, would to my mind prejudice the inquiry because, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, a whole lot of what this inquiry is about would not by any stretch of the imagination be called euthanasia. It would have the effect of limiting the debate and perhaps alarming those who might be expected to give evidence.
To my mind "medical ethics" is a title which is well understood by many of those who are involved in the study, practice and teaching of medical ethics. As a result of the work of the Institute of Medical Ethics there is now a medical ethics committee in every medical college in this country. The Motion has exactly the right title. Like the most reverend Primate, I hope that we reject the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene very briefly with regard to the standing of the first amendment. The Motion before us does not contain the words "medical ethics". That is a headline which has been put on by other parts of this organisation. Indeed, the words "medical ethics" do not occur in the Motion. It therefore seems to me that the first amendment is totally out of order.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can guide us further. At the start he invited us to address ourselves to all the amendments together and to matters generally. We are now well into a very neat and apposite debate on the first amendment only. I wonder whether it would be in order to deal with the first amendment before we go on to the others.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be possible for someone who supports the mover of the amendment to say so. Everyone else seems to be opposed to the amendment. In my view the noble Lord the Leader of the House is well disposed towards the amendment. I may be wrong about that but I think he is rightly so well disposed for this reason. The words "medical ethics" are quite contradictory. This is not only about medical ethics. It is not, however, about the wider issue of ethics. If the words "medical ethics" are there one starts by being totally contradictory even in the title. If one reads the body of the amendment one finds that it is not about medical ethics at all. It is wholly and entirely about the subject of euthanasia. Therefore, we should not run away from the issue and pretend that by calling it euthanasia we are, as it were, predicting what the result will be. I am entirely opposed to my noble friend. He is against euthanasia. I am for it. But I agree with him that that is the subject the amendment should be about. We should call a spade a spade.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are we not becoming confused about naming? What is "medical ethics" the name of? Is it the name of our proceedings this afternoon; is it the name of the Motion that we are asked to pass; or is it the name of the committee which

997
is set up by the Motion? What we are asked to pass is a Motion which tells exactly what "medical ethics" mean from the standpoint of the committee that we are setting up.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I hope that these amendments will not be pressed. The Motion covers immensely adequately the difficult problem that the Select Committee is being asked to consider and gives it full scope in so doing. In its present form it will be warmly welcomed by many members of the medical profession, particularly those specialising in the problems of old age and extreme disability. The investigation is long overdue. A Select Committee of your Lordships' House is a most appropriate form and far better than the alternative, which would be an expensive and cumbrous Royal Commission. I very much hope that the Motion will be approved and that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am one of those people who wants to make progress on this whole issue but I want to move very slowly and very carefully because it is one of immense complexity. It is not black and white, but if we use the word "euthanasia" it becomes black and white. That is entirely the wrong way to go about it. The amendment is misconceived. The Motion from the Leader of the House will give the Select Committee an opportunity to consider all these complex issues. It would be quite wrong merely for the Select Committee to confine itself to the black and white issue of euthanasia when the subject is very complicated and all these complex issues need to be examined.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Stallard because already we find that the whole issue has been widened. Originally the Liaison Committee recommended that there should be some form of committee to discuss euthanasia but already the issues to be discussed by the Select Committee have been widened. They have been widened to include the implications of the Cox case and the Bland case which are nothing at all to do with euthanasia. Therefore, it is incumbent on this House to consider exactly what it is doing. To be fair to the Liaison Committee, it was dealing with a particular situation whereby a number of Bills were expected to come before the House dealing with euthanasia and nothing wider than that. Therefore, its recommendation was for a committee to consider that particular matter.
At this stage it would be wrong for the House to widen the terms of reference. I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Alport. The wider implications are not for this House to consider. There are many more implications to be considered than this House can deal with. The proper manner in which to conduct that investigation is through a Royal Commission and not through a committee of this House. That is the only way in which the mass of problems which have arisen over a number of cases can be dealt with. Therefore, I hope that for the sake
998
of complete clarity the House will agree to the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as a Member of the Liaison Committee and one who supports the Motion on the Order Paper, perhaps I may make three very brief points. First, I do not believe that the title as set out in the Motion on the Order Paper makes a scrap of difference to the way in which the committee will either be set up or to the way in which it will operate. What is important are the terms of reference, which are clearly set out in the Motion.
Secondly, we are told that there are difficult and delicate issues of medico-legal ethics to be considered arising from the Cox case or the Bland case. I am sure that that is true. If it is true, as my noble friend Lord Stallard said, there would be a thousand cases of that sort in existence which need to be considered. My reaction is that it is right that the committee should get on and consider them and not say that they are issues which the committee should not consider. Even if one calls it euthanasia and one has narrowed the terms of reference to that point at the present time—I understand from my classical friend that euthanasia merely means a peaceful death—the issues are bound to spill over into the difficult questions of where the doctors draw the line and when they have the right,
"to withhold consent to life-prolonging treatment"
which are precisely the words in the Motion on the Order Paper.
Although I entirely understand the motives behind my noble friend's amendments and deeply respect the views that he holds on the issue, I believe that the terms of reference are clear. When the committee is set up it will have a clear job of work to do. It is one that needs to be done. A Select Committee of this House is probably the best way to do it at this stage. I hope that the House will support the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall be brief. We are presented with two choices of title, neither of which is appropriate. "Medical Ethics" is far too wide and "Euthanasia" is far too narrow. If we agree with the terms of reference as set out in the Motion, why do we need to include the words "Medical Ethics" in advance? A title is not required because it is contained in the terms of reference.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, at the risk of seeming to change the subject, perhaps I may say something about my own amendment. I confess that I do not feel deeply moved whether we call this Motion one thing or the other. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just said that we are really talking about the terms of reference and nothing else.
My amendment proposes to remove from the terms of reference the concluding reference to "that person's best interests", and to do so on the grounds that the words "best interests" are not only misleading but dangerous. That is not in a general way, of course, or even in the generality of cases, but in the special case of the patient who is in what is known as the

999
"persistent vegetative state", which is of the type which affects Anthony Bland. That it is impossible to ascertain what is or might be in the best interests of such a person is immediately obvious as there is no way in which he can make his feelings or his wishes known.
Here I would like to quote from the judgment in that case given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill. He is speaking of the mental anguish and suffering of the patient's relations and not of the patient himself. He said:
"But it seems to me to be stretching the concept of personal rights beyond breaking point to say that Anthony Bland has an interest in ending these sources of others' distress. Unlike the conscious patient he does not know what is happening to his body, and cannot be affronted by it; he does not know of his family's continuing sorrow. By ending his life the doctors will not relieve him of a burden become intolerable, for others carry the burden and he has none. What other considerations could make it better for him to die now rather than later? None that we can measure, for of death we know nothing. The distressing truth which must not be shirked is that the proposed conduct is not in the best interests of Anthony Bland, for he has no best interests of any kind".
It would not seem unreasonable for anyone faced with such a case, to begin imagining on the patient's behalf that death was the best thing that he could hope for, because … or, on the other hand, that life was the best thing, because … But, my Lords, because what, in either case? To answer that question with any certainty it would be necessary to understand what really was represented for the patient by the alternatives of life and death. How can that be done if we do not know what death is like?
Various questions suggest themselves at once, all of them more or less unanswerable. For example, is there or is there not any kind of survival beyond the grave? If there is, what is likely to be the effect, if any, on the newly departed who has been deprived of the possibility—or is it perhaps a right?—to die as a result of the ordinarily hostile forces of nature? What we may believe or disbelieve about the answer to such questions is quite without significance. The simple inescapable fact is that we do not and cannot know.
From that it follows that if we decide that the best interests of the patient point to his death at our hands, we would be making a decision and performing a resulting action not in this world only, but also in a world that lies (or perhaps does not lie—who knows?) beyond the tenuous line that divides us from the unknown. In so doing we have crossed the boundary between the known intelligible and the unknown; the metaphysical world in which—and this is my contention—parliaments and debating chambers have no place.
Certainly it is within the human competence to make such decisions in individual cases. But to make a law about it, to enact by parliamentary decision that such-and-such an action may be taken in such-and-such a situation, is to arrogate to oneself the authority to act in the metaphysical world as well as the physical. To take a step as revolutionary as that—for I believe that no such step has been taken before—is to establish a precedent whose outcome we can hardly begin to imagine.
My amendment will very slightly widen the whole scope of the terms of reference, but to no detriment.
1000
Nothing has been removed except the Instruction to the committee, if it is set up, to consider something which I personally believe should not be considered.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 4, but before doing so I offer a word of caution about something that we have already touched on. I refer to the warning "Beware of euphemisms". When discussing ethical questions, we always seem to meet expressions which replace the usual phrases with bland and sometimes misleading alternatives. "Abortion" becomes "the termination of pregnancy" and the "embryo" becomes the "pre-embryo". I fear that I could never bring myself to say, for example, that King Charles I had his life "shortened" in Whitehall, because that sounds rather as if he was overworked by his civil servants rather than that he was beheaded.
I seek now to establish the need for my amendment. As they now stand, the terms of reference of the Select Committee are focused on the rights and needs of individuals. That is good as far as it goes, but if we leave it there we may well end with a situation in which the law and medical practice are based on the needs of a number of hard cases and ignore the effect of any changes on society as a whole. In recent times, we have seen how seemingly modest changes in the law have led, for better or for worse, to drastic and far-reaching changes for society. One only has to think of changes in the law on abortion, homosexuality or even divorce.
It is absolutely vital that the Select Committee should seek answers to the following questions in relation to any proposed changes to the law or to medical practice. Of course, it is not an exhaustive list. First, what would be the effect on the relationship between doctors and their patients? What would be the effect on family relationships? How does one compare the removal of the fear of a distressing and lingering death with the insecurity of fearing that one's family may be plotting one's death illegally? Perhaps most important of all, how would the proposed changes alter the value accorded by society to human life?
As they now stand, the terms of reference would not require consideration of those or similar questions and might even be held to exclude them. Furthermore, the Motion has been drawn up in such a way that consideration of ethical, legal and clinical implications applies to the first part of the Motion only. The Motion continues:
"and to consider whether and in what circumstances actions that have as their intention or a likely consequence the shortening of another person's life".
That part is not affected by or tied up with the concept of ethical, legal and clinical implications. My amendment would ensure that it is, and that that is considered by the Committee. My amendment therefore seeks to ensure that consideration should be given to the effects of the proposed changes on society as a whole.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may return for a moment to the question of the title of the committee. I agree with three propositions that have been advanced in your Lordships' House. The first is that the term "Medical Ethics" may not be entirely

1001
appropriate. The second is that the term "Euthanasia" may not be entirely appropriate. The third is that the title of the committee is not in itself a matter of the slightest consequence. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that what we should do today is agree the terms of reference, then set up the committee, and invite it to consider for itself what, for convenience, it wishes to be known as.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in my respectful submission, the terms of this Motion, carefully drawn by the Liaison Committee, should be adhered to for three reasons in addition to or repeating those that have been advanced. The first is that "euthanasia" is a highly emotive word which might appear to prejudge consideration by the committee. The second is that it raises wide issues in its widest sense. One has only to consider the views which the Home Office has put forward when the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I entirely agree that in its widest issue it demands the consideration of a Royal Commission, both on precedent and on principle. The third is connected with that. The medical profession needs general guidance pretty quickly—as quickly as possible. In the meantime, it has been laid down by your Lordships' Appellate Committee, in a report accepted by your Lordships, that every case of this nature, such as the Bland case, must be brought before the courts. I very much hope that, as a result of the speeches that have been made, your Lordships will agree to this Motion.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, perhaps in the light of the public controversy raised by various recent legal cases on this subject it may be necessary for the House to consider this matter, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has just stated. He has also invited us to make general points this afternoon. I hope that the composition of the committee will be very carefully considered so that it includes experienced doctors and lawyers and, considering the religious aspects of the matter of life and death, a senior Bishop.
There is disagreement this afternoon on the definitions of "medical ethics" and "euthanasia". For me, that is a very fine line. As the patron of our local hospice, which, together with hospices all over the country, has done such excellent work on the relief of pain and the preservation of the dignity and quality of life of terminally ill patients, I am against euthanasia or mercy killing or whatever it is called. It seems to me to lie at the top of a slippery slope which could lead to most undesirable consequences in the future.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment of this House, and we deliberately decided not to make recommendations on mercy killing. I remember then receiving correspondence from the medical profession, particularly the hospice movement, stating their opposition on the matter. I have received further correspondence on that point in relation to this committee. I also recollect receiving some evidence stating that elderly people in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is not frowned
1002
upon, were often very fearful on entering hospital that they would not receive the full treatment that they desired as they might be regarded as a poor risk or, indeed, so elderly as to be hardly worth trouble or expenditure.
Some years ago, as a member of a local rural district council, we had requests from the grown-up children of tenants that, as their parents grew elderly, the tenancy should be registered in their name to give them security of tenure on the death of their parents. To begin with, we acceded to this, but found that in some places there was a subsequent change of attitude by the young people so that the elderly parents felt unwanted in their own homes. As a result, we changed our policy.
This is the sort of slippery slope to which any loosening of restrictions on euthanasia could lead. It is very difficult for any unqualified person to know when any other person's pain is too much to bear or when that person's hope for any future quality of life is non-existent. To discuss that would require supra-human qualities.
I hope, therefore, that the committee will consider the matter very carefully indeed, not only from the point of view of a few hard cases (which make bad law anyway), but much more from the point of view of the positive care that frail and elderly people need, even when terminally ill. Modern miracles are always possible and, indeed, happen in hospices today in ways that we could not have imagined only a few years ago.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the way he introduced this debate. He was eminently sensible in saying that we should consider all the amendments together, have a debate, and then make a decision on each one. We have now heard from the movers of all the amendments before us and I should like to compliment each on the way in which he moved his amendments. I thank also my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he explained the dictionary definition of the word "euthanasia". I think that he said that it meant a peaceful death. We are effectively starting a debate on the whole subject which I hope we all agree should end in a peaceful death for every one of our citizens and, eventually, ourselves.
Perhaps I may mention each of the amendments—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when I first saw the title "Medical Ethics", I thought of two things: Depo-Provera and transplants. However, they are not included in the Motion. We therefore have a problem with that description. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stallard that the word "euthanasia" is understood, understandable and explicit. However, I would not go so far as to support his second amendment, because it would make the Select Committee's work too restrictive. We must give the Select Committee the widest terms of reference when it deals with this important subject. I support the

1003
amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I hope that the committee will automatically take note of what happens in other countries, as provided for in the rider added by my noble friend Lord Stallard.
My father was a general medical practitioner. He faced the decisions about which we are talking day in and day out. So I have a little experience of the difficulties that the medical profession faces. We have all known the deaths of friends or relatives from various different causes. I am sure that we all wish everyone to have a peaceful death. For those reasons, I support some of the amendments, but not all of them.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. It helps to amplify the committee's terms of reference to include the social consequences of the issue. To ignore them would be a grave omission in the committee's work. Euthanasia has sometimes been described as a middle-class issue. It is said that what can be discussed to the music of Beethoven in Virginia Water will sound very different in a tenement block in Tower Hamlets. There is considerable fear of the persuasions that will be brought to bear upon people as they may move towards Alzheimer's disease or something of that kind in the less affluent areas of our nation. Because the social consequences could be considerable, not just in that area but, medically, on doctors, nurses and so on, I hope we will include that amendment as part of the Select Committee's terms of reference.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Leader of the House!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, we have had a good debate on all the amendments, and I shall do my best to reply. I find the greatest difficulty in knowing what to say about the first amendment relating to the name of the committee. I find myself in the "Lord Tordoff" school of thought: that the title just emerged somehow from some part of the House. Nevertheless, there is an amendment to the title. If those who chose the name are told by the House that they should change it, then I am sure that they would willingly change it in accordance with the wishes of the House.
Having been a Minister for a fair number of years, I hoped that I was going to receive some guidance. I received a piece of paper but it repeats the question rather than giving me the answer that I want.
Lord Stallard: My Lords—
A noble Lord: Let us carry on.
Lord Stallard: I am sorry to hear the remark from behind the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The proposed title was not my suggestion. The Liaison Committee made a report to the House. It was the First Report of Session 1992–93, which was ordered to be printed on 24th November 1992. Paragraph 8 did not say what I said. It said:
"Euthanasia; we recommend the appointment of an ad hoc committee to consider the subject of euthanasia".
1004
We have heard speeches about the title being wrong and whether it matters. One noble Lord said that it does not matter. Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that we have moved from the recommendation which was accepted by the House and that we should not now try to justify that change by some spurious means?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I am proposing to do my best to do that. I was dealing with the title. It was then my intention to move to the more substantial points made by the noble Lord.
I wish to say one other important thing. I should like to stress at the outset that it is entirely a matter for the House whether it wishes to accept the amendments. I am sure, however, that the points raised in the debate will guide the committee in its deliberations on this difficult issue. We can look forward to debating the issues fully when the report is published. It will be important for the committee to consider the speeches made in this debate when it is studying the matter.
Let me say a word about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It may be easier to understand their impact if I read out the effect that all three amendments would have if taken together. They would produce the following result:
"Euthanasia—to consider the ethical, legal and clinical implications of the availability of life-prolonging treatment, the duty of doctors to care for patients, and the question of voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia; and to take account of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands".
The House will be aware that if it accepts the amendments that would limit the committee merely to considering euthanasia and would exclude wider issues such as those raised by the Anthony Bland case. It is of course true to say, as the noble Lord said, that the House agreed originally to the proposal from the Liaison Committee to establish a committee on euthanasia. However, I should also point out that in the Liaison Committee's report reference was explicitly made to the likely introduction of two Private Members' Bills, one of which relates to so-called advance directives.
If your Lordships were to agree to limit the terms of reference, as now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that would rule out the possibility that the Liaison Committee always had in mind of enabling such a committee to look also at advance directives. Moreover, since the House agreed to the Liaison Committee's report in December, judgment has been given by the House, in its judicial capacity, in the recent and sad case of Anthony Bland. Members of the House will be aware that some members of the Appellate Committee urged in their judgment that Parliament should investigate the issues to which that case gave rise.
In my view, and, I believe, the view of the other members of the Liaison Committee, it would be unfortunate to exclude consideration of those issues or to decline to take up the invitation which those members of the Appellate Committee have issued.
Euthanasia, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary means:

1005
"Action of inducing a gentle and easy death".
That is, it involves a deliberate act. The deliberate taking of life, even to relieve suffering, is murder. It is against the criminal law and medical ethics. Although the question of whether to discontinue the treatment of someone who is not benefiting from it is different, and is reflected as being different in the criminal law and under medical ethics, many of the underlying moral and ethical questions are the same. I therefore suggest that it would be unfortunate not to allow the committee to consider those issues during its inquiry. All the issues mentioned in the noble Lord's amendments are of course fully within the terms of reference of the committee that I have proposed.
I turn to the other amendments. Amendment No. 5 proposes that the committee should take account of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. I believe that the committee will wish to take evidence about the practice in other countries. That will include not only the Netherlands but, for instance, the United States of America. I hesitate to recommend that your Lordships accept the noble Lord's amendment only because it might seem to single out the Netherlands to the possible exclusion of examples from other countries. I have no doubt that that was not the noble Lord's intention.
Amendment No. 3 was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. My noble friend expressed deeply held views which the whole House respects. I hope that he will not regard it amiss if I say that I am sympathetic to his anxieties. However, I believe that the effect of his amendment will be to broaden the scope of the committee's inquiry to embrace legal issues involving the nature of murder and manslaughter which go far beyond those which the House intends should be considered.
With regard to Amendment No. 4, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, it would be the intention of the House that the committee should look at the social implications of withholding or administering treatment which as a result might lead to a shortening of life. I confess that I had expected that the terms of reference that I proposed to your Lordships would be broad enough to enable the committee to consider the social implications of the issues. That said, it seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment is consistent with the spirit and the range of ad hoc committee inquiries in this House. I, for one, see no objection to amending the terms of reference in that way if that is the wish of the House.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that the terms of reference as drafted appear to limit the committee to considering the ethical, legal and clinical implications of the first limb of the terms of reference rather than to allow them to look at the implications of both limbs. I stress that it is certainly my expectation that the committee will look at the wider implications of withholding treatment and actions which may shorten a person's life.
Those are my views on the various amendments before the House. Of course, it is for the House to decide the way in which they are disposed of. As I said
1006
in opening, in its deliberations the committee will take careful note of everything that has been said in today's debate. Nothing that any noble Lord has said will be precluded from proper consideration. In those circumstances, the House may feel that the original Motion is correct.
4 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate and I am grateful for their excellent contributions. I also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his comments. I am not entirely satisfied about the title because I stuck to the parliamentary procedure as laid down by this House. If I am guilty of not being too keen on Parliament's decisions I can live with that and accept it.
Amendment No. 2 was not fully discussed but was dealt with in great part by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Again, I welcome the acceptance of that by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. However, those points should have been included in the committee's terms of reference, which refer to the "person's wishes". The terms of reference do not mention the availability of equipment, life-saving treatment and the detailed understanding of the types of medical care available. They do not mention palliative medicine and advanced medical technology, nor do they mention the effects on society as a whole. The omission of such issues must have been deliberate because we all know about them. They could have been, and should have been, included in the terms of reference because we should know what the committee are to discuss. That is a point that I did not like too much.
I welcome the acceptance of Amendment No. 5, by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I am happy that consideration should go beyond the Netherlands, which appeared to be the most recent outstanding example of a country which has adopted euthanasia and made it legal. It seemed a good point at which to start, but I should be happy if the committee wished to go wider and look at other countries.
I am not totally happy with the change of title nor with the omissions from the terms of reference. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Amendment No. 1, as an amendment to the Motion, negatived.
[Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion, Amendment No. 3:
Line 6, leave out ("on the grounds that they accord with that person's wishes or with that person's best interests").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have no doubt that the members of the committee, when it has been set up, will take notice of what was said in your Lordships' House today. It may be that the small measures that I uttered will be noted by it; but that is a matter for the committee. I am well content and I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved, as an amendment to the Motion, Amendment No. 4:
Line 7, at end insert ("; and in all the foregoing considerations regard is to be paid to the likely effects of changes in law or medical practice on society as a whole.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who supported the amendment. I am also grateful for the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should prefer to see the words on paper and absorbed officially into the terms of reference. Therefore, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 4 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
Amendment to the Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think it might be helpful to your Lordships if I explain what happened for those who did not follow it. In my response to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I said that it seemed to me that the noble Lord's amendment was consistent with the spirit and range of ad hoc committee inquiries in this House, and I for one saw no objection to amending the terms of reference in this way. Therefore, when the noble Lord pressed for the opinion of the House, I for one was not prepared to oppose him, and that was the view that we took.

NHS in London: Future
4.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the future of the NHS in London, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about our proposals for improving the National Health Service in London.
"I begin by expressing sincere thanks to Sir Bernard Tomlinson. His report has been instrumental in carrying the debate forward.
"Following the publication of the Tomlinson Report we undertook an extensive period of informal consultation with the institutions and professional groups involved. I pay tribute to my honourable friend the Minister for the thorough way in which he held those discussions.
1008
"London and the rest of the country are poorly-served by the present pattern of health services in the capital. Despite the fact that we spend some 20 per cent. more per head in London than elsewhere, services are often ill-matched to the day-to-day needs of those who live and work there.
"London has 43 major acute hospitals; twice as many consultants per head as elsewhere, and, for example, 14 centres of specialist cardiac services and 13 in neurosurgery.
"Despite the panoply of provision, patients use accident and emergency departments rather than going to a GP. Patients cannot be discharged from hospital because there are inadequate services outside hospital to care for them. Primary health care services in the rest of the country are often well ahead of the care available inside London.
"This is an unacceptable imbalance. It has to be redressed. The issues are well-known. They are well-documented and well-understood. They have been the subject of at least 20 reports in the last 100 years. For a variety of reasons, successive governments have declined to grasp the nettle. Today we are making a decisive break with that tradition.
"Patients from outside London prefer to be treated locally. This process will accelerate, not decline, in the future. Modern medicine means also that we can treat more patients with fewer beds. Many more services can be provided outside hospital, as the pioneering advances of the GP fundholders in particular have shown. London should be in the vanguard of change.
"Our response is rooted in the principles of our health service reforms. We start from the unshakeable belief that in London, as elsewhere, it is the patient who must come first. How and where services are provided should be determined first and foremost by what suits their patients.
"To provide a patient-focused, modern health service in London requires a radical programme of change. The work will be carried forward by the London Implementation Group, reporting to me, and working with the existing health agencies in the capital. It will start now, work quickly and keep to a strict timetable.
"The first step has to be a substantial improvement in primary care in London. This means the development of higher quality, more accessible health services at local level—provided through GPs, nurses and other professionals in the community.
"I am establishing today a London initiative zone covering the most deprived parts of the city where services can be most improved. I will be providing £170 million capital investment over the next six years for improvements in the LIZ area. Much of this money will be used to provide new and improved premises for GPs and their teams where they are needed and to provide new primary care centres.
"Next year alone, we will invest over £40 million additional funds in primary and community health

1009
services. In addition, a further £10 million will be specifically targeted to ease waiting time problems for inner-London residents.
"We will strengthen the training of family doctors, nurses and other professional staff. We will bring experienced GPs into the capital, perhaps on short-term appointments.
"We will be looking at new ways of providing services: by employing some GPs directly; by reviewing relevant aspects of the GP contract, such as the system of deprivation payments; by developing the GP fundholding initiative in London which has brought so many benefits to patients elsewhere and by much else besides.
"We expect the social services to play their full part in ensuring effective integration of local health and social services. They must make use of the opportunities provided by our community care reforms, and the significantly increased resources available through the special transitional grant.
"We also want to make best use of the special skills and talents of the voluntary sector. I can announce today that I am making a further £7.5 million available over the next three years to build up the role and work of the voluntary organisations.
"To focus on innovation and experiment, we will provide £1 million to initiate a new London Primary Health Care Challenge Fund. We look to others also to contribute to the fund. It will make money available, on a competitive bidding basis, to fund experimental schemes, especially those which aim to bring local and hospital care together and those involving the voluntary, independent or social services sectors.
"Putting these ideas into place involves a shift from care in acute hospitals to primary care. This in turn means building up services outside hospital, with fewer hospital beds and fewer sites where acute hospital care is delivered.
"We need to reduce the excessive duplication of specialist services. I am announcing today six simultaneous reviews of these services, to help us determine where best to concentrate specialist services to provide high quality cost-effective care. Each review will be taken forward urgently under the joint leadership of a distinguished clinician and a senior NHS manager of a purchasing authority. They will report by the end of May.
"Accident and emergency services will mainly be provided from fully-equipped departments which have good access to back-up specialist services. In addition, we envisage an increasingly important role for minor injuries clinics.
"But there is also a case for some rationalisation of accident and emergency services. In particular, the regions are setting in hand consultation on the closure of the A&E at Charing Cross when the new Chelsea/Westminster is available, and on the closure of full-scale A&E at St. Bartholomew's.
1010
"We are determined that the London Ambulance Service should continue to make progress, to deliver a much-improved service for the considerable sums of money invested in it.
"The new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is one of the most modern and advanced hospitals in Europe. This £200 million development is further proof of the Government's commitment to the National Health Service in London. Its completion marks the beginning of a new and better pattern of services in this sector of London.
"A great deal of work has been done, in addition to the Tomlinson Report. On the basis of the information before me, I have decided that there is no financial case for relocating the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden Hospitals to the Charing Cross Hospital.
"This decision has clear implications for the future of that hospital. I have asked for detailed proposals for its future to be drawn up by the autumn. The London Implementation Group will also consider where best to relocate the maternity services currently provided at Queen Charlotte's Hospital.
"We cannot sustain extensive overlap or duplication in this part of London. In the long run an integrated health sciences centre embracing the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden, their respective institutes, the Chelsea and Westminster with links to Imperial College may be the best way forward. We will pursue this idea with these organisations.
"In south-east London, consultation is under way on the proposal to merge the management of Guy's and St. Thomas'. If a Guy's/St. Thomas' Trust is established, we will ask the new trust board to bring forward proposals, within six months, for consolidating the hospital services.
"We also propose that the University College and Middlesex Hospitals should continue to work up a proposal for rationalisation as quickly as possible. This would be considered with other priorities and subject to statutory consultation in respect of service changes. A development considerably smaller than the current hospitals combined seems likely.
"In the east of London, significant changes are needed to provide a better pattern of services for the local population. People in Hackney and the surrounding area will be best served by developing the Homerton Hospital to meet their needs. To facilitate this development, the Homerton will be established as a separate directly managed unit, with a view to it offering its patients the benefits of trust status from April 1994. We will consider urgently the proposal to build a further phase of the Homerton.
"We believe it will be in the best interests of local people if some of the acute services currently at St. Bartholomew's at Smithfield are re-located to the Homerton. The hospital at Smithfield cannot continue as it is, a fact which is well-recognised, not least by the management and clinicians at St. Bartholemew's itself. Its precise future must depend

1011
crucially on the outcome of the specialty reviews and on whether or not purchasers wish to send their patients to it. In view of this, I have decided that the Bart's NHS trust should not come into operation on 1st April and is therefore to be dissolved.
"There are, in our judgment, three options for the future of St. Bartholomew's. The first is closure of the hospital site at Smithfield, with its specialist services relocating elsewhere. The second is joint management of St. Bartholomew's and Royal London Hospital. The new management would be responsible for determining whether, in light of the demand for its services, the combined hospital can continue operating from two major acute sites. The third is retention of Smithfield as a much smaller specialist hospital.
"I have set in hand an urgent appraisal of each of these options, to be concluded by the autumn. The proposal which emerges will, of course, be subject to statutory consultation. Under any of the options, the services provided at Smithfield, and the number of beds, would be substantially reduced. I propose to consult separately on whether to replace its full scale A&E department with a 12-hour weekday minor injuries unit.
"The Government will also consult on proposals for the merged management of Northwick Park and St. Mark's, and, subject to a sound business case being made, the relocation of St. Mark's to Northwick Park.
"On medical education, Professor Tomlinson's proposals for mergers of London's free-standing medical schools with the major colleges of the University of London have been widely supported. They are in line with the university's long-standing policy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has welcomed Sir Bernard's broad conclusions on education and research. He has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to take them forward, working with those involved, to ensure that health and education changes march in step. The funding council will consider the issue raised in the Tomlinson Report about student numbers in London.
"Our proposals will have significant implications for NHS manpower in London. We will make sure that their skills are kept within the NHS, by redeployment and retraining wherever possible. I intend to establish a clearing house to help those staff who cannot find alternative employment through the normal arrangements.
"Madam Speaker, the Tomlinson Report made clear that the root cause of London's problems is not a lack of resources. Indeed, honourable Members from outside the capital often point to the consequences for their constituents of the fact that 20 per cent. of NHS resources are spent in London on 15 per cent. of the population.
"A top priority must be to make the NHS in London more efficient and effective. At the moment, we provide bridging funding to London hospitals to help them survive the loss of income they face from the fact that money is following the patients elsewhere. This is not a sensible long-term
1012
use of funds. It is unfair to London and unfair to the rest of the country. We will tackle these inefficiencies. Over a period of time this will mean more money for better services outside London.
"I have not the time to describe every proposal I am announcing today. Full details are contained in a document, Making London Better, published today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. No change is no option. Sir Bernard Tomlinson spoke of a 'spiral of decline' if we do not act now. The programme of improvement must be balanced. Rationalisation of hospitals services must be placed alongside the complementary build up of services outside hospital.
"London deserves a first-class primary health care service, fit for the 21st century. London deserves a better-balanced hospital service targeted on patient needs. London deserves the radical overhaul which, over the years, many have promised but none has delivered. Under our proposals this is what London will get. We have accepted the need for radical change. We will deliver it. My programme offers the opportunity to cure London's ills and make London better. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Health. I thank her also for making available to me the document Making London Better so that I could make use of it in my comments on the Statement.
In the newspapers there has been a great deal of hide-and-seek about what will be in the Statement. While we have not quite received misinformation, there have been many variations about which hospitals will or will not be closed.
Before I come to the detail of the Statement, I should state that it is still my opinion, as I expressed it when we debated the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a few weeks ago, that the twin problems in London are, first, the lack of primary health care facilities and, secondly, the state of London's hospitals.
Those problems arise from the nature of the internal market. In my opinion the problem of the internal market has not yet been properly addressed. The problem is not that there is a purchaser/provider split—that is fine—but that there is uniform pricing for each kind of treatment. Because costs will be higher in any inner city area compared with an outer city area, inner city areas will suffer from the internal market. An attempt has been made to come to terms with that. As we shall see later, there has been a gradual decline in the management of London's hospitals. Unless the Government think carefully about the problem of differential pricing, those problems will occur in Manchester, Birmingham and other inner city areas. The problem is that a restaurant meal in London costs more than a restaurant meal outside it. If all restaurants had to charge the same,

1013
restaurants in London would go out of business. The same applies to London hospitals. That is the problem.
Along with the problem of GP fund-holding, we have the fact that the general practitioners do not have the incentive to follow their patients' preferences. They follow their own preferences and would seek a treatment centre which is better for fund-holders than consumers. The purchaser is not the consumer and therefore it is not always possible to satisfy the consumer's preferences: it is the purchaser's preferences that are satisfied. So that is our problem and we have to come to terms with it.
Let me now direct my remarks to primary health care. We are told in the Statement that the London initiative zone will be established, and we welcome that. We are also told that a capital investment of £170 million will be provided over the next six years. My first and most important question is: is this new money, or is it money which has been top-sliced from the NHS budget so that other regions in the country will lose in comparison with London? Of course we should like this money to be new money because under the changing arrangements for per capita fund-holding, London as a region has been losing NHS money in any case. Is this new money which is coming back to London or is it money that is being taken away from somebody else?
Further, we may ask: is this money enough? We know that the King's Fund estimated £250 million as the necessary amount. The shadow Secretary for Health in another place has calculated that, if we really want to upgrade all the GP facilities that need upgrading in London, the cost would be more likely to be £400 million. I question whether that will be enough money. Perhaps a more important question is: is this all the money there is, or will there be more coming from under another heading? For example, if we are to recruit GPs from outside the capital or if that recruitment is to be improved in other ways, will there be any extra money for recruiting them, as well as for capital investment in GP facilities? We would like to know the answers.
A reference is made in the Statement to the role the social services are expected to play in the effective integration of local health and social services. We know that under the new arrangements for care in the community the amount of money under that heading is not sufficient. Also in certain crucial aspects, such as money available for treatment in relation to drugs and alcohol, non-ringfencing will make things even more difficult rather than less difficult. I wonder whether there will be any different arrangements as a consequence of this Statement.
I must say that I was somewhat amused by this primary health care challenge fund. I have heard the city challenge experience floated before, but it was abandoned because it was not very successful. This is a city challenge mark 2. That does not have as much money, as the previous one, but I assume that we can go on trying until one succeeds. The Statement says that we are looking to others to contribute to the fund. I should like the noble Baroness to tell us who the
1014
others are. Is this an invitation to privatisation of primary health care in London or will somebody else give the money?
Turning to hospital reorganisation, I have one comment. No doubt other Lords will comment on different hospitals. It still remains the case that the background will be a steady shrinkage of hospital facilities in London. Although I welcome the retention of the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden Hospitals—close to the hearts of many of your Lordships—if we go into the detail of the document, Making London Better, in paragraph 62 on page 12 it clearly says that the Government expect the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton to contract as a result of the internal market. If there is to be a contraction of this joint hospital over the next few years, one would like to know the timetable of that contraction and how it will be managed.
One would have the same sort of feeling about St. Bartholomew's. I am sure that many noble Lords would like to comment on this, but I simply say that there seem to be fragmented strategies of dealing with that hospital. I would welcome a clear decision now rather than in a few months, but if there is to be a decision, it would be good to know how quickly the noble Baroness thinks that the problem with this hospital will be clarified and what the consequences will be for the staff there. One background factor as a consequence of the internal market is the proposal regarding the special health authorities and the internal market. This has not been mentioned, but I should like to ask the noble Baroness to explain to us how she envisages the role of the internal market and the special health authorities.
Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the consequences for the staff concerned. The Statement mentions in paragraph 38 that a special clearing house will be established to help the staff. Do the Government envisage redundancies? If so, what is their estimate of the numbers involved? The longer document mentions redundancies but there is no mention of them in the Statement and one would like to know how that matter will be dealt with. I—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do apologise to the noble Lord. I know that this was a very long Statement but I have been looking up in the little red book. Comments are meant to be brief, and I would point out that the noble Lord has been talking for 12 minutes. I would not in any way wish to stop him, but I wonder whether he could do a sort of "shorthand" for the rest.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I am just about to finish. I will give a cautious welcome to the Statement, but much anxiety remains.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I personally should like to go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and not merely thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement, but also to thank her for the extent that she may have been responsible for the content of the Statement, much of which has

1015
been warmly welcomed by my colleagues on these Benches. I particularly welcome some of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has referred.
In paragraph 11, the Statement says:
"The first step has to be a substantial improvement in primary care in London".
I certainly say, "Hear, Hear" to that; but my fear—one that I expressed when we had a short debate on the Tomlinson Report some time ago—is that although everybody agreed that there had to be an improvement in primary care in London, that would have to wait until the money had been saved as a result of the hospital reorganisation. This Statement clearly seems to say that the first step is to be a substantial improvement in primary care in London: in other words that does not have to wait until all these difficult decisions about hospitals have been taken and until whatever money can be saved has been saved. The noble Baroness referred to the London initiative zone and what would be done as a first step. The Minister will be providing £170 million of capital investment. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked whether that was new money. There is some more new money I think in the next paragraph—over £40 million additional funds are to be given to primary health services. Is this new money?
I also ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai: is it enough money? Different estimates have been made; and there is no doubt at all that a very substantial number of general practitioners' surgeries are below a standard which should be regarded as acceptable in other parts of the country. They are regarded as acceptable in London because that is the only way they can get general practitioners to work at all; and it certainly is not acceptable to me. So I should like to know about that.
One specific question arises from that part of the Statement. The Statement continues:
"We will be looking at new ways of providing services: by employing some GPs directly".
General practitioners are not employed; they are independent contractors with contracts with family health service authorities. In the previous debate that we had on the subject, I mentioned that the Government had set an example by saying that in areas where patients cannot find a dentist to give them dental treatment under the National Health Service, the department would appoint a salaried dentist in that area to do National Health Service work. Is that what is meant here? Are the Government going to appoint a salaried GP in certain areas, for example, to treat the homeless or people who are unable to get on a doctor's list for some other reason?
Most of the excitement about the Tomlinson Report has concerned the hospitals. That is the glamorous aspect and what all the argument has been about. I believe that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is impossible to achieve the highest standards of excellence in every specialty of medicine, however narrow, in every hospital. Not only is it impossible, it is nonsensical and wasteful to attempt it. That is what London hospitals have been trying to do. They have all tried to do everything. That is not the way in which we should proceed. There are certain extremely expensive specialties in medicine at which
1016
we are becoming very good indeed; but there is no reason why they should be undertaken everywhere. Some only need to be undertaken somewhere, as long as they are carried out, and in sufficient quantity, and as long as everyone knows where they are carried out.
That is one of the problems. When casualty departments close, nobody tells anybody. Not a day goes by when a taxi does not take an injured person to the casualty department of a hospital which has in fact not had one for two or three years. But that has not been sufficiently well advertised. As a doctor attending noble Lords and Members of the other place, I had the embarrassing experience some time ago of attending the wife of a noble Lord who had suddenly suffered from a detached retina. I sent her rapidly to a hospital only for her to find that when she arrived there the ophthalmic department had been closed. Once changes are made and there is rationalisation, it is very important that publicity is given to the changes so that everybody knows where everything is, what services are provided and where.
I see that the noble Baroness is looking at her watch. I shall be as quick as I can and I shall finish in a moment. In a sense, the decision on Bart's has been postponed. The noble Baroness said that there are three options for the future of Bart's.
"I have set in hand an urgent appraisal of each of these options, to be concluded by the Autumn".
I should like to ask her a question, of which I have given notice. Somebody whose advice I value—sufficiently to allow him to operate on me recently—has told me that Bart's is built on a Roman site of vast archaeological importance. Is that true? I am told that if it is true, then if Bart's is pulled down the site could not be sold and used for something else. That is a relevant question, and I should like to know the answer to it.
The Statement includes proposals concerning implications for manpower and making sure that skills are kept within the NHS by doing this, that and the other. The important point is not what is intended for the future, but what is done now. Consultants are already leaving certain hospitals where there is uncertainty about their future. The Government must ensure that consultants and people with great skills are not lost to the National Health Service. Efforts must be made now to make sure that they do not feel anxious and feel that they must depart and go abroad, as many are. Unless steps are taken now—not the steps which the noble Baroness says that she intends to take—we shall lose some doctors and we shall regret their loss. Otherwise, I warmly welcome the Statement, so far as it goes. We shall hear much more later.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on the question of the internal market. We do not accept that the decline in London services is due to the internal market. The decline in London has been taking place for many decades. Indeed, in the past 10 years London has lost over 5,000 beds. The tragedy has been that they have been lost in a piecemeal fashion so that we are still running very inefficient hospitals.

1017
The costs in inner London at present are subsidised by the rest of the country, to the tune of £50 million in the current year. We expect that the figure will be greater next year. It is the subsidy which makes London competitive, and it absorbs the inner London weighting and the other on-costs.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Winstanley, asked about the funding of primary care Primary care money for the coming year—£43.5 million—is additional money. In future years we will invest £170 million in primary care over six years, and clearly the source of that money will depend to some extent on the expenditure round. For personal social services in inner London there will be £30 million new money from the special transitional grant.
In relation to challenge funding, in my experience challenge funding stimulates a great many ideas and introduces innovation. We believe that it is the way forward to stimulate people to think along new lines. We are aware that there are a number of charitable bodies and institutions in London which wish to give to the National Health Service. Traditionally, they have given to hospitals and buildings in terms of investment in bricks and mortar. We want to change that. We want to change the whole shape of the health service in London so that it is driven by primary care. That will give those people, institutions and organisations an opportunity to do that.
Finally, I should like to pick up the point on staffing. Unfortunately I cannot be specific about the number of redundancies. Of course it is our wish that there should be as few compulsory redundancies as possible. That is why we shall invest in retraining, in the clearing house and in other measures. Clearly, however, there are too many decisions still to be made in the autumn for it to be possible at this moment to say what the exact shape of the acute services will be for the next few years.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are delighted that the Government have rejected the recommendation of Sir Bernard Tomlinson to close the Royal Marsden and Royal Brompton Hospitals? Many of us would like warmly to congratulate the Secretary of State on her very sensible decision to keep those wonderful hospitals going. I add in parentheses that I have particular reason to have a high regard for the Royal Brompton Hospital because a year ago my wife was looked after there splendidly during a severe illness. I have seen the hospital in action and, as many of your Lordships know, it is one of the great hospitals of the world.
In that context, I am sure by accident, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when putting his question said that it was recommended that those two hospitals "should" contract. If the noble Lord looks at the paper he will see that it does not say that. It says that they "may" contract, and that is profoundly different.
In general, is my noble friend aware that we realise that the Government have an extremely difficult
1018
situation to handle and that our confidence in the Secretary of State, and in the noble Baroness, has been greatly enhanced by these decisions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his gracious comments. I shall relay to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State your Lordships' pleasure at the retention of the Royal Marsden and Royal Brompton Hospitals. My noble friend is right. For the first time ever the special health authorities will be facing competition from within the internal market. It is true that they may contract. It is also true that they may expand. That will depend entirely on how purchasers value those services and whether they wish to purchase them for their own populations.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in relating the population of London to expenditure, has the noble Baroness taken sufficient notice of the daytime population, and the enormous influx of commuters who make heavy demands especially on emergency services?
I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me but I did not hear her say anything about the future of the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, which was most dismissively pushed aside by Tomlinson with a suggestion that it was so bad that it should be shut down. I believe that she has received a document from the trust of that hospital entitled, The Myths of Tomlinson. I hope that she takes note of what the trust said.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the commuter population has been taken into account in the figures that I gave.
With regard to the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, the proposal is that the regional health authority should consult on the merged management of that hospital with the UCH and Middlesex; and that it should initiate that in May. It will be subject to consultation and then the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital will be able to have its shout and tell us its views on that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a pity that a Statement should generate such long, wide-ranging speeches from the Opposition Front Benches? Perhaps I may echo what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said: that relief is widespread that the Government have had the wisdom to reject the quite extraordinary proposal to relocate the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden in the Charing Cross Hospital. I do not know whether it is fair to ask her the source of that original advice. I have always suspected that it did not originate from Sir Bernard Tomlinson but from the North West Thames Authority.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the advice to keep the status quo as outlined in the report has come from many sources, not least from noble Lords who were vociferous in their campaign to ensure that the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton were kept as an

1019
entity. I am afraid that I am not entirely sure where the original advice came from that they should merge and be housed in the Charing Cross Hospital.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Winstanley in thanking the Minister for the Statement, which is heartening to all of us involved in the health service. I am particularly pleased that the emphasis is on improved primary and community care, as stated at the beginning of the Statement.
With regard to the London initiative zone, we welcome the £170 million, although that may not be enough. Will next year's allocation of £40 million be part of that £170 million? I presume that it is not an extra £40 million. It will take six years to implement the improvement of community care. I therefore urge on the noble Baroness that excessive closure of London hospital beds before the community services are in place would create tremendous dangers.
Lastly, I thank the noble Baroness for including the relocation of Queen Charlotte's Hospital and Chelsea Hospital among the reviews. Those hospitals are particularly near to my own heart.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we shall be investing heavily in primary care before the closure of hospitals takes place. That point has been made strongly in your Lordships' House and the Secretary of State and her Ministers have taken it on board.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that, despite press reports, the Statement is not a total surrender to vested interests. Perhaps I may now ask her some questions.
First, there is a deafening silence even in Making London Better about medical education and medical schools. For instance, only one of the UCH and Middlesex sites is to be used. Yet many additional services are to be put on that one site. What is to happen to the clinical teaching on that site? As the noble Baroness knows, the pre-clinical school at UCH is pre-eminent. Are the clinical students to be spread among the Royal Free Hospital and various other hospitals in North West London?
The same question applies to the St. Thomas', King's and Guy's consortium. Can the noble Baroness give us any encouragement that one of those sites south of the river will be used for educational purposes, perhaps not merely medical educational purposes?
Will the noble Baroness also enlarge on the teaching arrangements of the Royal London and Queen Mary hospitals? In her various options for Bart's, has she made some arrangements for a change in the present educational experience in those areas?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the proposals outlined by the Government today are largely in line with those proposed by Professor Tomlinson in his report. There is overwhelming acceptance that there is a need to tie in the medical schools with the University of London and the various colleges. The configuration is very much that which was set out, and has been warmly welcomed in particular by the University
1020
College and Middlesex Hospitals. It is our intention that clinical teaching should continue to take place somewhere within that area on that site.
With regard to St. Thomas', King's and Guy's, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that there will continue to be medical education south of the river in addition to that at St. George's Hospital.
Lastly, on Bart's, I know that much concern was expressed in your Lordships' House about the Charterhouse site, research and everything that was happening on that site. The Government intend that that should remain as it is now.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I welcome the general thrust of the Government's response to Tomlinson, in particular its emphasis on the provision of improved primary care in the inner city. I have a personal and special interest in the proposed merger of Guy's and St. Thomas'. Does my noble friend agree that the future of those two great teaching hospitals is inextricably intertwined with the United Medical and Dental Schools, the Nightingale and Guy's nursing school and the proposed merger with King's College? Therefore, any meaningful site appraisal must take account of both the clinical and educational issues involved.
Will my noble friend confirm that Tomlinson recommended a review of weighted capitation? Will that be undertaken urgently? I judge that the present system almost certainly underestimates and short changes the health needs of those living in deprived inner city areas.
Since we often talk of value for money in the context of the National Health Service, does my noble friend agree that we receive astonishingly good value for the money we spend on our National Health Service? It is almost certainly better value for money than anywhere else in the world. We should pay tribute to the staff involved in providing such splendid service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I believe that the embryonic trust could not be in safer hands. I am delighted that he is helping to guide it through.
On the question of education, I am in some difficulty because clearly a lot of those matters are the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Therefore, it is important that they are drawn into all the decisions that are reached.
With regard to weighted capitation, I know that there has been a lot of discussion as to whether the current system based on standard mortality ratios is fair and whether one ought to introduce a deprivation payment as well, weighted accordingly. I believe that at the moment a working party is considering that.
Finally, I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by my noble friend on the good value, dedication and commitment of staff in the National Health Service. I believe that it is the best in the world; I believe that it is the envy of the world.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be aware that I commenced my parliamentary life in the Ministry of Health 47 years

1021
ago. She will know that I fundamentally disagree with the whole concept of the market in the health service. Nevertheless, I wish to thank her for her Statement.
I wish to ask her one general question and one particular one. Will she agree that the whole process upon which she has embarked represents a levelling down of the service rather than a levelling up? Will she further agree that her statement that over a period of three years the reforms will mean more money for better services outside London of necessity implies that there will be significant financial savings within the London area? Can she give the figure which the department has in mind for the economies which she proposes to make or the economies that will result?—that is, without taking into account for the moment both the capital expenditure that she has already mentioned and the capital receipts that may result when certain sites are evacuated for the benefit of property developers.
Will she also answer a further question? There is a slight differentiation in her Statement between her treatment of St. Thomas' and Guy's, where she refers to a management consolidation, and her treatment relating to Northwick and St. Mark's where a definite physical separation is involved. Will she confirm that the facilities at St. Thomas' and Guy's will physically remain there, bearing in mind that St. Thomas' in particular may have a future association with Members of this House and another place when they fall slightly below par in health?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the distinguished career of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I live in hope that over time I shall persuade him as to the merits of the internal market. I do not believe that it is a levelling down of the service; I believe that it is a levelling up. One only has to see how many more patients are treated year on year and the work that is being done by GP fund-holders in bringing more hospital and acute services into the community where we know people want to be treated, to appreciate that.
I cannot give the noble Lord accurate figures regarding the financial savings. Clearly, the Government are determined to be efficient and effective in terms of providing health care, but I have to say to your Lordships that that is not the prime motivation for the changes in London. The prime motivation is to give Londoners a better service which we believe they have for too long been denied.
Finally, on the question of St. Thomas' and Guy's Hospitals, the proposal is that there should be consultation, which is going on now, for a trust. If, at the end of the consultation, a decision is taken that a trust should be formed, then it is up to the trust to bring proposals to the Secretary of State regarding future facilities. I think it unlikely that there will still be two sites, but it is important that the trust board looks at all the detail and comes forward with a recommendation to the Secretary of State in the autumn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State on being
1022
prepared to face down the special interest groups which are obsessed by hospitals and sites in the city, and to give special preference to improving primary health care in this city. It has for a long time received the poorest quality of primary health care anywhere in the United Kingdom. If she and any noble Lords are in any doubt as to the good sense of our proposals regarding health care, perhaps I may invite my noble friend to discuss with her noble friend, the present Minister of State at the Scottish Office, whom I see on the Bench behind her, the wisdom of the policies of previous Scottish Ministers with responsibility for health in putting money into primary health care, building new facilities for the community, bringing together single-handed practices in groups, and in very many ways concentrating health care for ordinary folk at their GPs' surgeries, rather than through accident and emergency services in hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much support my noble friend's view on the primacy of primary care. As always, we have much to learn from Scotland.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the emphasis in the Statement on primary care which many of us have been urging for some time. As the noble Baroness may be aware, one of the problems of organising primary care in London is the fragmentation of the mechanisms. Can she be more explicit about the way in which the London Implementation Group will work? Will it have executive authority? Will it become in effect a pan-London regional health authority? How will primary care relate in management to the London Implementation Group in terms of the London initiative zone? Will they be coterminous? Coterminousity has been one of the problems with which those of us who have been working in London have battled for a long time.
I raise one further point on the new funding. In pursuance of what the Minister said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, can she expand slightly on the new money which will be available? Is the new money to be given immediately to be the only new money, with the rest being taken out of the regional budgets in the next few years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I have 30 seconds in which to answer the question. On the subject of the London Implementation Group and how it relates to the management of the health service, particularly the London initiative zone, perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to the report which came out today, Making London Better. It is clearly put there in the appendices.
With regard to the funding, there is nothing further I wish to add, except that the £43.5 million will be available for London healthcare from 1st April this year.
Lord Howell: My Lords, in the seconds that are left, I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the accident and emergency cover for Westminster. I could not entirely comprehend that long Statement, but it contains the prospect that we may lose

1023
Westminster, St. Thomas', University College Hospital, and Middlesex Hospital. Where on earth are people to go in an emergency in the district of Westminster?
Further, may we be told that the Westminster Children's Hospital will be amply replaced, if it has to close? It is a unique service and needs to be kept together, with sufficient beds to maintain the service now given to the nation at Westminster.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am in penalty time, so I shall be brief. I just wish to say that people who at the moment attend the accident and emergency department at the Westminster Hospital will in future go to St Thomas' or the new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital which has just opened.
Lord Howell: My Lords, what about Bart's?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in this city we have 11 teaching hospitals with accident and emergency departments within a six-mile radius. No other city in the world has so many hospitals with so many A&E departments. I regret that I forget the second part of the question.
Lord Howell: The children's hospital.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is also being moved into the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
5.8 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill and read a first time.

Business of the House
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think that it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill were to be taken after the Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects I beg to move that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill be postponed until after the Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Merlyn-Rees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
5.11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Alport) in the Chair.]
Clause 10 [Visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Earl said: This clause is concerned with denying rights of appeal to people refused entry clearance. The particular words which the amendment seeks to delete apply to persons who enter the country with the intention of studying but without having been accepted for any course of study. Those people, if refused entry, are to have no right of appeal.
I have no wish to criticise immigration officers. But they are not infallible. They are not like the legendary professor of theology who is said to have refused the papacy because he would not give up his infallibility. Twenty per cent. of immigration appeals are successful. So the possibility of error exists. In moving the amendment, I want to wear one of my old hats, that of the director of graduate studies in the history department of a major American university—in this case Yale.
It is one of the sensible principles about legislation stated by Aristotle that people should be subject to the laws that they make. It is a little difficult to apply that to immigration law. I have occupied a position where I would be dealing on the receiving end with the effects of the Bill. I was responsible for advising some 60 graduate students working for Yale PhDs. About half of them were working on the history of countries outside the United States. Immigration questions arose from time to time. It was quite vital to those people, who were not accepted for any course of study in this country because they were working for American degrees, to be able to enter the country to whose history they had chosen to devote their careers.
In the United States, one understands quite quickly that the political importance of any country has something to do with the amount of work done on its history and culture. The patronage structure of Washington makes that very clear indeed. The standing of Britain in the United States has a great deal to do with the study of Britain's history and its culture. The declining place of British studies in United States' universities is a diminution of British influence. One might observe that the increase of German influence in the United States has a great deal to do with the amount of patronage given to the study of German history and literature. So if the study of our history is diminished, that will diminish our political influence. I believe that Clause 10 will accelerate that process.
From time to time Yale graduates got into trouble in foreign countries. It was necessary to make phone calls, write letters and make all the usual representations. But Yale is a proud place. It took for granted that its graduates who were refused entry to anywhere had a right of appeal. Yale expected to be able to use its network of contacts to try to give force to that appeal. The refusal of any right of appeal will be viewed there as a snub of the sort that a university of Yale's standing should not take lightly. Had I been there and facing this Bill, I would not have seen it possible to argue against that view.
In that job one came to recognise a list of difficult countries. There were certain countries to which one did not encourage people to go. In the middle 1980s, Romania and Iran were widely recognised as impossible. Others, such as the former Soviet Union, Zimbabwe or Nicaragua, were widely recognised as difficult countries. One mildly discouraged the study of topics which took people to them. The passage of this clause would add the United Kingdom to the list of difficult countries. If I were advising Yale graduate students again, I would have to advise them accordingly. That would be a great diminution of our national influence in a university which has produced the last two Presidents of the United States. That seems to me to be against our national interest.
Moreover, the clause does not deal with applicants for asylum. It deals only with those who somebody fears might perhaps at some future date apply for asylum. It reminds me of the late Sir Alan Herbert's epitaph on an archbishop:
"My predecessors, fighting sin,
Did their best to bring men in,
But I was best without a doubt
At keeping the unworthy out.
So when I died, the Church was one,
And that was me".
I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The debate on the amendment moved by the noble Earl affords the first occasion at Committee stage to consider control of immigration. I shall take my broad approach to that from the Conservative manifesto, which says:
"We are determined to maintain our present system of immigration controls unless we have evidence that other arrangements would be equally satisfactory and cost-effective".
On that basis, first of all I question, with the utmost respect, whether Amendment No. 47 would in fact achieve the intention of the noble Earl.
The present system of general application operates under Section 13 of the Act of 1971 and the Immigration Rules. So the question is whether other arrangements, including the proposed amendment, are equally satisfactory and cost-effective compared with that excellent system. It is respectfully suggested that such is not the case on either score. Subject to what is said by the Committee today, Clause 10 should not stand part as amended by Amendment No. 47, or for that matter as amended by Amendments Nos. 48 or 49.
1026
At one time I would have supported Amendment No. 49, in which subsection (3B) incorporates Amendment No. 50 which stood in my name. I have since changed my mind in the hope that in the light of our discussion, my noble friend the Minister will be able to take back Clause 10 for further consideration.
Clause 10, as it stands, is a derogation from Section 13. It fails to ensure, in accordance with the assurance of my noble friend the Minister on Second Reading, that applications for entry are dealt with fairly. In the result it will cast an unacceptable burden upon the judiciary, as explained by three noble and learned Lords at Second Reading, at no little inconvenience and expense. Amendment No. 47 seeks to exclude category (c). The effect of that exclusion would be to confer a right of appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1971 upon that category when no such right applies for categories (a), (b) and (d). That is why I suggest that the amendment might not achieve the intention for which it is advanced.
It would not be acceptable especially as regards category (b)—the student accepted for six months. I do not need to go into detail for one need only refer to the Oxford Dictionary to see that in practical terms the only effective distinction between paragraphs (b) and (c) is the six months' acceptance.
As regards any rights of appeal, surely category (b) should be accorded priority over (c), or at least equal treatment, which is the yardstick by which I seek to measure my contributions. The amendment concerns both entry clearance, where requisite, issued outside the United Kingdom and leave to enter the United Kingdom on arrival without an entry clearance, when such entry clearance is not requisite. As I understand it, that was the burden of the noble Earl's contribution.
Lord Beloff: I do not wish to follow my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in widening the debate. I rise only to point out that in my view, with some experience of American universities, what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is unanswerable. The distinction between that and being admitted to a course of study may be evident to those of us who know about universities and research, but not immediately evident in a favourable way to an immigration officer. He may know what is meant by a course of study, if not at university level, then in relation to a school or college. But the question of being admitted in order to pursue studies for one's home university, which is an essential part of international academic comity, is something which the Committee should ensure is not threatened even in a minor degree.
Baroness David: My name is appended to the amendment and I support also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. At Second Reading I spoke about the position of students under the Bill and how they would be deterred. It would be a pity if we did not encourage overseas students to come to this country as much as possible. They are a great help to us and carry the word overseas. We should do everything we can to encourage them. We know from the number of appeals granted, mentioned by the noble Earl, that if

1027
the right of appeal goes a great many people who should be granted entry into this country will not obtain entry.
Before January 1989 immigration officers were restrained from making some arbitrary decisions because they knew there was a strong possibility that those decisions would be reviewed by a Member of Parliament and eventually reversed. After that right of intervention was removed, airport refusals increased significantly. If the present right of appeal is removed, then it is logical to assume that entry clearance refusals of the targeted groups will increase. That is to be deplored and I strongly support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Two Members of the Committee referred to American universities and made a particularly valuable argument in favour of the amendment. I should like to add to their remarks from my own American experience. When I finished my undergraduate degree I thought I should like to go to an American university. I wrote to all the American universities I had heard of, including Yale. They all turned me down. I assumed that all the states that I had heard of had universities and wrote to all of them. Eventually, Ohio State University, which turned out to be one of seven state universities, gave me a fellowship without interviewing me.
I was fortunate. I was able to obtain a paid place at an American university without being interviewed there. Yale, Harvard and the other more prestigious universities would have required me to go there and be interviewed. That is exactly what the amendment is concerned with. It would remove paragraph (c) and so remove the right of appeal against the decision of an immigration officer who was confronted by somebody who wanted to come to a British university but could not achieve entrance to a course of study, British university or college without an interview here. Surely it is a modest improvement to suggest that people should be allowed in for interview even though they have not yet been accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, widened the issue, understandably, into a general objection to Clause 10. I sympathise with much of what he said. When we approach these matters it is our practice to try and deal with particularly outstanding injustices in legislation and see whether there is any movement on the part of government. As the noble Lord will know from looking at the Marshalled List, we go on to criticise the whole basis of Clause 10. I look forward to his support. However, as a revising Chamber it is our duty to seek specific changes to a clause and not to subsume all of our activities to taking out entire clauses.
I support the amendment. I hope that it can be taken quickly and that we can move as soon as possible to the issue of Clause 10 as a whole.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I should like to make some comments about the whole of Clause 10 and would follow the argument that he put forward. Each of the categories can have good arguments made out for them. Nevertheless, the case made by the noble
1028
Earl, Lord Russell, for category (c) is a strong one. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response. I support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My contribution will be short. If a course of study that a student comes to this country to follow happens to be on our legal system, I should hate his first lesson to be that he has no right of appeal.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I can suggest that it would greatly help Members of the Committee to make up their minds as to the desirability or otherwise of Amendment No. 47 and indeed other amendments to Clause 10 if we knew how other advanced democracies act in the matter of admission of students and short-term visitors. For example, do the United States, Australia, Japan, Switzerland and France—to name a few at random—grant the right of appeal against refusal of leave to enter? Do only some do so or none? It would greatly help if either the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, could say.
Lord Hylton: It is already clear that there are severe problems at the level of university study. I am sorry to say that there are also severe problems at the level of courses of less than six months' duration.
It has been brought to my notice by religious bodies in England that in recent years immigration officers have been doing their utmost to refuse entry and admission to people such as ordinands in overseas countries. I heard of the case of a lady who was the director of an orphanage in Nigeria. Immigration officers seem to be taking that attitude on the grounds that while following such a course those people may change their minds and decide to remain in this country. In the cases quoted the evidence was slight or non-existent. Those people already had return tickets before proposing to come here. I hope that the Government will look closely at that specific question as well as the whole question of Clause 10 and perhaps have some considerable second thoughts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I find the amendment difficult to justify. The intention of studying but without having been accepted for any course of study would enable anyone to say, "I have come with the intention of studying." There would be no conceivable check on them. They would not need to say that they had been accepted by a specific university. They could simply say, "I have come and I intend to study." That seems to be a quite impossibly easy way of getting through our very necessary controls. I hope that my noble friend will reject the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: That is not what the Bill says. The amendment is all about the right of such people to appeal.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is absolutely right. We have heard a great deal about the loss of university students, and so forth. I want to make it perfectly clear that we have always encouraged students to come here. Nothing in Clause 10 will make it any more difficult for a student or a

1029
prospective student to be granted a visa or leave to enter. I do not believe that these changes will make the genuine overseas student—that, presumably, is the person about whom the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned—any less inclined to choose the United Kingdom as a country in which he wishes to study. One must remember that a decision for a student to come to the United Kingdom is much more likely to be based on the quality and the relevance of the courses which he is going to study than on whether or not his right of appeal for entry should be refused.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he would have to advise his students that the United Kingdom is one of the more difficult countries to enter. I just hope that the noble Earl will not do any such thing. He would be misdirecting them. My noble friend Lord Beloff said that the case is unanswerable. What are we looking at? The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about people coming to university, and so forth. But they are not covered by this provision. All paragraph (b) in Clause 10 refers to is those who follow a course of study of not more than six months' duration. It is those people who come or who may apply to come saying, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, "I am going to study" who will be caught by this and not the person who comes to a university for a long period of time.
What are we trying to do here? All Clause 10 does is to seek to achieve a streamlining of the immigration appeals system by distinguishing between those decisions which have the most fundamental impact on a person's future life and those which do not. All three categories in this clause—visitors, short-term students and prospective students—are people who are admitted to the United Kingdom for a maximum of six months with no automatic expectation that they will be allowed to stay longer at the end of that period. I suggest that if we retain appeal rights specifically for short-term or prospective short-term students while we take them away from visitors, we are likely to encourage an increase in the number of people who will falsely claim to be students. They may well come with supporting documents from dubious colleges. That would be undesirable. I can only repeat to the Committee that the purpose is that only those people who come for a period of less than six months will be caught by this provision and not all students.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply and I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I never said that Yale was infallible.
The Minister is still thinking of people who are admitted to courses at British universities. I was talking about people taking degrees of foreign universities which compel them to study in this country. It was perfectly normal for people in the last few months of their PhD to need to come back to this country for a short period to check a few final points without which the work would not be concluded. Those are the people who will expect a right of appeal. I warn the Minister that the first time a black American student is denied leave to appeal after being refused the right of entry we risk provoking a bonfire of the vanities. I ask the noble Earl to take the advice
1030
of his right honourable friends at the Foreign Office before we consider this again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 48. Should it be agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 49 owing to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("not") to end of line 35 and insert ("without first obtaining the leave of an adjudicator be entitled either to appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance or to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter when at the time of the refusal he failed to hold a current entry clearance.
(3B) Leave to appeal under this section may only be granted by the adjudicator if, on the evidence adduced, it appears that any grounds upon which leave to enter was refused as unjustified by the immigration officer may have been erroneous." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may start by making a short reference to the aetiology of this amendment. At Second Reading I congratulated the Government on their change of heart in allowing asylum seekers a right to a proper opportunity to appeal. Their generosity was quickly repented because in order to provide the resources for that gesture they proposed to withdraw a right of appeal that had existed for more than 20 years. I expressed my sympathy for not wishing to accord such applicants the full right to obtain the advantage of the entire judicial process and I suggested a via media; namely, that there should be an entitlement to apply to an adjudicator for leave to appeal and that if the adjudicator, having considered the matter, refused that leave, that would be the end of the matter. It was to be a simple filter process of the kind that we apply to certain county court decisions, to the Court of Appeal and to appeals against sentences from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I accordingly tabled Amendment No. 49.
To that was put down an intention to seek to amend my amendment, which is found in (3B):
"Leave to appeal under this section may only be granted by the adjudicator if, on the evidence adduced, it appears that any grounds upon which leave to enter was refused as unjustified by the immigration officer may have been erroneous".
Rather like the fourth amendment to the Motion which we heard today in regard to the committee on medical ethics, I took the view that that was adequately implied, but I was also advised that amendments to amendments cause confusion. Therefore, to ensure that there was no confusion, I adopted the amendment which had been put in by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
When I looked at the Marshalled List I saw that his name, which I had expected to find there, was absent. I then had a sudden and traumatic recollection of an idiosyncratic Chancery Judge, Mr. Justice Roxburgh, who many here may remember. When one sought to justify one's statement of claim or one's statement of defence he would point out very persuasively that it was in error and required a significant amendment. If one was foolish one fell into that trap and obtained his gracious leave to amend as he had suggested. He

1031
would then point out, slowly and deliberately, that the amended result puts one entirely out of court because one no longer disclosed a cause of action or defence, and that was the end of one's case. I wondered whether, not seeing the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell, I had fallen into a trap. However, he has explained that he has had second thoughts, though I know not yet quite what they are. That is a treat to come.
The basis for this amendment is a very simple one. If the noble Earl had been able to say that immigration officers are infallible, we would probably have doubted it. But if he had produced statistics showing that out of the number of applications for leave to appeal followed by the appeals they were nearly all failures, one could understand that he would wish to say that appeals are a waste of time and that he was cutting out a waste of time. But he is not, understandably, in that fortunate position, because we know that one in 5.4 cases—around 1,400 cases last year—succeeded on appeal.
Therefore, there is to be removed a right of appeal which has existed for over 20 years and which has proved successful in a high number of cases. Added to that, if one gets it wrong in one case in five when there is a right of appeal, one can be tolerably certain that future statistics will more likely show that it has been got wrong in one out of two cases or one out of three, because, consciously or subconsciously, without the opportunity to have a decision scrutinised, arbitrariness tends to become part of the decision process. One has not got a judge or adjudicator looking over one's shoulder as one comes to a decision. One has the supreme position—rather like that which, subject always to what goes on in Europe, we enjoy in the Appellate Committee in the House of Lords—that there will be no one except the professors to criticise one's decisions. That is the second point.
The third point is very important. Without a supervisory process one will get variations in decisions which will not be apparent and cannot be controlled. It will not come to light that irrelevant matters are being taken into consideration in one area and ignored in another. The fourth point is that it will have an infectious effect on the person who has an adverse decision. He will be tainted; it will be on his passport; future applications will be prejudiced and what may be worse, when he seeks to go to another country which pays great respect to our judicial system, they will say, "If in England you have failed with all their procedures as regards natural justice and the like, then you really cannot be an acceptable person".
Lastly, I come to a point which has already been referred to. Inevitably this situation will involve an increase in the number of applications for judicial review. If the applicant is told, "You are refused permission" and he has no other avenue open to him and he is convinced that the decision is a totally unreasonable one, then he will be forced into an application for judicial review. That will produce the counter-production which a number of the clauses in the Bill produce and which I referred to in the past; namely, that it will cause delay in dealing with that
1032
person's application and result in further clogging up of already clogged up lists in the Divisional Court and subsequently in the Court of Appeal.
I know that the noble Earl's eyebrows always go up when I use this phrase: all that is being sought is a very modest amendment to the Bill. In this amendment I am not seeking a right to appeal, but merely that there should be a right to apply to a person of judicial experience in this field (an adjudicator) for leave to appeal. He will receive the documents and any additional papers which the immigration officer may not have. He will be able to say to himself, "This is a clear case where the refusal was justified" and that will be the end of it. Alternatively, he will say, "There is something odd about this. The application is backed with a personal letter from the noble Earl or some impeccable references. Something must have gone wrong and this matter should be dealt with by the appropriate appeal tribunal".
To deal with that decision on paper would take an experienced officer a matter of minutes, if that is not an exaggeration. The strain on resources would be virtually nil and certainly not enough to justify taking away an established right. This is very important. We are not seeking a new right which will involve resources: we are seeking to protect a part of an established right which will reduce the demand on resources while still maintaining what this Government have always emphasised—namely, access to justice. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in every word that he has said. I go further. When we come to decide whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill, I shall certainly support my noble friend on the Front Bench. In a sense, that is a fall-back position, but, as the noble and learned lord has said, it is an extremely important fall-back position. His figures and mine may be slightly different. I have a particular interest in the Indian sub-continent. I understand that there were about 1,700 successful visit appeals from the sub-continent last year. Those appeals must have had some validity or they would not have been accorded. One can only assume that all those people would not in future have the right to come as visitors of whatever type to this country unless such an amendment is carried. The majority of these visit applications relate to temporary family reunions and include marriages, funerals, other family matters and, in some cases, are made to enable a grandparent, for instance, to visit family not seen for 10 or 15 years.
Where their relatives have settled in this country, a large number of people from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are asking not to come and live here but to have a temporary visit to see those relatives. It would be unlike this Committee to deny that kind of family relationship, which we would all support. We are thinking of grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and all the relatives of families established in the United Kingdom. Many of them have been visiting here for over a generation. Many of them are second and third generation visitors here.

1033
Their relatives here have the right to appeal for all kinds of other issues. Such appeals and judicial examinations exist for those who are unhappy about their income support entitlement, invalidity benefit, dismissal from employment, housing benefit and even the council tax. For those people, how much more important is it that they should be able to have a relative to visit them for what may be a comparatively short but very precious time? It would be hard if the Government were to say no to what the noble and learned Lord called a very modest amendment.
I agree with him that, if this appeal mechanism were removed, then the only remedy would be to apply for judicial review or to write to the Member of Parliament concerned or a Member of this House. I believe that those in another place would find themselves deluged with letters of representation each of which would require several hours to be spent in the preparation of correspondence from the Member and a reply from the Minister. That would apply in either House. The Minister would need to have access to the original papers used by the entry clearance officer, thereby bringing much more work upon the often overstretched entry clearance staff.
What is being proposed is the abolition of a system of appeals which has been in place for over 20 years since 1971. It is often cited in support of the abolition of appeal rights for visitors that they constitute half of all the outstanding appeals. That is true, but the irony is that visit appeals are the quickest to complete, taking on average an hour and a half rather than many hours. Perhaps it will be necessary to increase the number of adjudicators slightly in order to remove the backlog, but that minimal increase in government expenditure is nothing compared with the loss of a fundamental right—the right to an appeal considered objectively by a person acting in a judicial capacity.
My hope is that the Minister will accept this modest amendment and that it will be seen as part of our wish for natural justice. If the amendment were not to be carried, I believe that that would be to the detriment of good community relations, good race relations and, indeed, good family relations in this country. I hope that the Government will think again.
Baroness Flather: I, too, wish to add my support for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. To say that I am deeply concerned about Clause 10 is an understatement. I have been involved in immigration cases for over 20 years. I have sat in on interviews in New Delhi with people who are seeking to enter this country. I have spoken personally to entry clearance officers on behalf of potential visitors. I say all that to show that my fears about possible unfair refusals are based on some degree of personal experience and knowledge.
I believe that I am also in a good position to speak on behalf of those of us who are lawfully settled here, but whose origins are in the Indian sub-continent. Lately much has been said about the Asian family—and its ties do extend much further along the line and its bonds are much stronger than those of some other families. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, it causes great unhappiness and hardship when
1034
members of a family are not allowed to come here to attend weddings or other special occasions—that is especially so with regard to funerals. Sometimes members of a family wish only to have a short holiday with their relatives here. It is a matter of great pride to people living in villages in, say, the Punjab that some of their relatives are settled here and doing extremely well. They wish to come here to share that prosperity and to take something back with them from this country.
As it is, a set of criteria has developed and, to the best of my knowledge, practically no unmarried young person from the Indian sub-continent can come here as a visitor at present. No doubt some of those cases are the very ones which are allowed on appeal. Without putting in place any measures which would provide a mechanism to review the decisions of the entry clearance officers, I believe that the Government are proposing to give those officers the sort of powers that cannot be acceptable in a liberal democracy.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the amendment. It will provide sufficient safeguards—they are built into it—and there will not be a wholesale appeals system as there is now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. The amendment serves to mitigate the disparity of treatment as regards the four Clause 10 categories compared with Section 13 of the 1971 Act, which is of general application. As regards the refusal of entry by an immigration officer, I wholly support the provision as it stands and, indeed, had some part in its composition. However, as regards refusals of entry clearance, I think that your Lordships may consider that a review procedure which fully complied with the requirements of natural justice, which was conducted either abroad where the entry clearance is sought or at the Home Office here, and where a reasoned decision was given by somebody who oversaw the original refusal, would suffice. As drafted, this provision cannot make accommodation for that proposal—and that is the only reason that my name does not appear on the Marshalled List in support of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In moving the amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, described it as a modest amendment—and I think that he is right in that. The provision of recourse to an adjudicator is not the restoration of the right of appeal which a number of noble Lords have expressed a desire to see. That right would be restored only if Clause 10 as a whole were to be left out. However, it is worth examining this amendment and considering on what basis the Government could conceivably resist it.
It must be said that the adjudicator filter is a very narrow filter. It is not like an appeal in which the case has already been argued at first instance, as would be the case in a magistrates' court or a county court. Under those circumstances, there would be a fairly full rehearsal of the merits and demerits of the case which the adjudicator would be able to take into account. What the adjudicator will see when he decides whether leave to appeal should be granted is not much more than an interview and the representations of the

1035
applicant. That is why, although we shall support the noble and learned Lord if he chooses to press his amendment, we must be obliged to continue with our opposition to the clause as a whole.
Lord Woolf: I addressed your Lordships on Second Reading and I can add very little to what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has said with regard to his amendment. As I understand the amendment, it is designed to achieve much of what the Government seek but without impinging on the rights of individuals to the extent that would be the case if Clause 10 stands in its present form. As I understand it, the purpose of Clause 10 from the Government's point of view is two-fold. It is, first, to streamline the immigration appeals system as it exists at present. I use the word "streamline" because it was the word used by the noble Earl a few minutes ago. As far as those who are caught by Clause 10 are concerned, it would not be a case of the appeal being streamlined, but of the appeal being removed. Those who were present on Second Reading will remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, pointed out that, although from time to time we have had severe problems with regard to appeals in the courts, we have not yet resorted to the device of removing the right to appeal so as to meet that problem.
The other reason, as I understand it, for the proposal is the saving of expense. We are told in the notes to the Bill that the saving will be in the region of £1.2 million. That is a substantial sum, but, when considering it, we must take into account the disadvantages that will flow from the present clause. It is proposed that instead of the review that would be given by an independent adjudicator, there will be a review by an official. I do not understand at the moment why that should be a cheaper process than the review which is proposed by the amendment. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner explained, the review would merely be a review by an adjudicator on paper to see whether there was anything in the appeal.
The other aspect that I fear has not been taken into account—it is an aspect that must worry all judges—is the impact upon judicial review. Alas, as has been made clear on more than one occasion by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, we are at present short of judges. In particular, we are short of judges to deal with applications for judicial review. The application for judicial review is the ultimate defence of the individual when he finds that he is the subject of unlawful administrative action. That the courts' ability to remedy that problem should be impinged upon as a result of an official having to perform a function which was previously performed by an adjudicator, does not make good sense.
This is an amendment designed to achieve at least the minimum of justice for the individual who feels, for very good reason, that he wants to come to this country for a short time. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has explained the family reasons that can make it important to an individual who is abroad to be able to make a visit. If one has sat in court hearing applications for judicial review, as I have, one can
1036
have no doubts about the genuineness of some situations where, unfortunately, through administrative error a visitor is refused access to this country. I urge the Committee seriously to consider the amendment.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Clause 10 is a new provision which was not in the previous Asylum Bill and which does not relate directly to asylum seekers, but rather to visitors and students. The effect of the clause is to remove the right of appeal from those refused a visa by an entry clearance officer, or, for those not requiring a visa, from those refused entry on arrival. I understand the Minister's anxiety that there should be proper provision to screen those who wish to come to this country. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the screening process which would be left, were there to be no right of appeal, is sufficient.
I seem to remember that on Second Reading the Minister referred to those in the category of visitors and students as perhaps not being in as great a need as asylum seekers. Nevertheless, they are in situations that are of great importance to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to family occasions. I wish to refer to one small category of student to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already referred: those who come to this country on an exchange from churches overseas to churches in this country to follow brief courses of study. Such exchanges are arranged only with the agreement of the overseas church. Their purpose is the strengthening of church leadership overseas and the development of good international relations. The financing of such scholars is guaranteed by the decisions of relevant committees or sponsoring bodies in this country before invitations are sent.
There is a standard procedure, including a letter which those who wish to obtain a visa take to the entry clearance officer to obtain that visa. There is some evidence that the whole system is now under greater strain than it has been in the past, to such an extent that the Council of Churches in Britain and Ireland is contemplating writing a letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to obtain some clarification of the position. It appears that those who were previously granted visas for such purposes are now finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The definition of a genuine student is not clear; nor is it clear what documents have to be supplied by those overseas to support their visa applications.
There is some evidence that accounts are now required from sponsoring bodies in this country to support the applications. It is clear that it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain a visa. In those circumstances, the right of appeal is one that should remain. In arguing for that, I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who commented on that point, and gave one or two examples to support his argument. First, to be granted a visa, an applicant has to show the legitimacy of the occasion of the visit, whether as visitor or student, and—this is the most important factor—an intent to return.

1037
The problem is that an intent to return is by no means easy to prove. How does one prove that one intends to return, apart from saying that one intends to do so and producing documents to support that intent? But it is open to an entry clearance officer to say that he does not believe that that intent is present. It is difficult to argue against such a subjective conclusion. I shall give two examples. The first relates to an application for a visa from a young Tamil teacher from Sri Lanka who was accepted for a course of study at the Westhill College, Selly Oak. He was refused a visa, and the ground of that refusal was that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that he was able, and intended, to follow a full-time course of study, and intended to leave the country on its completion.
Further inquiries were made, and it appeared that the grounds of refusal were that if that young Tamil teacher, Mr. Nadarajah Gnanaponraj were to go, his young wife who was pregnant could not be refused a visa if she wished to apply for one. The High Commission was not convinced that the couple intended to return to live in Jaffna where there was a war. That is the entry clearance officer's subjective judgment. It has nothing to do with the intentions of the family involved.
I can give another example of subjective judgment. A case was reported by a CAB of a Jamaican woman who wanted to come to this country for a six-month holiday. She had an aunt in this country who was willing to pay for the ticket and provide her with financial support and accommodation during her stay. However, the immigration official did not consider that her circumstances were such as to encourage her to return to Jamaica. One of the reasons given to justify that decision was that the air fare, which would be borne by her aunt in this country, could be better spent on improving her circumstances in her own country. That again is a subjective judgment by the entry clearance officer. It has nothing to do with the applicant's intent.
My argument is that, with that element of subjectivity, it is inevitable that a great deal depends upon the immigration officials, and if they are not subject to some kind of external review, that element of subjectivity is difficult to control. Furthermore, I argue, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that there will inevitably be inconsistent responses to applicants who produce similar documents. Again, there is evidence from the Council of Churches in Britain and Ireland that that is the case. I shall quote one of many cases that I have been given. A lady from Ghana, Mrs. Esther Neequaye was invited in September 1991 by the bursary scheme of the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion to join her husband who was reading for a degree in theology at St. John's College, Nottingham. She took with her documents similar to those which other applicants had taken—the standard sponsor's letter—and she was then asked for a letter guaranteeing financial maintenance. That was supplied. Confirmation of the authenticity of that letter
1038
was provided, but the application was refused. Other applicants, apparently with similar documents, were admitted.
With that inconsistency of response, it is clear that there must be recourse to some kind of appeal system. There is at the moment a lack of guidance as to what evidence needs to be provided. With the autonomy of the officials who make decisions, it becomes impossible to ensure that applications are treated alike.
A further argument is that for those who find that their visa applications are refused, there is the added difficulty that another application is likely to be treated much less favourably. Once again, let me give an example of such a case. Again, it is a case from the citizens advice bureau. A Jamaican visitor was refused entry on arrival in the UK at Gatwick. He had a letter from his employer which allowed him to remain away for a two-week period but he was refused entry on arrival. The reasons given for refusing entry were, first, because he had been refused entry on previous visits—and that clearly marked his case, as it were—and, secondly, that his ticket was valid for a longer period. I suspect that my ticket home is valid for a period longer than that which I intend to stay.
Clearly, there are difficulties for those whose entry visas are refused and who find that that somehow prejudices their future applications. I support the removal of Clause 10 but, first, I support the amendment, which goes some way towards providing a remedy for the type of cases I have mentioned.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, moved the amendment most clearly and carefully, as we would expect. As usual, he said that it was a modest amendment. I sometimes wonder what kind of amendment the noble and learned Lord will introduce that is not modest. Even if the amendment were a blockbuster, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would say that it was quite modest. He also said that he thought my noble friend Lord Campbell had had second thoughts because his name was not attached to the amendment. I hope that my noble friend has had second thoughts and I hope the noble and learned Lord will have second thoughts too.
The amendment provides for a right of appeal against refusal of entry for a short stay to be retained, but that it should be subject to a requirement to obtain leave. It is important that we should remember exactly what we are talking about. I suggest that if the appeal rights did not already exist, any proposal to create them would be greeted with some considerable surprise. Of course, there is always a reaction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, expressed the reaction as understandable when a procedure with which we have all become familiar is taken away. But I suggest that the Committee might ask whether the procedure is sensible.
We all agree, first, that any person anywhere in the world should be able to apply to come to the United Kingdom. There is no question about that and we welcome without discrimination genuine visitors. However, the realities of immigration control mean that in relation to some nationalities it is necessary to

1039
require that visas are obtained before travelling to this country. But what happens if the application is rejected?
It is by no means self-evident that every person who has been refused a visa and who might have no prior link with this country should nevertheless have a formal right of appeal to an independent adjudicator—and, if rejected, a further right of appeal to a tribunal—with free representation at the taxpayers' expense available from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or its successor bodies at every step of the way. That is what we are providing.
Those are people who have said that they want to come here for no more than six months and will then go back to their own country. In the case of those who are refused we may not accept that their intentions are as claimed. But even if their stated plan were true, that kind of brief visit—after which the person would resume life in his own country—simply cannot be seen as having the same significance as fundamental immigration decisions on settlement and family reunion.
At present our procedures do not differentiate between casual visitors and the potential long-term stayers. The result is that the appeal system here has become grossly overloaded. At present 21,000 cases are waiting for their applications to be heard. The big decisions—those relating to long-term stay—must take their place in a queue swollen by visitor appeals. It is many months before those cases are resolved. It is not irrelevant that no other country provides such generous treatment to foreign citizens who just happen to wish to visit this country—
Lord Ennals: The noble Earl spoke of people who just happen to want to visit this country. If that is the case they would not pass through the mechanism suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We are talking about people who have a case; people with close relatives whom they have not seen for a long time. Is not the noble Earl being unfair to the amendment?
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I am not being unfair to the noble and learned Lord because if I am I know that I shall get stick from him. I was about to deal with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Perhaps the Committee will consider the scale of the problem. In 1991 there were 917,000 applications of which only 77,000 were refused—but 77,000 were refused. Of those 77,000 only 9,000 decided to appeal. Presumably the other 68,000 were relatively content with the decision. Of the 9,000 who appealed 1,500 were successful. Presumably the other 7,500 appeals were considered to be frivolous, unfounded, unacceptable or were rejected for some other reason. Therefore, we are dealing with a problem of 1,500 people out of a total 917,000 applications. I accept that there is a problem but we must ask how to overcome it. I ask whether the Committee considers it necessary to have such an enormous appeals edifice to overcome the problem.
1040
There are strong arguments of both logic and practicality for the changes contained in Clause 10 but I understand the real anxieties that have been expressed. Indeed, since Second Reading I have looked carefully with officials and others at the proposed system, and at the alternative suggestions that have been made, in order to see whether we can find a way round the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggested that a right of appeal should be retained in such cases but that it should be subject to a requirement to obtain leave. The adjudicator would consider the case on the papers and decide whether a full appeal should proceed.
As usual, the noble and learned Lord made his case seem reasonable. I do not believe that that would produce real savings or any real streamlining of the existing arrangements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that he could not see why there should not be a streamlining. If the Government had to put in papers at the leave stage the cost to public funds would remain almost as great. If only the applicant were to put in papers it is difficult to see how the adjudicator could ever decide that there was no case to argue. Such appeals generally turn on the credibility of the applicant. In visa cases the entry clearance officer in the overseas post will have known the applicant and will have talked to him. He will be the one who comes to the decision. The adjudicator will have none of those advantages.
Some of the Government's critics have said that it is not the people with no prior connection with the United Kingdom about whom they are principally concerned. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Many people accept that a short visit cannot itself raise issues which are fundamental to a person's life. But what about the needs of the family; that is, family visits, weddings, funerals and other special occasions? What about the essential contacts between family members who may be living thousands of miles apart? Of course, there is no comparison with that type of application and the would-be tourist's holiday. We recognise the legitimate interests of long-term residents in this country who will want to do all that they can to facilitate the visits of their family members. That is wholly right and absolutely desirable.
We also considered whether it would be an option to retain a right of appeal in cases in which there is a close family member in this country. But, here again, we ran into trouble. We concluded that that would be a recipe for dissatisfaction and argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the family. We talk about close members of the family. How close is close? Presumably we would all agree that parents and brothers and sisters are all close, but what about uncles? Are they close? Maybe first cousins are close, but what about second cousins? A great deal of the difficult casework which entry clearance officers around the world already face revolves around disputed relationships in settlement cases where objective proof—short of DNA testing—is hard to find. We risk importing that sort of difficulty into the intrinsically less important area of visit applications.

1041
But, in any event, is the present appeal system really the best way of responding to the interests of sponsors who are here? In the first place, the queues and overloaded procedures mean that it takes months or even years for cases to be decided. A family event like a wedding or funeral may well have come and gone. But, more fundamentally, how valid is a judgment of the credibility of an applicant whom the adjudicator has not seen—a judgment which is formed primarily by an assessment of a relative whom he has seen?
The task at appeal is, of course, to review the decision which has been taken: to decide whether, at the time when it was taken and on the evidence which was then available, the decision was the right one. What sponsors in this country frequently want to say is, "Had you known of this additional piece of information, we think that you would have taken a different decision." But the sole duty of the adjudicator is to decide whether the decision was in accordance with the law and the immigration rules. The Government understand the concern of sponsors to be able to influence the decision-making process in this way. That is why we have been concerned that the initial decision making should take full account of all relevant factors and should be carefully monitored; and also that any new information which emerges subsequently should be carefully monitored; and also that any new information which emerges subsequently can be addressed, without prejudice, on the basis of a new application.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary set out a range of safeguards when the clause was discussed in Committee in another place. I should like today to repeat those safeguards. First, we will amplify and add to the information leaflets which are available to visitors and their sponsors, both overseas and in this country, to spell out what can be done to facilitate initial applications; secondly, where a person is refused, he will receive a detailed notice setting out the reasons for that decision; thirdly, that notice will make clear that a previous refusal will not prejudice any subsequent application; fourthly, if any exceptional compassionate circumstances, illogicalities or procedural errors are raised with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here, they will ask the diplomatic post concerned to review the decision. Wherever possible this will be done by a more senior officer; fifthly, if further information is put forward in a fresh application then this will be considered wherever possible by a different entry clearance officer.
Your Lordships expressed concern and apprehension at Second Reading. I have taken considerable note of that, and we have tried to find ways around the problem which exercised your Lordships. It exercised noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches. I would only say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that nobody willingly sails into an armada of noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches without at least having a cannon-proof waistcoat. It is not done willingly. I have tried to find a way round the problem, which I accept has caused genuine anxiety, not only to noble and learned Lords but to others.
1042
However, there is an additional safeguard. In larger posts, where entry clearance work is overseen by entry clearance managers, those managers will conduct a daily review of all refusal decisions. Where this senior officer reverses the decision of an entry clearance officer, the applicant will be contacted and a visa will be issued. That will help to ensure consistency of standards and it should enable errors to be picked up at the earliest opportunity. It will occur to every case that is refused. We estimate that up to 90 per cent. of visit refusals will be subject to review in that way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hesitate to look a gift horse in the mouth, because clearly it is intended to be a gift horse, but is the Minister saying that in the larger posts to which he referred management does not review already the decisions of the more junior officers? I cannot believe that there is any real change proposed in what the Minister says.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord looks a gift horse in the mouth, I can only say that that is his decision. What I said is that every case that is refused that day will be reviewed by a senior officer. I suggested that that ought to deal with about 90 per cent. of the cases.
I realise that some of your Lordships, including noble and learned Lords, will be sceptical about administrative procedures that fall short of a wholly independent review of existing decisions.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. We were talking earlier about savings of £1¼ million. If it is not the practice now for management to review, how much more will it cost the department to introduce a new procedure of management looking every day at the refusal cases?
Earl Ferrers: I cannot possibly tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, how much extra it is going to cost. He would not expect me to do so. I appreciate the point that he is making.
Some people are concerned that anything that is administrative which falls short of an independent review of executive decisions might be undesirable. Some have expressed concern in particular about the effect that Clause 10 might have on the burdens which are currently faced in the divisional court as a result of judicial review. The points that they made, as one might expect, were cogently expressed. Of course, there is always the possibility of judicial review. There is bound to be.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is worried that the judicial review procedures will be clogged up because we are trying to unclog the appeals procedure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was also worried about that. Of course it can be argued—and it is a fact—that the judicial review procedure is more expensive and more complex, and of course that can still come about. But if you apply for leave for judicial review it is less likely that that will be granted if it can be seen that two sieves have already been gone through by the applicant before applying for judicial review. There is no possible way in which judicial review proceedings can be prevented from taking place. However, you can try to see that they are less likely than they might otherwise be.

1043
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will accept that the procedure I have suggested is fairer in so far as it goes through two sieves. It takes place in the country of origin, and it will ease the judicial review process. I should not wish the Committee to think that the Government are not concerned about the pressures on the divisional court, because they are. I merely say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I understand what he is trying to do in this amendment. I do not think it will encourage the savings or that it will facilitate the savings. What we want to do is to streamline the procedure and get out of the system those appeals that have proved to be inappropriate. Of course, there is always a risk but I suggest that the present appeals procedure is too cumbersome for those cases it seeks to alleviate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend the Minister a short question in regard to something I do not understand? Perhaps other noble Lords do. Apparently there is to be a new appeal procedure or review procedure conducted by a more senior official, and presumably conducted abroad. Will the procedure of that reviewing official square with the elementary requirements of natural justice? Does he have to give reasons? Does he have to show the material on which he reviews? I ask those questions because the answers could well affect the way that I shall vote. If there is a satisfactory assurance that the minimum requirements of natural justice are safeguarded, that is one thing. But can that assurance be given?
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asks whether this provision will equate with natural justice. I hope that the entry clearance officers will fulfil their duties and obligations with regard to natural justice. Those rejected are referred to a higher person. That happens in government every day. A Minister must make certain decisions but a Cabinet Minister may make a different decision. There is an opportunity for two considerations. Therefore, natural justice would operate.
Lord Mishcon: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, as I understood the noble Earl, he said that one of the defects of going before an adjudicator in order to obtain leave to appeal was that the adjudicator would not have seen the applicant as the immigration officer had seen the applicant and that, therefore, it was a meaningless exercise. If that be so, does that not apply to the senior officer who, wherever he may be and in whatever country, reviews the refusal during the day? Apart from disposing of the question of cost—and I have an idea that £1.25 million around the globe would be the minimum expense of the new procedure—is not the noble Earl's objection to the adjudicator disposed of also if he believes that senior management can deal with the matter quite justly whereas the adjudicator cannot?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think so because the decision will be taken in the post abroad. It will be taken by the entry clearance officer. The senior manager will be in the post abroad and will be familiar with all the cases and situations which obtain there. That is totally different from passing the decision to an appeals procedure in this country where an adjudicator will just look at a piece of paper which the refused applicant receives. If that is to be referred to an adjudicator in this country, it will be necessary for the Foreign Office to put its full case as to why the application has been refused.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I return to the response made to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He asked whether the procedure to be adopted is in accordance with natural justice. He may have been satisfied by the answer but I suggest to the Minister that one of the first principles of natural justice is that justice should be seen to be done. In other words, the procedure should be publicly accountable.
The Minister has said nothing which identifies the review by that senior manager within a large overseas unit as being in public or in any way accountable. It seems to me that it will be a purely administrative procedure. I wonder if that is in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to make rather a mountain out of the business of natural justice. He is saying that any official who takes a decision is not necessarily acting in accordance with natural justice. In fact that decision is reviewed overseas by a senior manager. If the person is still dissatisfied, as I explained, it is always possible for the decision to be made the subject of a judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes a sighing noise. It is natural justice because there is a recourse to a judicial review. For fairly obvious reasons we want to ensure that that recourse is not taken frivolously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I prefer that noise to be described as a silent gesture of incredulity rather than a sighing noise. I am incredulous. I cannot believe that the Minister still relies on judicial review as the remedy for that kind of administrative injustice after all that has been said by noble and learned Members of the Committee and others about the impossibility of the burdens on the judicial procedure and the fact that it takes about 18 months to be reached.
The Minister seeks to argue against a very modest amendment which provides for the possibility of adjudication on the right to appeal. He does that partly by proposing a provision which seems to be merely an extension of administrative procedures and partly by attacking the basis of adjudication. He appears to be saying that the adjudicator will not have access to the documents. The Government are setting up the system of adjudication. If they are doing that without giving adjudicators access to the documents, then they are arguing against their own procedures.
Lord Ackner: As always, the noble Earl has been fair and painstaking in his reply to my submissions but he is in the unenviable position of having to concede

1045
before the Committee that if this clause had been operative last year, injustice would have been done in no fewer than 1,500 cases. I say "no fewer" because I believe that the figure would have been a great deal more than 1,500 cases. If the provision had not been in place to scrutinise spurious reasons, there would have been more spurious reasons.
The noble Earl has reduced the problem into quite simple figures. Potentially we are taking about some 9,000 cases with a success rate currently of one in five. To remedy the situation which would arise if the right as enjoyed at present is withdrawn, an office manager is to be there to rubber stamp the decision of a junior official.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord cannot say that an office manager will be there to rubber stamp. As a junior Minister I frequently give my view one way or another and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary overturns that decision. If the noble and learned Lord were unkind, he would say that that is because I take the wrong decisions. However, that principle operates.
Lord Ackner: As I understand it, the decision will have been made initially by a junior official on the issue of credibility. I do not see how an office manager, when the applicant has gone home, can confirm an issue on credibility, having never seen the party. If that is not rubber stamping, I do not know what it is. It is certainly not the process of an independent decision by someone not in the same office.
The other point is that inside the office run by the office manager may be a thoroughly spurious policy which the junior official consistently carries out. That means that the office manager will consistently support the spurious decision. Therefore, there is no safeguard in that system.
There is an extremely heavy onus upon anyone who seeks to justify robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is exactly what this does. It takes away an existing right enjoyed over the past 21 years in order to fund a right of appeal, if justice is to be done, to an entirely different category of person—an asylum seeker. I invite the Committee to say that the Government have come nowhere near discharging that onus.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 148.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Acton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Addington, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Ardwick, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beloff, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Desai, L.

1046

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Faithfull, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Parry, L.

Foot, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Geraint, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harvington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Healey, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Howell, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Hunt, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Judd, L.

Tenby, V.

Kennet, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mayhew, L.

Winstanley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Woolf, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Clanwilliam, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Annaly, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Colwyn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Arran, E.

Cranborne, V.

Astor, V.

Crathorne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Cross, V.

Blyth, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Davidson, V.

Borthwick, L.

De La Warr, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Derwent, L.

Brookes, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Downshire, M.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Dundonald, E.

Butterfield, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caithness, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elton, L.

Camoys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carnock, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

1047

Goschen, V.

Orkney, E.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Palmer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Hanson, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Prentice, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Holderness, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rees, L.

Hood, V.

Rennell, L.

Hooper, B.

Renton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Renwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Ironside, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Romney, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Savile, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Seccombe, B.

Layton, L.

Shannon, E.

Leigh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stewartby, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monson, L.

Torrington, V.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Moyne, L.

Wakeham, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Nelson, E.

Wynford, L.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: We have already rehearsed many of the arguments in this Chamber and I do not propose to add at length to them. The Minister said during his reply to the debate on an earlier amendment that many of the cases to be considered would not have profound effects on the lives of those involved. I would suggest that there is some evidence that even for those who are applying for visitors' visas a refusal can have quite profound effects.
I should like to quote to your Lordships the case of a Pakistani woman who applied for entry clearance to visit her daughter in the United Kingdom. After her application, her daughter wrote to tell her that she was due to have her first child. The mother attended an interview in which she provided a copy of her daughter's letter, evidence of maintenance and
1048
accommodation, and her application was then refused on the grounds that the official concerned was not satisfied as to the true purpose of her visit.
Once again, as we commented in the earlier debate, that was a subjective judgment. Her daughter had no immediate relatives in the United Kingdom, and later in the year she had a miscarriage. Rightly or not, the daughter felt that this was a direct result of the anxiety created by the refusal of entry clearance to her mother. This seems to me to be one example, among a number of others, of the way in which a refusal can produce a highly stressful situation which may indeed have the most distressing results.
In the earlier debate the Minister referred to the procedures being put in place to achieve a better review of the present operation of the system. I and many others welcome the improved procedures. However, as we argued earlier, they cannot be seen as an adequate substitute for a genuine appeals system. There will be no element of external scrutiny of immigration officials' decisions. The second application will be considered by a member of staff at the same embassy or high commission which refused the original application. Indeed, under the earlier provisions, it could be the same member of staff. Such remedies provide no compensation for those who are applying not for entry clearance but for leave to enter when they reach this country. Visitors who are then refused entry on arrival in the UK have no recourse under the procedures which have been described.
We remain concerned not simply about the numbers who are found to have a case on appeal but also about the effect which the removal of appeal will have on the decisions made by immigration officials. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in the previous debate and I repeat it. It is not merely that some 9,000 appeal cases were heard, of which 1,500 were successful. It is also that the provision of an appeal system requires immigration officials to be all the more cautious and careful about the conclusions they reach. It is clear that the removal of the right to appeal will have an effect, however unconscious, upon the decisions which are made by immigration officials.
For those reasons, and for the reasons which we put forward in the previous debate, I believe that Clause 10 ought not to stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I am not assuming too much if I say that a number of the speeches in the previous debate were effective arguments against Clause 10 as a whole and not simply arguments in favour of Amendment No. 49, although they successfully—perhaps not in terms of votes but in terms of the argument—performed that function. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I race through the reasons, which are unfortunately many and powerful, why Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill.
The first reason, and the most significant from a legal point of view, is the one put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, at Second Reading. If one has an appeals procedure which is overloaded one does not remove the overload by removing the right of appeal. One deals with it by increasing the

1049
effectiveness of the resources available for the appeals procedure. No convincing argument has been made that Clause 10 addresses a real resources problem. We are talking about a total of 9,000 appeals, of which 1,500 have been successful. That is not a large number of appeals. The success rate which is indicated shows that there is a real justification—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, probably a minimal justification—in the number of decisions which have to be overturned. The argument about delay and resources is fundamentally a bad argument.
The argument in favour of judicial review as a solution has been thoroughly destroyed in debate. It was attacked effectively by noble and learned Lords and by noble Lords at Second Reading. Nothing has been said further to justify the argument that resort to judicial review is an acceptable alternative to a proper appeals procedure. My noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out the danger of a far greater caseload for Members of another place. I hope that it will not affect us, but I can see that in many cases it will if we do not do our duty in these matters.
The argument concerning the accountability and responsibility of immigration officers is still powerful. They are relatively junior officers. I understand that most of the officers are of Grade 9 and those who might review their activities are of Grade 7. They are relatively junior officers, often working in relative isolation. There are draft Immigration Rules which they must observe, but there will be great difficulties for officers of that seniority in dealing with the obligation under the Bill to observe not only the draft Immigration Rules but also the law. The law is wider. It includes immigration law, Community law and considerations of natural justice. I suggest that immigration officers' ability to do their job properly is enhanced by the existence of an appeals procedure. The fact that there will be no effective review of what they do will make it more difficult for them to behave in a consistent and just way.
It is suggested that the appeals procedure is a burden which is unique to this country. The requirement for an appeals procedure is not new in this country. It was established in 1969 as a result of the deliberations of the Wilson Committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it has been a part of our law for more than 20 years. The Wilson Committee was concerned with appeals both by those outside this country applying for entry and by those inside this country applying for extension of leave to remain. Over the entire period during which the legislation has been in force no adequate argument has been put forward to indicate that the rights of appeal are unnecessary, dangerous or themselves cause delay.
There must be a fear that without an appeals procedure decisions will be taken in a discriminatory way. In December last year we debated the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux A Charter for All? review of the immigration service. The figures which I quoted in that debate concerning the difference in the proportions of people from different countries who were turned back were never denied by
1050
Government. If one has a black face or comes from the Indian sub-continent one is far more likely to be turned away at the port of entry. That applies just as much to short-term visitors as to long-term visitors. The enactment of Clause 10 would result in an extension of racial discrimination into our family and community life. I suggest that the Committee should think very seriously before agreeing to this change.
We need to be satisfied, both on grounds of principle and grounds of practicality, that the changes proposed in the clause are justified. I suggest to the Committee that no adequate justification on either ground has been put forward by the Government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should like to support the proposal that Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill. I do not propose to repeat what was said in support of the previous amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, most of which, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, covered Clause 10. I am happy to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the appeals procedure which the clause proposes to remove from three classes of people was proposed by no less a person than Sir Roy Wilson, a man who had a passion for justice. Today, in relation to the clause, we are talking about justice and the right of an individual to have a wrong redressed. That is what is at the heart of what we are discussing, and it is no small matter. It is one which the Committee should take with extreme seriousness.
In discussing the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, placed great emphasis on the need for speed and streamlining, and on overloading and backlog. Of course there can be a tension between justice and speed. The two do not necessarily go together. If one tries to do things quickly one may be unjust. For instance, in the world of industry there is a tension between safety and cheapness. No doubt cars would be cheaper and go even faster if they had no brakes. Nonetheless we are in favour of them having brakes. Justice is a brake on administrative injustice. That is what we refer to in the clause. That is the concept that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has to confront without any qualification.
He appeared to regard being allowed to come to this country as a privilege, but I may have misinterpreted what he said. I have always believed that to visit and to travel was a right we possessed which could be limited only by good reason. I believe that it was Mr. Bevin who, at the end of the last war, stated that he hoped to see a Europe and a world in which people did not have to carry passports. That thought seems to have been forgotten by the present Government.
In the course of his remarks the noble Earl stated that if appeals were now to be introduced de novo the measure would surprise people. The provision might be greeted with surprise, but it would surely be regarded as an improvement. I do not wish to be unduly offensive to the noble Earl or his colleagues on the opposite Bench, but the surprise would lie in the fact that the Government have introduced an

1051
improvement, not that there was some justification in having an appeal if someone's right to enter the country had been withdrawn.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said. However, certain aspects struck me as important. I was impressed by the evidence—it cannot be refuted—that immigration officers are human and therefore not infallible. If that is so, some arrangement must be made to correct the mistakes which, with the best will in the world, they inevitably make. That corrective mechanism must be public and independent. Therefore, what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to as a gift horse I call a very small gift, and one that is somewhat flawed. If immigration officers are not infallible, and if a mechanism to correct their mistakes has to be devised, I believe that an independent tribunal such as we have should be retained.
I was deeply impressed by the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that unless one has such a mechanism there will be variations in the decisions made by officials which will produce further injustice that will be difficult to correct.
I was impressed too by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. She stated that the provision made visits to this country by unmarried people from the subcontinent of India very difficult. It has to be recognised that there is racial discrimination in the way in which the system works at present; and that will become worse if there is no appeals procedure. I should be surprised if the more than one-in-1,000 Americans who were refused right of entry—as opposed to the one-in-five Ghanaians and one-in-27 Jamaicans—were not black. There were two such examples this summer, as the noble Earl will remember.
However, the fundamental point of the clause, and why we wish it removed, is because it does not provide redress for individuals for wrongs which they have suffered. Such redress is a matter of justice. We ask for that justice in this country. Whether or not it works in other countries seems to me totally irrelevant. The system of appeal under the Bill should enable people to obtain redress. For that reason I support the noble Baroness.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was a little sad that the Minister was unable to seek a principle of accommodation or to devise an acceptable resolution which is equally satisfactory with the existing arrangements as set out in our manifesto commitment. I fully understand and sympathise with the Minister. It is all but impossible to steer a course between administrative convenience and indigenous concepts of justice and fair play, referred to some time ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, as ill-assorted bedfellows. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, touched on the point.
There is little else to say; it has all been said. but is it not apparent, if not conceded, that the Clause 10 arrangements are not equally satisfactory and cost-effective? Therefore, what is said to be
1052
determination to maintain our present system of immigration controls set out in our manifesto seems to have gone to the wall.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I too urge that Clause 10 does not stand part of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, I had a hand in the setting up of the appeal machinery. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Callaghan is no longer present. As Home Secretary he dealt with the machinery.
The appeal machinery was set up because we were disturbed at the number of refusals and the way in which people felt that they were being treated. The fact that 23 years later we are still finding that one-in-five of the appeals succeeds suggests how important it was to establish that machinery. The Minister states that if anyone suggests setting up such a machinery now he would be laughed at. But the machinery is essential. I use the word advisedly. We have taken away the right of appeal from visitors. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, illustrated the problems that occur to visitors, for which appeal machinery is necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed to the problem with regard to students. I do not understand why this country, to which all manner of people have been coming for centuries to be educated, should be taking the attitude that it adopts to students. We should welcome people who come to this country to study.
As I said when I sat on the other side of the House and my party introduced the procedure and when we imposed full fees on overseas students, the consequence would be that when people looked for somewhere to buy something, they would not look to this country—they would look to the country where they were educated. That is so. I believe that this country needs to change its attitude to students: they should be encouraged not discouraged.
On the proposal that there should be a restriction on courses for less than six months, I have a diploma in child health and that course is for less than six months. It is nonsense to suggest that, if one does a course which is less than six months, it is not a serious course. That is the wrong approach, and we fail to understand the offence that we cause and the offence that we give.
Even with the appeals machinery in place, there have been many difficult cases. Without that machinery in place and with no one outside the immigration department able to examine cases to see whether justice has been done, we shall have many more difficulties than we now have. I hope that the Government will think again and I should like the Committee to show its disapproval by rejecting Clause 10.
Earl Ferrers: The whole substance of the clause was debated on the previous amendment and I do not wish to go again through all the reasons which I gave then. However, there are one or two points which I wish to make.
The right reverend Prelate referred to a case where an application for entry clearance was refused because the immigration officer was not convinced of the need

1053
for a visit. The right reverend Prelate will understand that one cannot take individual cases as a matter for debate here. If he has any genuine reasons for being concerned, if he contacts me I shall examine the case. He also said that the person who came to this country with an entry clearance document but was then rejected when he actually came here would have no right of appeal. I should like to correct the right reverend Prelate about that. A person who comes with an entry clearance document shows that he has a prima facie reason for coming here. If he is then for some other reason refused entry when he comes to a port—for example, if it is discovered that he is a criminal—the immigration officer has the right of refusal. However, the person has the right to have his appeal heard in this country.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I thank the Minister but he has not quite met my point. There are those who do not require entry clearance before they come to this country, those who do not need a visa. They may arrive here believing that no visa is needed and are then turned away and refused entry at that point.
Earl Ferrers: Obviously it is up to anyone who comes from another country to make quite sure of the requirements of the country to which they are going.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that delay and resources were bad arguments. I find that quite astonishing, delay is a substantial argument. In the clause we are trying to deal with those people who genuinely wish to come here, to make their lives here and are applying to become members of the United Kingdom. The appeals system is being clogged up for them by people who merely wish to come for six months. That is all the clause deals with—six months is the maximum.
We have set in train many new procedures. At the end of them, if the person is rejected, he can always re-apply without any discrimination against him. I find it astonishing that the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others say, "What we want is justice. We are concerned about justice for the individual". We are concerned with people who are applying to come here and sometimes cannot find out for three, four or even five years—perhaps not as long as that: 18 months—whether they will be allowed to enter the country. We wish to release those cases and relieve the system so that people who wish to come here for long-term stays—genuine applicants—can do so and have their cases considered and dealt with quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, frowns because I mentioned his name. I am sorry if it disturbs him but both he and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that this was because of racial discrimination. It has nothing to do with racial discrimination; we are simply trying to unclog a bad procedure. I can only assure the noble Lords that that is what is behind it. I frankly reject the argument that it is racially motivated—that is quite improper.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me, but I must correct him. I did not say that
1054
the clause was racially motivated, I said that, given the existence of racial discrimination, the procedure which is proposed to be substituted for the procedure which we have will lead to racial discrimination.
Earl Ferrers: I am quite happy to accept that correction, I realise that I was wrong over it. I do not invite the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to get to his feet again—although I am sure that he will not hesitate to do so if he wishes. However, he said that he had always thought it was not a privilege to come to the United Kingdom, anyone ought to be able to go anywhere. I think that it is a privilege to go to another person's country and one ought to consider it a privilege and treat it accordingly.
Because the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, thought that it should be considered natural, he felt that there was no need to have such restrictions. If we look at other countries, I expect he likes to go to France, but no reasons have to be given in law there for the refusal of a visitor's visa. If one goes to the United States or Germany, there is no appeal against the refusal of short-term visas. Our system happens to be unique. Members of the Committee may say that that is a good thing.
Perhaps I may encapsulate the purpose of the clause. I suggest that it is important. It is that the system needs to concentrate on decisions which really matter, which relate to long-term applicants. At present the system does not distinguish between the big issues and more minor matters which cannot be sensibly addressed in this country. The key decisions on the family reunion and settlement are buried in the backlog of people asking to come for six months. I suggest that it is better to focus on getting the initial decisions right, and that is what we intend to do. It is an administrative procedure. I return to the fact that if at the end the applicant says, "This is not right", he can apply again. We cannot get much fairer than that.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Minister talked about the gain from including the clause in the Bill. I should like the Committee to consider the cost of including it. I do not mean in financial terms, but in other terms. From the speeches by Members of the Committee, we have heard of the way in which the provision will be perceived as a lack of access to proper justice. It will be perceived as such by a particular group within our country who find that they or their families are in some way affected by it. Those will largely be black people from black families. It seems to me that the cost will be a feeling of resentment among black people which will inevitably lead to a worsening of relationships between the ethnic minorities and other people in the country.
It seems to me that that is the cost of the inclusion of the clause. I believe it to be a high cost and one not outweighed by any of the gains which the Minister put forward. I believe that so strongly that I think it would not be right for the Bill to go forward without testing the mind of the Committee as to whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I oppose the clause.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents. 96.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Barber, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterfield, L.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cadman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Onslow, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pender, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Prentice, L.

Cranborne, V.

Radnor, E.

Crathorne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rennell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Downshire, M.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Romney, E.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Savile, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Hanson, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thatcher, B.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Hothfield, L.

Wakeham, L.

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Beloff, L.

Acton, L.

Birk, B.

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Airedale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brightman, L.

Barnett, L.

Brookes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Buckmaster, V.

1056

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Eatwell, L.

Parry, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Ripon, Bp. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Healey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollick, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stedman, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Wharton, B.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Leigh, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lockwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Worcester, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported one more name than the total recorded by the Clerks.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10 agreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Access to legal advice
.—(1) A person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre, or other premises, and is making an asylum claim, shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice privately at any time.
(2) A custody record shall be kept for a person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre or other premises, and is making an asylum claim.
(3) A request under subsection (1) above and the time at which it was made shall be recorded in the custody record or record of the interview or the appropriate record of detention.
(4) If a person making an asylum claim makes such a request, he must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice as soon as is practicable.
(5) At any interview or hearing in connection with a claim for asylum a person must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice, and must be informed of this entitlement in advance of the interview or hearing, in the language of his choice.").
The noble Lord said: As we have observed, logic does not move the Minister and emotion does not influence him. I hope that brevity at long last will. In moving the amendment, I merely seek to obtain for asylum seekers the same privileges in regard to our legal system that those charged with a criminal offence

1057
and detained have according to our law. I want it written on the face of this Bill, which deals with asylum seekers.
The privileges are, first, that a person who is detained at a port of entry or an immigration detention centre, or in other premises, and who is making an asylum claim shall be entitled to see a lawyer and have advice privately—the word used is "privately". Secondly, a custody record is to be kept in exactly the same way as it has to be kept with any prisoner who is in custody, whether he is on remand or otherwise. Thirdly, a request is to be recorded in the custody record in exactly the same way as for somebody who is in custody according to our law.
Fourthly, if he makes such a request, the asylum seeker must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice as soon as practicable. Lastly, with regard to any interview which he has in connection with his claim for asylum, he must be entitled to consult a solicitor or adviser and must be informed of that entitlement in advance.
We have heard that if a questionnaire is not answered promptly or completely then there is an automatic right to refuse the right of asylum. The least we can do with asylum seekers—I repeat this—is to treat them in the same way in regard to this matter in having advice available as we do those who are charged with a criminal offence. It is with some optimism that I propose the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, it is a question of making sure that justice is done for those people in exactly the same way as it would be done in any other case. We see no reason whatever why the normal processes of justice should not be applied to would-be immigrants that would apply in any other case.
Lord Monson: Although I support the Government on most of today's amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made out a good case for Amendment No. 51. For what it is worth, I support it.
Lord Hylton: This is an important new provision and I support it. It is a regrettable fact that in this country there are people seeking asylum who are still in detention after nine months. That is a long time. The point on interpretation and language of the applicant's choice is another crucial matter on which I have corresponded already at some length with the Home Office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Despite his long experience in this Chamber, my noble friend still expresses optimism. I do not expect the Government to agree to the amendment, but I certainly expect them to tell us that all these things are happening anyway.
Viscount Astor: I am always susceptible to logic and emotion, and particularly to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am not unsympathetic to the sentiments giving rise to this provision. It is entirely right that those who wish to consult their legal
1058
representatives should be able to do so, whether or not they are detained. But where the noble Lord and I differ is in incorporating procedural or administrative safeguards which exist into the Bill.
As it stands, the Bill already provides additional safeguards for those seeking asylum. The right of appeal before removal for those seeking entry is fundamental to the Bill and in itself provides protection. However, the noble Lord wants even more for applicants who are detained, thereby creating a two-tiered procedure for detainees: one for those who are not seeking asylum; another for those who are. That, I submit, is a recipe for delay, which we wish to avoid in all cases and particularly when someone is detained.
People arriving at our ports have an obligation to furnish the immigration officer with information. That is fundamental to our system of immigration control and I believe it would be wrong to introduce provisions which might in any way compromise it. In practice, all those who seek asylum on arrival and who are interviewed substantively about their claim are given the opportunity to consult their representative at some stage. If they have no nominated representative they are put in touch with the Refugee Legal Centre.
Similarly, any immigration offender who is arrested in the country and taken to a police station benefits from the codes of practice under PACE. Custody officers are, in those circumstances, required to give written notice of rights and notices are made available in the main ethnic minority languages.
We shall continue to keep under review our procedures for ensuring that all those who are detained are aware of their rights to consultation but I do not believe that it would be right to single out this one category of detainee by incorporating the provisions of this clause into the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy. I must confess that although my memory is not as good as it was, I can at least remember the arguments that were advanced on the last amendment. As I understood it, on the last amendment the Minister said that there was a great deal of difference when comparing those who sought asylum, those who came to this country for a short visit and those who came wanting to stay here permanently. If I may say so, it is extraordinary. The part of the vast department of the Home Office which settled one brief must have been different from that which settled the latest brief. There now seems to be a request that all of us regard all those classes as being one and that it would be wrong to differentiate.
I do not want to detain the Committee. However, I want to obtain an assurance from the Minister that in the regulations being drawn—I shall be listening to his reply carefully before I decide what to do at Report stage—there will be a clear statement carrying out the principles of the amendment by way of procedure with asylum seekers who are detained. If that assurance can be given, I shall take a certain course.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asks for assurances. I shall look carefully at what he said this evening and at Report stage come forward and explain everything in greater detail.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful for the Minister's courtesy and the gracious way in which he spoke. Can he extend that grace by one inch? Can he inform me before Report stage of what his attitude is? I shall then have an opportunity of doing something about it at Report stage.
Viscount Astor: I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage be resumed at 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8.35 p.m.]
Clause 11 [Refusals which are mandatory under immigration rules]:
[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 7, leave out lines 43 to 45.
The noble Lord said: With this series of amendments we move to Clause 11 of the Bill which in many ways is as repulsive as Clause 10. It has certainly attracted as much criticism from noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches and generally the feeling instilled by the clause that it is perfectly proper for administrative decisions to be taken as to which applications are deemed to be entirely without foundation is as objectionable as anything contained in Clause 10. However, as is our wont, we look at the individual provisions of Clause 11 and we consider whether modest improvements can be made to them before we come to consider the matter of the clause as a whole.
Amendments Nos. 52A and 54B, which I should like to consider together, are concerned with age, nationality and citizenship. The Bill as drafted states:
"A person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance if the refusal is on the ground that"—
This is our particular concern—
"(b) he or any person whose dependant he is does not satisfy a requirement of the immigration rules as to age or nationality or citizenship".
There are a number of objections to that. First, the right of appeal is taken away simply on the grounds of the Immigration Rules whereas, of course, other considerations in the Bill refer not only to the Immigration Rules but to the law itself. As has been said a number of times in these debates, the law is much wider than the Immigration Rules. It includes considerations of natural justice; it includes considerations of European law; and it includes statutes which are not necessarily to be found in the Immigration Rules. The Immigration Rules themselves can be changed at any time with the minimum of parliamentary control.
We wish in these two amendments to point out that age, nationality and citizenship are by no means non-contentious issues. They could give rise to keenly disputed matters of fact. Indeed they have on many occasions given rise to many matters of fact which have quite rightly been the province of the immigration appeals procedure. There seems no justification why these particular aspects of immigration appeals should be automatically excluded from any appeals procedure. So without prejudice to anything we might do to the Bill as a whole, I beg to move Amendment No. 52A.
Viscount Astor: I hope to explain to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Government's arguments on this amendment will be less objectionable to him and that this is not such a contentious issue. As the noble Lord said, the amendments would delete that part of Clause 11 which would remove the right of appeal if a person is refused entry on the grounds that he was not meeting the requirements of the Immigration Rules as to age or nationality or citizenship.
This reason for refusal will affect only a limited number of categories under the Immigration Rules. The categories which contain requirements as to age or nationality are, for example, au pairs who must be nationals of one of a list of specified European countries and must be aged between 17 and 27 years on arrival. They must also be working holidaymakers who must be Commonwealth citizens who are aged 17 to 27 years on arrival and persons seeking to work here without a work permit on the basis of having a grandparent born in the United Kingdom who must be a Commonwealth citizen. In such cases the onus is on the applicant to show that he or she meets those requirements by producing a passport establishing age or nationality.
I believe that the noble Lord will agree with me that it would make no sense, for example, to allow an American who has come into this country as a visitor to stay here pursuing an appeal against the refusal to let him stay to work as an au pair or working holidaymaker when he cannot possibly win that appeal because he is never going to be eligible. That is the important point.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Is the noble Lord saying that this amendment is unimportant because it affects only a very few categories? Did I understand the noble Viscount aright when he opened his remarks by saying that it affected very few cases?
Viscount Astor: No, I did not say it was unimportant. I said that the categories affected were very few because it affected those individuals who were never going to win their appeals because they were never going to satisfy the age or nationality clauses.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Is the noble Viscount aware that innumerable cases have come before the immigrant appeal tribunal dealing with precisely those categories? I refer to the age of people coming from the Indian sub-continent, which is a very contentious issue. Nationality is an extremely contentious issue. If Poland joins the European Community it will become

1061
even more contentious. There may be large numbers of Poles today, but in the past it may have been two or three other nationalities. The matter will be extremely contentious. The idea that this issue is not contentious and that it has not arisen in appeals against the Immigration Rules is absolutely illusory. I cannot think who told the noble Viscount that.
Viscount Astor: I do not agree with the noble Lord. If an immigrant has a passport then it contains his or her age and nationality. That is what we are talking about. They have to be of an age and if they have passports their ages are on them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Viscount cannot have encountered cases where dependants have come in. They have to be under the age of 18. I can give an example where the parent of a dependant had lived in this country for 10 years or more and had finally asked to bring in his family. The question at issue was the age of his eldest son. It was either 17 or 18 years of age. That depended on whether the son was conceived on a visit made by the man in question to the sub-continent or whether he was conceived on another visit. It was a highly contentious issue. The idea which the noble Viscount has that it is not a contentious issue is nonsense.
Viscount Astor: I have to disagree with the noble Lord because Clause 11 will not affect appeals by people who are seeking to enter or stay in this country as the dependent relatives of someone already settled here. The rules provide for the admission of a person who does not meet the normal age criteria, which is under 18 for children and 65 or over for parents except widowed mothers if there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. In such cases the ground of refusal would be that the person did not qualify because the Secretary of State was not satisfied that there were exceptional compassionate circumstances, not that the person did not meet an age requirement. There will still be a right of appeal in such cases.
Lord Bonham-Carter: How is the Secretary of State to know if there is no appeals procedure?
Viscount Astor: I just said that there will still be a right of appeal in such cases.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Every word the Minister utters makes the situation worse rather than better. If he is seeking to persuade us that, because of these arcane rules, one has to be between the ages of 17 and 27 and presumably female in order to be an au pair in this country, and that one has to comply with certain nationality rules—which may very well change from year to year just as visa requirements change from year to year—all the Minister is saying is that the Immigration Rules themselves are a sound basis for deciding.
Everyone knows that the Government have absolutely refused to put the Immigration Rules on a statutory basis. They are deliberately retaining the right to change them as they think fit. We are all
1062
supposed to keep up with those changes. Applicants at Sylhet applying to the British High Commission in Dhaka are required to keep up with the changes. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has made it very clear that these rules are highly contentious.
Can the Minister give me any figures about the numbers of appeals, for any period of years which he cares to choose, which involve questions of age, nationality or citizenship? My information—which is confirmed by the example which the noble Lord gave—is that a considerable number of appeals involve disputed questions of age, nationality or citizenship. If the Minister is saying that it does not matter because the rules are clear, I must point out that he did not make them sound very clear. He has to find a better argument than that for denying appeals in those cases.
Viscount Astor: The examples which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made were about dependent relatives. I said quite clearly that Clause 11 will not affect appeals by people who are seeking to enter or stay in this country as the dependent relatives of someone already settled here. So that category is out. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appreciates that. Obviously, I cannot categorise the number of appeals or the other circumstances. The point I was trying to make as regards the working holidaymaker or the au pair is that the passport either gives an age or it does not. There is no real basis on which one can appeal if one knows that the appeal is never going to be won.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a long history of entry clearance officers refusing to believe the evidence of passports. There is also a long history of denying the evidence produced to them by applicants for entry. It is extraordinary because we are talking about harmless groups of people. I appreciate that the idea of dependent relatives gets steam up in all kinds of right-wing circles, but we are not talking about that. As the Minister rightly said, we are talking about au pairs, working holidaymakers and people wanting to work in this country without a work permit.
It is exactly questions of age, nationality and citizenship that are contested and are the basis of justifiable appeals. I am not in any way satisfied by the answer which the Minister has given. I do not give any undertaking that we shall not return to this matter in one form or another at a later stage, but in order to make progress I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 52B:
Page 8, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54C. Here we are concerned with the issue which I touched on in dealing with the previous amendment. It is the difference between the immigration rules and immigration law in its wider sense.
I give an example of what I mean in these amendments. A citizen of the European Community comes to this country for six months and looks for

1063
work. He is given another six months, but he does not find work and applies again to extend his leave. As he has not found work, the Home Office refuses to treat him as if he were provided for by the Treaty of Rome and treats his application merely as an application to stay as a visitor. Those are subjective questions and matters of judgment. It could well be that issues of European Community law arise from questions of that sort. It is not something that is self-evident.
The point that must be made throughout our consideration of this clause is that it is about claims which the Government are asserting are self-evidently wrong. The whole clause is about that. I suggest that in all these cases—in the cases that we dealt with in relation to the previous amendment and now in this case—the claims are not self-evidently wrong. Perhaps I may take another example. Let us suppose that a citizen of Zimbabwe comes to look for work on the basis of his ancestral connection with this country. An immigration officer discovers documents which he believes show the person to be of dual South African-Zimbabwean nationality. He believes that South Africa does not permit dual citizenship. He does not believe the assertion of the person seeking entry that he has renounced South African citizenship, so he refuses him permission to enter on those grounds.
Under the clause as drafted, there is no right to appeal despite the fact that there is an entry clearance and despite the fact that in other circumstances—and certainly at any time during the past 21 years—such a person would have had the right to appeal against refusal of entry before removal. What else does "entry clearance" mean except the right to a proper consideration? But that is what is being denied in this clause. The particular damage done by those two subsections are the subject of these two amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I might immediately advise the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that Clause 11 would not affect European Community nationals seeking work here. The provisions of the rules relating to the maximum period of stay do not apply to people exercising their Community right of free movement.
The provisions in Clause 11 relating to the maximum period permitted under the Immigration Rules would affect three categories of person. Visitors are allowed under the rules to spend a maximum of six months here on any one visit. Au pairs and working holidaymakers are permitted to spend a maximum of two years here in total. The length of time a person has been in this country in a particular category can be readily established by reference to the stamp on his or her passport. A visitor will normally be given leave to enter for a maximum six-month period. If a visitor applies during that six-month period to extend his visit, and if he can show exceptional reasons—for example, that a relative here may have fallen ill, or there may be some genuine difficulty over travel arrangements—the Secretary of State may exercise a discretion outside the rules to waive the maximum period and let him stay longer. That discretion is unaffected by Clause 11. The 1971 Act does not allow an adjudicator to overrule any refusal by the Secretary
1064
of State to exercise his discretion to waive the rules, so an appeal by a person who admits that he has already been here for six months as a visitor is bound to fail. But, at present, he has the right to stay here until that appeal is disposed of, which can easily be a year or more. The result of such an appeal is bound to be no. That is simply an invitation to those who have no claim to stay but are determined to do so, to put in appeals in order to play the system for as long as possible, and to clog up the system, which will not benefit others in the system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suspect that this is a special case and something which we can probably deal with more profitably when discussing the next two amendments, which relate to appeals that are or should be based on grounds of fact rather than simply on grounds of law. I suspect that it would be unprofitable for us to pursue the matter of the special case referred to in Amendment Nos. 52A and 54C. As I shall return to the subject under debate in our discussions on the next amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 8, line 4, at end insert ("except that a person shall be entitled to appeal (either against a refusal of an entry clearance or leave to enter) on the grounds that, on the facts of his case, any of the grounds (3B) (a) to (c) do not apply.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 54A, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 54D. Here, we are concerned with the broader issue, which is a particular worry to those who are most well-informed about immigration law. On page 8 we propose to insert the words:
"except that a person shall be entitled to appeal on the grounds that, on the facts of his case, any of the grounds … do not apply".
The reason that there are two amendments is that we want to draw a distinction between rights of appeal in respect of refusal of leave to enter at a port of entry, and refusal of an entry clearance, which would take place normally at a post overseas. Without this amendment, a person could arrive at a port of entry holding an entry clearance and yet not be entitled to appeal against the refusal of leave to enter.
At present, the Immigration Rules provide narrow grounds on which the holder of an entry clearance can be refused entry. These are contained in the draft Immigration Rules which can be changed at any time. Until now there has always been (and there is at present), a right of appeal before removal. I suggest to the Committee that it would be quite wrong to prevent holders of entry clearance from appealing against refusal at a port by so effectively extending the narrower range on which entry can be refused—for example, on the grounds that false representations were made to get the entry clearance, as in paragraph 17 of the Immigration Rules. The effect of that would be that persons coming into the ports in that way would be in a worse position than other holders of entrance clearances who were refused entry. It would

1065
seriously undermine the whole basis of prior entry control which is, after all, the way in which the Government exercise their control over entry. The vast bulk of that control is carried out overseas.
We are arguing that to extend the grounds of refusal for those who have come in with entry clearance and to deny appeal against refusal is to deny justice on two grounds. First, it is making an administrative change in the basis for the consideration of entrance clearance. Secondly, it is making absolutely certain that those administrative changes cannot be challenged in any way in the courts. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, these amendments would allow a person, whose application had been refused on the grounds that he does not meet one of the mandatory requirements of the Immigration Rules described in Clause 11, to appeal on the grounds that on the facts of his case the relevant ground of refusal did not apply to him.
The amendment is, no doubt, intended to meet the concern raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, on Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord argued that the existence of a right of appeal should not rest solely on the ground of refusal stated by the officer taking the decision, and that there should be some form of redress against the possibility of error by the officer who took the decision.
In fact, the amendment is unnecessary because there is already provision for such a safeguard. Before coming on to the nature of that safeguard, it may be helpful to explain the kind of case we are considering. We are not concerned in Clause 11 with cases which turn on an officer's assessment of the applicant's true intentions, or on any dispute about the applicant's credibility. Clause 11 affects only cases which are refused because the applicant fails to meet certain criteria set down in the rules. I shall turn to the first of those criteria, as the second and third have already been dealt with in previous amendments.
The Immigration Rules require anyone arriving in the United Kingdom to produce a passport or a document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality. The rules require that citizens or nationals of certain countries require a visa to enter the United Kingdom. The rules require that, with limited exceptions, people coming here to work must have a work permit. The rules require that people of any nationality coming for settlement or other long-term purposes, such as setting up a business, must obtain an entry clearance from a British post overseas before they come here. The issue in relation to all those requirements of the rules is a simple one: does the person have the required document or not? The onus is on the person seeking entry to produce the required document to the immigration officer. He would also need to produce it to win any appeal against refusal based upon lack of the required document. Let us take, for example, a person who is refused entry on the
1066
grounds that he is a visa national and does not hold a visa. In order to appeal successfully at present, he would have to produce a passport showing that he was not a visa national or a passport containing a valid visa. The likelihood of a person who could produce such a document having been refused on that ground in the first place is very remote indeed.
But there is, as I have said, already a safeguard against that remote possibility. If a person who is refused on one of the grounds set out in Clause 11 nevertheless gives notice of appeal, the Home Office or the immigration officer would be required to submit to an adjudicator under Rule 8 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 an allegation that the person is not entitled to appeal. The adjudicator would have to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether that allegation is correct. If the existence of a right of appeal in a particular case is disputed, the final say does not, therefore, rest with the officer taking the decision, but with an adjudicator.
The holder of an entry clearance cannot, under the Immigration Rules, be refused leave to enter on any of the grounds set out in Clause 11. All holders of a valid entry clearance will retain the right of appeal in this country if they are refused entry. That is a complicated explanation, for which I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I hope that I have set out why we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am a little worried about this. When we agreed to entry clearance it was on the clear understanding that there would be a right of appeal in this country, because we then accepted that mistakes could be made. The whole tenor of the clause is that immigration officers are infallible—they cannot make mistakes—because if they make a mistake there is nothing that one can do about it. That is what this debate is all about. I am sure that the Government have not thought this matter through. If one follows it through, one can of course say that a person should have his passport.
I know people who were born, let us say, on the 18th of a month whose birth certificates show that they were born on the 19th. I was able to prove that, because I knew that they were born on the 18th. Even documents are not necessarily accurate. The suggestion that there will be no way that that person can show that there was a mistake is something that I find difficult to take in. The Government should think about the matter a little more seriously. We are dealing with people. I do not say that we are dealing necessarily with their lives, but we are dealing with their comfort and well being. We should be able to be a little more accommodating. Why are the Government so unaccommodating?
Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not understand the Minister's answer to the amendment. Am I right in thinking that he is saying that someone who is refused entry on grounds set out in the Bill will be unable to appeal on the grounds that the grounds upon which he was not allowed in are untrue?—that is, that he did have the required document, that he was of the necessary age or that he was a citizen of one country

1067
or another. I may be wrong. Am I to understand that those rights of contesting the facts of the case will be removed?
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister replies, will he give me an assurance that nothing contained in Clause 11 will diminish the existing rights of asylum seekers? That may be a difficult question to answer. If he cannot reply now, will he please write to me?
Viscount Astor: I can answer the noble Lord now. Clause 11 has nothing to do with asylum seekers. That is different. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, the onus is upon the person seeking entry to produce the required document to the immigration officer. When we get on to an aeroplane to go to another country, wherever that country may be, the onus is on us as the traveller to make some attempt to obtain the document that will allow us into that country. That must be common sense. It must be our responsibility to use our best efforts to obtain that document. A person would need to produce the document to win an appeal against a refusal based on the lack of the required document. If they have the document, they will show it when they arrive.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: All I am saying is that there may be some mistake in the first instance. The Minister is saying that if a mistake was made in the first instance, he cannot appeal. If a person can appeal, he can prove that a mistake was made in the first instance. That is what I am saying.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Viscount has not answered my question.
Viscount Astor: I believe that I have answered the noble Lord's question. I can repeat what I said but I hope that the noble Lord will read it and will return to the matter if he has any further questions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: It is a simple question. I asked the noble Viscount whether, if someone contests the issue, or says that he had the document and that he is of a certain nationality and age, and it was on one of those grounds that his entry was refused, can he not appeal? What is he to do under the new dispensation?
Viscount Astor: In order to appeal successfully at present he would have to produce either a passport showing that he was not a visa national or a passport containing a valid visa. Therefore, the likelihood of a person who could produce such a document having been refused on that ground in the first place is remote. He has an appeal on that preliminary issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister apologised to me for the complexity of his first answer. I do not doubt that the issue is complex. However, in answer to other questions he attempted to simplify the matter and I suspect that in doing so he gravely over-simplified. There is a danger that, unwittingly, the Committee may have been given misinformation.
I must cling on to what I understand. I understand that the clause is about the removal, from those whose case is asserted by the Government to be without foundation, of the rights of appeal. The claim "being without foundation" is defined in certain subsections
1068
of the 1971 Act, which are rewritten in this clause. The Minister has constantly made the assertion that—I am never sure which comes first—because the claims are without foundation no appeal is likely to have any effect.
I have heard no evidence of that. When I asked for evidence of the number of appeals that have taken place on the basis of age, nationality, citizenship or overstaying leave, or on any other issue of fact—which would include the issue of what is contained in a passport or visa—the Minister was unable to deny the assertion which I make on the basis of evidence supplied to me that a number of appeals exist on those cases. They are claimed by the Government to be without foundation but, when they come to appeal, which at present is allowed, the facts are not so simple or so clear as the entry clearance officer or the immigration officer has claimed. Therefore, an appeal is a valid and necessary procedure.
Perhaps I may concentrate on Amendment No. 54A, although my remarks apply to all my amendments to the clause and to the clause as a whole. The Government are saying that the very assertion which gave rise to the conclusion that the appeal is without merit is put in issue by an assertion that the ground of decision-making is factually misconceived. There is a good precedent for what we are saying. Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988, which prevents a deportation appeal on the merits unless a person has been in the UK for more than seven years, contains a proviso which states that such a person is not entitled to appeal:
"except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make a deportation order for the reasons stated in the notice of the decision".
The wording is similar to that in our amendment. Under Section 5 of the 1988 Act he can make the assertion that he is not an overstayer because he is an EC or British citizen with free movement rights and that therefore there is no power to make a deportation decision on the grounds that he has overstayed.
I am not arguing or raising a particular case. All I am saying is that in practice there are disputes about what are claimed to be the facts. Section 5 of the 1988 Act makes provision for exactly that kind of issue; that is for the facts of the case to be put in question. The Minister was over-complicating his read reply, his brief, and has over-simplified his response to later questioning. I am not at all satisfied that an adequate answer has been given to this pair of amendments. It is clear that I have not persuaded the Minister to respond in time—
Viscount Astor: I should be the last person to wish that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be in any way confused by what I have said. He said that I might inadvertently have misled the Committee but I do not believe that that is the case. I hope that when the noble Lord reads what I said he will see that that is not so.
If I may make one point to the Committee again, I would just repeat that, if a person who is refused on one of the grounds set out in Clause 11 nevertheless gives notice of appeal, the Home Office or the immigration officer is required to submit to an adjudicator under Rule 8 of the Immigration Appeals

1069
Procedure Rules 1984 an allegation that the person is not entitled to appeal. The adjudicator would have to decide as a preliminary issue whether that allegation was correct. Therefore, if the existence of a right of appeal in a particular case is disputed, the final say does not rest with the officer taking the decision but with the adjudicator. I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like, but I wanted to make that point clear to the noble Lord.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: May I ask a question to clear my mind, which is totally fogged by all this? Take the case where he needed a visa. It was said that he needed a visa. When he got to the entrance the officer said, "You haven't got your visa. You can't come". The man insists that with his country he did not need a visa. It could well be true. Even immigration officers make mistakes. He did not need a visa from the country he came from. Can he appeal to establish that the country from which he came did not require a visa, and therefore that the immigration officer was wrong and consequently he ought to be allowed in?
Viscount Astor: He can make exactly that appeal, as I have just said, and it will go to the adjudicator in that type of case.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am sorry to go on with this, but this clause deals with dependants, a matter which earlier the noble Viscount said was outside the other question I put to him. He will see under Clause 11(1) (3B) (c) that a dependant cannot now appeal, as I understand it, if he does not satisfy the immigration officer as to his age. Am I right in thinking that that is so? If I am right, does not the noble Viscount agree that this was a perennial ground of appeal to the immigration appeals tribunals in the past?
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord asked me almost about specific cases. I have spoken, I hope clearly, about the adjudicator. Of course if someone then goes back to the country from which he has come, he can always appeal. That is always open there. What we are talking about is people arriving in this country without the documents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister rose last time I was about to seek the opinion of the Committee. I have decided not to, on the grounds that the mischief done by the two subsections that will be taken out by these amendments is less serious than the mischief done by the clause as a whole, to which we shall come in a moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54B to 54D not moved]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Having tried our best to act as a responsible revising Chamber we must now come to the core of the issue on Clause 11. I cannot do better than introduce my remarks by quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, at Second
1070
Reading, at col. 1169 on 26th January. I shall try to stop at a reasonable time, but I am tempted to read a considerable amount of what he said.
"However, Clause 11 is the really vicious clause—I use the word advisedly. It is not limited to short-term applicants. It provides that to Section 13 (the primary right of appeal section) we are to add subsection (3B), which states:
'A person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance if the refusal is on the ground that', and there follow three grounds."
He went on:
"Let us look at the words. Subsection (3B) says 'if the refusal is on the ground that'. Those of us who have dealt with immigration cases know that the proposed immigrant is given a piece of paper on which there is a blank to be filled in by the immigration officer. I imagine that there is an equivalent one for entry clearance certificates. It says, 'I have refused leave to enter on the grounds that'. There then appears a colon, a dash and a blank where he inserts in manuscript whatever is the reason".
I will spare the Committee reading any more of this because the conclusion is clear that all these matters that have been the subject of particular amendments come under the same difficulty, and the difficulty is that both in (3B) and then in subsection (2) (2A) the phrase used is:
"if the refusal is on the ground that".
That leaves to the immigration officer or the entry clearance officer the entire freedom to state whatever ground he or she thinks fit for refusing entry. It is on the statement of the immigration officer or the entry clearance officer that the right to appeal depends. It does not depend on the facts or the evidence produced. It depends on what the entry clearance officer or immigration officer says. If the entry clearance officer or the immigration officer has used any of the grounds set out in the subsections to this clause, then refusal is deemed to be mandatory and the right of appeal is taken away. I suggest that it should not be the prerogative of people in those positions, simply by what they say in a document of this kind, to deny the right of appeal on the spurious ground that refusal is mandatory. They are making it mandatory by their own actions and are denying the right of appeal accordingly.
That is being done entirely on the basis of the Immigration Rules. I suggest to the Committee, as I have suggested on more than one occasion, that there is the possibility of conflict between Immigration Rules and the law which comes into play on this matter. The law includes natural justice, administrative law and European Community law. That may conflict with what is provided in the Immigration Rules from time to time. We sought to show, I believe with some degree of success last week, that the draft Immigration Rules, which we insisted on discussing during consideration of the Bill, conflicted on many occasions with the 1951 convention on refugees which purports to be the overriding authority for this Bill. I suspect, and I claim, that the Immigration Rules do now conflict and will continue to conflict with other aspects of the law to which those considering an appeal would have to have regard but to which an immigration officer working only to non-statutory immigration rules would not have to have regard.
I suggest to the Committee that the provisions which take away the right of appeal on administrative

1071
rather than legal grounds are a denial of justice and should not be included in the Bill. I hope that the Committee will reject this clause altogether.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As in Clause 10, this clause deals with the withdrawal of rights of appeal. That is an extremely serious matter. The sidenote, which I always find very revealing, states:
"Refusals which are mandatory under immigration rules".
That sidenote gives a spurious authority to the assumption which lies behind this clause; namely, that the refusals are not contentious in the first place and that, therefore, the appeals cannot succeed. I contest both of those assumptions. I argue that the refusals are contentious and that in many cases the appeals do succeed.
I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. This whole clause neglects the fact that the rules are subject to the law. The law cannot be neglected. The Immigration Rules must be in accordance with the law. As the noble Lord said, the applicable law is not just immigration law but it is also natural justice—the noble Earl said that we are making a mountain of that but I am happy to make a mountain of natural justice because it is a good mountain—administrative law and European Community law. The rules must also take into account the Secretary of State's discretion, an important matter which cannot be neglected.
Finally, I return to what I have said all too often this evening. The categories of cases where the right of appeal has been removed are extremely contentious. Age, citizenship, even British citizenship which has changed on several occasions, and European citizenship are all highly contentious matters. The idea that they can be settled by an immigration officer without any right of appeal seems to me outrageous.
Viscount Astor: Clause 11 removes the right of appeal against decisions taken on certain specified grounds, where the applicant does not meet a mandatory requirement of the immigration rules. It is worth explaining why such appeals cannot succeed at present. The power of the appellate authorities in determining an appeal is set out in Section 19 of the 1971 Act. Subsection (1) provides that an adjudicator shall allow an appeal if he considers that the decision involved was not in accordance with the law or any acceptable immigration rules, or where a decision involved the exercise of discretion, if he considers that the discretion should have been exercised differently. In all other cases, he must dismiss the appeal.
Subsection (2) provides that a decision which is in accordance with the immigration rules is not to be treated as involving an exercise of discretion simply because the Secretary of State has declined to depart from the rules. It is right and necessary that the Secretary of State should retain a residual discretion to waive the requirements of the immigration rules in exceptional cases. The flexible use of exceptional leave in asylum cases is the obvious example of a need for this.
However, the general expectation in the non-asylum cases with which this clause is concerned must be that the immigration rules, which reflect the policy
1072
laid down by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament, will be applied; and the function of the appellate authorities is simply to ensure that the rules have been applied correctly in individual cases. If the appellate authorities were able to direct the Secretary of State to waive the rules in particular cases, then they would in effect be determining immigration policy, which is not their proper function.
Some immigration rules provide for the exercise of discretion: for example, a decision to deport is always discretionary. Other rules contain requirements that the Secretary of State or the immigration officer have to be satisfied of certain matters which can only be tested by a balance of probabilities, such as for example, a person's intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of a period of study. In both those cases there is room for argument as to whether the decision is correct, and an appeal may be either allowed or dismissed.
However, some rules contain a requirement which must be met if the application is to succeed, where the question of whether the requirement is met can easily be determined on the basis of documentary evidence. When such a requirement is not met the adjudicator has no option but to dismiss the appeal when it eventually comes before him. The existence of a right of appeal in such cases does nothing to redress genuine grievances. It serves only to enable those appellants who have no claim under the immigration rules to remain in this country to spin out their stay here in pursuing hopeless appeals, while delaying the hearing of other appeals which involve issues of substance, and thereby clogging up the system. That is why Clause 11 is an important clause in this Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am looking at this clause again. One of the reasons why a man can be told he cannot appeal is that he has not had entry clearance. But entry clearance might be the very thing on which he wishes to appeal. I am afraid, as has been said earlier, that the Government have not—
Viscount Astor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, but of course if a person does not have entry clearance he has an appeal in the country where he is trying to get a certificate of entry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid what is happening here is that the noble Viscount is simply repeating the assertions which have been made and not providing any further evidence for them. I do not think that Clause 11 is an exceptionally complicated clause. Its intention is very clear. The intention is to remove rights of appeal in circumstances where entry clearance officers or immigration officers have decided to write down in a certain form a reason for refusal.
There is no suggestion in the clause as drafted that there could be any possibility of error on the part of entry clearance officers or immigration officers. I do not say that with any antagonism towards entry clearance officers or immigration officers. I know that many Members of another place have serious grounds for doubt about the impartiality or efficacy of some of the decisions reached, but I have no such grounds or personal knowledge. However, it is unfair to a body of

1073
people who have to apply administrative rules such as the draft Immigration Rules to deny them the possibility of their decisions being challenged on appeal. It is in their interests as well as in the interests of applicants that there should remain an appeal procedure.
In all of the questioning which was undertaken in the consideration of the detailed amendments, no evidence was produced by the Government to show that the matters of fact which are claimed to be sufficient to justify mandatory refusals are inviolate. There has been no denial of our claim that on almost every one of the matters of fact to which we referred in detailed amendments there could be doubt. That doubt ought to be subject to appeal just as the other grounds are subject to appeal.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that this is a vicious clause. I do not believe that it should be in the Bill. I invite the Committee to reject it.
9.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 41.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Barber, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cadman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Moyne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Prentice, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Reay, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Romney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cranborne, V.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Stewartby, L.

Downshire, M.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Ferrers, E.

Thatcher, B.

Finsberg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Flather, B.

Torrington, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vivian, L.

Hacking, L.

Wakeham, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Harvington, L.

Wise, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

1074

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Buckmaster, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Newcastle, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Ripon, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 11 agreed to accordingly.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Funding and administration of legal advice.
1988 c. 34
. A scheme under Part II of the Legal Aid Act 1988 may provide—

(a) for the making of arrangements whereby advice and assistance is provided for persons such as are mentioned in section 10 (1) and (3) of this Act; and

(b) for the remuneration out of the legal aid fund of solicitors or other advisers providing advice and assistance under the arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: If a citizen of ours has a civil case over a quarrel with his grocer, he will be entitled, if he has a prima facie case and is within the limits of means, to legal aid and to be represented by an advocate in court. We are dealing in the Bill with people to whom a decision about asylum may be the difference between life and death or safety and torture. Yet at the moment, there is no right for an asylum seeker to have legal aid, if he goes to appeal, and to have an advocate of his choice within the legal aid scheme.
I believe that I can state the case as effectively with those few sentences as if I addressed the Committee for a long time. I only add to that submission a hope that when replying the Minister will not refer to the right to go to UKIAS, or the successor of UKIAS, in order to obtain the right of representation. In its annual report issued recently, that body said frankly that it does not have the funds, the personnel or the means to fulfil that task. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment to which I put my name. I fear that to do so is an exercise in the triumph of hope over experience because the amendment urges the Government to apply the normal rules of justice, to allow a proper appeal and for it to be properly financed so that the matter can go to appeal. As the Government have been turning down argument after argument based on the normal rules of justice, I do not seriously expect the amendment to be accepted but I go on hoping that the Government will do so.
Viscount Astor: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and Amendment No. 69 seek to extend the availability of legal aid for assistance with appeals by asylum seekers. Assistance by way of representation is not generally available for tribunal hearings, and there seems to be no reason why an exception should be made for those appearing before special adjudicators or immigration appeals tribunals. This is not to say that such people would receive no assistance from the legal aid scheme; they would be able to seek advice and assistance from a solicitor under the green form scheme, provided that they were eligible to do so. Once an appeal has got as far as the Court of Appeal, full civil legal aid is available if the necessary means and merits tests are met. There are no plans to change this.
I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by saying that one of the main reasons why legal aid is not necessary is that the advice, assistance and representation are already available from the Refugee Legal Centre which is funded by the Government under Section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971, to provide those services. We do not accept that there is therefore a need to establish an alternative source of government-funded representation in appeals hearings.
We feel that it is not appropriate in the Bill to seek to deal with the availability of legal aid. That is a matter for regulations made under the Legal Aid Act. Therefore, I am afraid that I could not advise the Committee to accept the amendments.
Lord Mishcon: I was so much more optimistic than the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I suppose it is as a result of the disappointments that are very often experienced by the Liberal Democrats that she was rather more pessimistic than I.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Does he realise that, were we not natural optimists, we would not have stayed all these years with the Liberal Democrats?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord has a point. I must say that I was very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I believe that in his heart of hearts he would have wished to give a different one. I repeat, this is a tribunal which on appeal will decide somebody's life or death in many cases. And I am told in reply that we do not usually give representation to tribunals—as though this were exactly the same as an industrial tribunal or other tribunals, and as though we were dealing with matters of that kind.
The green form scheme was mentioned. It looked a little while ago as though the green form scheme would not be available at all. But the Government had second thoughts. I do not know for how long that green form scheme will be available for preliminary advice to asylum seekers. But I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently made an announcement of policy, which is to be discussed, where the green form scheme is to be limited to people on the breadline. I repeat, this is still only a matter of preliminary advice.
1076
Does the Committee believe that we should treat asylum seekers thus? They have so often in our history over the centuries found a warmth of welcome on these shores and by and large have rewarded this country for the hospitality they were given. Are we to say that we will not even afford them the chance of being properly represented before a tribunal consisting of nationals of this country when they are not nationals of this country, do not know our customs and to a large extent do not know our language? If the Committee is content with that and the Government are content, may I be forgiven for saying that we are not doing our duty?
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Carriers' liability for transit passengers]:
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 9, leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert:
("(a) may specify a description of persons only by reference to nationality;").
The noble Lord said: We come at last to Clause 12. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in speaking to this amendment, I speak also to my Amendments Nos. 57 and 60.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to tighten up the present wording of Section 1A(2) of the clause. As drafted, the clause refers to orders made on the grounds of nationality, citizenship, origin or other connection. Although grounds of race, colour or religion are excluded, it still seems to me that the words "or other connection" are capable of very broad interpretation. Kurdish-born Turks could suddenly become subject to an order, as could, for example, Iranian businessmen living and working in the USA.
The opportunities for combining a nationality facet with a citizenship facet allied with that catch-all "origin or other connection" seem to me to be endless. I see that endlessness as a burden on the long-suffering check-in clerk overseas. How does he or she establish a prospective passenger's bona fides? Many carriers work hard, albeit reluctantly, to comply with the Government's wishes on carriers' liability. Their commitment is recognised in the new Home Office guidance, which refers inter alia to the carrier's previous record, to the approved gate check system and to audited high standards of document checking. I believe that legislation should be as rigid as possible, rather than being capable of infinite flexibility and variety—hence Amendment No. 56.
I turn to Amendment No. 57. The carriers' liability Act was introduced in 1987 to address a specific emergency problem—an influx of Tamils escaping from the Sri Lankan civil war. The Act is with us still. Although carriers have always been liable to bear the costs of repatriating passengers denied permission to enter a country, the Home Office added a financial penalty—one which has been imposed more than 50,000 times since 1987 and has done little to stem the flow of asylum seekers.
The Act remains on the statute book. Adding transit passengers simply makes it more onerous. Amendment No. 57 therefore seeks to time limit orders made under Clause 12. If Her Majesty's

1077
Government see a short-lived problem such as the Tamil one of 1987—the present and regrettable Yugoslavian situation is perhaps a new example—the order should be time limited. That would not deprive Her Majesty's Government of their power in the future to introduce an order should emergencies arise.
Mention of the current problems in Yugoslavia brings me to Amendment No. 60. The recent imposition at extremely short notice—perhaps 36 to 48 hours—of a visa requirement for nationals of the former Yugoslavia, placed Yugoslavians in considerable difficulty. Visas are not easily obtainable in that war-torn country.
I realise that departments of state must each have their own priorities. I am aware of current financial constraints. But those factors, when allied, will make access to visas an increasing problem, not least for transit passengers. For example, if I may move to a slightly more peaceful country, we no longer have a consulate in Ankara, Turkey's commercial capital. I doubt if a Turkish businessman wishing to transit north-western Europe on his way across the Atlantic, or indeed those from other countries where a transit visa may become a requirement under Clause 12, will make the effort to obtain one if they can avoid the strain by routing via countries not making such a demand—and there are a number of them. Other national carriers and other nations' airports will gain from our loss. That would hardly be seen to be contributing towards the encouragement of a healthy British aviation industry by which government have rightly set such store for so long. That is evidenced perhaps most recently by my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London when he replied to an aviation debate in another place eight days ago. To reconcile that wish with other conflicting ones we need to ensure that our missions overseas are at those points where transit visa demands may arise and that missions are adequately staffed. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Under the terms of the clause, the Secretary of State is able to specify a description of persons who can be made subject to the transit visa requirement by reference to their nationality, citizenship, origin or other connection with any particular country or territory. But that description is qualified by the words,
"but not by reference to race, colour or religion",
which make it clear to all that the new provisions like the existing immigration controls will be operated without racial prejudice or discrimination.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to refer only to nationality. But that would exclude a large number of people; for example, those whose nationality is doubtful or those who are stateless. The term "nationality" does not describe necessarily the status of every person, and it is for that reason that the parameters within which persons may be described for the purposes of any order made under Clause 12 should extend to citizenship, origin or other connections with any particular country or territory. I can, however, assure my noble friend that the criteria
1078
we shall use will relate only to matters akin to, but not necessarily confined to, nationality such as the type of passport or travel document a person holds.
Lord Mountevans: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, which I shall study with a degree of interest. I have, of course, the option of coming back when I have considered his reply. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert:
("() Persons under the age of 18 shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act."").
The right reverend Prelate said: A recent analysis of the effects of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act suggests that genuine refugees have been either prevented from travelling or wrongfully returned by airlines anxious to avoid fines. Indeed, this is not surprising as there is no way in which a genuine asylum seeker can be distinguished from one who is not genuine. There is no way in which one can know before the matter is tested. It is not surprising that the effect of the Act has been to reduce the number of those who wish to seek asylum but are not able to reach this country.
I wish to submit to the Committee that this is, in effect, a restriction on entry which obstructs the flight to safety of individuals who are in need of international protection and it therefore circumvents the object and purpose of the 1951 convention on refugees. Indeed, Amnesty International makes that claim. Therefore, while this country has no obligation to encourage or facilitate the flight of refugees to this country, it does have an obligation not to obstruct access to its asylum procedures by those in need of protection.
The intention of this amendment is to exempt children under the age of 18 from the provisions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. Children are a particular category who are, as we have argued previously, especially vulnerable and are in need of special care. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children—defined as people under the age of 18—are entitled to special care and assistance. Article 22 of the convention states:
"Unaccompanied refugee children should receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of the rights of the convention and other international human rights instruments to which the said states are parties".
The argument is that to require children to fulfil visa requirements which are impossible—indeed, in some cases may even be dangerous if they have to seek visas from authorities from which they are under threat—cannot be said to be giving them the special care and assistance to which they are entitled. They are, in fact, prevented from travelling, disembarking or making an asylum claim. That is at odds with their legitimate entitlement to special care and assistance. The fact that children are often travelling on their own in these circumstances, or at any rate sometimes on their own,

1079
is itself indicative of the very serious situation that they are in. Parents and families do not normally put their children on aeroplanes unless there are very compelling reasons for them to do so.
There have been cases in which children have been put on aeroplanes unaccompanied and have been wrongfully returned by airlines before being able to claim asylum. That is no doubt because those airlines are afraid of incurring fines under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. So the argument is that if children are to be given the right to seek the asylum that is surely their due, they should be exempted from the provisions of this clause. That is why the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My name is attached to this amendment and I am very pleased to support the words of the right reverend Prelate. This is a specific case of an extraordinary attitude towards people under the age of 18 which permeates the whole Bill. In much of the rest of our legislation, particularly legislation enacted in recent years, there has been a growing and a welcome recognition that children need to be protected and need to be treated separately in the eyes of the law. The age at which children have acquired certain rights and duties is still a matter of controversy, but the fact that children should be treated differently is, I believe, widely accepted in our law. It is all the more extraordinary that in this legislation a basic advance in our understanding of human rights should have been so widely ignored.
As I have said, this is a particular case which has a great deal of resonance for those who have observed immigration to this country over the years and who know about the valuable role which immigrants and asylum seekers as refugees have played in our society over the years. Imagine what would have happened if Rabbi Schonfeld, who was able to facilitate the escape of so many children and young people from Nazi Germany before the war, had been subject to the Act to which we refer. Many of those children have played a very conspicuous and valuable role in our society. They would simply have been sent back to their place of origin by sea in those days rather than by air. They would have been in no position to make or even to get access to an application for asylum under the provisions of this Act. If that would have been true in the 1930s it is no less true now.
There must be special protection. There must not be the possibility that those who, because they are not adults, are unable to speak up for themselves effectively may be denied access to the asylum rights which are available to adults. That is what I fear will happen if the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act is extended to young people under the provisions of this clause.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate have said. It is truly astonishing that there should be put before this House a Bill which makes no distinction between adults and children. Does the Committee really believe that children should be treated as though they are adults? Does it really believe that terrified children, shoved on
1080
aeroplanes (on which they have probably never travelled before) by terrified parents, going to a country where the language spoken is totally alien to theirs—a country which they may have never heard of, with different customs and different culture—should be treated in exactly the same way as if they were adults?
Is that honestly the intention of the Government? Have they considered the implications of that intention? Do they honestly believe that it is humane? Do they believe that it is in accordance with our obligations under the various conventions which we have signed? I look at Members of the Committee opposite and wonder what is going through their heads when they support legislation that contains this yawning and uncivilised omission.
Lord Tordoff: This is not just a sentimental intervention. Children are in a particular position. Very often they find it difficult to obtain documents which may very well have been in the possession of their parents. They may very well have been thrown out of houses and their possessions destroyed. There is no chance that the children can have adequate documents when they come here and yet the law expects that they shall have the same type of documents as adults. There is no doubt that children are particularly penalised under this kind of legislation. I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate has moved this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: This is not the right place to conduct the argument about whether children should be included in this Act. There may or may not be an argument for saying that children should be excluded altogether from the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, but surely it should not be included under the visas for transit section. It seems a rather odd place to put it. If there is an argument for excluding children from the legislation, it should be done under a separate clause, in a separate part of the Bill and should apply to children throughout the Bill, not just under Clause 12 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl is in understandable error. I made the same mistake when I first read the amendment. The Act referred to in the amendment is not this Act—not what will be the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act—but the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.
The Earl of Onslow: Then it should be in a new and separate clause, not tucked in here. Either way, it must be wrong.
Lord Tordoff: In that case, it should not be included in this Bill at all.
Lord Renton: We should bear in mind that the only children referred to and affected by this clause are those who are transit passengers on the way to another country, who just stop here on the way. Presumably, arrangements will have been made before they left their country of origin (however unsettled a state that

1081
country may be in) for them to be received in the third country. We are dealing only with transit passengers here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, criticised me earlier in the Committee stage of this Bill for proposing things which went outside the Long Title of the Bill. I remind him that in relation to this matter the Long Title states that the Bill is intended only,
"to extend the provision of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 to transit passengers".
In other words, a wider provision for children would have been outside the Long Title, much as we would have wished to include such a provision.
Lord Renton: Referring to me the other night, just after I had spoken, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"The noble Lord is bad for my health".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 848.]
Perhaps I may advise him that I fully understand; I am very sympathetic; and I shall try to be therapeutic tonight.
At the foot of page 8, the Bill proposes an amendment to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order require persons of any description specified in the order who on arrival in the United Kingdom pass through to another country or territory without entering the United Kingdom to hold a visa for that purpose".
The matter is further clarified in subsection (2), which states:
"An order under this section—
(a) may specify a description of persons by reference to"—
and the provisions then mention various things.
Surely, the amendment refers only to those young people who are passing through this country, who are landing here temporarily or even conceivably not landing here at all.
Lord Tordoff: Does the noble Lord not understand that it is no good relying on people being prepared to receive the children because if, for instance, they have to move from Heathrow to Gatwick, they will not be allowed to go to Gatwick because they will fall foul of this legislation and be sent back to their country of origin. They will never arrive in the third country where they are due to be received.
Lord Renton: It would be interesting to see upon what assumption my noble friend Lord Ferrers claims that this clause is based. On reading it, it is perfectly clear that we are dealing with transit passengers.
Earl Russell: I cannot help wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has perhaps not improved his own case in pointing out that these will be passengers en route to another country. Let us suppose that a passenger is en route from Bogotá to Frankfurt. Because he will pass through Heathrow (perhaps in transit to Gatwick), he will be required to hold a visa. I do not see why that is necessary. It will interfere with the very excellent traditions of many airlines regarding caring for children. It will deter them from taking children on board, and it will
1082
interfere with the internal affairs of the country to which the children are going. It seems a quite unwarrantable intrusion into other people's business.
Lord Renton: It would be better if we all waited to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: When people are in difficulties, they often decide to send their children away. Someone may leave Trinidad to go to New York via Britain because that provides the quickest getaway. That person would arrive at Gatwick. Under the Bill, children would not be allowed to go from Gatwick to Heathrow; but it is from Heathrow that one travels to New York. It is as simple as that.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is usually a good guide on matters of this type; but it seems to me that on this occasion Homer may be nodding. From looking at the text of Amendment No. 58, I suggest that it applies to the whole of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.
Lord Renton: But the Act referred to is not the Bill. The Act referred to is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.
Earl Ferrers: If I may say so, my noble friend is right.
Lord Tordoff: No.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, complains. He takes one view, and my noble friend takes another. I was saying that I thought that my noble friend was right when he said that this part of the Bill involves transit visas. The amendment deletes from the provision of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 people under the age of 18. That widens the whole thing considerably. My noble friend was right to draw attention to that fact.
The right reverend Prelate has drawn attention to the problems of children and the difficulties associated with them. I am sure we all have sympathy with that. But when the 1987 Act was passed, similar amendments were put down, debated and rejected by Parliament. We said then—the same applies today—that statutory exemptions to liability would undermine the whole aim of the Act. Its whole aim is to prevent people from travelling here without the proper documents. It would encourage carriers to make judgments which they could not reasonably make.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that it would be extraordinary if there were a difference between adults and children. I do not believe that is extraordinary. All we are saying is if people are going to travel around the world to different countries, they must have the appropriate documents. We cannot have people merely floating around from one country to another saying, "I am a child and therefore I do not need the appropriate document". Of course one has to have the appropriate documents.
The amendment, which excludes children from the requirements, would open up an avenue for abuse which would invite fraudulent claims as to the age and circumstances which would be put to the airlines to

1083
secure carriage to the United Kingdom. If one were to exclude children under the age of 18, it is not beyond the Committee's imagination to consider that people aged 19 or 20 might say, "Oh well, I am only 15, and therefore I do not have to have a document".
The amendment would discourage parents or guardians from obtaining the necessary visas and would encourage carriers to ignore the checking of documents of all those under 18. The present carrier liability arrangements work well, partly because there are no statutory exemptions to confuse the carriers' check-in staff. Even with exemption from liability to a charge under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, it is unlikely the carriers would wish to remove from his own country an unaccompanied child with inadequate documents.
The right reverend prelate and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were worried about asylum seekers. I do not believe that in practice the amendment would afford any extra protection to genuine refugee children. If a child is genuinely at risk of persecution, it is not obvious that the most appropriate course for him to take is to make his way unaccompanied to an international airport, buy a ticket and then take an aeroplane to the United Kingdom. If a child arrives in the United Kingdom, is a genuine asylum applicant but has no visa he will, nevertheless, be considered a proper, genuine asylum applicant.
It is reasonable to keep the matter in perspective. In 1992 some 185 children claimed asylum at the ports. Millions of children came to this country in other circumstances. If children need a visa their parents or guardians should obtain one and the carriers should not transport them without a visa.
I return to the point that asylum applications and asylum applicants are in a way separate issues. In order to travel around the world one must have the appropriate documents, whether one is an adult or a child. That is not unreasonable. If, on the other hand, one is fleeing from persecution, whether a child or an adult, one's application will be considered properly.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister said that there might be a number of people aged 19 or 20 swanning or wandering around the world—I cannot remember the exact phrase.
Earl Ferrers: I said floating around the world.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. He said that there might be a number of people floating around the world claiming to be 15 or 16. I must remind him that only a few moments ago the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, told the Committee that the question of age on a passport was a matter of fact, it could not be disputed and it need not be the subject of appeal. He told the Committee that if a person's passport stated that he was 16 or whatever, that should be taken as gospel truth. There appears to be a conflict between the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The Government have not addressed the point that I raised. It is serious. We are
1084
talking about children who may have been sent abroad by their parents because their parents recognise that there are problems in their home country and they want their children to be safe. It may be that the first available transport is to this country. As the law stands, the carrier should not take them because they will not have a visa to enter this country, even though they are not staying here but travelling on to another country. The amendment proposes to exempt children from such a provision in order that the carrier will be able to take the child. The carrier will feel safe that it can take the child to Gatwick and that the child can then go from Heathrow to New York, which is where the parents wanted to send him. As the Bill stands the carriers will not be able to do that. If they do so, they will be taking a chance that they may be fined. The Minister has not addressed the point that I made.
Earl Ferrers: I will try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. He said that if parents are worried about what is happening in their country and want to send their children away to another country and it so happens that the United Kingdom is the country to which they would like to send them—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I said passing through.
Earl Ferrers: Very well, passing through. The situation which the noble Lord cited was one in which parents are concerned that the conditions in their country are unfavourable—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Let us say that there is a riot or a coup, and I shall use Trinidad as an example. If there is a coup and you are worried about what will happen to you and your children, you say, "I will take whatever happens but I want to save my children". I use New York as an example because most of our citizens have family in New York. In that case the parents will send their children to New York. However, perhaps the only flight available at the time is a British Airways flight to London—
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord wishes to go to New York, he does not want to go to London from Trinidad.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: If there is a danger, then you move in the first direction. That is obvious.
Earl Ferrers: I am trying to help the noble Lord, but I am not getting on very well. Half the reason is of course that the noble Lord will not restrain himself in his seat long enough to hear the answer. If you are going to go around the world, there is no point in—the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, makes disparaging gesticulations.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Because it is rubbish.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says that it is rubbish. I am trying to explain that if you are in an uncomfortable position—and he has cited Trinidad—you cannot just go along and get the nearest aeroplane and fly to wherever it may take you without

1085
the appropriate documents. If you did that, the whole system in any country would come to an end. That is different from saying that you are fleeing for asylum.
The noble Lord's example was that he was trying to take a prudent precaution, and the child in that case was not one seeking asylum. There have been occasions when people have come to another country via the United Kingdom and not had transit visas; they have gone, as it were, airside, abused that position and come into the country. Therefore, it is necessary to have the proper controls. There are a few countries where the controls have to be rigid and other countries where they have to be less rigid.
If there are any countries where the transit visa requirements are going to be made, then your Lordships will have the opportunity of discussing this when the resolution is brought before your Lordships for negative resolution. When people move around the world it is necessary to have the appropriate documents, and I do not see the example of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, as a valid reason why all documents should be dispensed with.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I have the highest regard for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I would not in any way wish to undermine that. But with respect I wonder whether he has grasped what we believe to be the chief objection, which is precisely that enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. The effect of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act has been to prevent those who otherwise might have been able to reach a country and claim asylum from doing so. The intention of this amendment is that children under 18 should be excluded from that.
My understanding is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this exempts those under 18 from the provisions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I think that that is the intention. I accept that it is a wide amendment, and certainly in view of the lateness of the hour I am not disposed to press it. I believe that there is a genuine concern here that the effect of this is to prevent those who have a legitimate claim to asylum from seeking that asylum in this country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 19 at end insert:
("(4) No order shall be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless he is satisfied that adequate consular facilities exist for the issue of United Kingdom visas to the relevant nationals affected by the proposed order.
(5) The expression "adequate consular facilities" in subsection (4) above shall include the provision of appropriate consular staff and of offices sited in appropriate locations to enable such visas to be issued expeditiously and in a timely manner."").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment, and I should like to move it in order to hear my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend spoke to this amendment when he moved Amendment No. 56. The existing network of over 150 visa-issuing posts worldwide should be able to cope adequately with any increase in demand for visas resulting from the imposition of a transit visa requirement on any given nationality. The Government's record on providing the staff necessary to meet new or increased demand for visas is very good. In the past two years, additional staff have been sent to many posts. Accra, Lagos, Manila, Bangkok, Oman and others have all received extra people. We are committed to offering a fast and efficient visa service. That commitment remains and transit visa applicants should be treated no differently.
It may be necessary at some stage to impose a transit visa requirement on citizens of a country or territory with whom we have no diplomatic relations, with whom we are at war or where civil strife prevents us from maintaining a British presence. Under the Immigration Act 1971 a visa requirement can be imposed upon such persons. It would be extremely odd if there were a visa regime but we could not impose a transit visa requirement if necessary. Such nationals may be temporarily or permanently resident in a country where British interests did not justify the costs of establishing a post or where there is little or no demand for United Kingdom visas; in other words, if that country's citizens did not require visas.
In new states where there has never been a British mission, decisions on whether an embassy or consulate should open and, if so, whether a full or partial visa service should be provided are determined by a number of factors, not least the cost to the British taxpayer. Demand for visas will also be an important consideration but the proximity of other posts in the area will also be a major factor.
Lord Hylton: I am sure that the Government do their best to establish visa offices where they are thought to be required or where they are clearly shown to be required. However, a perfect example of the lack of facilities is the former Yugoslavia. There was no consular office in Bosnia or Croatia. People fleeing from the desperate fighting, ethnic cleansing, and so on, were expected to travel to Slovenia which was several hundred miles away from the scene of the action. That imposed an almost impossible requirement on those people.
1088
Since that time some consular officials have been placed in Zagreb, which has improved matters slightly, but it is still necessary to cross an international frontier.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is there any provision to grant transit visas at the airport? Unlike most Members of the Committee, I spend much time obtaining visas as I am only the holder of an Australian passport. I have often been in a country where I have been told that the visa with which I had been issued was valid for only one entry and that I happened to have passed through that country on more than one occasion in transit. In those countries, a transit visa is issued then and there. Where there are no consular facilities whatever, and we are only talking about a transit visa, would it be possible to provide facilities to grant transit visas at the airport?
Lord Tordoff: The point is not what happens when you arrive at the point of transit but what happens before you board the plane. If the airline believes that it will have a liability of £2,000 as well as having to return you to the point of origin, it may not agree to take you in the first place if it feels that your documents are not valid.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to Yugoslavia. That is a particularly difficult and unusual situation. At present the opening of a mission in Bosnia is not practicable. However, we have opened a visa section in Zagreb and have sent in additional staff to meet the demand. Of course, I accept that there are difficulties.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked whether facilities are available to grant transit visas at airports. They are not. However, we must remember that transit visas will be used only for certain countries where it is considered that that is necessary. It does not apply to all countries.
Lord Mountevans: I am grateful to my noble friend for that extremely full answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 9, line 19 at end insert:
("(4A) No liability shall be incurred in respect of a person of a description specified in any order made under this section if it is shown by the owner or agents of the relevant ship or aircraft that reasonable and diligent steps were taken to establish on embarkation that the person held a visa.
(4B) For the purpose of establishing whether the owners or agents took reasonable and diligent steps under subsection (4A) above regard shall be had to—

(a) the procedures (including gate checks) adopted to check visas by the owners or agents at or prior to embarkation; and

(b) any misleading or confusing stamps in the person's passport.

(4C) In applying the provisions of subsection (4A) above to this section the owners or agents shall be deemed to be less skilled than an immigration officer when determining whether the falsity of any document was reasonably apparent."").
The noble Lord said: On earlier occasions I have mentioned the growing number of steps being taken

1089
by both British and foreign carriers to seek, by training and manpower, to cope with the problems of carriers' liabilities. No matter how diligent they are, carriers can be left with the problem of a life or death decision relating to an asylum seeker.
Less tragic but perhaps equally demanding is the problem of trying to read a potential passenger's mind as to whether he or she intends to "jump ship" by applying for entry while notionally in transit. Thirdly, there is the problem of those asylum seekers who have been advised to destroy their documents before arriving at a UK gateway.
A trained immigration officer can address these problems at his leisure and has the facilities to do so. But a check-in agent, without the facilities, cannot. We are told that he or she is not the first line of immigration control. But the instances which I have mentioned lead me to reject that view. We are now faced with an additional dimension—that of a transit passenger of some as yet unspecified nationality. The guidelines are for guidance. I seek to turn that guidance into legislation.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 61A, I address the problem that the 1987 Act has to be applied rigidly. Carrier staff are forced to take decisions on suspicion. Those decisions, I feel, can only be taken by immigration officers. Their decisions are appealable; the carrier staff's decisions are not. An absolute offence is being created in their terms at the point of boarding. The amendment seeks to provide a logical and reasonable defence for the carrier's staff.
Amendment No. 63 is a probing amendment. I understand that penalties are generally relieved if the passenger is in due course granted refugee status. But many passengers are only granted indefinite leave to stay and in those cases the penalties are not lifted. I simply ask my noble friend the Minister to explain why there is this discrimination. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I do not intend to speak for long because it is late; but I would ask the Minister whether he is aware that at least a quarter of the passengers passing through Heathrow are in transit. That is an enormous number. Also, is he aware that it is a great disadvantage to someone if they do not have the documentation which is required just simply to pass through. They would therefore make a point of going through some other airport. That would definitely be disadvantageous for us when we are supposedly encouraging as many people as possible to use our airports and our airlines.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 61, provides that a charge should not be levied if the carrier can show that it took reasonable and diligent steps to establish on embarkation that a person held a visa. My noble friend has argued that carriers who do their best to check passengers' documentation should not have charges enforced against them. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the new guidance to carriers on charging procedures, to which I referred when the Bill
1090
was before your Lordships on a previous occasion, has now been completed and issued. It includes some clear and useful guidance on the circumstances in which charges may be waived.
Section 1(2) of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 provides that no liability is incurred where the carrier can show that the passenger produced proper documents at the time he boarded the ship or aircraft for the United Kingdom. The problem arises when the passenger arrives nevertheless without a document. It may be that he destroyed it or handed it to someone else in the course of his journey. This increases the difficulty of removing someone. It may be that the document was forged at the outset. It is often hard to be sure in these cases. Documents can also be given to carriers and recycled.
In recognition of the problem the immigration service has developed a system called "approved gate checks". Airlines are able to apply for this status at named airports from which they operate to the United Kingdom. The airlines need to show that they operate an effective system of document checking and that there are adequate security procedures in place to prevent passengers circumventing those checks. An immigration service representative will inspect the arrangements. As a consequence, the carrier will not normally be charged for any passenger who arrives from that airport without documents on the assumption that he must have presented convincing documents at the point of embarkation. Many airlines have expressed interest in those arrangements and approved gate checks status has been given in about a dozen cases. I believe that that arrangement goes a long way to meet my noble friend's point while retaining an effective barrier to people who would seek to travel without proper documents.
Amendment No. 61 also refers to misleading or confusing stamps in passports. Again, I can reassure the Committee on that point. The new guidance to carriers makes it clear that charges will normally be waived in cases where passport endorsements are unclear or confusing and in certain other circumstances where it may not be clear whether or not a visa is valid.
The 1987 Act also provides that a document shall be regarded as being what it purports to be unless its falsity is reasonably apparent. Amendment No. 61 seeks to make it clear that carrier employees should not be expected to be as proficient as immigration officers in detecting forgeries. I entirely agree. In the new guidance to carriers the matter is dealt with in this way:
"A forgery would be regarded as reasonably apparent if it were of a standard which a trained representative of a carrying company, examining it carefully but briefly and without the use of technological aids could reasonably be expected to detect".
A "trained representative" would be expected to have a basic knowledge of how to identify fraudulent documents, but not to be expert nor to have the resources for highly detailed examination.
The immigration service provides carriers with a booklet on basic forgery detection and also includes the subject in the training which it provides to carriers' employees. That is intended to enable carriers to spot

1091
obvious cases of abuse. It provides some useful tips as to what to look out for. It is certainly not intended to turn carriers' staff into immigration officers.
The Committee will be aware that amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 61A and 63 were debated during the passage of the 1987 Act. We said then, and the situation is the same now, that statutory exemptions to liability would undermine the whole purpose of the Act, which is to prevent people travelling here without the proper documents. It would encourage carriers to make judgments which they could not reasonably make.
In keeping with undertakings which were given by Ministers when the Act was introduced, no charge is enforced on carriers in relation to any passenger who is subsequently accepted as a refugee. Where a charge has been levied in such a case there are administrative arrangements to refund or waive the charge.
The whole point of the arrangements set out in Clause 12 is to safeguard the immigration control from misuse of the current transit without visa concessions by passengers who assure the airline that they intend only to transit the UK whereas their true intention is to seek entry. Carriers have often made representations to us about the difficulty for them of making judgments as to the genuineness of passengers' intentions to transit the United Kingdom without seeking entry and of having to decide whether or not to carry the passenger without the required visa. Clause 12, and the order to be made under it, will clarify the situation for carriers. There will be no element of subjective judgment for them. Against that simple and reasonable objective it is an unnecessary contradiction to make complex provision in the event that transit passengers might possibly be granted asylum or indefinite leave to remain.
Lord Mountevans: I am again grateful for a comprehensive reply, which I shall study with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61A not moved.]
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 62:
page 9, line 19, at end insert:
("(4D) Where the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft has incurred a liability under section 1(1) above in respect of a person of a description specified in an order made under subsection (1) above he may appeal against that liability to a special adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act").
(4F) The Lord Chancellor shall for the purposes of subsection (4D) above

(a) designate such numbers of adjudicators appointed for the purposes of Part II of the 1971 Act as he thinks necessary to act as special adjudicators, and

(b) may from time to time vary that number and the persons so designated."").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 62 seeks to amend the appeals procedure in respect of penalties incurred under carriers' liability by establishing an independent adjudicator.
Hitherto there have been three tiers of adjudication procedure for appeals. The first was at the port of entry. There was a second and subsequent level of appeal to Lunar House. Thirdly, there was a right to appeal to a higher level at Lunar House. The third
1092
option has recently been removed. The new structure would be acceptable if it did not, at both levels, involve immigration officers as the arbiters. Of course all personnel involved are fair and reasonable in their interpretation, but it seems to me that, being human, it is conceivable that they are reluctant to overturn decisions taken by colleagues at the lower level. Their position as adjudicators is almost as unenviable as that of the check-in staff. They are bound to be faced with difficulties. Those carriers who care are sympathetic to the immigration staff but unhappy about the judge and jury element built into the appeals procedure as it now stands.
Collectively, the carriers are uncertain whether an appeal to the courts would be worth while. Hence they pay for an independent adjudicator who is seen to be at length from the Home Office Immigration Division, and indeed from the Home Office itself. An independent adjudicator is the objective of Amendment No. 62. Such an adjudicator could be perceived to be more independent if he were operating within the Lord Chancellor's remit. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment introduces into the immigration appeals system an avenue of appeal for carriers against their notice of liability. There does already exist, I suggest, a perfectly adequate avenue of redress for the carriers. First, a carrier can make representations to the local immigration service against the notification of liability to a charge under the 1987 Act where the carrier is being charged for having taken a person without the correct documents. If the carrier is dissatisfied when he appeals, he can then apply to the immigration service headquarters. It is not without note that £4 million in liabilities have been waived since the Act was passed.
The immigration service has also recently issued to carriers a very comprehensive guide to the carriers' liability legislation. It includes in it advice on the way in which notices of liability can be challenged. It would not be appropriate to introduce an appeal system in this instance. The Home Office has no power to seize money. If the carrier refused to pay a charge, the Home Office would then seek to recover it through the courts in the normal way that a civil litigant does. They would then have to examine whether a charge was reasonable. That would be the court's job. That recourse could not be bettered as a means of obtaining an independent and totally impartial view.
Lord Mountevans: I am grateful yet again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mountevans: The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 set out to address a one-off situation—Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. Since then, like Topsy, "It just growed". Yet figures referred to at Second Reading in respect of the penalties imposed with regard to a number of asylum seekers (about £45

1093
million) and in respect of the penalties as yet uncollected (about £24 million) demonstrate that the Act is not working.
It is difficult to find a carrier which supports the Act although many make a fair fist of trying to make it work, despite the burdens that it imposes on carriers' staff, to which I have referred when speaking on earlier amendments. Furthermore, there is a suspicion among some major carriers that treatment is unequal. When the Home Office wished to tighten up on the collection of penalties last year it chose to fire a warning shot at Lufthansa and Swissair, "Pay up or else". There is no evidence that such warnings have been given to a number of other carriers, in particular those from the third world, perhaps because there is a diplomatic dimension involved. Yet there is evidence that third world carriers are the least enthusiastic about complying with the Act or in terms of paying the penalties due.
One suspects that the Department of Transport has some sympathy with the enforcement argument put forward by the carriers. That department must be concerned that the Act is damaging to British carriers and that if the Act is widened, as proposed in Clause 12, there will be damage also to our airports industry. There is potential damage to our tourism industry which I detailed at Second Reading. There is potential damage to our standing in the wider world.
Lastly, as I still believe in the context of Amendment No. 56, we are giving the Secretary of State very wide and unspecified powers. For those reasons, I have to say that I would find it difficult to support the Motion that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mountevans is so concerned about Clause 12. At present, through an administrative concession, the vast majority of visa nationals are not required to obtain a transit visa if they do not intend to enter the United Kingdom but are simply passing through our country on the way to their final destination. Transit visas are required in certain circumstances for six countries and in all circumstances for only two countries. Clause 12 will put these administrative arrangements on a statutory footing. In particular, the list of persons required to hold transit visas will in future be made by a negative resolution instrument enabling any changes to be debated by both Houses of Parliament.
Genuine transit passengers who remain in the airside transit lounge and depart with their onward flights present no problems to our immigration control. But some passengers have deliberately misused this facility and sought entry to the United Kingdom without the mandatory visa. To safeguard the immigration control from abuse of this kind, it is necessary to impose an airside transit visa requirement on certain nationalities.
A transit visa requirement on certain visa nationals whose stated intention is to pass through the United Kingdom without seeking entry has no greater effect
1094
on asylum seekers than the visa requirement which already exists for passengers seeking entry to the United Kingdom. It is aimed at those who are not genuine airside transit passengers and who would seek to circumvent the visa arrangements. There is already abuse by certain airside transit passengers and we would be failing in our duty if we did not take active steps to curb it.
This clause does not indicate any change in policy by the Government. In practice, the transit visa regime already exists. There are two countries which are subject to airside country visa requirements and they and six others are subject to a transit visa requirement if the person intends to pass through immigration control before catching the ongoing flight.
Under the clause, any changes to those requirements will have to come before your Lordships; they will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to discussion and the negative resolution procedure. It is now our intention to impose transit visa requirements very sparingly indeed. I think therefore that it is quite appropriate that Clause 12 should remain in the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I find this rather hard to understand; perhaps my noble friend can explain a case to me. If a person going from A to B via London Airport arrives but does not go to the immigration authorities and stays either on the aeroplane or on the airside, how on earth will anyone know whether he has a visa?
Earl Ferrers: When a person stays on the airside of an airport, it is not uncommon for him to be checked and asked whether he is going into transit or going through. If that person does not have the appropriate visa, he will not be able to come in.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I wonder whether my noble friend can answer this question. If someone flies to the southern tip of Italy and then to Rome and boards a BA plane in transit, how can BA officials or the UK carrier be sure that he may legally come into the United Kingdom?
Lord Trefgarne: I am bound to say that I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the clause. My noble friend referred to past abuse of the transit arrangements. I cannot quite understand how that could take place. Is it the case, as my noble friend suggested, that those seeking to remain in transit at London Airport, for example, sought to leave the transit facilities and enter the United Kingdom without proper authority? Have there been many such cases? Is it a real mischief that we are trying to address, or is it only in the minds of the officials?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I too should like to support the argument of my noble friend Lord Mountevans that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I think it is generally agreed that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has not worked very well. We have heard many arguments on that point. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, points his finger at me. I must admit that I was a Member of the Government when that

1095
Act was passed. But one is entitled to note how legislation works over a period of time and to make observations, as I am doing this evening.
That the legislation has been seen not to work very well I believe can be proved by the fact that it was necessary last year to double the fine. Had it been working well, it would not have been necessary to double the fine because presumably the number of people coming in would have gone down rather than up.
I believe that those arguments are reasonable and that that Act has not worked particularly well. Therefore, I am somewhat horrified to see that this Bill proposes to extend the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act to transit passengers. Transit passengers represent a very large and advantageous income to British airlines—not necessarily only to British Airways but British airlines in general—at Heathrow and other British airports.
I should like to ask my noble friend a number of questions about how he thinks the visa requirement might operate. I had experience when I was a Minister in the Foreign Office of visiting Mongolia. Not many people have been to Mongolia. I would recommend that anybody who goes there should check very carefully beforehand how many visas he requires before he goes through Russia. I had intended to transit through Moscow, and on my way back I planned to visit Moscow and spend a day and a half there visiting the embassy and various offices and facilities in my role as the person responsible for administration at the Foreign Office.
It was automatically assumed that I would not require a Russian visa on my way out to Mongolia because I was only in transit. Imagine my horror, therefore, on returning from Mongolia—the first stop in Russia is at a place called Irkutsk, in Siberia, which is quite a long way from anywhere—to discover that my visa had been used up on my way out and that therefore I was attempting to enter Russia without a visa. However, I think my horror was slightly less than that of my private secretary, who felt that he was about to lose a Minister somewhere in Siberia.
The point I am trying to make is that, if the British Foreign Office, with all its facilities, was unable to find out that I needed two visas for that particular journey, it seems unreasonable to expect the many punters who propose to travel in transit only through Heathrow to find out that they require one visa or even two visas in transit.
That brings me to one particular question that I should like to ask my noble friend. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone is travelling from Kathmandu, in Nepal, which I believe is a country whose nationals at present require visas to enter this country. He is going through Frankfurt, then through Heathrow and on to New York. I suppose it is a fair bet that he might go back the same way. Will that person require one visa at £20, or whatever it is, or two visas at £20 each—that is, a total of £40? If so, is that not a slight disincentive for him to travel through Heathrow at all? Might he not go through Frankfurt
1096
and directly on to New York or wherever? Is it not going to cost the British airlines and airports system rather a lot of money?
Suppose that person does not even start from Kathmandu but from Italy, say, and wants to go through London in transit. How is he to know what is required when he is going through in transit? How are we to advertise to those nationalities that require transit visas at Heathrow if they do not start from their country of origin but start from somewhere completely different? How are we to advertise to them that, though they have been used in the past to merely travelling through Heathrow in transit without a visa, they will now suddenly require one? I believe that this clause compounds what was a bad law in the first place. It is just giving added ammunition to those who think that it is a bad law now.
Lord Tordoff: That was a courageous intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and it was generous of him to join in the debate. Couple that with the fact that we may be talking about refugees and not just members of Her Majesty's foreign service or junior Ministers, and we can see how the issue may be compounded. That is what we have been discussing all night.
Perhaps I can ask a question. What happens if a flight on which somebody is in transit, instead of going to Heathrow is diverted because of fog to Manchester, and people are then moved by road to, say, Liverpool? The truth is that they will not be allowed to travel by road to Liverpool; they will be put on the next plane, sent back to where they came from and the airline will be charged £2,000 for the privilege.
There is a certain Alice in Wonderland aspect, certainly to the original Bill; but to extend it, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, says, seems to be compounding the felony.
Earl Russell: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I am much relieved that he is not still in Irkutsk.
The point he made regarding disincentives is an important one. If it is a disincentive to the passenger, it may equally be a disincentive to the airline. When one looks at airline routes across the Atlantic, it is like an axle running between London and New York with the spokes radiating out from those two clearing points. It need not necessarily be London; it could equally well be Schipol or Paris, or both.
Airlines are big business. Airports are worth money. Our balance of payments, I believe, is not in such a good state that we can afford wilfully to throw away a large amount of income which this country is at present bringing in.
Lord King of Wartnaby: I shall not detain the Committee any longer. I am mildly relieved to note that Alice in Wonderland has at last been introduced into this discussion.
A great deal has been said constructively by Members of the Committee in regard to this problem, and I know that there are others waiting to speak. However, I should like to ask my noble friend a

1097
number of questions with the object of improving understanding between the Government and the airline industry.
I recently had the honour of being elevated to the position of President of British Airways.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord King of Wartnaby: I must therefore declare an interest. But I hope that I speak for the whole of the international transport industry—airlines, airports and shipping. The operation of the carriers' liability Act of 1987 continues to cause anxiety to the whole industry. Clause 12 of the Bill gives Ministers a power to require the nationals of specified countries to have transit visas if they pass, even briefly, through this country. It extends the penalties of the carriers' liability Act to transport operators who bring them here without the necessary documents.
My argument is largely a commercial one, as the Committee may discover. I have no quarrel with the purpose of the Bill. International migration poses extremely difficult problems for governments, and the unauthorised movement across national frontiers of large numbers of people is an increasingly serious problem in many parts of the world.
British Airways is proud of its record in reducing the number of illegal immigrants brought to this country by air, despite the increase in the numbers seeking to emigrate and the greater sophistication of the methods used to attempt illegal entry. We have achieved that because we want to do things well, not because we have been coerced by penalties.
The air transport industry contributes more than £20 billion a year to our balance of payments. I hope that this is a contribution which Ministers welcome, particularly in our present economic difficulties. I hope therefore that Ministers will listen to what the industry has to tell them and that when framing legislation they will want to find ways of doing so while damaging the industry as little as possible.
In a spirit of wanting to co-operate with my noble friend the noble Earl, I should like to put to him four questions. First, will he agree that the number of countries for which transit visas are required under the Bill should be kept to the minimum and that the orders imposing transit visas should be time limited so that the need for each can be subject to annual parliamentary scrutiny? The noble Earl will know as well as I that departments have the habit of piling one restriction on another, with each restriction in itself not too onerous. But the whole lot taken together prove sometimes a heavy burden. If Parliament is able to review each year the visa requirements imposed by the Home Office, that can only be healthy.
Secondly, will the Minister please think again about abolishing the concession under which the nationals of six countries—Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Syria and Turkey—may transit Britain without a visa? This is an arrangement under which people who would need a visa to stay in this country are allowed to pass through without a visa provided that they stay airside and do not spend the night here. It is sometimes difficult not to do that. Removing that concession will
1098
cost British airlines and airports, and in particular British Airways, very dear. It will become very unattractive for travellers who are nationals of those countries to pass through Britain on the way from their homes to, say, the USA. In Turkey alone, we estimate that removing the concession will put three-quarters of a million pounds of our revenue a year at risk. Why should Turkish citizens bother to go to the trouble and expense of getting visas in order to transit London when they can make their journey via Paris without a visa requirement at all? I might add that Air France gets enough help from its own government without getting unsolicited help from ours.
Thirdly, can there be better co-operation between our Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? To take Turkey once again, while the Home Office is tightening up the requirement for visas, the Foreign Office has closed all the consular visa offices except those in Istanbul. Does the Minister realise how large a country Turkey is and that it is 280 miles from Istanbul to Ankara, the capital?
My company has introduced a courier service to move these applications quickly. Even so, the process can take four or five days. Has the small saving to the Foreign Office in closing the consular section been weighed against the large costs to British industry and commerce? If they speak to one another, they may well have done so but I have no evidence of that.
Fourthly, will the Minister reform the way in which the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act is administered so as to help carriers who really try to carry out their duties effectively? We made great efforts at considerable expense and reduced the number of cases attracting penalties by almost 50 per cent. of the rate at which they were running. The Government rewarded us for our pains by doubling the amount of each individual fine from £1,000 to £2,000. So it is quite reasonable to suggest that perhaps if we reduce the figure by another 50 per cent. the fine will go up to £4,000.
I am bound to say that I found that action particularly unreasonable. The result is that, despite all our efforts, British Airways still pays over £2 million a year to the Treasury in the form of fines for passengers without proper documents. That is £2 million which we cannot spend on anything else; for example, employing more staff. The Canadian Government are introducing a new scheme in which airlines which perform well can have their fines discounted—up to 100 per cent. for the best performers. Will the Minister give us his assurance that he will study that system with a view to introducing it here?
If my noble friend will consider those points, it will be of great benefit to an industry which serves this country well and which contributes to our national wealth. If he cannot do so, I shall be unable to support the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Greenway: I have great sympathy with all Members of the Committee who have spoken so far on this Question. I believe that the noble Earl is in no doubt as to my feelings on the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. What upsets me most about it is that

1099
while asylum and immigration are matters which affect us all, only a small portion of the country—that is to say, those who travel by air or sea—are the ones who are eventually paying for the increased number of immigration staff who are helping to look after the legislation. I say that because eventually it is they who will pay the increased fares which it will be necessary for the airlines and the shipping companies to raise in order to pay for some of these swingeing fines which they have been forced to face over the past three or four years.
In Clause 12 the Government are seeking to extend the 1987 Act to include carriers' liability in respect of certain transit passengers. That will place two extra potential financial burdens on the likes of British Airways; one in further possible fines, and the other in the possible loss of revenue because those transit passengers are choosing to do so elsewhere. For that and the reasons which other Members of the Committee have enumerated, I shall also be happy to see this clause not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I too oppose this clause standing part of the Bill. I believe that it is unnecessarily onerous. Can the Minister clarify a statement which he made earlier? Did I understand him to say that even if one remains airside in the transit lounge, officials would still feel entitled to ask whether one had a visa? If that is so, it is quite extraordinary. If the Minister says that I am wrong in believing that he said that, will he explain whether there is a difference, which I will understand, if one has to go from Heathrow to Gatwick because then one will be passing through immigration in order to do so?
I ask the Minister to clarify the position of someone who does not leave the airport but remains in the transit lounge. Perhaps he could also deal with the matter that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, of what happens if one's plane is diverted to another airport and if, in order to leave again, one has to be taken to a different airport by road. I should be grateful if the Minister could cover those situations.
The Earl of Onslow: There is one further point. If we apply this to outsiders, it would be very irritating if those of us who may or may not want to go to Australia have to get a visa for Abu Dhabi and for Singapore when the plane refuels in those places even if we do not leave airside. It seems an unnecessary restriction for people who do not go through immigration, and a financial burden that should not be borne.
Earl Ferrers: I know that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act was not the most favourite Act among some of your Lordships, and it is not surprising that some continued objections should have been made this evening. I never cease to be amazed at your Lordships' fertility of imagination. A number of questions have been asked in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked, "What happens in a fog?" My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara took us from Mongolia, to Russia, to Kathmandu, and wondered
1100
what happens if one goes to Italy and comes back to London when one really wanted to go from Heathrow to New York. It has all been fairly complicated.
We need to get down to a few basic realities about this clause. I accept that it is not liked. If I may say so, it is not surprising that my noble friend Lord King, with the astonishing position that he holds and has held with a very famous airline, takes exception to it, but I appreciated very much the way in which he put his objections so gently.
The fact is that this clause allows transit visas for certain countries. That is the first thing. It applies only to six countries in certain circumstances: Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Turkey. Where people come from those countries and, for example, arrive at Heathrow and depart from Gatwick, they will have to have a transit visa. People from only two other countries have to have such a visa if they are going to enter the UK and, say, remain airside in Heathrow. Those two countries are Iraq and Sri Lanka. Those provisions are not applied to be beastly, difficult or bureaucratic. It is simply either that national security or the need to check on asylum seekers requires it. These countries are considered carefully. We remove countries from that requirement as soon as possible and add them only when necessary. The first point to realise, therefore, is that everyone does not have to have these transit visas. The requirement applies to only six and to two countries rigidly.
My noble friend Lord King asked a number of questions, such as, "Would the number of countries in which transit visas are required be kept to a minimum?" I can assure him that they will be. He also asked whether the requirements will be time-limited and kept under review. Alterations to the list of countries for which we require transit visas takes place by the parliamentary negative resolution procedure. The number of those countries will be reduced as soon as possible. If they have to be increased, they will be. It would not be right to clutter up - if I can so describe it -the organisation by having the provisions time-limited and therefore referred to Parliament every six months. The correct thing to do is to remove these procedures as and when necessary.
My noble friend asked whether we would abolish the requirement to have transit visas for nationals of the six countries that I mentioned. I have already explained that it is necessary at the moment. I assure him that when the requirement can be relaxed, it will be. He asked whether there would be more co-operation between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is all manner of co-operation between them, and I can assure him that that co-operation will continue.
My noble friend referred to Turkey and said that it was a large place. He said that people would not come through London, but would go through France. France, too, has transit visa requirements. It has them for more countries than we do. France applies transit visa requirements to Albania, Angola, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia and Zaire. We are not alone in requiring transit visas. Holland requires transit visas from

1101
nationals of 21 countries, including Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, the Lebanon, Somalia, Syria, Turkey, Nigeria and Afghanistan.
I return to the point that the reason transit visas are required is that they are necessary for security purposes and to check on asylum seekers.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked whether I was correct when I said that people could be asked if they had a transit visa when they were airside. If they come from the two countries I have mentioned (Iraq and Sri Lanka) they will be obliged to have a transit visa airside. My noble friend also referred to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who asked what happens if there is a fog. Under the new rules, if someone comes from Sri Lanka to go to Manchester and is diverted to Liverpool because of fog, the carrier would not be charged. Under the old rules, it would be.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked why it was necessary to have the regulations. He wanted to know whether there was a mischief or whether it was just a perceived mischief. It is because there is a mischief that it is necessary to have them.
I come then to my noble friend Lord Brabazon. He made a speech which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested was a courageous one. I thought that it was an inconvenient speech. It was extraordinary, because my noble friend put forward an argument for not having transit visas in this country, but he gave his experience of having gone to Russia and Mongolia. He was so inefficient that he did not have the correct visas. I must agree that that was courageous. Even if it was not my noble friend's fault, but that of his private secretary, it was not generous of him to hoist the fault onto his private secretary. I can see that my noble friend had a problem, but should he have come here from one of the countries I mentioned, and have required a transit visa, it would have been up to him to discover the requirements. My noble friend will realise that it is important that when travelling to other countries people find out what the regulations are.
In conclusion, I hope that the Committee will agree to the inclusion of the clause. It is important. It is not included for fun. It is done for the good reason that people move around the world, and it has been found that they do so in such ways as to try to overcome different countries' immigration rules. We have to protect this country's Immigration Rules, and that is why it is important to have the clause.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may ask for clarification. He spoke about Schiphol and about Paris. Are those places subject to carriers' liability legislation?
Earl Ferrers: I find it difficult enough to know what laws we have in this country. I have not the slightest idea what laws other countries have.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Will my noble friend reply to my noble friend Lord Brabazon about the
1102
fines being increased from what they were to what they are now, because obviously the system did not work in the first place?
Earl Ferrers: I apologise because my noble friend has asked that question twice. Either my capacity for hearing is going or my noble friend's capacity for mumbling is greater as I did not understand the question. I should appreciate it if he would repeat the question.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My noble friend Lord Brabazon suggested that the penalties were increased because the original Act was not working. If that is the case why are we carrying on?
Earl Ferrers: Why are we carrying on? Well, because we want the Bill to work.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to return to the question of Schiphol and Paris, but the noble Earl rested his case for the clause on the fact that other countries did the same thing and that other countries had to have transit visas. We understand that. However, the debate is not about transit visas but about carriers' liability. Are we talking about equality between ourselves, the Dutch and the French? The noble Earl seeks to defend the position by saying that the French and the Dutch do the same thing because they have visas. I suggest that perhaps they do not have carriers' liability legislation.
Earl Ferrers: I was not resting my argument on the fact that because others do it we should also do so. I said that we find it necessary to have the provision in this country and that other countries have it, too. That is important because it shows that we are not isolated and that other countries take great care about protecting themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked whether France has carriers' liability legislation. I now recollect from some vague recess at the back of my mind that France does have such legislation and, oddly enough, that the Dutch will also introduce it. I am sorry that I had forgotten.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Supervision of welfare of young persons who seek asylum
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order provide for the establishment of a panel of advisers for the purpose of supervising in accordance with the provisions of this section the welfare of a child who has arrived in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by an adult person capable of being responsible for him.
(2) The members of such a panel shall be appointed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Supervision of welfare of young asylum-seekers) to this Act and shall have the functions therein described.
(3) A member of such panel is referred to in this section as a young asylum-seeker's adviser.
(4) Where a child unaccompanied by such an adult person arrives in the United Kingdom and is, or appears to an immigration officer to be, under the age of 18 years and such child has made or may reasonably be considered as desiring to make a claim for asylum the immigration officer shall cause the child to be forthwith referred to an appropriate young asylum-seeker's adviser for the purpose of carrying out the functions described in Schedule (Supervision of welfare of young asylum-seekers) to this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 107, is designed to provide advisory assistance, and advisory assistance only, for young children who arrive here unaccompanied as refugees from war-torn countries; that is to say, entirely on their own. The amendments do not seek in any way to alter immigration laws or Immigration Rules.
I shall first outline the problem and then deal with the suggested way of coping with it. About 120 unaccompanied child refugees arrive in this country every year, usually at Heathrow, from such places as Eritrea, Somalia, Zaire and now Bosnia. They come from places ravaged by war and internal strife. They are sent away from their homeland by parents, relatives or friends in the hope that they may reach a place of safety.
Their background is one of fear. Some are mentally scarred by seeing people shot and their homes destroyed. Some have seen their parents taken into custody. All, being unaccompanied, are on arrival fearful and friendless, exhausted by their journey and suffering from shock at being separated from family and home. Their need is for someone at the point of arrival who speaks their language, is familiar with their culture and background, and can be their friend and adviser until their future is decided according to the laws of this country.
The question is how can this problem be met without impinging on immigration law, without burdening the immigration service, and without occasioning significant expense. The solution offered by this amendment is that the Secretary of State is to set up a panel whose function it will be to supervise the welfare of a child who arrives in this country unaccompanied by an adult. The Secretary of State has no other duty. The panel is to consist of persons who are able, or can make contact with persons who are able, to converse in the several languages likely to be spoken by these children, who are familiar with their habits and customs, have knowledge of childcare legislation and immigration procedure.
Under the amendment, on arrival of an unaccompanied child refugee at the point of entry, it will be the duty of the immigration officer to contact an appropriate member of the panel. The immigration officer has no other duty imposed upon him. It will be the function of the panel member concerned to safeguard the child's welfare in all matters relating to immigration, accommodation, health, and education. In other words, to steer the child helpfully through the intricacies of our legal and welfare procedures, of which the child is obviously totally ignorant. A panel member is called in the amendment "a young asylum seeker's adviser" and that description exactly fits the panel member's job.
The Refugee Council, which is funded I believe by the Government, tells me that there will be no difficulty in finding suitable persons to act as panel members—that is, as young asylum seeker's advisers. I am aware that the effect of the Children Act is to ensure that a local authority will be responsible for the welfare of an unaccompanied child refugee. But social services departments of local authorities simply do not
1104
have the interpretation facilities or expertise to cope with children who arrive on their own as refugees from these countries.
The amendments in my name on the Marshalled List have been approved by all local authority organisations and children's organisations that I have approached. They have been approved by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Refugee Council, the Children's Legal Centre, the British Association of Social Workers, the Save the Children Fund, the Children's Society, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, Barnardos and also the Law Society.
I appreciate that in these days expense and value for money are considered to be of prime importance. The Refugee Council, in collaboration with the Children's Legal Centre, has costed this scheme. Its estimate of the annual cost is between £60,000 and £64,000 per year. I submit that that is a modest financial burden and that on a humanitarian basis, the scheme represents good value for money. The cost to a local authority of taking a child into care is variously estimated at £25,000 to £40,000 per year. The scheme which I propose will add only a modest £500 or so to that figure in respect of an unaccompanied child.
The object of the scheme which I invite the Committee to consider is simply to steer an unaccompanied child refugee on arrival into the hands of a person who can talk to the child in that child's own language, who is familiar with his background and culture and can befriend and advise the child until his future can be decided. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. As we return to the central issues of the Bill—the problem of refugees and in particular, the problems of asylum-seeking children—I notice that the Benches opposite have emptied. It is difficult not to comment on that fact.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said earlier that he was not surprised that no difference is made in the Bill between children and adults. I hope that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has convinced him that that view is hardly justified. It seems to me that the need for the amendment is self-evident. I should have thought that it was hardly necessary to argue the case for it. Since it is an amendment which the Government have not accepted, we must try to persuade them of the need for it.
The central point of the amendment is that the needs of children are different from those of adults. To deny that flies in the face of the assumptions and intentions which lie behind the Children Act, the UN convention and the guidelines set by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Earlier in the debate, when we were talking about appeals, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out that this country is unique in having an appeals procedure

1105
on questions of entry and that, therefore, the fact that other countries do not have such a procedure is some kind of argument for our not having it.
As regards the treatment of children and child asylum seekers, this country's law is not as good as those of some other countries; for example, Austria, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. All those countries make special arrangements for the reception of children. At present there is no one present when an unaccompanied child arrives at a point of entry and is interviewed by an immigration officer. I know that the Government are considering that matter and we hope to hear where their considerations have led them. No one is present except the immigration officer, and that officer is not trained in how to interview children. It seems to me that the need for an independent adviser with the skills described by the noble and learned Lord is self-evident.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us how this need is to be met. But it is not only on arrival that such an adviser is needed: one is needed also to deal with what a child is meant to do under this Bill, to provide prompt and full disclosure. That is regarded as essential. Somebody must tell the child this and advise him how to do it. He also needs to know, if asylum has been refused, how to make an appeal within two days.
After asylum is granted, who is going to look after the child and see to his welfare? Who is responsible for seeing that the child's interests are truly, in the words of the convention, the primary consideration? They certainly do not appear to be the primary consideration under this Bill. It is to fill this yawning gap in the Bill that this amendment has been proposed, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a positive response.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I too should like to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. In doing so I should like to underline one point which has been mentioned frequently during our discussion on this Bill: that is the state of those who arrive in this country seeking asylum. This is particularly true of children: they may well have been subject to torture, imprisonment and harassment, or they may have been threatened with torture or even death in order to extract information from their parents. When parents are imprisoned, dead or missing, the children must flee.
All these circumstances will obviously lead children to be particularly traumatised and affected by the events that they have experienced. They arrive in this country and are then put in the situation of being interviewed by immigration officers when clearly they are in no state to conduct their own case. Were they adult, they would hardly be in a state to do so, but for children that cannot be so. They will most likely be exhausted and confused, not knowing exactly what is going on, perhaps fearful of officials and distrustful of interpreters. For these reasons, an adviser, an advocate would seem to be entirely necessary in order to give children the kind of support they must have if the presentation of their case as an asylum seeker is to be properly made.
1106
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has pointed out the necessity also for help at a later stage, when they begin to seek what is necessary from the social services. However, I am particularly concerned about the need at the moment of arrival and the necessity for someone who can help children to produce a proper case for asylum when they first come, frequently escaping from fearful circumstances.
Baroness Faithfull: I too rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. After Second Reading, I wrote to my noble friend the Minister and asked him on what basis he and Her Majesty's Government based the refusal to appoint advisers, who would be supervised and perhaps appointed by the Refugee Council through the Home Office. I do thank my noble friend the Minister, who has written me a most generous and long letter, explaining the reasons.
What is really strange about this letter is that practically everything the noble and learned Lord has asked for my noble friend agrees with. He writes:
"Our opposition to Lord Brightman's amendment is certainly not based on any lack of concern for the welfare of unaccompanied children and their proper treatment within the asylum system."
He goes on to indicate that the matter is being discussed with immigration officers and with the social services. He also writes that money may be made available to the British Refugee Council.
In effect, the noble Earl has granted everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked for. However, there is one problem. Under the Children Act 1989 it is the duty of the local authority to accept into care a child who has no relatives or friends. If the noble Earl is able to put into effect what he said in his generous letter to me, why cannot that be incorporated into the Bill and made a statutory duty?
I expect that my noble friend will argue that that would cause confusion between the social services and the advisory service. I have had to deal with immigrant children and take them into care. I cannot say how dreadful one feels when one is presented with a child by immigration officers and one is unable to communicate with it; one cannot ask the child what it wants to eat or drink or what clothes it wears. One takes the child to a children's home, and the matron does not know what to do with the child or what the child wants. Therefore, it is essential to have an adviser who can interpret the child's needs.
In many cases the help of a volunteer is invoked. At no time has there been a conflict of interest between the volunteers and the staff of the social services departments. I am afraid that if the amendments are not incorporated in the Bill, some social services departments or social workers will not fulfil their duty of contacting somebody who can help a child and help the local authority to understand the needs of the child.
In many court cases a guardian ad litem is appointed, and there are rarely difficulties between the guardian ad litem and the social services department.
I support the amendment, particularly as my noble friend the Minister seems to agree with everything the

1107
noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said. I believe that it is important that it is written into the Bill and becomes a statutory duty. The advisers would not remove from the social services departments their duties under the Children Act 1989. I believe that it is possible to have a good relationship which would help every child who comes to this country unaccompanied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment has been very ably moved and supported. I wish only to make two very quick points in addition to what has already been said.
First, it may be argued that there would be a conflict of interest or overlapping of concerns between the panel of advisers proposed by the new clause and schedule and the work of the social services department. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, partially answered that point when she pointed out that the guardian ad litem system, which was established in 1975 and enhanced by the Children Act 1989, works well. There is a general understanding between the courts and social services departments that there are skills of representation of children which are not appropriate for social services departments and the two are distinct and can be kept distinct.
My second point concerns the possible suggestion that there is a conflict between the proposed panel and the work of the Refugee Legal Centre. I appreciate that the Refugee Legal Centre is still only in posse rather than active as the government agency responsible for receiving refugees. However, I suggest that the care of unaccompanied children arriving as refugees is a specialist activity. It might not be appropriate for all members, or even a satisfactory range of members, of the Refugee Legal Centre to have that skill. There is a distinction between the care and representation of children and the specifically legal representation which is the responsibility of the Refugee Legal Centre.
I should not wish it to be considered that the amendments are defective because of any potential conflict either with social services departments or with the Refugee Legal Centre.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: At an earlier stage I expressed some anxiety about the problems of young asylum seekers. I have therefore listened to the speeches with great interest. They seem well intentioned and warm hearted. But the proposals, especially some of the ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, need analysing.
The proposed new clause provides that where a child makes a claim for asylum, the immigration officer,
"shall cause the child to be forthwith referred to an appropriate young asylum-seeker's adviser".
The noble and learned Lord stated that it was not possible for the immigration officer to be knowledgable about all the matters that might arise. However, if one considers the proposed schedule with the proposed new clause, people are called upon to be able to converse in several languages, to be,
1108
"familiar with the habits and customs of the territories … to have knowledge of child-care legislation and immigration procedures",
and all that for £64,000 a year. With the greatest respect, I find that impossible to accept.
That does not mean that I do not believe provision should be made. I am saying that I do not believe that the proposed new clause and schedule constitute the right method. There would be delay and there would be brought into being a body of people unable to give the advice that is required. In addition, after the child has been admitted, the advisers are meant to do the work of children's officers and social services departments, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. With my knowledge of such problems, I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. I wish to make it clear that I am still anxious about the welfare of young asylum seekers. I do not believe that they would be helped by taking the route suggested.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may follow up the speech of my noble friend. It is true that the social services departments bear the financial responsibility for looking after and making arrangements for the child. The advisers would advise the social services departments which part of the branch of their service would best be suited to the child. They may recommend a foster home with people of the country of origin of that child. It is only an advisory service. The main financial responsibility is borne by the social services departments in the area of the airport.
Lord Finsberg: The local social services department knows more about the specialised needs than advisers drawn from the panel who may come from anywhere. I am desperately uneasy that although the provision sounds wonderful it will not work.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to follow that point up again. However, I speak as an ex-director of social services. I had no one on my staff who could speak the languages required. When immigrants came into my area I had to seek out someone in order to interpret what the child needed and wanted. It gave great comfort to the child and helped me to give the good service which the child deserved.
Lord Finsberg: I promise that I shall not rise again after making this point. All I can say is that, having led Camden Council which is fairly well known for its massive problems with children and welfare issues, I should have thought that if there was not someone on the staff of the social services director who could cope with the majority of the languages I would look for a new director of social services.
Viscount Buckmaster: I support with all the strength I can the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I do so in the light of my own experience in Uganda and elsewhere, when I came across a number of unaccompanied refugee children. When they came to London, they suffered in the ways that have been described. I was asked at one stage to put up two of them, which caused me great anxiety. They had not been properly educated, they came from backgrounds of terror and torture, and they were suffering physically and mentally in many ways.

1109
I feel strongly that carers such as the noble and learned Lord described can do excellent work. I wish to make one recommendation which may be new to some Members of the Committee. It is that if the scheme is approved, the example of the Ockenden Venture in Surrey should be studied. I have seen children who have come to Ockenden from Uganda, Thailand, Ethiopia and elsewhere in an appalling state. Some of them were unable to speak even their own language. In a very short time, thanks to the care, guidance and help of specially trained officers, they were rushing around playing with cars and even speaking. I feel that officers trained in that way could achieve a great deal.
Lord Hylton: I welcome and support the amendment and the schedule so clearly moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I do not think that the amendment goes quite far enough, because we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the cost of child care falls on the social services department of the local authority where the child arrives. In the majority of cases that is either Heathrow or Gatwick, or in a few cases Stansted. That seems to me to be a totally unfair burden which has to fall on those local authorities who may be ratecapped or at the top ceiling of their permitted expenditure. I feel that it should be a national responsibility. If the Minister can say that the Government will consider the suggestion of a 100 per cent. grant for the purpose I should be extremely encouraged and satisfied.
Earl Ferrers: I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would be encouraged and satisfied if I could give such an undertaking. However, I do not think that I can. I agree with my noble friend Lord Finsberg who said that this is a well intentioned amendment; indeed the whole debate has been well intentioned and enlightened.
I am bound to say that when I first saw the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, I too felt attracted to it. Indeed, his speech was such as to make one feel very attracted to it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Finsberg that it has to be analysed a little. What the noble and learned Lord said sounds so simple and so convincing. He said that all we want is to be able to steer an unaccompanied child through the port or airport on its arrival before its future can be decided. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that point. We all want to see that children are properly protected and looked after. Children come in very difficult circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. Sometimes they cannot speak, one cannot ask them what food they want, and so on. It is not a situation that I have experienced but my noble friend has and obviously it is very distressing.
However, one must remember that there are provisions under the Children Act. They apply to children who arrive here seeking asylum, as they do to other children who are already in the country. An important point is that the responsibility for the welfare of the children lies quite firmly and legally with the local authorities, irrespective of who the child is or
1110
from where it comes. I can understand the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to help children. It is a desire which we all share. But I wonder whether to create another body or agency which had care responsibilities toward child asylum seekers would not in fact muddle the local authority's role. The local authorities are, after all, best placed in the absence of a parent, relative or other guardian to tend to the welfare needs of the children in terms of personnel, experience, facilities and resources. The Children Act specifically gave to the local authorities those duties and responsibilities of looking after children in need.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull said she thought that I would say there is a difficulty in an overlap of responsibilities. She thought correctly. She said that she did not think there would be an overlap, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Finsberg. I believe that there would be difficulties. I believe there would be difficulties if we have two bodies, both having responsibilities for the children.
There are, I think, two issues which are sometimes confused with this priority of care and welfare. The first is the question of the knowledge and experience of the asylum process. I accept that local authority staff may not be familiar with the procedures or the best way in which to put in train or pursue an asylum application. But other expert sources of advice are available. To start with, one could approach the asylum division itself; and the Refugees Legal Centre is specifically funded to provide an advice and representation service for any asylum seeker. Staff are specialists in the asylum procedures and in preparing and presenting cases. I understand that they have a team of counsellors who are designated specifically to deal with vulnerable applicants, and that includes children.
The second point to which the noble and learned Lord referred, as did the right reverend Prelate, is that children who come as asylum seekers often arrive from another country and have particular needs in relation to trauma and general feelings of isolation from their own culture. They were both right to stress that point. Those children obviously have very special needs. Therefore it could be said that there is a perceived need for a "friend" to whom they can attach themselves, to whom they can relate and who will understand their feelings.
That kind of proposition has great attraction; but I am not sure that legislation can achieve that. I think it would be difficult, in practical terms, to create a body of professional people who are experts in child psychology, or specialists in refugee issues, familiar with a range of different languages and cultures. Even if we were able to create such a body, I am not sure that it would necessarily achieve some of the results which are intended.
We have heard examples quoted from time to time of welfare officers arriving at a port to collect a child only to realise that they could not converse with it. We have heard how children are suspicious and frightened of all adults, particularly officials. I can understand that. I am not sure that we could guarantee that a child would immediately take to any special advocate

1111
allocated to him or her. I do not deny that those matters pose problems. I am sure that we ought to be able to overcome them. Taking on the care of a child cuts across whole areas of responsibility other than just those which may be immediately identified—matters such as their general health, education, training and social needs.
The number of unaccompanied children arriving at airports for asylum is not large. What the noble and learned Lord proposes incorporates a great deal of humanity and understanding, and I have a great deal of sympathy for it. However, I doubt that in practice it would work properly. I shall certainly be prepared to look further and see whether there are any ways in which we can meet with the general consensus expressed. But I doubt that we shall be able to go the whole hog anticipated by the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Faithfull: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I can say that I had a long discussion with the Director of Social Services for Hillingdon, which is the area dealing with London Airport. The director said that she and all her staff would welcome the scheme; that it would help them enormously besides helping the children and that they did not believe it would cause conflict.
Lord Brightman: I am most grateful for the lukewarm welcome which the amendment received from the noble Earl. I shall clearly consider the criticisms made and, if appropriate, perhaps the matter can come back at Report stage. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of offence under 1987 Act
. A person shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, in any of the following cases—

(a) he shall either by himself or in conjunction with any other person or persons prevent, hinder or delay any traveller claiming asylum from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer,

(b) if being an immigration officer he shall conduct the examination either without authority or in such a manner as to render that examination unlawful, or

(c) if as owner or agent of a ship or aircraft he shall procure, assist or permit any employee, servant, agent or any other person to commit an offence under paragraph (a) above.").

The noble Lord said: I suppose I ought to begin by saying "Good morning"! Yesterday has become today or today has become tomorrow, I am not quite sure which at this moment.
Amendment No. 65 seeks to create a new offence aimed at preventing people from hindering or delaying any traveller claiming asylum from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer, and various other provisions. I shall speak to the amendment as briefly as I can because it is late, but I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions.
It is accepted that over the past years there have been a number of serious allegations that asylum
1112
seekers have been denied access to the asylum process after arriving at UK ports. Indeed, in January and June 1990, after initially denying any improper conduct by immigration officials, the Home Office conceded that in 23 cases of expulsion of Kurds from Turkey who attempted to apply for asylum in the UK in May and June of 1989, immigration officials had acted illegally in expelling the individuals concerned without referring the asylum applications to the Home Office asylum division. Indeed, the other evening I pointed out to the noble Earl that it actually cost the Home Office a certain amount of money to put right some of those matters.
However, the prevention of access to the asylum process has not been limited only to immigration officers. Amnesty International reported a number of worrying instances where asylum seekers have been prevented from applying for asylum by airline officials in the UK. I could detail a long list of harrowing situations that have occurred, but do not intend to spend too much time doing so. For example, in September 1990 at Heathrow two young Eritreans were allegedly dragged back on to a Kenyan Airways' aircraft without any consideration of their asylum claims, one of them being a former political prisoner in Ethiopia who had suffered torture while in prison.
Understandably, the Government have refused to accept responsibility for those incidents. But in each case it is apparent that members of the airline staff acted as they did to avoid incurring liability under the carriers' liability Act. It is perfectly understandable, if reprehensible, that they should do so. As we said earlier, it costs the airlines a lot of money.
The amendment proposes that if any person, be he an immigration officer, an airline official, official interpreter or anyone else, prevents an asylum seeker from making a claim for asylum, he should be guilty of an offence. The details of what the cost of the offence should be are contained in the amendment. It is interesting that this is comparable with the fine imposed on the carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act.
A shortened version of the amendment was introduced during the Committee stage in another place. I understand that the Minister of State, Mr. Peter Lloyd, acknowledged that there had been cases of people who had arrived in this country intending to claim political asylum and who had been forcibly prevented from leaving the aeroplane and approaching immigration control. During the debate he said:
"The Government have always made it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable. No individual who has arrived here should be restrained in that way".
I say straight away that I accept that that is the Government's position and I am not criticising the Government in any way because of that. But I understand that the amendment was withdrawn because the Minister wished to consider a widening of the original amendment as that referred specifically to asylum seekers. His comment at the time was:
"I would rather that it did not hinge on asylum seekers but dealt with the forcible restraint of anyone who has been brought to Britain from doing anything legitimate, such as leaving a 'plane in appropriate circumstances, irrespective of whether that person wishes to claim asylum".

1113
I should like to know from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whether anything has happened; if so, what; and if not, why not? I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the noble Lord's concern that anyone who comes to the United Kingdom and wishes to claim asylum should have an opportunity of doing so. There is no question about that. I am aware that there have been allegations that in some cases passengers have been prevented from disembarking or from approaching the immigration control. I can assure the Committee that the Government would not condone such behaviour.
Immigration officers have clear instructions that a person who claims asylum while on United Kingdom soil must have his application referred to the asylum division of the Home Office. Having said that, I very much doubt whether the creation of a new criminal offence would be an appropriate response to that. As the noble Lord said, it is totally unacceptable that airlines should seek physically to prevent a passenger from approaching the immigration control. Indeed, if they were to do that, it would be an offence. Our disapproval of such actions was, as he quite rightly said, made clear by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. I reiterate it today. Once the passenger has arrived in the United Kingdom it is too late for the airline to ask itself whether it should have carried him.
The noble Lord asked whether anything had happened about this. If I may, I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said and let him know if there are any further actions which we can take with regard to this. The Government continue to make clear to carriers that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I hope that we will not see any more of it.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that, but I think he will understand that good wishes are not necessarily enough in a case like this. I hope that he can pursue it further. As I understand it, an undertaking was given in another place. I well understand that the amendment is probably imperfect. It is not in my nature, as I am sure he will recognise, to go around creating new offences or new penalties, but, to be quite serious, it is obviously something which we all agree should not happen. The question is how to find the appropriate sanction to ensure that it does not happen again. With the assurance that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Monthly report to Parliament
. Within one calendar month of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall report every calendar month to both Houses of Parliament the following matters relating to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—

(a) the number of fines levied during each period together with the cumulative totals,

(b) a record identifying the airlines or carriers and the amount of fines which have been levied against each of them,

1114

(c) the total number of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom in respect of which fines could have been levied,

(d) the total sum actually recovered in respect of the levies, and

(e) the number of fines which are being disputed by the carriers.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us back to the carriers' liability Act. It was referred to peripherally by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, earlier. It is a question of having a certain degree of transparency in letting people know who is cheating on the Act and who is not. I believe that British Airways, for instance, acknowledges that it has had to pay a great deal of money under the Act. Shipping companies in this country have had to do the same. They have been quite open about it. They recognise that from time to time they make mistakes and they have paid up.
Unfortunately, that is not true of other carriers coming into this country. The matter of non-payment arose in the other place in a Select Committee in the last Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Wheeler MP. In a study of the workings of the immigration department, evidence was given that several million pounds was outstanding in carriers' liability Act penalties. The report mentioned, almost in passing, that the Home Office really ought to do something about it and demand the money or get Her Majesty's Government to withdraw landing rights in the United Kingdom.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said that action had been taken against one or two European airlines who were far from being the most serious offenders. I gather that the most serious offenders are Nigerian Airways and Aeroflot, if I dare mention those names. Nothing seems to be done about them. If the Act is to be applied, then people should know who is offending against it just as some years ago we found that certain high commissions and embassies in London were failing to pay their parking fines.
I do not believe that we should be coy about the matter. The purpose of the amendment is to try to smoke out the problem and to make sure that there is some kind of report to Parliament to identify those people who are not paying the fines which they have been charged under the Act. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The immigration service does collect statistics on the lines envisaged in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Indeed the Government are frequently asked for such information in parliamentary Questions and so forth and the Committee knows that, with one exception, I am always happy to supply it. I am not at all sure that monthly reports to Parliament would serve any useful purpose. That seems to me a somewhat excessive line to take. But I would not seek to dull the appetite of those Members of the Committee who thrive on statistics. It may be that adoption of the amendment would serve no purpose other than to provide your Lordships with a continuing stream of numbers and statistics.
The exception which I mentioned is that some carriers regard the information as being of commercial

1115
importance. They do not wish to have their carriers' liability debts laid out for scrutiny, including scrutiny by their competitors. We have so far respected that wish. I reaffirm my willingness to provide such information as is available to any noble Lord who seeks it. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve that.
Lord Tordoff: I must admit that my appetite is somewhat dulled at this time of the evening. I am not sure that commercial considerations are sufficient for people to hide behind. However bad the law, these people are breaking it. In most cases where people break the law and are fined, that becomes public knowledge. I do not see why that should not be the case as regards carriers' liability. I do not propose to press the amendment at this time of night, although it might be amusing to do so. I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Secretary of State
. In the determination of applications for asylum by children under the age of 18, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) ensure that a child is fully informed, in a manner appropriate to his age, of the nature of an asylum application and is provided with sufficient opportunity to describe his reasons for the application;

(b) ensure an independent assessment is made of the child's ability to articulate a 'well-founded fear of persecution'; and such assessment should be undertaken by a childcare specialist with knowledge of refugee matters;

(c) ensure full consideration is given to objective factors including

(i) the circumstances of the child's parents and other family members in the country of origin or elsewhere,

(ii) the characteristics of the child's ethnic, national, religious or other social group in the country of origin,

(iii) the general conditions prevailing in the country of origin, and

(iv) specific forms of persecution directed at children in the country of origin;

(d) apply liberally in the case of a child the general principal that the benefit of the doubt should be given to an asylum applicant.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that special procedures and criteria are put in place for the determination of asylum applications by children. I return to the theme which we have raised again and again in this debate—that children have special needs which need to be met. As was the case with Amendment No. 64, it seems almost self-evident that what the amendment demands should be conceded. I quote from the Children's Legal Centre:
"In all countries children share to some extent a common legal status and are treated as a distinct social group in matters of law, policy and social customs",
but not in this Bill. I quote again from the Children's Legal Centre:
"It is recognised in many areas of law and policy that children must be afforded special consideration",
but not in this Bill.
I quote from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
1116
"the child, by reasons of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care",
but that is not recognised in this Bill.
My amendment seeks to meet the requirements which are set forth in those quotations and to fill the gap in the Bill to which I have referred previously and which I find unreasonable and indefensible in determining applications for asylum by children. It also intends to emphasise that, in the case of a child, the general principle that benefit of doubt should be given to an asylum applicant is particularly strong. It re-emphasises the need, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, mentioned earlier, for special care to be taken in the case of children, and for the need for people with special skills in child care and child interviewing to be involved throughout. It re-emphasises also that people should know the language and the cultural and family background of the child in question. All those are humanitarian needs which are undeniable. Although the noble Earl willed the ends in his response to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, he steadfastly refused to will the means. I hope that, in this case, if he will not will my means, he will provide some means of his own. I beg to move.
Lord Finsberg: I imagine that we could have an interesting debate on this new clause, but it seems to be covered by the closing remarks of my noble friend when he acknowledged, in response to the debate started by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that there was concern on all sides and that he would look at the general question of the problem of children. This falls into that category and, for that reason, I do not propose to weary the Committee any more except to assume that my noble friend will include this concept in the examination that he is to undertake.
Earl Ferrers: In our earlier Committee discussions I said that I did not think it appropriate to include on the face of primary legislation procedural matters of the sort listed by the noble Lord in his amendment. I assume that the new clause is intended primarily to apply to unaccompanied child asylum seekers who arrive here, but the phrasing of the proposals means that they would apply to all asylum-seeking children, even where they arrive as part of a family group. Subsection (a) would therefore oblige officials to notify the procedures separately for a child whose parents have claimed asylum. I do not think that that is either desirable in terms of the effect on the child and the resources involved or necessary—indeed, it may not even have been intended.
Some of the points raised have been mentioned in previous debates; but it may be helpful if I briefly outline our policy and practices. All immigration officers and Asylum Division staff exercise particular care when dealing with applications involving children. It is important in assessing any asylum claim that a meaningful dialogue is established and that both parties understand as fully as possible the meaning and intention of the other. Asylum Division staff have regard to any implied fear of return or

1117
persecution as well as to any clearly stated claim, and are well versed in exploring different avenues within a claim.
An assessment of so called "objective factors" (paragraph (c)) is carried out in relation to every claim for asylum. In cases involving children, particular care is paid to the whereabouts of other family members since the possible removal of a child cannot be contemplated without ensuring that suitable reception arrangements have been made.
Whenever there is a doubt in a borderline case, the benefit of that doubt is always given to the asylum seeker. I think it would be somewhat dangerous to build in the guarantee advocated in paragraph (d) that the benefit of any such doubt should be applied "liberally" to children. Given the high proportion of asylum seekers who dispose of identification documents, and the problems we have already discussed of determining age on a visual basis, I fear that such a generous statement of intent might encourage further misuse of the procedures.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, what he wants. He said that if he could not provide the means, perhaps I would. My noble friend Lord Finsberg was right when he pointed out that I have undertaken to consider what guidance might be included in the rules relating to applications from children. I shall reflect upon the points that have been raised in the debate regarding that matter.
Baroness Seear: I do not want to prolong the debate; but the Minister told us that the things requested in the amendment are being done. How can they be done if the child does not understand English and the people with whom he is dealing do not understand his language? None of those things is possible unless one can talk to someone. If one does not know the language, one cannot talk to the child.
Earl Ferrers: That is when you find someone who can talk to the child.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The Minister cannot possibly believe that I would think his reply satisfactory or gave me what I wanted. He expressed a number of admirable sentiments rather in the manner of how he criticised some of our earlier amendments. The sentiments were admirable, but the means whereby they could be made to mean something were sadly lacking.
As I understand it, the Minister was saying that the amendment applied primarily to an unaccompanied child. I should be happy if his answers dealt primarily with the unaccompanied child. Secondly, he said that immigration officers deal with children with the utmost care; but, as I understand it, they receive no training in this delicate and highly professional task. I should be happier if he said that although he could not provide X, Y or Z, he would see that immigration officers were trained in the task, even if the number of children involved is small. The fact that the numbers are small makes it all the easier to deal with the problem because the cost is so little.
1118
I cannot believe that the Minister was serious when he talked about children destroying their documents; but if he was, that is a fantastic notion. Perhaps he was. Do I understand him to say that what we hope to achieve by the amendment will be incorporated in the rules? If so, will we be told how those rules will be framed? Perhaps I can ask the Minister that question before I sit down.
Earl Ferrers: I said that I would take into account what the Committee has said in this debate and see how parts of those sentiments could be reflected in the rules. I cannot go much further than that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not propose to press the amendment at this time but I shall read what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 Commencement:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert ("save that section 7 shall not come into force before sections 8 and 9.").
The noble Lord said: It is not usual for amendments to be moved to commencement clauses of Bills but this is a rather unusual commencement clause. It embodies the principle that the Secretary of State shall do what he wants. Subsection (1) states that the Bill:
"shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different provisions or for different purposes".
Subsection (3) spells out in detail, which I should not have thought necessary having been given the generality of subsection (1), the fact that the Secretary of State:
"may appoint different days in relation to different descriptions of asylum-seekers".
The only exception to the almost absolute power which the Secretary of State has is that different days may not be determined by reference to race, colour or religion, and we must be grateful for that.
This is an unusually open commencement clause and it gives the Secretary of State virtually unlimited powers. There is one particular power which the amendment seeks to remove. It is the power to bring in Clause 7, which covers the curtailment of leave to enter or remain, before Clauses 8 or 9, which cover appeals to the special adjudicator and appeals from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
We have spent many hours debating the clauses and I shall not go over the issues again. Clause 7 is a highly restrictive clause which the Government would have had even more difficulty defending had it not been for the presence of the appeals procedures provided in Clauses 8 and 9. It would be contrary to the common sense as well as to the thrust of the debate on those clauses if the curtailment were introduced without the protection provided by the subsequent clauses. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we have no intention of introducing an order to bring Clause 7 of the Bill into force before the

1119
provisions of Clauses 8 and 9 come into effect. But I do not believe that it is necessary to place that provision on the face of the Bill.
Our purpose in bringing forward the package of appeals provisions is to streamline and accelerate the existing system. There would be no advantage in bringing Clause 7 into effect before Clause 8 since to do so would mean that, although a person whose leave was curtailed would not have a right of appeal under Section 14 of the Immigration Act against the curtailment, he could only he removed following an appeal under Section 15 against a deportation decision. That would not be subject to the procedures and time-limits provided by the rules to be made for appeals under Clause 8. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 form part of a package and it is our intention to bring them into effect together.
The precise timing of the various orders has yet to be decided. It will be necessary, for example, to consult with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on when the relevant courts will be in a position to implement the new procedures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept the Minister's assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 106 had already been disposed of.]
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 107:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  SUPERVISION OF WELFARE OF YOUNG ASYLUM-SEEKERS
  1. The Secretary of State, after consultation, if thought fit, with the British Refugee Council and any other statutory or voluntary body which he considers appropriate, shall from time to time appoint such persons as he thinks fit to be members of the panel of young asylum-seekers' advisers and
  1120
  every such appointment shall be made upon such terms and conditions in all respects as the Secretary of State shall prescribe.
  2. The Secretary of State may from time to time revocably delegate to the British Refugee Council or other appropriate statutory or voluntary body all or any of his duties under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
  3. Such panel shall so far as practicable include persons who—

  (a) are, or can call upon persons who are, able to converse in the several languages likely to be spoken by young unaccompanied asylum-seekers;

  (b) are familiar with the habits and customs of the territories from which such young asylum-seekers are likely to come; and

  (c) have knowledge of child-care legislation and immigration procedures.

  4. A person who is an officer or employee of the immigration service shall not be eligible for appointment to such panel.
  5. It shall be the function of an adviser to whom a young asylum-seeker has been referred to safeguard his welfare in all matters relating to immigration, accommodation, education, physical and mental health and general welfare for so long and to such extent as the adviser shall from time to time consider necessary or desirable and in performing such function the young asylum-seeker's adviser shall have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the young asylum-seeker (considered in the light of his age and understanding).").
  Baroness Faithful: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 64, and therefore is not moved.
  (Amendment No. 107 not moved.)
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at half-past midnight.

  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  A.3 KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BYPASS: ACCIDENTS
  A.3 KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BYPASS: ACCIDENTS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: LICENCES FOR RELEASE
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: LICENCES FOR RELEASE
  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHARITIES: NECESSARY PARTIES
  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHARITIES: NECESSARY PARTIES
  COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS: PROGRESS ON EC DIRECTIVES
  COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS: PROGRESS ON EC DIRECTIVES
  MINERS' PENSION SCHEMES: SURPLUSES
  MINERS' PENSION SCHEMES: SURPLUSES
  COAL PRODUCTION SUBSIDIES IN THE EC
  COAL PRODUCTION SUBSIDIES IN THE EC
  DTI STANDARDS POLICY UNIT
  DTI STANDARDS POLICY UNIT
  EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION
  EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION
  EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION
  EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION
  NATIONAL VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: DEFINING BODIES
  NATIONAL VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: DEFINING BODIES
  ARMY MANPOWER: COST OF INCREASE
  ARMY MANPOWER: COST OF INCREASE