Sitting of 1 March 1993

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

    EC Butter and Beef
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the method of distribution of EC butter and beef in 1994 in Clwyd and Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): May I start, Madam Speaker, by wishing you, on behalf of everyone here, a happy St. David's day.
    The arrangements for the European surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom are being reviewed and any alterations to the arrangements will be announced at the end of the review.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am glad to hear that from the Minister, because he will know that in my constituency, people in parts of Glyndwr, which is not distributing food, receive food via their community council. Many people live close to Wrexham council areas, where people automatically receive food via the district council. That is utterly unfair. I hope that the review will have the result that everyone who is entitled to EC surplus food will receive it.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a differing degree of coverage throughout Wales. Taking the example of one part of my constituency, one individual—Councillor Victor Reilly—has taken on the superhuman job of spearheading the distribution of butter and beef. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the publicity that has been given to the scheme has resulted in twice as many organisations coming forward this winter as were in operation last year.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the cost of local government reform in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government had a full discussion about the Touche Ross report on the costs of local government reorganisation at its meeting on 17 February. Since the report was published I have received three written representations.
    Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware of the view of the Association of Welsh Counties that a balanced interpretation of the Touche Ross report suggests that the cost of local government reorganisation in Wales could be anything between £100 million and £150 million. So how can the Secretary of State justify his claim that the cost will be recovered in seven years, bearing in mind from previous experience the fact that local government reform is an absolute disaster in financial terms? Is it true that this year's county budgets have been cut to find money for the reforms?
    Mr. Hunt: On the last point, no, that is not true. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the figures, the total standard spending for local authorities in the coming financial year is up by 3·1 per cent., even before one takes into account the amount set aside for community care, which puts the increase up to 3·5 per cent.
    On the point about the costs of local government reorganisation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not arguing against reorganisation. First, the costs are spread

    3
    over 15 years. Secondly, they do not take account of the annual savings, which earlier reports have suggested will be substantial. That is why I say that the reorganisation of local government could pay for itself within about seven years.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the expense of the previous local government reorganisation was largely due to the creation of multi-tier arrangements, which have so disastrously failed? Will he give some reassurance and some figures about, for example, what savings will be occasioned by his present proposals, particularly in the cases of Monmouth and Gwent? Gwent county council is seen by the public as an unnecessary and extravagant layer of local government.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. Substantial annual savings will flow from the reorganisation into unitary authorities. For the mid-range of about 20 to 23 authorities, one is looking at annual savings of between £12 million and £17 million. Of course, the previous example cannot be followed for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. We shall make absolutely sure that the reorganisation presents value for money as well as establishing good, strong local government.
    Mr. Murphy: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that not only the county councils but many district councils believe that he has seriously underestimated the cost of local government reform? Does he accept that many of the figures are pure guesswork, especially when it comes to the amount that local authorities will have to pay out in redundancy payments? How can he justify the fact that local government might cost as much as £150 million when Wales is recoiling at the savagery of the cuts to education and other local government services?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. First, local government reorganisation into unitary authorities is widely welcomed in Wales. The hon. Gentleman should recall that, right at the start of the consultation process, no strong lobby argued that we should continue the existing system, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said, there are savings to be achieved by having one unitary local authority administering services.
    To put the matter into context, local authority budgets for this financial year total £2,472 million. If one sets that against the figures that we have mentioned, one sees that the transitional cost would total perhaps between 2 and 6 per cent. I believe that the reorganisation will represent great value for money and that we shall have better local government as a result.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the effect of EC regulations on small and medium-sized abattoirs in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Numerous.
    Mr. Dafis: I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will appreciate that the costs that have been imposed on small and medium-sized abattoirs because of the current interpretation of the European hygiene regulations are crippling, especially for those abattoirs
    4
    that now provide slaughter close to the point of production, produce excellent quality meat and have an excellent record on animal welfare—just the sort of business that we should encourage.
    The most significant specific problem facing those abattoirs is the requirement for official veterinary surgeons to be present at the ante-mortem inspection, when that job is perfectly capable of being done by meat inspectors. Will the Secretary of State ensure that meat inspectors will be allowed to carry out that work, because it would have a significant effect in improving the prospects for small abattoirs?
    Mr. Hunt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman recalls that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the old system, which had dual standards between meat for the home market and that for the export market. It was also felt that some establishments were undercutting others that conformed to high hygiene standards. That is why we are seeking to introduce the new standards, while minimising the burden on small abattoirs in particular.
    I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, although it is necessary to have veterinary supervision, we are encouraging local authorities to take practical measures to keep down costs. We have taken a number of steps to help smaller abattoirs in particular, including increasing the throughput limit for small slaughterhouses. We have also secured a review, as the hon. Gentleman will know, by the Commission of the implications of the meat hygiene directives for traditional small businesses.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend note that the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is shared not only by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches but, beyond Wales, throughout the United Kingdom? Although we recognise the steps to which my right hon. Friend referred, in particular to aid small abattoirs to comply with the regulations, veterinary changes are primarily the great barrier. Will my right hon. Friend note that the House desires still more to be done to assist that sector of agriculture?
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise the compelling point that my hon. Friend has made. Supervision by official veterinarians —[Interruption.]—if I can get the word right—or veterinary consultants, is important. I apologise; I have had a rather heavy St. David's day lunch.
    Veterinary ante-mortem inspections is an important part of improving public protection and helping the meat market to compete in the single market. Such inspection can diagnose conditions not visible at a post-mortem. I am satisfied that by relating veterinary inspection at slaughterhouses to throughput and standards of operation and by concentrating the arrangements for veterinary attendance at low-throughput premises on ante-mortem inspection, we have struck about the right balance. However, I appreciate the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: The Secretary of State was kind enough to see me on 26 January, along with two of the proprietors of the most successful abattoirs in Wales. On that occasion, the representatives, including Mr. Edward Hammer, my constituent, made clear to the Secretary of State the desperate trouble that they were in as a result of the new regulations. What, if anything, has the Secretary of State done since that meeting to alleviate the problem?
    Mr. Hunt: I have done a number of things, to which I have already referred. I have written to all local authorities seeking to bring down the costs of inspection—[Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that St. David was the man of water. When we refer to a St. David's day lunch, we refer to the consumption of water, nothing else.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State may have written many letters to many local authorities, but where were he and the Welsh Office when the directive was negotiated? When I read it, it seemed as though the vets had negotiated the directive. The problem is that duplication occurs between the meat inspectors and the vets—much work could still be done by the meat inspectors. Charges vary so much between local authority districts. What is the Secretary of State going to do about the problem?
    Mr. Hunt: From his own experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know the importance of food hygiene. We are talking about constantly improving food hygiene so that the public can have every confidence, not only in the quality of food, but in the hygiene behind the provision of that food, which is important. That is why I was around when the directive was being negotiated and I supported the introduction of the standards. However, I recognise that we must do our best to minimise their impact, particularly on small businesses.

    Youth Facilities
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for provision of youth facilities in Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I will continue to support local authorities and other organisations and agencies in their efforts to promote and develop provision for young people in Wales.
    Mr. Michael: Those are fine words, but lacking in content. Does the Minister recognise that the inadequate finances made available by the Welsh Office to local authorities this year means that the efforts of local people, voluntary organisations and far-sighted councillors—like those in my local authority of South Glamorgan, which has sought over the years to build up the youth service —are being undermined? Does he agree with my constituent, Mrs. Yeo of Tremorfa, who, seeing the effect of the inadequate resources on her 15-year-old son and others in his age group, suggested that the cuts should be made to the Minister's finances in the Welsh Office, not forced on the local youth service?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am aware that some authorities are thinking of limiting spending on youth services. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman—as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that we have increased the revenue settlement for local authorities for the coming year by 3·1 per cent. If one takes the past two years together, there is an increase of 25 per cent. and, over three years, there has been an increase of 29 per cent.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister of State has obviously not had a share of the Secretary of State's St. David's day diod. The Minister should acknowledge that under the revenue support grant settlement for the forthcoming
    6
    financial year, every county authority in Wales is having to cut its youth service provision. Does not he recognise how short-sighted that policy is, particularly when growing youth unemployment is pushing young people towards disaffection and alienation? Does not he realise the dangers that his policies are inflicting on the fabric of our society?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The choice is for the local authorities. We have done a great deal to support the youth organisations that are concerned with the well-being of our young people. Since 1988 we have provided grants worth about £1·4 million for national voluntary youth organisations. We have established the Youth Agency, funded to the tune of about £360,000 this year. We have provided £2 million worth of youth facilities since 1991–92 under the urban programme. And we have also ensured that we have met the youth training guarantee.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the difference between the number of men and the number of women in full-time employment in Wales and Mid Glamorgan currently and in June 1979.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Figures are not available separately for Mid Glamorgan. The proportion of the male work force in civilian employment or training was 7 per cent. greater in 1979 than 1992. The corresponding figure for women, including part-time employees, was the same for both years.
    Mr. Griffiths: Even given the paucity of his figures, I hope that the Minister will admit that the reduction that they show proves that there is still a real crisis in employment in Wales. I hope that he will make two commitments this afternoon: first, that no part of Wales should lose its assisted area status in the current review. In its press releases the Welsh Office trumpets the value of that assistance to industry in Wales from time to time. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman call in the banks in Wales and get them to review their policy towards small businesses? The policy of the banks—there have been a number of complaints against Lloyds in particular—is causing a large number of small businesses to go into liquidation quite unnecessarily. Will he give those commitments now?
    Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that both matters are under active consideration. Many Ministers have been involved in discussions with the banks.
    The assisted area review is being conducted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is keeping in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman should not adopt such a negative attitude to unemployment in Wales. It is too high—it is unacceptably high—but it behoves the hon. Gentleman to recognise that since the last time unemployment peaked, in 1985, male unemployment has risen by less than half the rate of United Kingdom unemployment and female employment has risen by about four times the rate in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Morgan: As the Secretary of State seems to want to run away from answering questions on the economy today, may I tell him that I am in the rather fortunate

    7
    position of having not only a daffodil but a leek—a leak from the Conservative research department, in the form of its briefing for today's debate? The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will never grasp the seriousness of unemployment in Wales while they rely on the garbage written by the Conservative research department. The document trumpets the major inward investment successes of 1992, yet the first three listed, General Electric at Nantgarw, Ford at Bridgend and Texaco at Pembroke, do not produce an additional job between them—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time; we have an Adjournment debate on the whole subject of Wales later. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his question now.
    Mr. Morgan: I have done.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman plainly shows that he has no question to ask. Once again, he chooses to ignore the realities of life in Wales, especially during the recession. Wales has been demonstrating the fundamental strength of its economy by the way in which it has been fighting back. Unemployment is now below the national average for the first time in 70 years. It is 0·3 per cent. lower; when we went into recession, it was 0·8 per cent. higher than the national average.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to improve the employment prospects for the long-term unemployed in Ogmore, Mid Glamorgan and Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Extensive measures.
    Mr. Powell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will those measures reduce the unemployment in Ogmore and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)? In 1979, total unemployment in the Ogmore constituency, which then included Bridgend, was 3·7 per cent. It is now well over 20 per cent. in my area. In addition, there are long-term unemployed people and they were made unemployed by the actions of the Government since 1979 when they reduced manning in the steel industry and closed seven collieries. What does the Minister propose to do to employ people in my constituency, in Bridgend and throughout Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: Of course, our economic policies will bring down unemployment, but there is always a lag between a reduction in inflation, which are now down to 1·7 per cent., and a reduction in interest rates, which is now down to 6 per cent. Even against that background and the background of the present recession, not only in this country but in many others, the Employment Service managed to place 1·4 million unemployed people back into jobs last year. Next year, starting in April, our programme of employment and training opportunities will give almost 1·5 million opportunities for unemployed people, especially those who have been out of work for some time.
    Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that prospects for the long-term unemployed in Ogmore, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are infinitely better under this Government than they would be under a Labour Government, especially in the context of the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty? If the Opposition had
    8
    their way, the social chapter would be included in the treaty and, if implemented, it would drastically affect unemployment in this country.
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past seven years in Wales there has been a substantial reduction£41 per cent.—in the number of long-term unemployed. That represents a fall from 78,000 to 46,000£ a reduction of 32,000. Wales now has record productivity and record manufacturing output. Our message is that Wales will lead the United Kingdom out of recession.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State has another record. He has 134,000 unemployed people in Wales and one in three of them is long-term unemployed. The total cost of that unemployment to the Welsh economy is £1·2 billion. Those are the records of reality about which the Secretary of State chooses not to speak. Does not he realise that the time for his con tricks and cosmetics is past? If we are to tackle the problem of the long-term unemployed we need a completely new approach and a strategy that will renew our economy and revitalise our manufacturing sector.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman says that we need to revitalise our manufacturing sector. Let us look at the facts. Manufacturing output is 126·3 per cent. compared with 100 per cent. in 1979. It is up by over 25 per cent. The index of production in the United Kingdom over the past year was up by 0·4 per cent. while in Wales it was up by 1·4 per cent. Manufacturing productivity now stands at over £30,000 per employee, which is one of the highest anywhere in the United Kingdom and 6·4 per cent. above the United Kingdom average. When one looks at the facts one sees the answer to the hon. Gentleman. He should start talking up the Welsh economy and then we should certainly see the growth that we need.
    Mr. Barry Porter: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the steps that they have already taken about employment in Wales. In view of the planning permission for the gas terminal at Point of Ayr, would not it be sensible for employment in Wales and in parts of Merseyside as well if some pressure were put on the Department of Trade and Industry to grant section 36 consent for the Connah's Quay power station? I hope that that will happen very soon.
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has been lobbying extremely hard on this subject. As he recognised, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade because section 36 consent is under his aegis. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's words are immediately conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

    Valleys Line
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of British Rail's valleys line network to discuss investment.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Cardiff-valleys network was one of the issues that my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail and his regional railways director when they met on 7 September last.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Minister recognise that the huge growth in vehicle traffic over the past 20 years or so has

    9
    made many of our key trunk roads congested, dangerous and often the source of major pollution of the atmosphere? Will he ensure that our extensive rail networks are employed to their fullest extent and that adequate investment is made available to make them user-friendly and efficient so that we can get traffic off the roads and back on to the railways, where it should be?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave supplementary credit approvals totalling £3·56 million to Mid and South Glamorgan for funding major investment projects in the valleys network. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to take traffic off the road and we are investigating the position of the A470 between Pontypridd and Coryton. We are looking at the possibilities of investment in rail to cover the increased use of that area and of that road in particular.
    Mr. Sweeney: What are the prospects for a link between the valleys network and Cardiff bay? Secondly, is there any hope of getting a link with the Cardiff Wales airport?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My Department is supporting a study, commissioned by South Glamorgan county council in conjunction with other local authorities, British Rail and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, into options, including a light rail system, for improved public transport links between the valleys and Cardiff bay. The railway to Rhoose airport is a matter for South Glamorgan county council, which has discussed it with British Rail, but there has been no positive decision.
    Mr. Rogers: Surely the Minister recognises that the valleys line is in a deplorable state, with trains running late and crowded. Often, the service is not available. When, as valley Members, we take up the issue with British Rail, its answer is that stock has had to be transferred to lines outside Wales because of general shortages. Will the Minister take up immediately with the relevant controllers of British Rail the matter of stealing railway stock from Wales and transferring it to England?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall consider and investigate what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know as well as I do that operational matters are for British Rail rather than for me.

    Jobs
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific measures he proposes to take to safeguard existing jobs in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Welsh Office, together with the development agencies and training and development councils, already has in train a number of measures to encourage enterprise, create new jobs and safeguard existing jobs.
    Mr. Anderson: I have a simple question. What efforts has the Secretary of State made since October last year, when this came to light, to safeguard and protect the 3,000 jobs at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea?
    Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I am fully involved in the
    10
    discussions and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been made. The current framework document for the agency expires in April of this year and it is therefore proper that all options should be carefully explored.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to bring down unemployment in Wales is to go on encouraging inward investment into the Principality, on which our record is second to none?
    Mr. Hunt: Given the latest figures for inward investment, despite the worldwide recession, it is remarkable that, once again, previous records have been beaten. To have more than 200 promising projects, many of which are still to recruit and to invest their capital programmes, is a good sign of the optimism that is present in Wales; confidence and order books are high. Now, we want to see the growth in the economy that all that promises.
    Mr. Alan Williams: As the Secretary of State is aware, we welcome all inward investment. Does he not think it grotesque, however, that at a time when he and his colleagues are, as previous Governments did, working to secure such investment, his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, is putting at risk twice as many jobs in three agencies at Swansea as the jobs that are at risk at Fords? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport understands clearly that privatisation should not be used as a weapon against regional policy?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about inward investment. We are greatly assisted by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in making sure that we win investment. We are successful because we follow a team approach. I include in the team, of course, local authorities, agencies and hon. Members.
    As I told the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), no decisions have been taken. I shall, of course, be fully involved in the discussions.

    Exports
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement concerning the exportation of products from the Lampeter region.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am pleased to say that a number of firms in the Lampeter area are exporting very successfully.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many hotels in the far east, and I include Jakarta—[Interruption.] I shall ask my question despite attempts by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), both in the Chamber and outside, to prevent me from doing so. Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the far east, including Jakarta, the only type of bottled water that can be bought is, surprisingly, that from Perrier in France? Is he aware also that Lampeter bottles excellent water called Ty Nant? What is my right hon. Friend doing to promote its export?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Ty Nant spring water of Lampeter is well known to my Department, and I am aware of the success that has been achieved in exporting it abroad. My officials have visited the company and provided its representatives with advice and information about the opportunities that are available in overseas markets. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that he will find Ty Nant spring water in western Europe, the United States of America and Australia. I dare say that it is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had for lunch today in honour of St. David, who was a man who had a predilection for water.
    I am appalled, as I am sure the rest of the House will be, to hear my hon. Friend say that he was threatened by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) when he thought of tabling a question. We welcome questions from Conservative Members and from any Members of the House.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that Lampeter is the centre of the organic farming industry of Wales, with one company there employing 150 people? As organic farming is good for the environment and for people, will he encourage its growth so that we can eat vegetables and other foodstuffs as pure as Dewi Sant?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Seeing the daffodil on the hon. Gentleman's lapel and on the lapels of all round the Chamber, I am pleased that I am wearing a leek, which is at least edible. Yes, we encourage organic farming. We hope that it will be accompanied by warm libations of water.

    Welsh Economic Council
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received to date concerning his plans to establish a Welsh economic council.
    Mr. David Hunt: A total of 88.
    Mr. Wigley: On this, St. David's day, will the Secretary of State accept that an economic council will not do away with the democratic deficit in Wales or improve the accountability of the Welsh Office and the Welsh quangos to the people of Wales? Does he accept that the only way in which we shall get sensitive government that can concentrate attention on the needs of Wales and respond to the widespread dissatisfaction with the present system of government is to have our own parliament in Cardiff that will be answerable to the people of Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: That point was not made in the 88 representations that I received, so the hon. Gentleman has made it on this occasion. I had hoped that he would say that he very much welcomed the proposal for a Welsh economic council. That has certainly been the view of almost everyone who responded to the consultation document.
    I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a longstanding commitment to the establishment of a bureaucratic Welsh assembly, but he knows that he and I have differed in that respect for a long time. Notwithstanding that background, I hope that he will welcome a Welsh economic council.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Barristers (Payments)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what was the highest sum paid to a barrister in respect of (a) a prosecuting brief, (b) daily refreshers and (c) the highest combined total paid for a case in (i) criminal cases and (ii) civil cases in the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The specific answers to my hon. Friend's questions are, for criminal cases—(a) £329,000; (b) £750; (c) £545,678; and for civil cases £82,600.
    High fees of that nature are paid only in a few very heavy and complex cases spread over a number of years. The average fee for a case in the Crown court paid by the Crown prosecution service in the year 1991–92 was £366.
    Mr. Greenway: Is not my hon. and learned Friend concerned that tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted on collapsed fraud and other trials? Will he urgently set up an inquiry so that we may learn the lessons of what went wrong in each case and ensure that there is no repetition?
    The Solicitor-General: That money has not been wasted. By definition, the function of a trial is to test the evidence. In the Plasser case, the magistrates heard the evidence and committed for trial; the judge heard the evidence and ruled that there was no case to answer. That is the function of a criminal trial.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in the payment of ordinary fees in heavyish cases, there remains great concern at the Bar because the Government are not paying their debts to lawyers in reasonable time? Will he take steps to ensure that the central taxing units meet their targets?
    The Solicitor-General: I can only advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to get a better clerk. In his next case, he will be entitled to an interim payment after 20 days. When the case is concluded, his clerk can put in a fee note for payment on account—long before it ever gets to the central taxation unit, as I know from my own experience.
    Mr. Burns: Given the escalating costs of justice and the importance of everyone having access to the law to redress their problems, should not the Government urgently consider introducing a no win-no fee voluntary system of justice?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend's point is already under consideration. However, life in the Crown court is rather different from what some suggest. The standard fee for a guilty plea is £113. The standard brief fee for a case that lasts up to three days, including preparation and the first day, is £217, with a refresher of £150 per day. If the case lasts three days, that means a payment of £517 for work spread over at least four days.

    Maastricht Treaty
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what further advice he has to give on the Maastricht treaty in respect of parliamentary amendments.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I set out in my written answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on 22 February the principles applicable to amendments to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I shall advise the House on specific issues as necessary.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Attorney-General admit that he came up with that advice the other day because a political shift had taken place in the House? I ask the Attorney-General to be prepared. Because of the Cabinet split and two Cabinet Ministers meeting with the prince of darkness, the iron lady and her guru, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have other advice ready. If the Prime Minister gets the sack and the other lot take over, the right hon. and learned Gentleman better have a separate piece of legal advice, because the one that he has will not be good enough.
    The Attorney-General: That may be the way that legal advice is given in the principality where the hon. Gentleman is prince but in the world where you rule, Madam Speaker, and in this country, legal advice is given independently and dispassionately.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is strange that the Leader of the Opposition says that he is in favour of the Maastricht treaty but then does his damnedest to frustrate the Bill's passage through the House?
    The Attorney-General: I give legal advice to the House, so I shall not comment—but I well understand my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sure that the Attorney-General agrees with the constitutional proposition that the Government derive their authority from Parliament, not the other way around. Having advised the House that the Government can treat the passage of amendment No. 27 with impunity, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House whether, if it wants to adopt the social chapter, it would effectively be able to do so by adopting amendment No. 443 or some other amendment? Does not the Attorney-General have a duty to advise the House how it may properly express its will?
    The Attorney-General: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman invites me to comment on an amendment on which the Chairman of Ways and Means has not yet taken a decision, and which is not yet even before the Committee.

    Government Departments
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will list his statutory powers to take legal action against Government Departments for breaches of the law.
    The Attorney-General: My powers to take action for breaches of the law, whether ex officio or at the relation of a citizen, are founded in common law.
    Mr. Wardell: Given that the Attorney-General's authority is derived from common law, will he explain why he has never permitted a citizen of this country to take civil action in the courts against a Minister or Government Department, and why he is unwilling to explain his reasons for such a refusal?
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure that the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is right. When I lend my name in a relator action to a citizen in order to bring proceedings—whomsoever they are against—I review the matter dispassionately and carefully, in accordance with the law and the strength of the case that the citizen puts before me.

    Fraud
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to reduce the level of crimes of fraud.
    The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown prosecution service are designed to deter the incidence of serious fraud by providing for effective investigation and prosecution.
    Mr. Flynn: As the Solicitor-General is aware, the law mercilessly pursues small earners for fraud offences involving payment of various taxes through the courts. How will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that those having incomes of £150,000 a year who pay little or no tax are brought to book? Does he think that the case of Mr. John Birt is one of tax evasion, fraud, or theft?
    The Solicitor-General: That matter is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Serious Fraud Office has a budget of £21 million, 133 permanent staff, and 90 police attached to it. It is testimony of our determination to get to the bottom of white collar fraud.
    Mr. Merchant: Can my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the Serious Fraud Office has the expertise to deal with all the ramifications of recent allegations of local government corruption?
    The Solicitor-General: I can assure my hon. Friend of that. If fraud in local government is so widespread that it cannot be dealt with adequately by the Serious Fraud Office, no doubt the fraud investigation group of the Crown prosecution service can be called in. I assure my hon. Friend that, one way or another, the allegations will be thoroughly investigated and that if local government needs to be cleaned up, we shall ensure that it is cleaned up.

    Sentences (Increase)
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-Genera] how many cases have been put forward to the Court of Appeal for consideration for a possible increase in sentence as a result of his intervention during 1992.
    The Attorney-General: In 1992, the Law Officers sought leave to refer 41 cases to the Court of Appeal, including four to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Three were later withdrawn in the light of further information. Twenty-one of those cases have been determined to date, in 19 of which the original sentence has been increased.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer.
    My constituents, and people throughout the country, consider the right of appeal for the prosecution one of the most valuable pieces of legislation that the Government have introduced. There are still far too many cases in which unreasonably lenient sentences are imposed. May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to continue to

    15
    consider exercising the power that the Government have now rightly given him whenever there is a public outcry, as there has been in response to a number of recent cases?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. Parliament was very wise to institute that power. In an effective criminal justice system it is important not only to be able to reduce over-severe sentences, but—if the Court of Appeal thinks it right—to be able to increase unduly lenient sentences. Similarly, it is important not only for the innocent not to be convincted, but for the system to be capable of bringing the guilty to justice.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid (United Nations Target)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has received regarding the desirability of the United Kingdom Government's achieving the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We continue to receive representations from hon. Members and others.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why does not the Minister listen to those representations—representations which might have prevented the disgraceful position in which he has placed the country, which has dropped to 13th in the league of aid-giving countries per head of population? Why does he not listen to the representations of Scottish Education and Action for Development, the Scottish Churches Council, Oxfam and all the other organisations and citizens in this country who are keen to ensure that the Government play their part in helping the third worldߞa part they are manifestly failing to play at present?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman should listen to some of the facts. Expenditure figures relating to the last year for which such figures are available show an increase of 3 per cent. on the year before in real terms, and expenditure in the coming year is to increase by 1 per cent. in real terms on last year's expenditure. At a time of great economic stringency, that is indeed success for the ODA budget.
    Mr. Wells: Is it not a fact that our aid programme is one of the best-focused on poverty? In a tough year for expenditure, we have increased the budget for overseas development to £1·9 billion. Does not that show the generosity of people in this country, working with the non-governmental organisations, which also contribute a significant amount to the third world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. At a time of difficulty, we have done extremely well for the ODA budget. It is also true that there are considerable contributions from other quarters. United Kingdom direct investment overseas is half the European Community total; the 1991 estimate was £3,000 million.
    Mr. Meacher: How can the Minister justify cutting the aid budget as a proportion of gross national product by almost half over the past 13 years, and planning further substantial real cuts in two of the next three years, when
    16
    over the past four years his Government have given British banks £2·25 billion—50 per cent. more than the ODA's total annual aid budget⁁in tax reliefs against possible defaults on third world loans? In fact, there have been no defaults, and not a penny of that money has been used to defray the debts of some of the world's poorest nations.
    Ministers like to say—as this Minister does—that they concentrate on the poorest. Since when have Barclays and the National Westminster bank been in that category? If there is now great pressure on public expenditure, would it not be better for the banks, rather than some of the poorest nations on earth, to feel the draught?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman asks several questions. Let us deal with the public expenditure survey for the next three years. At a time of great economic stringency, if he takes all forms of external assistance, he will find an increase of 10 per cent. in cash terms and 1 per cent. in real terms. [Interruption.] It is the ODA's budget. If the hon. Gentleman were to penalise the banks' accounting procedures for lending to the third world. It would stop them lending to the third world.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that to the recipients of aid the quality of aid is as important as its quantity? Will he compare the quality of British aid with that of other donor countries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The quality of aid certainly is important, but the enormous pressure on other aid programmes must be recognised. For example, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the United States and Italy have all announced plans to cut their aid budgets—in some cases substantially.

    Overseas Aid
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest estimates for overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's spending plans for 1993–94 to 1995–96, including those for overseas aid, in his autumn statement on 12 November last year.
    Mr. Skinner: In view of the overseas aid figures that we have just heard and the reduction in aid to third-world countries, does not the Minister feel a little ashamed when he compares the fact that in 1991 the top four clearing banks set aside £720 million, yet third-world countries had no debts written off? Are not the Government running a strange society when the Chancellor of the Exchequer can write off £4,700 and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can have £20,000 worth of assets added to his property, whereas little kids in South Africa and elsewhere with matchstick legs get hardly anything from this Government? If debts are going to be written off for banks and others, they should be written off for poor countries in the third world.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member characteristically ignores many of the facts and makes a load of allegations that are quite unsubstantiated. Britain led the world in debt relief under the Trinidad terms initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from which 14 countries have benefited, 11 of which were the poorest countries in Africa. Many of the private banks have written off debts,

    17
    but the hon. Member, once again, seeks to penalise the banks by withdrawing tax relief, which would stop them lending to the third world.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In the light of Shyam Bathia's article in the Observer yesterday, which highlighted the tragic plight of those in the marshes of Iraq, will the Minister join me in thanking the ODA and the Foreign Office for their expertise in monitoring much more accurately than any other nation what was happening in the area? That has allowed organisations such as the Amar appeal to spend the only bilateral aid that is going into the marshes from the west, which comes from the Government and for which we are most truly grateful?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I am delighted to support my hon. Friend. I can say from my knowledge in other fields that the Government's contribution to help with all forms of humanitarian assistance in Iraq in the past two years amounts to £56 million.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister properly emphasises the quality of aid, which depends on the freedom and choice of the Government to determine their own aid programme. Does he agree that under the treaty of European union there is some compulsion to co-ordinate aid policy? Would not that, to some extent at least, constrict the choices that are open to the Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, debated that only last week.
    Mr. Spearing: I did not.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The previous right hon. Member for South Down claimed many times to be participating in debates by listening. The hon. Member knows that the requirement in the treaty of Maastricht only enshrines practice heretofore. All members of the European Community will co-ordinate their aid policies, but that co-ordination does not undermine the right of each country to maintain its own bilateral aid programme.

    Population Policies
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage of the overseas aid budget allocated to population policies.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some £26·5 million, or 1·5 per cent. of the aid programme, was spent on direct support for population programmes in 1991.
    Mr. Ottaway: I thank my hon Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the story so far, but, in view of the growing concern about population, will he support the proposal that the G7 countries allocate at least 4 per cent. of their aid programmes to population policies? Can he confirm that his Department will be leading for the Government in the run-up to the United Nations conference in Cairo next year?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can confirm that the Overseas Development Administration will be leading for the Government at the Cairo conference. I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the question of a target for population matters in the aid programme, although I congratulate him on his interest and on pressing the point. We are not happy with financial targets, but the Government are happy and the Department is keen to have targets for the number of countries and for the projects that we can initiate in the next two years. We hope to have 15 projects over two years and to double the number of countries involved.
    Sir David Steel: In view of the alarming forecast given at the Rio summit of the trends in world population growth and their effect on the environment, should not these policies have a much higher priority in the Government's budget at home and abroad?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, rapid population growth of the type to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will cause environmental problems, but the links between population growth and the environment are complex. The ODA is funding research to enhance understanding of that subject.
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: We have a statement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I can hear his point of order after that.

Local Government (Wales)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government in Wales.
I am today publishing a comprehensive and detailed White Paper setting out the Government's conclusions on the reform of Welsh local government. This follows a consultative process lasting more than two years, and I take this opportunity once again to express my gratitude to the Welsh local authority associations for their wholehearted and constructive participation in that process. I am also publishing a concise public information leaflet for widespread distribution in Wales, explaining the Government's plans, and a separate question and answer booklet for all local government staff. I am placing copies of all these documents in the Vote Office.
The Government's conclusions are these. First, a single tier of unitary authorities will be established throughout Wales. As a result of the citizens charter, the Government are of course committed to making public services more responsive to the people who use them. We believe that, under unitary authority arrangements, local people will have a better understanding of who is providing their local services, and this will result in greater accountability. Removing duplication in this instance will improve quality of service and, by achieving better co-ordination and efficiency in the management and delivery of services, achieve better value for money for the taxpayer. I believe that there will be widespread support for the unitary authority solution in this House and throughout Wales.
Secondly, the Government propose that 21 unitary authorities should be established in Wales. The areas of these are set out in detail in the White Paper. The large towns of Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Wrexham will all be served by unitary authorities, as will traditional counties such as Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey. In making these proposals I have sought to balance the demands of local community loyalty with the requirements of effective and efficient service delivery, taking account of demographic factors, population distribution, geography and other relevant considerations.
Thirdly, subject to what I shall say in a moment, the new authorities will be statutorily responsible for the full range of local authority services. They will, therefore, be responsible for education, social services, housing, highways, planning and, for example, trading standards. This reflects my commitment to strong local government in Wales. The continuing development of the enabling role of local government and individual authorities' willingness to work together in the provision of specialist services have confirmed my view that services can be delivered efficiently and economically by the authorities proposed in the White Paper. The only functional changes envisaged under these plans are that, henceforth, responsibility for the fire service in Wales will lie with three combined authorities rather than with the new unitary authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's proposals for this are set out in my White Paper. My right hon. and learned Friend also intends to make a statement soon about the future of the police service in both England and Wales.
I have already drawn to the attention of the House the many benefits that unitary authorities will bring. Some
20
cannot be measured in financial terms, but must nevertheless be borne in mind. The new structure will generate savings in the running costs of local government. Independent consultants estimate that these could range up to £17 million a year for a structure of 20 unitary authorities. But there will be one-off costs from the transition which the consultants estimate could range from about £65 million to about £150 million over 15 years. I am confident that reorganisation will pay for itself well within this period.
In addition to our proposals for unitary authorities, the Government also plan to enhance the role of community councils. I propose to take powers in the Bill to specify matters on which the new unitary authorities will have to consult community councils before decisions are taken. I should obviously prefer to see a voluntary development of close working relationships between unitary authorities and community councils, but should that not occur, the Bill will provide for statutory powers to be exercised in that event. I shall not hesitate to exercise those powers if Parliament decides to give them to me.
I have also carefully considered the provisions, unique to Wales, under which local people can vote to dissolve their community councils. It would be wrong to withdraw such democratic rights, but I am satisfied that the provisions do not afford community councils proper and adequate protection. The Government propose to remedy that, and the details are set out in the White Paper, together with a proposal for amending the provisions relating to the establishment of community councils.
The proposals will have significant implications for local government staff. The Government expect that the vast majority of local authority staff will be transferred by order to one or other of the new authorities. I propose to establish a staff commission, whose principal function will be to have oversight of the transfer process and to advise me accordingly. It will be for the new authorities to assess their staff requirements and to make any necessary adjustments. Compensation will be payable in the event of early retirements or redundancies, should the latter prove necessary. Final decisions have not yet been taken on whether changes should be made to the existing scheme for early retirements.
A Bill will be introduced in due course to implement these proposals. My intention is that there should be elections to shadow authorities in 1994, and the new authorities will assume their responsibilities from 1 April 1995. The Bill will provide for a residuary body to be established to wind up the affairs of existing authorities.
Today's White Paper is a document of the greatest significance for the governance of Wales. The Welsh Grand Committee will soon have an opportunity to discuss it in detail, as part of our consideration of the structure of government in Wales. The Government believe, and I believe strongly, that the White Paper maps out a path for the creation of a distinctive, innovative and efficient local government structure which will serve Wales well for many years to come. The opportunity is here: now we must seize it. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am sure that all of us in Wales will be glad that at last the Secretary of State has concluded his deliberations and published the White Paper so that local authorities at least know what he has in store for them.

21
I received a copy of a detailed document shortly after 3 o'clock, in the middle of Welsh questions. I hope that the Secretary of State understands the difficult circumstances in which my hon. Friends and I find ourselves in responding to a document which is detailed and complex and which will recast the face of Welsh local government. In turn, I recognise that we will have every opportunity to debate the matter in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff next Monday.
The Secretary of State and his party are alone in Wales in believing that unitary authorities of the sort that he is proposing are acceptable except in the context of a Welsh assembly. Does he accept that county and district authorities are united in their belief that a proper mechanism needs to be put in place to secure strategic planning of public services and that the unaccountable Welsh Office, operating through unelected quangos, is not even it poor substitute for a democratically elected assembly of the Welsh people? The most pressing need for reform is not local government but the quango system itself in which 1,200 appointees of the Secretary of State spend about £1.5 billion of public money while the wishes of 70 per cent. of the electors who voted for an assembly at the last general election are ignored.
Does the Secretary of State accept that he has not achieved the consensus to which he referred in his statement of 3 March 1992? In addition to the objections from local authorities, his plans are now opposed by the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and other public bodies in Wales such as the health authorities. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is broad support for the proposal effectively to recreate borough status for Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Wrexham. Does he have any plans to examine in more depth the future of our capital city?
In addition, would it not be appropriate to recognise Cardiff's capital status by using this reorganisation to integrate Cardiff with its hinterland in the Vale of Glamorgan and to abolish the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and hand its functions over to democratic control?
There will be considerable concern at some of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the valleys authorities. I ask him to recognise that he will receive further vigorous representations. Given that he has neither a mandate from Wales nor consensus, is not he ill-advised to press ahead in the face of opposition with an unrealistic timetable?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his judgments on costs are not shared by the members of his consultative committee? No potential savings have been identified for future running costs and little income would be generated from the disposal of property. Therefore, how does he propose to recoup the transitional costs, which are likely to be more than £100 million?
What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of job losses? I am advised that, contrary to the Secretary of State's statement, some 20 per cent. of local authority jobs could go. The loss of some 30,000 jobs—if that figure is correct—would be devastating in personal terms, obviously, for the people involved and would cost the Welsh economy some £270 million per annum.
When the right hon. Gentleman establishes the staff commission, will he ensure that there is proper representation from the staff who will be affected by the reorganisation, their trade union representatives and local authority interests directly? He will be aware of the fine
22
record of Welsh local authorities as being effective and efficient providers of services. Any suggestion that that role be diminished or that they become merely enabling authorities will be fiercely resisted.
On the timetable of the Bill, when does the Secretary of State propose that it will come before the House? When does he expect it to receive Royal Assent? Will he assure us that all Welsh Members will be able to participate in the Committee which considers the Bill? When does he expect the elections to the shadow authorities to take place? Will next year's district council elections proceed?
On behalf of the Opposition, may I welcome the strengthening of community councils and the decision to put the consultative ability on a statutory basis. However, the Secretary of State hinted that the procedure for a referendum was undemocratic. If there is a democratic deficit in Wales, it is the lack of a Welsh assembly, for which all Opposition Members argue. English authorities do not have a procedure for abolishing their community councils by referendum. Would it not make sense to bring Wales into line with England in that regard?
The proposals are not quite so bad as we might have feared.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Oh yes they are.
Mr. Davies: I am speaking in general terms. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong views against the proposals, which he will undoubtedly want to put. The proposals are not as bad as we could have feared, but the Secretary of State would do well to recognise that the Bill will receive the closest attention. He will face united pressure from Opposition Members to ensure that we have an all-Wales elected assembly and that the new system of local government is meaningful to the communities which it has to represent, democratic, and sufficiently viable to provide and deliver the full range of services to the people of Wales.
Mr. Hunt: By the standards of this place, that was a warm welcome. [Interruption.] I am sorry to indict the hon. Gentleman, but I had expected stronger criticism. I am delighted with the way in which he has received the proposals. He said that they were not as bad as he expected. As I do not know what he expected, I can only comfort myself with the thought that they are better than he expected.
I apologise if the statement was delivered late to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that that is a problem of long standing. However, he accepted that we would have an opportunity in the Welsh Grand Committee, when we debate the structure of government in Wales, to deal with many of the points that he raised.
I believe that within its existing boundaries Cardiff is an entity with which local people can identify. It is of adequate size for service delivery. However, I share the vision of those who have argued that the status and importance of our capital city of Cardiff should be enhanced. The way to proceed is not to extend its boundaries artificially but to consider ways of improving the quality of its facilities and its urban environment. Therefore, I propose to invite South Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to discuss with me how best that vision can be fulfilled. One possibility which I should be happy to

23
consider is for the Welsh Office to contribute to a major study of how Cardiff's position as the capital city of Wales could be developed in the next 25 years.
The hon. Gentleman said that the timetable was unrealistic, but I would point out that I gave the operational date of 1 April 1995 some two years ago. Today I have demonstrated how I believe that the timetable can be achieved.
On running costs, I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman because he saw the statement only at the last moment, but I referred in my statement to studies of the running costs that can be saved. For 20 authorities—we propose 21—the saving could be up to £17 million a year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to staff. I am anxious to send the question and answer brief to everyone who works in local authorities in Wales. It answers directly the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I want all staff in the local authorities in Wales to recognise that the vast majority of them will transfer from one authority to the new ones. I believe that there have been references to large-scale redundancies, and I hope that my reassurance will demonstrate that those fears are groundless.
I shall, of course, establish a staff commission which will be broad based and wide ranging. I should like to move reasonably swiftly on its establishment. That will be a matter for the House, but if local authorities agree, I would like the commission to be established in shadow form immediately after Second Reading of the Bill.
On enabling powers, the hon. Gentleman will know that I am committed to local authorities developing their functions even more as enablers rather than just as providers. I believe that that will provide national and local taxpayers with better value for money, and better services as well.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his question about the timing of the introduction of the Bill and of its Royal Assent is not a matter for me and that I must refer it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I believe that, when the proposals are analysed, they will be seen as a challenge to everyone in Wales not only to pioneer a new form of local authority, which can be set as an example to the rest of the United Kingdom, but to make a considerable success of it.
Mr. Roger Evans: I assure my right hon. Friend that in Monmouthshire his proposals will be greeted by near universal enthusiasm and gratitude.
Mr. Roy Hughes: What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?
Mr. Evans: I happen to know my constituency rather better than the hon. Gentleman, who intervened from a sedentary position.
I wish to refer my right hon. Friend to one important point in paragraph 3.7 of the White Paper, which states:
"The Government is not proposing to increase the number of Lord Lieutenants immediately".
Now that we have got rid of the ghost of Gwent, we hope that it will be interred for ever. May we have some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that Monmouthshire will have its own lord lieutenant and high sheriff at an early date?
Mr. Hunt: Throughout the two-year consultation, I have been well aware of the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and of his constituents about their wish for the return of the county of Monmouthshire. That is incorporated, of course, in the proposals which I am presenting in the White Paper. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his vigorous fight to bring about what has been announced today.
As set out in the White Paper, there are no immediate plans concerning lord lieutenants, but I will listen closely to what my hon. Friend has to say on this and other issues as they affect the new Monmouthshire, which will take effect from 1 April 1995.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State want to be remembered as the man who abolished the ancient county of Montgomeryshire, as he proposes to do in the White Paper? Can he explain to the House why he has apparently changed his mind and, particularly, why he considers that the traditional county of Montgomeryshire does not deserve the same consideration as that afforded to the traditional counties of Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire? Will he explain why he has ignored the clear will of the people throughout the existing county of Powys? Does he understand that, to people in rural mid Wales, finding the logic of the proposals will be a game of political hunt the thimble, where there is no logic to be found?
Above all, will the right hon. Gentleman explain himself to the people of the existing county of Powys, who will be severely disappointed at his disgraceful and unpredicted change of mind without, latterly, giving proper opportunity for consultation to the districts that he now wishes to destroy?
Mr. Hunt: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) will raise the same issues with me as the hon. and learned Gentleman. They have both argued strongly for the re-establishment of the historic counties of Breconshire, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. However, after the most intensive discussions with local authority associations, I have concluded that Montgomeryshire could not be effective as a single-tier authority. Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I share the views of local people that those historic identities should be preserved. I have received many representations from local people who want to continue to live in Montgomeryshire. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Post Office has no objection to people still referring to themselves as living in the historic county of Montgomeryshire—
Mr. Carlile: How exciting.
Mr. Hunt: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen, I shall explain how I want to develop the policy. If he refers to the White Paper, he will see that it refers to the flexible approach to internal management arrangements, which I want to encourage and which may well provide an opportunity to move towards the position for which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth and the hon. and learned Gentleman have been arguing. The hon. and learned Gentleman should read the White Paper before making his criticisms.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those local authorities for which the writing is on the wall will be prevented from going on a spending spree before they are done away with?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to stress that it is important to ensure, not only that we have good, strong local government, but that it represents value for money. For the first time during reorganisation of local government, the same Government will be responsible for the original idea, the production of the White Paper, the introduction of the legislation and the new unitary authorities. We shall ensure that the sort of problem of which my hon. Friend warned will not occur.
Mr. Barry Jones: The Opposition do not believe that it was good enough to receive the document one minute before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement.
I welcome the return of the old name of Flintshire and the boost to community councils. However, what guarantees are being given for the job security of tens of thousands of worried council employees, not least in the district of Alyn and Deeside and Clwyd, and of Delyn and Wrexham Maelor? Will the huge cost of the reform come from the Treasury or the right hon. Gentleman's own budget— £150 million is a lot of money?
The deep flaw in the proposals is that they do not refer to the unaccountable quangos. The right hon. Gentleman is guaranteeing more of the same—which is the governor general's style—but he has not tackled the problem of unaccountable bodies in Wales.
Mr. Hunt: As I understand it, under the procedures of the House, when the Government publish a White Paper, they come to the House and make a statement about it, making the White Paper available when the statement is made. Therefore, I am merely following existing procedures. There will be an opportunity to debate the proposals next Monday in Cardiff at the historic first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about Wrexham and Flintshire, and the establishment of the new county of Denbighshire.
have given a reassurance that the vast majority of staff will transfer from one authority to the new authority, and that the new authorities will be responsible for the full range of local authority services. I hope that that shows the job security that must exist, particularly when I have also announced today—notwithstanding the background—the establishment of the staff commission.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I wish to place on record the grateful thanks of the people of the Vale of Glamorgan to my right hon. Friend. They will be relieved not to have to face the threat of being swallowed up by Cardiff. I feel sure that the proposal to extend the vale slightly to the west and to take in some villages that form a natural part of it will be welcomed. I thank my right hon. Friend for that.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has campaigned vigorously for the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. I have listened carefully to his points, and I am pleased to be able to announce what we are publishing today in the White Paper.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Secretary of State's estimate of cost savings will prove false. All we will get from this local government reorganisation is large and unnecessary additional expenditure, which will arise not because of irresponsibility in local government but because of the ineffectuality of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, which he intends to put into effect.
The maxim set down in the White Paper—that local government is government for local people by local people —is indeed to be strongly commended, but it is negated by everything the Government have done to local government by centralising power and reducing resources.
In rehearsal for future arguments that we shall doubtless have, may I point out that, although I have great affection and respect for the community of Caerphilly, that name has little if anything in common with Markham, Blackwood, Abercarn, Newbridge, Ynysddu and Pontllanfraith? Whatever else is changed after the White Paper, that name will be.
Mr. Hunt: I am not sure what ineffectuality means in that context. The move from 37 district councils and eight county councils to 21 new unitary authorities, without the overlapping and duplication of the central management unit, combined with ensuring that the full range of services continues, will reassure those working in local government and will mean that the proposals will be highly effective. I strongly believe in the new unitary authorities.
As for the name or title, as far as we are concerned these are suggested names and titles. It will be up to the House when the legislation proceeds to suggest others. I think that the right hon. Gentleman suggested about 12 names for the new authorities. If he would concentrate on one and slip it to me in public or private, I guarantee that 1 will carefully consider it.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend's announcement may be greeted in Powys county hall, where I know morale has been badly hit by the process of consultation over local government reorganisation, but it will be greeted with dismay in the counties of Breconshire and Radnorshire. I endorse the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in this regard.
My right hon. Friend is well aware that representations have been made to him by the district council of Brecknock, by Radnorshire district council and by representatives of the community of Ystradgynlais, where more than 5,000 people signed the petition which I had the privilege of presenting—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must have questions from hon. Members, or I shall have to ask them to resume their seats.
Mr. Evans: I ask my right hon. Friend to consider these points and urge him to reconsider his proposals for Powys.
Mr. Hunt: I recognise the deep and strongly held feelings that my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have expressed. This has been one of the most difficult areas of the consultation which, as my hon. Friend will know, ranged widely, through the Welsh consultative council on local government and the various sub-groups established to look at services. We are proposing authorities with the full range of services. I am

27
certainly aware of my hon. Friend's point, and I should like now to go a little further than I did in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
The flexible approach to internal management which I outlined in the document will permit the establishment of sub-groups—area committees for administration—which could be concerned with local authority matters in defined geographical units. I shall certainly press the new Powys authority to establish a committee for each of the historic counties of Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire so as to maintain the political identity of the traditional counties within Powys. For the people of Powys it is important to ensure that local authority services are of the highest possible quality. I certainly intend that they should be.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: First, how will the Secretary of State exercise great care to ensure that the powers that he gives community councils will not be so vast that they will be greater than the powers of the new unitary authorities put together? Secondly, how will he ensure that the development plans that he mentions in his report will be in place so that the many Welsh local authorities that still do not have local plans ready will respond in the appropriate way? Thirdly, how will he improve his Department's planning procedures so that when his Department calls in applications such as that for the Oystermouth bus station in Swansea it will have the courtesy to inform the Member of Parliament for that constituency, me, and an objector that a public inquiry will take place? Unless he gets his act together, God help us.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not comment on the planning matters mentioned in the final part of his question. He raised the important matter of the role of community councils. Chapter 7 shows that the Government propose a system in which community councils will act increasingly in partnership with the unitary authorities, although through an enhanced representational role. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. I was a little sad that he did not welcome the establishment of the new city and county of Swansea. I hope that I can carry him with me in establishing that new authority.
Mr. Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend will be aware—[Interruption.] The House will be aware that I represent a United Kingdom seat and that —[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Member of the House and has every right to put a question.
Mr. Duncan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the historic parallels that can be drawn between Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and the county of Rutland. Will he not admit that a truly Conservative reform should allow almost inexplicable diversity in the size and structure of administrative units? Will he not admit that his announcement imposes a rather arbitrary uniformity on the structure of local government? Would he admit that he might have got his answer about sub-groups the wrong way round and that it is better to have small units combining where they need to rather than larger units forming these rather peculiar sub-groups? Can he confirm
28
that his announcement about the size of unitary authorities in no way creates a precedent for the size of any unitary authority that may be created in England?
Mr. Hunt: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's final point. Wales will lead the way in demonstrating how to establish the new unitary authorities, but I recognise that there is no read-across into the reform of local government in England.
I say to my hon. Friend, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), that it is important to ensure that the new unitary authorities can deliver the full range of local authority services. Such services include dealing with children at risk and some aspects of community care, which require a high degree of specialisation. I want to create a structure in which all the new unitary authorities can deliver those services.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the fact that a statement of some kind has been made at long last, recognising, as I think we all do, that the morale of many tens of thousands of people in local government in Wales has been dealt a severe blow during the past two years of waiting.
I am somewhat bemused at the variation between £65 million and £150 million as the proposed cost of instituting this so-called reform. Given that variation, I fail to understand how the Secretary of State can be confident that any money will be saved. I shall now refer briefly to two other matters—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are being unfair; they have now entered into a debate, rather than asking direct questions. Unless questions and answers are brisker, I shall not be able to call many more hon. Members.
Mr. Llwyd: I shall be simple and succinct, Madam Speaker. I have two points but I shall be brief.
Aberconwy borough council is to join with the Colwyn borough council. The Secretary of State has said, and it is also set out in the body of the paper, that due consideration has been given to links—local, community and geographical. That is surely not so in this case. The true intrinsic Welsh people of the valley will be ground out of sight in the borough of Colwyn.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State be pleased with himself, having effectively done away with a county that has existed since the 13th century—Meirionnydd?
Mr. Hunt: Since the original announcement that we were looking at ways to introduce unitary authorities, I have spent the time wisely in the Wales consultative council on local government with the representatives of local government, who kindly agreed to setting up a whole range of sub-groups to consider all the different services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that, while we await the proper deliberation of those sub-groups, we have a White Paper that sets out the way in which those services can be provided. It was wise to spend that amount of time doing that.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we are following on from the reorganisation of 1974 and I hope and believe that we are setting up authorities that will last for many years to come. On the other point, I shall be asking the boundary commission for local government to go into a number of areas the length and breadth of Wales to look at the situation on the ground.
Mr. Llew Smith: After reading the crazy proposals for a unitary authority based on Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil and the community areas of Rhymney, Daren valley and New Tredegar, will the Secretary of State confirm that today is St. David's day and not April fool's day?
Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the community interest between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr? Given the reference to good communication, will he accept my challenge and come with me on Monday morning to Swffryd and then from Swffryd to Merthyr on public transport? He can then explain to me how the White Paper will meet the need for good communications.
Mr. Hunt: Others put a different view from that which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I believe that the Heads of the Valleys unitary authority will not only bring together the areas he has mentioned, but will be a satisfactory body, delivering local services at a high level of quality and value for money for the council tax payer.
Mr. Roy Hughes: How can we welcome the proposals for a reorganisation of local government when the Minister has been so busy taking away the powers of local authorities? For example, Newport borough council unanimously rejected the proposal of Browning Ferris for a waste disposal plant in Newport and it was fully backed by the people of Newport who are concerned about the hazards involved and the criminal record of that American company. Far from reorganising local government, he should take heed of the words of Max Boyce and put the tools on the bar.
Mr. Hunt: While everybody tries to work out the significance of the hon. Gentleman's final comment—I shall award a small prize to the person who can explain it
30
to me in detail—let me make it clear that I wish that: the hon. Gentleman would think again and welcome the new unitary authority of Newport. Newport is one of the most important towns in Wales and will readily justify the new unitary authority of Newport.
Mr. Paul Murphy: It is clear from the Government proposals that the number of local authority elected representatives in Wales will be reduced drastically at a time when the number of unelected representatives running quangos is increasing day by day. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance—we shall, of course, be scrutinising the proposals set out in the White Paper in the weeks ahead—that the number of councillors per unitary authority will represent an efficient and democratic method of running local government?
Mr. Hunt: I should like to nail the point about redundancies straight away. There has been a range of suggestions from the counties and districts about the number of people working in local government. I envisage —the White Paper makes it clear that what I am about to say will be the case—that the majority of people working in local government will transfer from the former authority to the new authority.
The number of councillors and matters of internal management are dealt with in the White Paper, which maps out the way ahead. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am giving power to certain authorities—I take up his point about internal management—to pioneer new forms of management methods. The legislation will deal with the numbers of councillors and the size of wards, and give power to local authorities to continue to pioneer new methods of delivering local services.

Points of Order
4.16 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, one of the purposes of the House is to try to raise the plight of those in need such as pensioners on small incomes who are suffering greatly during the present cold spell because cold weather payments have not yet been triggered.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to give careful consideration to the making of applications under Standing Order No. 20. I understand that it is necessary for you to give permission, irrespective of the outcome of any such application, before an application can be made on the Floor of the House.
On 6 February 1991, as you will see from the Official Report, I received permission from your predecessor to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on cold weather payments. I have already stated that, in my opinion, one of our jobs as Members is to raise the plight of those in need; it is unfortunate if we are denied the opportunity to do so. The rights of Back-Bench Members, Parliament by Parliament—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Winnick: It is whether you, Madam Speaker, will reconsider the position of Back-Bench Members. It is extremely difficult for us to make any applications to you on the Floor of the House, which means that our rights are being undermined and eroded, but through no fault of yours, Madam Speaker. A policy has been established, and I hope that you will reverse it. If not, it seems that, Parliament by Parliament, the rights of Back-Bench Members will be undermined and eroded, which will be extremely unfortunate.
Madam Speaker: I take great pains to uphold the rights of Back-Bench Members. I shall consider carefully, as I always do, any Standing Order 20 applications. I shall weigh them extremely seriously.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was it not possible for you to allow questions on the statement to run on? It was a statement of considerable significance to every Member representing a Welsh constituency. The annual Welsh day debate is about to take place, and we would have been only robbing ourselves of time in that debate if questions had been allowed to continue. Could not you have extended the time, Madam Speaker, to allow detailed questions to be asked by every Member representing a Welsh constituency who wished to do so?
Madam Speaker: The thought was in my mind. As the House knows, I allowed the statement and questions on it to continue for three quarters of an hour. I was concerned at the length of questions and answers. I timed the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), and the Secretary of State on the first question and answer exchange and they took 20 minutes. If all the questions and answers had been more brisk, I would have been able to call more Back-Bench Members, which was what I intended to do. I noted that both the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the matter would be debated by the Welsh Grand
32
Committee in the foreseeable future. We are also, as the hon. Gentleman said, about to have a wide-ranging debate on the Adjournment on Welsh affairs.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raised a point of order last Wednesday, when I criticised the Secretary of State for the Environment for not notifying me that my question had been linked with another question. I have now established that, in fact, a message was sent from the Department of the Environment to me, via our message board. That message did not reach me in time, for reasons that are not at all clear.
I am aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said earlier, there are serious communication problems among Government Departments, Ministers and hon. Members. I want to set the record straight and to say that on this occasion there is no criticism of the parliamentary branch and officials of the Department of the Environment.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear, for once, that everyone lived happily ever after.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which has a dual purpose. The first is to ensure that those viewing our proceedings will know that I was present when questions were asked on the statement about the proposed local government reorganisation, even though I was not called. The second purpose—which is the point of order for you, Madam Speaker—involves the safeguarding of the rights of Back Benchers.
I was fortunate to draw No. 3 in the ballot for private Members' Bills immediately following the election, which meant that I should have been able quickly to put my Shops (Amendment) Bill before the House for Second Reading. However, it was eight months before it received a Second Reading, on 22 January, when it was agreed by a majority in the House. Nevertheless, it has been another six weeks before my Bill goes into Committee on Wednesday.
Applications were made last week for the Bill's proceedings to be televised and that was agreed on Friday. Within a matter of hours, I was told that they would not be televised. Since then, the Committee has been informed on four occasions that there has been a room change.
I believe that that matter requires investigation, Madam Speaker. We all subscribe to the ballot process and, if we come within the first 20 places, we expect to get our Bill through at least some of its stages. If we are in the first 10 places, we expect to get our Bills considerably further. I now understand that, even though I was No. 3 in the ballot, and even if my Bill took only one day in Committee on Wednesday—as it amends the Shops Act 1950, it is a sizeable Bill—no spot would be made available for its Report stage between now and July.
As 173 hon. Members voted in favour of my Bill on 22 January, and as you, Madam Speaker, look after the interests of Back Benchers, I hope that you will ensure that there is a thorough investigation of the reasons why no spot is available. My supporters need to be satisfied with the explanation.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point about the televising of his Bill's proceedings in Committee and

33
the various room changes are administrative matters. However, I take seriously what he has said and, if he will leave the matter with me, I shall consider it.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
4.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): This St. David day's debate is the first of the new Parliament and this year it also takes place on our national day. That makes it an especially appropriate day on which to debate our traditional emphasis on the future opportunities for Wales. Of course, we have spent some time discussing my proposals for the reform of local government in Wales and we shall have a further opportunity to do so again at next week's Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Some of us are amazed at the Secretary of State's gall and barefaced cheek in introducing local government reorganisation without showing any humility and acknowledging that the present system was established by a Conservative Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge in his speech the effect of a Conservative Government on local government in Wales—and perhaps he will give a history lesson to his latter-day colleague, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who, it seems, does not know the history of the county of Gwent and of its establishment by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has made me aware on many occasions of his profound knowledge of history and has used historical analysis often to justify the creation of the county of Monmouthshire. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will use today's debate to concentrate on other matters, bearing in mind the fact that we will have an opportunity next week to discuss local government. I shall, of course, seek to address the hon. Gentleman's point in next week's debate.
I am proud that Wales is pioneering local government reform in the United Kingdom. These debates are traditionally wide ranging and my hon. Friends and I look forward to addressing a range of important issues affecting policies in Wales, including agriculture and rural affairs; tourism and inward investment; health, education and housing; the government of Wales; and our roads and railways.
Perhaps the most important issue of all is how the Welsh economy and the Welsh environment can be improved in years to come. Many right hon. and hon. Members will seek to contribute to the debate, so I will mention some of those matters only in passing.
My own priority for the future is to continue to build a diverse and strong economic base for Wales.
Mr. Barry Jones: I remind the Secretary of State of the problems of the Welsh steel industry and of the dumping of east European steel in western Europe and the imposition by President Clinton of tariffs. Does the right hon. Gentleman raise the problems of British Steel in the Cabinet? Does he agree that Britain and Wales in particular must not lose even one tonne of steel-making capacity, because the industry is too important for that to happen?
Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are many worrying developments, including those that he

35
mentioned. We must have effective anti-dumping measures. As to world trade, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that Wales will prosper, but only if there is full, fair and free trade. I want the Uruguay round brought to an early conclusion and a new GATT that will do much to stimulate world trade and perhaps make unnecessary many of the measures being contemplated or announced by some Governments. Steel is a vital core industry for Wales and it is a matter of pride for me that although many jobs have been lost in the industry, its productivity and output have increased enormously. It is a matter of pride for everyone in the industry that it is one of the most competitive in the world. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that it is only possible for our competitive industry to prosper if we have full, fair and free trade.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State address his failure to secure objective 1 status for Wales? It was granted to the Scottish highlands and to certain parts of England, such as Merseyside, but Wales has failed in that respect. If we do not secure the maximum possible assistance from the European Community, we will be in danger of missing out on opportunities that are needed in all parts of Wales.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will know that the way in which to proceed is determined under the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics, affectionately known as NUTS. Under that category, it was only possible for us to put forward Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys and Clwyd as a single region.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Not Gwynedd.
Mr. Hunt: No, I must correct the hon. Gentleman: it was Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys and Clwyd. [Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Under the territorial distinction, it is possible only for us to see the full region as such. The regionalisation announced by the European Community does not include Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys and Clwyd, which is a matter of regret. I stress the importance that we give to securing objective 1 status for rural Wales.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: As my right hon. Friend will know, the President of the Board of Trade has said that, although the Commissioner has not included rural Wales, he intends to put forward the argument for rural Wales at the Council of Ministers' meeting.
Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is out of order: he is speaking from the aisle.
Mr. Evans: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): If all faults were as small as that, this place would be better run.
Mr. Evans: Let me return to the important point that I was making in regard to objective 1 status. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that rural Wales is still part of his ambitions in terms of obtaining objective 1 status. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State invite Opposition Members to communicate with the European Commission and Mr.
36
Bruce Millan—who used to be a parliamentary colleague of theirs—and urge Mr. Milian to include rural Wales with Merseyside and the highlands and islands of Scotland?
Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The final decision rests with the Council of Ministers, in the context of the review of the structural funds regulations. I shall certainly continue to press the case for rural Wales. Let me add that, although it is not possible on the NUTS II geographical basis, I very much want the needs of mid-Glamorgan, in industrial south Wales, to he recognised as deserving special treatment. We shall continue to press for that.
As I have said, it is always a pressing responsibility in Wales to forge policies that bring about sustainable prosperity for the future. Difficult times emphasise fundamental strengths and there have been many developments in recent years to support our confidence in the underlying prospects for the Welsh economy, but we still have some way to go.
My message to Wales is that the portents are good. I believe that our economic theme in 1993 must be "go for growth". The current signs are encouraging: for the first time since the 1920s, unemployment in Wales is now below the United Kingdom average—although it is still rising and is still too high. Productivity has risen by almost 26 per cent. since 1985, compared with a United Kingdom rise of only 11 per cent. Overall output has increased by over 18 per cent. since 1985, compared with a United Kingdom increase of some 7 per cent. During the 1980s, Wales gained, on average, about 1,500 net new businesses a year, taking the total of VAT-registered businesses from about 70,000 to more than 86,000.
Of course, we must do more. I acknowledge that, to build on those successes, we need to emphasise clearly the industrial and economic strategy for the next few years. Let me list the matters that I believe need to be addressed.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Secretary of State says that he wants to go for growth and that the portents are good. I hope that he is right.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is in favour of further reductions in interest rates, which are an essential step towards the stimulation of confidence in the economy, in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he also confirm that he will resist all cuts in public expenditure, in either capital or revenue accounts? Wales, like the rest of the United Kingdom, needs everything that it can get if we are to grow out of the prolonged recession brought about by the Government's policies.
Mr. Hunt: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have never been other than a critic of the economic policies that he espoused at the last general election. His question emphasised his party's unfitness to manage the economy. He knows that it is wrong for the Government to give an indication on interest rates. Our interest rates are at their lowest for years—6 per cent. We do not believe that Government should spend their way out of recession. We must ensure that our public expenditure programmes are relevant and that increasing emphasis is placed on capital, as it was in the autumn statement. I am delighted, therefore, to say that in the coming year Wales will have a record capital programme of £1.5 billion. That represents a good investment for the future.
Secondly, we must do all that we can to sustain or even improve our inward investment record, which is second to

37
none. Thirdly, we must press on with a concerted export drive and I have announced a range of measures that will achieve that. Fourthly, we must continue to invest in the success of Source Wales to maximise the advantage that we take of the new local markets that are created by our foreign investors. I shall do my best to ensure that we not only achieve record levels of inward investment but that we knock on the door of every inward investor to stress the quality of goods and services in Wales under the Source Wales programme.
We must emphasise at every turn the need for Welsh companies to adopt a total quality strategy and to pursue excellence in all that they do. They will then win those much-valued orders.
We must take full advantage of the new co-ordination that is made possible by the transfer of responsibility for training and, from 1 April, for the University of Wales from Whitehall to Wales to ensure a properly co-ordinated training, education and enterprise department. We have led the way in the United Kingdom by establishing such a department in the Welsh Office.
I want us to continue to promote the highest standards of management within companies in Wales. I want us to seek, through the higher education sector and our most forward-looking companies, innovation and research of the highest possible standards. We want to ensure that our co-ordinated approach to policy in the valleys makes the most of the initiative from the people of the valleys, fostering independence, not dependence. I know that many ideas have been advanced about how we should take this approach further and I shall refer to them in a moment.
We must ensure—this is my tenth point—that the new local councils that I announced today do everything possible to co-ordinate our approach to economic needs in Wales, not least by bringing new and relevant ideas from community level to the Welsh economic council.
Those are 10 key pointers for future policy, but, as everyone knows, the Government do not have all the answers. They are primarily a consumer of wealth, not a creator of it, and initiatives for the long-term success of our people must come from the people themselves. Our future policies must therefore have a far more decentralised flavour. We must encourage local initiatives and not swamp them with the dirigiste ideas that are still frequently abroad on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Roy Hughes: At my interview session last Saturday morning, a constituent told me that he had heard that a large concern in Newport, which employs more than 250 people, is considering its position in the town as a result of the Secretary of State's decision to authorise a waste disposal plant. Does not that have serious implications for employment in the town? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? Let us have some straight answers.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman asks about planning. It is not for me to comment beyond the decision that I have reached. Of course, I took all matters into account. He should follow the example of many of his colleagues in making me aware of difficulties in any companies in Wales and I hope that he will let me have full details of the case that he cited.
Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State has made 10 points, but I wonder whether he is going to reach the eleventh, which is that there must be good transport
38
links to and from the Principality. Is he aware of the alarming statement by the general manager of the west coast main line that the line will be closed in six years' time and that, if it is not, there will be a catastrophe because British Rail desperately needs £400 million for investment in track and infrastructure? There is a danger that the high speed train through services to north Wales will not continue beyond 1994, unless the Secretary of State assures us to the contrary. Many other hon. Members representing north Wales are extremely worried, so will he meet an all-party deputation to see what can be done to ensure that these vital services continue to north Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I have been given differing reports of the meeting, which I did not attend. I have not seen the alleged source of the rumour, said to be an internal British Rail document. I checked with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and nor has he seen it. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that it is anything other than scaremongering. That is not something that I have heard from the hon. Gentleman in the past and I hope that he will join me in making it clear that there is no substance to what has been said.
However, I understand that British Rail intends soon to start renewing the infrastructure of the west coast main line. The precise timing will be decided in the spring, when British Rail has decided on its next corporate plan. It is already carrying out a programme to upgrade the north Wales coast main line. I have heard from Sir Bob Reid the extent of those plans about which I am very pleased.
The future of the north Wales coast main line is important for the area. I was delighted to have held the post of Secretary of State for Wales when the first 125 left Euston heading for north Wales and Holyhead. That was a very good move, but I now want more traffic on that route. The introduction of the 125 cut the journey time substantially and offers a very good service.
Mr. Alex Cathie: Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied to be the Secretary of State for Wales who presided over the period when British Rail took Aberystwyth off the main line and relegated the Birmingham-Aberystwyth line to what amounts to a milk train route, which is of no use to any business person and of little use to people who work at the university of Aberystwyth? Is not it a disgraceful apology for a railway line? Is he generally satisfied with British Rail's performance in Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I have raised the question of the mid-Wales routes with Sir Bob Reid, but, as we always say at the Dispatch Box, it is a matter for British Rail. There are good local services through to Aberystwyth, although I recognise that there are strong feelings locally which the hon. and learned Gentleman expresses and which he will no doubt also express to British Rail.
I praise the record of Wales in attracting inward investment and all those who help to ensure that we continue to break new records. I have calculated that, since April 1983, there have been more than 1,000 inward investment projects in Wales and 208 new projects in the last financial year alone, promising 16,000 jobs. That is a pretty good record against the present background of world recession.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We have heard those figures about inward investment many times, but the

39
subject about which the Welsh Office never speaks and on which there is no record is outward divestment, an equally ugly phrase. It is the number of quality jobs which are siphoned out of my constituency and others to Malaysia, France and dozens of other countries. The Government's claim about inward investment is like filling up the bath —the taps are running and one can measure the water going in, but one forgets that the plug is out and that the water is draining away. When will the Secretary of State keep a record and report to the House the number of jobs that are lost to Wales?
Mr. Hunt: The statistic is there. The hon. Gentleman has only to consider manufacturing output. Is not it a fact that, despite the rundown in certain key industries, manufacturing output has increased over the past 14 years? Yes, it is a fact. It has increased by more than 25 per cent. since 1979.
One of the examples that I was going to use to stress that Wales is now internationally the first option for new projects and expansion is Newport Wafer Fab which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is promising 280 jobs. I could give many other examples.
Mr. Rod Richards: To help the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many of the plants and factories which have opened in Wales since 1979 are still in operation and still providing employment?
Mr. Hunt: It is staggering that 803 new manufacturing plants that have opened in Wales since 1979 are still in production. My hon. Friend is right to stress their importance. [HON. MEMBERS:"A planted question".] That is not so. If the hon. Gentleman had read further down the Order Paper, he would have seen that my hon. Friend's question was tabled but not called. However, my hon. Friend has found a good way of ensuring that the House knew my answer.
The Government have not only encouraged international partnerships and investment. Since January 1992 —I stress this figure because it has increased since I last mentioned it—210 offers of regional selective assistance have been accepted by new and developing businesses in Wales. That involves a contribution from the taxpayer of £82 million, making a total investment of £543 million, involving 14,200 jobs, many of which are still to come.
I mentioned Newport Wafer Fab—
Mr. Flynnrose—
Mr. Hunt: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. Other examples include Robertson Associates and Treforest with 195 jobs, the Marshall Food Group at Sandy Croft with a further 313, Flexonics Automotive at Crumlin promising 260 jobs, Amcor Packaging at Mold with 150, and Tillery Valley foods at Abertillery with a further 111.I am pleased to be able to announce further job projects.
Mr. Flynnrose—
Mr. Hunt: Will the hon. Gentleman please listen to further good news, which I am happy to announce, including the fact—
Mr. Flynnrose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if the Secretary of State, or any other hon. Member who has the floor, does not give way, he must resume his seat.
Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to confirm what I believe the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) already knows. Lucas-SEI has already created more than 150 jobs at its Neath facility, which only started operations three months ago, and I am today announcing another four job projects.
Mr. Barry Porter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the list of job opportunities in the hundreds which he has produced for parts of Wales. However, I am a little disturbed by the possibility that the debate may suggest that Wales is some sort of independent economic and industrial unit. Self-evidently, it is not.
At the risk of boring repetition, I point out that, although my right hon. Friend has talked about 200 jobs here and 300 jobs there, there is the probability—the almost certainty—that if consent is given under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a power station at Connah's Quay, 4,000 jobs will be created. I am sad to say—no, it is not sad from my point of view—that some of those jobs would go to Englishmen. I was baptised in Portmadoc, so I believe that I have some right to speak on these matters. Will my right hon. Friend press the Department of Trade and Industry to give a decision about the 4,000 jobs and about the other jobs to come for the gas industry in north Wales and in what I hope will soon become Cheshire again?
Mr. Hunt: Were it not for the fact that I should very much like to continue as Secretary of State for Wales for many years to come, I should admit that my hon. Friend has just laid impeccable credentials. In all the many years during which I have served the adjoining constituency, I have been unaware of his Welsh background and of his Welsh baptism.
My hon. Friend will recognise, because he has been fighting hard for the project, that under section 36 of the 1989 Act, it is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As I said earlier, I shall ensure that I bring my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.
To promote further success, last year I published proposals to set up a Welsh economic council. The responses, as I said, have been positive and I shall announce my final proposals shortly. The council will be an important forum for discussing positively wealth and job creation.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not there a danger of making a quango of the quangos in that council? Is not there a danger of the Secretary of State debasing the election principle? Does he rule out, as a matter of principle, having an all-Wales elected body from the new local authority units, possibly as a step on the way to a proper elected assembly?
Mr. Hunt: There are only three more executive agencies than there were in 1979. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the idea that many more such bodies have been created. Most of the bodies are advisory bodies. I was dealing with the Welsh economic council, which, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, was an idea put to me by the Welsh Association of District Councils. I assure the

41
hon. Gentleman that when the Welsh economic council is announced, it will be seen to contain strong representation from the local authorities.
I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly that there should be a different forum—a parliament or an assembly for Wales. I hope that he will accept that we have a strong difference of opinion on that matter.
Following the autumn statement, I announced that expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency would reach a new record level. Next year, its expenditure will increase by almost £5 million to £171·4 million. I am delighted to announce today that, as a result of the increase, I have just approved a £50 million programme of expenditure by the agency on property development in the coming year. The WDA will continue to ensure that we can meet the property needs of inward investors and of the local business community.
The new programme will continue to emphasise land assembly, bespoke building and the stimulation of private sector involvement in the Welsh industrial property market. The WDA will also have a massive £66 million next year to upgrade the environment and to promote economic activity through the biggest land reclamation programme in Europe. The agency will bring almost 1,500 acres of derelict, neglected and unsightly land into productive use and there are many exciting projects.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the WDA will spend any money on cleaning up the polluted rivers and streams of Wales? That pollution has been caused by former and, possibly, present owners of mineral rights walking away from their responsibilities when mines have been closed. It is a national disgrace that coal owners, for example, once the coal mines have been abandoned, can wash their hands completely of their responsibilities and leave the rivers and streams devoid of life as the ferruginous material mixes with the water and kills the fish and wildlife there.
Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that 94 per cent. of the rivers in Wales are of reasonable or fair quality. We are talking about particular instances. The WDA will spend about £32 million in the coming year on land reclamation which could include measures to prevent further pollution. Other schemes are in progress to achieve the end that he and I want—a continuing improvement in the quality of our rivers.
The presence among inward investors of strong exporting companies has enhanced the Welsh contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments. I want overseas markets to be exploited to the full. That is why I have launched a new export drive to encourage small businesses in particular, which are not normally involved in export trade, to seek opportunities overseas. We shall move from an average of three export missions a year to 24 missions over the next three years. I have already announced measures to help those participating in the missions with fares and with expenses.
The direct jobs created by home-grown and inward investment are just the start. The spin-off opportunities are enormous. We dealt with that earlier today when we talked about the Source Wales programme. Since January 1992, the programme has been instrumental in securing £6·1 million of immediate business for Welsh small and
42
medium enterprises. The longer-term benefits will be even greater. Altogether, 1,760 Welsh businesses have been contacted to form part of the south Wales database.
I have discussed with the chairman of the WDA, Dr. Gwyn Jones, how we can ensure that some of our more important investors, such as British Airways, Bosch and Toyota, have direct links with the programme. I am pleased to say that an individual has been seconded by the WDA to each of those three major companies to ensure that more goods and services are supplied by Welsh businesses.
A key development came last year with the establishment of the training, education and enterprise department to give even greater coherence to our investment in the skills and enterprise of the people of Wales. The new department will build on the achievements of the network of seven training and enterprise councils which were established in Wales in April 1991. We have already pioneered the one-step shop approach to ensure that our businesses have immediate access to the information they need, especially if they are responding with new projects and new ideas.
Reforms in the further education sector from 1 April will mean that further education institutions will be able to respond more easily to the needs of students, of employers and of local communities. I was pleased to confirm the provision of £143 million for further education in Wales next year, which will allow a substantial increase in student numbers.
Mr. Peter Hain: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to present us with fine words on training and enterprise. As he knows, the reality is that training and enterprise councils have had their places, budgets and opportunities savagely cut in recent years. There is no hope of many thousands of youngsters in Wales either getting on a decent training scheme or getting a decent job at the end of it.
Mr. Hunt: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The amount spent by training and enterprise councils in the present year is more than £100 million. I have been told that the likely outturn figure is £102 million. That compares with the provision that I am making in the Budget with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for training and enterprise councils to have about £106 million to spend in the coming financial year.
For the first time ever, we will have responsibility for funding the whole higher education sector in Wales. The council will receive more than £157 million for funding in 1993–94. I believe that resources for that year will increase by 9·9 per cent. in cash over 1992–93, including an additional £2·9 million to raise the quality of research.
We need the right environment and infrastructure to sustain business and individuals and promote growth. The programme for the valleys, which was launched nearly five years ago by my predecessor—now Lord Walker—is an outstanding example of effective action to regenerate an urban area. The initial three-year programme was extended for a further two years. We reach the end of that on 31 March this year.
The programme for the valleys is unique in bringing to bear the full range of Government policies on the problems and challenges of a single area. We can take pride in what has been achieved. In a difficult economic period, the valleys have outperformed the Welsh economy and the

43
United Kingdom economy as a whole. It used to be the case that when recession hit the United Kingdom, the valleys would be much worse off.
If the valleys had simply followed the United Kingdom trend since 1988, their unemployment rate would be more than 20 per cent. higher than it is and more than 10,000 people might not now have jobs as a result. That should not be surprising when we have invested the provision of about £800 million which was announced. We have also created 2·6 million sq ft of industrial floor space. We have cleared more than 2,000 acres of derelict land and levered in £700 million worth of additional private sector investment.
When I say "we", I do not mean simply the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency. I am referring to all the partners in the programme for the valleys, including the local authorities and the people themselves. For all the criticism which we receive from time to time, it is striking that the critics of the programme for the valleys seem to be urging me to do more of the same.
I am immensely encouraged by recent progress in developing local strategies to tackle the needs of valleys towns and creating partnerships to implement those strategies. They include joint ventures between the Welsh Development Agency and local councils and community initiatives under the community revival strategies. There is the potential for partnerships with the training and enterprise councils, the Welsh Development Agency, the private sector, local enterprise agencies and the various voluntary bodies as well as local authorities.
Mr. Llew Smith: When the Secretary of State referred to the uniqueness of the valleys initiative, was he referring to the University of Wales report which shows that, after substantial investigation, it could not see an additional one penny of new public investment into the valleys?
Mr. Hunt: Rather than picking some of the remarks out of context, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to examine the whole report, which welcomed what the programme has done for the valleys.
Because I have been encouraged by what has happened so far—I commend my predecessor for his initiative and, indeed, another predecessor, now Lord Crickhowell, for some of the programmes that he initiated—I am announcing today that there will be a new five-year programme for the valleys which will build on the success of the original programme and provide a framework to give co-ordinated support to local strategies.
The new programme will need a clear statement of direction and I propose to give it just that. First, I want the programme to create long-term sustainable employment of improved quality; secondly, I want to make that employment accessible to all people through education, training and transport facilities; thirdly, I want the programme to support and strengthen local communities; fourthly, I want to improve and maintain the environment both as an attraction to business and tourism, but especially for the benefit of the people of the valleys; fifthly, I want to see national health service resources targeted more effectively in the valleys to improve further the health of local people; and sixthly, I want to maximize
44
the extent to which those aims are achieved by local people taking the lead in partnership with central and local government and the private and voluntary sectors.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for financing projects in the valleys. Why is there still a block on the RECHAR money? We desperately need the additional investment. It is new European money. About £20 million a year has been earmarked for the rundown coal and steel areas. Why is there still a problem with releasing those funds?
Mr. Hunt: I am not aware of the problem. At my next meeting with the Commissioner, Bruce Millan, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, the European programmes are enormously beneficial to Wales and a genuine addition to what we might otherwise be able to do. He will also know from the departmental report that I am providing money in the coming year to match substantially the grants from the European regional fund.
The majority of the actions initiated under the programme for the valleys will continue under the new programme. Most of all, the new programme must draw on the strengths of the valleys in tackling problems. I want to see some of the creative thinking that has come out of the valleys—for example, on industrial villages and the creation of a valleys forum—taken forward in the context of the new programme. I make that absolutely clear.
I know that many political parties have made their proposals. I am considering the best way to ensure that their ideas are taken forward in the context of the new programme and I am willing to see any hon. Members who wish to discuss that further with me.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful for a second opportunity to ask the Secretary of State a question. I welcome his support for the principle of industrial villages. May I ask him to put flesh on the bones of that announcement, especially the amount of hard cash with which he is willing to back the new initiative? It is clear that the previous valleys initiative programme simply recycled existing funds. We need a massive new injection of investment and jobs which will cost millions of pounds. That money is available in the £300 million which is wasting away financing people on the dole, but which could be recycled into regenerating the valley communities.
Mr. Hunt: I acknowledge that the proposal has come from the hon. Gentleman, among others. I welcome the chance to put flesh on his bones and the bones of his proposal and I shall be working hard to do just that.
It is always a question of resources. I argue within the context of government for an appropriate level of resources for Wales. Equally, I hope that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will acknowledge that it is necessary to get the structure of the programme right—that is what I will seek to do—and then to justify the resources which can be applied in the direction of the valleys.
The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that over the five-year period provision was made for a figure of £800 million, which considerably exceeds the level of programme which would otherwise have been implemented in the valleys area.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, especially as it is the second opportunity that he has given me. He listed his six objectives for what he describes as his further initiative. Am I wrong in thinking

45
that he did not mention housing in the list, even though it is a comprehensive statement of desirable purposes in many respects?
Given the great housing need of many families, especially young people, in the valley communities and the fact that, by building and improving dwellings for families, he would be making a real attack on unemployment in the valleys, does not he think that priority should be given to housing? In common with the rest of Wales, unemployment in the valleys has increased by 67 per cent. in the time that he has been the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but there are a number of policy areas which I did not mention as such. I was seeking to give a clear direction to the programme which includes a number of areas. Of course, housing is important and that is why a substantial amount of public money is going into the home renovation grants system. That system has done a great deal to improve some homes and houses in the valleys. Of course, it will form an important part of the new programme.
In the next financial year the resources for the WDA's urban development programme will be increased to £13 million—up from £10 million this year. I am increasing the resources available for private sector urban developments through urban investment grant for Wales as a whole from £4·2 million this year to £6·6 million next year. I shall actively promote the take-up of that grant in the valleys. I shall also make available additional resources to launch another round of the community revival strategy competition.
Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State mentioned putting money into the valley communities and the various structures and organisations that he intends to set up. Would not it be better for him to follow the example of one of his predecessors, who put far more substantial amounts of money into house repair grants than at present" I pay tribute to that Government initiative back in 1982, 1983 and 1984. But after that, the tap was closed. As a result, it is enormously difficult to revitalise our old housing stock.
If the Secretary of State wants to put people back to work, house repair grants would be a quick way of doing it. A great deal of skilled labour such as bricklayers, carpenters and so on is available. Those people could immediately get on with the job of refurbishing our housing stock.
Mr. Hunt: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge the validity of the arguments that were rehearsed extensively in the 1983 general election. Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts), the Welsh Office spent more in one year on housing repair than the Labour Government spent throughout their five years in office. It is good of the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. He is right to stress housing repair grants. I was able to provide £80 million of additional moneys to bring the investment up to £143 million in one year for the whole of Wales under the home renovation grant scheme.
Mr. Rogers: I am happy to pay a full tribute to the Minister of State for his efforts back in 1983. I know that some of its significance was due to the fact that an election was approaching. It was odd that the tap was closed the following year. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to open the tap of money for repair grants?
Mr. Hunt: If £80 million in one year—not only this year but for the next three years—is not turning on the tap, I do not know what is. I announced an additional £80 million for not only this financial year but the next financial year. So we shall be able to maintain the expenditure.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hunt: I do not want to speak for much longer because I know that many hon. Gentlemen want to speak. I have a tradition of giving way, but perhaps this time will be the last.
Mr. Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that certainly in Preseli, Pembrokeshire and South Pembrokeshire, while the grants available have been increased, there is still an enormous backlog of applications? The applications have been processed by the two district councils, but because funds are not available, people who may have paid their architect hundreds of pounds have to wait up to two years before their grant is completed and they receive the money to pay the architect. It is a serious problem. I have written to the Under-Secretary on the issue.
Mr. Hunt: I have given a high profile to private sector home renovation through special help for councils in Wales since the new grant system was introduced in 1990. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to that. By the end of 1992–93, the special help will have amounted to some £660 million. In the next financial year alone, more than £145 million is available for mandatory renovation grants, with more than £26 million for disabled facilities grants, minor works assistance and other grants. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that a great deal of money is being made available. I recognise that in certain parts of Wales a backlog is building up. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are considering the matter, but we have made available substantial funds.
In response to the point of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), I remind the House that in the next financial year the Housing for Wales programme will be at the record level of some £190 million, of which the capital element will be £130 million. I am confident that Housing for Wales will be able to achieve and even exceed its objective of 4,000 new homes this year.
We also have the record capital programme to which I referred earlier. It includes substantial health capital programmes. Two significant developments are the publication last December of "Caring for the Future", the 10-year strategic plan for NHS Wales, and the establishment from 1 April this year of the next 13 NHS trusts. On 1 April the Care in the Community programme will begin. I expect there to be more than 40 GP fund holders in April this year. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, more patients than ever before are being treated by NHS Wales. That demonstrates the success of health authorities.
I must emphasise another golden thread running through the Government's work in developing services For the people of Wales. It is our commitment to enhancing Welsh culture and developing even greater use of the Welsh language. That commitment is clearly demonstrated by the introduction of the Welsh Language Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place last week. The Bill is wide in scope and ambitious in its goals.

47
It establishes the principle that English and Welsh should be dealt with on an equal basis throughout the public sector.
The Welsh Language Board will be established on a statutory basis. It will produce guidelines to illustrate how public bodies should give practical and consistent effect to that principle, subject only to what is appropriate and reasonably practicable.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the Bill is to have any substantial effect, the Welsh Language Board will require substantial resources to produce its guidelines promptly and vet the development programmes, plans and schemes of various bodies? Is he prepared to ensure that the resources are available for that body?
Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we provide the Welsh Language Board with resources at present. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has always sought to do everything that he can to increase the amount of grant to support the Welsh language. As I said, the Bill will place the board on a statutory footing. It will have wide-ranging advisory powers and its function will be to promote the Welsh language. That duty is deliberately drawn in broad terms to meet the Government's aim of strengthening the position of the Welsh language wherever it is spoken.
However, I shall never tire of emphasising that the Welsh language will ultimately stand or fall in the pubs, shops and homes of Wales, not on the statute book alone. We have done and are doing everything that we can. The conditions are now propitious and the signs throughout Wales are highly encouraging. Our Bill, supported by the good will of the people of Wales, could transform the standing of the Welsh language for generations to come.
To end any uncertainty that there may be about the status that we intend the language to enjoy, part Ill of the Bill removes legal obstacles to the use of Welsh and legislative provisions which have been construed as giving Welsh a secondary status. That includes repeal of the remaining provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542.
Mr. Morgan: No doubt the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) was Minister of State then.
Mr. Hunt: No, my right hon. Friend was not Minister of State then, although I can imagine why the hon. Gentleman said that.
The Bill joins a range of Welsh language measures that the Government have introduced. It will safeguard and strengthen the position of the Welsh language for a long time to come.
Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State said that the Bill is designed to enhance the Welsh language, which has a secondary role in some areas of Welsh life. I am not happy with the Bill's proposals, however, because I do not believe that they go far enough. Unless some sort of legislative binding is introduced, the Welsh language will not be used in the various circumstances that the Secretary of State mentioned.
The Welsh language, however, is in a primary position in Wales in relation to certain jobs. I am greatly concerned that 90 per cent. of my constituents are precluded from
48
applying for jobs in the media and other Welsh organisations, such as the Welsh Arts Council, simply because they do not speak Welsh. The only answer is for the Secretary of State to provide more resources for translation and interpretative services so that the people in the valley communities can apply for those jobs that are now exclusively awarded to a small elite in Wales.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman and his constituents need have no fear; we do not discriminate. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, obviously, for certain jobs Welsh is a requirement, but the vast majority of jobs in the public sector and with other bodies do not insist upon that requirement. The increasing use of translation facilities is a good thing, but it is expensive. One must always bear in mind the priority that one accords to resources. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I would not seek to undermine it.
I hope that the debate will offer a range of constructive, positive suggestions from all sides of the House. This is an important day for Wales. I hope that it will be a happy St. David's day and that we will hear many innovative and imaginative proposals.
I believe that the background is extremely good for Wales to do what most economic commentators now expect it to do—lead the United Kingdom out of recession. I want everyone in the House to agree with me that that should be our aim and that we should go for growth.
5.21 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: There is no doubt about the desire of the Labour party to ensure that policies take Wales out of recession. The Secretary of State will know that we have put various proposals to the Welsh Office on ways which we believe the valley communities can lead Wales out of the recession and into growth. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman's comprehensive speech showed that he has at least read the document that his private office was so desperately anxious to get from me.
Mr. David Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I rarely complain, but I read about that document in the press last week and I have been pressing his office to send me a copy ever since. It arrived just a few hours ago with a compliment slip. I welcome it none the less, but I hope that he does not expect me to have read it already.
Mr. Davies: That is funny, because that is precisely the time that I had this afternoon to consider the right hon. Gentleman's document on local government reform. Perhaps the Secretary of State now understands the difficulty that we face. I am glad he now has our document.
In the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he offered a glimmer of hope when he understood that a new initiative was needed for the valleys. It was nothing more than a glimmer of hope, however, because the right hon. Gentleman was short of detail on that initiative when he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on the central question of funding. He did not say if any new funding would be made available.
We shall certainly support any worthwhile intiative, but the Secretary of State must understand that the responsibility for getting Wales out of recession and into

49
growth rests with him. No amount of fine words or encouragement from the Opposition will achieve that. We shall monitor progress on the valleys initiative carefully.
The right hon. Gentleman delivered a comprehensive speech, but it represented a departure from the normal Welsh day debates. I have read the previous speeches by the Secretary of State and his predecessor carefully and, normally, he treated us to the good-news offensive or the good-news initiative. In the past, the Secretary of State has announced some startling new initiatives and new programmes to be funded by the Government, and announced new jobs created by the Government and the private sector. Regrettably, no such announcements were made today. The right hon. Gentleman gave a fairly low-key speech. I listened carefully when he talked about the Marshals' announcement, which he made to the Welsh Grand Committee on 1 February. We had a fine debate on that then.
Although the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Welsh Economic Council, he did not say whether it would comply with the promise given in the election manifesto that, in future, it would include representatives of the trade union movement and local authorities of Wales. That is the proposition that the right hon. Gentleman put to the electorate in Wales at the general election, but just a few months later he retreated from it.
We also heard about the Welsh Development Agency and of the new £50 million to be made available for property redevelopment. However, that money was included in the public expenditure plans that the right hon. Gentleman has already trailed. The Secretary of State may disagree, but there is no new money. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with him about recycling old money.
The Secretary of State has done today what he has done consistently; he announced, re-announced and re-announced yet again the statement about financing for the Welsh Development Agency. But that is not equivalent to new money. That expenditure was included in the public expenditure plans that were subject to considerable comment many weeks ago.
The right hon. Gentleman made such an announcement to divert attention from the central issue. I am sure that is why, at considerable inconvenience to many hon. Members, he chose today to make a statement about local government reform. There was absolutely no reason for that statement today because we shall be debating the issue next week. The document could have been produced tomorrow or on Wednesday so that local government representatives could have been consulted. He could have complied with the undertaking that he gave to the leaders of the Welsh authorities about having discussions with them about his proposals before they were announced. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he had nothing new to announce today, so he wanted to distract attention from that fact by making the statement about local government reform.
If there is one single issue that is clouding every aspect of Welsh life it is unemployment. Twelve months ago, 122,500 people in Wales were unemployed; today, more than 134,000 people are unemployed, which is equivalent to an increase of 9·5 per cent. Every day since our debate last year, while the Secretary of State has held on to his job, 32 people have lost their own. Unemployment is a symptom of past failure and the cause of the present failure of the right hon. Gentleman's economic policies. It
50
is blighting the national economy of Wales, it is undermining the health of our communities and it is wasting the talents of thousands of our people.
The right hon. Gentleman may want to ignore unemployment or to disguise the reality of it, but, as year follows year, it becomes ever clearer that constant high unemployment is a fact of economic life under the Conservative Government. Even allowing for the manipulation of the figures, a comparison of the unemployment rate under each year of Labour Government with each year of Conservative Government since 1965 is dramatic. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), let me say that the unemployment rate was lower in every year of a Labour Government than the lowest figure achieved under a Conservative Government. The highest rate of unemployment in Wales under a Labour Government was 5·7 per cent. in 1978; the lowest rate of unemployment under a Conservative Government was 6·6 per cent. in 1990.
Throughout most of the 1980s the rate of unemployment in Wales was in double figures. Those figures were put to the Secretary of State at the last meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee and I should like to put a further point to him today.
High levels of unemployment are either a conscious act of policy by the Government or the inevitable consequence of the disastrous policies followed by the Government. Whatever the answer, it is unacceptable. After 15 years of continuous government—history did not start in 1985, as the Secretary of State suggested by the statistics that he gave us today—billions of pounds from North sea oil and gas, and the one-off windfall receipts from privatisation, the position is doubly unacceptable. No amount of synthetic compassion will divert attention from the fact that the Government are responsible for the 94 per cent. increase in unemployment since 1979, and the fact that it is now costing the Welsh economy 35 million working days every year at a cost to the Welsh economy of £1·2 billion a year.
Mr. Richards: I am a little concerned that the House may rely too heavily on the statistics and data given by the hon. Gentleman. He may recall that on 10 February in the Welsh Grand Committee he gave figures on unemployment and made comparisons with European countries, and I asked him:
"Is he comparing like with like when he compares this country with others?"—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 10 February 1993; c. 18.]
He replied in the affirmative. The research division of the Library—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating a speech that he may wish to make later, but not now.
Mr. Davies: It was a lengthy reply, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the whole of it.
This year, the Secretary of State said, in his new year's message to the people of Wales in the Cardiff Herald & Post:
"there are now clear signs that better times are on the way."
There is precious little evidence of that, and it certainly will not happen if the Secretary of State continues to follow the policies that he has followed so far. He is a member of a Government with no strategy for those better times. When recovery does come—if it does—it will be despite

51
Government policy, not because of it. We may eventually limp out of recession on the back of a low pound and lower interest rates, but if we do it will be due to the failure of Government policy on black Wednesday.
The worrying fact is that there are no mechanisms in place to build a sustained recovery. Much of our industry has been destroyed by past policy, and what remains is weakened by under-investment, a neglected infrastructure and an under-skilled work force.
In the same new year message, the Secretary of State said that he had
"laid the foundation for our future prosperity."
He also predicted the following:
"as spring follows winter, day follows night and Rowland Rat brought a new dawn for breakfast time T.V., economic recovery will certainly come."
It is no surprise that no one in Wales believes that. Rowland Rat might have brought a new dawn to TV-am, but the Government's policy soon put a stop to that. The sun set on puppet Rowland when TV-am lost its franchise last year. We can laugh about that at the Secretary of State's expense, but his policies are not much of a laughing matter for the people of Wales.
The cycle of unemployment and recession can be broken by a programme of strategic investment and by building on the partnership between the private and public sectors. The Secretary of State may talk a lot about partnership, but clearly he does not understand its meaning. How can he talk about partnership when he has undermined local government to such an extent that it is unable to play its full part in joint ventures with the Government and the private sector.
Blaenau Gwent's programme of urban regeneration was almost wiped out by the Secretary of State's recent revenue support grant settlement, despite the fact that the Welsh Development Agency provides 80 per cent. of the money for that programme. In Mid Glamorgan, all the capital programme has been wiped out by the same RSG settlement, including much-needed infrastructure investment.
Last week's unemployment rate reached 10·6 per cent. nationally. In some of our communities in Wales the figure is double the national rate. In the valleys of south Wales, unemployment—in reality a claimant count—is as high as 25 per cent., and everyone now accepts that real unemployment rates are much higher. If we take the claimant count and add to it the figure for economic inactivity—those out of work and not seeking work—we obtain a figure for male unemployment locally of about 40 per cent. Despite being given every opportunity, the Secretary of State has given no sign of what he intends to do about such high levels of real unemployment. The latest available figures from the 1991 census show that the inactivity rate for males aged between 16 and 64 jumped from 12·5 per cent. in 1981 to almost 19 per cent.—one in four for men of working age—in 1991.
The Secretary of State claims that Wales has not suffered as badly as the rest of the United Kingdom from increases in unemployment, but that is not true. A comparison of increases in unemployment since the beginning of the recession shows that, while Scotland's jobless rate increased by 26 per cent., Northern Ireland's
52
and the northern region's both increased by 41 per cent. and the north-west's increased by 46 per cent., Wales' unemployment rate grew by 62 per cent.
However, unemployment is not a problem in isolation. Regions of high unemployment are associated with regions of low wages, poor working conditions and part-time work. All those factors mean that less money circulates in the local economy. Mid Glamorgan has the lowest levels of per capita gross domestic product and household income of any county in the United Kingdom. When less money circulates in the economy, local businesses and services lose jobs.
What is the Government's latest offering to help our beleaguered communities? They place right at the heart of Government policy measures that will further undermine the lowest paid and most vulnerable, take up parliamentary time, cause offence to the public and serve no useful purpose. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill has a benign enough title, but is a measure to abolish the wages councils and remove from more than 109,000 of the lowest-paid workers in Wales the meagre protection that they presently enjoy. Even if the effect of that measure was to reduce the wages of the low paid by 20p an hour, the loss in spending power to the Welsh economy would be more than £390,000 a week, or £20 million a year. The lowest paid are concentrated in the poorest regions. The Secretary of State will be adding misery to already heavily deprived communities. Wales has the lowest average earnings for men in full-time employment of any region in the United Kingdom.
The Government place right at the heart of their policy taking away part-time employment. They are alienating themselves in international opinion through their manic determination to opt out of the social chapter. That chapter does not affect wage rates, bargaining procedures or trade union rights, but confers some small measure of employment protection. Why should not a single market with common laws on finance, trade, consumer protection and travel have common measures to offer some protection to working people? The Government say that Britain cannot enjoy such measures. Unique among all those in Europe, we cannot afford them. They are okay for the Germans, French, Italians, Irish and the rest, but the British economy is in such a desperate state that the Government cannot afford to give British citizens the same protection.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the abolition of the wages councils, far from reducing the amount of money available in the Welsh economy, will increase it by increasing the number of jobs at the margin?
Mr. Davies: No, I do not accept that. There is no clearer sign of the failure and waste of the past 14 years than the Government's fear of these minimal measures of protection for low-paid Welsh workers. The absence of decent, regular full-time employment, without even the prospect of such employment, will have ever increasing social consequences.
The Secretary of State for Wales has not even begun to count the cost of his policies, which have led to the progressive casualisation of employment. The reduction of full-time jobs and the knock-down impact on pensions, decent conditions and rights of employment, both in the

53
private sector and increasingly in the public services, will have growing social consequences throughout Wales, and especially for the valley communities.
During the past decade Wales has suffered a decline compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. The recession places additional burdens on local authorities, because they have to house the homeless, provide support for the unemployed and disadvantaged and care for the poor and the elderly. If we are to get out of the slump it will be in no small measure due to public expenditure on infrastructure, new roads, development programmes and investment in education and training. It will also come about by providing jobs in the building of new homes, schools, roads and environmental improvements.
Government policies are hostile to democratically accountable local authorities, which can be the key to the regeneration process. Education and health are two vital services which vividly demonstrate the Government's approach. It is intended to take away service provision from local democratically accountable structures and to push through unpopular opt-out reforms. Of course, they have been a miserable failure. Wales's first NHS trust, in Pembrokeshire, saw its waiting list soar within months of being set up, and across the Principality other applications for trust status have been bitterly opposed by the communities that they serve. Only last week it was revealed that two-year waiting lists have shown the patients charter to be nothing but a sham.
The number of schools in Wales has been cut and class sizes have been increased throughout the sector. The Government threaten and bully and talk of the need to reduce surplus places. What happens when local authorities try to comply? There is no better example than what happened in Cwmcarn. The places are possibly surplus to the requirements of the LEA, but they are ideal for the Government. They are not surplus to their requirements, because they needed just such schools to opt out, to allow the Welsh Office to arrogate even more power to itself.
Meanwhile, quangos multiply and flourish, while elected authorities, responsible and accountable to the public and with high standards of financial propriety—ensured through internal and external audit, arid full public scrutiny—are denied essential resources. Quangos in Wales now control more than ,£1·4 billion of public expenditure—but they do not represent the communities over which they have so much influence.
Over the past year public disquiet has grown about the cynical way in which the Secretary of State for Wales uses his power of appointment to increase the political power of the Conservative party in Wales. I do not need to remind anyone that the constituency secretary of the Under-Secretary of State was appointed to the board of South Glamorgan health authority but was forced to resign in the public outcry that followed.
Twelve months ago Ian Grist was a devoted Back-Bench supporter of the Government. The voters of Cardiff, Central did not show much devotion to him, and they booted him out at the general election. Now, he is the chair of South Glamorgan area health authority. Rejected by the voters, appointed by the Tories—that is what public life in Wales in 1993 is all about.
Mr. Dafis: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that two members of the East Dyfed health authority are former failed Conservative candidates for my constituency? That seems to prove the point.
Mr. Davies: Indeed. It occurs to me that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) owed his whole existence in public life before he was elected to this place to the patronage of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the appointment of Mr. Ian Grist as chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority reflected his ability and experience, and that it was therefore a highly suitable appointment of which no criticism should be made?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should understand that my colleagues and I saw the then Member for Cardiff, Central, Mr. Grist, here in the House, so we fully appreciated all his abilities. Wherever the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) intervenes, I am forcefully struck by how well served the voters of his constituency were by John P. Smith.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will give way to the Minister, but I must warn him that his hon. Friends are queuing up behind him.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to hear that they are. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the non-departmental public bodies, does he acknowledge that there has been a net increase of only three quangos since we took office—quangos of an executive character? Also, will he deal with some of the appointments made to the 16 quangos that existed in the days of the Labour Government?
Mr. Davies: The fact is that three trusts have been established in the course of this year. We have only to look at the thrust of Government policy to see what is going on. The measures to reform the national health service are designed to promulgate further quangos. The Education Bill, now going through the House, is deliberately designed to strip away from elected education authorities responsibility for the strategic management of education. That responsibility will go directly to a new quango being established by the Welsh Office. The whole purpose of Government policy is to take power to the Welsh Office —and I understand why. The Tories will never win elected power in Wales. The only way that they can exercise power there is by appointment and by patronage. That serves only to strengthen the argument for an assembly to democratise our public life—an argument that is growing apace in Wales.
Why does not the Secretary of State want democratically elected local government to bring together in partnership private and public sector interests? Who knows better than the communities themselves what needs to be done and how the regeneration process can begin? The Secretary of State talks of partnership and consensus with local government. What he means by consensus is, "I decide, you abide." Why does he not have a strategy for revival? Why does he not listen to the advice he has given and give an immediate boost to jobs by a programme of

55
housing, construction and repair—the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)? Why does he not put the building industry back on its feet, get the homeless off the streets and give families homes of their own? He could do these things tomorrow if he had the political will.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not restore the successive cuts that he has made to local services and allow the provision of services determined by communities within communities? Why does he not put in place the ingredients for long-term economic recovery: training and skills development, innovation, nurturing indigenous industry, and a supply initiative of real value to integrate our manufacturing economy? Instead he has cut the training and enterprise councils' budgets for youth training by 8·5 per cent. and employment training by more than 10 per cent. The Treasury discount rate makes borrowing from the WDA prohibitive for innovative enterprises while the Welsh Office supply initiative has little chance of success while training and innovation are starved of funding.
In a Welsh Office press release on 15 February the Secretary of State claimed:
"The central responsibility of the Welsh Office is, without doubt, to enhance the economic strength of Wales."
That is true, but he will not fulfil that responsibility with his present policies. Unveiling the Welsh Office spending plans for next year the Secretary of State cut housing expenditure by £23 million in cash terms alone. Spending on industry, employment and training was cut by £24 million and roads, transport and infrastructure also suffered. Those services are vital for regeneration and are the means by which we can pull ourselves out of recession.
The Secretary of State's job is to represent the people of Wales in the Cabinet, not to represent the Cabinet in Wales, but it was the President of the Board of Trade who announced pit closures in Wales. I am told that that was much to the Secretary of State's surprise because no one told him. It was the President of the Board of Trade who announced that he would redraw the map for assisted area status in Wales and it was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who announced cuts in the hill livestock compensatory allowance, threatening the very existence of economic activity in the Welsh uplands.
When the Secretary of State for Wales gets around to making a decision for the people of Wales he always seems to make the wrong one. When he was given the training and enterprise councils by the Secretary of State for Employment his first act was to cut their budgets. However, in a Welsh Office press release issued on 11 February last year to launch the White Paper entitled "People, Jobs and Opportunity" he said:
"People, jobs and opportunities are at the heart of our work to make Wales prosper. I have always laid great stress upon that most valuable resource—the skills of our people."
Those are fine words but they are followed by destructive actions. If the Secretary of State understands what needs to be done, why on earth does he not do it?
In the absence of positive action to get Wales back to work, the Government are building a dependency culture. Communities are unable, although willing, to work and they have no alternative but to turn wholesale to derisory state benefits which serve only to break the confidence of communities that are already under siege from economic
56
decline. The 1991 census for Mid Glamorgan reveals that 22·2 per cent. of households with dependent children had no adult in work and depended on unemployment benefit as the sole source of income. That benefit is one of the lowest in Europe and it is widely recognised that it is not enough to live on.
Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree trust concluded that income support meets only about two thirds of the budget that is needed to sustain a family with children in a modest lifestyle and that even with family credit incomes would be too low. I shall give three examples. Since 1979 homelessness in Wales has increased by 109 per cent., male suicides by 19 per cent. and divorce by 19·6 per cent. Families and whole communities come under the strain of economic decline. For me the most tragic and dramatic evidence of the cost is the mounting toll of vandalism and lawlessness. Now the Government promise a crackdown on crime. Tough sentences without tough remedies for their causes are, they say, the answer. They are too ashamed of their record to acknowledge the link between poor health, crime and vandalism, educational under-achievement and unemployment. Those problems are epidemics and, like the health epidemics of Victorian times, they will not be stopped until the causes have been identified and eradicated. Only the British Prime Minister, facing a crisis of his party's own making, can tell us that we need less understanding. It is the greed and prejudice of Tory philosophy which has got us into this state. No wonder they do not want people to understand.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right in imputing the smell of hypocrisy to the Prime Minister's proposals for a crackdown on crime. Welsh Members in the South Wales police authority area know that when that authority applied for 40 extra constables the year before last it did not get even one. It has received a derisory amount for every application. The trouble with the Government is that they do not put their money where their mouth is.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is correct and he reminds me of a further matter which we see clearly in his constituency—the growth of vigilante groups. That is a clear illustration of how communities who feel that they are under siege are losing confidence in the ability of the authorities to maintain law and order on our streets.
Mr. Roy Hughes: My hon. Friend is naturally concerned about the welfare of the family. Has he noticed the speculation in the press and the media generally, some of which has apparently been inspired, about the possibility of VAT on food? What effect would that have on poorer families in Wales?
Mr. Davies: It is clear that that would be a further burden. When the Government were desperately trying to get out of the poll tax fiasco, they had no compunction about increasing VAT by 2·5 per cent. across the board. The Secretary of State was the architect of that. We all know that that has had a devastating impact. Any further VAT increase, especially if VAT is imposed on items that are currently zero rated, would be devastating for the poorer people in our communities. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery wishes to intervene about the police, in which he has a particular interest. I happily give way to him.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments about crime, which is a matter of great concern, and about the Government's attitude. Does he share my suspicion that the Government want to dismember some efficient police forces in Wales in order to save money, and that what they say about crime and what they do about it are often far distant?
Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a powerful case to which I cannot add much. He will have seen the valuable research developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) which graphically demonstrates how the Government are long on words and short on action.
During the past 15 years the Government have vilified and undermined all the social institutions that help to keep the fabric of society together and who dare to speak out against Government policy, be they trade unions, local authorities, churches or chapels. The Government now try to tell us that there is no such thing as community, echoing Lady Thatcher's words that there is no such thing as society. The individual is all, they say. They are wrong, and the evidence is all around us.
Since 1980, violence against the person has increased by 113 per cent., burglary by 63 per cent., robbery by 61 per cent. and criminal damage by 154 per cent. The numbers convicted of drug abuse have increased by over 20 per cent. Those are all symptoms of the growing social malaise afflicting our society.
Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further example of the undermining of our public health services is that at this very moment Gwent area health authority is trying to persuade BUPA to take 50 operations in plastic surgery that could be carried out at Chepstow? Surgeons there are angry that before 1 April when the Glanhafren trust is set up this could be a way in which BUPA could profit from the continued underfunding of the health service in Gwent.
Mr. Davies: That point is relevant to the case that I was making earlier about quangos and the way in which the national health service is being restructured to take powers out of democratically accountable bodies and put them into the hands of the private sector. We know that that will always be ineffective.
Let me return to the problem of crime. The Tories will always claim that they spend more on the police, but that is not true. While crime rates have rocketed, we in Wales have had proportionally lower policing levels since 1979. The South Wales constabulary, for example, has experienced a 138 per cent. increase in crime levels since 1979, while policing levels have increased by a mere 3 per cent. compared with a 6·7 per cent. increase in England and Wales as a whole—an increase that is higher than that in every one of the Welsh constabularies. Dyfed-Powys police experienced a 132 per cent. increase in crime since 1979, but only a 1 per cent. increase in policing levels.
All that, and the Prime Minister tells us that we need to condemn a little more and understand a little less. What we need is not less but more understanding. Do the Government not understand why crime has increased so much in the past 15 years? The poorest, most vulnerable communities, which are condemned by the Prime Minister and have suffered most under the Government, understand why, because they have to live with the reality of Government policies every day of their lives.
Mr. Donald Anderson: When he looks at the effect, of public expenditure cuts on the crime budget, will my hon. Friend look not only at the freeze on police numbers but at the long saga of our attempts to get a secure unit in south-west Wales?
Mr. Davies: Again, all that I can say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has demonstrated clearly the Government's failure, despite repeated promises, to make adequate provision for persistent young offenders.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The House should be aware that a joint Welsh Office-West Glamorgan working group is now engaging consultants to find a site to establish a secure unit.
Mr. Davies: That promise was made two years ago—two years in which those persistent offenders who should have been receiving the proper treatment for whatever affliction causes them to be the menace that they are to society were left to themselves. Our communities in Wales have suffered from that recurring menace while the right hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Office have done nothing.
Sir Wyn Roberts: It is a local authority responsibility.
Mr. Davies: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that everything is in hand because the Welsh Office is planning and discussing and will fund a project and then say, when he full knows that local authorities are underfunded, that it is their responsibility. What he and his Secretary of State have to understand is that if they follow policies that recreate mass unemployment and impoverished communities that waste the potential of individuals, nobody should be surprised at the consequences. Their policies beget poverty and deprivation and poverty and deprivation breed crime and alienation. We need no lectures on morality from a party whose very policies have created those evils.
We do not need a knee-jerk reaction from Tory Members who neither understand nor care, or a reintroduction of the short, sharp shock, which failed, or locking young criminals away into a prison culture. We need a policy that tackles the problem at its heart. We must re-examine our communities, we must break the cycle of unemployment, poverty and deprivation—all the things that lead to the breakdown of community spirit and precipitate the growth of violence. There is no sign from the Secretary of State that he has even started to understand the nature of the task that he faces.
6.4 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: I have sat here listening to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for some time now and have had a severe attack of déjà vu. Before I go any further, let me say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how gratifying it is that you are wearing the national emblem of Wales in your lapel.
On 10 February, when the Welsh Grand Committee debated unemployment in Wales, I said:
"The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the Labour party had an economic strategy to reduce unemployment in Wales. I listened with great interest to his speech. When he sat down, I was amazed that he had not said a word about strategy or job creation."
I am equally amazed now, if not even more so, because on that occasion the hon. Gentleman said:

59
"Indeed, we have a strategy, and I look forward to the debate on Wales that we shall have on the Floor of the House on 1 March, and to one or two events before that. I shall explain, in as much detail as the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman wants, the course of action that should be followed."
We have not heard a word about strategy. The hon. Gentleman has not offered any details. If he would like to summarise his strategy now, I would be more than happy to give way.
Mr. Ron Davies: I will happily do that. I spent some time explaining in full detail what those proposals were. I have even sent a copy of them to the Secretary of State for Wales and, if the hon. Gentleman would feel happier, I shall send him a copy as well. It is a 52-page document, which will take some reading, but it may help him to sleep at night.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is clearly too embarrassed to summarise what is in the document.
I have said before that the House should not rely on the data that the hon. Gentleman presents to it. In the debate on 10 February, I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech to ask him whether the average wage statistic that he quoted included overtime. I also asked:
"Is he comparing like with like when he compares this country with others?"—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 10 February 1993; c. 18–31.)
He replied, "Of course I am." I asked the statistical section of the research division of the House of Commons Library—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is impartial—about the statistics that he quoted then and again today. It said:
"International comparisons of social security are fraught with difficulty. For example, unemployed people in the UK do not just receive unemployment benefit but they can also receive income support (which can include help with mortgage payments), housing benefit, community charge benefit and national insurance credits … Thus looking at the standard rate of unemployment benefit tells one little about the actual social security benefit being received by the unemployed. This problem is greatly magnified when one starts trying to make comparisons with 11 other countries where the benefit systems are equally complex."
In other words, the data and statistics that the hon. Gentleman offered the House were spurious, and I believe that he knows that.
We hear much from Opposition parties about democracy and democratic rights. I want to expose the difference between what they say in public and what they do in practice. I could have chosen any one of several issues as examples, but, so as to be as fair as possible to them, I have chosen a subject that they claim is close to their hearts—education.
When enacted, the Education Bill will provide the framework for an education system that will take Wales into the next century and ensure that our children are equipped with the skills that will enable them to meet the demands of a new millennium. Against that background, I feel that it is important to discuss the role of Opposition parties in undermining the democratic choice of parents who want grant-maintained schools in Wales. Grant-maintained schools have provided the opportunity for teachers and parents to determine how a school is run and the quality of the education that is offered to the children who attend it. I am fortunate to have a school in my
60
constituency—Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan—that rose from under the yoke of local education authority control in January.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: I should like to make some progress. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he will drag my family into the debate, which I am not having.
I wish Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan the very best of good fortune as it forges a new path towards academic excellence.
Two other schools in my constituency have voted in favour of becoming grant maintained. They are Ysgol Uwchradd Eirias and Ysgol Pen-Y-Bryn. Unfortunately, both suffered from some devious tactics to undermine their wishes. In due course I shall shed some light on those tactics. A third school in my constituency, Ysgol Bryn Elian, is soon to ballot parents on grant-maintained status.
The critics of grant-maintained schools would do well to note recent figures that have been made available by the grant-maintained school centre, which is an informed and professional establishment. The figures show that, of the schools that have opted out, 100 per cent. of primaries and 77 per cent. of secondaries are employing more teachers. That means smaller class sizes, and smaller class sizes means more attention being given to the specific needs of each child.
More and more schools across Wales are starting to recognise the benefits that grant-maintained status allows them. Over the next few years we can expect to see more schools leaving the control of LEAs, providing that the LEAs discontinue their destructive campaign, which is motivated by self-interest. The Western Mail survey recently revealed that more than 100 schools have expressed an interest in opting out of council controls, despite the best efforts of the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, who has been urging his members to work within their communities to develop grass-root opposition to the Government's plan to allow schools to decide their own future.
A week or so ago, one of the Badge Messengers brought a green piece of paper to inform me in the Chamber that the National Union of Teachers in Clwyd wanted to lobby me. To my surprise, I found that the NUT's representative was no other than my Labour party opponent at the general election. He had come all the way from Rhyl to lobby me in the House. A supply teacher had to be found to fill his place at school while he came here to lobby me.
That is typical of the fossilised attitude that schools in my constituency have been confronted with time and time again. Those who seek to place road blocks in the way of progress do so for political reasons. They care little about the welfare of those they claim to represent. Unfortunately, we frequently see such displays of selfishness by Opposition Members.
I see the faces of many Opposition Members who have abused their position in the education system. They do not advance what is best for children. Instead, they teach what is best for their political ends. They have little interest in improving education because they are more concerned with keeping happy their union friends, who have helped to place them in the House. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] For example, the hon. Member for Caerphilly lists education as a special political interest. I browsed through

61
Hansard to see what contribution the hon. Gentleman had made to debates on education since his unfortunate election to the House in 1983. Not much is the short answer. By his own admission, his first contribution to an education debate was on 11 November 1992.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it open to an hon. Member to accuse other hon. Members of abuse of their position in the education system? The hon. Gentleman appears not to be a fast learner about what is and what is not parliamentary. He seems to be making a direct allegation of dishonesty and corruption. I submit that he should choose his words rather more honourably and carefully.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Chair would not tolerate any accusation of dishonesty or corruption, but there is the cut and thrust of debate, in which we seem to be engaging so far.
Mr. Richards: I return to—
Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: Of course.
Mr. Davies: This is all part of the cut and thrust of debate. I think that all my right hon. and hon. Friends would recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an odious little man.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a bit too much thrust. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word "odious".
Mr. Davies: I thought that it was being sizeist that was causing you some concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If "odious" is not acceptable, I withdraw it. I wish to cause no offence to you, but the hon. Gentleman is a different matter.
As the hon. Gentleman has chosen to engage in some research on my behalf, I wish to put on record that prior to my election in 1983 I was a senior education officer with Mid Glamorgan county council. Quite properly, therefore, I maintained a close interest in education matters. From 1984 to 1987 I was a member of the Opposition Whips' Office. The hon. Gentleman will know that that places certain restraints on what one can and cannot do. Since 1987, I was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, which meant, quite reasonably, that I did not involve myself in education debates. If the hon. Gentleman researches the questions that I have asked, he will find that the position is entirely different.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Caerphilly is well known as a hard cheese that has an odour of its own.
On 10 November 1992—of course, he has a special interest—the hon. Gentleman said:
"This is my first opportunity to take part in an education debate."
That was after nine years. The hon. Gentleman then bored the House for well over 40 minutes with a garbled hotch-potch of accusations and demented mutterings to which we Welsh Members are accustomed. I am sure that it came as something of a shock to other hon. Members who were in the Chamber on that day. I have always believed that it is possible to learn something from the greatest fool on this earth, but the hon. Gentleman has made me change my mind.
62
I took particular exception to the hon. Gentleman's vicious and scurrilous attack on Cwmcarn school, which was as follows:
"I know where Cwmcarn school is. I taught a couple of miles up the road at Newbridge school."
That was geography GCSE. The hon. Gentleman continued:
"I know, too, that that school is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn".
The right hon. Gentleman is now, of course, no longer in his place. The hon. Member for Caerphilly then said:
"I also know that it would not have been granted permission to opt out. That decision had nothing to do with the educational merits of Cwmcarn school. It was an act of deliberate malice to try to embarrass the leader of the Labour party."—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 770–75.]
Really, the hon. Gentleman should not judge everybody by his own standards. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for giving the House an insight into the twisted machinations of the socialist thought process. Indeed, if the Labour party ever returned to power, which is unlikely, it would conduct its education policy along party political lines, using the education system as a tool of socialist dogma, just as it has done in the past. I am glad that the Conservative party has no truck with such devious and evil scheming.
Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the examination results of Cwmcarn school are probably the worst in Wales and that the number of pupils is down to about 300?
Mr. Richards: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should judge the school after only two years of grant-maintained status?
Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: No.
Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the community from which I come we have a quaint old tradition—it is that when people pose a question, an opportunity is given to answer it. Will the hon. Gentleman follow that fine tradition? He has asked me a question and he should give me an opportunity to answer it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that has nothing to do with the Chair. I hope that we will have no more points of order of that sort.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) knows full well that the local education authority had run down the school for many years prior to its attaining grant-maintained status.
Cwmcarn attained GMS despite being the victim of a vicious campaign by Gwent education authority. Since attaining GMS the school's access to the feeder primary schools has been cut off, which is causing the school some hardship. However, it is overcoming these hardships because of the quality of education that it offers.
Gwent is waging a campaign of non-co-operation, thereby interfering with the education of children whose parents pay the community charge and have a right to have their wishes respected by Gwent county council. Indeed, I understand that the council has prevented the schools under its control from even playing games with Cwmcarn. The school has shown an amazing tolerance in the face of such an unjustified assault on its wish to choose grant-maintained status, even going as far as allowing

63
Gwent's attendance and careers officer access to its information files while being denied the reciprocal courtesy.
Cwmcarn is not alone in its struggle against hostile authorities that are terrified of having their shortcomings exposed for all to see. Caer Geiliog school in Ynys Môn has also suffered at the hands of Gwynedd county council and the nationalists who run it. It had an 80 per cent. vote in favour of GMS, but it has been subjected to a catalogue of abuse by an authority that refuses to acknowledge the wishes of the community.
While the school's application for GMS was being considered, the headmaster was approached by senior figures in the education department and offered a £30,000 lump sum, together with £11,000 per annum pension, which included six years enhancement, if he would slip away quietly. They even implied that he should feign sickness to retire early. After he refused that obscene offer, he was informed that if the school failed in its application for GMS he would be sacked.
Gwynedd education authority has allowed itself to be hijacked by the nationalist movement, to the detriment of the education needs of the children whom the authority is supposed to serve. Caer Geiliog has decided to leave the LEA's stranglehold as the headmaster and parents feel that no interest is being taken in the school's welfare because it is 95 per cent. English speaking. However, despite that, Her Majesty's inspectorate has recorded that the quality of written and spoken Welsh at the school is of a standard equal to that in schools where Welsh is the predominant language. That is purely as a result of the dedication of the headmaster and his staff to the importance of the Welsh language. In fact, the headmaster has previously been headmaster of a Welsh-speaking school.
Since the school's application for GMS, the headmaster has been threatened with physical violence, as has his wife and 10-year-old child. The chairman of the school's board of governors has lived in Wales for 20 years, but he has been told by nationalists to get out of Wales by 1 March —today, St. David's day—or be burnt out of his home. The irony is that his teenage daughter, who was born in Wales, shoots competitively for our national team.
What 1 also find distressing is the total lack of concern about such indefensible behaviour shown by the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Ynys Win (Mr. Jones), and his supporters, presumably called the Ynys moaners. They have failed to condemn the nationalists' actions.
Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has a phobia about nationalism, which is well known. I want to make it clear that such unwarranted attacks—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Llwyd: Those unwarranted attacks—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He is asking me to make a decision from the Chair, so it must be a matter on which I can give a ruling.
Mr. Llwyd: May I ask whether the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West warned my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) that he would vilify him during his speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to suggest that it is usual practice in this Chamber for an hon. Member to forewarn another hon. Member if he intends to mention him. It is also normal practice for the hon. Member to give way to the hon. Member whom he mentions if that hon. Member is in the Chamber. However, the decision rests entirely with the hon. Member who has the floor.
Mr. Richards: In fact, I did inform the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that I would raise the matter. He is not in his seat, which is a matter for him.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am aware of the school to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, so I believe some of his comments. If he has definite evidence, will he make it public outside this House? On the point about the threats that have been made, I have met the chairman of the governing body and I can vouch for that. Similar threats have been made to three people in my constituency who have resisted compulsory Welsh medium education. In fact, they are standing up for the rights of English speakers to have an education in the English language, in the same way as we want Welsh speakers to have an education in the Welsh language. I ask my hon. Friends to listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Although I dismiss much of his earlier remarks, the comments relating to that particular school are important.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting the evidence that I have put before the House about the behaviour of some education authorities.
Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman said that Gwynedd county council had fallen into the hands of the nationalists. Does he accept that those nationalists have had absolutely nothing to do with the threats to which he referred? They would condemn them, as we would all condemn them and just as much as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has condemned them.
Mr. Richards: I would like to know how the hon. Gentleman knows what all the nationalists in Gwynedd education authority are doing or thinking.
Mr. Dafis: Will the hon. Gentleman differentiate clearly between those people who hold responsible posts on Gwynedd county council and are responsible for education policy and those who make disgraceful threats against individuals who disagree with their point of view?
Mr. Richards: I will not make that differentiation, but I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that such threats have been made.
There are examples of other LEAs deliberately obstructing schools which are in the process of becoming grant maintained or which have achieved that status, but time prevents me from going into greater detail.
In my own constituency, Ysgol Pen-Y-Bryn voted on 14 December to become grant maintained by the overwhelming majority of nine to one in favour. Even after that resounding endorsement by parents to opt out of local authority control, Clwyd education department wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales

65
claiming that it had not been properly consulted. That claim was spurious, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject it.
Clwyd education authority has an unenviable record of opposing schools that express an interest in grant-maintained status. Two years ago, when Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan first balloted for GMS, the authority's behaviour was scandalous. Since 1978, it had been listed by Clwyd county council as a priority for building extension and refurbishment. Despite that status, numerous presentations and representations were made by the governors and parents to Clwyd LEA to highlight the decades of neglect in the maintenance of existing buildings—all to no avail.
During the first opt-out campaign in 1990, parents and teachers were unconditionally promised a £1 million building programme if the school did not opt out. Shortly after that school's unsuccessful attempt to opt out, the building programme became conditional on the sale of four hectares of its playing fields. Fortunately, the land remains in school and community use pending a decision on its disposal. I shall fight to ensure that the land remains with the school.
The final straw for Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan came in early 1992, when Clwyd education authority again delayed the building programme promised in 1990. The excuse given was lack of funds, but the real reason was political malice. Influenced primarily by the authority's failure again to deliver the promised programme, the school voted 91 per cent. in favour of opting out, and was accepted for GMS by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last December.
Similar interference has been experienced by other schools in Wales. When Brynmawr school in Gwent initially expressed a desire to opt out, the county council withdrew its support for projects currently under way and allowed the school's maintenance to lapse. In Penarth, Stenwell school, despite keeping the council informed throughout its first ballot, was forced to nullify that ballot and start the lengthy process again on a rather dubious technicality. The frustration that that caused prompted parents to take matters into their own hands a nd to conduct a parental petition to ensure that the school's wishes were respected by the LEA.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate to ensure that such behaviour is not permitted to continue to the detriment of not only schools and children affected but those schools that are deciding whether or not to opt for GMS. Support must be given to all the schools that are suffering rabid and destructive opposition. Hostile authorities must not be allowed to undermine democracy and to play politics with the future of the children of Wales.
It is amusing that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is staring at the ceiling, said on the Second Reading of the Education Bill on 9 November 1992:
"The last thing they want"—
meaning education experts—
"are grant-maintained schools in the south Wales valleys or in the inner parts of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. Is it any wonder that of the 692 ballots for opt out in Britain only 121 came from Labour-controlled local authorities?"—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 709.]
What I say is that it is a wonder that so many applications came from Labour-controlled authorities when one considers that their bully boys were hard at work.
I have given many reasons why the number is so low, and the bully boys have certainly done their work in the
66
time-honoured fashion. Labour has never been particularly comfortable about allowing choice and freedom, and will do anything to deny it to the people. Who are the experts that the hon. Member for Torfaen so freely quoted? Are they the parents of the children who attend the schools—or the unions, which are determined not to lose any of the power that they currently wield?
The people of Wales deserve democracy, for their opinions to be taken into account, and for their wishes to be respected free of any party political considerations. No school will be forced into opting out of LEA control, but parents must have the freedom to choose the best for their children. They are tired of their schools being neglected and run down because LEAs choose to spend their money elsewhere on pet projects—such as county halls—instead of on school repairs and general maintenance.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) pointed out, education authorities in Wales have underspent their capital allocations by more than 15 per cent. this year, in addition to the underspend in the previous two years. Those years of neglect have mounted up. In south Glamorgan alone, the backlog of maintenance work amounts to £40 million. The local authority finds it convenient to blame the Government for that horrific state of affairs, but—
Mr. Gareth Wardell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind me whether this is the Committee stage of the Education Bill or whether we are still conducting the St. David's day debate? The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) seems to be taking the House into areas in a way that encroaches on the time of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, with force.
Mr. Richards: I do not have far to go—[HON. MEMBERS:"Too true."]—but the whole purpose of choosing the subject of education is to explain and to emphasise how Opposition parties undermine democracy in Wales while at the same time talking about the need for democracy.
In last November's education debate, the hon. Member for Caerphilly said:
"There is a need for reform. We want decent buildings and an end to overcrowding."
He then accused the Government of
"appalling interference with the good practice that has been developed by our local education authorities."—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 772.]
If he calls the catalogue of LEA abuses that I listed in the past few minutes good practice, he is living on a different planet from the rest of us. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows anything about grant-maintained schools. If he did, I am sure that he would change his definition of good practice. Good practice is when 72 per cent. of grant-maintained secondary schools and 88 per cent. of primary schools have improved their pupil-to-teacher ratio. Good practice is when 65 per cent. of grant-maintained secondary schools have introduced new subjects to their curriculums. Good practice is being able to offer more books and equipment along with improved facilities. That is good practice—not the LEA neglect and shirking of responsibility to which the hon. Gentleman so fondly referred.
Labour's manifesto at the last general election pledged to ensure that no primary school child would be taught in a class of more than 30 students. Labour was suitably

67
vague about how that would be achieved. It is probably safe to say that it did not know. As usual, we were way ahead of Labour and had already developed a way of achieving that goal. In 80 per cent. of grant-maintained primary schools, currently the teacher-to-student ratio is 25 to one or less. That success is called going out and meeting the challenge—yes, and making the change. That is something of which Labour has always been incapable.
The Labour party in Wales has accused the Government of playing politics with the education system, yet it is Labour Members who are union-sponsored and must report back to their puppet masters. That was never more obvious than when the former shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), said:
"Grant maintained schools are not a reality in the political firmament in Wales."
As I have tried to illustrate, this is yet another example of Labour playing politics with education. When will the party break the link, and realise that the people of Wales, rather than the Labour party, must be allowed to choose whether to accept grant-maintained schools?
6.40 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: Given the time available, I shall not follow the characteristic speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards); I think it better to leave him to wallow in his obsessions and in the idea of his forebears.
When you entered the Chair wearing a nice daffodil in your lapel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have thought that you had put Maastricht behind you for a short time. [Laughter.] I note certain nervous reactions to the word "Maastricht"; I do not know whether they are withdrawal symptoms, or something else. In any event, I shall not speak for long: certainly, I shall not speak for 35 minutes. I want to speak briefly about regional policy, which was touched on by the Secretary of State, and by some of my hon. Friends in interventions.
It is, of course, impossible to discuss regional policy in Wales without discussing the European Economic Community. Most regional policy is now determined not even by the Welsh Office, but according to the structures laid down by the EEC. We had a debate last week on the various protocols and articles of the Maastricht treaty which relate to regional policy—they are very important to Wales—as well as a debate on the Committee of the Regions. My complaint is that, apart from the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—who cannot be present this evening—nearly all the speeches dealt with the membership of the Committee of the Regions.
It was rather depressing to note the number of speeches, made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the membership of that Committe. The speeches questioned whether the Committee would include community councillors, county councillors, nominated persons or other members. Personally, I do not care who is appointed to that Committee; it is just another quango. I thought that we were against quangos. The Committee has no authority and no power: it merely enables those who are fortunate enough—as they may see it—to be members to take nice trips to Brussels.
68
We heard nothing in those speeches about the problem of Wales and the regions. We heard nothing from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which is not surprising, because he replies to such debates in a very perfunctory fashion. Sadly—I say this more in sorrow than in anger—we heard nothing from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who dealt almost entirely with the subject of the Committee of the Regions and completely omitted to deal with the real problems—and the real consequences for areas on the periphery such as Wales—of the contents of the Maastricht treaty and, indeed, of the regional policy of the European Community.
The Liberal Democrats, too, said nothing about the Committee of the Regions, or, indeed, about the way in which regional policy in Wales is dealt with in the Maastricht treaty. Members of the party that sometimes likes to describe itself as the national party of Wales were queuing up to debate the membership of the Committee, but we heard very little about that—except at the very end of the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones): I am sorry that he is not present. He made a plaintive plea to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for more railways and for the money to finance them. Of course, there is no money in the Maastricht treaty for more railways, or more infrastructure, for the western part of Britain.
The western part of Britain comprises Wales, along with other parts of Britain. My argument is that Wales and other parts of the west of Britain will suffer grievously as a result of the way in which the Maastricht treaty was negotiated. Where was the Secretary of State for Wales then? Where, indeed, was the Minister of State? During Welsh questions, I was able to ask where the Secretary of State had been during the negotiation of the EC directive on abattoirs: that may strike hon. Members as a small matter, but many people do not see it as such.
Where was the Secretary of State for Wales, and where was the Welsh Office, when the Maastricht treaty was negotiated and provision was made for regional policy for peripheral areas such as Wales? Nothing in the treaty will benefit Wales; many aspects of it will be harmful to the economy of Wales and, indeed, many other parts of the west of Britain. We have read in the newspapers recently that Liverpool may be able to sidle into category I of the present regional policy: we do not know how Community democracy works, but, if that is true, I am glad. The best of luck to Liverpool; it deserves it. The treaty, however, contains nothing about regional policy for Wales.
Let me briefly suggest three reasons why Wales should have had a special negotiating position in respect of Maastricht and why the absence of such a position will be very damaging to the country. First, the treaty is a centralisation measure. We should forget the talk about subsidiarity; I know that there is an opt-out, but economic and monetary union is about centralisation. I have always believed, and argued with sincerity, that centralisation in the United Kingdom was bad for the economy of Wales, and other parties in the House have presented the same argument. I am sorry to say, however, that certain Members of Parliament—members of Plaid Cymru, for instance, and Liberal Democrats—are now going overboard in their support for a centralisation measure.
If it is bad to centralise the United Kingdom economy on Westminster—if that is bad for Wales—it must be had to centralise the United Kingdom economy on Brussels.

69
Indeed, that must be even worse for Wales, because Wales is further along the periphery of that area. A centralisation measure is bound to be harmful. Nothing in the treaty attempts to redress the balance, however, and no attempt was made to negotiate a concession for Wales.
There is also the problem of public expenditure. I seem to remember, from the days when, years ago, I was Opposition spokesman for Wales, that Wales is probably more heavily dependent on public expenditure and employment in the public sector than England—and, perhaps, even Scotland. Money and assistance have been channelled through the public sector to areas such as Wales, which are on the periphery of the United Kingdom.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman seems to be contradicting himself. On the one hand, he says that centralisation has benefited us in Wales because we have been given resources by the United Kingdom Government. Surely he is not saying, on the other hand, that we have not benefited considerably from our membership of the European Community.
Mr. Davies: The Minister is not quite as sharp as usual. I was not contradicting myself; nor was I making as large a point as he suggests. I was merely saying that areas such as Wales are heavily dependent on public expenditure. I am sure that that is a statement of fact and I am sure that it is correct.
I am sorry to repeat myself ad nauseam, but it is clear from the Maastricht treaty—the Government accept this —that there must be a gradual reduction in public borrowing from the present 9 per cent., or whatever the figure will be on Budget day, to 3 per cent. That may take a few years. That will reduce public expenditure, which will affect Wales, because Wales is more heavily dependent on public expenditure than are many areas in England—perhaps the whole of England. That is another respect in which the treaty affects Wales directly.
It is interesting to consider the cohesion fund, which deals with the environment, the infrastructure and the railways. The treaty agrees that certain countries with a percentage below 90 per cent. of gross domestic product should be allowed more money in the cohesion fund; but that is conditional on progress towards the 3 per cent. of public borrowing and the 60 per cent. of GDP public expenditure.
Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman refers to 3 per cent. borrowing rates. Would not they result in public expenditure cuts of £25 billion? How could our support for such a measure link with our defence of public services such as health, education and so on, which are so important to valley communities in south Wales?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Mr. Dafis: By raising taxes.
Mr. Davies: Such expenditure can be increased by cutting public expenditure or raising taxes, but it is a narrow and inflexible choice. The Maastricht treaty demands reductions that will not be good for Wales, which is heavily dependent on public expenditure.
There must be an automatic stabiliser to the Maastricht treaty. A long time ago, a civil servant called McDougall was commissioned by the European Commission to consider the notion of a European income tax to correct imbalances in the European economy. He concluded that
70
the EC's budget would have to be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent. of European GDP. It is now less than 2 per cent. and even after the Edinburgh summit it will not reach 2 per cent. for many years. His figure was arrived at before Spain, Portugal and Greece became members. It has now been calculated that a European budget, financed by European income tax of at least 12 per cent. of European GDP, would be required to compensate the peripheral areas of Europe—and Wales is very much a peripheral area of Europe—for the centralisation provisions of the Maastricht treaty.
Under one of the protocols we find something called the cohesion fund, which apparently can be paid, subject to progress towards the 3 per cent., to countries whose GDP is less than 90 per cent. of the average of the countries of the EC. I understand that the United Kingdom figure is probably about 93 per cent., or may be slightly higher next year if we achieve 1 per cent. growth. The latest figure for Wales puts our GDP per head at 81 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the EC average.Liverpool is about 79 per cent. Liverpool, happily, has been placed into category 1, but Wales has an average below the United Kingdom average and below the 90 per cent. and in parts of mid-Glamorgan and of my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Neath made a powerful speech on this in the debate on the Maastricht treaty—we are talking about a GDP per head of almost 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. Those areas get nothing from Maastricht. We shall be worse off than Spain, Greece, Portugal and, I concede to Plaid Cymru Members, Ireland, which at least was able to negotiate a better regime.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend ignores the fact that, irrespective of Maastricht, the regional funds will remain and that the cohesion fund for the four countries that he mentioned was simply part of the package that was agreed at that time, which can by its very nature be only temporary because the new wave of enlargement with richer countries such as Austria and Sweden is bound to recast the basis of the cohesion fund.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend hopes that the Swedes and Norwegians will bail out the cohesion fund, but that will not happen because the Swedish economy is experiencing the same difficulties as other western European economies. It was a bad package. The question that 1 put to my hon. Friend is, how can he support a treaty which is so damaging to Wales and its regional development and which has been negotiated so badly that we have to ask, where was the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office when it was negotiated?
I have never believed that a centralised union was good for the Welsh economy. Five hundred years ago we joined the union of the United Kingdom. I am no great expert in history, but I believe that at that time the Welsh establishment was in favour of the union. We have since been trying to maintain our identity in that union and to ameliorate its centralising effects by getting money back. It is now proposed that we should join a European union, not even a British union.
Mr. Dafis: Is the right hon. Gentleman opposed to European union or to the way in which the Maastricht treaty and budgetary controls were negotiated? Which is it?
Mr. Davies: I oppose both the nonsense of budgetary control and the way in which these norms are written into a treaty and entrenched into a constitution, which seems ridiculous, as well as the idea of forcing countries into a centralised European union. We have spent a long time ameliorating the effect of British union on the Welsh economy. The Welsh establishment is still, as it was 500 years ago, very much in favour of the new union. Will we ever learn?
6.57 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has focused clearly on the vital issue of the Maastricht treaty—the convergence criteria that limit the amount of national debt. By stopping profligate politicians from corrupting the money supply, the treaty gives Wales and the whole of Europe the first opportunity since 1914 of sound money and fairly based economic growth.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Llanelli concluded with the issue of the Welsh political classes and their views on union with England or the wider Europe. One might have supposed that on St. David's day we would have been promoting, with greater enthusiasm, the benefits of Wales rather than tearing ourselves apart in the best and most highly articulate Welsh arguments about various forms of structure.
Driven by the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I read the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published today. When we fall out among ourselves about the structures of government in Wales, about which there are substantial divisions, it is important to underline the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has almost miraculously obtained general political agreement to his proposals. I am aware that various people who went along with it now wish in part to unravel it, but his success in persuading Welsh local government that unitary authorities are the necessary way forward is a considerable achievement. However, it is an achievement based, I suspect, on the recognition in most quarters that the present system set up in the 1970s is deeply flawed and has failed in practice in many ways. [Interruption.] It is amazing to hear the instant, ignorant, knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition when they hear a Conservative Member suggest that something done by the Conservative Government in the early 1970s was less than perfect. I have no hesitation in making such a suggestion. It was before the period of Aufklärung under Baroness Thatcher. A number of aspects of Conservative policy from the early 1970s were not successful, as has subsequently been realised.
The interesting feature of the local government reform of the 1970s was that it followed Richard Crossman's difficulties as a Minister, described in his diaries, in contemplating the problem of extending the boundaries of the city of Plymouth into the surrounding countryside of Devon. Under the pre-1974 system, there was a division between counties and county boroughs, in which there were unitary authorities, and the countryside where there was a dual system which did not work.
Despite the proud history of Abergavenny or Monmouth urban district councils, they faced and generally agreed to their extinction because their financial powers and means were so limited. There was a general
72
welcome for the fact that something new had to happen. However, the fatal flaw of the 1974 legislation was that the model of the counties—the double tier—was imported for the first time into urban areas where there was no such tradition. It was absurd that the ancient and noble city of Cardiff should be subject to a division of its powers with south Glamorgan, as was the case in Bristol and many other great cities and towns.
In practice, the question was whether the new system would work. I hope that I strike a fairly common note of general agreement by saying that when our constituents come to see us about direct, practical problems, they genuinely do not know whether they should be seeing their county councillor or their district councillor, so they come to see their Member of Parliament. I cite the simple example of flood water coming into people's homes from the highways. The district council has drainage powers and responsibilities, the highway authority is the county council and the county council often subcontracts the district councils to deal with its highway problems. It is a confusing and unhelpful conflation of duties which has not worked.
The system has produced serious divisions and tensions between county authorities on the one hand and borough authorities and district councils on the other. Such difficulties are inherent in the complex arrangements of structure plans and borough development plans. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) is opposed to the fact—as am I—that Torfaen borough council recently gave itself planning permission for an opencast coal mining exercise at Garn-yr-erw in defiance of the views of the county council and those of his neighbouring borough council. It is not satisfactory when different layers of local government have different responsibilities but no common thread.
The third issue is whether existing, large-scale county councils are felt to be sufficiently close to the people whom they represent or whether they are regarded as remote. No doubt each hon. Member has had experience of his own county council, but in Gwent the system works well in many ways, although there is a perception that the problem of weight limits in Bridge street in Usk was decided by Gwent county council for reasons that ranged more widely than the inherent interests of the people of Usk. The continuing argument about the Chepstow bypass, which is so badly needed, is another example of a case in which it is perceived that Gwent county council covers too large an area to be able to decide the outcome.
When I spoke about Monmouthshire in an intervention, I think it was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr.Rogers) who said that I should be aware that Monmouthshire is not what it was. Of course, he is historically correct. The new Monmouthshire created under the proposals is not the old Gwent and certainly not the old Monmouthshire before it. However, it reflects the large rural area in my constituency.
At the moment, we have a council, originally a district council and termed a borough council for want of a better expression, but a borough council representing four ancient boroughs within it and a very wide rural area. It is far better to call the council what it should be—a shire county council to be called Monmouthshire. It reflects the reality and the division that has grown up in the past 150 years in the area that was formerly Gwent.
Mr. Flynn: In an earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman made a plea for the retention of the lord lieutenant of Monmouthshire. Will he make it clear what he means? Is he suggesting that we have a separate lord lieutenant for Monmouthshire, one for the new Newport area, one for the Heads of the Valleys area and another for Torfaen?
Mr. Evans: I am indeed.
Mr. Flynn: Is it a job creation programme for lord lieutenants?
Mr. Evans: Not at all. From the hon. Gentleman's opening remark, it is clear that he misunderstood what I said on the previous occasion. However, he is right to think that I believe strongly that a city and county such as Cardiff should be independently represented by a representative of the Crown. It should have its own high sheriff. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will agree that it would be inconceivable to treat Newport any differently from Cardiff these days. Once we have accepted that, it would be eminently sensible to grant each new unitary authority its own lord lieutenancy and high shrievalty. Those offices are much appreciated and serve a very valuable function.
The present distinguished gentleman who is the lord lieutenant of Gwent is unhappy at the prospect of being divided. He is a well-known and popular figure. But there is a strong feeling that it is consistent with tradition and with the thrust of the proposals that there should be a proper shire authority in Monmouth, properly constituted on traditional lines.
Some of the proposals in the White Paper are interesting, but rather vague. I should be grateful for clarification of some issues, although I appreciate that the clarification may not be offered now. First, what happens to education? I do not believe that the so-called democratic control of schooling has been a happy experiment. I believe that it has been fairly disastrous and Conservative Members at least would prefer schooling to be taken wholly out of local authority hands. At the moment, it is unclear to what extent the proposals, in conjunction with other Government measures, will create that happier and better state, so the position must be clarified.
The second issue involves the social services responsibilities of county councils. Far from praising democratic accountability, Conservative Members would prefer such services to be run by authorities similar to the health trusts or authorities which are professionally organised and not meddled with by politicians. Again, there is scope for clarification.
My final tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he has fulfilled, in a most important and imaginative way, one of the pledges in the Communist party manifesto of 1848, which was to abolish the conflict between town and countryside. He will happily have done that in Monmouthshire by granting us the Monmouthshire council and my constituents will be very pleased. They say no to a Welsh assembly, but definitely yes to the new Monmouthshire authority.
7.8 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: It is becoming a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), although I do not agree with everything that he said about local government reform. I am pleased for
74
Monmouthshire. I hope that I and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) will have his support in our attempts to retain our old shire counties. I shall return to that point.
I am relieved to have followed the hon. Member for Monmouth rather than the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). His speech was so full of odium and bile that it would have been a surprise had he not already made it clear that he was making an attempt to be one of the least-liked Members of Parliament. I am sorry that he has now left the Chamber—something that he criticises everyone in sight for doing. I feel no compunction about criticising him in his absence in that respect. I noticed that during his more extravagant and wild criticisms, even his daffodil managed to turn its head away from him.
The St. David's day debate is an occasion on which we should do a little bit of talking Wales up, a point echoed by the hon. Member for Monmouth. Wales has tremendous advantages to offer. Wales welcomes people who come to live there from outside. I returned to Wales 30 or so years after having been born there and we and many other families found a welcome in Wales. There have been recent stories of entirely contemptible threats to incomers which are not typical of Wales. People in Wales deplore the extremist behaviour about which there was some talk earlier. I hasten to add that I accept entirely the point made by Plaid Cymru Members that such threats have nothing to do with them.
Wales has an environment second to none, with a beautiful landscape and not a bad climate. When it is warm it is warm; when it is wet, it does not trick people: they know that it is wet.
Wales has had a good educational tradition. Although the Government—I would deal with this point at greater length if there was more time—have started to dilute the education system's effectiveness in Wales, the strong tradition of good education and the belief in education in Wales will continue to serve us well.
Wales has energy resources. It has coal, although that resource is unfortunately now being neglected by the Government in an energy strategy which I believe to be unwise. I believe that the policy will be reviewed in years to come. Wales has water—plenty of it—and some has already been harnessed in imaginative schemes for the generation of power. Although we are not all happy about the developments off the coast of Wales, it appears that there are likely to be reserves of coal and of gas which will add to the prosperity of Wales and of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Wales has what I call the four "Es": environment, education, energy and enthusiasm. It has an enthusiastic work force, who suffer from too great unemployment. Those in work are often underpaid because Wales has a low-pay economy. However, as many foreign companies have found, the work force is willing to work effectively for whoever brings industry into Wales. We can say, on this St. David's day, that Wales offers as much—I believe more —to those who wish to find somewhere to bring businesses and to create prosperity as does any other part of the United Kingdom and possibly any other part of Europe.
Unfortunately, Wales also faces increasing problems, and I shall draw attention to just a few of them. It faces a problem of debt. The number of mortgage repossessions in Wales in the past two years is 17,826, which is a shocking figure. It is indicative of the economic climate that Welsh

75
people have had to sufer. Research has shown that the greatest contributory factor to mortgage repossessions has been the unresolved reduction in income.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I do not make light of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about mortgage repossessions. I am sure that, like me, he welcomes the news that during the past six months there has been a remarkable reduction in the level of repossessions. That is some good news against which to set his remarks.
Mr. Carlile: I am pleased by any news of a reduction in mortgage repossessions. The figure has been shockingly high. The evidence shows tht 23·8 per cent. of mortgage repossessions have been as a direct result of the unresolved reduction of income, a fact which shows that there is continuing uncertainty. Even when building societies foreclose, the families involved face desperate uncertainty.
We have the connected problem of a lack of council housing and other housing to rent in Wales. In 1979 in Wales, 29 per cent. of all occupied dwellings were council houses. In 1991, the figure was 17 per cent. In 1988, 30,804 council houses were renovated by local authorities. Some four years later, only about 23,000 were renovated. I accept, of course, that more is being done through the housing association movement, but I believe that that movement is not meeting the shortfall and, as a result, there is increasing homelessness in Wales.
It is estimated that in 1991 more than 60,000 people in Wales were experiencing homelessness. The homeless who come to our surgeries include young men and women, often in jobs, who are forced to drift from sofa to sofa, where friends allow them to rest their heads. I do not believe that the House regards that as satisfactory.
We have a problem of unemployment. The national average for unemployment in the United Kingdom was 10·6 per cent. in January 1993, within an overall figure of more than 3 million. Some 20 constituencies in Wales are above that figure, which is unacceptable, especially when one bears in mind the fact that the Treasury estimate, confirmed by the Secretary of State for Employment in evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, is that it costs £9,200 per annum per unemployed person in social security payments and loss of revenue from taxation.
There are also indirect costs. It has been proved beyond doubt that high unemployment correlates with a high level of homelessness. Shelter has shown that. It correlates with a high level of marriage breakdown, as Relate has shown. It correlates with a high level of suicide and illness, as the Campaign for Work has shown. There is a worrying increase in suicide among farmers as they become progressively unemployed.
It has also been shown that high unemployment corrrelates with a high level of crime. We used to debate whether that was true, but now even the Metropolitan police emphasise strongly that it is true.
Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the apparent correlation between rising unemployment and poverty and a rise in crime is merely a correlation? We have seen crime rising during periods of prosperity. Crime rose during the record period of eight years of sustained growth of the 1980s. It is rather
76
dangerous to extrapolate from the recent increases in crime the theory that unemployment or poverty is responsible.
Mr. Carlile: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. With respect, I prefer the evidence given by the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police to his theory.
We also have the problem of transport deficit in Wales. The privatisation of British Rail is seen as a serious threat to rural transport. The future of the Birmingham to Aberystwyth railway line is unlikely to be secured as a result of privatisation. Privatisation of itself does not concern me so much as our essential need to hear from the Government a real commitment not simply to the status quo on that line, but to seeing that there is some development of it. The environmental damage that is done to villages throughout rural Wales by trundling articulated lorries could be greatly alleviated, for example, if goods were carried on the railways. Goods are now off the railways.
I mentioned crime. That brings me to another, connected question—the structure of the police. There is a lateral reference in today's White Paper on local government to the future of police forces in Wales. The Home Office is reviewing those forces. In addition to the £65 to £150 million of extra money which will he spent on local government reform, I hope that we will not see another £10 or £15 million spent on reforming police forces which already do a good job.
I refer specifically to the Dyfed-Powys police which, against manpower cuts in real terms, is doing a phenomenally successful job. It has civilianised, it has developed new technology and it carries out community policing with skill. Its chief constable has placed great emphasis on a management culture which works. Above all, it is catching a greater percentage of criminals than any other police force in the country. It would be absurd to abolish that police force. Surely it should be the model for new police forces, not the victim of centralising tendencies.
This is a sad St. David's day for me. I am one in an only briefly interrupted long line of Liberals who have represented the great historic county of Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire has Norman origins. If one were to walk with me on a summer's day up to Montgomery castle and look down on the scene as it spreads around into Shropshire or the west of Wales, one would look on a scene which has been Montgomeryshire almost always, and for much longer than anyone alive today can remember. One would look on a scene which is recorded in the annals of history as Montgomeryshire—Sir Trefaldwyn.
The county has a history of great assizes and quarter sessions and has contributed musicians, poets and, dare I say it, the odd lawyer, great teachers and doctors to the whole of the United Kingdom. Twenty years after the creation of the white elephant of Powys, there still exists a real pride in Montgomeryshire. When Montgomery district council chose to change its name to Montgomeryshire district council, it attracted wide approval and caused much rejoicing.
The Secretary of State may want to get rid of the Sir Trefaldwyn, but I can promise that he will have a fight before he does so. He will never get rid of the spirit of Montgomeryshire, which is called Mwynder Maldwyn.

77
Why do the Government want to fly in the face of the will of the people? How can the Secretary of State square it with his conscience that he said with one breath,
"We are interested in local government based on natural communities",
and yet with the other breath he destroys one of the most natural communities in Wales, Montgomeryshire?
How can the Secretary of State for Wales justify having one local authority in Wales which is twice the size of the second biggest proposed authority—509,000 hectares against 262,000 hectares? I advise the Ministers on the Front Bench to think again. If they do not think again, they will find that their permanent epitaph in Montgomeryshire at least will be as "those who destroyed Montgomeryshire".
I end with five substantive points. These are not emotional. They are not about history or the spirit of Montgomeryshire. They are facts which might help the Secretary of State to change his mind and decide to have a unitary authority in Montgomeryshire.
First, I remind the Secretary of State that Montgomeryshire has been one of the lowest rated or charging authorities in Wales for many years. Secondly, it has a council which has always spent at or below its standard spending assessment or earlier targets. Thirdly, in its submission to the Welsh Office in the autumn of 1991, Montgomeryshire district council showed projected savings for a Montgomeryshire unitary authority of £1 million per annum as compared to Powys. That is equivalent to £25 off the community charge. That submission was used by many other authorities in Wales and set the tone for some of them.
Fourthly, the submission from the present Powys county council showed no similar projected savings. I challenge the Secretary of State to show in his White Paper any projected savings from the Powys council with which he is proposing to tinker. Fifthly, despite Montgomeryshire's excellent record as a low-spending authority, it has shown that it can provide service, with significant capital projects such as the £3 million Bro Ddyfi leisure centre, the £4 million leisure centre at Welshpool which enjoys the name The Flash, the Montgomeryshire airport and village workshops which are distributed throughout the county and which have brought employment through Montgomeryshire district council in places where it might never have appeared. Those points seem to be facts which can be relied on as evidence in favour of Montgomeryshire.
We have been told that there will be yet another meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. It will be a showpiece meeting in Cardiff next Monday. I want none of it. I am fed up with that talking shop. We do not want to go to Cardiff to a powerless, gutless meeting in which the Government—even if the meeting votes against them, as it always does in the Welsh Grand Committee—will simply ride roughshod over its will.
I will go to Cardiff to meetings when there is at least an element of democracy and when we can change things in Wales through those meetings, but I will not go to a meeting which will simply give the Secretary of State the opportunity to make a few more glib announcements and tell us for a second time what he said this afternoon without our having the opportunity to amend it.
Wales is a great country, but it will not become any
78
greater with the White Paper announced today—especially if we destroy our natural communities and, above all, if we do not attend to the urgent needs and problems of Wales.
7.28 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I know that they are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans).
I should like to put the issue of the White Paper in context by praising it as strongly as I possibly can so far as it affects my own constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan. In the past couple of years since my election, I have been inundated with letters, telephone calls and visits to surgeries from people who have been anxious about the future of the Vale of Glamorgan and who have felt deeply concerned about the prospect of being swallowed up by Cardiff.
The rather cynical decision of South Glamorgan county council to spend probably large sums of public money erecting new signposts all over the Vale of Glamorgan proclaiming, "For Cardiff and the Vale" aroused considerable resentment among people. They felt that it was a little late for South Glamorgan county council to start worrying about the vale when previously it had demonstrated only too clearly its preoccupation with Cardiff. Those people will be delighted with today's news. They could not have had better news to help them celebrate St. David's day.
Law and order has been touched on several times in the debate. Mention was made of the prospect of creating a secure unit for young offenders to serve the South Glamorgan area. Recently there has been considerable debate in the press about where the blame should lie for the fact that we do not as yet have a much needed secure unit to serve magistrates courts in that part of Wales.
It should be placed on record that when I inquired about the secure unit early last year I was advised that money was on the table from the Welsh Office for the provision of a secure unit but that South Glamorgan county council was being obstructive. It had failed to get round the table and get on with the job of providing that secure unit. I corresponded with South Glamorgan county council to find out whether that was true.
I was advised that the county council did not like the type of secure unit which the Welsh Office envisaged. It thought that it was too large and impersonal and that it would be better to have a small secure unit to serve South Glamorgan. I strongly disagree with that view. The argument adduced by South Glamorgan county council was that putting people into a large unit encouraged them in a life of crime; it introduced them to experts on crime who would train them to become more criminal than they were on admission.
That argument ignores the fact that by the time young offenders end up at a secure unit, the chances are that they are already highly experienced in the art of crime. One of the problems is that many of them have had several cautions before they even encounter the judicial process. I spoke to a trainee magistrate at Barry magistrates court who had been told to expect on first encountering juveniles in the judicial process that they would have had six or even eight cautions. That is appalling and we must address it.

79
A caution should be regarded as a last chance. If young people are given a caution, they should realise that the next time that they get into mischief they will go to court. Otherwise, a caution is simply seen as a pat on the head. Young people get away with committing an offence simply because they admit it and their parents consent to the administering of a caution. They keep getting away with it. We must impose a finite limit on the number of cautions that can be given to juveniles before they are charged with an offence.
An Opposition Member said that in recent years the number of police had increased by only 3 per cent. That ignores the considerable increase in resources for the police which our Government have provided, the enormous increase in real terms in the salaries paid to the police and the considerable civilianisation of the police. Civilianisation has helped to make police officers more efficient. It allows them to delegate some parts of their duties to white collar workers at police stations.
However, I freely acknowledge that we do not have enough police officers. We certainly do not have enough in my part of Wales, where we have seen a rapid escalation in crime, especially burglaries and crimes involving vehicles—taking vehicles without consent, theft of vehicles and taking property from vehicles.
I welcome the initiatives which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced for dealing with the problem of law and order. It is the most important problem that we face in Wales, and indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom. It affects people's confidence. If people believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is not safe to go out into the streets, they are not happy as citizens.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been referred to. He said that we needed more condemnation and less understanding. That remark has been misinterpreted. My right hon. Friend meant that we must pay less attention to the do-gooders whose prime concern is keeping the villains first out of court and then out of custody, and more attention to the needs of victims. After all, where should our true concern lie in a compassionate society? Surely it should lie with the person who suffers as a victim of crime. We should worry more about such people and less about the people who cause the suffering.
The debate on law and order boils down to the need to spell out to our young people the difference between right and wrong. One of the problems that we encounter is that we now have a generation of parents who, in many cases, grew up without sufficient discipline in the home or the fundamental understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
Hon. Members have referred to the correlation between crime and rising unemployment. If I understood him correctly, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that unemployment led to a rise in crime. It is perfectly true that unemployment has risen and crime has risen, but it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the one follows from the other. As a criminologist, I certainly am not aware of any single factor which is an overrding cause of the increase in crime. I am sure that if I did, I would earn a fortune as a consultant.
80
It is essential that we grapple with the root causes of crime. We must tackle it among younger people. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. We all know from anecdotal evidence that most children know the difference between right and wrong earlier than 10. But they are not criminally responsible. We must bring pressure to bear on parents to take responsibility for their children and make sure that they grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong.
The Government have already made some progress in making parents responsible by, for example, making them responsible for the payment of fines imposed on their children. That was a sensible move. The difficulty is that the fine is assessed on the basis of the child's means, not on the means of the parents. If a child has pocket money of, say, £2 a week, clearly the maximum instalment of fine that could be imposed is £2 a week. If the parents are working, £2 a week out of their income is a derisory amount.
I would like the Government to tackle the question whether the parents exercise appropriate supervision over their children. In Llantwit Major, in my constituency, children wander the streets at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I cannot believe that they are not up to no good wandering the streets at that time of night. When I mitigate on their behalf and those children enter a plea of guilty, I ask them for an explanation of their criminal behaviour. The most common answer is, "I did it because I was bored." What right has any parent to allow their children to wander the streets and get bored in the early hours of the morning? Any parents worth their salt should see that their children are at home and in bed.
I believe that a statutory offence should be created to charge parents who wilfully neglect their children. I know that there are parents who are totally inadequate or incapable of coping, and if they can produce medical evidence to that effect, they should be acquitted of that charge. The Government have introduced legislation whereby parents can be bound over to ensure that their children keep the peace. That is a worthwhile and useful law, but we need to go further and we should be able to impose penalties on parents who fail to control their children.
If we in Wales, and people elsewhere, can get to grips with the problem of law and order, we will dramatically increase people's confidence in the way in which Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom is run. I am particularly concerned about the effect of lawlessness on old people. They often complain to me that their cars have been vandalised, their windows broken or their homes burgled. Some have even been horribly assaulted. We have all seen the gruesome pictures in our newspapers of the battered faces of septuagenarian and octogenarian members of our society. I do not believe that the young people responsible should be allowed to get off the hook by blaming it all on unemployment or boredom. We must get our priorities right and tell people the difference between right and wrong.
7.41 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I should like to make a number of preliminary remarks before I come to the main thrust of my speech, which must be about, unfortunately, unemployment in Wales.
My first point relates to the patients charter produced by the Government. I would like the contents of a Welsh

81
Office circular issued in 1991 regarding the discharge procedures for elderly people from hospitals to private nursing homes to be included in it. That circular states that there is no need for any elderly person to be means-tested and discharged from a hospital to a private nursing home if that elderly person or his or her relatives do not wish to be means-tested. It is the responsibility of the health authority to pay in full for the private nursing home, or it must find a hospital bed for that patient. I would therefore like the patients charter to be amended so that the main thrust of the circular is included in it.
I would also like the patients charter for Wales to explain certain rights that exist for people who are encountering difficulties in obtaining dental treatment under the national health service from their general dental practitioner. They should not have to worry about whether a salaried dentist is available, employed by the family health service authority. They should he able to make use of the community dental service, which is financed by health authorities, which are, in turn, financed by the Welsh Office. Anyone in Wales who needs dental services can receive full treatment from the available community dental facilities.
If the Government had the wherewithal—I mean if they had the courage—to include in the patients charter the contents of the two Government circulars, they know very well what would happen. The actue bed service in the NHS would collapse virtually overnight, as would the community dental service. However, those circulars exist and that means that people who know their rights know that their relatives can stay in hospital beds, financed by the NHS. In the same way, those who know the law relating to community dental services can enjoy those services. Those people do not have to go privately to a general dental practitioner, who may refuse to take them on. They can enjoy the benefits of the community dental service.
When the Minister replies to such debates, he always covers every pont that I have ever raised. I hope that he will continue that tradition on this great St. David's day. If he made a commitment to include those circular details in the patients charter, he would be the hero of Wales and he would be able to wear his leek with dignity, as he does so well.
I look forward to what will happen when the GP fund holder, that new animal, comes into being in Wales. I hope that the Minister is preparing a leaflet about that. It should not necessarily be dropped from aircraft, as that could cause litter, as he well knows. It should be distributed widely throughout Wales to tell people what they can get from their fund holding GP.
Imagine if the Minister told every patient of a potential GP fund holder that he could say to that person, "Doctor, bach, I would like the following things in the next few weeks. For mother, I would like the following list of pills, which would benefit her enormously. For father, similarly, I would like this. For myself, I would like a little treatment and here is the name of the surgeon I would like to see; and, by the way, this is the anaesthetist that I would like for that op."
The Minister and the House know that when the GP fund holders of Wales and Britain really know what they have let themselves in for, when they are inundated with patients exercising patient power and negotiating what services they want, those GPs will not be as happy as they are now.
82
I was delighted that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) were present at the opening of part of the missing gap of the M4 between Earlswood and Lon Las on Friday morning. I thank the Minister warmly for the kind invitation which he extended to me.
The M4 is the only motorway in Britain that had a gap of four miles about 30 miles from its western end. Today there is still a two-mile gap before we have a complete motorway from Pont Abraham all the way to London. The Minister is doing well, however, and 1 am glad to note that by 1995—after all, the Government have only been in power since 1979—the missing gap on the M4 will have been filled. I hope that when that great event occurs and we at last have a motorway from Pont Abraham to Hammersmith, inward investment—which has been lyrically mentioned in the House and has become a continuous drip over a long time to give a flavour to the Welsh debates—will flood across the Briton Ferry bridge. Inward investors can use places such as the monument—it still has a roof, so it cannot be called an ancient monument in the strict sense of the term; perhaps it is an historic building—of the Felindre tinplate works, which can eventually be put to good use. I am pleased that the project is now on target, and I hope that the Minister will fill the missing gap by 1995.
The Secretary of State must answer the question: how far are he and his Government prepared to let Wales—especially the 139,500 unemployed people—sink before statesmanship, a coherent, long-term economic strategy and effective policies to deal with the deep employment crisis are visible from Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street? The endless, aimless, leaderless lack of policy and purpose betrays the efforts of business and workers in Wales today. Public spending is sky high, but there is no forward planning or strategy to improve the economy or industrial activity through spending.
The cost to Wales alone of keeping almost 140,000 people on the dole is just over £9,000 for each person. It costs the Chancellor well over £1 billion. However, we are not talking merely of financial costs. Employment provides purpose, pride and an identity that unemployment denies. Employment provides the confidence and spending power that will encourage the return of consumer confidence to get the economy moving again.
The Government seek to increase their revenues by privatising coal and the railways, by shedding public accountability and responsibility for public services such as the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority in Swansea, the DVOIT and the vehicle testing stations. In doing so they introduce a demoralising tone into the local job market in Swansea—in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The Government also seek to raise revenue by increasing the rate of oil and gas extraction, and encouraging exploration perilously close to vulnerable beaches in Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and my constituency of Gower.
Now the Government are raising revenue by taxing, as income, payments for redundancy counselling paid by firms to help their staff when they are made redundant. Such petty-minded penny-pinching is offensive. It was bad enough, throughout 1992, when the Government watched aimlessly as 2,425 businesses went under and job losses climbed remorselessly, but now they want to make a fast few pounds by taxing, as income, costs spent by an

83
employer on easing the difficulties faced by redundant people. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister will draw the Chancellor's attention to early-day motion 1269, which stands in my name and is supported by 65 hon. Members. It calls for changes in this year's Budget to eradicate that idiotic policy.
In the Budget we need measures to combat unemployment, which means, first and foremost, a reversal of the announced changes in the employment training budget that are to come into effect on 1 April this year. The first change will be that, from April, the training and enterprise schemes, which have provided so much support to unemployed people who want to start their own businesses, will be available only to those who have been out of work for six months. In Swansea, GP Services—through short and intensive business training courses several of my constituents have been helped to start up successful businesses and keep them on the right lines—estimates that half of the start-up businesses that receive training assistance at present will be ineligible for help under the new scheme. GP Services has found that the majority of people who intend starting up on their own do so as soon as possible after losing their job. They are the most enterprising of new starters and the ones most likely to succeed.
If a worker is made redundant and has £10,000 redundancy pay, it disqualifies him from state benefit. If he has to wait six months for enterprise training, he will have no capital left. If he has been unsuccessfully applying for jobs during that time, his confidence will have been shaken and his home ownership may be threatened. No amount of compulsory counselling by the employment service will alter that. It defies belief that the Government think that introducing a six-month delay in providing help to the most hopeful squares with their professed aim of encouraging enterprise in the economy. The Government can demonstrate their genuine support for enterprise in Wales by immediately withdrawing the proposed change.
When the Minister replies, I hope that, in the time-honoured fashion, he will respond to all the points that I have made. I hope that he will announce this evening that he can vouch for the fact that he will do what I am urging him to do.
Unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds continues to rise, despite repeated promises that all youngsters in that age group would be guaranteed an employment training place. Research shows that one in three 16 to 17-year-olds is now out of work and that one third of the job losses that have occurred during the recession have been suffered by teenagers. An estimated 1 million young people under 25 years of age are now unemployed.
Mr. Richards: What is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the Labour party's strategy for the so-called regeneration of the Welsh economy as claimed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)?
Mr. Wardell: That intervention has no relevance whatever to the point that I was making. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and end up making the sort of speech that he made earlier. I was just going to say that many of those young people have never worked in proper jobs in their lives. We are talking about a lost generation—a disaster
84
that we ignore at our peril. The hon. Gentleman should not try to make party-political points. I am sure that the young people of Wales will not thank him for that. I am merely pointing out that, by looking only at the short term, the Government ignore this generation at their peril.
Such a massive dislocation and abandonment of the talents of such large numbers of young people is bound to affect the fabric of society. Young people become more and more disillusioned and despairing as they see their chances of a job or a training opportunity decline as the number of job losses increases. Yet during the recession the Government have cut the number of training places by more than 100,000. Such a policy defies logic. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, may I point out that I am looking forward in the Budget to a reversal of this part of what the Government have been doing. It is a disgrace that the Government should make it a condition of a young person's receiving benefit that he must first be on a training programme when the training places do not exist.
Thirdly, I am worried about the long-term unemployed. It is appalling that more than 1 million people should have been unemployed for more than a year. The only jobs initiative that the Government have offered during the recession has been the employment action schemes—a promise of 30,000 training jobs by March 1992. The promise was not delivered. In Wales, only 2,000 places have become available—2,000, for 139,000 unemployed.
As from April, a new training for work scheme comes into force. The ideas behind it represent a reversal and a betrayal of promises to the unemployed and the electorate. The first U-turn that the Government have made is to abandon the commitment to securing CBI-sponsored national education and training targets. The second about-turn has been cutting the link between the national vocational qualification schemes and training. Both measures went a long way to ensuring that employment training was meaningful and that trainees gained a recognised qualification at the end of a properly constructed and organised course. That quality control is to cease. Instead, and by way of part replacement, the Government are giving more money to the employment service. The money will be used not for training people in new marketable skills but for compulsory counselling and confidence-building schemes. It seems to me that the employment service is planning a great confidence trick of its own. It is cutting training places and cutting out the standards and controls of quality among the remaining places. Instead, it seeks a cheap way of dealing with more jobless people.
The unemployed do not want counselling about why they cannot get a job. They know that there are no jobs and that, in Wales, with about 20 people chasing every vacancy, a skill is basic equipment. They do not need compulsory attendance at counselling sessions to have that explained to them.
As for confidence building, the best confidence boost for the long-term unemployed is a job. I trust that the Secretary of State will tell the Chancellor that if he cannot announce on 16 March worthwhile, meaningful schemes to get people in Wales back to working for Britain's prosperity, he may as well abandon the Budget until the autumn. If he cannot get Britain back to work, he cannot restore confidence in the economy: and if he cannot restore

85
confidence in the economy, he will oversee more lost jobs as we spiral into ever deeper recession and ever higher spending to keep the unemployed on the dole.
I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will respond to some of my points, but I am certain of one thing: the Government must identify the basic industries of the next century, such as biotechnology and the other rapid growth industries of tomorrow. They must put in place the necessary tax breaks and restore confidence for the future. If they do not do these things, the country will have to adjust to a lower standard of living, which I am sure no one wants. Economic growth needs to be at the centre of the Government's proposals, and some of the remarks that I have made this evening point in that direction.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jonathan Evans: It is always a great pleasure to follow the eloquent hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). During the short time I have been a Member of this House I have come to know him as an hon. Gentleman of the highest integrity. No doubt it was that integrity that led him to the admission in his speech that public spending stands, as he put it, sky high. That being so, what was the prescription that we heard from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for the way out of the real difficulties facing us as a nation and in Wales? The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) proposed more money for councils; more money for social security. He also proposed statutorily imposed higher wages—or so it seemed from his complaint about wages in the Welsh economy. He did not even shy away from complaints about the police and law and order—a bit rich from an Opposition Member. I wonder how far back Opposition Members' memories go. Mine goes back to the 1970s. Have they spoken to people who were in the police then? They would remind them of the despair in the police force during the 1970s, following years of underspending on the police service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) made a pertinent remark about the crime problem. Society should highlight not only citizens' rights, although they are important and must be defended in this Chamber; we should stress that parents have responsibilities too, an aspect that has unfortunately been left out in recent years.
It was perhaps inevitable that we should hear one other plea from Opposition Members on St. David's day. They are united in asking for a Welsh assembly, as they call it. It was of course on a St. David's day in the mid–1970s that the St. David's day declaration that Wales demanded a Welsh assembly was published. It was drawn up by all the people who considered themselves leading authorities—academics, churchmen, Labour politicians, trade unionists and many others who liked to feel that they represented the people of Wales and who claimed so often that they did. Only a few years later did Wales have its opportunity to vote on that proposition. I remember it because I was involved in the campaign. It was one of the few occasions on which I shared the same side of an argument as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). Wales did not support the propositions that were presented for such a long time by those who are now in Opposition. The
86
contrary was the case. The vote was four to one against —an 80 per cent. rejection. Not one county in the Principality was prepared to support the proposals.
Opposition parties subsequently promoted the Welsh assembly proposal. Why are they so reluctant to promise to put the matter to a referendum? The proposition for a Welsh assembly was decisively rejected by the people of Wales and if the Opposition have new proposals they should subject them to the popular will. It seems that this time there would be a Welsh assembly but no referendum. That exposes the bankruptcy of Opposition arguments about a Welsh assembly.
It is inevitable that in such a debate our attention should turn to the fundamental issue that unites us all— unemployment in Wales. The hon. Member for Gower and other hon. Members spoke about that. The Opposition have made some extravagant claims. They often speak about unemployment in the valleys and I am the first to recognise that there is high unemployment in many parts of the valleys. It is arrogant of the Opposition to presume that they are the only people in the House who speak for the valleys. I have the distinction of having a valley community in my constituency, if I am able to retain it following local government reorganisation. I shall make a few observations about that.
As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) knows, I speak for the valley community of Ystradgynlais, which I hope will be considered and recognised as such by the Opposition. Last Friday I visited that community and saw in the local library a project that has been given an award by Environment Wales. It is the Ystradgynlais 2000 project and involves the local community in identifying its exact historic roots and what its future should be. That community probably owes its existence to iron, steel and anthracite mining. Those industries died out in that area but the post war period brought to the area Smiths Industries which manufactured clocks and watches. It remained there for many years until the late 1970s. Following that a new diversified job opportunity structure had to be created. Fortunately, that community is within the area of the Development Board for Rural Wales and, as many hon. Members will know, Lucas has been involved in expanding its operation in the area. In recent weeks the development board has worked with Morris Cohen, which supplies Marks and Spencer, and that has created more job opportunities.
Many statistics have been quoted and it is important to stress the key to addressing unemployment. That valley community, cheek by jowl with many communities represented by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has a male unemployment rate of 9·1 per cent. I agree that that is unacceptable, but it is below the national average of 14·4 per cent. The female unemployment rate is 3·9 per cent., giving an overal rate of 7·1 per cent. compared with the national rate of 10·7 per cent.
The people in Ystradgynlais recognise that the pohcies to assist job creation in the area have been successful. No doubt that is why they are anxious to remain within the structure that gives them that support. I shall say more about that later. Of course it is not only in Ystradgynlais that that support is available. In the past month it was announced in Presteigne, on the Shropshire border of my constituency, that a company in the forefront of microwave technology, Labtech, was creating 100 new jobs. Such matters should not be dismissed by the Opposition who have stressed how important it is to look

87
to the direction from which new jobs will come. That company and many others such as Motorway Remoulds, which employs 152 people in my constituency in Knighton, have secured contracts abroad by going out to look for business. Kayes in Presteigne has obtained work from an export drive in France and Sweden.
It is generally considered that many job opportunities in rural Wales are directly attached to agriculture which, of course, underpins the local economy. However, there are other ways in which job opportunities can be created and the work undertaken by the Development Board for Rural Wales, supported by the Welsh Office, has been crucial in underpinning those job opportunities in my constituency. The Secretary of State has recognised that there should be a specific initiative, his own rural initiative, the details of which he recently announced to the Welsh Grand Committee. Some of us in the rural parts of Wales are a little disappointed that a proportion of the money for that initiative is to be spent in the constituency of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) because that will diminish the pot for the rest of rural Wales, although I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman a penny of that money. The projects supported by that initiative are important.
Mr. Dafis: Some of that money will come to my constituency.
Mr. Evans: I am delighted to hear that.
Mr. Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the West Wales task force has top sliced £2·5 million from the total budget of £6·6 million for the rural initiative. Does he agree that the schemes for which he will be seeking support from the rural initiative should be supported by that initiative and that the restructuring of the west Wales economy that is required by the task force should be funded not by the initiative but by completely new Welsh Office money?
Mr. Evans: I shall leave the hon. Member for Pembroke to conduct his own negotiations with the Secretary of State, not through me. We can make common cause on the fact that we would have preferred the overall rural initiative budget to remain at £6·6 million.
There are other ways in which support for infrastructure can be secured. I referred to those in interventions. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposed that rural Wales, comprising the four rural counties, should be designated for objective I status. I presume that all hon. Members were disappointed to note that when the European Commission subsequently presented to the Council of Ministers the list of areas that are apparently to be recommended for that status, the only two on the list were Merseyside and the Scottish highlands and islands. The President of the Board of Trade has subsequently made it clear that, when he goes to the Council of Ministers, he intends to continue to press the case for rural Wales and, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should like to encourage him because rural Wales needs such assistance.
The housing situation has already been mentioned. I recognise—I would, would 1 not—the difficulties that there are in providing adequate housing for the homeless throughout Wales. However, insufficient attention has
88
been given to the work that has been undertaken by housing associations, particularly the Mid-Wales housing association—here I gently chide the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who is my neighbour. I had talks with that housing association, which operates both within my constituency and his, a few weeks ago and it was particularly grateful for the £1 million of extra funding that was made available out of the £750 million that was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. I know that that was useful and will enable it to make additional housing provision.
That is not to say that any of this is ever enough. We must try to address the problems caused by homelessness. The rough sleepers initiative in London has been very successful. Although the phenomenon of rough sleeping in London is regularly raised, the numbers sleeping rough have diminished, substantially as a result of that initiative. Among those engaged in housing matters, the initiative is widely supported and praised. I wish to see a similar project in Wales. At the moment it is geared towards the metropolis and there is no equivalent structure in Wales, even though we all recognise that homelessness is a problem in Wales and even manifests itself in some rural areas.
I am bound to end my speech by referring to the statement on local government made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will not take it amiss if I say that this is the second occasion on which I have found something in a speech of his with which I am able to agree. In the Welsh Grand Committee, I praised his speech and I hope that he will not find it an embarrassment in his constituency if I do so on a second occasion today. He was right in what he said about the reaction in mid-Wales to the statement made by the Secretary of State.
Within my constituency, the town of Brecon, so long the county town of Breconshire, is this year celebrating its 900th anniversary and had been hoping to do so within the context of the return to Breconshire as a unitary authority. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet representatives from it, as he also met representatives of Radnor district council. Those discussions took place within the context of the consultation document—a document that speaks of local government being relevant to local communities and in touch with them.
I do not wish to be churlish about Powys county council. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery went rather further in calling it a white elephant than I dare to go because I think that Powys county council has suffered substantially—for example, through lack of morale—ever since the consultation paper was announced. I do not begrudge it the feeling of relief that it may have today. However, elsewhere beyond county hall, there is no doubt that the Secretary of State's announcement will be greeted with dismay in my constituency.
Conservative Members have spoken about extending the role of local government. In that context, the size of the authorities is of far less importance than the way in which those authorities are in touch with the people whom they serve. I sought to make that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before he made his announcement. I am sure that the announcement will be substantially fought in mid-Wales and my right hon. Friend will hear many further representations on the subject.

89
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave an eloquent apology for his absence from the Welsh Grand Committee next Monday. I shall be telling the Committee, perhaps in rather more detail, about the local reactions to the announcement.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider, and will listen closely to the strong views on the matter that will be expressed by representatives from Mongomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire. I hope that his consultations with local opinion will lead him to the view that those are authorities that he should not end through the policies in the White Paper.
8.25 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I was intrigued to note that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) was coy about singling out Ystradgynlais in the litany of problems that will affect his constituency. The Secretary of State may come bearing gifts for him in a different context. I know Ystradgynlais well. It is at the top end of the Swansea valley in terms of both travel-to-work and major shopping centres. It looks down the valley and was put into Powys in local government terms in the early 1970s because of the need to find additional rateable value. In community terms, it probably relates rather more to the south than to the north.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman, but he may be aware that 5,000 of the people of Ystradgynlais have signed a petition asking to remain within Breconshire.
Mr. Anderson: They are wonderfully traditional people. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is here because the points that I wish to make are addressed to him. However genial, listening and open he is, he is clearly fettered by a decade of Thatcherism and the remains of it —for example, in terms of the planning framework that he has inherited and with which he has to deal and of the infrastructure and the post-Thatcherite privatisation measures that are still in the pipeline and can still do such enormous damage to Wales.
I shall deal first with the lack of a planning framework and of a strategy for Wales. The very word "planning" was anathema in the last decade. The buzz words were "rolling back the frontiers of freedom" and the move was away from planning. Now, the balance has swung so far that Wales does not have a proper framework within which to set its plans. The Secretary of State will know that a number of exercises are under way. One is Wales 2010, which is no more than a "futureological" exercise—I understand that it will shortly be published. There is the economic forum in Cardiff university, which is focussing essentially on the labour market and modelling.
Lastly, there is a rather odd exercise which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) attended a year or so ago. That amounted to a sub-contracting by the Welsh Office to the county councils, and only to the physical planning departments of those councils, to look at future problems in Wales. It was an edging, crab-wise—teetering, tottering—towards a partial planning framework such as that in "Wales: The Way Ahead", which we all remember with some affection.
Having destroyed the instruments of regional planning, the Government have left themselves without a framework within which Wales can he planned. That is wrong and the
90
gap will have adverse effects in Wales. I believe that the Secretary of State, personally, would favour a more forward-looking planning system, but planning within his party, for ideological reasons, is still a word which dare not breathe its name. He has, therefore, to proceed cautiously and in a crabwise way.
There are two other elements that go to make up the Government's ideological clothes which substantially harm the prospects of tackling the problems of Wales. One of those elements is the road-rail infrastructure. Even the most right-wing of Governments who dislike intervention in the market accept that it is a proper role of government to provide a road-rail infrastructure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said, on Friday the Minister of State opened the Earlswood to Lon Las section of the M4—the "missing link". Some people may wonder what I am grumbling about. They may take the view that the Welsh Office has come bearing gifts. Let us consider the history of the venture. In the early 1970s, the M4 from Hammersmith to Pont Abraham was completed with the exception of the missing link. In the very early 1970s, the consulting engineers, Sir Owen Williams and Partners, were asked to undertake a feasibility study. By 1977 or 1978, the preferred route was published. From 1977–78 until now, there has been silence apart from that. It will not he until early 1995 or thereabouts that the small missing link will be completed. The long delay from the time when the preferred route was published—in October 1977—until now has been caused by the Government's unwillingness to give priority to the road, which is of major importance to the area.
I refer the Secretary of State to the report which was discussed at the regional conference of south Wales counties, which highlighted the fact that west Glamorgan has been the least successful area in attracting overseas investment. It cannot be coincidental that the missing link or bottleneck has had such a damaging effect on the perception, for locational purposes, of incoming industrialists. That has been the result of the lack of action of the Conservative-controlled Welsh Office over the past decade. Delay and obstruction have frustrated private motorists and have deterred the inward investor.
Sir Wyn Roberts: We have always recognised the need for the Baglan-Lon Las link. There were other areas in south Wales, however, which suffered from far worse congestion and had to be dealt with before the Baglan-Lon Las link.
Mr. Anderson: The Minister of State is a little coy about how he looked after his own patch. The victim was the economy of south-west Wales. There was a missing link to Swansea, and, indeed, to the whole of south-west Wales.
The high-speed train, about which we have heard so much, was the technology of the early 1970s. It is now clapped out. We are being denied electrification and that will have an adverse effect on Wales when the channel tunnel opens. I am thinking especially of our ability to link into the channel tunnel system. We have seen the deterioration since the early 1970s of the rail service to south Wales in terms of sleeper trains, early morning and late evening services and so on. As I have said, Wales has been short-changed over the channel tunnel. There are no plans for any through day trains to the continent from Wales and it is not clear how many, if any, of the 125 HSTs

91
—the Paddington services—will divert to Waterloo to provide a cross-platform interchange with the Euro-style services.
The connection between the Western regional line and Waterloo via the west London line has been made more complicated due to the removal of the link or cord where the west London line crosses the Western region.
Passengers are losing out because of our lack of access to the continent and freight problems are manifold. There is likely to be a collapse in the volume of freight carried as a result of the Government's industrial and energy problems. It will be extremely difficult for freight services to have any prospect of success when it comes to trying to take advantage of the channel tunnel. The Secretary of State must be aware of the major question marks over peripheral rail services in Wales as a result of the privatisation proposals. Under the first tranche of privatisation, the Paddington-Swansea line will be privatised. From Swansea westward the contract may be won by Badger line or whoever. I understand that Badger line will make it a condition that it is able to interchange or integrate with its own bus services. A question must be posed for the HST services from west Wales that link into the Paddington rail service. There are many threats that arise directly to our south Wales services from the Government's privatisation ideology.
Perhaps the greatest threat of all to Swansea derives directly from the Government's policies. I have in mind the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other governmental operations in south Wales. The Secretary of State will know that more than 4,000 jobs in south Wales which come within the Department of Transport are threatened because of the move beyond agency status. In the Swansea area, 3,000-plus jobs are threatened at the DVLA. There is also the driver and vehicle information technology sector of the Department which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The Secretary of State must be aware that there is no loyalty in the Department of Transport to the DVLA. It is clear that it regards it as an outstation. The Department is under pressure to say that it has got rid of civil servants and that it puts people into the private sector. The result is the destruction of the policy of dispersal of Government jobs, which has been the only direct weapon available to the Government to enable them to take jobs to areas outside London. As the Government divest themselves of that weapon, there will be devastating job implications.
Has the Secretary of State been involved in any of the Government's decisions? We have the sad memory of his sidelining of pit closures and of the Inland Revenue deciding to close two repayment offices in Wales, one in Wrexham and one in the Swansea valley. Wales alone was left without the benefit of an IRRO and had to turn to Belfast, with all the language and other problems that arose from that.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the threat is even more profound? Privatisation, which is one of the Government's dogmas, is in conflict with one of the policies about which they are least enthusiastic in implementing—regional policy. At the same time, they are revising regional policy, possibly in favour of English regions and to the disadvantage of
92
Wales. Over the next few years, the combination of privatisation and the loss of regional support could mean that the position in Wales worsens.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, and that is a direct result of the Government's policies. I understand that the Secretary of State is on the Cabinet Committee that is considering ways of attracting jobs to Wales and other areas. What is being done about safeguarding those jobs that are already in Wales and under the direct control of the Government?
We are aware of the notorious memorandum issued last October. The position is not that suggested by the Secretary of State during Question Time—some sort of academic exercise that must be carried out because the contract ends in April. The Government imposed the exercise on the chief executive. He said that, in his judgment, it was worth further examining the contractor option. He admitted that if they went ahead with that option, almost all the 3,000-plus jobs in Swansea would go —yet that was the option that he appeared to be recommending to the Government.
As the Government set off further along their ideological path, there will be even greater threats to jobs in Wales. Even on the WDA figures, it costs about £14,000 to attract each new job to Wales. On the Government's figures, every unemployed person costs the Exchequer about £9,000. At a time when the ideologues are pressing forward, who will say, "Stop, hold on, is it in the public interest for the Government to go ahead with such ideological frolics and make people in Wales unemployed? Is it in the public interest for the Government to threaten 3,000 people in the DVLA with unemployment?"
Is the Secretary of State to be sidelined again, or will he fight in Cabinet to prevent the danger to Wales? The local economy of Swansea will be undermined if the DVLA is closed. We know that the exercise has been taking place for several months and, according to the chief executive's memorandum, was likely to start in October and to last for three months—so it may have ended already. It would not even have come to the Secretary of State's attention had it not been for a leak. I appeal to him to intervene to prevent such nonsense and to save those valuable jobs in Swansea.
8.42 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if, in speaking about Wales—as is proper on St. David's day in a Welsh debate—I begin with my constituency and, in particular, the town of Aberystwyth. Historically, Aberystwyth is second to none in national importance in Wales. It is the site of the first college of the University of Wales, built—according to popular mythology, which in itself is important—with the pence of the poor. That is an expression of Welsh nationality. It is part of the aspiration of the people of Wales to join the modern world and to aspire to higher education—the children of the gwerin, the ordinary people.
The first principal of the college was Thomas Charles Edwards, son of the great Lewis Edwards, who was principal of the theological college at Bala and grandson of the great Thomas Charles of Bala—one of the greatest of all Welsh men—who was one of the Charles family of Carmarthenshire, noted for their contribution to poetry and scholarship.
Aberystwyth university college is an education establishment of world renown. It has now been joined by

93
other, similar establishments such as the national library, the Welsh agricultural college and the pioneering and wonderful Welsh plant breeding station, now the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, one of the prime world establishments of its kind. The college of librarianship is now a part of the university college. I could go on and on with the list.
On the western seaboard of Wales we have a centre of higher education and research that is of great significance. I am sure that Ministers would agree that it is vital that its prosperity is preserved—indeed, enhanced. Aberystwyth should become the cultural capital of Wales and certainly the capital of mid Wales. If we ever have a permanent site for the national eisteddfod, it should be Aberystwyth. It would be an appropriate headquarters for the Welsh Language Board. It is already the headquarters of many other institutions.
The future of Aberystwyth is vital not only for its own sake, but for the sake of a proper balance in the social, cultural and economic structure of Wales, which needs a centre of gravity on the western seaboard to counteract that of Cardiff in the south-east and Deeside in the north-east.
The Development Board for Rural Wales, in its strategy, now emphasises developments further west. Having achieved some success in the eastern area of mid Wales—in New Town and adjoining areas—it is now prioritising Ceredigion; and, within Ceredigion, Aberystwyth is crucial to the board's strategy.
Some say that the remoteness of Aberystwyth is a problem. Remoteness is a subjective judgment, depending on where one is. Aberystwyth is not particularly remote from Talgarreg, where I live. I can get there in 40 minutes, so it is not half as remote from Talgarreg as London is. The remoteness of London and other centres of power from Aberystwyth is a problem. That is why communications are crucial for the staff at the education and research centres. Already in Aberystwyth, and indeed in other parts of Wales, there is a sense of being inadequately represented on the councils and committees that determine research grants. That is a disadvantage. At a meeting of a research council committee, one man is reported as saying, "We tend to forget you at Aberystwyth, out beyond the hills." That committee is repsonsible for awarding research grants. Obtaining money from research councils is crucial at a time of change in the arrangements for research funding generally.
Communications are also important in attracting students to Aberystwyth's colleges, and they are obviously important for business people and for holidaymakers. Therefore, for the retention and enhancement of the importance of Aberystwyth in the west, an efficient railway service is absolutely essential; yet that very service is now under serious threat. Over the years there have been significant improvements to the main line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, although it is true that we have lost the InterCity direct connection to London. That has been compensated for partly by the introduction of the 158 sprinters, which are pleasant, comfortable and fairly rapid.
There has been substantial investment in the infrastructure, amounting to millions of pounds, from local authorities and the DBRW. There were plans for improvements in timetabling, journey times and connections, but of late the reality has been quite different. Not long ago the news broke that Shell was transferring its
94
weekly oil train from Stanlow to Aberystwyth from rail to road as from 1 May. I think that that is due to increased charges by Railfreight, the effects of which are seen elsewhere. They are generally recognised as part of the process of preparing for privatisation. That change is bound to be madness. How a train comprising 15 wagons can be uneconomic beats me. Imagine the effect of moving 19,000 tonnes of petrol products weekly from rail to road in terms of danger, congestion, wear and tear to the roads, and environmental damage. The roads in question are particularly busy during the summer.
Recently, two letters mysteriously found their way on to my desk. They are from a person named J. D. H. Russell, a Regional Railways civil engineer in Birmingham, to a Dr. N. N. Higton, infrastructure manager at Shrewsbury. The first, dated 19 January, states:
"It is becoming increasingly clear that resources and funding to maintain the true rural railway will be very scarce in 1993/94. The Cambrian main line is a 'green' route, and the coast 'yellow'.
With this background, and knowing that Freight will be ceasing to serve the oil terminal at Aberystwyth shortly, the consideration of additional loco hauled traffic is unwise. The future for this railway, west of Shrewsbury, is becoming clarified as 'sprinter only'."
The second letter, to Mr. Mark Causebrook, states:
"Thank you for your letter of 1st February 1993. I confirm that my letter of 19th January referred to both the Cambrian Main Line as well as the Coast.
I am aware that next summer's timetable includes a few locomotive hauled trains to Pwllheli. I am not happy about this, but it would appear that there is no alternative for this year.
In the light of the proposed 'Maintenance Holiday' I am unwilling, at this time, to agree to any additional locomotive hauled trains west of Shrewsbury. I am aware that occasionally I may need to run a locomotive hauled ballast train for my own purposes, but in such a case I take the responsibility for safety and I can specify any particular conditions of passage."
Mr. Llwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the green route means essential maintenance only and that the yellow route means no maintenance whatsoever? Is it correct to say that the Cambrian coast line will receive no maintenance in the foreseeable future, despite its importance to the whole of north-west Wales?
Mr. Dafis: I much regret that my hon. Friend is right. A green route is one that receives minimal maintenance, and the yellow is one that receives no maintenance.
What will be the practical consequences? The removal of the freight function will be damaging in itself—it is one less service for which the line will be used. It means also that maintenance can be reduced. Freight and locomotives have the heaviest axle loading. Bridges will be allowed to fall to lower safety levels. Bringing freight back to the line in future—which is what ought to happen, and the Secretary of State says that he wants that to happen—would be very difficult.
The "maintenance holiday"—a fine euphemism for neglect—will inevitably mean speed restrictions on certain sections of the line. There will be more and more in time, especially on bends. Broken fences will not be repaired, with the result that animals will stray on to the track and create delays and perhaps derailments. The service will be less attractive, there will be poorer adherence to timetables, journey times will be longer, and there is he the

95
implication of reduced use as travellers choose other options, such as using their cars. There will also be reduced revenue.
It amounts to nothing short of rundown. At some points, the arguments for closure would become compelling. I am told that those developments all spring from a reduction in the public service obligation grant and the rumoured favouring of the eastern peripheral area of central regions, for reasons that I will not explain now.
What else might one expect from a reduction in the PSO grant that has been made, especially from the smaller amount available to the Welsh periphery? One would expect a reduction in the number of services, and that is happening. One might expect also the use of cheaper rolling stock. I am unofficially advised that in April the line will lose the 158 sprinters that were introduced to compensate for the loss of the InterCity stock, to be replaced by 156s and 153s—which are inferior, less comfortable, and slower.
On the Pwllheli line, the occasional locomotives will be replaced by commuter 150 sprinters—which are cramped and far less attractive. Imagine the effect on the thousands of travellers from the English midlands who use that service to travel to Butlins in Pwllheli in the summer and on Pwllheli's general holiday business and that of the Lleyn peninsula.
I ask the Secretary of State for Wales to tell the Secretary of State for Transport that the rundown of the Welsh rail service is intolerable. Privatisation or no privatisation, we want the whole existing network to be retained. We want possible new routes explored, rather than see a reduction in existing routes. We want enhanced, improved services, proper maintenance, and more freight.
The electrification of the line through Cardiff, Swansea and Carmarthen all the way to Fishguard and Milford, with a link to Pembroke Dock, should also be given serious consideration. In the north, the same facility should be provided through to Holyhead. There should be the development of central and southern corridors to the Republic of Ireland—a Euroroute, no less.
The best way to ensure that is to stop Wales being a periphery at someone else's core. We need an integrated transport policy for Wales of the kind that the Welsh Select Committee and Welsh transport experts have long advocated. If privatisation must come, it should incorporate a franchising authority for Wales, and the Welsh Office should be made responsible for the public service obligation grant, to ensure that we receive our fair share.
In the context of the broader environmental framework, it is important to realise that the realities of the environmental crisis facing our planet mean that we have reached a turning point in world history. The requirement to move towards environmental sustainability has massive implications. The Community's fifth environmental programme on sustainability and the United Nations conference on environment and development document "Agenda 21" are both compromise documents and less radical than they ought to be, but they show that environmental sustainability means deep-seated radical changes. Crucial to sustainability are far-reaching adjustments in transportation, including a substantial shift from road to rail.
96
If we allow the railways that link west Wales to the rest of Britain, and to the European continent, to decline and to be closed, we may as well say that we will close down Aberystwyth, and, indeed, a great part of Wales. To fail to develop the railways of central and southern corridors will be to miss an enormous opportunity. If we shut down the railways, we may as well shut down Wales—and, at this juncture, Wales is not particularly in a mood to be shut down.
8.58 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: When researching for the debate, I looked up some details about St. David. I discovered, among other things, that he practised a lifestyle involving immersion in cold water—something that I would recommend to his namesake, the Secretary of State. Certainly many of my constituents would love to tip some cold water over the right hon. Gentleman, following the speech that he made today: it offered them little hope. That applies especially to the 2,895 people who are officially unemployed in the Neath area—a figure to which can be safely added the 5,000 who are economically inactive. The Government would prefer us not to notice that figure, but it describes those who fall off the unemployment register for one reason or another, although they are of working age.
When those two figures are added together, we find that some 8,000 people are out of work in the Neath constituency—about 30 per cent. of the working population. The youth unemployment figures are frightening: figures released only last week show that Neath is the worst-hit area in Britain. A staggering 36 per cent. of people under 25 are unemployed in the Neath area: more than one in three. If we add those who are temporarily off the dole—people in dead-end training schemes that lead them nowhere—we find that about 50 per cent. of our youngsters are without jobs in the Neath area. That is a disgrace, not only for the people of Neath but for the people of Wales as a whole.
There is a clear correlation between the youth unemployment figures and the youth crime figures. For example, 2,345 serious offences by juveniles were recorded in 1991; that figure is clearly linked to the rise in youth unemployment. I believe that it is hypocritical for the Government to proclaim themselves the party of law and order when it is their policies that have produced the increase in crime from which we have all suffered.
The figures for Wales, for example, show a 138 per cent. increase in crime since 1979 and only a 3 per cent. increase in police staffing provision. In other words, the increase in crime is 46 times more than the increase in police provision by the Secretary of State. No wonder there has been a massive slump in the clear-up rates in south Wales, from 41 per cent. to 29 per cent. In Neath, crime has risen by 96 per cent. since 1979; yet police staffing in Neath has fallen from 104 to 90—admittedly, partly because of the relocation of some senior officers.
Many of my constituents want to see more police on the beat, assisting their local communities to deal with a crime wave for which the Secretary of State and the whole Conservative Government in Wales are directly responsible. They have virtually encouraged the development of the conditions for crime; in a sense, they have incited crime.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman spoke for so long that I am surprised at his arrogance in seeking to intervene.
Not content with encouraging the crime wave, the Secretary of State has also encouraged attacks on education provision. In west Glamorgan, the county's fine tradition is currently at risk. Nursery funding, for example, is seriously endangered: the county has one of the best records in the country in that regard—if not the best record—with over 90 per cent. take-up rates for three-year-olds; yet there is no specific revenue grant for nursery education and the new funding arrangements under the Education Bill will give it no protection. I seriously fear for its future.
I also fear for the county's outstanding record in education and for the work of its officers, local people and councillors. It has had to cut its budget by £6.4 million, £2.2 million of which has come off the education budget as a result of the Secretary of State's instructions. As a result, its record in special needs, music, arts and sport is threatened. I am worried about that and I hope that the Minister will reassure me when he replies. I am especially anxious about village primary schools which, only a few years ago, were threatened as a result of a Welsh Office edict. I think that primary schools in my constituency—such as Rhifawr, Clun, Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen— deserve a thriving future. They are at the heart of local villages, yet they are all threatened by the cuts forced on schools by the Welsh Office.
It is vital for the Secretary of State to stop cutting the provision for local counties such as West Glamorgan and any of its successors. It is disgraceful that he should have bullied West Glamorgan into cutting its budget so savagely by threatening it with capping proposals.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we do not—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order I think that there has been some misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had concluded his speech and was not giving way.
9.4 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for being brief. I shall try to be the same to accommodate my colleagues.
Fortunately, Carmarthen has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Wales—5·3 per cent. We have a problem with low pay, with which the Government's plans to abolish wages councils will not help. Unemployment is high in rural areas around Carmarthen. Last week, the front page of the local newspaper, the Camarthen Journal, said: "Superstore jobs bonanza". Fortunately, because of our geographical position, the service sector is doing well, but there were 2,700 applicants for 230 jobs—12 for each job—80 per cent. of which were part time. That shows how desperate people are for work. I am sure that in other parts of Wales there are 20, 30 or 40 applicants for each vacancy.
There are 3,248 unemployed people in the constituency of Carmarthen. That is below the constituency average for Wales, but a third of them are young people aged between 18 and 25. Each constituency has more than 1,000 people aged between 18 to 25 out of work. How do they plan their lives? Our generation was lucky to have higher education and all of life's chances lay ahead of the Secretary of State.
98
I represent an area where 65 per cent. of the population are Welsh speaking. The Education Bill will not help and the Welsh Language Bill may help only modestly, but the biggest threat to the Welsh language is unemployment. Young people are having to leave rural areas and are going to Swansea, Cardiff and across the border, taking their families with them. The problem for the language is outward migration: young people planning their futures outside Dyfed and Gwynedd.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is involved in preparations for the Budget, but I hope that the top priority will be jobs, which is the biggest problem facing the economy. The Government must first stop destroying existing jobs in the coal industry and local authorities and by privatisation, market testing and many of their other philosophies. Local authority capital receipts from the sale of council houses should be released to allow local authorities to build houses and to help tackle the desperate social need for housing. Opposition Members would like major capital investment to be funded by a windfall profit tax on privatised industries.
Some 300 jobs could be lost at Pendine. I have written to the Secretary of State asking for a meeting with him as soon as possible with my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger). Is there any way in which he can bring his influence to bear on the Ministry of Defence? In Dyfed we have lost nearly 1,000 jobs because of defence cuts in the past few years and we will lose more in the next two to three years. We have already had our share of cuts, so I hope that we can arrange an early meeting and that the Secretary of State will make representations about Pendine to the Ministry of Defence on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke.
9.9 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: The past 14 years have been disastrous for the majority of people in Wales. It has been a disastrous period for the environment, jobs, housing and indeed the poor. Hon. Members highlighted many of the disasters in the past 12 months.
On the environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) brought to the House's attention the fact that Browning Ferris had made a successful application to the Secretary of State. The firm's record speaks for itself. In 1987 it was found guilty of felony charges, of price fixing in Ohio, and was fined $1 million. In 1984 it was fined $350,000 for price fixing in Georgia. In 1987 it was fined $6 million for price fixing and attempted monopoly of Vermont hauling market. In 1984, an informant testified to BF's association with organised crime before a state investigatory committee. In 1987 the Department of Justice announced action on an Environmental Protection Agency complaint, filing charges of 2,800 violations at the Livingston toxic dump. In 1988 the company settled the law suit for $1.1 million, an additional $900,000 to the state and $500,000 to Louisiana university. Its record goes on and on.
Most sensible people would have thought that, with such a record, there was no possibility of the firm's planning application being accepted in a town such as Newport, but that was not the case. The Secretary of State for Wales has agreed to a planning application from that company, which has links with organised crime in the United States, and it is not a one-off example.

99
We can cite the case of ReChem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). My hon. Friend and I have been pressing for a public inquiry for many years. The Secretary of State told us that if we could bring evidence of contamination to the House, he would re-think his position on a public inquiry. Some months ago I provided evidence that, even using its own measuring rod, ReChem had broken environmental guidelines more than 2,000 times. The Secretary of State's response was total silence.
ReChem has now made an application to build a new incinerator and its application is being considered by the pollution inspectorate. However, the investigation is a farce. Some months ago, I and many Members of the European Parliament had a meeting with the Secretary of State. I asked him a question three times and he gave the same answer: ReChem was building an incinerator. We now know that the decision on that application was taken before the pollution inspectorate had reported. That is scandalous and an insult to the people in the communities involved.
The waste is not only local but comes from many other countries. For example, in December last year it came from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Luxembourg. We have said that each country should be responsible for its own waste. That is not a nationalistic demand but a demand for responsible government. Governments should not allow goods to be produced unless they are capable and willing to deal with them once they have come to the end of their natural life.
There have been other disasters, for example, in housing. In Blaenau Gwent, 4,000 people are on the council house waiting list. There is no possibility of their receiving accommodation in the months or years ahead. In addition, hundreds of people are waiting for renovation grants but those grants have been stopped.
The past 14 years have also been a disaster for unemployed people. Young people with tremendous skills, talents and creativity are not being given the opportunity to use them to benefit their communities and to benefit the great industries in which they should be working. As a result of an act of economic madness, the Government are now paying £9,000 per person to keep people on the dole. That money should be used to breathe life into our communities in south-east Wales.
The past decade has been disastrous. It is to the credit of the people of south-east Wales that they have not given in. Increasingly, they are raising their voices in protest. As they do that more in the years ahead, we shall see an end to this Government and to the disasters that they have inflicted on our communities.
9.15 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) for keeping their speeches short so that I can make a brief contribution. As I mentioned when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), west Wales faces the problem of a total restructuring of its economy following the closure of RAF Brawdy, the proposed closure of RNAD Trecwn in 1996 and the closure of the Milford mines depot in April 1992.
100
In the energy industry, which has been a mainstay of the local economy, especially in the form of the former Central Electricity Generating Board power station which is now controlled by National Power, there are plans to halve the work force shortly from approximately 300 to 150. Dowty Seals, with the support of regional aid, came to Milford Haven some years ago. It is now cutting back and has announced 50 redundancies.
We need a total restructuring of the economy in west Wales. Agriculture has faced cut after cut after cut and will never return to the level of employment that it used to provide. The manufacturing sector in Pembrokeshire has shrunk, as shown by the example of Dowty Seals.
The cuts have shocked many people in all walks of life in Pembrokeshire. On Friday night, I went to the second meeting of the Pembroke chamber of commerce which was formed only at the beginning of the year. I was accompanied by the two chief executives of the district council. The chamber of commerce wanted to hear the proposals, the plans and the strategy for rejuvenating and restructuring the local economy put forward by the task force which was set up 13 months ago by the Secretary of State. We reported fairly that, although the task force had striven for 13 months to produce a report, the Secretary of State unfortunately had not matched the strategy with the cash required to implement it. Some £2.5 million of rural initiative money has been directed for this financial year and for the next three financial years towards restructuring the economy which, from the closure of the Ministry of Defence depots alone, will remove from Pembrokeshire £25 million per annum, irrespective of other structural changes.
People were shocked when they were told that the task force which was given responsibility by the Secretary of State to try to reinvigorate the local economy had not met since 19 November. They were shocked to know that the director, who was in post until January, had not been replaced. If that is a measure of the commitment to west Wales, to Pembrokeshire and to the restructuring of our local economy, we shall not see the radical improvement required. To take 12 months to produce a final report is unacceptable. To then say to the people of Pembrokeshire and of Cardigan that all that they will get is £2.5 million to restructure their economy is not on.
We had hoped that the need to improve the rail and road communications to which many hon. Members have referred could have been a pleasant announcement and schemes to invigorate and restructure our economy could have been brought forward. When we are asked about placing new Government jobs in Pembrokeshire, the reply is that our communications are bad.
We expected that some of the bypasses which have been planned for three, four or five years time could have been brought forward, but all that we were told was that we are getting the improvements to the M4 around Baglan. That does not solve the problems in Pembrokeshire. It does not solve the problem of communications to our ferry ports, such as Fishguard, and on to Ireland.
The message that I bring from the Pembrokeshire chamber of commerce is that the Secretary of State's response to restructuring the economy in west Wales is wholly inadequate. If the Secretary of State gave a commitment, it would certainly be worth a lot more than £2.5 million per annum.
9.20 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It has been the usual St. David's day debate so far—not always in the charitable Christian spirit of St. David. Obviously, we would like to be able to agree on everything on St. David's day, but there is a wide gulf not simply across the Dispatch Box. To be honest, the gulf sometimes seems about 1,000 miles wide.
The Secretary of State told us in the House, as he did in the Welsh Grand Committee, that it was our obligation as an Opposition to talk Wales up. We regard it as our job to tell the truth as we find it. We object strongly and it tends to catch the Secretary of State on the quick when we say that the most rapidly rising medical science in Wales is that of statistical physiotherapy—it is sometimes known as massaging the figures. The Secretary of State wears pink contact lenses and then tells us that everything in the garden is rosy.
I shall give some examples of things that tend to puzzle us. The Secretary of State referred to the training and enterprise councils. He has been in charge of them for almost 12 months and has assembled the training and employment division so that he can co-ordinate employment and training activities in Wales.
The Secretary of State said that the budget for the training and enterprise councils for next year will be £102 or £103 million, which is roughly the same as the outturn figure for training and enterprise council expenditure this year. Of course, it is not the same as the budget expenditure for training and enterprise councils this year which was about £115 or £116 million. Something strange seems to have been going on which perhaps the Secretary of State may care to think about.
An unintended profit seems to have been made on the activities of the training and enterprise councils in Wales under the first year of the Secretary of State's administration. I asked a question about the matter recently. Training and enterprise councils are not allowed to make a profit: they make a surplus. Of course, it is the same thing. It simply means that they have not spent the money that they should have done. The Secretary of State was looking after them and should have insisted that they spend the money.
The worrying thing is that the councils are people-oriented activities. They are supposed to spend their money on training, but they appear to be going into property speculation. They will use the £15 million surplus on at least two occasions as far as we are aware. Perhaps the Secretary of State can either confirm or deny that or tell us the policy of the Welsh Office on the councils going into property speculation.
We understand that the councils will build headquarters for themselves in north-east Wales and in west Glamorgan. Not only that, but they will build space in the Northop business park on the A55 and the new business park on the old A48 near the Velindre tinplate works, which they will sublet. I am not sure whether that is what the Welsh Office intended the companies to do and that is probably why the Secretary of State has cut their budget for next year.
If the right hon. Gentleman disapproves of the councils going into property speculation, why did not he administer them properly in the first year? Is that good news or bad news? We think that it is wrong. It is a great criticism of the Welsh Office's administration of the training and
102
enterprise councils that the Secretary of State has not stopped them becoming property speculators when they should be spending 100 per cent. of their money on such an important activity as training.
Another matter on which we tend to see things from the opposite end of the telescope to the Secretary of State is the Welsh Development Agency budget for next year. The Secretary of State proudly boasts about the new £50 million property programme. He says that he announced in the autumn public expenditure statement that the WDA's budget would increase to a new record of £171 million in the year which will start in a month's time. Everything is a record in the eyes of the Secretary of State.
Yet when one examines the WDA budget, the Secretary of State is providing not more but less money for the WDA next year. He is reducing the grant in aid to the WDA. So what is the WDA supposed to do next year? It is supposed to get 63·4per cent. of its expenditure back from the users of the WDA's services. So that will mean sharply increased rents for tenants and vast numbers of existing industrial estates being sold over the heads of their tenants, or more bespoke work rather than advance factory building work.
We are not sure what the change will mean, but certainly more Welsh Office money is not going to the WDA. But the Secretary of State presents it as more Welsh Office money. He has a tendency to reinforce his rose-coloured spectacles with pink contact lenses. We are not happy about that way of looking at things. If the WDA grant is to be reduced, it is better to say so. The Secretary of State should say, "I cannot afford to keep up the public expenditure because those swines in the Treasury have cut my money." It is much better to say that so that the people of Wales know exactly what the truth is.
There is a crisis about objective 1 status. If the four counties for which the Secretary of State applied for it through the President of the Board of Trade had achieved it, we would have had 75 per cent. grants and could have obtained grants for a much wider range of activities such as health, hospitals and training centres. Virtually anything can be covered in an area which has objective 1 status. It is an enormous boon.
Unfortunately, Merseyside has been given objective 1 status and the four counties of rural Wales have not. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us whether his area of the Wirral is included in Merseyside. I am not sure what is the definition of Merseyside, or whether it extends to the terribly deprived areas of the Wirral. We always think that the Secretary of State tends to see Wales as nothing more than a pretty view from the Wirral.
Sometimes we feel that the Secretary of State should pay attention to our problems rather than see Wales as a jumping-off point from which he might achieve promotion to a Cabinet job that he would really like to do. That is why he tends to go in for self-promotion. He hopes that self-promotion of the Secretary of State will lead to promotion for the Secretary of State at the next Cabinet reshuffle. Then he could forget about whether he should have tried harder for Wales rather than thinking about the interests of the Wirral and Merseyside.
The message about whether things are going well or badly must be handled carefully and with sensitivity. We do not believe in depressing the people of Wales about the difficult conditions which everyone goes through in a recession. It is difficult. One has to mix up the messages about what are the problems and what is the potential. One must give equal emphasis to both. Opposition

103
Members believe that that is important. We are as keen as the Secretary of State—if not more so, because we represent constituencies in Wales—to see economic regeneration of Wales take place at maximum speed.
However, we do not accept that it is our job to cover over the problems in the way that the Secretary of State wants when he asks us to talk up the market. We see problems in the health service. The Secretary of State produced figures for waiting times. The Government have stopped talking about waiting lists now. They can say that waiting times are down. They cannot say that waiting lists are down because they are up.
I take an example from my constituency. One would love to cheer on the sidelines when the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers announces an initiative. A month ago the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who has responsibility for health, announced an extra £0.75 million fund called the waiting times initiative fund. He was going to release last-minute money, before the end of the financial year, for operations to be carried out on people who were in serious danger of having to wait beyond the maximum time when treatment should be given, as set out in the patients charter.
I did a lot of checking and the money was genuine. The Government were releasing an extra £750,000 and much was to be spent in hospitals in my constituency, such as the Prince of Wales, on artificial knee joint and hip joint operations. I felt that I could get into trouble because I could not find anything to criticise. I thought that I might have to give one and a half cheers. I did not know what to do. I thought it was best if I kept quiet, because I believed that things looked really good at first sight. I kept quiet to see whether those extra 200 operations would be carried out in that hospital in Cardiff for patients in south Glamorgan. Apparently, 100 knee and 100 hip operations were to be performed. That had to be a good thing, but I wanted to know whether it would happen.
I am glad that I waited, because today I received my first complaint about a cancelled cartilage operation that was due next Friday. I thought that perhaps those operations were being cancelled, but that the artificial hip and knee operations would still go ahead. I rang the hospital administrator of the Cardiff Royal group to see what had happened to those 200 extra operations. He said, "There is no problem with the contracts. We just have a problem with the medical staff. We have not got the medical staff that we thought we had."
It looks as though the promise to spend an extra £200,000 on hip and knee operations in south Glamorgan —I believe that an extra £750,000 was allocated in total, but I do not know about expenditure outside my area—has become yet another Tory broken promise. I was right not to cheer. Those operations will not be done before the end of the financial year.
Leaving that problem aside, our health authority is now run on a blitz at the beginning of the year and then it enters freeze mode: it worries that it has overspent because it is working too hard. Finally, at the end of the financial year, the authority goes into blitz mode once again when the Welsh Office gives some extra money to protect the waiting time initiative if the authority is in danger of exceeding the waiting limit set in the patients charter.
104
We know from the experience of my constituent today, which was confirmed by the hospital administrator to whom I spoke, that the blitz-freeze-blitz mode is no way to run a hospital service. The only way to run it is to give an authority the budget to run an effective service which works throughout the year. An authority should not have four months off in the summer when the consultants play cards because the budget has run out until the Welsh Office releases the last-minute blitz money.
I hope that the Minister will confirm the exact position with regard to the waiting time initiative. Will hospitals be allowed to carry money over into the first few months of the next financial year if they cannot spend it this side of the old financial year?
Mr. Richards rose—
Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman made an absolutely wonderful speech, which bowled everyone over. I understand that he did not insult me and I hear that it was better in the original German.
The Secretary of State mentioned Tillery Valley Foods as one of the big firms that he hopes will bring great prosperity to the north Gwent valleys. The House might be interested to know that that company held its opening ceremony today and a jolly good thing, too. Another person who was mentioned in connection with that company was Mr. Ian Grist, who was defeated at the last election by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"l I thought that that would raise a cheer.
Mr. Grist was on the guest list for the opening ceremony of Tillery Valley Foods, as were most senior personnel of most of the health authorities in south Wales and of the NHS executive, including John Wyn Owen, the boss man of the NHS in Wales and probably the No. 2 civil servant at the Welsh Office. Why were they all at that opening ceremony?
Mr. Alex Carlile: To have lunch.
Mr. Morgan: Well, it was not just to have lunch. That company is a food producer, but it produces a particular kind of food which is of interest to me when I am trying to decide whether everything in the garden is rosy. We want to be able to count the extra jobs at Tillery Valley Foods against the unemployment in Abertillery district. However, the reason why the company invited Ian Grist, John Wyn Owen and the other directors of supplies and purchasing of the health authorities was that it makes cook-chill foods. Therefore, the firm will replace the in-house catering at schools and hospitals in the region. Any additional jobs created at Tillery Valley Foods will probably be jobs lost in hospitals, health authorities, meals-on-wheels services and schools. No net additional jobs will result from Tillery Valley Foods. If that firm is successful, it will only be because jobs have been lost in public sector catering.
If the public sector wins through its in-house bids and keeps the work in the hospitals, Tillery Valley Foods will not sell many cook-chill foods. It wants John Wyn Owen from the national health service directorate in Wales, Ian Grist and others at the launch to ensure that the company is given a fair crack of the whip when the contracts are dished out. That is the worry that we have and that is why we are suspending judgment on the wonderful inward

105
investment and new-start businesses that the Minister has been emphasising today—as he does every time he makes a speech.
One of our great worries is that, as Wales is apparently ineligible for objective 1 status, some areas will be granted less money from the EEC under objective 2 status even if objective 2 status is maintained in some regions. There is a fairly restrictive list of projects for which grants are awarded and there may be less money for the United Kingdom if Merseyside, the highlands and islands and Northern Ireland are granted objective 1 status, which was previously given only to Northern Ireland.
Have the grants been fairly awarded? Has the EEC decided fairly that Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands and Merseyside are in one category and south Wales, the industrial north-east of Wales and the three counties of rural Wales—north, mid and west Wales—are much worse off than the rest of Wales? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Despite the Secretary of State's picture of Wales as the land of milk and honey, in the final statistical analysis of relative levels of prosperity, it is the average family income that counts. If we compare region by region, the south-east would generally be at the top of the league table, the midlands would be in the middle, Scotland would come next and finally, next to the bottom, would be Wales. Northern Ireland would be at the bottom, with Wales just above it. The Secretary of State is not making the case for Wales and obtaining the EEC grants—based on average family income—that he should.
The Secretary of State also tried to say that, in terms of support for businesses, he had solved the problem of one-stop shops. The Secretary of State—who should pay attention for a minute—claimed that, under his leadership, the one-stop shops problem of duplication of effort in giving support to businesses had been solved. However, a recent parliamentary reply to me shows that he has set up a working party of 12 people which is not even to report until May. Only after that working party has reported in two months' time will the Secretary of State start to give serious attention to making a decision. However, he is quite willing to tell the House today that he has already made the decision. There is a serious problem.
A strong part of our philosophy involves setting up a network of one-stop shops. We have five one-stop shops for small business advice in Cardiff and many other regions in Wales have three or four. The Secretary of State must decide whether he wants the job to be led by training and enterprise councils, the regional offices of the Welsh Development Agency, local enterprise agencies, local authorities or someone else, and what the one-stop shops are supposed to do.
We want them to provide innovation advice, training and small premises. We would like them to be able to offer seed capital and venture capital to help small and medium-sized firms to survive and grow and to come into being more rapidly, to form the basis of the local Welsh economy, alongside those inward investments—when we get them.
That is how we feel about how the Secretary of State has handled our affairs and I do not think that the Minister of State will say anything very different. Although he does at least represent a Welsh constituency, he tends to wander about in a daze and not to see the problems that we face. Both of them are part of a Government happy to be led by a Prime Minister who believes that we should understand
106
less about crime. He also believes in the obscenity of going to the Carlton club and demanding that the unemployed do work as a requirement for benefit—and this from a man who claims to believe in a classless society. In the case of the Carlton club, one might say that he has replaced noblesse oblige with jobless oblige.
We do not want to live in a world in which we wander the streets of Cardiff on a Saturday and see young teenagers behind cardboard signs saying, "Hungary and homeless: please help". That problem was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who talked of the need to take the rough sleepers initiative from London down to Cardiff. That is a condemnation of the society that the Conservative Government have brought about after 14 years in power.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): All times in the history of Wales appear to be times of momentous change, and our time is no exception. At this time a great deal of the steadfastness that characterised our patron saint is called for. I do not intend to speak as my right hon. Friend's hagiographer, but he has certainly shown a great deal of steadfastness in the face of questioning today on the effects of the recession and of local government reorganisation in Wales. Neither of those problems faced St. David. I suspect that they would have been as light relief to him—as they appeared to be to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
Education might certainly have concerned St. David as a way to eliminating ignorance and paganism and to teaching people the difference between right and wrong. It is a sobering reflection on the human condition that we still need lessons of this kind—now more than ever—as a number of hon. Members have pointed out.
I should like to think that the saint would approve of the state taking direct action as envisaged in the Education Bill—[interruption ]I note that there has been no intervention from above, even though there has been from below. I would also like to imagine that our saint would approve of the provisions of the Welsh Language Bill. It is a civilised measure, weak according to some, strong according to others, and about right according to most.
We have heard a number of speeches about my right hon. Friend's local government reorganisation proposals —from my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). We heard a powerful plea for Montgomershire from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I heard some but not all of his speech.I heard his final remarks expressing his warmly favourable feelings for a directly elected Welsh assembly. We are due to consider the governance of Wales at Cardiff next Monday. No doubt we shall hear a great deal more then about every aspect of that fascinating subject—except perhaps from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who was eloquent today about his impending absence on Monday.
What surprised me about the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr.Davies) was the total absence of an alternative strategy for the Welsh economy. We were promised one at the last sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, and we were told that it would be fully costed and presented today, but we have had nothing positive from the hon.Gentleman. Why is that? Would it have cost

107
too much and involved increased taxation which would not have fitted in well with the current thinking of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? On 15 January this year in Paris the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"It is, I believe, economic madness to contemplate net increases in taxation on ordinary taxpayers at the moment."
I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly approves of his leader's remarks.
I know that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is remodelling his party's policy on law and order. Therefore, I was not surprised to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly lending a hand. Crime has been on the increase since the second world war, not only here but in other industrialised countries. We have always believed in tackling crime with tough, practical measures and it is difficult to take lessons on that from the Opposition, especially when we remember the Acts that the Labour party has opposed. To remind the Opposition, I shall list those Acts: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which strengthened police powers to stop and search suspects; the Public Order Act 1986, which gave the police better powers to deal with street disorder; the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which raised the maximum sentences for serious crimes and gave the Attorney-General a right of appeal against lenient sentences; the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and, of course, the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan was absolutely right to say that we have increased the number of police officers by about 16,700 since 1979. However, we are transgressing on the sphere of responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. Alun Michael: As the Minister has become an expert in crime figures, will he acknowledge that they have not risen inexorably year after year but that there have been fluctuations up and down? The policies and decisions of his Government on matters such as unemployment have played a part in creating the environment in which crime has increased. For instance, his Government have failed to provide the secure units that we need in Wales. He should take lessons from the Opposition.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I dealt with the problem of the secure units earlier in the debate when I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about wages councils. I remind him again that the last Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils covering some 600,000 workers. Subsequent studies did not reveal any general reduction in wages as a result. Two thirds of workers covered by wages councils are paid significantly higher rates than those set by the councils. Only seven countries in the European Community have any form of national minimum wage legislation and independent research shows that the average take-home pay of United Kingdom workers is higher than that of most European countries, including France, Italy and Germany. I hope that we will not hear much more of the wages council argument.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a notable speech. I do not accept his assertion that the
108
Maastricht treaty is all about centralisation. Much of the acknowledged success that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had in representing the United Kingdom in the Maastricht negotiations was in resisting tendencies elsewhere in the Community towards centralisation.
Wales has much to gain from the Europe of Maastricht. We are not merely a region on the periphery of the continent. Our success in attracting inward investment underlines that point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already emphasised that our level of inward investment is four times what we would be expected to get in terms of our population. Our relationship with the four motor regions of Europe has brought a sustained interest in Wales as a place to do business. Through the series of structural fund programmes in recent years—for example, in industrial south Wales, Clwyd, Dyfed, Powis, and Gwynedd—and with RECHAR in the coalfields, Wales has benefited from Community funding. Our objective in the current mid-term review of the structural fund—this will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor—will be to argue for continued and increased EC assistance for as much of Wales as possible, including the rural areas.
There have been a number of references to education, again beginning with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The implication was that the very fact of grant-maintained schools represented a grave threat to local democracy. The Education Bill, which we shall be debating tomorrow and the next day in the House, does not oblige schools to become grant maintained. Our reforms are driven by parental choice and grant-maintained status is a matter for schools' governors and parents to decide. It cannot be imposed on a school against the wishes of parents. It gives schools the ability to control the whole of their budget and it means that decisions are taken by those who are closest to the pupils. It is important to remember that grant-maintained status cannot be forced on a school. The decision rests with the school governors and the parents. Rather then eroding local democracy, we are extending it by delegating decisions to those in the best position to make decisions about priorities within schools. That is the motivation behind grant-maintained status.
The Education Bill does not weaken or abolish LEAs, although clearly the role of LEAs will evolve as more and more schools decide to leave their control and become grant maintained. We expect to see a significant grant-maintained status in Wales.
Mr. Ron Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Education Bill removes the requirement on local authorities to be education authorities?
Sir Wyn Roberts: No, it does not remove the requirement that an education authority be a local authority. When we discuss the Bill tomorrow and the next day, those matters will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), have referred to roads in Wales. Communications have greatly improved since we came into office and the significance we attach to a high quality road network is clearly demonstrated by the high level of expenditure. Since 1979, we have spent more than £2 billion on the construction and improvement of the M4 and trunk roads in Wales, providing 22 miles of motorway

109
and more than 151 miles of trunk roads. More money is being spent on the M4 and trunk roads in Wales than at any time in the past. The rate of spend per head of population is greater in Wales than it is in England and Scotland. This high level of expenditure will continue. Next year, we plan to spend a record £201 million. Six major schemes are planned to start.
I announced on 8 February the acceptance of the £23 million tender from Costain Building and Civil Engineering Ltd. for the M4 link in Gwent to the second Severn crossing. Work is due to start this month on a 33-month contract. I am sure that the business community will warmly welcome this latest development and recognise that the new crossing, when completed, will provide greater economic opportunities for south Wales and many job opportunities for the area as a whole.
In addition to about 300 construction jobs that will be created by the scheme, according to the CBI, for such a project, a further 700 jobs in ancillary industries will be created or safeguarded. As I have said, our estimated expenditure on road construction in Wales for the coming financial year is a record £201 million. Again, using the CBI formula, this should provide employment opportunities for more than 6,000 people.
Mr. FlynnThe Minister and the Government generally can take pride in the fact that they will create 13 new jobs in Wales by local government reorganisation, if the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is right: we shall have 13 new lords lieutenant in Wales. What is the description of a lord lieutenant? All the past lords lieutenant for Gwent have had careers in the military, been important in the freemasons' movement and have been rich enough to take a full-time job without wages. They have all been white male gentiles. Will the Minister give us a job description for the 13 new lords lieutenant so that the long-term unemployed in Wales may apply for the posts?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I implied at the beginning of my speech that we would leave matters to do with local government reorganisation until we dealt with the governance of Wales next Monday.
Earlier this year, work began on the final section of the A55 to be dualled at Aber. Work is also under way to fill
110
the gaps on the M4 in south Wales. Indeed, on Friday I opened the Earlswood-Lon Las section. We hope to have the remainder open by early 1995.
Local authority roads are also to benefit. In the coming year, transport grant settlement will provide support for about 27 schemes, all, I am sure, of great interest to Opposition Members.
It is clear that the Opposition cannot forgive us— especially my noble Friend Lord Walker—for introducing the valleys initiative. They have sought to belittle that achievement at every opportunity. A week ago today they launched a document that was much heralded in the press. Until a few hours ago neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I and our officials had seen a copy of that document. We had read only reports in the press of its contents. As I understand it, the document condemns our valleys initiative in spite of the positive achievements which were described by my right hon. Friend when he announced his new five-year valley programme to begin on 1 April. I can conclude only that the Labour party's chagrin is inspired by some sort of curious pique.
In spite of all the gloom and doom of the recession, which Opposition Members have sought to magnify in every conceivable way, they cannot even accept the adjusted or unadjusted unemployment figures. They seem to have to magnify them still further.
I have to say to the people of Wales and to the House that we can take heart from my right hon. Friend's exhortation to go for growth. It is reflecting the call of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Of course, we can take heart from the fact that we have laid the foundations for recovery. Headline inflation is at its lowest for more than 25 years. Interest rates have been much reduced, productivity is growing at the fastest rate for five years, unit wage growth is lower than that of our principal competitors, and confidence is now improving.
We should be cheered by the Financial Times headline of 22 February:
"Wales will lead economic recovery".
That newspaper was reporting the views of the National Westminster bank, which said—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any salaries and expenses of the Secretary and other officers and staff of the Independent Press Authority constituted under the Act;

(b) any salaries and expenses of the Press Complaints Adviser appointed under the Act;

(c) subject to a limit specified by the Secretary of State, any expenses necessarily incurred by the members of the Authority in connection with their duties; and

(d) any other expenses of a Minister of the Crown or of the Authority attributable to the Act.—[Mr. Robert. G. Hughes.]

10.1 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May we take it that the motions on the Order Paper are formal motions and that there is no suggestion that the Government support the Bills attached to them?
Madam Speaker: At the moment we are dealing with the motion relating to the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill.
Mr. Bottomley: It was to both that Bill and the following Bill—the Shops (Amendment) Bill—that I was referring. I am not asking for a reply, but I wish to put on record the fact that I presume that the motions do not commit the Government to supporting the Bills.
10.2 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) knows that the money resolution must be adopted by the House before a Standing Committee can
112
consider those provisions of the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill that give rise to public expenditure. The Government are happy to move the necessary resolution to enable the Committee to consider the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, it is of no broader significance than that.
Mr. Bottomley: On that basis, I shall not oppose the money resolution. However, I hope that the Bill makes no further progress after its Committee stage.
Question put and agreed to.

SHOPS (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Shops (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (REGISTRATION, ETC.) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

ENVIRONMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Eric Pickles and Mr. Gary Streeter be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Peter Ainsworth and Mr. Harold Elletson be added to the Committee—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE
Ordered,
That Mr. Gyles Brandreth be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. John Sykes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Child Abduction
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: Having submitted applications for this debate in November last year, I am delighted that I have had the good fortune to have secured the debate and to be able to raise the serious subject of child abduction. My endeavour is to bring to the attention of Ministers and the public the abject misery and despair endured by a woman when her child is taken from her and transferred to a country where the customs and laws are so different from those in the United Kingdom and when our laws have no particular relevance, especially in the case that I shall outline.
A constituent of mine, Pauline Ibsen, contacted me for support and assistance in her efforts to retrieve her daughter Layla, who had been taken by her natural father, a Libyan national, and transported to his country. The history of the case is that Pauline met Abdul Ibziou while at college and they decided to marry, and out of that marriage a daughter, Layla, was born. The family went to live in Libya for about a year but, sadly, the happiness did not last. Pauline could not settle in Libya and she longed for her native England. The relationship between husband and wife began to deteriorate and the family eventually returned to this country, where they stayed together for another two years.
By 1983, Layla was five years of age and was living with her mother in England and attending school here. The marriage had ended and the couple had separated in 1983, with Abdul returing to Libya. On the father's return to the United Kingdom in 1985, his demands for greater access to his daughter intensified. Pauline, who had never prohibited access, became deeply concerned for her daughter's safety, and so made her a ward of the British courts—assuming that would give them some security.
Pauline was always of the opinion that Layla should have her father's company and love, and would not deny either father or daughter the opportunity to be together.
In August 1985 the father applied to the courts to allow Layla to spend one month's holiday with him in Libya. That was agreed, and after the father swore on the Koran in court and gave Pauline his honoured word that he would return their daughter to England after the vacation, Pauline considered and accepted Abdul's promise. It was arranged that the visit could be an annual event.
Layla accompanied her father to Libya but, regrettably, she was never returned. Pauline was suffering from anguish and sought advice from the British courts, which in turn ordered the father to return Layla to this country. All that was to no avail. Pauline was also advised by the British interests section in Tripoli to take the case to a Libyan court. Regrettably, being alone and of limited financial means—and however determined Pauline was to retrieve her daughter—the situation had become far too complex for Pauline to comprehend, and confusion and desperation set in.
Pauline paid a visit to Libya and met the father and Layla, and after much pleading, she was given an assurance that the father and daughter would return to England at a later date. Even though visas were obtained, that promise was never honoured and Layla remained in Libya. Pauline's world had now collapsed around her.
114
In 1988, Pauline graduated after studying as an art student in Manchester, and had more time to attempt to visit her daughter. Arrangements were made for a further visit to Libya. Once again, promises to return Layla were broken. This time, however, Pauline gained the impression that something had happened—something that she could not identify, but the atmosphere concerned her.
Her doubts were proved correct. Abdul had met another woman and shortly after had remarried. Communication between Pauline and Layla then became extremely difficult. There was no response to letters, the family telephone was disconnected, and only a telegram reached Layla—who eventually spoke to her mother from a post office telephone. Abdul had a new wife and a new home, and Layla was left with her grandparents, who were meant to look after her welfare. Events proved exactly the opposite to be the case. The roles were reversed. Layla now attends to all the needs of her grandparents. Pauline had to bear another bitter experience. She had always been prepared to allow Layla's father access to his daughter, but was now denied access herself.
On a further visit to Libya, Pauline never contemplated the bizarre adventure that she and her daughter were to embark upon. After obtaining a visa from the Libyan interest section in London, Pauline made her way to Egypt via Benghazi—a single woman, vulnerable, alone, in a strange place that had changed out of all recognition since her last visit. She tried to make some sense to strangers in a foreign tongue in an effort to find the house where Layla was living with her grandparents. It was a nightmare. Eventually, she located the house and met her daughter again. In spite of an initially hostile reception, she was allowed to remain, and won the acceptance of the family. It was during their conversations—when mother and daughter were alone—that the macabre plan was hatched.
By now, Layla was 14 years old, and had grown considerably. She took her Libyan grandmother's passport, then dressed in the style of a local elderly woman and attempted to escape from the house and from Libya, and to make for home—England—with her mother. Having obtained the plane tickets, they waited until 3 am, packed their cases and, using a ladder, scaled the wall of the grandparents' house. The cases became heavy to carry, and they had to rest, hiding in bushes—or anywhere that would give them cover—until they obtained a taxi, which took them to the airport. They went through the check-in and passport control; they thought they were home and dry. Then disaster struck: a Libyan woman security official demanded to see Layla's face. Their crude plan had failed.
The events that I have described are not fiction, something from a novel or an adventure film; they actually happened. Desperate people do irrational things. After being placed under house arrest, Pauline was allowed to leave Libya. By now, believing that she would never see her daughter again, she was in a state of deep depression; so, on her behalf, I visited the head of the Libyan interest section of the Saudi Arabian embassy here in London, where I received a sympathetic hearing from a Mr. Ahmed Ameish. He agreed to issue Pauline with a visa to visit Libya again. Pauline was grateful for the kind offer, and expressed remorse for attempting to smuggle the child out of Libya.
Regrettably, however, without the assurance for the mother and daughter to meet, the journey would be a pure waste of money and time, and would possibly mean more heartbreak for Pauline. The Minister will be aware that

115
Libya is not a signatory to the Hague European conventions, which put this particular mother at a severe disadvantage.
In these circumstances, a child—a British national, a ward of court—can be taken from this country with little or no redress. That drove a caring mother to the point of desperation, and forced her to take absurd risks to be reunited with her daughter. I have brought just one case to the House's attention; it is estimated that some 1,200 children are abducted from the United Kingdom every year. The case of my constituent Pauline Ibsen epitomises the anguish and human misery that parents and children can experience in such heartbreaking and harrowing circumstances.
To whom can parents such as Pauline turn? The organisation Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children, has given tremendous assistance to people like her, who find themselves in such a sad predicament. It offers advice, information and a professional counselling service. Reunite is also active in raising public awareness, and addresses international conferences on the subject of child abduction. The organisation has co-operated more closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in recent times and there is now a nominated official in that Department with whom Reunite can liaise and look forward to improved communication. That may lead to an increase in the number of abducted children who are returned, and also to an increase in the number of access visits. Despite the restrictions on the activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in child abduction cases, Reunite believes that there are actions that officials, especially those overseas, can take that would be of advantage to the progress of a case: for example, in obtaining visas, the protection of a parent trying to contact a child or children or the speed at which a court case is conducted.
The handling of more than 600 cases a year, the expansion of its activities to meet the need of parents and the need to carry out such vital work has obviously made Reunite dependent on financial assistance. I urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support the continuation of financial backing to allow this essential organisation to carry on its extremely important work.
I make three pleas to the Minister: first, for the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to seek agreement with the Libyan authorities to allow Pauline Ibsen to meet her daughter, Layla, even if it is a controlled meeting away from the grandparents' home in Libya if necessary—anywhere is suitable as long as they may meet again. Hopefully, the meeting will lead to regular meetings and the humane right of a mother and daughter to be together.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to make other countries aware of their obligations under the conventions and to implore them to act with the expediency with which United Kingdom courts process cases involving the abduction of children. To most parents, the conventions are irrelevant and the prospects of the children being returned are bleak because there is no clear interpretation of the procedures. Foreign courts can get bogged down in legal arguments, placing great stress and anxiety on the parents. The booklet issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign Office says:
116
"Courts abroad cannot pass down judgments which are contrary to their own law. They are often not willing to oppose family, religious or cultural traditions which are customary, even if not obligatory, in their country. In some countries the law is based strictly on such traditions."
It goes on:
"Every country has exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory, and no country can force another to decide cases on enforced laws in a certain way. Court orders of one country are not usually enforceable in another country."
That is the dilemma facing every parent, even in countries that are signatories to the convention.
My third plea is for support to enable Reunite to carry out its work on child abduction. Television programmes such as Channel 4's "Cutting Edge" endeavour to highlight the problem of child abduction, but that is a one-off programme. What is required is the sensitive and professional approach that Reunite can offer. It is the only agency to offer assistance in these cases and in its experience a good percentage of those assisted by the Lord Chancellor's Department usually turn to Reunite for the support and counselling that that Department is unable to provide. Please do not allow an organisation such as Reunite to be treated as a Cinderella group that can be ignored and can lose out when financing priorities are under consideration.
In a recent letter, Reunite concluded that it not only enhances the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by resolving many of these situations but, working in an international arena, assists in reducing the workload of that Department and therefore would deem it appropriate for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide support or financial backing. The all-party child abduction group of the House has the support of more than 100 hon. Members, which signifies the importance and seriousness with which child abduction is treated. I only hope that my small contribution this evening, as a member of that group, will help the plight of mothers such as my constituent Pauline Ibsen and help to sustain an organisation such as Reunite.
My first plea is for the long term and involves standardisation of procedure in court cases in signatory countries to the convention. The second is for the short term and involves adequate funding for Reunite. My third request, for which I plead most strongly, is that the Government immediately do everything possible to arrange a meeting between Pauline Ibsen and her daughter Layla.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): This is an extremely sad case, and I have every sympathy with Mrs. Ibsen. I admire the way in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has followed the case so closely on behalf of his constituent.
Sadly, it is not the only such case that has come to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Many hundreds of children are taken out of Britain every year, usually, but not always, by their fathers and often in defiance of court orders. I have to deal with almost all the cases that come to the Foreign Office's attention, and there is no doubt that cases involving the separation of parents from child, often in tragic circumstances as described by the hon. Gentleman, are very distressing for the parent who is often left bereft in this country, and for the child or children involved.

117
If it were possible to take action to alter the circumstances in this or any of the cases which have passed across my desk, I should not hesitate to do so, but finding a solution to cases of child abduction is not easy. It is all the more difficult when, as in this case, the child has been taken to a country which, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is not a signatory to the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children or to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
Since 1986, a total of 29 countries, including the United Kingdom, have ratified one or other of those conventions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take every possible step to ensure that other countries are aware of the conventions and invite them to sign them. Under these arrangements, children are required to be returned to the country from which they have been taken unless there are exceptional circumstances.
When children are taken to a country such as Libya which is not a signatory to those conventions, no legal framework —a framework which, I hasten to add, we have done much to build—exists within which the return of children can be pursued by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Action can then only be taken privately through the courts of the country in question, and those courts may or may not take account of any British court orders in respect of the child. The Foreign Office cannot intervene in the judicial process of a foreign sovereign state, and there are further complications.
Most children of a marriage between people of different nationalities acquire the nationalities of both parents, regardless of the place of their birth. In cases where children have dual nationality and are in the country of their second nationality, in this case Libya, we and our embassies and high commissions are prevented by international law from making formal representations to the Government of that country. I stress the word "formal" because we can make informal representations.
Such children are viewed in international law as being in their own country and are subject to that country's law. Libya does not even recognise the concept of dual nationality. Notwithstanding the fact that Layla was born in the United Kingdom, in Libya she is regarded as a Libyan. Experience has shown that attempts to recover children through the courts in Islamic countries carries its own peculiar difficulties. It is an important principle in Islamic countries that the child should be brought up in the Islamic faith. There is a bias against the non-Muslim parent in many Islamic countries' legal systems. Even in countries in which Sharia law is not rigorously applied —Libya is one such country—obtaining an order for custody or for access is by no means easy. Short of coming to an arrangement with the estranged spouse, recourse to the local courts is the only way open to the deprived parent.
I do not wish to paint too negative a picture in describing the constraints on the help that we can offer. The Foreign Office has produced a booklet explaining what we in our posts overseas can and cannot do to help people. A copy is in the Library of the House. Ratification of the Hague and European conventions is one of the positive steps that we have taken and urge on other countries to provide a framework for the return of abducted children. We are active in discussions on these
118
problems with our European Community partners. We are prepared to make representations to convention countries that drag their feet over procedures.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of Reunite. I pay tribute this evening to what we regard as important work and to the assistance that Reunite has managed to give the hon. Gentleman's constituent and the constituents of other hon. Members.
In Layla's case, our consular officials have also tried to be as helpful as possible behind the scenes. In this case the Italians, our protecting power in Libya—we do not have diplomatic relations—have been very helpful when we have had to call on their services. The head of our interests section in Libya has approached the Libyan authorities informally several times on Mrs. Ibsen's behalf since Layla was taken there in 1985. The Libyan authorities have responded constructively.
The head of the interests section was allowed to see Layla and her father in December last year at the foreign liaison bureau in Benghazi. Part of the meeting was held in the presence of two officials of the bureau, but our official was also allowed to speak directly to Layla and to her father in private.
If Mrs. Ibsen travels to Libya, our interests section stands ready to help in setting up a meeting with her daughter, but such a meeting would need the consent of both the father and Layla. We cannot work on any other basis.
The fact remains that diplomatic approaches can have only so much effect. In the absence of a Libyan court order to the contrary, under Libyan family law and tradition, Layla needs the permission of her father to leave the country. Our staff in the Foreign Office and our interests section abroad can do nothing to circumvent that requirement.
As we have repeatedly advised Mrs. Ibsen, she must pursue custody through the Libyan courts. Only the Libyan family court can decide the issue. We have suggested to Mrs. Ibsen that her best course of action would be to seek advice from a Libyan lawyer. He could advise her on local procedure and how she could best present her case to the Tripoli family court. With Layla on the verge of womanhood, I hope that Mrs. Ibsen will be able to take that advice as soon as possible so that progress can be made to bring this sad case to an early conclusion.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I do not want to prolong this sad debate. We all recognise that there are particular difficulties with Libya because it is not a signatory to the various conventions and because of relations between our Government and the Libyan Government. Nevertheless, my discussions with representatives of the Libyan authorities have shown that they are genuinely keen to resolve family-centred matters outside the normal diplomatic regime. The Libyan Government might seriously consider a suggestion by the British Government for some reciprocal arrangements for visits. In the case that my hon. Friend raises, that could be especially important and would be desperately sought by other mothers of children who have been taken away.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman and the other Manchester Members present have taken a great interest in the case.
All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we will help to facilitate any sensible idea. We are more than

119
happy that officials should discuss the matter with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. Anything we do would have to be with the consent of both the father and Mrs. Ibsen. There is no other way in which the Foreign Office
120
can act. If there is an order of the Libyan court, we can act accordingly. In the absence of an order, we must act with the consent of the parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young People (Recidivism)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the comparative reconviction rates within two years of young people who complete their sentences in custody and those who participate in full-time, away-from-home community service programmes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available figures for young offenders released from custody relate to those released in 1986 and are published in table 9.1 of "Prison Statistics 1989", Cm 1221, a copy of which is in the Library. Information relating to the number of young offenders who participate in full-time, away-from-home community service programmes is not available.

  Dogs
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will inquire from each of the police forces in England and Wales and thereafter publish the costs to the police of kennelling stray dogs and any other associated costs during the most recent 12-month period;

  (2) if he will inquire from each of the police forces in England and Wales and thereafter publish the costs associated with policing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, during the first year of the Act, distinguishing (i) the total spent in kennelling dangerous dogs, (ii) the cost of veterinary fees, (iii) the purchase of protective clothing and equipment and (iv) the estimate of the cost of time spent by police officers being trained to identify the types of dog covered by the Act, in seizing dogs and preparing evidence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that my right hon. Friend has been provided with information on the costs to the Metropolitan police of policing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and of dealing with stray dogs.

  Similar information in respect of provincial police forces in England and Wales is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Strangeways Riot Trials
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the prison staff responsible for security at Manchester crown court were involved in the specifications for the building of the cells, holding and toilet areas to contain the prisoners on trial for the Strangeways riot.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison staff responsible for the security at Manchester Crown court were not involved in the specification for the building of the areas used to contain the prisoners on trial for the Strangeways riot.
  2
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on prison staff at the Crown court, Manchester there have been since the trials relating to the Strangeways riot first commenced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been nine reported incidents of alleged assault on prison staff by defendants in the Strangeways riot trials at Manchester Crown court.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost of radios, televisions and multigym facilities provided for the five prisoners who recently escaped from Manchester Crown court.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The television was borrowed from the Greater Manchester police. The prison service provided 11 radios at a total cost of £65 and a multigym at a cost of £3,000.

  These items were provided for all the prisoners on trial in connection with charges arising from the Manchester prison disturbance. The prisoners concerned were held in police accommodation not designed for this purpose and which did not have normal regime facilities found in prison service establishments.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions the prison officers were given in respect of confrontation with the prisoners on trial for the riot at Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The inquiry mounted by the prison service will investigate all circumstances of the escape of five defendants on trial at Manchester Crown court, including any instructions give to prison staff supervising the trial. It would be wrong to comment further while these inquiries are in progress. All prison officers receive training in how to deal with confrontation with prisoners, including the use of force where that is necessary to maintain control.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the toilet area at Manchester Crown court had been inspected and security arrangements accepted before being handed over to the prison staff prior to the recent escape of five prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The toilet area at Manchester Crown court is part of the original complex built in the 1960s, long before formal arrangements regarding specifications and acceptance of physical security elements of the building were set up between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Police (Discipline)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers retired on sickness grounds while disciplinary action involving them was under consideration in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information about retirements following the laying of disciplinary charges have been collected only since 1991.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 430, what were the

  3
  ranks of the police officers who retired in 1991 after disciplinary charges had been brought against them, but before those charges were heard; whether they retired on fully accrued pension terms; and whether any enhancements were provided.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Retirement from the police service, whether on grounds of ill-health or otherwise, is the responsibility of police authorities and details are not collected centrally.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who will run the new-style secure units planned by his Department;

  (2) who will have responsibility for the operation and oversight of the new-style secure units proposed by his Department;

  (3) what arrangements will be made for inspection and monitoring of the new-style secure units planned by his Department;

  (4) what consideration he has given to the location of further secure places for young people;

  (5) what he estimates will be the capital costs of the new-style secure units planned by his Department; and who will pay these costs;

  (6) what regime he intends shall be provided in the new-style secure units planned by his Department;

  (7) what proposals he has for the reintegration of young people into family and community after a period in the new-style secure units proposed by his Department;

  (8) how many places (a) in total and (b) in each unit will be provided in the new-style secure units for young people being planned by his Department;

  (9) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of secure accommodation for young people in (a) England and (b) Wales during the last three years;

  (10) what will be the costs per week of places in the new-style secure units planned by his Department; and who will pay these costs.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly be making a statement to the House about his proposals for more effective measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Unlawful Killings
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the incidence of all categories of unlawful killings, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is for notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales and is contained in the table. Figures for 1992 as a whole are not yet available.

  Unlawful killings1 recorded by the police England and Wales: 1979–1992.

  Year

  Number of offences

  1979

  856

  1980

  857

  1981

  794

  1982

  887

  1983

  739

  1984

  844

  1985

  875

  4

  Year

  Number of offences

  1986

  893

  1987

  982

  1988

  971

  1989

  1,036

  1990

  1,088

  1991

  1,143

  12 months to June 1991

  1,121

  12 months to June 1992

  1,071

  1 Comprises, murder, manslaughter, infanticide, child destruction, causing death by reckless driving, and causing death by aggravated vehicle taking (from 1 April 1992 only).

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish guidance on fire safety for small residential care homes before 1 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We sent draft guidance to the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association for comments by 26 March. The guidance will then be considered further and issued as soon as possible.

  Homerunner Bus Service
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's officials will have discussions with those responsible for operating the Homerunner women-only bus service in Bradford with a view to funding the service indefinitely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Homerunner women's safe transport scheme commenced in November 1989 funded jointly by the Home Office, through the Bradford safer cities project, and the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, Metro, for a period of 12 months. Further funding from safer cities, Metro and Bradford metropolitan borough council allowed the service to continue until March 1992 to enable the Homerunner steering group to seek funding from local sources to secure the future of the scheme. Exceptionally, safer cities grant was contributed to a further year's funding to enable the service to operate until March 1993, while Homerunner continued to make arrangements for alternative funding.

  When the safer cities programme was established in 1988, it was intended that the modest amount of grant funding for each project would act as pump-priming and not to finance schemes on a long-term basis. It has consistently been made clear to the Homerunner scheme that the safer cities grant could not continue indefinitely.

  Bradford safer cities final year as a Home Office project is 1993–94 and its steering committee has concluded that, in the light of the more limited grants budget available and the previous history of funding the Homerunner scheme, it could not recommend a further grant for the scheme.

  There are no other Home Office grant-giving initiatives available which could assist Homerunner and in these circumstances a meeting with the operators of the service

  5
  would serve little purpose. However, I hope that funding will be found from local sources to enable this service to continue.

  Safer Cities Project, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his proposals for the future funding of the safer cities project in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  By the end of this financial year, Bradford will have received safer cities grant funding of over £1 million since the safer cities project was set up in November 1988. In 1993–94 grant funding of £100,000 has been allocated to Bradford and in that year the project will have access to further funds for work specifically directed at leaving in place long-term arrangements for multi-agency crime prevention work. I hope that the safer cities investment will provide a platform for local crime prevention efforts to become self-sustaining after March 1994. In the light of this, I will not be reconsidering my plans to make the safer cities model available to new locations. There is nothing further I can usefully add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member's previous question on 9 February, at column 531.

  Relate
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the funding in real terms for Relate for each year from 1983–84 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The Home Office grant in aid to Relate for each year from 1983–84 to 1993–94 is set out in actual terms and real terms, using 1991–92 as the base year.

  Actual expenditure (£)

  Real terms expenditure (£)

  1983–84

  788,000

  1,254,957

  1984–85

  827,460

  1,254,183

  1985–86

  864,570

  1,242,609

  1986–87

  890,500

  1,239,974

  1987–88

  912,870

  1,204,902

  1988–89

  935,910

  1,151,478

  1989–90

  958,890

  1,106,408

  1990–91

  1,006,840

  1,076,408

  1991–92

  1,107,500

  1,107,500

  Salary

  Other benefits

  Bermuda

  B$117.150

  B$68,900 Accountable entertainment allowance

  Gibraltar

  £50,636

  £5,609 Duty allowance £8·51 per day table allowance—paid by MOD

  Hong Kong

  HK$l,912,200

  HK$463,200 Entertainment allowance

  Cayman Islands

  Cayman $90,804

  £6,311 Diplomatic service allowance—DSA—paid by FCO

  The governors of St. Helena, Turks and Caicos and Montserrat are paid a local salary by the dependent Governments, and a salary supplement based on the salary
  6

  Actual expenditure (£)

  Actual expenditure (£)

  1992–93

  1,511,400

  1,449,784

  1993–94

  1,530,500

  1,428,811

  In real terms there has been an increase of 13·85 per cent. in the grant during the period in question: the actual increase is 94·2 per cent.

  Relate has also received £48,000 from the Home Office and £10,000 from the Department of Social Security.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Social Protocol
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to the statement of the Attorney-General,Official Report, 22 February 1993, column 241, in the absence of incorporation of the social protocol into United Kingdom law what further legislation would be necessary to enable payment of the EC administrative costs of the protocol.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  If the administration expenses were included in the Community budget, the United Kingdom would charge its contribution direct on the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. If the Community budget were not used, the United Kingdom contribution to any expenses would be met from voted moneys on the authority of the Appropriation Act alone.

  Colonial Governors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the colonial governors who are currently exempt from paying income tax on the salary they receive; what is their current salary; and what other non-taxable benefits they or their families receive.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows:

  The following governors are paid salaries and allowances by the territory which are not liable to United Kingdom, or local, tax. Their annual salaries and non-taxable allowances are as follows:

  of a diplomatic service grade 4 officer which is abated for notional United Kingdom income tax. Their annual salaries and non-taxable allowances are as follows:
  7

  Salary

  Other benefits

  Montserrat

  EC$83,1361

  £370 Difficult post allowance—DPA

  Salary supplement paid by FCO £11,808

  £1,578 Representational supplement allowance—RSA

  £15,684 Frais—paid by FCO

  EC$6,0001 Entertainment allowance—paid by Territory

  St. Helena

  £17,508 paid by Territory

  £712 DPA

  Salary supplement paid by FCO £14,897

  £3,156 RSA

  £35,636 Frais—paid by FCO

  Turks and Caicos

  US$33,978 paid by Territory

  £3,156 RSA

  Salary supplement paid by FCO £18,804

  £34,770 Frais—paid by FCO

  US$3,996 Entertainment allowance—paid by territory

  1 EC$ —East Caribbean Dollars.

  In addition, accommodation is provided by the territory for all governors.

  India
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the proposal by the Indian Government to legislate for a human rights commission.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao, told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25 January that legislation to establish a human rights commission in India would be introduced during the current session of the Indian Parliament. The commission would be composed of internationally known independent human rights experts.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what access arrangements have been agreed by the Indian Government for Amnesty International and other agencies to Punjab and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao, told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25 January that the Indian Government had decided to allow some access in India to Amnesty International and Asia Watch, although they could not go to states where there was trouble and where the visit could itself lead to tensions. But as things calmed down, such organisations could gradually be able to travel more widely.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to ratify the 1981 United Nations inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation remains as set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 16 November 1992 at column 79.

  Armenia and Azerbaijan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of diplomatic relations with Armenia and with Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has been in full diplomatic relations with both Armenia and
  8
  Azerbaijan for over a year. Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow is accredited to both Yeravan and Baku. We intend to open a mission in Baku later this year.

  UNESCO
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has held recently regarding British membership of UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met a group of hon. Members on 25 February. We continue to follow closely matters at UNESCO and our officials have frequent contacts with the organisations's secretariat, member states and other interested parties. The question of the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO remains under review.

  Iran
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the outcome of the Government's review of export licensing criteria for Iran, announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 479.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Government's consideration of the criteria that should be applied in exercising rigorous scrutiny of export licence applications for Iran is now complete. The Government have decided to apply henceforth the following criteria in considering applications for the export of licenseable goods to Iran:

  (i) With two exceptions we should not approve licences for any goods or technology on the Military or Atomic Energy Lists (Schedule 1, Part 3, Group 1 and 2) of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992 (as amended). The exceptions are:

  (a) goods essential for the safety of civil aircraft and air traffic control systems;

  (b) radioactive material in the form of sources for medical equipment and deuterium labelled compounds for medical use.

  (ii) We should not approve licences for any equipment (including the exceptions to the complete ban mentioned above) where there was knowledge or reason to suspect that it would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes.

  Existing export licences, approved under the old guidelines, will remain valid. We shall support efforts among supplier countries, in particular the G7 and our European partners, to promote a harmonised approach to effective controls on the export of dual-use goods to countries of particular concern.

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Vietnamese migrants.

  Mr. Hurd
  The orderly repatriation programme is proving most successful; since it started in November 1991, a total of 487 Vietnamese illegal immigrants have been repatriated from Hong Kong. There were only 12 new arrivals in Hong Kong in 1992 compared with 20,207 in 1991.

  Since the start of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' voluntary repatriation programme in 1989, some 35,000 Vietnamese migrants have been screened out and returned home voluntarily, more than 26,000 of them from Hong Kong. There has been no substantiated report of persecution.

  At present rates of return and resettlement, the Hong Kong camps should be empty in about three years.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Strangeways Riot Trials
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on who decided on an open door policy during the trials at Manchester Crown court of the riot prisoners from Strangeways prison.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The phrase "open door policy" is not recognised, but it is established policy that criminal trials should take place in open court and be freely reported. During the trials in question, the courtroom in use was kept locked outside operational hours, as were all the courtrooms; circulation of court users segregated; and perimeter doors properly secured, when not in use. All fire escape doors were alarmed so as to alert security staff should they be opened.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the security arrangements for the cells and holding areas at Manchester magistrates court, Crown square.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Security arrangements for magistrates courts are taken into account during the planning of the buildings and in any modifications to those buildings, after consultation with the appropriate authorities. Details of these measures cannot be revealed, as it would not be in the interests of the security of a building to do so.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Government Department commissioned the plans for the holding area, the cells and the toilet areas prior to the recent escape of five prisoners from Manchester Crown court; who checked the plans; what assessment was made of their specifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government Department responsible for commissioning the plans for those areas was the Department of the Environment—Property Services Agency, north-west region—on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department to standards recommended by the Home Office.
  10
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evidence he has of a breach of security regarding a blueprint relating to construction details of the Manchester Crown courts; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is believed that a plan, which is currently in the possession of the police, was stolen along with a number of other items during the course of a burglary of one of this Department's offices in 1990. There is nothing to link the theft of this plan and the incident of 17 February 1993 when five defendants escaped from the custody suite of Manchester law courts, but the incident is still the subject of police investigation. Following the burglary, police advice was sought over security measures to protect against burglary and various recommendations were introduced.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what security measures were included in the refurbishment of Manchester Crown court prior to the recent escape of five prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There was consultation with the police and prison service during the planning of the refurbishment of Manchester Crown court which was completed in 1990. Additional security measures were introduced, again following consultation with the police and the prison service, in connection with the case in question. Details of these measures cannot be revealed, as it would not be in the interests of the security of the building to do so.

  Commercial Court
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has now had the opportunity to consider the Kennedy report on the number of judges required for the commercial court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The report was received by the Lord Chancellor on 10 February 1993 and he and the Lord Chief Justice are now considering the advice it contains. The advice is concerned with the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges in all the jurisdictions in which they sit and does not relate solely to the commercial court.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost of his Department's investigations into David Abell, chairman of Suter, in respect of allegations that he was involved with insider dealing; how long this investigation took; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Inquiries under section 442 of the Companies Act 1985 and under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 into share transactions involving, inter alia, Mr. David Abell were begun in July 1988. These inquiries were concluded on completion of the Companies Act inspections in October 1992, the report of
  11
  which was published in January 1993. No proceedings are contemplated against Mr. Abell or any other persons as a result of these inquiries, which in total cost £501,000.

  Coal and Energy
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries he and his ministerial colleagues have visited to discuss coal and energy issues since taking office; how many days each visit took; and if he will name any colliery visited.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: Since April 1992 I have made the following overseas visits during which energy issues were discussed:

  Russia and Azerbaijan—5 days

  Belgium (twice)—1 day each

  In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy made the following visits to discuss energy issues:

  USA (twice)—4 days and 2 days

  Belgium (twice)—1 day and 2 days

  Portugal—1day

  Norway (twice)—1 day and 2 days

  Italy—2 days

  Austria—3 days

  Germany—1 day

  Japan—2 days

  China—2 days

  The Minister's first visit to the United States was to see United States coal mining techniques and practices, and promote the export of United Kingdom mining equipment. It included a visit to federal No. 2 mine and Blacksville mine, both in West Virginia.

  Visits by other departmental colleagues did not generally involve energy issues.

  Owners Abroad
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer the bid for Owners Abroad by Airtours to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: I announced my decision not to refer this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 24 February 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received as to the effect on small tour operators of a takeover of Owners Abroad by Airtours.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: All representations received are treated in confidence. All relevant considerations were taken into account in the Director General of Fair Trading's advice to me and in my decision not to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Coal Research Establishment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the current research being undertaken by the coal research establishment; when each piece of research was commissioned and by whom; and when the research will be completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The current research undertaken by the Coal Research Establishment chiefly covers activities related to the British coal topping cycle, the Point of Ayr coal liquefaction plant
  12
  and a number of other projects related to the coal industry and industrial uses of coal. As British Coal owns and manages the coal research establishment, I have asked the chairman to respond in more detail to the points raised.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the public library book fund for each local authority in(a) 1982, (b) 1987 and (c) 1992, at 1993 prices.

  Mr. Key
  Readily available information on book fund expenditure comes from statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Expenditure is expressed in pounds per 1,000 population. The table is presented on the same basis with figures adjusted to 1992–93 prices.

  Library Authorities

  1981–82 (£)

  1986–87 (£)

  11991–92 (£)

  LONDON

  City of London

  39,443·13

  81,976·24

  116,022·95

  Inner London

  Camden

  4,689·41

  2—

  1,314·59

  Greenwich

  3,269·56

  2—

  2,576·02

  Hackney

  294·02

  3,238·58

  2,040·17

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,087·19

  3,033·90

  2,646·91

  Islington

  3,820·38

  2—

  2—

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,420·29

  4,604·56

  3,974·01

  Lambeth

  2,845·28

  2—

  41,438·65

  Lewisham

  1,754·81

  3,231·32

  6790·77

  Southwark

  3,941·34

  2—

  1,301·04

  Tower Hamlets

  716·44

  2,974·38

  41,484·52

  Wandsworth

  2,292·60

  2,713·09

  2,410·26

  Westminster

  4,456·80

  4,997·95

  5,307·37

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,477·54

  2,271·80

  2,490·53

  Barnet

  1,959·50

  3,102·13

  3,686·28

  Bexley

  2,435·89

  2,634·70

  2,672·97

  Brent

  2,694·55

  5,172·14

  172·1

  Bromley

  2,301·90

  3,523·10

  3,248·43

  Croydon

  2,160·48

  2,636·15

  2,737·61

  Ealing

  2,633·14

  0·00

  1,944·26

  Enfield

  2,322·37

  2,557·77

  2,236·16

  Haringey

  1,721·31

  2—

  952·85

  Harrow

  2,474·97

  2,531·64

  2,108·98

  Havering

  1,674·79

  2,003·24

  1,999·52

  Hillingdon

  1,591·05

  2,149·86

  2—

  Hounslow

  2,627·56

  2—

  3,118·12

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,832·96

  2,515·67

  2,443·62

  Merton

  1,745·50

  2,419·86

  2,517·64

  Newham

  2,703·85

  585·01

  2,063·11

  Redbridge

  2,590·34

  3,340·19

  2,811·62

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,551·26

  2,178·89

  2—

  Sutton

  2,450·77

  3,004·87

  2,603·12

  Waltham Forest

  2,729·91

  2,553·41

  1,646·11

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  1,604·08

  2—

  1,818·12

  Bury

  1,056·98

  1,334·04

  1,247·87

  Manchester

  3,429·59

  0·00

  3,742·58

  Oldham

  1,890·65

  1,903·08

  1,808·74

  Rochdale

  1,406·82

  100·16

  2—

  Salford

  1,416·13

  1,373·24

  1,101·92

  Stockport

  1,710·15

  2,369·05

  2,217·40

  Tameside

  2,153·03

  2,155·67

  51,851·48

  Trafford

  1,741·78

  1,551·79

  1,629·43

  Wigan

  1,351·00

  1,275·98

  1,346·91

  13

  Library Authorities

  1981–82 (£)

  1986–87 (£)

  11991–92 (£)

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  1,341·69

  423·87

  1,572·09

  Liverpool

  2—

  2,318·25

  2—

  St. Helens

  1,704·56

  2,109·21

  2—

  Sefton

  1,326·80

  1,644·69

  1,988·05

  Wirral

  1,779·00

  2,145·50

  1,922·37

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  1,470·09

  175·65

  1,124·86

  Doncaster

  1,641·29

  1,595·34

  1,758·70

  Rotherham

  1,533·36

  1,892·92

  1,959·90

  Sheffield

  2,275·85

  1,204·85

  31,596·07

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  2,575·45

  2,580·99

  2,525·98

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,883·21

  2,274·70

  2,164·23

  North Tyneside

  2,532·65

  1,932·11

  2—

  South Tyneside

  2,326·10

  3,460·68

  1,848·35

  Sunderland

  1,847·85

  1,769·53

  2,345·63

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,128·84

  2,385·02

  2,066·24

  Coventry

  1,343·55

  1,792·76

  1,861·91

  Dudley

  1,905·54

  2,199·21

  1,724·30

  Sandwell

  1,633·85

  2,241·31

  2,333·12

  Solihull

  1,410·54

  2,299·38

  1,163·43

  Walsall

  1,979·97

  436·94

  2,519·72

  Wolverhampton

  2,041·38

  2,920·67

  2—

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  1,040·23

  1,313·72

  666·16

  Calderdale

  1,445·90

  2,184·70

  2,409·22

  Kirklees

  2,071·16

  3,180·51

  1,869·20

  Leeds

  2,080·46

  958·07

  61,728·47

  Wakefield

  1,544·53

  1,498·08

  1,121·73

  English counties

  Avon

  1,849·71

  1,765·18

  71,531·43

  Bedfordshire

  1,628·27

  1,721·63

  81,784·76

  Berkshire

  1,414·27

  1,769·53

  1,308·34

  Buckinghamshire

  1,736·20

  2,647·77

  2,542·66

  Cambridgeshire

  1,782·72

  2,123·73

  2,167·36

  Cheshire

  1,565·00

  1,557·60

  1,778·51

  Cleveland

  2,692·69

  2,607·12

  2,397·75

  Cornwall

  1,738·06

  1,939·37

  2,151·72

  Cumbria

  1,157·46

  1,683·89

  1,896·31

  Derbyshire

  1,695·26

  1,946·63

  1,136·33

  Devon

  1,406·82

  2,084·54

  2,344·58

  Dorset

  1,116·53

  1,381·95

  2,131·91

  Durham

  1,256·09

  995·82

  1,534·56

  East Sussex

  1,429·15

  1,413·88

  1,492·86

  Essex

  1,284·00

  1,856·63

  1,801·44

  Gloucestershire

  1,455·21

  1,432·76

  1,577·30

  Hampshire

  1,369·60

  1,968·41

  2,128·79

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,217·01

  1,675·18

  1,681·55

  Hertfordshire

  2,032·08

  1,818·89

  2,527·02

  Humberside

  1,693·40

  2,702·93

  2,043·30

  Isle of Wight

  1,877·62

  2,022·12

  1,615·88

  Kent

  1,378·91

  1,487·92

  1,531·43

  Lancashire

  1,323·08

  2,268·89

  2,274·74

  Leicestershire

  1,334·25

  1,482·11

  1,617·96

  Lincolnshire

  1,624·54

  1,511·14

  1,665·92

  Norfolk

  1,198·40

  1,403·72

  1,445·95

  Northamptonshire

  1,618·96

  1,840·66

  1,394·87

  Northumberland

  1,758·53

  2,389·38

  2,439·45

  North Yorkshire

  1,613·38

  2—

  1,738·89

  Nottinghamshire

  1,671·07

  2,132·44

  1,991·18

  Oxfordshire

  1,819·94

  1,837·76

  2,068·32

  Shropshire

  1,153·74

  1,473·40

  1,485·56

  Somerset

  1,377·05

  1,824·69

  1,694·06

  Staffordshire

  1,276·56

  1,691·14

  1,551·24

  Suffolk

  1,144·44

  2—

  1,719·08

  Surrey

  1,475·67

  1,865·34

  1,933·84

  Warwickshire

  1,859·02

  2,443·09

  1,859·82

  West Sussex

  1,730·61

  1,701·31

  1,947·39

  Wiltshire

  1,518·47

  1,659·21

  2—

  14

  1 Latest year for which figures are available.

  2 Information not available.

  Figures are for expenditure on books unless stated:

  3 Includes newspapers, periodicals, sound recordings and "other".

  4 Includes newspapers, periodicals, sound recordings, video recordings bookbinding and "other".

  5 Includes newspapers, periodicals and bookbinding.

  6 Includes newspapers and periodicals.

  7 Includes newspapers, periodicals, sound recordings, video recordings and "other".

  8 Includes video recordings.

  Scheduled Monuments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to prohibit the ploughing of scheduled monuments.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The present position is that the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1981 gives general permission for normal ploughing on scheduled sites which were under the plough during the five years up to October 1981. Specific consent is required for deep ploughing and for the ploughing, of previously uncultivated sites. Certain aspects of the order are currently being reviewed, but I see no case for any general prohibition. New trends in agricultural practices can offer new opportunities to protect archaeological sites and monuments through co-operation with the farming community.

EDUCATION

  School Places
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out for(a) each education authority in England and (b) in total (i) the number of available places in primary and secondary schools, respectively, (ii) the total number of children on the school rolls and (iii) the number of places considered appropriate.

  Mr. Forth
  It is estimated that there were some 4·5 million primary school places and some 3·5 million secondary school places in England in 1991. Information on the number of places available in each local education authority is not available. The numbers of pupils being taught in maintained primary and secondary schools in each LEA in England in January 1991 are shown in the table. It is for LEAs in the first place to decide on the number of school places considered appropriate, in the light of local need.

  Pupils in Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools (including Self Governing State Schools (GM) in each Local Education Authority in England January 1991

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  City

  209

  0

  Camden

  9,936

  9,891

  Greenwich

  20,473

  13,470

  Hackney

  15,981

  7,592

  Hammersmith

  8,649

  6,050

  Islington

  14,130

  7,223

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,091

  3,539

  Lambeth

  18,665

  5,955

  Lewisham

  19,630

  11,428

  Southwark

  19,853

  9,487

  Tower Hamlets

  18,978

  10,751

  15

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Wandsworth

  16,397

  9,724

  Westminster

  8,925

  7,043

  Barking

  14,832

  8,673

  Barnet

  23,026

  17,953

  Bexley

  17,800

  14,048

  Brent

  21,560

  10,941

  Bromley

  19,449

  15,414

  Croydon

  24,821

  15,420

  Ealing

  27,291

  11,028

  Enfield

  22,224

  15,958

  Haringey

  17,937

  8,478

  Harrow

  18,834

  7,819

  Havering

  19,317

  15,626

  Hillingdon

  19,681

  12,911

  Hounslow

  19,122

  12,743

  Kingston upon Thames

  10,031

  7,135

  Merton

  14,317

  7,022

  Newham

  23,724

  13,040

  Redbridge

  17,769

  13,484

  Richmond upon Thames

  10,340

  6,977

  Sutton

  12,234

  10,365

  Waltham Forest

  18,938

  11,780

  Birmingham

  106,293

  62,589

  Coventry

  28,941

  17,855

  Dudley

  29,270

  15,727

  Sandwell

  30,926

  18,181

  Solihull

  18,926

  13,774

  Walsall

  27,593

  18,234

  Wolverhampton

  24,188

  15,264

  Knowsley

  17,992

  8,941

  Liverpool

  49,575

  28,765

  St. Helens

  17,428

  12,416

  Sefton

  26,671

  18,534

  Wirral

  30,770

  20,800

  Bolton

  26,781

  17,103

  Bury

  16,238

  10,163

  Manchester

  45,405

  23,957

  Oldham

  23,936

  15,304

  Rochdale

  21,082

  12,437

  Salford

  22,229

  12,879

  Stockport

  24,385

  17,333

  Tameside

  22,079

  13,857

  Trafford

  19,61 07

  10,738 1

  Wigan

  29,620

  20,548

  Barnsley

  21,161

  12,123

  Doncaster

  28,912

  20,301

  Rotherham

  24,385

  17,539

  Sheffield

  45,005

  23,845

  Bradford

  39,238

  43,895

  Calderdale

  19,165

  12,519

  Kirklees

  35,217

  26,035

  Leeds

  54,646

  51,079

  Wakefield

  28,215

  20,627

  Gateshead

  18,038

  11,529

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  22,016

  16,501

  North Tyneside

  16,156

  14,729

  South Tyneside

  15,322

  8,798

  Sunderland

  29,612

  18,245

  Isles of Scilly

  173

  112

  Avon

  76,506

  52,513

  Bedfordshire

  40,100

  43,611

  Berkshire

  59,512

  44,480

  Buckinghamshire

  60,779

  33,306

  Cambridgeshire

  57,327

  39,999

  Cheshire

  87,760

  63,195

  Cleveland

  64,041

  38,784

  Cornwall

  39,300

  28,416

  Cumbria

  42,171

  30,370

  Derbyshire

  82,694

  55,570

  Devon

  76,362

  55,146

  Dorset

  43,443

  38,296

  Durham

  54,872

  36,386

  East Sussex

  48,066

  33,689

  Essex

  120,692

  96,169

  Gloucestershire

  41,554

  31,658

  Hampshire

  126,021

  82,259

  Hereford and Worcester

  47,161

  46,963

  Hertfordshire

  80,553

  64,729

  16

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Humberside

  81,187

  57,522

  Isle of Wight

  6,948

  10,130

  Kent

  121,870

  96,596

  Lancashire

  125,983

  82,332

  Leicestershire

  78,677

  59,180

  Lincolnshire

  47,393

  35,321

  Norfolk

  60,768

  39,690

  North Yorkshire

  56,133

  42,732

  Northamptonshire

  49,023

  43,420

  Northumberland

  20,579

  28,184

  Nottinghamshire

  89,045

  62,042

  Oxfordshire

  39,115

  32,450

  Shropshire

  34,275

  26,538

  Somerset

  33,942

  27,418

  Staffordshire

  89,902

  67,214

  Suffolk

  42,075

  46,330

  Surrey

  74,802

  42,172

  Warwickshire

  44,758

  24,511

  West Sussex

  49,992

  39,206

  Wiltshire

  44,237

  32,524

  England

  4,047,478

  2,853,288

  Under-eights (Teachers)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the training of teachers for the under-eights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is considering reforms to the training of primary teachers, including possible changes to the training of teachers specialising in the early years of primary education. He intends that these reforms should be introduced in September 1994. Proposals will be issued for public consultation in a few weeks' time.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current occupations of the members of the National Curriculum Council.

  Mr. Forth
  The current occupations of the members of the National Curriculum Council are as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. DAVID PASCALL: Manager, BP Exploration Control and Business Simplification Programmes.

  Members

  Mr. JOHN BURN:Headteacher, Longbenton Community High School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  Mrs. PENNY COOPER: Headteacher, The William Brookes School, Much Wenlock, Shropshire.

  Mr. BRIAN HUTCHINSON: Community Affairs Manager, BAT Industries plc.

  Mrs. ANN LOCKE: Lecturer in Child Language Pathology and Education, University of Sheffield.

  MISS BRENDA LOFTHOUSE: Headteacher, All Saints Church of England Primary School, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire.

  Mr. JOHN MCINTOSH: Headmaster of the London Oratory School.

  Mr. GRAHAM MACKENZIE: Chief Executive, United Engineering Steels (Holdings) Ltd.

  Dr. JOHN MARKS: Director, Educational Research Centre, London. Also a member of the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  PROFESSOR DAVID REGAN: Professor of Local Government, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Nottingham.

  PROFESSOR ALAN SMITHERS: Director, Centre for Education and Employment Research, University of Manchester.

  Dr. ROGER VAUGHAN: Chairman and Chief Executive, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders.

  17

  Mr. ANTHONY WATES: Headteacher, Tavistock County Primary School, Tavistock, Devon.

  Mrs. JENNIFER WISKER: Chief Education Officer, Somerset LEA.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the composition of the National Curriculum Council, broken down by the profession or group which each member of the council represents; and if he will state for the teacher members their teaching experience and, if relevant, the age group of the schools in which they currently teach.

  Mr. Forth
  The members of the National Curriculum Council are selected as individuals rather than as representatives of professions or groups. The professions of the current members are as follows: five are head teachers of primary or secondary schools, four work in further and higher education, four are industrialists, and one is the chief education officer of an LEA. The Department holds the following information on the five members who are head teachers:Mr. JOHN BURN: Headteacher since 1980 of Longbenton Community High School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, an 11–18 school. He is a chemistry graduate who has taught in comprehensive schools for 26 years and has been a Head of Department and Deputy Headteacher. He was also a Senior Lecturer in science for 4 years in a teacher training college. He is a member of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
  Mrs. PENNY COOPER: Headteacher since 1988 at The William Brookes sch000l, Much Wenlock, Shropshire, an 11–18 school. Mrs. Cooper was a Modern Language teacher at a number of mixed comprehensive schools in London and Shropshire and prior to her current appointment she was a Senior Teacher at Ludlow CE School, Shropshire, with rsponsibility for curriculum and professional development.
  MISS BRENDA LOFTHOUSE: Headteacher, All Saints Church of England Primary school, Wellinborough, Northamptonshire, a 5–11 school. Miss Lofthouse started teaching in a village primary school in Bedfordshire in 1971. She has also taught in a special school, a junior and a primary school in Northamptonshire and became a Deputy Headteacher in 1976.
  Mr. JOHN MCINTOSH: Headmaster of the London Oratory School—an 11–18 grant maintained school. Previously an Assistant Master and Deputy Headmaster at the same school.
  Mr. ANTHONY WATES: Headteacher, Tavistock County Primary School, Tavistock, Devon, a 5–11 school. Mr. Wates has taught in primary schools in Kent, Plymouth and Singapore for the Service Children's Education Authority. Prior to his current appointment he was headteacher of St. Peter's Church of England Primary School, Plymouth.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the funding allocated by his Department to the Office for Standards in Education to cover special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  The following sums have been transferred to Ofsted to cover programme and running cost expenditure for all its activities for the next three financial years, including establishing and running the new inspection system for schools.
  18

  Financial year

  £ million

  1993–94

  56

  1994–95

  98

  1995–96

  133

  Within the total sums made available, it is a matter for Professor Sutherland to plan what resources are needed to discharge his statutory duties to arrange inspections and report on special educational needs.

  Deaf Awareness Week
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the extension of the Deaf Awareness Week recently held in Liverpool schools; what plans he has to encourage the extension of this scheme to other local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about Liverpool schools' participation in the extension of Deaf Awareness Week. I am sure that other local education authorities will have noted this promotion of deaf culture and signing and that this will inform their decisions about how best to make appropriate provision for children with impaired hearing.

  Rugby Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to give a decision on the formation of a joint sixth form for the Harris Church of England school and the Bishop Wulstan school in Rugby.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects to reach his decision on the proposal in the near future.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of graduates who are unemployed and are unable to repay, or are having difficulties repaying, student loans; and what provisions are made for this.

  Mr. Boswell
  Figures are not available on the number of graduates who are deferring repayment of student loans specifically because of unemployment. The Student Loans Company's annual report 1992 records a total of 16,746 borrowers who had deferred repayments in the last academic year. Any borrower whose gross income, for whatever reason, does not exceed 85 per cent. of national average earnings can defer repayments for a year at a time. These deferment provisions mean that borrowers are under no obligation to repay loans until their income reaches a level where they should be able to afford to do so.

  Under-fives
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a league table indicating public education provision for under-fives in Europe.

  Mr. Forth
  The centrally available information given in the table shows that public and private participation rates combined as separate participation rates are not available. There are also some differences between countries in the
  19
  distinction drawn between education and day care. If the United Kingdom figure is broadened to include nursery schools, nursery classes, infant classes, pre-school play groups and group day care, the participation rate of three and four-year-olds rises to over 90 per cent.

  Proportion of the age group in education (per cent.)

  1989 Ages1 3 to 4

  Belgium2

  96

  Finland2

  18

  France

  99

  Germany

  52

  Ireland

  27

  Italy (estimated)2

  76

  Netherlands

  49

  Norway

  40

  Spain

  53

  Sweden

  42

  United Kingdom

  46(50)3

  1 Excluding two year olds in nursery education.

  2 1988 data.

  3 1991 data.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what studies he has commissioned on indefinite exclusions of pupils from maintained and grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Li Ka Shing
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the formal or contractual arrangements which exist between(a) Mr. Li Ka Shing and (b) Norinco and United Kingdom Government agencies or bodies, including those in Hong Kong.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Prerogative Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which Ministers have exercised prerogative powers in the last 18 months; and how this was reported to Parliament in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  In the main, specific functions are conferred on Ministers by Act of Parliament. Statute now covers much of the ground which in earlier times was covered by prerogative powers. However, the common law still recognises some prerogative powers as residing in the Crown and some of these are, by convention, exercisable by Ministers. Examples of areas where the prerogative still plays a part are foreign affairs, defence and the regulation of the civil service. Particular examples of the exercise of prerogative power are the issue of a passport or the grant of a pardon or reprieve under the prerogative of mercy. It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers. The relationship between statutory powers and prerogative powers can be very complex and it would be impracticable, and would lead to disproportionate cost, to list all the occasions when action was taken under the prerogative.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for the work and advice leading up to the adoption of the European charter for regional or minority languages by the Committee of Minorities.

  The Prime Minister
  The Welsh Office took the lead in the discussions on the text of the charter, but consulted all other Departments with an interest.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and Departments are responsible for(a) policy in regard to the provision of secure places for young people in England and Wales and (b) providing such places and the relevant finances.

  The Prime Minister
  Policy on the provision of secure accommodation in England and Wales, and the allocation of capital grants for such projects, are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

  Local authorities are responsible for providing secure accommodation and for meeting the running costs.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister when the secure places for young people announced in 1991 will be available.

  The Prime Minister
  The provision of secure accommodation is the responsibility of local authorities. The Government remain committed to their target of abolishing the practice of remanding juveniles to prison by 1995–96 and will provide the necessary capital resources to achieve this.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to make St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales.

  Attorney-General
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral statement by the Attorney-General of 22 February,Official Report, cloumn 736, whether the Attorney-General attended the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.

  The Prime Minister
  The Attorney-General did not attend the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Incitement to Murder
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy of prosecutions for incitement to murder.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown prosecution service would need to be satisfied in such cases that the available
  21
  evidence was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. If justified on evidential grounds a prosecution would normally be required in the public interest.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will obtain for his library a copy of a book the title of which has been given to him.

  The Attorney-General
  My Department has a copy of the book.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the way in which evidence is considered by the Crown prosecution service when it is deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution.

  The Solicitor-General
  The evidential requirement is that there should be sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence has been committed by an identifiable person and the evidence provides a realistic prospect of a conviction.

  Lawyers (Government Service)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what role his Department has in advising on the qualifications required of lawyers in Government service.

  The Attorney-General
  The lawyers management unit in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, for which I have ministerial responsibility, has a co-ordinating role in advising the Civil Service Commissioners, and the employing Departments, on any questions relating to the qualifications requried by Government lawyers in England and Wales.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poverty
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the World bank's elimination of poverty strategy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The executive directors of the World bank reviewed implementation of the bank's poverty reduction strategy on 26 January and decided that a progress report should be published annually.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991–92, sub-Saharan African countries received over £334 million in bilateral aid. This excludes certain other flows including those from the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to grant a 4 per cent. annual increase in development aid to sub-Saharan Africa in each year for the next decade.
  22
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 February 1993, at column 664.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that funds allocated to long-term developments in sub-Saharan Africa are not diverted for projects in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy is to keep separate our aid programme to developing countries and our assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Funds allocated to long-term development projects in sub-Saharan Africa are not diverted for projects in central and eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Minister for Overseas Development has made to the International Development Association's 10th replenishment on its 1994 to 1996 budget concerning its annual aid targets for sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Agreement was reached on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association in December 1992. Donors agreed that between 45 and 50 per cent. of the resources should be allocated to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, subject to performance and in accordance with the other objectives of the replenishment.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had with the Kenyan Government about future bilateral and multilateral aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development confirmed to President Moi and his Ministers that while Britain would continue with a substantial bilateral development programme for Kenya, new balance of payments assistance would be considered only once the Kenyan Government had reached agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on the economic reform programme. They noted that discussions were continuing between the Kenyan authorities and the World bank and that the IMF were due to visit towards the end of February. Lady Chalker also announced new humanitarian assistance worth £750,000 to help drought-affected Kenyans in Turkana district.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid to Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bilateral aid to Kenya in 1991–92 was £29 million.

  Hand Tools
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the Government have given to provide hand tools to third-world countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 17 February at column 229.

  Emergency Aid
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that any emergency aid granted to developing countries by the Overseas Development Administration is paid over and above normal development aid commitments made by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The aid programme to developing countries is intended to provide both long-term development assistance and emergency humanitarian aid. The programme is managed to ensure that the emergency aid we provide is not at the expense of long-term development aid commitments.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries receiving bilateral assistance from the United Kingdom are currently implementing World bank and/or IMF structural adjustment programs; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: Thirty-five countries which are in receipt of bilateral assistance from the United Kingdom also received support during 1992 from the IMF and/or the World bank for structural adjustment programmes. The countries are as follows:

  Morocco

  Egypt

  Algeria

  Jordan

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Ghana

  Sierra Leone

  The Gambia

  Senegal

  Zimbabwe

  Zambia

  Tanzania

  Mozambique

  Kenya

  Uganda

  Malawi

  Lesotho

  Ethiopia

  India

  Pakistan

  Bangladesh

  Nepal

  Sri Lanka

  Philippines

  Brazil

  Columbia

  Bolivia

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Nicaragua

  Jamaica

  Poland

  Hungary

  Czech and Slovak Federal Republic

  Bulgaria

  The countries listed are those where our bilateral assistance programme exceeded £250,000 in 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has concerning the number of deaths in the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Europe which relates to the security situation in Northern Ireland during(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 to date.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Deaths arising from security situation in Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  Republic of Ireland

  Mainland Europe

  1992

  6

  —

  —

  11993

  —

  —

  —

  1 As at 22 February 1993.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed in the dairy industry in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Estimates of the numbers who worked(a) on dairy farms and (b) in the processing and marketing of milk and dairy products are as follows:

  Year

  On-farm

  Off-farm

  1983

  17,575

  5,425

  1984

  17,650

  5,350

  1985

  17,300

  5,200

  1986

  16,850

  5,175

  1987

  16,300

  5,125

  1988

  16,050

  5,100

  1989

  15,975

  4,850

  1990

  15,925

  4,350

  1991

  15,600

  4,250

  1992

  15,175

  4,300

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Written Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the five highest costs attributed for answering individual written parliamentary questions since 1979 for which costs have already been calculated.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December 1991, at columns 22–25; to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 18 January 1990, at columns 382–89; to my then hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, Mr. Bennett, on 25 May 1989, at columns 695–719; to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 6 May 1988, at columns 628–44; to my then hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, Mr. Fallon, on 11 May 1987, at columns 4–14.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to answer the question of 20 January from the hon. ' Member for Newport, West on the costs attributed for answering parliamentary questions.
  25
  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Universities (Business Names)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to the answer of 15 February by the Secretary of State for Education,Official Report, column 51, what action the Privy Council takes over applications to register a business name containing the word university.

  Mr. Newton
  Since June 1992, the Privy Council has been specified as the relevant body under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 whose consent is required to the use of the word "university" in a business name. In considering applications for consent, it is the practice to seek the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personal equity plans have been taken out in each of the last three years; and what was the cost to the Exchequer of the associated tax reliefs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is as follows:

  Number of plans taken out (thousands)

  Estimated total cost of income tax relief (£ million)

  General

  Single company

  1 1989

  580

  —

  20

  1990–91

  500

  —

  45

  2 1991–92

  640

  110

  90

  1 And first quarter of 1990.

  2 Provisional.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of providing mortgage interest tax relief for each year since 1979 inclusive for(a) Scotland, (b) Wales, (c) England, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) each English region and (f) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The information is given in my reply to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 25 February 1993, Official Report, col. 686.

SCOTLAND

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, column 435, what is his Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.
  26
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: Estimated outturn for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 is £3.1 million. Expenditure provision for 1993–94 is LH million.

DEFENCE

  Libya (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information Her Majesty's Government have concerning the construction by Libya of a copy of the Rabta Pharma-150 chemical weapons plant in Tarbunah, near Tripoli.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government believe that Libya is constructing a chemical weapons factory at Tarhunah, some 40 miles from Tripoli which, when completed, may be capable of producing both mustard and nerve agents. The United Kingdom is actively involved, with its Australia group partners, in seeking to prevent supplies to Libya's chemical weapons programme.

  Bullying
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the procedures for dealing with bullying in the Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The current procedures are well established and all service personnel are aware that behaviour of this kind will not be tolerated. Any allegation or complaint of bullying or suspected bullying brought to the attention of a commanding officer is investigated. Depending on the strength of the evidence, disciplinary action will be taken against the alleged offenders.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what initiatives were taken in the Council of Ministers under Britain's presidency of the European Community to address problems arising from reductions in defence expenditure.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such initiatives were taken in the Council of Ministers.

  Arabian Peninsula
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department has had with Gulf leaders in preparation for expansion of the peninsula shield for the defence of the Arabian peninsula.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministers and officials of the Ministry of Defence maintain regular contact with Gulf leaders and their staffs. During these contacts we have encouraged the Gulf Co-operation Council states to develop their arrangements for a collective security force.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and ranks of the British land forces that were sent to Kuwait in January during the Iraq-coalition confrontation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No members of the British land forces were sent to Kuwait in January 1993.

  Idex 93 Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department had in the preparation for the Idex 93 exhibition in Abu Dhabi opening on 15 February; and what positions were held by staff of his Department who will be present for the event.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 1 February 1993,Official Report column 33.

  I made a ministerial visit to this important exhibition in order to support the participating British companies and to discuss export sales with the Government of the United Arab Emirates. A number of my officials also attended for the same purpose.

  Redundancies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel currently serving in(a) Bosnia and (b) Northern Ireland have been issued with compulsory redundancy notices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Eight Army officers currently serving in the former Yugoslavia and 36 Army officers currently serving in Northern Ireland were notified on 25 February that they had been selected for compulsory redundancy. Personnel selected for compulsory redundancy will leave the Army by 1 March 1994 and those serving overseas may apply to spend their last six months in the United Kingdom. No shore-based naval personnel, or RAF personnel, currently serving in the former Yugoslavia or Northern Ireland have been selected for compulsory redundancy.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel currently serving in(a) Bosnia and (b) Northern Ireland have requested voluntary redundancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of service personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland who have applied for voluntary redundancy are as follows:

  Service

  Former Yugoslavia

  Northern Ireland

  Royal Navy1

  Officers

  1

  2

  Ratings

  22

  26

  Army3

  Officers

  9

  14

  Soldiers

  80

  387

  RAF

  Officers

  —

  —

  Airmen/women

  —

  —

  1 Figures relate to shore-based personnel only.

  2 Applications unsuccessful.

  3 Figures provided relate to successful applications. Due to the frequency of individual and unit moves, it is not possible to identify by theatre those who unsuccessfully applied for redundancy last autumn.

HEALTH

  Activity Increases
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many studies her Department has commissioned concerning the cost-effectiveness of increases in activity achieved in the period 1990–93; and what conclusions she has drawn.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Individual regions may have commissioned their own research, but this information is not collected centrally.

  Food (Chemicals)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish information submitted to her Department's Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment by private companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The annual report of the Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity outlines the issues considered and the advice given to the Government. A copy is available in the Library.

  Primary Care
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 16 February,Official Report, columns 133–37, how much of the £170 million capital spending on primary care in London will be spent over each of the next six years.

  Mr. Sackville
  In all, there will be over £40 million extra for primary care in London in 1993–94. The balance between capital and revenue spending will be for local decision as plans for the London initiative zone develop. The pattern of capital funding over subsequent years will depend on the level of need identified and the resources available. The Government are committed to providing £170 million for capital investment in London's primary care over the next six years.

  Cancer Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration was given to including the electric field component of electromagnetic fields as a 26 parameter in the study being conducted under the direction of Dr. Ray Cartwright and Dr. David Grant for the United Kingdom co-ordinating centre for cancer research, established by her Department in April 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom co-ordinating committee for cancer research—UKCCCR—is entirely independent of the Government. However, I understand that exposure to electromagnetic fields is one of the hypotheses that the UKCCCR study is considering. The study is being conducted under the direction of Sir Richard Doll. The hon. Member may wish to write to the UKCCCR secretary at PO Box 123, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX for details.

  Community Treatment Orders
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to bring forward proposals for amending the Mental Health Act 1983, to allow for community treatment orders.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 13 January at column 731.

  Cycling
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department has taken to promote the benefits to health of cycling.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The promotion of physical activity is a major component of the national "Look After Your Heart"—LAYH—coronary prevention programme. LAYH has supported many local physical activity projects, including cycling events, but it is important to stress that cycling is only one of a range of physical activities beneficial to health, including walking.

  Following the "Health of the Nation" White Paper, we are setting up a task force to develop strategies for further encouragement of physical activity.

  Core Grants
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether regional and national organisations can apply for core grants under section 64 funding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes. A core grant may be awarded under the section 64 general scheme to assist with the central administrative costs of a national, or regional, voluntary organisation. Such a grant will not normally be awarded for more than a maximum of five years under revised arrangements for funding from April 1993, detailed in my letter of August 1992 to voluntary organisations.

  Applications are usually invited in the autumn for consideration for possible funding in the following financial year. A copy of the notes of guidance for 1993–94 setting out the detailed requirements, has been placed in the Library.

  London Health Services
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours were spent by Professor Tomlinson and his team on(a) site visits and (b) discussion in committee in connection with (i) University College hospital and Middlesex hospital and (ii) St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No record was kept of the time spent by Sir Bernard and his team on site visits or in committee discussion.

  Babies
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born by Caesarean section in hospitals in(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom during each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.
  30
  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated figures for England and Wales for the years 1973 to 1981 and for England for the years 1982 to 1985 and 1988–89 to 1990–91 are shown in the table. These figures related to deliveries and not to the number of babies born.

  There are no data available for the years 1986 to 1987–88, and the data prior to 1973 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Year

  Estimated number of deliveries

  Estimated number by Caesarian section

  Percentage by Caesarean section

  19731

  623,600

  32,760

  5·3

  19741

  602,360

  34,030

  5·6

  19751

  574,040

  34,620

  6·0

  19761

  560,710

  36,720

  6·5

  19771

  529,720

  39,130

  7·4

  19781

  553,290

  41,620

  7·5

  19791

  588,920

  49,830

  8·4

  19801

  604,100

  54,600

  9·0

  I9811

  574,670

  53,420

  9·3

  19821

  574,620

  58,110

  10·1

  I9831

  578,300

  58,370

  10·1

  19841

  586,110

  59,140

  10·1

  19851

  605,120

  63,270

  10·5

  1988–892

  642,000

  64,000

  10·0

  1989–902

  643,000

  77,000

  12·0

  1990–912

  660,000

  86,000

  130

  Source:

  1 Hospital In-Patient Enquiry.

  2 Hospital Episode Statistics (These are broad estimates based on incomplete data, and are rounded to the nearest 1,000).

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths per thousand live births in each regional and district health authority area in(a) 1982, (b) 1987 and (c)

  Mr. Sackville
  The infant mortality rate—deaths under one year per 1,000 live-births—for each regional and district health authority for 1982 and 1987 are listed in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publications "Local authority vital statistics 1982" and "Key population and Vital Statistics 1987" series VS Nos. 9 and 14 respectively; copies of which are available in the Library. The information requested for 1992 is not yet available.

  Selected Drugs List
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects the advisory committee on NHS drugs to make its recommendations in relation to the possible extension of the selected drugs list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that at its meeting earlier this month the advisory committee on national health service drugs decided to set up sub-groups to undertake preliminary consideration of the range of drugs within each of the therapeutic categories to which the provisions of the selected list scheme are being extended. I also understand that the committee decided the order in which it would then itself consider drugs in the new categories, but that it has not set dates for the reviews of particular categories.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was health expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product, discounting capital receipts and associated income, for the years 1979 to 1993, inclusive.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table.

  United Kingdom NHS expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Year

  Net1 expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1978–79

  4·6

  1979–80

  4·5

  1980–81

  5·1

  1981–82

  5·3

  1982–83

  5·2

  1983–84

  5·1

  1984–85

  5·1

  1985–86

  4·9

  1986–87

  4·9

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  4·8

  1989–90

  4·8

  1990–91

  5·0

  1991–92

  5·4

  21992–93

  5·8

  1 Excludes all income from charges and receipts.

  2 Estimate.

  Childless Couples
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments are available for the number of childless and infertile couples in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to make a reliable assessment from the information held centrally. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of small residential care homes eligible for registration after April.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. Registration under the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 is a matter for local authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the resourcing implications for local authorities of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  The fees payable to local authorities by those running small homes are intended to meet authorities' registration costs under the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for(a) the North Worcestershire health authority and (b) Highfield hospital the number of (i) hospital beds and (ii) acute hospital beds in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. The figures refer to North Worcestershire district health authority, as the health authority responsible for the Highfield hospital.

  Average daily number of available beds, North Worcestershire 1989–90 to 1991–92

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Total

  724

  655

  614

  Acute

  351

  346

  341

  General and acute

  445

  433

  436

  Kidderminster and District

  Total

  836

  803

  730

  Acute

  219

  221

  205

  General and acute

  357

  357

  344

  Highfield Hospital

  Total

  63

  61

  n/a

  Acute

  63

  61

  n/a

  General and acute

  63

  61

  n/a

  Alexandra Hospital

  Total

  390

  386

  n/a

  Acute

  274

  271

  n/a

  General and acute

  318

  315

  n/a

  Bromsgrove and Redditch acute unit (Highfield Hospital and Alexandra Hospital

  Total

  453

  446

  409

  Acute

  337

  332

  328

  General and acute

  381

  376

  372

  n/a = not available.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fund-holding practices, in each region, had exhausted their budget allocation for non-urgent hospital treatment by 1 February.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Road Building (Recycled Materials)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the use of recycled materials in road construction in other European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  We do not keep detailed statistics about the use of recycled materials in road construction in other European countries. However, the amount used is known to vary depending on the availability of indigenous materials and land for disposal of waste materials. From our involvement in the preparation of European standards for highways, we are aware of the likely inclusion of requirements for the use of recycled materials.

TRANSPORT

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest state of negotiations necessary to secure his approval to the commencement of work on the London Underground Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 8 February.

  Minibuses
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the differences between safety regulations applying to cars and those applying to minibuses.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 lay down the requirements for the construction of all vehicles. Specific requirements for the construction and use of minibuses include provisions on the number of doors and on their operation and access, as well as on the size of seats. There are also other minor requirements on such things as the lighting of steps to ensure passenger safety. Minibuses must also carry a first aid kit and fire extinguisher.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will fund research on the kinds of injuries inflicted on children in coach and minibus accidents.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have no plans to conduct such research at present. Statistics indicate that injuries to children travelling in minibuses represent less than 0·01 per cent. of all road casualties. We believe, therefore, that our resources would be better targeted on areas where potential benefits, including those to children, are greater.

  Drink Driving
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the national budget for the 1992 Christmas drink and drive campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The departmental budget for the 1992 Christmas drink drive campaign was £1·3 million. The bulk of this went into production and airing of a television commercial. Bus back, bus shelter and other posters were also produced for road safety officers and police who gave considerable support at a local level to the campaign.

  I am pleased with the way the campaign was received and believe it was very effective in reminding people of the Department's message that "Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives'. It thus contributed to reducing death and injury on the roads.

  Results of research commissioned by the Department are not yet available. However, a recent survey by one marketing magazine showed that the drink drive campaign was recognised by 83 per cent. of males under 35 years of age and by 92 per cent. of males between 35 and 44 years of age.

  Highway Authorities
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each local highway authority in England the bid for total capital expenditure for 1993–94 in their 1992 TPP—transport policies and plans—submission and the level of expenditure approved by the Government in each case.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The figures are given in the table.

  Transport Supplementary Grant Settlement 1993–94

  Authority

  Total Bid for Capital Expenditure £k

  Gross Approved Spending £k

  City of London

  4,430

  2,252

  Barking and Dagenham

  5,426

  2,805

  Barnet

  3,839

  1,476

  Bexley

  8,358

  6,758

  Brent

  5,889

  2,401

  Bromley

  8,520

  5,800

  Camden

  8,552

  4,372

  Croydon

  9,424

  6,574

  Ealing

  8,940

  3,990

  Enfield

  11,976

  6,713

  Greenwich

  3,525

  1,943

  Hackney

  8,151

  2,907

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8,859

  3,200

  Haringey

  7,607

  3.496

  Harrow

  15,603

  13,652

  Havering

  2,801

  1,389

  Hillingdon

  16,220

  13,099

  Hounslow

  10,470

  5,691

  Islington

  9,470

  2,595

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,299

  1,752

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,726

  2,773

  Lambeth

  4,088

  1,296

  Lewisham

  10,398

  8,643

  Merton

  4,564

  2,830

  Newham

  18,603

  10,347

  Redbridge

  6,728

  2,253

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,240

  1,288

  Southwark

  5,492

  5,140

  Sutton

  8,330

  2,733

  Tower Hamlets

  17,984

  9,050

  Waltham Forest

  4,304

  2,873

  Wandsworth

  12,738

  5,810

  Westminster

  12,833

  5,370

  Bolton

  7,544

  3,885

  Bury

  4,346

  1,985

  Manchester

  39,676

  27,080

  Oldham

  18,129

  8,867

  Rochdale

  3,500

  2,062

  Salford

  13,438

  3,589

  Stockport

  6,660

  4,639

  Tameside

  7,881

  3,349

  Trafford

  11,047

  5,276

  Wigan

  6,790

  1,798

  Knowsley

  25,431

  22,670

  Liverpool

  7,500

  4,779

  St. Helens

  8,797

  5,000

  Sefton

  5,629

  2,077

  Wirral

  6,737

  4,886

  Barnsley

  8,451

  5,035

  Doncaster

  11,363

  7,232

  Rotherham

  6,219

  3,408

  Sheffield

  52,921

  26,819

  Gateshead

  6,225

  2,637

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  11,953

  7,304

  North Tyneside

  3,459

  1,683

  South Tyneside

  3,737

  1,890

  Sunderland

  12,180

  5,287

  Birmingham

  53,162

  38,651

  Coventry

  16,444

  14,015

  Dudley

  14,644

  10,622

  Sandwell

  13,344

  5,719

  Solihull

  4,604

  3,732

  Walsall

  28,770

  22,579

  35

  Authority

  Total Bid for Capital Expenditure £k

  Gross Approved Spending £

  Wolverhampton

  26,087

  18,508

  Bradford

  13,189

  6,686

  Calderdale

  7,024

  2,886

  Kirklees

  18,228

  8,934

  Leeds

  39,557

  22,675

  Wakefield

  9,839

  4,319

  Avon

  33,124

  22,061

  Bedfordshire

  14,170

  7,673

  Berkshire

  28,680

  12,741

  Buckinghamshire

  12,298

  6,935

  Cambridgeshire

  25,709

  10,598

  Cheshire

  37,190

  25,909

  Cleveland

  20,432

  15,169

  Cornwall

  21,155

  11,678

  Cumbria

  16,398

  8,520

  Derbyshire

  16,233

  8,370

  Devon

  22,924

  13,158

  Dorset

  14,250

  7,897

  Durham

  19.499

  13,204

  East Sussex

  25,977

  10,481

  Essex

  29,147

  16,605

  Gloucestershire

  13,496

  9,101

  Hampshire

  49,751

  42,546

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,002

  5,326

  Hertfordshire

  22,472

  17,926

  Humberside

  25,145

  21,049

  Isle of Wight

  4,910

  3,259

  Kent

  102,584

  75,296

  Lancashire

  43,907

  22,083

  Leicestershire

  26,419

  12,340

  Lincolnshire

  22,538

  10,735

  Transport supplementary grant settlement 1993–94

  Major road schemes

  Local safely schemes

  Structural maintenance of carriageways of principal roads

  Assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance of bridges

  Authority

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  City of London

  1,293

  0

  104

  50

  0

  0

  1,910

  1,696

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,234

  734

  360

  290

  1,072

  867

  350

  288

  Barnet

  0

  0

  693

  390

  200

  140

  135

  130

  Bexley

  5,371

  4,921

  416

  300

  1,245

  847

  330

  297

  Brent

  745

  0

  920

  390

  410

  287

  980

  611

  Bromley

  3,821

  3,615

  305

  280

  600

  420

  300

  207

  Camden

  0

  0

  775

  400

  2,125

  1,566

  2,620

  1,634

  Croydon

  3,500

  3,500

  840

  490

  2,116

  1,480

  129

  90

  Ealing

  1,523

  1,523

  530

  290

  407

  285

  395

  392

  Enfield

  6,525

  3,510

  409

  370

  386

  270

  1,980

  1,235

  Greenwich

  895

  0

  336

  200

  731

  510

  405

  355

  Hackney

  1,334

  1,334

  543

  244

  1,908

  385

  163

  147

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  2,675

  500

  600

  420

  1,445

  1,000

  Haringey

  1,301

  371

  411

  300

  1,418

  1,270

  797

  688

  Harrow

  13,195

  12,310

  250

  230

  0

  0

  830

  747

  Havering

  0

  0

  430

  200

  129

  90

  767

  647

  Hillingdon

  10,384

  10,334

  1,650

  690

  240

  170

  650

  450

  Hounslow

  5,082

  4,305

  1,406

  244

  309

  215

  310

  270

  Islington

  0

  0

  2,195

  440

  1,050

  730

  310

  274

  Kensington and Chelsea

  974

  974

  350

  200

  0

  0

  331

  298

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,516

  856

  407

  210

  924

  563

  605

  425

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  177

  90

  1,075

  255

  1,030

  190

  Lewisham

  7,162

  7,162

  503

  390

  210

  50

  326

  200

  Merton

  1,932

  1,238

  460

  390

  200

  140

  152

  95

  Newham

  6,667

  5,324

  940

  350

  200

  140

  3307

  3237

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  681

  350

  1,092

  765

  357

  223

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  527

  290

  214

  111

  565

  546

  Southwark

  4,068

  4,068

  942

  390

  0

  0

  175

  125

  Sutton

  2,194

  577

  609

  330

  394

  170

  775

  620

  Tower Hamlets

  450

  0

  2,867

  380

  7,484

  6,995

  771

  491

  Waltham Forest

  1,228

  1,167

  985

  390

  590

  415

  150

  100

  Wandworth

  1,960

  610

  1,275

  790

  1,000

  503

  3,340

  2,943

  Westminster

  1,974

  974

  485

  380

  685

  480

  4,200

  2,665

  Bolton

  1,202

  1,002

  358

  184

  1,150

  1,015

  2,160

  1,098

  Bury

  20

  0

  250

  209

  900

  630

  600

  570

  Manchester

  25,010

  17,861

  1,000

  705

  1,900

  1,330

  3,499

  3,048

  36

  Authority

  Total Bid for Capital Expenditure £

  Gross Approved Spending £

  Norfolk

  38,396

  18,595

  Northamptonshire

  20,546

  10,537

  Northumberland

  14,904

  11,515

  North Yorkshire

  34,466

  23,183

  Nottinghamshire

  26,889

  12,883

  Oxfordshire

  21,026

  11,790

  Shropshire

  18,709

  6,933

  Somerset

  19,214

  14,235

  Staffordshire

  25,000

  15,164

  Suffolk

  32,548

  11,986

  Surrey

  49,910

  34,019

  Warwickshire

  10,751

  5,539

  West Sussex

  22,284

  8,986

  Wiltshire

  10,119

  4,309

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each local highway authority in England the bids for 1993–94 made in their 1992 TPP submission for transport supplementary grant on(a) major road schemes, (b) minor works on local safety schemes, (c) structural maintenance on roads and (d) structural maintenance on bridges, and the grant awarded in each of those areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The figures are given in the table. Transport supplementary grant is a block grant payable at a rate of 50 per cent. of an authority's total accepted expenditure.
  37

  Major road schemes

  Local safety schemes

  Structural maintenance of carriageways of principal roads

  Assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance of bridges

  Authority

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousand's

  Bid £ thousands

  Accepted £ thousands

  Oldham

  5,053

  3,855

  689

  394

  995

  775

  3,495

  2,806

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  250

  220

  500

  315

  1,000

  923

  Salford

  8,377

  47

  903

  584

  1,333

  940

  815

  765

  Stockport

  1,385

  1,385

  330

  186

  550

  350

  2,515

  2,289

  Tameside

  1,250

  735

  300

  244

  1,845

  1,285

  599

  373

  Trafford

  4,920

  4,010

  325

  205

  419

  290

  164

  158

  Wigan

  1,250

  320

  415

  130

  579

  370

  500

  384

  Knowsley

  20,550

  20,400

  436

  274

  950

  860

  464

  386

  Liverpool

  2,450

  1,700

  1,000

  320

  1,500

  1,500

  650

  555

  St. Helens

  7,373

  4,157

  61

  61

  227

  160

  250

  192

  Sefton

  815

  0

  310

  259

  780

  550

  775

  598

  Wirral

  2,095

  2,095

  570

  464

  510

  360

  1,494

  1,349

  Barnsley

  3,805

  3,345

  708

  400

  800

  565

  565

  469

  Doncaster

  5,195

  2,915

  740

  420

  1,793

  1,421

  1,662

  1,578

  Rotherham

  3,023

  2,323

  536

  99

  617

  522

  110

  85

  Sheffield

  17,360

  17,360

  700

  400

  3,260

  2,711

  4,346

  3,941

  Gateshead

  1,652

  1,300

  477

  300

  275

  275

  363

  273

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,158

  5,623

  500

  260

  1,791

  736

  439

  300

  North Tyneside

  300

  0

  451

  50

  1,200

  840

  608

  340

  South Tyneside

  853

  823

  340

  210

  549

  385

  525

  291

  Sunderland

  3,561

  1,806

  1,650

  520

  2,600

  2,006

  688

  440

  Birmingham

  32,501

  29,372

  1,500

  995

  6,000

  4,392

  3,000

  2,119

  Coventry

  11,966

  11,614

  545

  350

  1,181

  825

  861

  734

  Dudley

  9,960

  6,972

  600

  295

  2,000

  1,400

  1,174

  588

  Sandwell

  4,442

  0

  1,259

  345

  2,496

  1,740

  3,439

  2,656

  Solihull

  3,070

  2,990

  472

  335

  160

  120

  270

  194

  Walsall

  19,931

  19,531

  350

  200

  1,100

  770

  2,578

  1,500

  Wolverhampton

  14,801

  13,209

  401

  250

  1,250

  880

  3,407

  2,023

  Bradford

  3,552

  1,843

  1,270

  500

  3,000

  2,100

  1,500

  945

  Calderdale

  2,934

  0

  458

  299

  1,717

  1,277

  1,294

  904

  Kirklees

  1,199

  1,143

  1,001

  700

  4,040

  3,510

  2,075

  1,294

  Leeds

  13,100

  8,932

  1,560

  670

  8,320

  6,086

  3,987

  3,581

  Wakefield

  330

  0

  1,212

  564

  2,530

  1,686

  1,361

  1,209

  Avon

  18,764

  14,538

  1,611

  591

  3,745

  2,470

  2,078

  1,819

  Bedfordshire

  6,799

  735

  1,700

  473

  1,210

  1,210

  2,282

  2,150

  Berkshire

  18,925

  7,129

  1,958

  600

  3,325

  2,150

  1,448

  1,125

  Buckinghamshire

  2,866

  1,100

  636

  563

  2,745

  2,190

  769

  611

  Cambridgeshire

  11,605

  2,247

  4,032

  1,534

  3,513

  2,555

  3,586

  2,474

  Cheshire

  17,695

  13,995

  600

  496

  10,600

  7,520

  2,925

  2,720

  Cleveland

  11,890

  10,961

  717

  400

  2,485

  1,940

  1,260

  1,119

  Cornwall

  7,794

  5,889

  796

  390

  3,342

  2,340

  2,257

  1,700

  Cumbria

  4,297

  2,777

  900

  820

  3,000

  2,100

  2,500

  1,522

  Derbyshire

  4,300

  4,300

  1,100

  330

  2,590

  1,810

  1,530

  1,276

  Devon

  9,943

  4,347

  1,362

  830

  6,510

  4,040

  2,097

  1,500

  Dorset

  5,595

  3,017

  1,172

  640

  2,000

  1,295

  1,100

  850

  Durham

  9,746

  9,510

  500

  270

  2,272

  1,255

  1,600

  1,200

  East Sussex

  12,704

  4,579

  740

  505

  3,178

  1,963

  1,940

  1,776

  Essex

  13,741

  8,566

  2,623

  1,478

  3,603

  2,588

  2,594

  1,729

  Gloucestershire

  7,443

  5,384

  1,693

  477

  2,004

  1,500

  803

  700

  Hampshire

  34,974

  31,044

  1,708

  1,120

  7,620

  4,985

  2,133

  1,225

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,994

  1,306

  1,226

  355

  2,900

  2,030

  1,031

  685

  Hertfordshire

  12,240

  11,240

  2,150

  1,119

  4,100

  2,870

  2,490

  2,045

  Humberside

  10,897

  10,403

  936

  650

  5,218

  3,856

  2,400

  1,961

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  250

  220

  750

  600

  300

  187

  Kent

  65,071

  54,681

  6,670

  1,045

  12,210

  7,879

  2,200

  1,701

  Lancashire

  20,879

  9,956

  1,711

  1,108

  3,196

  2,160

  8,466

  5,873

  Leicestershire

  11,628

  6,714

  1,343

  609

  2,455

  1,915

  1,224

  896

  Lincolnshire

  9,811

  3,810

  2,748

  441

  2,313

  2,027

  2,900

  2,207

  Norfolk

  18,913

  4,282

  2,946

  790

  5,438

  3,542

  5,623

  4,786

  Northamptonshire

  7,838

  3,179

  2,223

  890

  5,570

  3,800

  1,893

  1,394

  Northumberland

  4,224

  3,749

  750

  460

  3,000

  2,210

  5,150

  4,480

  North Yorkshire

  15,947

  12,664

  1,276

  700

  6,539

  4,575

  3,686

  2,875

  Nottinghamshire

  5,251

  3,738

  1,049

  773

  5,339

  3,530

  2,882

  2,101

  Oxfordshire

  7,016

  7,016

  4,990

  503

  2,172

  1,833

  1,310

  1,115

  Shropshire

  8,298

  1,431

  644

  365

  2,500

  1,750

  2,775

  2,130

  Somerset

  10,859

  10,221

  550

  300

  2,618

  1,733

  1,389

  1,120

  Staffordshire

  9,203

  4,977

  825

  565

  7,150

  5,420

  1,610

  1,410

  Suffolk

  12,165

  463

  1,120

  789

  4,769

  3,050

  3,230

  2,340

  Surrey

  28,962

  21,570

  3,585

  968

  4,974

  2,712

  6,270

  4,765

  Warwickshire

  830

  245

  2,985

  960

  1,500

  1,050

  3,460

  2,462

  West Sussex

  5,506

  4,577

  1,964

  520

  2,812

  1,738

  700

  671

  Wiltshire

  2,839

  1,328

  1,014

  524

  2,209

  1,292

  215

  185

  38

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce organ donor consent to driving licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have agreed that such a facility will increase the chances of identifying a potential donor quickly. This will be of great benefit in saving others' lives.

  Therefore, from today, 1 March, driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will include an organ donor consent section in the counterpart of the licence. Licence holders will be able to complete this section voluntarily in the same way as they can complete a separate organ donor card at present. Holders of existing licences will not need to exchange them if they wish to become organ donors. They should complete and carry a separate donor card, available widely from doctors, health clinics, hospitals and Department of Health offices.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether United Kingdom airport security screening of all hold baggage, with full physical baggage reconciliation, will be required only for US international flights.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  No. The proposals for 100 per cent. hold baggage screening, and for accounting and authorising hold baggage for carriage, will apply to all international flights from this country.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in vehicles per day are expected, resulting from proposals for an Ml-M62 link road(a) yellow route and (b) purple route, for junctions 38 to 39 of the M1.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The yellow route option is forecast to increase traffic on the MI between junctions 38 and 39 by about 8,000 vehicles per day in the opening year and the purple route to reduce traffic by about 31,000 vehicles per day.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments of the cost factors have been undertaken for changes in traffic volume between junctions 38 and 39 of the M1, within proposals for an M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The cost factors have been assessed by predicting the carriageway provision that would be required where the traffic flow is forecast to change from the level of normal growth, as a result of the route options for an M1-M62 link road.

  Buses, London
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the cost recovery ratio between farebox income, revenue apportionment from Travelcard, bus pass, retired persons and staff passes, and revenue subsidy, from block grant or through tendering arrangements for London bus routes W7, 43 and X43.
  40
  Mr. Norris
  This information is commercially sensitive.

  Salvage Working Group
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had the opportunity to consider the report of the salvage working group entitled "Meeting Future Salvage Needs"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is currently considering the report, but has not yet reached firm conclusions on it.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those dispensations to the normal regulations that have allowed aircraft to fly supersonically over the Bristol channel area in the past six months;

  (2) if he will set out the rules that govern the circumstances in which aircraft are allowed to fly supersonically in areas near to the British mainland.

  Mr. Norris
  Supersonic flight by civil aircraft over any part of the United Kingdom is prohibited and there is no procedure for dispensations. Sonic booms from inbound aircraft are sometimes heard on land. This occurs in certain meteorological conditions, mainly during winter. These are known as secondary booms and may be propagated from aircraft many miles from land. Both British Airways and Air France have co-operated in making operational changes in the winter to reduce the disturbance from secondary booms. Although they cannot eliminate the phenomenon, British Airways' Concores decelerate to fly subsonic 105 nautical miles west of Coombe Martin in Devon; Air France routes its Concordes further south of the United Kingdom.

EMPLOYMENT

  Alternative Employment
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the total sum of moneys made available in each year since 1989–90 to assist former employees of defence-related industries in Hampshire in finding alternative employment;

  (2) what is the total sum of moneys her Department is planning to make available in each of the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 to assist former employees of defence-related industries in Hampshire in finding alternative employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Currently these figures are not available in the form requested and it is not foreseen that they will be.

  Restart
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken part in Restart interviews in this and each preceding year; in each year how many then got jobs; and how many of those were in work six months later.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  41
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 1 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the number of people who have taken part in Restart interviews and the number of people who started work as a result of their interview. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information you asked for is given in the attached table. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide details of the number of clients who are still in employment six months after leaving the unemployment register. To do so would involve the use of expensive tracking mechanisms at a disproportionate cost.
  As you will appreciate, the figures I have given reflect only the direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. It is through this support which advisers give clients in reviewing their options for returning to work that Restart has its effect.
  An indication of the degree of that effect is provided by the report "The Restart Effect" which was recently published by the independent Policy Studies Institute in 1992. It is based on an analysis of the largest survey of unemployed people in the UK since 1980. This showed conclusively that the programme had a major effect in reducing the time it takes people to leave unemployment, to get a job and to enter Employment Training, particularly for those people who were at a disadvantage within the labour market.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Restart interviews and job placings Operational year 1986–87 to January 1993

  Restart interviews

  Job placings

  1986–87

  1,285,097

  7,243

  1987–88

  2,248,016

  10,916

  1988–89

  2,029,500

  12,387

  1989–90

  1,509,703

  18,439

  1990–91

  1,362,831

  19,066

  1991–92

  1,995,030

  21,185

  April 1992–January 1993

  1,933,999

  28,063

  TOTAL

  12,364,176

  117,299

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people went on the job interview guarantee scheme in this and each preceding year; and in each year how many people completed the scheme, how many went into employment from the scheme and how many were in employment six months later.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 1 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the Job
  42
  Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information we are able to give you is set out on the attached table which records the numbers of people assisted and the numbers of people who were placed directly in work through JIG.
  We do not collect statistical information on how many people completed the JIG initiative or on how many people who went into employment from the scheme were in employment six months later. To do so would necessitate expensive mechanisms at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Job interview guarantee September 1989 to January 1993

  People assisted

  People placed

  11989–91

  19,632

  5,324

  1991–92

  134,296

  39,960

  April 1992–93

  159,285

  63,603

  Total

  313,213

  108,887

  1 From September 1989 to March 1991 JIG was piloted in 20 inner city areas only.

  Unemployment, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list those wards in which the ratio of unemployed claimants to registered electors is lower than in the Bargate, Southampton, ward for(a) wards included in areas to be assisted by city challenge projects, (b) wards covered by inner city task forces, (c) wards covered by city action teams and (d) wards wholly or partly covered by urban development corporations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken part in job clubs in this and each preceding year; in each year, how many got jobs at the end; and how many of those were still in work six months later.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 1 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about Jobclub statistics. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The statistics for the number of people who have taken part in Jobclubs (throughflow) and the number who have got jobs (job entries) are detailed in the attached table. Figures are given from 1985–86, which was the first year for which national statistics were collected.

  43
  We do not collect information on the number of people who were still in work after six months. To do so would require expensive tracking mechanisms at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Jobclub

  Operational year 1985–86 to January 1993

  Throughflow

  Job entries

  1985–86

  1,994

  1,267

  1986–87

  20,606

  12,364

  1987–88

  105,677

  57,080

  1988–89

  132,262

  71,495

  1989–90

  140,095

  72,977

  1990–91

  134,712

  65,498

  1991–92

  176,140

  76,831

  1992–931

  180,173

  80,446

  Total

  891,659

  437,958

  1 April 1992 to January 1993.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to make 1 March a bank holiday in Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are currently consulting on changing the May Day bank holiday and hope to announce a decision shortly. However, we have no plans to make 1 March—St. David's day—a bank holiday in Wales.

  Chartists Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to promote the declaration of Chartists day, 4 November, as a bank holiday in Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to promote the declaration of Chartists day as a bank holiday in Wales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants without dependent children during the year 1991–92 received(a) unemployment benefit, (b) statutory sick pay, (c) sickness benefit, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) widow's pension, (g) industrial injuries disablement benefit and (h) invalid care allowance, where no income support was also in payment.

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

  Table 1: 1991–92—Estimated numbers of people receiving benefits at any one time

  Benefit

  Recipients

  Unemployment Benefit

  555,000

  Statutory Sick Pay

  330,000

  Sickness Benefit

  110,000

  44

  Benefit

  Recipients

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,306,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  293,000

  Widows' Pension

  284,000

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  200,000

  Invalid Care Allowance

  136,000

  Table 2: 1991–92—Recipients of benefit where Income Support is also in payment.

  Benefit

  Recipients

  Unemployment Benefit

  103,000

  Statutory Sick Pay

  7,000

  Sickness Benefit

  26,000

  Invalidity Benefit

  112,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  172,000

  Widows' Pension

  26,000

  Industrial Disablement Injuries Benefit

  12,000

  Invalid Care Allowance

  42,000

  Sources:

  Table 1—Surveys of benefits at March 1991; except unemployment benefit which relates to May 1991 and Statutory Sick Pay which is the 1991–92 estimate provided in the Departmental Report 1993.

  Table 2—Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1991.

  Notes:

  1. The figures in Tables 1 and 2 have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2., Table 2 shows the number of recipients of each benefit who also receive Income Support either as claimant or as a partner of an Income Support claimant.

  Housing
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances persons aged 16 and 17 years not in receipt of income support would be eligible for housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Housing benefit is available to 16 and 17-year-olds who live independently and are not following a full-time course of higher education, whether or not they are in receipt of income support if they have a commercial liability to pay rent and are unable to meet their housing costs.

  Rent Deposits
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision exists in the social fund for the payment of rent deposits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The fund does not provide help with rent deposits.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received regarding the cessation of war pension to those suffering under 20 per cent. disablement due to service-related noise-induced deafness; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Some 120 representations have been received.

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioner households which do not claim(a) housing benefit and (b) income support to which they would be entitled.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available figures on take-up of housing benefit and income support can be found in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1989" published on 11 January 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if payments will be made from the independent living fund in cases where attendance allowance claims, successful after appeal, predate the closure date for independent living fund applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no plans to do so.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to how much the figure of £35, above which there is abatement of unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners, would have increased to have kept pace with(a) the retail prices index and (b) earnings since it was fixed at that level; how many people received (i) no unemployment benefit and (ii) reduced unemployment benefit because they have an occupational pension exceeding £35 per week at the most recent available date; and what would be the (1) gross cost and (2) net cost of abolishing this rule.

  Mr. Burt
  The limit of £35 per week was introduced in April 1981. If it had been increased in line with increases in(a) the retail prices index and (b) earnings between April 1981 and April 1992, the present limit would he £65 and £84 respectively.

  The table shows the numbers of people whose unemployment benefit is abated because they receive an occupational or personal pension exceeding £35 per week.

  Unemployed claimants whose unemployment benefit is reduced or extinguished due to receipt of an occupational or personal pension exceeding £35 per week

  Thousands

  Unemployment benefit reduced

  17·2

  Unemployment benefit extinguished

  9·2

  Notes:

  Source: Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

  2. No separate figures are maintained of recipients of occupational and personal pension.

  The gross cost of abolishing the abatement rule is estimated to be £40 million a year at 1992–93 prices. It is estimated that the net cost will not differ significantly from this figure.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received(a) no and (b) reduced unemployment benefit because a spouse's occupational pension is treated as earnings for the purposes of earnings rules for unemployment benefit in the
  46
  most recent available period; and what would be the (i) gross and (ii) net additional cost of abolishing that treatment of a spouse's occupational pension.

  Mr. Burt
  The personal rate of unemployment benefit is unaffected by a spouse's occupational pension. Adult dependency increases—ADIs—of unemployment benefit are extinguished when a spouse's earnings, including any occupational pension, exceed £26·20 a week. Information on the number of ADIs extinguished in this way is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The cost of excluding occupational pensions from the earnings rule is therefore impossible to estimate.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning the disclosure of medical evidence associated with unsuccessful applications for disability living allowance; what consultations he has had with claimants' organisations, citizens advice bureaux and welfare rights lawyers in relation to current practice in dealing with such requests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No such representations have been received nor consultations held.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that registration authorities are advised of which small homes eligible for registration after April have residents receiving income support or residential allowance towards the cost of their care.

  Mr. Burt
  No such arrangements are necessary. The social security benefits paid to residents living in small homes have no bearing on the registration process.

  Retirement Pension (Women)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a woman aged 60 years or more is not entitled to the basic retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A woman of 60 who has paid insufficient national insurance contributions will not be entitled to the basic retirement pension in her own right. If she is married she will be entitled to a retirement pension on her husband's contributions provided that he is 65 and has taken his pension. If her marriage has terminated she may still use her former husband's contributions to gain a pension. A widow of pensionable age may also receive a retirement pension based on her late husband's contributions.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in 1993–94 and in a full year of raising the upper earnings limit for national insurance in line with average earnings rather than prices; and how many employees would pay extra national insurance as a result.

  Miss Widdecombe
  If the upper earnings limit for national insurance was raised in line with average earnings
  47
  to £425 per week from April 1993, the additional revenue both in 1993–94 and in a full year would be about £50 million. Some 3 million employees would pay up to 45p per week extra in contributions.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in 1993–94 and in a full year of(a) abolishing the 2 per cent. national insurance contribution, (b) raising the lower earnings limit to the level of the personal tax allowance and (c) both (a) and (b) combined.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table. The reduction in the full year cost at(b) reflects the savings in respect of personal pensions rebates and incentives paid after 1993–94. For the purposes of this calculation the personal tax allowance has been increased by the latest Treasury assumption of 2·6 per cent. over the 1992–93 level.

  Cost(-)/Yield(+) 1993–94 (£billion)

  In year

  Full year

  (a) Abolishing the two per cent. national insurance contribution

  -0·9

  -1·0

  (b)Raising the lower earnings limit to the level of the personal tax allowance

  -0·5

  -0·4

  (a) Part (a) and (b) combined

  -1·6

  -1·6

  Note: Figures in (c) have been rounded and are therefore not the sum of the figures in (a) and (b).

  Pension Age
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", he will publish figures estimating the cost of reintroducing earnings uprating for the retirement pension and other linked benefits beginning in April 1996, giving annual figures in 1992–93 prices over a 10-year period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The table shows estimates of the cost of introducing earnings upratings with effect from April 1996 for retirement pensions and linked benefits—widow's pension, widowed mother's allowance, invalidity pension as well as unemployment and sickness benefits paid to those over state pension age. The consultation document on options for equality in state pension age assumes an annual increase in earnings of 1·5 per cent. greater than prices and this assumption has been used to derive the extra cost.

  Year

  Extra cost (£ billion in April 1992 prices)

  1996–97

  0·5

  1997–98

  1·0

  1998–99

  1·5

  1999–00

  2·0

  2000–01

  2·5

  2001–02

  3·0

  2002–03

  3·5

  2003–04

  4·0

  2004–05

  4·6

  2005–06

  5·1

  Note: Estimates derived from estimates underlying Tables 13 and 14 of the "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates
  48
  —Report of the Government Actuary on the Second Quinquennial review under Section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975", published in July 1990 (HoC 582).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the farm or cattle pesticides which have been banned in the United Kingdom during the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1989 a total of 70 pesticide products have been banned in the United Kingdom. Of these 27 contained the active ingredient captafol, 26 organomercury compounds, 11 aldrin, four DNOC, and one each for pentachlorophenol and dieldrin.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy not to reduce the level of less-favoured area supplement under the ewe premium scheme without increasing the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance.

  Mr. Curry
  Headage payment rates under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme will continue to be set in the light of all relevant factors.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to distribute the facilities and services of the former milk marketing board to milk marketing co-operatives other than Milk Marque.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Bill would enable each milk marketing board to submit formal proposals to Ministers for the transfer and distribution of its assets. Ministers would decide whether to approve those proposals in accordance with the provisions of the Bill as enacted.

  Minister's Home (Security)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and where the cost of providing security accommodation at his home was recorded in the departmental accounts; and if it was annotated for the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not in the public interest to disclose or aid the identification of security arrangements relating to public figures. Details of such expenditure do not in any event require separate annotation in departmental accounts.

  Rabbit Diseases
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans there are to ensure sufficient supplies of vaccine would be available to cope with a sudden outbreak of either myxomatosis or viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have been in close contact with representatives of vaccine manufacturers, along with those
  49
  of rabbit owners, to explore the possibility of vaccine supplies being made available. As a result, a vaccine against myxomatosis is expected to be licensed early in March, although it is likely to be May before the company is able to make supplies widely available. There is no current licence application for a vaccine against rabbit viral haemorrhagic disease, but a possible application is under active discussion.

  Linseed
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek inclusion of linseed in the EC arable regime from 1993; what base year for set-aside he believes to be justified; what proportion of the total EC linseed crop is currently grown in the United Kingdom; whether these proposals will be the subject of majority voting in the Council of Agriculture Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission's price-fixing proposals include the addition of linseed to the list of crops eligible for aid in 1993 under the arable area payments scheme, which includes provisions for set aside. The timing

  Regional wholesale quota (kilogrammes)

  Region

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1. England and Wales and the Isles of Scilly

  12,878,001,000

  12,744,955,000

  12,726,215,000

  11,936,516,000

  11,619,077,095

  11,856,892,344

  11,832,511,254

  11,611,823,155

  2. Northern Ireland

  11,290,810,000

  11,280,049,000

  11,300,643,000

  11,251,404,000

  11,218,098,483

  11,258,854,873

  11,256,552,496

  11,238,306,511

  3. The area to which the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme (Consolidation) Approval Order 1989 applies, other than region 4

  1,081,267,000

  1,070,096,000

  1,067,700,000

  1,001,515,000

  974,842,494

  990,789,710

  990,796,432

  970,883,931

  4. The Islands of Arran, Bute, Coll, Gigha, Great Cumbrae Islay, Little Cumbrae, Islay and Kintyre south of Tarbert

  57,561,000

  56,966,000

  57,644,000

  54,231,000

  53,174.164

  57,830,473

  57,830,473

  56,890,212

  5. The area to which the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme Approval Order 1984 applies

  116,784,000

  115,578,000

  115,219,000

  107,819,000

  104.924,685

  108,257,648

  108,261,439

  107,806,994

  6. The area to which the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Scheme 1934 (as amended) applies, other than the Islands of Orkney

  44,900,000

  44,436,000

  44,630,000

  41,510,000

  39,843,762

  40,355,023

  40,355,023

  40,545,002

  7. The Islands of Orkney

  15,454,000

  15,294,000

  15,332,000

  14,711,000

  14,453,852

  15,634,190

  15,634,190

  17,047,617

  8. The Islands of Shetland

  2,223,000

  2,200,000

  2,191,000

  2,094,000

  2,146,036

  2,354,455

  2,354,454

  2,303,275

  United Kingdom Total

  15,552,000,000

  15,394,574,000

  15,394,574,000

  14,474,800,000

  14,091,560,571

  14,396,058,716

  14,369,295,761

  14,110,616,697

  1 Plus 65,000,000 from the Community Reserve.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards French proposals for(a) a temporary ban on fish imports into the EC and (b) minimum import prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission, having consulted the fisheries management committee on 25 February, is adopting a measure requiring the price at which imports of certain species of white fish enter the Community to be equal to or above the reference price. I consider this to be a measured and balanced response to the current market problems.

  Fish Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has done to establish the relative contribution of(a) consumer resistance, (b) seasonal factors and (c) imports, on depressing market prices for fish.
  50
  of this proposal takes no account of farming practice, and causes considerable difficulties for linseed producers. I am therefore opposing it.

  In 1992, the United Kingdom area sown to linseed was approximately 60 per cent. of the EC total. The proposals for linseed have been made in the context of the Commission's annual price-fixing proposals, subject to qualified majority voting.

  Milk Levy
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the detailed calculations for each year since the inception of the additional milk levy system setting out how the total guaranteed quantity, including Northern Ireland's share of the Community reserve, was allocated among all the United Kingdom's regions.

  Mr. Curry
  The allocation of quota between regions is based on the total quantity of quota awarded to individual producers in those regions. Detailed figures are set out in the table. Figures for the 1992–93 quota year will not be available until after the quota year end. Direct sales quota is not allocated between United Kingdom regions.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department maintains a close watch on the state of the fish market and the factors which influence it, but their relative importance varies over time and cannot be quantified precisely.

WALES

  Coal Mines (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department has allocated to the Welsh Development Agency for the last five years for the purpose of treating rivers and streams in Wales polluted by abandoned coal mines.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Individual reclamation schemes can include work to contain sites and prevent contamination from spreading. Planned spending in 1993–94 is some £32,000,000 to reclaim around 1,200 acres.

  Manufacturing Plants
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new manufacturing plants have been opened and are now in production in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are 803 manufacturing plants, employing over 56,000 people, which are still in production, having opened since 1979.

  Quangos
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy for appointments to quangos.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I seek to appoint those who are best suited to each post.

  Exports
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking within the Principality to encourage the development of exports.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I recently announced a new export drive to help small and medium-sized Welsh companies which includes a substantially increased programme of overseas trade missions and a trade fair representative service for Welsh companies.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce the mechanism for selection of Wales's representation at the EC Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The question of United Kingdom representation on the Committee of the Regions is currently being considered.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the results of the valleys initiative launched by his predecessor in 1988.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am currently engaging consultants to undertake an evaluation of the programme for the valleys, and 1 will publish the results in due course.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for an independent evaluation exercise on the valleys initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am currently in the process of engaging independent consultants to undertake an evaluation of the programme for the valleys.

  Cardiff Wales Airport
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to secure improved road and rail links to Cardiff Wales airport.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These are matters for South Glamorgan county council, as highway authority, and British Rail respectively.

  Welsh Vineyards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectolitres of(a) table wine and (b) quality wine were produced from Welsh vineyards in each of the last three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No quality wine has been produced, but 131 hectolitres of table wine were produced from vineyards in Wales in 1989; 202 in 1990; and 147 in 1991.

  Further Education (Grants)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals to ensure(a) the same formula to provide adequate funding for individual maintenance grants and (b) the same qualifying criteria, for awards to further education students in each of the counties of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Local education authorities are responsible for making mandatory student awards in accordance with the relevant regulations. They receive 100 per cent. funding from central Government for such awards.

  In contrast, LEAs provide support for discretionary awards from their own resources and it is for them to decide which students and courses to support and how much to spend. We believe that policy in this area is best decided locally.

  Wage Levels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to raise average Welsh wage levels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Wages are a matter for agreement between employees and employers in the light of their particular circumstances.

  Since May 1990 wage levels have risen faster in Wales than in Great Britain as a whole—16·7 per cent. in Wales, 15·8 per cent. in Great Britain—and real earnings have increased for all income groups in Wales since 1979.

  Secondary Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent for pupils in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1990–91 current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Wales was £1,953. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £1,433.

  North-south Road Links
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to improve road links between north and south Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1979, over £180 million has been spent on improvements to the A470 and the A483. We have plans to spend a further £180 million including the major improvements shown in the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales".

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives from(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in rural Wales to discuss housing need and affordability in the rural areas of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I keep in close touch with rural housing matters. My officials are currently meeting every housing authority in Wales to discuss their housing strategies.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is undertaken to encourage energy conservation among pupils as part of the national curriculum in Wales.

  Households taking energy conservation measures, by tenure

  Percentage of applicable households1 with:

  Roof, loft insulation

  Hot watertank insulated

  Cavity walls insulation

  Windows double glazed

  Doors/windows draught stripped

  Local authority

  81·0

  74·0

  10·1

  2·4

  26·7

  Private rented

  53·5

  67·2

  6·8

  9·2

  18·6

  Owner-occupied

  80·4

  85·1

  13·6

  39·1

  39·2

  1 Those households for which it was actually possible for the conservation measure to have been carried out.

  Source: Welsh Inter Censal Survey, 1986.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the percentages of self-employed people within each local authority area in Wales; and what proportion of self-employed people in each of those areas are involved directly in agriculture.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The percentage of self-employed people aged 16 and over in each local authority area in Wales is shown in the table. Information on self-employed people involved in agriculture will be included in part 2 of the 1991 census county report series—Nos. CEN91 CR 47–54 cover Wales—which are due to be published by HMSO between March and July 1993. Copies of these reports will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Percentage of self-employed persons aged 16 and over, 1991

  Per cent

  Alyn and Deeside

  5·9

  Colwyn

  9·7

  Delyn

  7·3

  Glyndwr

  12·2

  Rhuddlan

  7·1

  Wrexham Maelor

  6·1

  Carmarthen

  14·9

  Ceredigion

  15·4

  Dinefwr

  12·1

  Llanelli

  5·6

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  12·3

  South Pembrokeshire

  11·4

  Blaenau Gwent

  3·8

  Islwyn

  4·6

  Monmouth

  10·1

  Newport

  5·3

  Torfaen

  4·5

  Aberconwy

  10·2

  Arfon

  7·9

  Dwyfor

  13·8

  Meirionnydd

  13·7

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  9·2

  Cynon Valley

  4·4

  54
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The nature, use and conservation of energy is a part of the science order within the national curriculum. The technology order also requires pupils at key stage 4 to be taught"to reduce energy loss and understand why this is important".

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) local authority, (b) private rented and (c) owner-occupied houses in Wales currently have (i) loft insulation, (ii) hot water tank and hot water system lagging, (iii) cavity wall insulation, (iv) double glazing and (v) draught excluder systems.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information is from the 1986 Welsh inter-censal survey and is shown in the table:

  Per cent.

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4·2

  Ogwr

  5·4

  Rhondda

  4·2

  Rhymney Valley

  4·5

  Taff-Ely

  5·7

  Brecknock

  13·2

  Montgomeryshire

  15·8

  Radnor

  17·8

  Cardiff

  5·5

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6·7

  Lliw Valley

  5·5

  Neath

  4·8

  Port Talbot

  3·4

  Swansea

  5·4

  Source: OPCS 1991 Census County Report Series Part 1.

  School Governors
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to amend regulation 21 of the Education (School Government) Regulations 1989 to ensure that members of the public who are not current school governors are entitled to attend a school governors meeting as observers only on a strictly one-off basis.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The 1989 regulations already allow for anyone who is not a member of a governing body to seek the approval of the governing body to their attendance at any particular meeting of that governing body.

  Bus Engines
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial incentives are currently provided by his Department to encourage bus companies to install new cleaner engines.
  55
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Government's observations on the fifth report of the Transport Select Committee, Session 1990–91—House of Commons paper 102 of Session 1991–92.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the percentage of those that have been unemployed for 26 weeks or longer in each Welsh county in January of each year since 1984.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Unemployment data can be accessed from the NOMIS database by House of Commons Library staff.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees1 as a percentage of the Great Britain average

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  95·1

  93·0

  94·0

  89·7

  89·8

  90·0

  88·9

  89·2

  Dyfed2

  89·9

  86·7

  86·8

  83·0

  85·5

  83·7

  83·0

  82·3

  Gwent

  93·2

  92·3

  92·9

  90·5

  88·5

  86·1

  88·0

  86·5

  Gwynedd

  92·8

  89·0

  88·3

  85·8

  89·8

  85·7

  86·5

  85·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  91·2

  90·7

  91·5

  90·9

  91·8

  88·5

  87·8

  88·9

  Powys

  88·4

  86·8

  85·8

  83·4

  86·0

  79·9

  79·7

  82·6

  South Glamorgan

  97·2

  96·7

  94·4

  93·0

  93·6

  93·2

  93·2

  92·6

  West Glamorgan3

  95·1

  92·8

  93·6

  91·4

  89·0

  87·6

  89·1

  92·3

  Wales

  93·8

  92·2

  92·2

  89·9

  90·1

  88·2

  88·6

  88·9

  1 Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence.

  2 Excluding Llanelli.

  3 Including Llanelli.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Ecotec Research
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the recommendations of the report by Ecotec Research on socio-economic conditions in the south Wales valleys.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This report, together with a range of other material, is being considered in the discussions that are taking place within the context of my Department's structural funds review working group for industrial south Wales into the future use of these resources in the area from January 1994 onwards.

  Farm Business Survey
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle and sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales have taken part in the farm business survey in each year since 1979; and what was their average hectarage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of cattle and sheep farms in the severely disadvantaged areas in Wales which have been included in the farm business survey since 1979 and the average hectarage per farm are as follows:

  Number of Farms

  Average Hectarage

  1979–80

  131

  133

  1980–81

  130

  135

  1981–82

  121

  138

  1982–83

  112

  127

  1983–84

  109

  123

  1984–85

  93

  123

  1985–86

  97

  135

  1986–87

  118

  140

  1987–88

  120

  156

  Earnings
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the average gross weekly earnings of full-time workers in each Welsh county in each year since 1985 expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom average gross weekly earnings of full-time workers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comparisons with United Kingdom averages are not readily available. The table gives the figures as a percentage of the Great Britain average.

  Number of Farms

  Average Hectarage

  1988–89

  128

  152

  1989–90

  129

  151

  1990–91

  138

  154

  1991–92

  112

  138

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many specialist sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales have taken part in the farm business survey in each year since 1979; and what was their average hectarage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of sheep farms in the severely disadvantaged areas in Wales which have been included in the farm business survey since 1979 and the average hectarage per farm are as follows:

  Number of holdings

  Average hectarage

  1979–80

  25

  339

  1980–81

  26

  315

  1981–82

  32

  262

  1982–83

  30

  277

  1983–84

  51

  244

  1984–85

  47

  263

  1985–86

  44

  261

  1986–87

  50

  277

  1987–88

  53

  268

  1988–89

  63

  264

  1989–90

  63

  254

  1990–91

  60

  307

  1991–92

  72

  227

  57
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many livestock farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales have taken part in the farm business survey in each year since 1979; and what was their average hectarage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of livestock farms in the disadvantaged areas in Wales which have been included in the farm business survey since 1985–86—the first year for which FBS data are available—and the average hectarage per farm are as follows:

  Number of Farms

  Hectarage Average

  1985–86

  35

  82

  1986–87

  47

  76

  1987–88

  46

  75

  1988–89

  43

  78

  1989–90

  45

  67

  1990–91

  50

  68

  1991–92

  47

  76

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle and sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales have(a) less than 50 hectares, (b) 50 to 100 hectares, (c) 100 to 150 hectares, (d) 150 to 200 hectares, (e) 200 to 250 hectares, (f) 250 to 300 hectares, (g) 300 to 350 hectares, (h) 350 to 400 hectares and (i) more than 400 hectares.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of hill and upland (LFA) cattle and sheep holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas of Wales

  Area of holding (hectares)

  Number of holdings

  Less than 50

  2,349

  50–99·9

  1,109

  100–149·9

  473

  150–199·9

  164

  200–249·9

  73

  250–299·9

  36

  300–349·9

  23

  350–399·9

  12

  400 and over

  35

  Source: June 1992 Agricultural Census

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net farm income in real terms of cattle and sheep farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The income figures in real terms—that is, deflated by the RPI 1991–92 equals 100—are as follows:

  Severely disadvantaged cattle and sheep farms

  £

  1979–80

  9,493

  1980–81

  12,200

  1981–82

  13,632

  1982–83

  11,059

  1983–84

  10,391

  1984–85

  11,430

  1985–86

  12,734

  1986–87

  12,805

  1987–88

  16,436

  1988–89

  20,476

  58

  £

  1989–90

  12,507

  1990–91

  9,138

  1991–92

  13,457

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many livestock farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales have(a) less than 50 hectares, (b) 50 to 100 hectares, (c) 100 to 150 hectares, (d) 150 to 200 hectares, (e) 200 to 250 hectares, (f) 250 to 300 hectares, (g) 300 to 350 hectares, (h) 350 to 400 hectares and (i) more than 400 hectares.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Livestock1 Holdings in the disadvantaged areas of Wales

  Area of Holding (Hectares)

  Number of Holdings

  Less than 50

  2,932

  50-99·9

  664

  100-149·9

  180

  150-199·9

  53

  200-249·9

  24

  250-299·9

  7

  300-349·9

  8

  350-399·9

  4

  400 and over

  7

  Source: June 1992 Agricultural Census.

  1 Includes the categories Hill and Upland (LFA) Sheep, and Hill and Upland (LFA) Cattle and Sheep.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many specialist sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales have(a) less than 50 hectares, (b) between 50 and 100 hectares, (c) between 100 and 150 hectares, (d) between 150 and 250 hectares (e) between 250 and 300 hectares, (f) between 300 and 350 hectares, (g) between 350 and 400 hectares and (h) more than 400 hectares.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of hill and upland (LFA) sheep holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas of Wales

  Area of holdings (hectares)

  Number of holdings

  Less than 50

  3,446

  50-99·9

  1,495

  100-149·9

  668

  150-249·9

  493

  250-299·9

  104

  300—349·9

  76

  350—399·9

  37

  400 and over

  170

  Source: June 1992 Agricultural Census.

  Youth Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what capital grants he is making available in 1993–94 to support voluntary youth services, village halls and community centre programmes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much money he made available in capital grants for voluntary youth services, village halls and

  59
  community centre programmes in each of the last five years; and how many schemes have been supported in each district council area in each of those years.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  6

  8

  7

  4

  5

  Dyfed

  2

  4

  14

  20

  17

  Gwent

  13

  8

  4

  7

  9

  Gwynedd

  9

  15

  15

  10

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Powys

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  South Glamorgan

  4

  4

  5

  3

  4

  West Glamorgan

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  Grant outturn (£)

  546,505

  592,324

  522,611

  723,659

  1551,000

  1 Provisional.

  £0·522 million in grant aid will be available in 1993–94 to continue support of projects approved in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Departmental Successes and Failures
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the successes and (b) the failures of his period of office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be making a statement on the performance of my Department in the Welsh day debate today.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage hill livestock compensatory allowance payments have formed of net farm income in real terms on specialist sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The percentage of farm income represented by hill compensatory allowances on sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas of Wales in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  49·8

  1979–80

  136·5

  1980–81

  85·6

  1981–82

  63·9

  1982–83

  95·8

  1983–84

  71·2

  1984–85

  64·5

  1985–86

  84·9

  1986–87

  75·5

  1987–88

  79·9

  1988–89

  46·2

  1989–90

  78·9

  1990–91

  87·2

  1991–92

  56·1

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage hill livestock compensatory allowance payments have formed of net farm income in real terms on cattle and sheep farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for the disadvantaged areas are available from 1985–86 following the designation of the disadvantaged areas in 1984. The percentage of farm income represented by hill compensatory allowances in each year since then is as follows:
  60
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Records are held on a county basis. The number of schemes approved are as follows:

  Per cent

  1985–86

  17·0

  1986–87

  39·6

  1987–88

  24·1

  1988–89

  12·8

  1989–90

  23·3

  1990–91

  69·2

  1991–92

  31·1

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net farm income in real terms of livestock farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Income figures for the disadvantaged areas are available from 1985–86 following the designation of the disadvantaged areas in 1984. The income figures in real terms—deflated by the RPI 1991–92 equals 100—are as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  8,636

  1986–87

  4,286

  1987–88

  7,875

  1988–89

  12,941

  1989–90

  6,172

  1990–91

  1,676

  1991–92

  4,386

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage hill livestock compensatory allowance payments have formed of net farm income in real terms on livestock farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The percentage of farm income represented by hill compensatory allowances on livestock farms1 in the disadvantaged areas of Wales from 1985–862 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  17·0

  1986–87

  39·6

  1987–88

  24·1

  1988–89

  12·8

  1989–90

  23·3

  1990–91

  69·2

  1991–92

  31·1

  1 Also known as DA cattle and sheep farms.

  2 The first year that we have FBS data for DA farms.

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

Hospital Radio Stations
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange for a single, low-powered, FM radio frequency to be allocated for use by all hospital radio stations in the United Kingdom, so enabling many more staff and patients to receive local hospital radio programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the provision of an FM frequency for hospital radio is a matter for the members of the Radio Authority to consider as part of their duties under the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord Jenkin of Roiling: My Lords, I was aware of that, but is my noble friend aware, for her part, that broadcasting to hospital patients and staff by low-powered radio would give a very much higher quality of reception to many more patients and staff in our hospitals, and would be much better than the existing wire-linked services? Further, after the very successful experiment with hospital radio—free broadcasting radio—at the East Surrey Hospital, why is the Radio Authority so reluctant to follow up that by allocating what is sometimes referred to as a "sub-band" of FM frequencies to hospital radio stations?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I was sure that my noble friend Lord Jenkin was aware of what I said in my Answer, but I was endeavouring to share those facts with other Members of your Lordships' House. The Radio Authority has to make difficult choices about which services should use the frequencies available to it. I am sure that, after that experiment, great care is being taken in making the next move. I am sure that my noble friend would not wish for too hasty an action.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that form of broadcasting is highly desirable, but that it would involve the upgrading of equipment if a decision were to be made in favour of it? Can the Minister say whether, in principle, the Government would support, or offer some help for, the upgrading of the equipment which would obviously be necessary if a favourable decision were to be taken?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield; My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows that that decision is a matter for my noble friend at the
412
Department of Health; and I do not believe that I need to point out the demands on that department's resources.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what conversations are the Government—or any government department—having with the Radio Authority to promote this very desirable objective?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that my honourable friend the Minister for Trade and Technology invited national representatives of hospital radio and the Radio Authority to a meeting last week to help him to clarify the current situation. I should, however, stress, that the decision is for the Radio Authority.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, could arrangements be made at the Department of Health to enable it to receive "mayday" calls from hospitals that have run out of funds?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would not expect me to take that question very seriously.

Pensions: Reciprocal Arrangements
2.40 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What different principles, other than cost, apply when negotiating reciprocal social security agreements between countries such as the United States, Israel and Switzerland, where such agreements already exist, and countries such as Canada, Australia and South Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the same principles, including cost, apply when negotiating reciprocal social security agreements between the United Kingdom and any other country. These principles are that both countries' social security schemes must be sufficiently similar in order to provide reciprocal benefits.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but he will not expect me to be too happy about it. It does not take me much further when we consider that there are 613,000 expatriate prisoners—
Noble Lords: Pensioners!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, there are 613,000 expatriate pensioners throughout the world, nearly half of whom—about 45 per cent.—receive pensions that are index-linked to the British retail prices index, but the rest do not. However, when they were living and working here all of them paid their national insurance contributions; all of them paid taxes; all of them helped this country's production; and all of them served this country during the war. They all have the same qualifications, but only half of them receive an index-linked pension. That seems manifestly unjust. That is where my point about principles comes in.

413
How does one sort out which half receives index-linked pensions and which half does not? Is the Minister aware that this problem came to light and was emphasised during the last general election when his own party and its workers scoured this country and abroad in an effort to get the votes of all these pensioners? They were worth giving a vote to. Is it not true that those pensioners were worth canvassing and everything else, but they are not worth paying? Is it not time that something was done about that? Even thinking about it would be useful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord wants to comment on the result of the last election. But I can only confirm what I have said on previous occasions. The noble Lord is quite correct in the figures that he gave to the House. Some 355,000 are not entitled to have their pensions uprated and some 260,000, or thereabouts, do have their pensions uprated. It is simply a question of cost. It would cost some £275 million to unfreeze those existing pensions and, quite frankly, as I have said on earlier occasions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make very difficult decisions in terms of allocating the finite resources available to social security.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister should not be surprised that my colleague, my noble friend Lord Stallard, referred to the expatriate vote. When the Minister derided my noble friend about that, he must have been aware that the Government retained a number of seats solely because of the expatriate vote. Surely it is time for the Government seriously to consider the issue that my noble friend repeatedly brings before the House, and to give those people a fair deal. By any standards of fair play it looks—I am not saying that it is deliberate—as if they are being treated shabbily by the Government. Where is the equal society about which the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, talks? It is not equal for some people.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot comment on the expatriate vote, because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, there is a secret ballot.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, why did the Minister mention it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I sympathise with the case made by the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but there is little evidence that there is any real hardship. There is also little evidence that merely unfreezing those pensions would necessarily bring relief to any alleged hardship, bearing in mind other factors such as exchange controls or the cost of living in individual countries. I have to repeat that it would cost Her Majesty's Government some £275 million to unfreeze all the pensions worldwide, and, quite frankly, there are better uses for that money.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that all the pension schemes are arranged on a reciprocal basis and that if Canada, Australia and
414
South Africa were willing to negotiate the uprating of pensions on a reciprocal basis, the position might be different?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have negotiated with Canada, but, even if it were on a reciprocal basis, the amount of money coming from Canada would not equal the amount we would have to pay there, and we would be net losers to a very large extent.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at the costs charged by the banks for the transfer of pensions to pensioners overseas? I have seen figures recently which reduce considerably the amount that pensioners receive. That is due mainly to bank charges.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question, but I am prepared to give an undertaking to the noble Lord to look at that problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister not making too light of the equity of the situation? Can it be right that one set of pensioners who have paid their contributions and taxes in the same way, in the same context and at the same rate as another set of pensioners should receive so much less pension, simply and solely because the Government wish to save £275 million? Is that going to be a precedent in this country—for one set of pensioners to receive their pensions at a given point as against another set of pensioners receiving theirs at another point? Are we eventually going to penalise people in this country as well?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. The noble Lord should perhaps look at the history of the matter. In the early days of the state retirement pension it was payable only within the United Kingdom, with one or two minor exceptions. As from 1955 it became exportable, and thereafter a certain number of reciprocal agreements were made with individual countries which allowed pensions to be uprated in line with prices. However, I have to go back to my original Answer: there is a very important principle. It is one of cost. It would cost some £275 million to unfreeze those pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, how many other countries have sought reciprocal arrangements and have been refused by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have reciprocal arrangements with some 32 or 33 countries. I cannot remember the precise figure. Of those, not all have uprating of pensions in line with prices. In other words, in Canada, Australia and New Zealand they are not uprated, but all the others are uprated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, forgive me, that was not the question I asked. I asked how many countries have sought reciprocal arrangements and been refused by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the precise question. We are always prepared to negotiate

415
with any country so long as the criteria I elucidated in my original Answer are met; so long as their arrangements are sufficiently similar to ours.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to the question asked by his noble friend Lady Elles who mentioned Canada. Canada has been seeking a reciprocal arrangement. It has even offered to assist with the financial deficiencies that that would cause initially. It has offered some kind of transitional arrangement, but that has been refused. The fault is not on the Canadian side. It is willing to enter into a reciprocal arrangement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes. Unfortunately I was not able earlier to give an answer in terms of figures to my noble friend Lady Elles, but I can tell the noble Lord that the Canadians offered some 8.5 million Canadian dollars, which is about £4 million. That is negligible compared to the overall cost to the United Kingdom of some £70 million.

Scotch Whisky: UK Rate of Duty
2.50 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Scotch whisky is taxed so heavily in the United Kingdom compared to taxation on wine and whisky in the rest of Europe.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the rate of duty on spirits in the UK takes account of economic, health and social factors, which have always been reflected in successive Chancellors' Budget judgments. It would not be appropriate to comment further in advance of the Budget.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Earl not appreciate the situation? Has he by any chance read the Scotch Whisky Association's brochure on the subject which points out the importance of Scotch whisky to Scotland? Does he know that one can buy whisky in Paris, Rome or Berlin for £3 a bottle less than in this country? I thought that we were dealing with a common market.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate very much the value of whisky to Scotland. I also appreciate very much the value of whisky to lots of other people as well. With regard to the price of a bottle of whisky, I am sure the noble Lord would agree that it is the right of every country to set its own duty limits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I do not think he can be—that last summer in a shop at the south end of Sardinia I bought in Italian lira a bottle of excellent Scotch whisky at half the price it would have cost me in London?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate that whisky can be bought more cheaply in certain other parts of the world than in the United Kingdom.
416
But I am sure that my noble friend would agree that that is because there is a right for every country to set its own duty limits.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, when the noble Earl replied to the first Question he suggested that health is a factor in setting the rate of duty. He is surely not suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that whisky is less healthy than wine.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not what I said. It is a consideration to be taken into account.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the health aspect, as whisky is in a sense medicinal, I was wondering whether my noble friend could consider zero rating for VAT?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that it is medicinal to my noble friend, but I hope not in excess. With regard to his second point, that is a question for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Treasury has estimated how much taxation it will lose as a result of the single market and the removal of all the Customs duties from Scotch whisky and other liquors?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not just a question of the duty, as the noble Lord will be aware. A lot of factors affect how much people drink of a particular product. It may be interesting for the noble Lord to know that the amount of duty and VAT as a proportion of the retail price has fallen by more than 11 percentage points since 1983.
Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden: My Lords, may I declare an interest in this matter as the chairman of United Distillers, the largest company in the Scotch whisky sector? Surely it is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact that Scotch whisky in the United Kingdom is discriminated against because the tax on a glass of wine at present is 12p whereas the tax on a single whisky with the same alcohol content is 23p. So is it any wonder that since 1979 the sales of imported wine in this country have increased by 60 per cent. while in the same period the sales of Scotch whisky have decreased by 30 per cent.? Perhaps equally disturbing is the signal to other governments that it is fair game to discriminate against Scotland's best known product and one of the United Kingdom's most successful products internationally.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the tax burden is not the sole cause of price difference. My noble friend will be aware that whisky prices in the United Kingdom have risen faster than the taxes on whisky in recent years.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is not the Question on the Order Paper a good deal more straightforward than all that we have been talking about? Is it not the case that the Treasury puts as high a rate of excise duty on Scotch whisky as it can get away with in order to maximise the tax revenue it can get from Scotch

417
whisky? Is that not really what this is about? In many ways the Treasury would be foolhardy not to exploit the Scotch whisky drinker as much as it possibly can.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a good deal more complicated than that, as I said in my original Answer.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is carrying eccentricity a little too far to join an association of nations and then not take advantage of having more or less the same policies as them? As for the excuse that a Budget is forthcoming in the near future, is not that wearing a little threadbare now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened to and answered debates in this House in which your Lordships have emphasised the need to retain fiscal sovereignty. That is something which the Government support and continue to take an active interest in. With regard to my noble friend's second point, if he casts his mind back to his days in another place I am sure that he would have been the first to have said that one must observe discretion before the Budget.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl will have noticed that every speaker on this Question has been very much against him. Will he please take note —I shall send him a copy of the Scotch Whisky Association's brochure—and go to see the Chancellor before the Budget?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord's noble friend on the Front Bench was for or against me. I think that he was rather for me and rather against the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I would say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen the Scotch Whisky Association.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the letter in The Times some three weeks ago—if he has not seen it I can happily supply him with it—from a wine merchant and purveyor of whisky from Chelmsford describing the problem created for wine merchants by the increased flexibility of HM Customs and Excise regarding the bringing in of whisky and wines from the rest of continental Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the advantages of the single market is that one can buy duty paid goods, particularly wines and spirits, on the Continent and bring them back for one's own consumption. But as I understand it, Customs and Excise are handling the problem quite adequately.

Voluntary Bodies in Wales: Funding
2.57 p.m.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they intend to do about the serious situation facing voluntary bodies in Wales as a result of the withdrawals and reductions in local authority grants.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the resources available to Welsh local authorities through the annual local government revenue settlement were approved in another place on 8th February. Those resources are not hypothecated to particular services. It is for authorities to allocate their resources in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their own priorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales recognises that the 3.1 per cent. level of increase in settlement means that some local authorities face difficult decisions in setting their budgets. However, he considers that that is the most the country and council tax payers can at present afford.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I had hoped for a more generous response on St. David's Day. However, does my noble friend realise how critical the situation is for voluntary bodies in Wales? The West Glamorgan County Council, for example, has cut off all its grants to voluntary bodies for the year 1993–94. In the case of the YMCA—the body I know best as I am honoured to be its president—that means a cut of more than £60,000 for that year. It has already had to send out redundancy notices to its staffs in Port Talbot and Neath. That is only the YMCA. Is my noble friend aware that there are many other organisations in West Glamorgan—the Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme and, particularly in Wales, the Welsh youth organisation, Urdd Gobaith Cymru. They have all suffered from the cuts. Is it not ironic, at a time when youth unemployment is so high and respect for moral values so low, that those organisations which are doing their best to solve such problems are being penalised?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that is, unfortunately, a decision for the West Glamorgan County Council. However, the aim of the Welsh Office is to encourage, develop and maintain a vigorous and independent voluntary sector in Wales. To that end it provides in excess of £10 million a year in direct assistance to voluntary organisations in Wales, which includes a direct grant to the Welsh National Council of the YMCA. Since 1988 more than £1.4 million has been allocated to youth organisations in Wales.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that voluntary organisations are very much a part of the way of life not only in South Wales but in the whole of Wales? Why are the Government punishing Wales for having so many voluntary organisations? They do so much good and yet they appear to be anathema to the Conservative Government. Will the Government now have the courage to admit that they are wrong?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that many local councils find it all too easy, when they are short of cash, to penalise the voluntary

419
sector. I suggest that many of those are of a particular political persuasion. It also has the least adverse response from the trade union movement.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that that is an unforeseen consequence of the Government's action? In Wales so much of the support for voluntary bodies has come from local government. For example, the Welsh League of Youth stands to lose about £700,000 per annum. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pointed out, many other voluntary organisations will also lose out. I believe that the Government had not foreseen that. Having had their attention drawn to it, is it not time that the Government did something about this matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the resources of the West Glamorgan County Council have been increased by some 23 per cent. over the past two years. These are difficult times. The maximum increase which could be set this year was 1.85 per cent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, notwithstanding that increase, will my noble friend agree that there has been a diminution of grant available to the voluntary sector in local authority areas in Wales and, indeed, throughout the country? Will my noble friend ask his right honourable friend to note that one way to help to remedy that defect is to give funds centrally and nationally to organisations such as the Divert Trust, which I have mentioned before in this House? That has a special effort in Wales.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly bring my noble friend's suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there are serious difficulties in parts of Wales? I speak with direct knowledge only of parts of South Wales—Gwent, Brecon and parts of Glamorgan. For example, the CABs are asking local authorities to take back the work which the CABs had been doing so successfully on a voluntary basis but which they cannot do without a certain amount of public financial support to pay for premises and other outgoings. I am receiving many letters on the subject. The Llanover Hall Arts Centre is an excellent place for young people to undertake worthwhile projects in an excellent atmosphere and is worthy of support. Similarly, there are day centres for drug addicts. Storey Arms is another place which I should mention, which is used for outdoor pursuits and so on. I am sure that other noble Lords have also received communications from well-run organisations. I do not know why the Chief Whip is glaring at me; in our country this is a very serious matter and deserves more attention from the Government than it has received so far.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my original Answer to my noble friend. The Government make available to local authorities certain moneys by way of grant. Those moneys are not hypothecated and the relationship in question is between the voluntary sector and the relevant local authorities.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Answer which the noble Viscount gave to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not an answer to his Question. The noble Lord asked what the Government intend to do to alleviate the burden which will fall upon the voluntary sector in Wales. He has not answered that question although I believe, by implication, his answer is that the Welsh Office will do nothing and that the Welsh voluntary organisations must turn to their guardian angel, St. David. Is that right?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it would be unreasonable in the present economic difficulties for the Government to pick out one area of local authority activity and make it a special case. The Government have made available their grants to local authorities and it is for the local authorities to fund the voluntary sector.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, be better advised to suggest to the Welsh voluntary sector that it should turn to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I do not believe that that question requires an answer from me.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the noble Viscount aware that it is at this moment of economic difficulty that the voluntary organisations have a major part to play in helping people to live a reasonable life? As president of the North Wales CAB and other organisations, I should say that those who work voluntarily are going through an extremely difficult and worrying time. Will the noble Viscount be good enough to speak again with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to see whether some improvement is possible?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, of course I shall bring the comments of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill (formerly London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill)
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Bill (formerly London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill)
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a

421
second time. Since 1979 a great change has occurred in the industrial relations climate in this country. That is due in no small measure to the legislative reforms that this Government have put in place over the years. This Bill continues our successful reform of industrial relations and trade union law.
Instead of an economy typified—in the eyes of both domestic and overseas investors—by strikes and union obstruction of efficient working practices, we have just seen the lowest number of working days lost through industrial disputes since records began over. 100 years ago. In 1991, barely half a million working days were lost as a result of strikes. That represents a dramatic and welcome improvement on the 1970s, when on average no fewer than 13 million days were lost each year.
We have a record of attracting overseas investment that is second to none among our competitor nations. Overseas investors have made it clear that the transformation of Britain's industrial relations practices have played a vital part in their decisions to invest here. Instead of employers, and would-be employers, being burdened by red-tape and restrictions, we now have a more balanced framework of employment protection law. That has enabled employers to get on with their main task of managing their businesses.
We have extended employment protection where necessary; for example, so as to ensure that the closed shop cannot deprive people of jobs simply because they do not wish to belong to a union. Thanks to our legislation, union members can now take it for granted that they have a right directly to elect their union leaders, and to do so at regular intervals. Union members also have a right to a ballot before their union calls them to take strike action, and there is protection against being disciplined by their union because they choose, of their own free will, not to take part in a strike. This Bill builds on the progress we have made in all these areas.
Its introduction is timely and appropriate. Good industrial relations, proper protection for individual rights, and the right balance and framework of law are critical to this country's future prosperity. The Bill fulfils the Government's continuing commitment to ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law covering industrial relations and employment matters—and one which meets the needs of a modern economy.
Provisions in the current Bill will continue the process of step-by-step reform which has been so successful over the past 13 years. They will increase the rights of individual employees, of individual trade union members, and of the community at large; and improve the operation of the labour market and break down barriers to the creation of jobs. The Bill forms a major element in the Government's legislative programme for this first Session of the new Parliament. The main proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation. A number of the clauses fulfil specific manifesto commitments. In addition, several of the measures in Part II of the Bill—which deals with individual employment rights—implement
422
requirements arising from European directives. In terms of its length alone, this Bill is the most substantial that the Employment Department has handled since 1979. I hope it will be helpful if I say a few words about some of its provisions but that noble Lords will excuse me from not attempting to cover them all.
The provisions in Part I of the Bill will give important new rights to trade union members, guaranteeing them enhanced, and new, protection and rights. They follow from proposals put forward for public consultation in the 1991 Green Paper Industrial Relations in the 1990s.
Clauses 1 to 7 improve the present requirements for the conduct and scrutiny of union election, political fund and merger ballots, giving union members much greater assurance about the proper conduct of such ballots. In future, individual trade union members will have the additional assurance that the storage and distribution of voting papers, and the counting of votes, will be carried out by people who are demonstrably independent of the union itself.
Clauses 8 to 12 give members a guarantee of receiving a regular report about the conduct of their union's financial affairs, and the assurance that they need no longer depend on their union leadership's willingness to investigate allegations of impropriety in the conduct of those affairs. This responds to evident concerns about the conduct of the financial affairs of unions such as the NUM and UCATT. In future, the independent certification officer will have powers to set up investigations, and can bring to account anyone who is revealed as having committed a relevant offence.
Clause 13 will give individuals greater freedom to belong to the union of their choice. This provision fulfils a clear manifesto commitment. It will mean that it is no longer possible for union membership to be determined by TUC diktat, against the wishes of the individual. Employers will, of course, remain free to decide for themselves whether to recognise a union.
But, to take two recent examples of how this clause would strengthen freedom of choice: USDAW members will no longer be prevented from transferring to a TUC union which does not oppose Sunday trading; and the GMB will no longer be prevented from establishing a construction section to accept UCATT members wishing to transfer. The Government believe that there can be no justification, in this day and age, for denying individuals the basic freedom to decide for themselves which trade union they wish to join.
Clause 14 protects union members against possible abuses of the check-off system for deduction of union subscriptions directly from pay—but without seeking to outlaw such arrangements where employers freely choose to operate them. It corrects a profoundly unsatisfactory legal position, and the provisions are firmly founded on the principle that individual union members should have the right to decide for themselves—and have the opportunity to reconsider, at regular intervals, whether they want to have their union subscriptions deducted in this way. Once again, this clause fulfils a clear manifesto commitment.

423
Clauses 16 and 19 update the law on strike ballots, so that voting must be conducted by fully-postal balloting, and be subject to independent scrutiny. This will help to ensure the proper conduct of such ballots, by allowing votes to be cast away from the kinds of pressures to which voters may be exposed in workplace ballots. These measures fulfil another of our manifesto commitments, and represent a further step in our successful introduction of balloting requirements for all important union decisions.
Other provisions in this part of the Bill recognise the interest which employers—whose workers may be called on to take industrial action against them—have in the conduct of strike ballots and any ensuing calls for action. The new notice requirements in Clauses 17 and 20, for example, will give employers the chance to respond to the prospect of a strike ballot, or strike call, as they deem best in the interests of their business. As foreshadowed in our manifesto, unions will have to give all employers directly affected at least seven days' notice of a call for industrial action after a ballot has been conducted.
Clause 21 will give ordinary customers deprived of goods or services because of unlawful organisation of industrial action an entirely new statutory citizen's right to bring proceedings to stop that happening. This provision derives from, and is entirely in keeping with the spirit of, the Government's Citizen's Charter. There will be a commissioner (the commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action) who will be able to offer assistance to those contemplating or bringing proceedings under the new right.
Part II of the Bill provides important new rights for people at work. Clauses 22 to 24 will give every woman in employment a right to 14 weeks' maternity leave, regardless of the number of hours she works or the length of her service. She will also have the right not to be dismissed because she is pregnant or because she exercises her statutory right to take maternity leave. These new rights, which fulfil one of our manifesto commitments to improve opportunities for women, will benefit large numbers of working mothers who make up a vital and integral part of the working population.
Clause 25 gives every employee who works more than eight hours a week the right to receive a written statement explaining his or her basic terms and conditions of employment. Clause 26 provides protection against dismissal (or other victimisation) for safety representatives carrying out their duties, and employees who have to leave their work because of imminent risks to their health and safety. The clause will, I am quite sure, be of particular interest to this House as it extends and enhances protections which were enacted last year following the introduction of a Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her highly commendable initiative, which ensured protection for offshore safety representatives in line with the recommendations of the Cullen Report following the tragic Piper Alpha disaster. Since the passing into law of the Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Act 1992, such representatives have had the right to complain to an industrial tribunal, regardless of length of service
424
or hours of work, if dismissed or otherwise victimised for carrying out any of their functions. That is a most valuable protection, and I am sure that the extended and enhanced provisions contained in Clause 26 will enjoy the same all-party support as did the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness. These are only some of the new, additional employment protections which the Bill proposes, which make this Bill one of the most important for the enhancement of the employment rights of individuals.
The Bill also proposes reforms to the judicial machinery by which those and other rights can be exercised where necessary. Clauses 32 to 34 amend the constitution of industrial tribunals and of the employment appeal tribunal, and provide power to extend the jurisdiction of tribunals to complaints about breach of contract of employment.
We have also taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to update the statutory provisions governing ACAS (the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). Clauses 35 and 36 amend ACAS's statutory terms of reference to remove outdated and unnecessary references to the promotion of collective bargaining; place greater emphasis on the service's core business of dispute resolution; and end the anachronistic prohibition on the ACAS chairman from being a part-time post.
To ensure the taxpayer receives proper value for money, those clauses also provide ACAS with the power to charge for specified services where it thinks fit. The Secretary of State will also have a reserve power to direct ACAS to charge for a service, after first consulting the ACAS council.
Careers services provide essential and valuable advice and guidance which we wish to enhance and develop. The measures in Clause 37 remove the duty currently on local education authorities and place it on the Secretary of State. That is evidence of our commitment to quality careers guidance, and will enable arrangements to be made for careers services that best reflect local needs and conditions.
The key principles of good guidance—impartiality, comprehensive coverage of all career options, and equality of opportunity—remain unchanged. We shall continue to offer a free service, delivered by professionals to core client groups of young people in education and the jobs market.
In Clause 38 we make provision to allow careers service providers access to local education authority goods and services for a period of two years. That will enable those careers services, and private providers of such goods and services, to become established.
There is no doubt in our minds that the careers service can raise its overall quality. The high standards achieved by the best should be available everywhere. Organisations aspiring to provide services will have to demonstrate that they can meet demanding quality standards and sustain them.
Clause 31 abolishes the wages council system. The councils have been in decline for many years. From a peak of 66 councils in 1953, their numbers have been reduced so that today there are only 24 councils which continue to meet and set minimum rates of pay. The last Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils,

425
and the Wages Act 1986 further reduced their scope taking young people aged under 21 out of council regulation altogether.
Predictably, some pressure groups have campaigned vigorously against abolition. They have depicted a sound and sensible reform as a deliberate attack on the poor. Such emotive reactions fly in the face of reality. The Labour Party took some 600,000 workers out of wages council control with no detectable reduction in wages as a result. Young people's average earnings continued to increase when they were taken out of the wages council system.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister has just claimed that the average earnings of young people increased after they were removed from wages council protection. Of course they did. Other wages also increased. Is the Minister not aware that an Employment Gazette article which studied those matters indicated that in over half of the trades in which young people were removed from wages council protection, their wages fell relative to those of adults still in employment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there have been one or two studies of the effect of the 1986 regulations. They are inconclusive in many areas. However, as I have already said, average earnings continued to increase after they were removed from the wages council system. Nor are minimum wage laws an efficient or effective way to tackle poverty. Some two-thirds of wages council workers are paid significantly above minimum rates. Even the overwhelming majority of those wages council workers who are paid at or near minimum rates are not poor. Many work part time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. For a number of years as the honorary secretary of a club I employed staff under a wages council system. I do not believe that the Minister is aware of the relative position. Historically, in the case of wages paid under the aegis of the councils to which the Minister referred, the minimum always applied, much to my regret. I do not know where the Minister gets the idea that the minimum was never paid. The minimum was always the order of the day; and they were very poor wages in comparison with what could be earned in other industries.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, research demonstrates that among the main wages council trades, all bar one of the groups examined experienced significant growth in real pay between 1986 and 1992. That is the latest information concerning young people in the light of the latest law.
As I was saying, many wages council workers work part time and most contribute a second or third income to their households. The plain fact is that wages council workers are spread right across income distribution. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated that imposing statutory minimum rates gives more money to middle income groups than to those at the bottom.
426
The main effect of the wages councils is to force annual percentage increases in pay on individual employers regardless of their profitability, prospects, investment requirements or the local labour market. Where minimum rates have little net effect on the level of earnings, they are simply a bureaucratic burden. Where they artificially increase earnings they can only damage competitiveness and destroy jobs. We have made it clear for a long time that the councils have no permanent place in the labour market. They have outlived their usefulness. This Bill will bring their activities to an end.
The Bill before your Lordships' House is the product of careful consideration by the Government of responses to public consultation exercises. It includes what the Government see as necessary responses to events which call for further reform of employment law. It also incorporates a number of significant modifications and additions arising from the scrutiny given to the measures originally brought forward in another place.
However, during our consideration of other major pieces of employment legislation over the past decade, this House has invariably made useful amendments to Bills such as this. I have no doubt that the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will prove no exception.
I believe that there will be a general welcome for many parts of this Bill—not least the new rights for individual employees contained in Part II. Some of the proposals will no doubt give rise to vigorous debate, and my noble friend Lady Denton and I look forward to entering those debates during our detailed consideration of the provisions in Committee.
The Government are fully committed to the rights of individuals—whether as individual employees, individual trade union members or individual citizens. This Bill will extend individual rights in all those areas. In doing so, it will help to ensure that employees enjoy the protection to which they are entitled at work; that trade union members continue to have a proper and effective voice in the affairs of their unions; and that citizens, as customers, are no longer without the protection of the law when they are the victims of unlawful industrial action.
The Government are also firmly committed to the creation of a framework of law which encourages rather than hinders business growth and economic competitiveness. That is the only lasting way to stimulate the growth in jobs which we all want to see. That is why the Bill continues the successful reform of law governing industrial action. That is why we have drawn a proper balance between the rights of employees and the cost burdens which employers are asked to bear. That is why we are abolishing outdated and inflexible statutory wage fixing which serves only to put obstacles in the way of creating jobs.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I do not expect that the Minister anticipates a welcome to the Bill from our side of the House. It is true that there are

427
aspects that offer some improvements, in particular in health and safety and maternity rights. However, those could have been part of a different and separate Bill. In any event, they have largely been imposed upon the Government by EC directives. At Committee stage we shall be seeking some further improvements even so, in particular with regard to maternity provision.
For the remainder, the Bill is at best irrelevant at a time of high unemployment and at worst positively sinister. The Government really do have a nerve to come to the House with the words "employment rights" in the Title of the Bill when there are over 3 million unemployed—the figure is probably nearer 4 million—and when as recently as last Thursday, Black Thursday, further massive jobs losses were forecast at ICI and British Gas. The very term "employment rights" must occasion a few hollow laughs among those who have neither employment nor the prospect of obtaining it. Instead of addressing those problems, the Government have produced a Bill which seeks to put further curbs on the trade unions—in other words on the ability of workers collectively to protect themselves.
It should not be necessary 158 years after Tolpuddle to have to make a case for trade unionism. But this Government's philosophy is so anti-collective that I believe we have to do just that. There is still apparently some life in the old myth that unions are run by all-powerful barons and that individuals have to be protected against them rather than against exploitation by employers anxious to run their operations as cheaply as possible.
Much of the legislation since 1979 to which the Minister referred runs counter to International Labour Office conventions which the Government have themselves ratified. In other EC countries, including those with Conservative governments, unions are referred to as social partners. But, of course, the social partnership and the social chapter are both anathema to the Government.
It is also a myth that individuals do better on their own. Most people instinctively realise that if they wish to accomplish anything they must join up with people with similar interests and of like mind. That is how unions began in the first place and over the years much has been accomplished for employees by trade union organisation and agitation. I was a trade union official for some 30 years, as your Lordships know, and I know what I am talking about.
I deal with some of the main points of the Bill. First, on the matter of union membership, the Trades Union Congress has for many years operated its own internal mechanism aimed at dealing with membership disputes between unions. It has a separate tribunal chaired by a member of the TUC General Council, assisted by two sidespersons drawn from a panel of senior trade union officials. I am a member of that panel and have adjudicated in many disputes. We cannot, of course, sit on an issue involving our own union. There have sometimes been difficulties and problems but over the years the system has worked
428
well and, although once or twice there have been attempts to challenge in the courts the decisions that we have made, none to my knowledge has succeeded.
It has always been our aim to strengthen collective bargaining and thus the rights of individual members, since the reason why most people join unions is to be represented in negotiations with their employer. The question that we on the panel always ask is, "Which union actually negotiates terms and conditions of employment for those workers, or which has the best chance of doing so?". It is a system of self-regulation which many members support. There has been no call for it to be dismantled and yet that will be the result if the Bill, which prevents a union excluding a member except on certain narrow grounds and also prevents a union from declining to accept a member, takes effect.
I was under the impression that the Government were in favour of single union agreements. But clearly those would be fragmented by such a provision. It is argued that individuals must be free to join whichever union they believe can represent their interests most effectively. However, the Bill confers no right of representation or recognition. Indeed, the provisions which once existed which enabled unions to seek and obtain recognition by an employer following a test of employee opinion was dispensed with years ago by Conservative administrations. Self-regulation is apparently all right for financial institutions but not for trade unions, which must be encased within a tight legal framework.
Then there is the provision about the collection of union subscriptions by the system known as check-off, under which, by agreement with a union, union subscriptions are deducted by the employer from pay. To my certain knowledge, such deductions do not take place in my union without individual written consent of each member. I believe that to be true of others. The Bill will now impose the additional administrative burden of what amounts to an individual three-yearly check. Clearly employers do not want that additional burden, with the result that there are likely to be fewer check-off agreements. Employers' organisations have described it as an unnecessary administrative nightmare without commensurate benefit. Clearly the intention is to make it more difficult for unions to collect their subscriptions. In other words, it is an attempt to undermine the capacity for unions to operate their cash flow in the way that they have hitherto done.
I refer to the new provisions about industrial disputes. As the Minister has explained, it is already necessary to ballot members in advance of strike action. In the main the trade union movement does not quarrel with that; and neither do I. However, under the Bill it will no longer be possible to have ballots at the workplace, as allowed under existing legislation. The workplace system allows for maximum membership participation. All is now to be conducted by postal voting except, I believe, in the case of some very small companies. As a result of a government amendment introduced at a late stage in the Commons, from 1996 unions will no longer be able to apply for and obtain public money towards the cost of such ballots. The Government therefore say that it

429
is in the public interests that unions should ballot everyone by postal voting in advance of a strike, but there is no public money available to meet the cost of such an endeavour.
Taken with previous legislation, the provisions of the Bill represent a set of formidable hurdles for a union to surmount before a dispute can be regarded as lawful. Independent scrutineers have to be appointed and of course paid for, and must have access to and inspect membership registers. Copies of the notice of the ballot must be given to the employer seven days in advance, and a copy of the ballot form three days in advance. Information must be supplied indicating which members of the workforce are to be balloted and whether the dispute is to be continuous or non-continuous. Ballot papers must be issued by post. They must indicate to members that if they strike they will be breaking their contracts of employment. Why we should have to do that in this country in the case of a lawful dispute, I do not know. In many countries in the EC, employment contracts are simply regarded as suspended in such a situation.
At the end of the ballot the scrutineers will have up to four weeks to turn in the result. As if that were not enough, individual members of the public are to be given a new right to sue unions if they feel disadvantaged as a result of an unlawful dispute, whether or not they are party to a contract disrupted by the dispute or have actually suffered any damage. A new commissioner is to be appointed to give material assistance to such people, at a time when legal aid is being cut back in other areas. Clearly, Mr. Disgusted of Tonbridge will have a high old time of it. He or she is not likely to know whether or not a dispute is lawful, and probably will not care. However, each complaint will have to be investigated, with all the expense and administrative time involved. Again, no reputable body of opinion has campaigned for that.
The Government still seem to consider that unions exist only to organise strikes. I can tell the Minister that that is not so. Strike action is normally agreed by union executives only as a last resort. I have organised a number of disputes in my time and I know what I am talking about. Disputes are extraordinarily worrying affairs, if, as most union officials do, you care about your members. There is the worry that they and their families will have to exist on strike pay, which is substantial only in a few unions. There is the stress involved in coping with the intimidation which often takes place and the worry about how to bring the dispute to an end in a way that will be beneficial to the members. Altogether, we would sooner have conciliation or arbitration, if either were available. But of course the Government do not believe in arbitration either. They have virtually written the Central Arbitration Committee—of which I was at one time a member—out of existing legislation and it has little role left.
The Government clearly believe that employees with a grievance should either put up or shut up. In
430
times of high unemployment, they are scarcely in a position to leave, so the market philosophy does not work terribly well for them.
An even stranger provision crept into the Bill at Report stage in the other place. When I first read it, I wondered whether the Government had really at last gone a little dotty—and one has to ask oneself that. I am talking about the new provisions in relation to merger ballots, ballots on trade union mergers and amalgamations. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it takes a long time to bring about mergers between unions. But most people, including governments in the past, have felt that mergers between unions were a good idea. At one time, we had far too many small unions. Over the years, there have been a number of mergers. Of course, individual members have to be balloted before a merger is effected, but the ballot normally takes place only after much discussion at branch and regional level and also at annual conferences. However, not everyone goes to meetings; there are many loyal union members who do not do so. They are surely entitled, when the ballot occurs, to know what their elected leadership thinks about it and is recommending.
However, under the provisions of the Bill, they will not know unless the union goes to the considerable additional expense of circulating them by post separately. That, I understand, is what is meant by the clause which says that no recommendation or opinion is to be included with the ballot paper. To my mind, that is a removal of an individual right rather than the reverse and it strikes me as being quite ludicrous.
As I said earlier, there are provisions about health and safety which appear to offer improvements, and they are welcome. It will mean, of course, as the Minister said, that the Bill which we piloted through the House last year to protect safety representatives against victimisation while working offshore will be expunged. But I understand that the full compensation terms included in the Act have been carried over into the present Bill. If they will in future apply to everyone in similar circumstances, we shall, of course, be pleased. We shall be able to go further into that in Committee.
The case is similar with maternity rights. I understand that those also arise from the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work. However, there are some problems, I understand, about premature babies, the length of leave envisaged in the Bill and about women who are sick and off work due to a pregnancy-related illness. Again those are matters which we shall seek to explore further in Committee.
In regard to the transfer of undertakings regulations, again, those are to be amended, as I understand it, in accordance with EC directives. However, the present regulations exclude pension rights of employees in transfer and merger situations. We shall seek to deal with that in Committee. While on the subject of EC directives, I regret that there is no provision in the Bill which would give pro rata protection to part-time workers, many of whom are women. I am flagging that to the Minister as an issue which will be raised during the passage of the Bill.

431
I now come to a very controversial aspect of the Bill—perhaps the most controversial of all: the proposal to abolish wages councils. Of course, the Government have been hinting about it for some time. We have occasionally in the past been told by the Minister that wages councils have outlived their usefulness. If that were so, there would be no low paid workers in the UK. Sadly, that is not the case. Wages councils currently provide protection for 2½ million people, mostly women, and many from ethnic minorities. They are among the most vulnerable in the workforce. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society have been campaigning on that, since they believe—I am sure correctly—that abolition will have a disproportionate effect on women's wages relative to those of men, and they see it as a gender issue.
Measures which weakened wages councils that were taken by the Government in 1986 have not created jobs. The consultation paper produced in 1988 by the Government now reads rather oddly. It is claimed, for example, that since wages councils ceased to cover young people in 1986, their earnings have not plummeted but have continued to rise. But —and this is the main point—the rate of youth employment has declined dramatically. I think that not even the Government would now make such a claim. Employment has not been created as a result of young people no longer being covered by wages councils.
Of course, there is no reason why the system should not be reviewed; indeed Labour governments did that in the past and, as the Minister said, a number of wages councils were discontinued. But one has to remember that in those circumstances there was a great deal more collective bargaining than there is now and the unions were quite happy for wages councils to disappear if collective bargaining would be available to take its place for the individuals concerned. But there is far less opportunity for that nowadays, largely due to the type of legislation that we are discussing this afternoon.
So there is no reason why we should not review the system and perhaps there is now no need for a council covering the ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower industry, although there are still artificial flowers. Of course, there needs to be better enforcement. But to abolish wages councils altogether is bound to lead to further exploitation of vulnerable people. It simply means that the taxpayer is having to subsidise low-paying employers.
It is significant that the consultation paper of 1988 quite specifically refers to benefits such as family credit as a reason why it would not matter if the councils were abolished. But why should the rest of us subsidise employers who will not pay a living wage? Why should the Minister again this afternoon trot out the old argument about part-time employees—that being women, of course—not being the main wage earners and therefore it does not matter because they are secondary wage earners? They should still be paid a reasonable rate for the job and, if they are not paid it, the rest of us have to subsidise the failure of employers to provide a living wage.
432
Then there is, in this rag-bag of a Bill, the proposition that in future it should be possible to hear certain cases before industrial tribunals with chairmen sitting alone. I am not surprised that this suggestion should emanate from a Government so against tripartitism, but last week representatives of an employers' organisation came to see me. They were very upset about this proposition, which they felt would import more legalism into a system which is supposed to be not too legalistic. Surely we should make use of the industrial and practical experience of the sidespersons who now sit with legally qualified chairmen.
The representatives of the employers' organisation who saw me said that small firms were worried because they felt that they would have to be legally represented if there were only a chairman sitting alone. They felt that that would add to their costs and they could not afford it. That is an employers' angle, but from the employees' angle, as one who in the past has represented trade union members before a tribunal, I feel quite certain that I should have felt much happier to have a representative there who knew something about the industrial relations scene. I should not feel happy about simply having to present a case to a chairman sitting alone.
Then it is proposed to remove from the functions of ACAS the obligation to promote the development of collective bargaining. Of course, the Government do not believe in collective bargaining. However, they have ratified the ILO Convention 98 on the right to organise and bargain collectively. That may be another instance of the Government flouting an ILO convention of which they themselves are a signatory.
Finally, I wish to say a word about provisions relating to the careers service. As has been explained, the provision of this service will no longer be a statutory duty for local education authorities. It looks to me as though the Government wish to privatise the service. One can only remind the Minister that the Government's previous activities in this type of area have not been markedly successful. The Professional and Executive Register was sold off some time ago to none other than Robert Maxwell and the company ceased trading last December. There is no reason why the service should not remain with LEAs. It is quite possible that a number of my colleagues will address this subject during the debate. Furthermore, I believe that there is doubt that the needs of the disabled will be properly looked after. That is an aspect that we must explore further in Committee.
I return to my original theme. There is no pressing need for most of the Bill. No one wants it. Trade unions are not the all-purpose ogres that they once were. Indeed, according to the latest opinion polls their standing is rising while that of the Government is falling.
So why do we have the Bill? Is it because the Prime Minister wants to tell foreign investors: "Look, we have over 3 million unemployed. We have tied the unions in knots. There is precious little employment regulation and no protection at all for low paid workers. So welcome to bargain basement, sweatshop Britain". Is that what it is all about? This is a truly awful Bill.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for having explained so clearly the main provisions of the Bill. In the past we have supported much of the Government's legislation that affected trades unions. Indeed, in a few cases we advocated reforms in advance of the Government: for example, in regard to the need for unions to use secret postal ballots under independent supervision in electing members of their principal executive committees. But on this occasion I have to say that in their so-called step-by-step approach to trade union reform the Government, in our view, have gone several steps too far.
On that point we are in accord with the widely respected organisation, the Institute of Personnel Management, whose members have to negotiate with trade unions in the front line. The IPM sees no compelling reason to introduce the changes which, for example, concern check-off arrangements and wages councils. The institute further considers—I agree—that those and other changes will do little to contribute positively to productivity, quality and competitiveness.
A case can certainly be made out for some of the individual proposals in Part I of the Bill. But I suggest that even they are largely irrelevant to this country's economic and social needs. Politically, in our view, they have more to do with persisting in a policy which, though appropriate for the early 1980s, today savours too much of continuing to knock trade unions when unions no longer offer any serious threat to the well-being of society.
I turn now to the Bill's main provisions. At this stage I shall pass quickly over the relatively uncontentious clauses, Clauses 1 to 12, concerning ballots and the financial affairs of trade unions.
An exception to that is Clause 7, which has the effect of withdrawing the Government's power to fund trade union ballots after 31st March 1996. It must be acknowledged that when such funding was introduced some unions were unwilling to accept it. Having said that, the situation today is very different from what it was then. At the same time that unions are now being told that funding is to be withdrawn they are being obliged under the Bill to spend more money on ballots. To me that smacks of a certain meanness. Indeed, I recall at Third Reading in this House of the 1988 Employment Bill saying even then that, because independently supervised postal ballots would prove to be very costly for trade unions, my noble friends and I considered that the Government were being parsimonious and short-sighted in refusing to allow public funds to be used to help finance the cost of employing independent scrutineers. Now financial assistance is to be withdrawn altogether and we deplore it. We also greatly deplore the fact that this clause was introduced at Report stage in another place out of the blue and without any prior consultation. We shall certainly oppose it in Committee.
Clause 13 is the clause which the Government say will give union members the right to decide for themselves which union they will join. That sounds
434
fine, though in practice it will undermine the role of the TUC in operating the so-called "Bridlington principles" which were designed to regulate competition for membership between unions. The question is whether the individual freedom that the clause is intended to provide may be outweighed by the conflict between unions which may result, to the possible detriment of orderly relationships in the workplace. In Committee we shall examine the clause with those considerations in mind.
Clause 14 is concerned with the deduction by the employer of union subscriptions from an employee's wages under the so-called check-off system. That is the general practice in the chemical industry, in which I used to work. It has benefited employers as well as trade unions in replacing earlier arrangements under which shop stewards were obliged to collect union dues from each individual in working time and thus inevitably interrupt production. In my experience, employees have had no difficulty in exercising control over the payment of their union's subscriptions. While the initial authorisation of check-off should certainly continue to be required on an individual basis, insistence on reauthorisation periodically and whenever the amount changes might well cause an undue increase in the administrative burden not only on trade unions but also on employers who nevertheless would not wish to withdraw from check-off arrangements. After all, banks operate direct debit arrangements for subscriptions to clubs, charities and other kinds of organisations in a similar way to check-off without requiring reauthorisation either periodically or whenever the amount involved changes.
I turn to Clauses 16 to 21 which deal with the organisation of industrial action, ballots for that action and the rights of individuals to bring proceedings to restrain unlawful action. We have a number of concerns about those clauses. We are troubled lest the requirements in both Clauses 17 and 20—namely, that a trade union should so describe employees to an employer that their identities can readily be ascertained—amount to an unreasonable breach of confidentiality. By no means all union members pay their subscriptions by check-off and thus disclose their identity to their employer. Some individuals may well not wish their employer to know that they are union members. I understand from the exchanges at Report stage of the Bill in another place that the Government may be willing to initiate or accept an amendment to meet that point. I shall be grateful, when the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, replies to the debate, if he will confirm that that is so.
Clause 21 empowers individuals to take proceedings to stop unlawfully organised action if it results in their being deprived of goods or services. The number of cases of unlawful action is now very small. Accordingly we shall need to be satisfied that the proposed new right will not give rise to vexatious litigation and, in the highly charged atmosphere of major disputes, lead to an extension of the dispute rather than to its speedy resolution.
We welcome the fact that in Part II of the Bill the Government are giving statutory effect to European

435
Community directives designed to improve the protection available to employees in terms of such matters as maternity leave and rights relating to pregnancy, written statements to employees of their employment conditions and protection against dismissal for employees and their representatives where health and safety are at stake. However, we shall wish to examine closely in Committee the Government's proposals to establish whether they fully meet EC directives and see if they could reasonably be taken further.
In that connection I give notice to the Minister that in the case of both Clauses 29 and 30, which deal respectively with the transfer of undertakings and collective redundancy, I am unhappy that, in confining the right to prior consultation and information to recognise trade unions rather than to employee representatives generally, the Government have apparently refused to respond to the European Commission's concerns on that point. I therefore propose to move amendments in Committee to remedy that deficiency.
That brings me to Part III of the Bill and particularly to the Government's proposal to abolish the remaining wages councils. My noble friends and I do not accept that the Government have produced satisfactory evidence that wages councils are damaging the economy. Indeed, many employers and academic bodies have argued against the claim that the wages councils have been instrumental in increasing unemployment. On the contrary, they consider that without such councils as remain unscrupulous employers will compete to drive down the wages of the lowest paid and, so far from resulting in any increase in employment, it could well exacerbate recruitment problems which already exist. As the noble Baroness Lady Turner, said, it will result also in an increase in the amount of family credit that will have to be paid to those low-income households that are adversely affected.
From these Benches on a number of occasions I have said that, unlike the Labour Party, we are opposed to the concept of a national minimum wage. In case that position is thought to be inconsistent with what I have said, I should explain that in our view there are significant differences between the current wages council system and a national minimum wage system. First, the minimum wages set by wages councils are negotiated between employers, employees and independent people in the relevant industries, whereas the national minimum wage would be determined by statute. We consider that it is much better to involve management and employee representatives in open discussion rather than that Ministers and civil servants should impose on the whole country a specific minimum wage level.
Secondly, the wages council system allows for a targeted industry-by-industry approach rather than the inflexible across-the-board approach that a national minimum wage would involve. It thus takes account of the economic and employment conditions within each industry, whereas the national minimum wage would preclude such flexibility. It may be said that it would be better still for wages councils to allow
436
for regional as well as sectoral flexibility. However, that is an argument not for abolition but for reform of the system, which could include an increase in the resources and powers of the wages inspectorate. Best of all, in our view, would be an integration of the tax and benefit systems, which Liberal Democrats have long advocated and under which benefits could be directed not to those on low pay but to ensure that people, especially those with families, enjoy a decent minimum income.
There are a number of other matters on which we shall wish to question the Government closely. For example, I am thinking of the change proposed in Clause 32 in the constitution of industrial tribunals under which a chairman is to be permitted to sit alone to hear appeals. That change is no doubt intended to speed up the hearing of cases. Our first reaction is that it may be at an unacceptable cost in terms of the loss of industrial experience resulting from the absence of lay members. Then there is the proposal in Clause 37 to transfer responsibility for career services from local education authorities to the Department of Employment. In that case we shall need to be assured that the proposal is not just another step on the way to concentrating powers in the hands of central government and continuing gradually to emasculate the functions of the local authority.
In conclusion, I feel obliged to reiterate that many of the measures proposed in the Bill savour to us of mean-mindedness and will do nothing positively to encourage co-operation between management and employees, which is so badly needed if economic recovery is to be achieved and sustained. I believe that the Bill is based largely on a philosophy which is now outdated and, what is more, that its enaction will be seen as such by the great majority of fair-minded British people.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Ullswater for introducing the Bill this afternoon and explaining its provisions so clearly. Like other speakers, I too have a number of points I shall wish to raise at Committee stage, particularly in relation to Part II.
I welcome this legislation. I believe that it builds on success. It follows on five Acts of Parliament covering trade union reform since 1979 which have transformed Britain's previous record of bad industrial relations. I believe that when future historians look back on this period, those Acts will be singled out as one of the success stories of the time. In fact, they have redressed the balance of power between employers and employees and they have encouraged inward investment.
If I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—a most skilful advocate of her particular position— I was extremely surprised by what she had to say in regard to inward investment. It has brought much new employment to this country. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence whatever that those employed in industry are anything remotely resembling sweated labourers. Inward investment has brought increased employment and prosperity both to a number of

437
people and areas. Indeed, an independent survey of foreign firms in the late 1980s showed that 96 per cent. believed that British industrial relations had improved significantly and 70 per cent. planned to increase their investment in this country. An OECD economic report on the United Kingdom in 1991 described our structural reforms as impressive, including the reform of trade union law.
My home is Oxford, usually referred to in your Lordships' House as one of the seats of an ancient university. However, it is also a centre of the motorcar industry. When I served, as I did for 15 years, in local government in Oxford during the 1960s and 1970s, one tragic fact emerged. That was the continual series of strikes in the motorcar industry which almost brought it to its knees. In contrast, it is extremely heartening in these difficult economic times to read in our local newspaper only last week that the Rover plant is taking on 350 extra employees and starting a night shift. That company too is building on success and is to be congratulated. I believe that much of that improvement can be laid on the reforms of the trade union law. Indeed, it is unlikely that Hoover would wish to relocate to Scotland and so increase employment there but for those reforms.
Those are the reasons I welcome the Bill. In its details, on which I understand there will be much discussion, it protects the rights of trade union members and gives individuals greater freedom to belong to a union of their choice. There are a number of technical proposals such as the abuse of check-off arrangements, which I believe will be helpful. A new proposal in Clause 21 gives a new citizen's right which will enable anyone deprived of goods or services to bring proceedings against the organisation involved.
Clauses 37 and 38 covering the careers services will prove to be helpful. As I understand it, they will open up the management of the careers service. I know from my own local government experience that the careers service has done much good work, but in the changed society in which we live, with the levels of unemployment and the increasing flexibility demanded in the workplace, there is advantage in opening that up to the best practice where it has been achieved in any area. That measure would be valuable for young people and others who are seeking employment.
I realise that the most contentious part of the legislation is that which concerns wages councils. Wages councils legislation was introduced in 1909, but the world today is a very different place. Wages councils distort the operation of the labour market, and national statutory wage rates are inconsistent with the need for more flexible pay arrangements. There is research that shows a link between wages councils and job losses. The IOD and the CBI have spoken against them and point to their effects, particularly on small firms that employ fewer than 50 people. Experience has shown, as with the proposals for a national minimum wage, that they can produce more unemployment.
I should like to add a further point in relation to the interlocking between wages councils and family credit. The purpose of family credit is to help families on low
438
wages. In 98 per cent. of cases family credit is paid to women but it is based on the income of the whole family. There are now approximately 450,000 people who receive family credit, and the average payment is £42 per week. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us how many families who are now covered by wages councils would continue to be helped, even after their abolition, by family credit. That kind of payment would help those in low paid employment and would accurately target a great many people who are in need.
There is much that is welcome in relation to maternity provisions. The Bill recognises the immense contribution that women make to the economy—and I include those who work part-time. Women workers offer flexibility, and, in the case of many married women returners, the benefit of their experience of bringing up families and other employment.
The current maternity rights provisions are strengthened by the implementation of the EC directive on pregnant workers which sets new standards on health and safety. It gives greater protection against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and childbirth. In that connection I congratulate my honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Shephard, on insisting successfully that the directive could not be interpreted as linking sick pay with maternity leave.
I welcome Clause 25 which implements the Government's commitment to give those who are working eight hours or more a week the right to a written statement of their main terms and conditions of employment.
However, I do have some concerns. The Equal Opportunities Commission and some other organisations are concerned as to whether a period of 14 weeks for maternity leave is long enough. In the interests of both the mother and the employers, that is a situation that should be looked at carefully. The EOC have suggested a period of 18 weeks. Most women take 11 weeks' leave before the birth of their child, leaving them three weeks afterwards under the 14-week rule. It is a matter for individuals and how they feel, but I understand that the median time is 20 weeks before the birth of the first child and 18 weeks for subsequent births, which suggests that there is a problem for many women on returning to work. A longer period of maternity leave would benefit the mother, but I suggest that an employer wants the woman to return to work and will have spent much money on training her for the job which she has held, which would be wasted if she did not return to employment. Therefore, the issue of costs needs to be looked at very carefully.
The proposal for 14 weeks' maternity leave will add another tier to the already very complicated two-tier system of different lengths of service qualifications for leave and pay. The directive also requires provision for maternity pay, but that situation is not covered by the Bill and is to be dealt with at a later date. I shall not attempt to explain the complexities of maternity pay and leave provisions, but that is a matter which, in the interests of the women involved and the employers, could be improved and clarified. I hope that my noble friend, in the course of the passage of

439
the Bill, will be able to say something positive on that, which would be very helpful to a great many people. I hope that he will look very seriously at the 14-week period of maternity leave.
We shall no doubt cover an enormous number of very detailed and important points in the remaining stages of the Bill, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the Bill is on the right lines. It builds on the success which the Government have achieved in trade union legislation over the past 14 years, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, one might almost get the impression from the Minister's enthusiastic introduction that the Bill is like the return of an ageing prima donna to the stage, the response to an overwhelming popular demand. In July 1991 the National Opinion Polls organisation asked a sample of voters the following question:
"Do you feel that there is a need for any more such legislation?"
One-fifth of those asked said that there was; two-thirds said no. That was the response of the Conservative voters who were asked. My Lords, popular demand? Not from decent employers and not from trade unionists.
There may be a few trade unionists who would welcome certain parts of the Bill. There are a few who regard wages councils as an impediment to recruiting and the development of militancy, who would prefer employees to join their union and take the employer on. There will be a few trade unionists who never liked the check-off and who are nostalgic for the days when the steward went round with his box on a Friday, collecting the subscriptions and the grievances, and doing a bit of stirring.
The Bill may well sharpen demands for the disclosure of financial information about companies and their managers and perhaps even about the sources of income of the Conservative Party.
There may be a few trade unionists who have been outvoted in a ballot on a wage settlement and who think that to join another union and get it involved in negotiations, thus breaking down a single union agreement, would get them a better deal. I would not encourage action along those lines; I am stating that the Bill will give the green light to those kinds of trade union activists.
I am not particularly bothered if the Government make a rod for their own backs or for the backs of their supporters. But if they make rods for employers' hacks, then we can reasonably expect employers to sit up and take notice—and of course they are doing so. The CBI, BIM, IPM, the Industrial Society and the Engineering Employers' Federation have put their criticisms on record, as have individual employers—for example, Sainsbury, Tesco, Asda, etc. Those employers do not share the belief of the Government that the way for Britain to compete is by way of low wages; that the way to improve Britain's industrial performance is by further tilting the balance of power in favour of the worst kind of employer—the Brick Lane brigade.
440
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has questioned whether there is exploitation and sweated labour. I invite her to accompany me to the Whitechapel area. I should be delighted to take her, if they would let us in, to some of the sweat shops that are still characteristic of the East End of London.
The theme of the legislation is that the employers' ability to rule by fear will be further increased by the Government. To that end, the ability of employees to combine in trade unions for their collective protection must be further undermined. Those attitudes have shaped the legislation which has been put on the statute book since 1980.
I have lost track of the number of Acts which relate to trade unions. No doubt my noble friend Lord Wedderburn will remind us. However, I am not alone in my ignorance because most trade unionists have lost count. Few employers can describe with accuracy their legal rights and duties. The fact is that most employers and trade unionists have continued to sort out the problems of change without much reference to the small print of all the legislation.
The Minister told us that since 1980 fewer days have been lost in industrial disputes. That is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is not difficult to bottle up grievances when 1 billion working days are being lost each year as a result of unemployment and when every television news programme reports new sackings. The Minister spoke of 13 million days lost in strikes. Let him compare that with 1 billion and evaluate the relative impact on Britain's economy and well-being.
Furthermore, it is not surprising that trade union membership has fallen during the past 10 years. I find more surprising the fact that 10 million people have stuck to their unions and that two-thirds of establishments still have trade union members. Only a small number of people have walked away from their unions as distinct from those who have lost their jobs and subsequently their membership. The reason is not far to seek. The union card is the best insurance policy which the individual worker can carry.
All that must be most disappointing for the Government and therefore we are seeing yet another attack on trade union membership and finances. The Bill will create extra bureaucracy and will impose increased expenditure on unions in relation to ballots. In addition, state funding for ballots is to be withdrawn. That will not improve the ballots or increase their effectiveness. Furthermore, it is nonsense to insist on postal ballots in the face of evidence from employers that work-place ballots operate fairly and produce a much higher level of participation than postal ballots.
Much more important are the changes in the arrangements for the check-off, which were effectively criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and others. The arrangements are invariably the result of agreements between employers and unions. They are designed to simplify procedures and to save the employers' time. This change is designed to encourage employers to abandon those agreements and thus weaken trade unions financially. That is the only purpose so we return to Friday afternoon collections.

441
No wonder the EEF talks of an administrative nightmare. I hope that good employers who operate the check-off will remember that they benefit by unions protecting them against their unscrupulous competitors.
The most obvious case is that of the wages councils. It is notable that the Government have changed their mind since 1988. Perhaps they are tired of defending themselves against charges of malign neglect and of flouting their own laws by ignoring the deliberate evasion of wages council orders. The wages councils do not help trade unions to organise. The situation is quite the reverse; they help decent employers to survive. If the Government wish to weaken trade unions, I shall give them some advice. They should be extending statutory provision and not reducing it. I welcome Part II of the Bill, although time does not permit me to comment on the improvements which need to be made. I express the hope that the Government will take the opportunity of extending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the staff who serve us here and in another place.
The paradox is that employers have not asked for the legislation. On the contrary, they have criticised it. Two areas in particular have been singled out and have been referred to already. The first is Clause 21. That gives individuals without any contractual relationship the right to bring proceedings and to have them paid for by the taxpayer. I hold no brief for unlawful action; but I am impressed by the comment of the Institute of Personnel Management. It stated:
"The proposal is wrong in principle and likely to do great harm to industrial and corporate relations".
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the BIM and CBI also cautioned against the proposal.
The second area of criticism is Clause 13, which the Minister claimed will extend the freedom of the individual worker. He said that that is curtailed by the TUC's procedures for regulating relations between unions. Those procedures do indeed set limits on the rights of the unions and their members as do the procedures which properly and by agreement regulate activities here in your Lordships' House. The Government have not, or cannot, grasp that unions protect individual workers. The files of the citizens advice bureaux are full of cases of non-unionists—of individual workers—who have been robbed by employers even of the statutory rights enacted by this Parliament.
The most effective way in which an individual can secure his natural rights, his contractual rights or his statutory rights is by combining with his fellows. In doing that, he acquires duties as well as rights. The same applies to unions which affiliate to the TUC. The Bridlington rules are accepted and valued by unions as the basis of good order and of stable industrial relations. They are valued by employers for the same reasons.
The Government paint a picture of the little man oppressed by the powerful union and prevented by the Bridlington rules from escaping to a more sympathetic union. However, the reality is that in practice unions acquiesce in a great deal of movement by thousands of
442
individual members between unions. They object when that takes the form of organised groups seceding and seeking to destabilise existing collective bargaining procedures.
There are two typical situations in which the disputes procedures are invoked in order to prevent the movement of members. The first is that in which a group of workers with a grievance against the union decides to secede to another union, are wrongfully accepted, and the second union demands recognition. Grievances can arise from the settlement of a wage claim, the termination of a dispute or an agreement to change working practices. What is a union supposed to do when after a majority decision to accept a settlement, possibly as a result of a ballot, a disaffected minority decide to reject that? They may walk away to another union, possibly one which does not want to accept them at national level but finds that they have been recruited locally?
The second case is that in which another union wants to muscle in on a company. Often a big union is involved at the expense of a small union, as in the case of the Fox and Goose public house. In that case, Congress had to expel for a short time the Transport and General Workers Union in order to concentrate the mind of its biggest affiliate on the need to accept a disputes committee ruling in favour of the small Licensed House Managers Association.
Incidentally, it has been claimed that the TGWU wants a relaxation of the Bridlington rules. I understand that Mr. Morris has called for a review of the principles. That is nothing new because during my time in office the rules were brought up to date in 1969, 1973, 1976 and 1979. They may well have been revised since then.
Therefore, the second case is deliberate poaching. Some people take a romantic view of poachers. I suspect that this is not shared by landlords on the Benches opposite, and certainly not by employers. In both of these cases, it is the employer who would suffer if the Bridlington procedures were outlawed, which is what this Bill would do. These rules protect employers by laying down that no union may authorise a stoppage of work arising from a dispute with another union until the dispute has been notified to, and been dealt with by, the TUC. Enact Clause 23 and it will be the employer who will have to deal with the dispute, the employer who would have to face a possible strike for recognition—all quite lawful—and, if it is successful, will have another union raising the ante at the negotiating table. So as well as increasing the probability of industrial action, this Bill—as has been said—must, by definition, multiply the number of unions that a company has to deal with.
Nor does the problem stop at the first action. The time will come when another minority develops a grievance, and yet another union will offer its consolation and its services. So the numbers—and the employer's problems—will escalate. It has been claimed that the dispute about the Ford plant at Dundee provides a case for this clause. It is quite the reverse. It is clear in this situation that the union's national officers were pressed—pushed—by their local members at Ford, quite democratically, and that those

443
members were reluctant to see the emergence of a single-union agreement, AEU agreement, at the Dundee plant at a time when the general secretaries were obviously under pressure from the TUC to accept it. Secondly, there has been no similar case since 1987. Trade unions learn from experience, and the TUC builds up its authority as much from its failures as from its successes. The third important thing that sticks out a mile is that if this proposal had been law, we would never have heard of Dundee, because the AEU would never have been able to offer a single union agreement at Dundee and Ford would never have considered establishing a plant there.
From whatever angle one examines the proposal, it is clear that it will lead to grievances becoming claims for representation by another union or unions, from there to disputes, and quite possibly to strikes for recognition. If a handful of people were to take up membership of another union, they could force that union to seek recognition by strike action, if necessary. If this proposal means anything, it means that the new union must claim to represent the members. If the Government do not intend that the new union should get representation and recognition at the bargaining table, then let them tell us now. I shall happily sit down if they tell us that that is not their intention. If it is their intention that the membership should be able to claim representation and recognition and become involved in bargaining, and thus multiply the number of unions, then what I have said is certainly the case.
No wonder the employers' organisations—the CBI, the ABCC, the IPM and so on—have criticised this proposal. Perhaps the IPM, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred, should have the last word on this subject.
"There has been no pressure from our members for any proposal to support the disbanding of the Bridlington rules. Whilst fully supportive of individual rights the removal of these procedures could be a destabilising factor…'single union' sites or recognition and brown field 'single table' bargaining should not be placed in jeopardy by this proposal."
4.34 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an extremely important Bill which it is right that your Lordships' House should be considering, having a full discussion and giving reign to its wide experience of these matters. It is of course the sixth Bill in a series of measures dealing with this subject which have been passed during the term of office of the present Conservative Government. It is the combined effect of these measures that your Lordships will wish to have in mind in considering the details of this Bill.
It is the fact that there is little industrial trouble at the moment. The era of continual strikes and pay disputes that we endured in the 1970s seems to have come to an end. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, criticising the introduction of this Bill "at a time of high unemployment". It seems to me that the argument is all the other way. A measure that is plainly going to help employment becomes even more urgent against the background of the unemployment levels of today.
444
The industrial peace that we are enjoying at the moment should be a considerable contributory factor to restoring the levels of employment that we would like to see. Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Baroness's argument should be the other way round: that a measure that might have been thought less necessary at a time of full employment acquires additional considerable importance when it is introduced at a time when unemployment is, sadly enough, high. It is in that spirit that I suggest that your Lordships' House would wish to consider this matter.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that it is not six, it is eight? There have been eight Bills. I seem to remember that with every single one of those Bills in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1992 on that side of the House noble Lords claimed exactly the same, that that Bill would reduce unemployment—except it was always going up.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it was not expressed like that. It was expressed at the time that the Bills would help the problem of unemployment. It would have been foolish to claim—and it was not claimed—that each Bill of itself would substantially reduce unemployment. The fact is that they create better conditions in British industry and therefore help to deal, perhaps in a modest degree to begin with, with the problems of unemployment. That was what was said. If the noble Lord cares to consult the voluminous reports in Hansard of your Lordships' House on the five debates on the previous five Bills he will find that that was the argument.
The other point I would beg him to consider is this: what is clearly the case is that this country appears to foreign investors to be the best European country in which to invest. Take the Japanese: they could invest anywhere in Europe but overwhelmingly they have decided to invest in this country. Why? They have done so because they realised that we were introducing stable, peaceful industrial relations and that this made this country a sensible place in which to invest.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the noble Lord say the same thing about British investors, who appear to be more attracted to investing their capital in the United States of America?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can deduce very much evidence in support of that easily enunciated proposition. In any event, I am dealing with the point that he entirely avoided, that people such as the Japanese, who have the free choice of the whole world in which to invest and who can invest anywhere in Europe, have in fact decided that this is a sensible country in which to invest.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may finish my sentence. Because of our good industrial relations, our industrial calm and our freedom from strikes and disturbances, they can profitably and suitably invest here. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that one of the reasons why the Japanese want to invest here is that we still have a fairly highly skilled workforce, although a lot of it is unemployed? Does he not appreciate that a little while ago, when I had the opportunity to talk to some Japanese who were coming to invest here, industrial relations played no role in that decision at all? They wanted to talk to the unions about coming here (I was one of the union representatives), and they were concerned with the skill of the workforce they were about to employ.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with great respect, there might be several reasons why they did not wish to discuss industrial relations with the noble Baroness, some of which it might be discourteous of me to suggest. In fact, it is the good industrial relations in this country which have caused the Japanese overwhelmingly to place their investment here. It really is no good the noble Baroness trying to avoid that and to avoid the conclusion, which is absolutely and abundantly plain, that the main reason for that is the effect of the five successive measures to which I have referred on the working of our system. That is what the noble Baroness—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am trying to deal with the noble Baroness. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the principle of "Ladies first".
That is the reason why the Japanese are investing —and that is the answer to the point which the noble Baroness sought to make, which was that it is a bad thing to introduce this Bill at a time when we are all grievously facing unemployment. I give way now to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most interested in what the noble Lord is saying. He is saying that foreign investors are coming here because of the five, six, seven or eight industrial relations measures which have been introduced and because industrial relations here are so good. But industrial relations are good in Germany, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France, so why do foreign investors want to come here in particular when they could go to other countries where industrial relations are at least as good and perhaps in some cases better? Surely there must be some other reason. Is not the noble Lord really saying that wages are much lower in this country and that that is why foreign investors want to come here?
Lord Prior: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that point, would he like to deal with another one since he is being stirred up all round the place? Is not one of the factors behind Japanese investment in this country that they have been able to conclude single-membership agreements? Is not that the nub of the problem with this Bill?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. That is a most helpful point.
446
Perhaps I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who asked why foreign investors should bother to come here when industrial relations are so good in various other European countries. I am not certain that he is right in saying that they are so good. As he will know, there is considerable trouble in France. If he had ever tried to export livestock, fish or anything else to France, he would know that riot and general confusion in respect of a great many trade activities take place there. I am surprised that he should take a poor view of the relative strength of his own country. He should be proud of the fact that our good situation, which results from those various measures (of which this is the sixth in line), has contributed to this extremely valuable development. We welcome Japanese investment. We hope that they will not be discouraged by interventions of that kind which I am sure the noble Lord himself would regret if they had an adverse effect on employment here.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, no. I shall not give way again to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will give way. He has criticised me—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has criticised me and I feel that he has a duty to allow me to come back.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that he was out of order—deliberately out of order—and that a vote would have had to be carried against him if he had persisted. I have given the noble Lord a full reply to his very lengthy earlier intervention. He must possess his soul in patience.
With due respect to the other noble Lords who want to speak in this debate, I must move on to the most important matter of all in this Bill which is that provided in Clause 31. It is a very short clause but it is extremely important. It ends the existence of the wages councils. It is no use noble Lords opposite getting excited about the termination of the existence of the wages councils. As has already been pointed out by my noble friend the Minister, the Labour Government apparently abolished 11 of them—I had thought that the figure was 10. Therefore, in the eyes of noble Lords opposite there is apparently nothing sacrosanct about them.
One must consider how the wages councils work. One of their effects must be to create additional unemployment, which is extremely relevant at the moment. As noble Lords will know —I know this from my own experience—quite a number of people in this country want to work but have some disability of one sort or another which inhibits them from giving a full week's work for a full week's wage. Medically, they are not quite up to it. There are a great many such people. If there is a wages council laying down a minimum wage—still more, if there is a national minimum wage, with which idea noble Lords opposite

447
seem to be flirting—the position is even worse and one would be depriving such people of a chance of employment. That seems a thoroughly bad thing to do. And not only that—I believe that in two-thirds of cases the wages paid today in wages council industries are above the wages council figure. However, if one were to try to impose the wages council figure on all the people in that sector, one would either produce quite a measure of unemployment (as I fear that one must) or one would cause the greatest difficulty for those industries, with again the ultimate development of unemployment.
Therefore, it seems absolutely right that we should finish the wages councils now. Some noble Lords may recall that I advocated that during our discussions on at least two of the previous employment Bills, so perhaps I may inform my noble friend the Minister of how delighted I am to see that (perhaps a little belatedly) the Government are getting on with that job. I wish them the greatest luck and success.
I have only some small additional points to make, having expended a certain amount of time in agreeable discussions with noble Lords opposite. Perhaps I may suggest that there are matters in the Bill that are perhaps suitable for amendment. I refer, for example, to the check-off cases. It seems to me that where trade union contributions are increased, or where there is any other reason for increasing the deduction which is required to be made from the pay of the people in such schemes, it should not be the employer but the union which is responsible for notifying those people. Where a union increases its dues and under a check-off agreement it is decided to make those deductions, I think that it is quite wrong that it should be the employer who has to face the ill will which anyone who reduces somebody's pay by such a deduction will obviously have to face. It should be the union which notifies that matter. Otherwise, the check-off proposals seem thoroughly sensible.
They will secure that the deductions are not made unless written agreement by the employee concerned has been submitted. That again will help to secure that those check-off arrangements, highly convenient for the unions as they sometimes are—they are sometimes also convenient for the employers—will not be made unless the individual concerned has made a free decision, has been notified in writing and has notified in writing his willingness to pay them. That is a sensible, fair and just adjustment which we might make when the Bill comes into Committee.
The Bill is obviously controversial. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister began with no illusions about it. It is a Bill which I believe noble Lords will find is in accordance with the general wishes of a large number of people, including a large number of trade union members. I hope that we shall proceed to discuss it fully and carefully with such a consideration in mind. Meanwhile, as I said at the beginning, I welcome the Bill. It is a good step, and I hope that in due course it will become law.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister kindly took us through the Bill which his right honourable and honourable friends introduced on Guy Fawkes Day last year. As he set it out, the response, not merely of this side but of the whole House, was that this is something that hardly matches current needs. About training there is nothing at all. Is there anything about a social consensus which I shall suggest later is important? Is there anything about the unemployed?—that reserve army which appears to be needed in all industrialised societies again, but especially in Britain. There is nothing at all.
Parts I and III have the distinction of continuing the old policies of the 1980s. As my noble friends have said, they remove the protection in the market for the weakest workers and extend still further state regulation over the affairs of trade unions in a manner which would offend the constitutional provisions of the majority of democracies in Western Europe. They withdraw government funds for ballots, in breach of the Government's own assurances; they ban sensible voluntary arrangements between unions on competition for members. After hearing the debate, I now understand why many personnel managers are worried and why the CBI is terrified. It is because the Minister and his colleagues believe that they are abolishing what he called things done by the diktat of the TUC. My noble friend Lord Murray is someone of enormous experience in that area. I invite the Minister to look at the work of the TUC committees and to see what their awards are about so as to revise at least his description of any diktat by the TUC.
Parts I and III of course continue the policies of the 1980s which have become known in some quarters as, "Thatcherism grey in tooth and claw". The Bill is very important in the development of labour law. Part II parts company with Parts I and III. It has to do so, because of the pre-eminence of Community norms.
I shall say a word first about Part III, then Part II and then about what I feel is the most important area upon which I wish to address also my noble friends. The most immediately offensive part of the Bill, as has been said, is of course the abolition of the legal protection of the bare minimum rates for nearly 3 million workers—80 per cent. of them part-time women workers, especially in retailing, catering and textiles, where bargaining machinery is poor. It scarcely benefits the records of the House to hear people describe the abolition of a wages council in the past—the Labour government abolished a number —in the same breath as the abolition of wages councils. Of course we abolished wages councils: we did so step by step where collective bargaining machinery grew strong; where workers were able to bargain on the table instead of being exploited. I think the Minister feels that the use of the word "exploited" is rather strong. Let me refer him to the history of the matter, because I have been looking at it during the Government's term in office. For 10 years now they have been considering the matter. The words usually are, "We have it under review", as they were in the 1992 White Paper. They have the wages councils under review.

449
In a debate in 1982, at the beginning of the process, the Minister of State, as he was then, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to whom I have given notice that I shall refer to this matter, said in a remarkable debate about the abolition of wages councils that the abolition of wages councils altogether,
"would result in a free-for-all".
A little later he said:
"This could undoubtedly lead to exploitation by some employers … no one wishes to see others who are in work being summarily displaced by those would be paid less or being themselves paid less".—[Official Report, 22/3/82; col. 891.]
At that point the Government were placing a margin on the operation of the market. What has happened is that common sense of that type has had to give way to the ideology of the Government which has nothing whatever to do with the evidence.
Secondly, most of Part II of the Bill purports to implement Community legal requirements, either in directives or in Court of Justice judgments. On maternity and the equality of men and women, we shall of course debate the details in Committee. On health and safety at work and the protection of workers who leave work or stop work in the face of imminent danger or in their belief of imminent danger, there is a change in the Government's drafting in the other place which I commend, and it is something which I am pleased to see. But I remind the Government that there are a number of workers who have been injured, possibly in the circumstances of that schedule, since 1989. In 1989 the Government took up a position of complete rejection of any such law. They said that the common law was enough to stop employers keeping workers at the workplace. They are now having to implement Community directives, and they have of course found out that that is not so. So I commend them because they were wrong and now they have done better.
What is much more important is that the Bill does not implement adequately a number of the directives, including the directive on consultation where an employer contemplates redundancies, as amended in 1992, and the directive of 1977 which requires consultation if an undertaking is being transferred. The central point is that the directives oblige the employer to consult representatives. However, the Government have constantly raised the argument, which they are reported to have advanced to the Court of Justice, that in Britain an employer is not obliged to consult workers' representatives if he chooses not to recognise a union, and that that is enough. I see the Minister nods.
It is an argument which is highly likely to be shot out of the water when it goes before the court in Luxembourg, because it makes compliance with the directive optional. The Minister now nods his head a different way. With great respect, he cannot escape. However, that is something we shall debate in Committee, and we shall hear why. If the Minister does no better than his friends in the other place on this, I fear that there is no doubt what the result will be.
450
I wish to ask after the philosophy of this measure and the six or eight measures that have gone before since 1982. It depends upon which one includes. I would say eight. I say, "since 1982" deliberately because scholars of the subject are now finding—no one was clear about anything at the time—that, whereas 1980 made a platform, it is in 1982 that the philosophy really begins to build the construction. Therefore, the employment rights provisions in Part II of the Bill push employment rights modestly forward because of the Community—modestly, let us note, because even the social protocol and chapter is a very modest programme, though some of us may find it difficult to support the Maastricht Bill if it is not amended in such a way that social standards apply equally to our workers as they do elsewhere in the Community.
But in Part I of the Bill we have trade union reforms —not trade union rights—stripping unions of liberties of action. It depends on how one does it but at my last count there were more than a dozen major items—far more than in most other member states. These are not only associations which have been regulated compared with the deregulation of the rest of employment law. They have been regulated, harried, battered, fined and sequestrated, step by step by step, in Act after Act in pursuit of the aim of decollectivising the workplace.
In passing I say—I am sure that my noble friends will comment on this further—that the Minister's notion that he can lay a claim for this series of Acts as increasing the number of jobs seems very strange when Act after Act after Act leads to higher and higher and higher unemployment. But no one can accuse the Government of deception on this matter. If I may speak frankly to my noble friends—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have been through a pattern of increasing employment and decreasing employment. Would the noble Lord give no notice to that?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister asks me a difficult question, and I shall tell him why. Since the experience in other sufficiently similar countries in Western Europe shows different kinds of patterns in the relationship between law changes, often of a completely different kind from those which the Government have introduced here, it is not easy—the literature suggests this—to match up legal change with increased employment. Indeed the thesis now is that probably the legal change in the whole of Western Europe—whether the 1982 French reforms which were very progressive or the Government's reforms here—is not something that one can match up. I would have expected the noble Viscount to do what I believe accountants do. Look at the market—the Stock Market or the jobs market draw a line through and say "Here are more and more Acts. Although it goes up and down it gets better in the end". But that is what he cannot do.
I want to turn to the lack of deception by the Government on this matter. In some of the past legislation the philosophy of decollectivisation has been implied. But in February 1992 the Government published their White Paper People, Jobs and

451
Opportunity, which was very explicit and very frank. It advocated an end to collective bargaining and a spread of "individualised" employment relations. I am happy to read the whole of chapters 1 and 4 but I shall take from chapter 1 the following statement:
"There is a new recognition of the role and importance of the individual employee. Traditional patterns of industrial relations, based on collective bargaining and collective agreements, seen increasingly inappropriate and are in decline".
That is taken up in chapter 4, which states that this marked decline in collective bargaining and the increasing trend to move away from collective bargaining altogether are valuable and healthy developments. That is a clear and honest statement. They want to move away from collective bargaining altogether. With that ideology, the Government would not be true to their beliefs if they did not wish to weaken the role of trade unions at least in terms of their place in wage and conditions bargaining. Of course they may agree, as they usually do, with Professor Hayek that unions should be put back to their, as he put it, "most beneficial activity" as "friendly societies". That is not far from the White Paper. No wonder the Government have closed down tripartite bodies where employers, unions and government might actually talk to one another. If the decline of collective bargaining is healthy, small wonder that they legislate to reduce the efficacy of unions as agents for collective bargaining through obstructions to the check-off and the variety of other ways in Part I of the Bill.
By the same logic—this makes sense of the Bill—they must change the functions of ACAS and delete, as they are doing, the function which it has had since 1975 to develop and reform collective bargaining machinery. That must go out. That is the core difference between British developments and those in most other member states of the Community. In Italy, France and Germany—indeed in all the major countries of Western Europe, inside the Community and outside, and whether led by so-called socialist governments or so called conservative governments —the consensus of, if one likes, the social partners is that tripartite machinery is the way forward. The Government wish to abolish it. It is not a matter of this or that policy. It is a whole difference of philosophy. One Italian authority describes it as,
"a policy linking social objectives with objectives of greater efficiency".
It does not exclude efficiency. As a matter of fact, recent law reform in Ireland shows a very good example of the same philosophy at work on a legal system which is of course much closer to ours.
Our friends are astonished at the absence of proven misfeasance or convictions in the trade union area and world on which the Government can rely. There have been one or two cases of what should not have been done. But if this Government had used the same rule of legislating in cases of impropriety in the world of companies and the City—Blue Arrow, Maxwell and so on—we would have been drowned in Bills every week. They know it as well as we do.
The Bill naturally shares the ambitions of the White Paper to deprive combinations of work-people of
452
having a capacity for strategy. It seeks to do so by a mixture of creeping illegality and suffocating procedural demands, by the expense of compulsory postal ballots and by a rejection of what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in a debate in this House on 20th May 1980 when he spoke about ballots, called the,
"overall aim of encouraging greater participation by rank-and-file members".—[Official Report, 20/5/80; col. 740.]
It was such Ministers who rejected for some time the pressure to have postal ballots for everything. Now Ministers have given in.
The most important step is the further violation of the rights of association in this country. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to ratify the International Labour Organisation Convention—No. 87—in 1948 on freedom of association. I happen to think that this area is just as important, even though it is rather unfashionable, as the area of economic argument. It is a set of statements from the ILO, to which this country is still bound by its ratification, of human liberties on the basis of collective organisation and rights. Freedom of association, by every decision and every convention, has implied within it a right to strike. I know that when some noble Lords hear this human right and civil liberty mentioned aloud they run for cover or for the gun room. I mention it in the spirit of the American trade union leader, Samuel Gompers, who said in 1908:
"It is our aim to avoid strikes; but I trust that the day will never come when the workers of our country will have so far lost their … independence as to surrender their right to strike".
All governments participating in the ILO have accepted this. In ILO documents the right to strike is always called:
"one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests".
The ILO committee of independent experts, which comprises (since this is often misunderstood) 20 of the world's most eminent legal scholars and constitutional judges, takes the same view. However, every year since 1988 those experts have pronounced that, as regards the right to strike and freedom of the association, British law falls well below the standards of the convention.
The main areas are the right of an employer to dismiss workers for taking industrial action, the breach of workers' contracts, which is invariably inherent in strikes in Britain, and "the excessive limitations" introduced by the 1980s legislation, which the committee looked at in great detail. Those standards of civil liberties are of great importance. In the face of those criticisms and now in the face of the criticism accepted by the governing body on 27th February 1991, the Government go to the ILO and repeat the state of existing British law.
The 1992 report of the committee refers to and sets out seven pleas of descending persuasiveness from the British Government, starting from zero. Many of my noble friends will know well of the work of the ILO and its importance to ordinary working people all over the world. Each time that we say nothing when collective rights are attacked, because of a fear of the media or some misrepresentation, workers' rights and individuals' interests are damaged.

453
We saw illustrations of that a few years ago when we perhaps did not deal very well with the debate on the Community's social charter. Worse still, if the desired increase of individual rights, which are most important, is allowed to push collective rights to the periphery of our thinking, a generation will grow up which knows little or nothing about such freedoms. If we do not candidly explain the issues and fight those invasions, the rights will disappear step by step, in part because of our silence.
Where does the Bill harm those rights? It takes a most extraordinary step. Not only does it say that the union must have a postal ballot, but if the employer is the plaintiff, the union must take four extra steps. It must send the employer a sample ballot paper; seven days before the ballot it must describe to him the members entitled to vote; it must send him the ballot result; and then it must give to him seven days before the strike a notice describing to him the members who are taking part:
"so that he can readily ascertain them".
What is that about? Any shop steward will tell you that it makes it easier for the employer to victimise people in the strike group. No labour legislation that I know of has seen such a shameless attempt to permit, indeed enforce, victimisation and enforce upon the union the job of fingering its members.
After all, that is what individualising industrial relations is all about. However, it goes further. As we have heard, any individual in that type of situation, on the basis of those requirements not being met, can bring a wholly novel and totally new form of action to the court if goods or services are delayed or their quality is reduced, even though that individual has no legal interest in the goods or services, even though the union's inducement to strike was not the effective cause—and I hope that my noble friends will look at that in Committee—and even though the individual involved has suffered no quantifiable damage at all. That is the labour law of the Mad Hatter.
In discussions we have asked who those plaintiffs will be. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells—DoT, as he has now become—seems to fit the bill. To accommodate DoT, there is a new engine of law enforcement. To finance his actions, a new commissioner has been put in place. At a time when poor people are being deprived of their right to legal aid and at a time when their rights are being invaded, hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on a commissioner who is to support DoT in an action in which he has no legal interest and no rights whatever, except the right to go to the court to stop a trade union doing what he does not like if that union has not followed the five necessary steps.
That is quite absurd. I realise that noble Lords on other Benches may not share my analysis; I doubt whether they will do so. However, the provisions of this Bill are so unfair that I ask noble Lords on other Benches not to support it without major amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the central point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that the Bill represents the working out of a consistent purpose pursued by the Government since 1979. It is philosophically consistent with all that they have been doing, and the noble Lord described that accurately as the decollectivisation of industrial relations. However, I attach much greater value to that than does the noble Lord.
In my view, for much of the 1970s and 1980s the danger of employers victimising workers was much less than the danger of unions victimising their members and the industry of this country. The Government acted to bring that to an end. I applaud that pursuit of consistent purpose.
No doubt it is foolhardy of me to venture my opinions on these matters in the presence of such great experts on trade union law and practice; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy. However, I am emboldened by the thought that even the greatest experts can get things spectacularly wrong. The noble Lords were not only determined opponents of the trade union legislation brought forward in the 1980s but they were strong upholders of the doctrine that the law had no part to play in what is popularly called industrial relations. Indeed, they said that the attempt to bring industrial disputes and other matters within the ambit of the law would be unenforceable. I believe that they were wrong.
The laws of 1980, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990 and others to restrict picketing, to outlaw secondary action, to expose trade union funds to seizure for unlawful action, to weaken the closed shop, to provide for secret ballots and so on were not only reasonable but they fulfilled an essential purpose: to weaken the coercive power of trade unions in the labour market, whether exercised against their own members, against other groups, against the general public or against employers. The measures proposed in the Bill carry that purpose further. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that they do that. Clauses 1 to 15 strengthen the rights of individual trade unionists. Clauses 16 to 21 carry further the protection against coercive action against the general public and against firms.
I believe that there is a strong connection between enhancing the individual rights of trade unionists and securing more co-operative industrial relations. The best way to prevent small minorities from exploiting the undoubted feelings of loyalty and solidarity which exist for ends which are contrary to the wishes and against the interests of the majority is to give back trade unions to their own members. I believe that the Government have been doing that. We have already seen the benefits of that and will do so to an even greater extent in the future.
One of the main points of the Bill does not directly involve trade unions at all; namely, the abolition of wages councils. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, saw a danger that the abolition of wages councils would enable employers to compete to drive down the wages of the lowest paid. However, he did not mention the

455
employment prospects created by the abolition of the wages councils, particularly at the small business end of retailing and catering. I should have thought that in the present conditions anything which helped young people into jobs is to be welcomed. It cannot be repeated often enough that low wages are the result of low skills. Of course one's aim is to raise wages by raising the skills of people looking for jobs, but that is quite different from setting a minimum wage which fails to clear the market at the bottom end of the skills range. That can only lead to more unemployment.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has alluded to the fact that the pay of young people, while rising in real terms, has fallen relative to that of adults in hotels, catering and retail distribution since under-21s were removed from the protection of the wages councils in 1986. But can this be bad if that measure improves the employment prospects for that age group?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to enlighten him on this matter. A study has been conducted by University College London and the London School of Economics into the employment effects of the abolition of wages council protection for young people. They have found no increase in employment whatsoever.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the noble Lord must recognise that one cannot abstract the state of employment from the fluctuations in the business cycle. This measure was passed in 1986 and we are now in the middle of a big recession. This measure is designed to increase employment prospects in the long run. On balance, if one makes it easier for employers to employ people they will employ more people. If one makes it more difficult for them to employ people by putting restrictions in the way and by raising artificially the wages they have to pay, fewer people will be employed. That is straightforward economic theory. One cannot buck the laws of the market by simply talking about securing a wage one thinks is desirable when it is not profitable for employers to pay workers that wage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he finishes on that point, is he not aware that any job that is advertised for young people now—this applies even to the poorest paid and most sedentary jobs—attracts a multiplicity of highly trained and highly skilled youngsters who cannot obtain a job for which they have been trained? How does the noble Lord relate that to his comments on expansion? Surely that is standing the economics and the well-being of the country on their heads.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I was referring to those industries chiefly covered by the wages councils, which are the lower end of the catering and retailing sectors. We are in the middle of a severe recession. I am talking about the effects of this measure as regards improving the long-term prospects for employment at that end of the market. I should have thought all evidence and all theory suggest that there will be a positive
456
employment effect from abolishing minimum wages in those sectors. I wish to develop my argument further, but I shall give way once more.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that in 1979 there were three studies carried out into the abolition of wages councils at a time when there was not the current high level of unemployment? Exactly the same results were achieved. Keynes would have understood that, even if the noble Lord does not.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not think Keynes would have understood that. Keynes was talking about the business cycle and not about the supply side of the economy. As the noble Lord mentioned Keynes, I shall refer to a comment Keynes made on the trade unions and their effect in reducing employment. He referred to them as, once the exploited, now the exploiters.
I shall try to open up the debate a little to the question of the role of the trade unions in a contemporary industrial society. What are the trade unions for? Do they do any good? How far do they need to change to serve the interests of their members? It is popularly believed that trade unions make the wages of workers as a whole higher than they would otherwise be, but that is one thing that collective bargaining cannot do. The level of the real wages of the community as a whole depends on the productivity of labour and capital and that cannot be directly increased by trade union action. What collective bargaining can do is to increase the rate of inflation or increase the rate of unemployment depending on the monetary policy the Government are pursuing.
As Professor Layard of the LSE has often put it:
"the trade unions largely determine the unemployment cost of maintaining a given rate of inflation".
There is now much evidence from the work of Professor Metcalf and others that unions keep unemployment higher than it would otherwise be. An important study published by Blanchflower, Millward and Oswald in 1988 stated quite baldly:
"The results of this paper suggest that trade unions depress the rate of employment growth and increase the extent of employment decline".
Collective bargaining for wages can achieve higher real wages for those in employment, but at the expense of the unemployed. According to Professor Metcalf, union presence in a workplace is associated with higher relative pay and lower profits than in non-unionised firms. This matters because lower profits reduce investment and research and development. Further, trade unions have been shown to have a negative effect on labour productivity, especially in larger firms. Professor Metcalf states that in the firms he has studied—these are larger plants:
"the net association between unions and productivity is clearly negative".
Conversely Professor Crafts has shown that the legislative weakening of the unions in the 1980s was associated with widespread elimination of restrictive practices and employers' ability to insist on productivity clauses in wage agreements—both of which contributed to the productivity miracle in

457
manufacturing of the 1980s. I am sorry to quote so many academics and academic studies but some have been quoted at me.
A trade union movement which aims to do well by its members has to come to terms with another fact of life beyond the scope of legislative action and that is the growing competitiveness of contemporary industrial life. There are two important indications of this from Britain's own experience in the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1990 the degree of concentration in British industry—roughly the number of firms in a given sector—has fallen or remained the same in all but one of 22 sectors. That suggests that British industry is subject to much stronger competition than it was in the 1950s and 1960s in the heyday of the Bridlington Agreement.
The second indication is the burgeoning of small firms in the 1980s. The United Nations survey on flexible manufacturing systems in 1986 reported that:
"Mass production as a concept is becoming more and more a thing of the past … Computer controlled machines will make it possible to add flexibility to the production system … [opening up] important potentials for dividing large scale production into many small batches".
Flexible specialisation is the new name of the game.
These developments offer a fundamental challenge to the traditional view of our industrial system which has moulded so many of the arguments coming from the Opposition Benches. That view is of a world in which there are stable big businesses faced by big unions bargaining for national pay rates for employees with non-transferable skills, irrespective of local conditions of productivity or profits and local costs of living. That was the world in which Bridlington agreements made sense. It was a world which had embraced monopoly as a way of life and which hated competition except of one kind—that between employers and unions of which the sacrificial victim was British industry. That was the world from which this Government tried to draw away in the 1980s.
In our situation the need is for more flexibility, not less flexibility. If industry is becoming more fragmented and the demand is for transferable skills, job rotation, plant bargaining and flexible pay deals, is not the world of tripartism—for which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, still hankers—completely out of date?
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, spoke with indignation of decollectivising the workforce. What is so wrong with that? Are we not moving increasingly to a decollectivised industrial system and is not that a sign of progress? Why is there a constant hankering for the big battalions, oblivious of individual rights and completely out of date in the industrial world which is emerging?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt. Does he not think that de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom is what we are really talking about?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, decollectivisation is very different from de-industrialisation. It is decollectivism that I am talking about. I regard it as a sign of progress, not of decay. I regard many of the speeches that have been made from the other side of the House as retrograde rather than progressive.
I want to conclude by saying that the Bill seems to me to be in line with the facts and the possibilities of contemporary industrial life and for that reason I support it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. He spoke of decollectivisation. Does he consider that decollectivisation by legal obligation is consistent with liberty?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not know whether or not my speech has finished. I thought it had. The only answer that I can give to that question is that the law had to do something to change the balance of power in industry in the 1970s and the 1980s because the unions were making it impossible for British industry to develop on the lines to which the future points.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it saddens me to hear such controversial remarks when the dilemma of unemployment in this country is so serious. I come from the West Midlands, which is the biggest manufacturing area in the country. When I meet people there who are in business and commerce and the leaders of industry I do not find the same antagonism to the workers. More often than not I find a great pride in the people they employ. It is not long since the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and I visited the Rover works at Longbridge. We were both impressed not only by the standard of work and output but also by the management's excitement at how well the workers were operating the system. It saddens me to hear comments which suggest that there are gangs of trade union bullies fighting big battalions of industrialists. That is not the real world. It is quite wrong for us to be arguing on those lines. There is greater co-operation than ever. Obviously, because there is unemployment the workers are more concerned, but nor do industrialists want to see their enterprises fail.
I did not intend to speak on those issues, but it saddened me to hear some of the points of view that have been expressed this afternoon. They do not reflect the feelings of many manufacturers in the West Midlands. We should consider the position of Leyland Daf. The management and workers are getting together closely with the trade unions in order to preserve Leyland Daf in the West Midlands.
I want to speak about the careers services for young people which are presently the responsibility of the local education committees. I am worried by what we heard from the noble Viscount this afternoon—that we shall see privatisation in those areas. I fear that the whole of the service will be put out to compulsory tender, like everything else concerned with local authorities these days, and that in the long run we

459
shall see a fragmentation of the service and there will be a hotchpotch of different agencies offering different services to young people.
Why change a service at which the Government have levied no serious criticism and which they say is providing a good local service? The need for change is unproven. That is illustrated by the comments of the Minister in the other place, Mr. McLoughlin, during the Committee stage of the Bill. He said:
"The present system has been in place for nearly 20 years. It has done well in the circumstances in which it has been required to operate. We know of very good work being done by the service to help many young people, but the service is constrained by a bureaucracy that governs local authority structures and systems … We are not saying that the service as a whole had been under-performing or that the present framework is entirely wrong".
Therefore there is no real criticism of the service.
The Minister referred to local authority structures, systems and bureaucracy. But we should be perfectly candid: if it becomes a national system the Government themselves will create more bureaucracy than is found at local level. There will have to be more bureaucracy because the system will spread beyond the local authorities. Therefore, why do we have to change something which the Government have admitted has been done very well?
Local authorities provide a much better and more accessible service for local people. They know the students because they visit the schools and therefore when students come to the careers service their background is known. It is a local service for local youngsters.
Only last Saturday the Prime Minister spoke to Conservative local authority councillors. I do not remember his exact words, but he said that he wanted to make peace with local authorities and that it was time to stop the battles. Those were his sentiments. Perhaps it might be suggested to the Prime Minister that he could begin the peacemaking by removing from the Bill the part relating to the careers service. That would be a small step forward and something in which he could take pride.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. How will local accountability be ensured when the changes contained in the Bill take place? How will the current partnerships between the LEAs and TECs continue in the future? The TECs have worked very constructively with local authorities. I speak again from my knowledge of Birmingham, where the two organisations work in close harmony not only with one another but with workplaces and colleges. One would not wish such harmony to disappear. How will the quality and impartiality be maintained? I believe that there will be impartiality when we begin the privatisation.
The Government want the changes because they wish to save money. They are saying, "Local authorities do not need to spend so much money. We shall take the service over and make it much better. We shall give it to the private sector and we will enhance the service in that way". If that is done, do the Government envisage that job finding agencies will take the place of the careers service structure? We may have specialist agencies for job finding. They may be in offices or in specialised areas but they will develop
460
as special units. I cannot believe that such a scheme will provide a better service than the one which is provided for students at present.
The careers service is not mainly a job finding organisation. Its function is to give career advice. It does that by going into schools and colleges. It provides guidance to students leaving school on what one might call worthwhile jobs. Perhaps we do not consider the careers service in the correct way. But the guidance that it gives in schools before the students come onto the labour market is well received.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, stated that we must have best practice in the service. In Birmingham the careers services operated by the local education authority have been asked by Manpower Services to go into the jobcentre clubs to ensure that those people are given career opportunities guidance. In the main the people in jobcentre clubs are older than the students whom the careers services assist. However, no doubt their services are extending to older people. But they must be giving good service when a government agency asks for advice from a local education authority on how it can give a comparable service to young people.
Not only are the schools and members of staff involved in the service, but the careers offices are known to the young people. They know the services available to them. It is easy for them to find out information about job and career opportunities. Those services are free and accessible to young people. That is a point that I wish to emphasise.
The noble Viscount referred to citizen's rights. It is important that under the citizen's rights a free and accessible service is available to young people. It is important that they are aware of it. I shall later refer to the reason that I believe the noble Viscount contradicted what was said in another place on charging.
I wish now to refer to young people with disabilities and learning difficulties. They must not lose out as a result of the proposals in the Bill which transfer responsibility for such matters to the Secretary of State. I do not see any safeguards in the Bill which guarantee the specialist help which at present is provided for those vulnerable young people. I therefore wish to make a special plea for that group of students.
I always cite examples that I know and have not simply read about. I know full well that in Birmingham the careers service works closely with St. Basil's centre, which deals with 120 homeless young people at any given time. It works in close contact with the Rayner Foundation, another organisation dealing with young people with many differing problems, and with the Elfrida Rathbone organisation. Those organisations assist young people with certain problems. At present the services are dealt with by the local education authority careers services. I should not like the services weakened.
People with disabilities or learning difficulties often seek more support from the careers services than other students. I am anxious that the changes do not jeopardise those services if they are put out to private contract or that charges may be levied on those

461
vulnerable people. When the issue was raised in Committee in another place the Minister stated that it may prove necessary to make charges. The noble Viscount shakes his head, which means that I am wrong. I wish that I had a copy of Hansard with me. That is what was stated. The statement specifically referred to those vulnerable young people.
Young people who cannot find jobs when they leave school and who wish to receive benefit from the Government first have to register with the careers service to show that they are seeking employment and careers advice. I hope that the Minister will not shake his head to say that I am wrong; I know that I am right. I am involved with St. Basil's and the young homeless. If one is in charge of those homeless young people one must first make sure that they go to the careers services so that they understand that they must look for work. One then takes them to the social security office. The social security officers will not consider them unless they have been to the careers services first. Will there be changes in regulations which the social security department will have to put into operation? Perhaps that issue has not been sufficiently thought through by the Government at this stage. I shall return to it at Committee stage.
I do not understand why the Government wish to change a service which has proved so satisfactory to schools, colleges, students and parents. What are the motives for change? Perhaps the Minister will reply on that point in two sentences.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Bill is entitled the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, but that is a complete misnomer. A more apt title for it would be: the Trade Union Emasculation (No. 8) Bill, for that is its real purpose, especially in its trade union clauses.
It has long been the ambition of Tory governments—and we have had it confirmed today from several quarters—to reduce trade union membership to no more than 20 to 25 per cent. of the working population. The Bill takes a big step towards the achievement of that ambition. It is clearly the intention of the Government to undermine further the ability of trade unions to act to protect their members' interests and to improve their wages and conditions of service. Indeed, under the provisions of the Bill, unions are allowed to exist only in so far as they are an administrative convenience for employers, not as campaigning organisations for their members.
It is a nasty Bill, oozing with prejudice and spite; a Bill so riddled with partisanship and contradiction that even employers' organisations have condemned it as harsh, unnecessary and unhelpful to labour relations.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who is no longer in his place, had one or two comments to make about the trade unions. I should like to take up one of them. He said that trade unions had had no effect on raising the real level of wages but only caused inflation and high unemployment. That was what he told your Lordships' House.
462
I cannot ask him anything, because he has left the Chamber, but I ask your Lordships to consider, without his presence, the 1950s and 1960s when unions were strong. Those were the decades of low inflation, low unemployment and high growth, as my noble friend Lord Bruce says, as well as increasing living standards. By contrast, in the 1980s when the trade unions were under attack and weakened, we had high inflation and high unemployment. Indeed, we had mass unemployment. So perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, had better reconsider his point of view.
I do not intend to refer to every clause in the Bill nor to every part of it, although virtually every clause has some defect which causes offence. One or two clauses are particularly vicious and need condemnation. First, under Clause 5 regarding trade union mergers, as my noble friend Lady Turner pointed out, trade union executives will be barred from making a recommendation or expressing an opinion about a proposed merger when ballot papers are sent out. That is a removal of freedom. I understand that that was a late addition, an act of spite over the merger of NALGO, NUPE and COHSE into a big new public service union called UNISON.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Viscount that trade union executives are acting only in response to members' wishes which have been expressed at branch meetings, regional meetings and national conferences. The membership's wishes, therefore, are already known and there is every reason why members should be reminded of them during a ballot. But, of course, the Government, the Tory Party, found it particularly galling that NALGO members should have voted so overwhelmingly in favour of a merger.
There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for NALGO—a union which I advise—even to have contemplated speaking to, let alone merging with, COHSE and NUPE. The members were certainly not Labour Party supporters as a union. Only a few years ago they voted nine to one against affiliation to the Labour Party.
I was a member of NALGO for 20 years, so I know something about the union. In the 1950s and 1960s one had to keep quiet about being a member of the Labour Party if one wanted to do a job for the union. However, all that has changed. NALGO used not to be associated with or affiliated to the TUC. I remember being involved in the balloting and the campaign to persuade NALGO to join the TUC. Some of my colleagues felt that it would be quite wrong for NALGO to join the TUC because of the damage it would do that organisation. That is the kind of union that NALGO used to be. However, it voted overwhelmingly for a merger with NUPE and COHSE. Why did the members do that? They did it because it was a vote against the Government's policy of centralisation of local government functions and the destruction of local government jobs through shortage of money and compulsory competitive tendering. It was against the wage restraint which has been imposed on public servants, including those in local government over a long time. So that is the real

463
story about NALGO and why it decided to merge, because it needed the strength to fight off the depredations of the Government.
What about Clause 7? It removes from trade unions the money which was promised to them to enable them to hold the ballots which are to be so much a part of the new union democracy. Now the Government will renege on the undertakings they gave. I can tell the noble Viscount that, had many trade unions not been promised that money and assured that it would continue, there would have been a hell of a lot more trouble over the imposition of postal ballots. But now the Government are reneging on it.
If an insurance company or any private organisation did that, it would be taken to court and the directors rightly gaoled for so misleading their members and policyholders. But the Government make promises one day to suit their own policies, only to withdraw them when it suits them, irrespective of the damage that may do to the organisation whose financial position will be greatly injured by that.
Then we come to Clauses 6 and 10, union finances. I have no objection at all to union members having the fullest information about the financial affairs and conduct of their union. But it is also important that they have information about the conduct of and financial position of their employers. It would have been useful to people in Leyland Daf to have had advance information on what was going on in their firm. The Maxwell pensioners would have been in a much better position now had they had information about the crooked manipulation by Maxwell of their funds through the businesses that he owned.
Then we come to Clause 14, the check-off arrangements. He is not here but I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Murray said about the opposition to the check-off system. I was one of those who objected to it on the grounds that I believed that it would remove contact between union collectors and union activists and the rank and file card-carrying members. Indeed, I believed that it would transfer power from the local branches to the union executives, and that is precisely what has happened.
However, the system is there, we have it and it works very well. There is no reason at all why employees should have to renew authorisation every three years. That is not done with any other form of deduction; it is not done with charitable contributions, for example. It assumes that employees are cretins who do not keep track of their deductions. I can assure the noble Viscount that most people are on such low wages that they have to check on every deduction and do so every week. Furthermore, the measure imposes further administrative burdens on employers just at a time when they are trying to reduce overhead costs and improve their competitive position. The Government rely on inertia on the part of trade union members who will not renew their authorisation, thereby reducing the membership of trade unions and further undermining their power.
Clause 15, dealing with the so-called extension of workers' rights, is simply a recipe for chaos and fragmentation of workers' organisations. It ends
464
self-regulation, which has been highly successful for decades, and further erodes the position of the TUC. Who mentioned a TUC diktat? I have been a trade unionist all my life, since the age of 16. I have yet to hear of a situation in which the TUC dictated to anyone about anything. This clause undermines the position of the TUC which has regulated—effectively, self-regulated—the trade union movement over a long period of time. It is odd that a government so enthusiastic about self-regulation of the City should be so opposed to self-regulation of the trade unions. There will be the introduction of competition for membership between trade unions and that will not be helpful to employees or to employers. In fact, paradoxically, it could lead to the formation of large unions through amalgamations which would reduce the choice for trade unionists which the Government say they want to introduce.
There is the matter of ballots to consider, but frankly time is running on and I shall not go into that issue. The abolition of wages councils has already been dealt with by my noble friends. It is contemptible for the Government to bring forward legislation at this time of mass unemployment when the lowest paid workers are at their most vulnerable. Claims that the abolition of wages councils will lead to an increased number of jobs are unprovable. In the interventions that have taken place nobody has been able to prove it. In any event such jobs, if created at all, would be paid at starvation wages, which would be a disgrace to any advanced industrial country. Good employers would be forced to cut wages to compete with bad employers. That cannot be good for industry, commerce and retailing in this country.
I turn to Clause 37 which deals with careers services and which was so ably dealt with by my noble friend Lady Fisher. It is astonishing that the Government should seek to change the statutory basis of the careers service just at a time when 900,000 young people are unemployed. It shows the complete insensitivity of the Government to the real needs of the unemployed, and particularly the young unemployed. The service has worked well for over 20 years. Considerable experience has been gained in dealing with youth employment and in responding to and assisting with the introduction of a wide range of training initiatives for the unemployed.
The service has also built up close working partnerships with employers and other training providers. It also has close liaison with the training and enterprise councils. Indeed, successive Secretaries of State have praised the work of the careers service. All that experience and good work are bound to be put in jeopardy. It can lead only to fragmentation in the delivery and operation of the careers service at local level. It is yet another instance of undemocratic centralism.
The morale and commitment of dedicated staff is being undermined just at a time when they need to be concentrating on helping young unemployed people. It is quite clear that Clause 37 will reduce the quality of the careers services. There is no guarantee that education authorities will be involved in future in providing in any meaningful way a service for which

465
they have been responsible for the past 20 years. Furthermore, new Section 10(5) provides for charges for services to be provided by the Secretary of State. That seems to be something completely new. Perhaps the noble Viscount will give details of those charges when he winds up the debate.
In my view this measure is ill conceived, unnecessary and can lead only to an inferior service just at a time when mass youth unemployment needs stability, cohesion and continuity. If young people are to be helped in a meaningful and sympathetic manner, I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount will reconsider the implications of Clause 37 and be receptive to amendments at Committee stage.
In conclusion, I repeat that this is a bad Bill. It is not designed to help labour relations but to destroy the trade unions as effective organs of the working class and ordinary people of this country. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to amend it considerably during its Committee stage.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Plant of Writtle: My Lords, as a former Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, I welcome the Bill as an important step forward in the development of equal opportunities in our country. I shall therefore speak only to Part II of the Bill. When I chaired the commission in 1988, we submitted to the Home Secretary, as part of our duty under the Sex Discrimination Act, recommendations for change in the equal opportunity legislation. At that time, we said:
"One of the most crucial considerations is to enable women to carry on working if they want to or need to after having a baby. The excessively complicated laws on maternity rights and benefits need to be simplified … The most effective immediate step that needs to be taken is to abolish the two year qualifying period for pregnant women to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal under the Employment Protection Act of 1978".
The Bill amends that Act and will introduce a universal statutory entitlement to maternity leave and maintenance of contractual rights during that leave, while maintaining existing rights for all qualifiers. Clause 22 and Schedule 2 provide for 14 weeks' maternity leave for all employees irrespective of length of service. That is a great improvement on the existing situation.
However, I ask my noble friend the Minister to give serious consideration to extending that period to 18 weeks. That seems to be the provision most wanted by responsible women's organisations and organisations supporting their interests nationwide. A substantial proportion of women for health reasons choose to start their maternity leave at the earliest opportunity; namely, 11 weeks before the expected confinement. That leaves a minimum of only three weeks' leave after confinement or less if the baby comes late. I speak from personal experience in that both my babies came a fortnight late. That would have left me with a week, which could hardly be said to be sufficient on health grounds alone.
It is of great importance to mother and child that the mother recovers and establishes a good routine of breast-feeding before returning to work. Our National
466
Health Service strongly recommends that as crucial to the future health of mother and child. Also, the statutory maternity pay is payable for 18 weeks so that from the employer's point of view those two periods would be coterminous, thus simplifying paperwork enormously.
I hope too that provision will be made for a delay in return to work for all women on maternity leave, as for qualifiers at present, if they have a medical certificate stating that they are not yet fit to return to work. That too is vital to the future health of our nation and has implications for future public expenditure on the health service. Prevention of ill health is always better than cure. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me a firm assurance that he will reconsider those two matters.
In any survey of employers, problems preventing successful business expansion always refer to skill shortages, even in these days of high unemployment. As well as affecting the health of these women and their babies, if maternity leave is not long enough, they will not return to work at all and the expensively acquired skills and in-house expertise will be lost to both the employer and the employee. New recruitment and training of replacement workers is expensive to employers; it results in temporary inefficiency during recruitment and as the new workers gather the skills necessary for their jobs. Thus, enabling women to return to their well-known jobs contributes to employers' efficiency and prosperity.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill which make it illegal to dismiss a woman on grounds of pregnancy or any reason connected with it. I am glad also that the Bill spells out rights of employees working over eight hours to a written statement of terms and conditions and to itemised pay statements for those working over 16 hours a week. Again, those are welcome steps forward. But as they cannot claim unfair dismissal unless they have worked two years for an employer, that right is virtually unenforceable. In the experience of CABs, once that right is claimed, often the unwilling and unscrupulous employer dismisses the employee so that they have no rights. Indeed, if paid in cash, they have no proof that their tax and national insurance has been properly sent to the Inland Revenue. I understand that Ministers promised to consider government amendments in another place and have issued a consultation document on itemised pay. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give me an assurance on that point and say that he will introduce those necessary amendments in this House.
The Bill excludes the question of pay, which is required by the directive and will be introduced in subsequent social security legislation linking maternity pay with sick pay. I know that my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard won her point in Europe that under no circumstances should the directive be interpreted as suggesting an analogy between pregnancy and illness. Most women remain fit and capable during pregnancy—a totally natural event. Nevertheless, I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will see that the

467
associated legislation on pay will be introduced quickly so as not to add complexity of claim to the problems of obtaining due rights by working mothers.
I welcome the added protection under the Health and Safety at Work Act that if an employee's original work was unsuitable because of her pregnancy or the breast feeding of her child, she should be offered suitable alternative work. I welcome also the new provision for the Equal Opportunities Commission to issue a code of practice in respect of equal pay as well as sex discrimination. The EOC code of practice on sex discrimination proved a best seller for Her Majesty's Stationery Office and must therefore have been of great assistance to many employers in the elucidation of the complexities of the subject.
Much discrimination occurs because of ignorance rather than prejudice. Therefore the issue of a code of practice on equal pay by the EOC will help to unravel and clarify a difficult subject for employers and employees alike. In that context, I draw to the attention of my noble friend the extreme complexity of the "equal pay for work of equal value" legislation. At the time the Bill passed through this House, I made a plea for plain English of the type of which Sir Ernest Gowers would have approved. That did not happen. As a result, as the EOC predicted, the passage of cases through the courts on equal pay for work of equal value has been extremely protracted, resulting in tremendous and unnecessary work being loaded on employers and applicants elucidating obtuse language, double negatives and other uncertainties.
When we made our representations to the Home Secretary in 1988 for amendments of the Acts, we asked for a new equal treatment Act, bringing together under one umbrella all the legislation under the Sex Discrimination Acts and the equal pay Acts, and at the same time putting a modern expert on to elucidating the whole language of the legislation. That would be entirely in line with the Prime Minister's Citizen's Charter. I am sure that, done properly, it would reduce the burden on employers and women employees (who form nearly half the workforce), it would increase their sense of justice and at the same time would reduce wastage in both public and private expenditure.
I hope that at the same time particular attention will be paid to the rights and problems of part-timers, most of whom are women. We have the largest proportion of part-timers in Europe and employers are increasingly valuing the flexibility that they offer in employment terms. The Bill does a number of things to help part-timers; but in many ways they are still disadvantaged in employment rights and benefits. Their pay differential per hour compared with male workers is much greater than if they worked full time. They often do not have rights to contribute to pension schemes; and therefore in old age, however unwillingly, they find themselves relying on supplementary pensions and being a charge on public expenditure and in other ways, especially training provision. The fact that most of them are women can amount to indirect discrimination, which is being tested in the courts. Those women are the salt of the earth, fitting in their working hours with responsible
468
family life; being at home to give their children tea or supper; seeing that the household is well run; exercising responsible citizenship both at home and at work.
I hope that in the near future the Government will give the rights of part-timers special attention in a new overall Equal Treatment Act. I hope that my noble friend will pursue that aim in high government circles. When the Prime Minister launched Opportunity 2000, he said,
"The problems of working women are emphatically not a minority issue. Every day millions and millions of women cope with combined job and family responsibilities. We increasingly need to come to terms with these facts".
The Bill makes several valuable steps forward to further that aim. But I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will put forward more legislative progress in the near future, in the way that I have outlined.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, this afternoon I want primarily to concentrate on wages councils. Before I do I should like to pick up a couple of points already made in the debate. I address one specifically to the noble Viscount. Whatever else he fails to answer this afternoon—I am sure that there will be much with which he cannot deal—he must deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Murray and reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in regard to what is to happen to would-be employers coming into this country if they cannot obtain a single union agreement. That is desperately important and the Government cannot rely on the trade union movement collapsing completely before they are required to make a decision on that point. As matters stand at the moment it would be impossible under the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked, "Why Clause 5?" I am cynical enough to believe that it means that, when the Government have withdrawn financial support for postal ballots, they are going to insist that the postal ballot will require two mailings from every union, one to send the ballot paper and one to explain their views towards it. That is quite a useful way of further denting union finances. I am certain that that is the reason for Clause 5, unless the noble Viscount can offer a better one.
Wages councils set minimum wages for between 2.5 and 3 million of the lowest paid of our workers in the catering and hotel industries, hairdressing, etc. All those occupations are essential to our comfort as consumers. The wage levels that are currently set range between £2.57 per hour to £3.10 per hour. That is not extravagant pay by any standards. The main reason for the Government's action is that some employers are pressing for wages councils to be abolished, to set them free from minimum rates so that they can introduce "flexibility" into their pay arrangements. Since there is no barrier to paying employees more under the present arrangements, obviously that can only mean that they want to pay less. Some employers already pay less and get caught;

469
others pay less and get away with it. The number of offenders already identified is a fair indication of what would happen if the councils were abolished.
The Government are not interested in the effect of the abolition of the wages councils on the workers, and that view is made clear by their refusal to accept an amendment that was tabled in another place which would have required a report on those effects to be made annually to Parliament.
That lack of concern must surely invite compassionate opinion on the other side to look more closely at what is being proposed. If compassion and justice have no place in Conservatism nowadays (and it is beginning to look as though they have not) noble Lords may like to consider the point that was made by my noble friend Lady Turner: that, if wages fall below the official poverty line, some employees will be entitled to claim benefit, which means that we, the taxpayers, will be asked to subsidise bad and inefficient employers. We have heard in the last few years about the Government's wish to see inefficient employers go out of business, but it looks as though we will be subsidising them in the future. Too many employers already enjoy such a subsidy.
It is interesting to discover that there is only one wages inspector for every 40,950 workers, while there is a different approach to social security abuse: there is one fraud tracker for every 14,000 claimants. We can see where the Government's priority lies.
It appears, as my noble friend Lady Turner implied, that the Government are stuck in a time warp in relation to the identity of household providers. It is assumed that they are all male and that, since the majority of workers protected by wages councils are female, the wages earned can therefore be insultingly referred to as "pin money" and become less important. The concept is as out of date as the term that is used.
There is ample evidence to support the fact that those wages increasingly form the main support of one-parent families; and the parents in those families are male and female. Such wages are of growing importance against the background of present high male unemployment.
Wages councils, when setting rates, make no distinction between male and female employees and they therefore help to ensure that equal pay provisions are implemented at the lower earning levels. That is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, is keen to see occur. It is inevitable that without them the inequalities will grow.
Many of the workers who receive the lowest pay are doing jobs that require a considerable degree of dedication and interest. The Low Pay Unit states that a nursing homecare assistant is currently being paid £1.25 per hour. How can an employee on that rate be expected to have respect for the job or for the employer? How can employers expect to attract workers who will take an interest in what they do if such an insulting rate is paid? Is that really the value that we set upon such a vital service?
Ministers have stated that any job is better than no job. I am sure that the long-term unemployed would
470
agree with that statement for a time; but would they go on agreeing as desperate week succeeds desperate week and, at the end of the day, they have to go cap in hand to claim supplementary benefit to give them a living wage? That is not an acceptable situation in a civilised society.
The Minister in another place stated:
"People should be free to choose for themselves their terms and conditions". [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 28/1/93; col. 605.]
Do the Government seriously believe that people covered by the wages councils have any choice? They have no bargaining power. They are often desperate for work and unwilling to argue their case for fear of losing the pitiful wages that they earn. That ministerial comment shows how out of touch with reality the Government are with the world that has been created by our devastating rates of unemployment.
Until now there has been consensus on the need to protect low paid workers, a consensus that has lasted for 80 years. I ask again that the Government produce evidence rather than just the opinion of a few employers. Without any evidence to support their case the Government are to end that consensus and are to become the only member of the European Community without any form of minimum wage legislation. Is that what the people of this country want? We do not know because the proposal was not in the 1992 manifesto. Where is the mandate for what the Government propose?
Much has been made of the fact that a Labour government abolished some wages councils. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn dealt with that matter. I should like to remind noble Lords that the present 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 suggest that, at the time that those wages councils were abolished, effective alternative means were available to those workers; and, what is more, they were abolished against a background of a much better employment scene than exists today.
I hope that noble Lords will decide to give the other place an opportunity for further thought on the proposal and that even at this late stage the Government may have further thoughts and withdraw the clause.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are living in rather troubled and, some would say, perilous times, both economically and socially. We are living in a time when in our own country there are between 3 million and 4 million people unemployed; when we have an unparalleled and unprecedented deficit on our balance of payments and balance of trade overseas. The public sector borrowing requirement has reached such a height as to make the application that was made by my noble friend Lord Healey to the International Monetary Fund some years ago appear to be an application for petty cash.
In Europe we are seeing some disturbing times, due mainly to unemployment on a massive and unprecedented scale, particularly in the EC where fascism is beginning to rear its head in the same way

471
as it did before the war. The efforts of all our citizens, of whatever ethnic origin or function in society— whether they are employees, employers, self-employed, civil servants or whatever—and the united efforts of our people inspired by some positive purpose are now an imperative necessity.
It is against that background that this miserable little irrelevant Bill is presented to your Lordships' House for serious consideration. The Government confront possibly one of the most perilous times in the state of our nation with 40-odd pages of trivia. Really! If it were not so pathetic it would be funny. The most audacious arguments have been adduced in support. I wondered for a while whether I was hearing correctly.
It has been put forward today that the working people of our country are in need of protection. That is a good argument; all people should have legitimate protection. But the bulk of our people—except perhaps for the 250,000-odd who are in positions of power in the United Kingdom—are dependent day by day for their very existence, their futures, the education of their children, their surroundings and everything else upon those who employ them. Those are the people who have the power.
It is now suggested that the real protection of the employed sections of the population is required not against those who wield and have ruthlessly exercised their power—the conventional term is "shedding labour"—but against those who seek, through their collective action, to protect their own interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, whom I am glad to see has returned to his place, went so far as to suggest that every advance made in the fortunes of the working people of this country has been due more to the generosity and far-sightedness of employers than to the pressure of the trade unions. All, save those who, with respect, have parted company with logic, know perfectly well that, if it had not been for the efforts of the trade union movement progressively over the years, the standard of living of the ordinary working people of this country would be far lower.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, why does the noble Lord believe that employers shed labour in face of the protections offered by the trade union movement and pay such low wages, which are lower than in much of the rest of Europe?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall be pleased to answer the noble Lord quite simply; it is because of the incompetence of their political representatives in Parliament and their own management deficiencies. That is the quick answer to that one!
What do we find within a democratic society? We find that, when it comes to dealing with what the party opposite conceives to be in its own interests, it does not hesitate to legislate in detail, as it has for the internal operation and organisation of trade unions. But what does that party do when it comes to its own people? Then we have codes of conduct! I invite noble Lords to remember the passing of the Financial Services Bill through this House. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I suggested that it might be good if the captains of industry and the financial interests in the City and their hangers-on were governed by law
472
rather than by codes of conduct. But, no. As regards the ordinary hoi polloi, who do not have the financial, social or spatial advantages of the party opposite, detailed legislation must be passed. But when it comes to its own kind we have codes of conduct. We all know the result of that. We all know too that City analysts have recently informed the general public that fraud in the City of London and in the financial institutions in the UK is probably running at more than £4 billion per annum.
Yet, what do we find? Such institutions are not interfered with in any way. Some members of them are socially entertained before they are found out. But when it comes to the ordinary people of our country—those masses who have not had the advantages of inherited wealth or education—we find that they are dealt with ruthlessly. And, indeed, it can be expected, can it not, because it is implicit in the utterances of that political party?
What does the ordinary person expect—in particular the 4 million unemployed—of a party which states, "If it isn't hurting it isn't working", and, "Unemployment is the price worth paying"? What do they expect? They no longer expect even the common humanities; they expect a ruthless exploitation whenever that can be done. It is done by the party opposite preferably under the guise of kindness but always with one central objective: to remove any challenge to its political power.
Let us make no mistake—and I invite the thoughts of my noble friends on the suggestion—one of the reasons why there is an attack upon the trade union movement is that the party opposite, which does not hesitate to accept as much as £2 million from overseas finances into its party funds, is anxious to attack the whole base of the funds, few as they are, available to the Labour movement. That is the real reason, and it is despicable and irrelevant to the needs of our times.
I do not intend to speak longer today. However, when in future the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, participates in the debate I shall bring with me my copy of Keynes' general theory so that I can correct him where necessary. There is the widespread feeling that at the moment we have industrial peace. That is so, but I wish to warn your Lordships that one can have industrial peace of an uneasy kind. The industrial peace that is attained under duress, in particular the duress of large-scale unemployment, can lead to social unrest, to the instability of society and to the kind of increase in crime that we have seen during the past few years. Therefore, it is to be deeply suspect.
It is not the custom in this House to deny a Bill a Second Reading, and so I do not suppose that one has any option but to let it go through once again on the nod, with the pious hope that some penetrative wisdom might emerge at the Committee stage. For my part, this Bill is a contemptible little Bill and is unworthy of any government which has so far dared to show its nose in the United Kingdom.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. It has been my happy privilege to do so on many

473
occasions in the past on this sort of subject, usually about two-thirds of the way through the debate. This time the Chamber is pretty full. Well done Lord Bruce. I expect they will all now go away. It was an extraordinarily irrelevant speech for the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord says that he does not like the Bill. That is not surprising. I would not expect any noble Lord opposite to say anything else. But practically everything else that the noble Lord said was not really relevant.
The most important thing that the noble Lord could do would be to try to shed his prejudices and read carefully what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, which was the best common sense I have heard in this Chamber for many a long day. I leave your Lordships with that as a really good self-denying ordinance. If noble Lords opposite understood what my noble friend was saying, they might learn something for the first time in their lives. I can now get on with my speech. I have wasted only a minute.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his, as usual, clear explanation of the Bill. I hope that it will have a successful passage through your Lordships' House. I have to declare an interest in that I am being advised by the CBI for most of my contributions to the debates on this Bill. I say that I support the main purposes of the Bill which have been so splendidly supported by many of my noble friends. Because time is going on and I rather suspect that many noble Lords have spoken for twice as long as they need have done to make their point, I propose to concentrate my remarks on the areas in which the detailed wording of the clauses could be unnecessarily difficult administratively for companies, and especially small companies.
The CBI spent much time when the Bill was going through another place in discussing with the Department of Employment how various clauses might be amended to make the intentions of the Bill more manageable in everyday practice for companies. These discussions achieved some success but not enough. Because the various proposals for change were not tried out in Parliament—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did the CBI think it worth while to discuss any part of the Bill with the trade union movement, which is also involved in the process we are dealing with now?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question because I did not ask the CBI that. I do not know whether it did, but on the whole its relationship with the trade union movement is pretty good and I should be surprised if it had not at least given some thought to that. However, perhaps I may get on with my speech.
Because these proposals for change were not tried out in Parliament, I may have rather more amendments at later stages than is normally the case. Your Lordships will be aware that much of the Bill is devoted to implementing various relevant European Community directives. I and my advisers believe that in many cases the Bill is framed to go further than the directives actually require. Since the Bill had its First Reading in another place, my right honourable friend
474
the Prime Minister has more than once emphasised that the practice of legislating beyond the precise needs of directives by methodical United Kingdom departments of state is to cease. I hope that my noble friend the Minister in winding up will be able to reassure the House that his department has carefully examined this Bill with those prime ministerial exhortations in mind. We can then be hopeful that relevant amendments will get favourable treatment in due course.
Examples of where the Bill is potentially harmful to business are in Clauses 22 and 23 regarding maternity rights, where there is no requirement for a woman on maternity leave to notify her planned date of return. I rather gathered from what my noble friend Lady Platt said in her most interesting speech that she probably would move an amendment in the terms she was proposing. It is difficult for companies if they do not know when people are coming back because they cannot make proper arrangements for the persons they have had to employ temporarily to replace them.
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 far too much information is required in the actual statement to be given individually to all employees. It should be possible to make references to documents—documents perhaps produced by the trade unions as well as documents produced by management—so that the statement that is given to individuals is something they can handle, without the difficulty and extra administrative problem that the company has in trying to put all this together for each and every one. Another point is that Clause 29 relating to transfers of undertakings could be unreasonably commercially crippling to companies unless we have some sort of amendment.
Finally, in Clause 14, in the new rules relating to the check-off—that is, the deductions of employees' union subscriptions—these can add to the administrative load on companies, especially smaller companies, in matters that have hitherto been shared with trade union officials. When we come to an amendment on those lines perhaps there might be a little support from the other side, though from what they said earlier I would never welcome it because it would be bound to mean that my amendment was faulty.
There are other subjects on which I shall be seeking amendment, but the ones that I have touched on will, I hope, give your Lordships, and more especially my noble friend the Minister, the flavour of where in the Bill I shall be hoping that he is going to be particularly understanding in accepting at least the sense of the proposed amendments.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that he is advised by the CBI. I hope that he also takes the advice of the CBI in criticising various aspects of this Bill. My noble friends have referred to a number of issues in the Bill on which the CBI is strongly critical and wishes that the Government would not proceed with them.
I wish to make a few remarks on Part II of the Bill. This deals with employment rights. It introduces some improvements, which are welcome, but a number of

475
these points are in connection with the EC directives. It would seem that in a number of cases the clause follows only the minimum requirements of the directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, made some comments, which I welcomed, criticising certain aspects of the clauses in this part of the Bill. I hope that she will bring forward amendments on the lines she suggested to ensure that the clauses fully convey the requirements of the EC directives.
On Part I, I can only say that it is intended to undermine the trade union movement. I ask why the Government are acting as if the trade unions are the sole cause of Britain's problems. Who has asked for this further trade union legislation? What employers' organisations consider that the proposals in the Bill are of such urgency that they should occupy legislative time instead of Parliament taking action to deal with the economic situation?
I regret that I was not present to listen to the noble Viscount introduce the Bill, but I have read a number of the debates that took place in the other place, and especially the Third Reading debate on 17th February. I should like to deal with some of the statements made in that debate by the Secretary of State. The right honourable lady revealed nothing at all that would tackle the problem of unemployment, bearing in mind that on the following day we had the disgraceful announcement of 3 million unemployed. After 14 years of this Government, the cost to the Treasury of unemployment is no less than £27 billion per year—or some £9,000 per year for each person who is unemployed. The Secretary of State made no comment at all on how to rebuild manufacturing industry, which everybody now agrees is in an appalling state. Instead, she talked about the tired old face of the Opposition and jeered at "socialist dogma".
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—we always seem to be referring to him—referred to the old world of tripartism. Surely what is required now is a tripartite operation between the Government, the trade unions and employers if we are to tackle the serious problem of unemployment and help our manufacturing industries. The Secretary of State said that the gap between the Opposition and the Government over industrial relations and trade union reform is as wide as ever. How true that is. It is pretty obvious—and the terms of the Bill make it clear—that the Government and the Opposition are poles apart on what is required in industrial relations.
With all due deference to the right honourable lady, she then made what I regard as a rubbish statement when she asked:
"Is it clinging to the belief that Labour could run businesses better than business men and women?—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/93; col. 328.]
I do not know what that means. Is Labour responsible for the dirty tricks about which there has been a lot of publicity recently? Is Labour responsible for the shameful currency speculation—and all of us are appalled at what has gone on? Is Labour responsible for the £5 billion loss on Black Wednesday? Is Labour responsible for the large-scale frauds that we have seen tried in the courts in the past two or three years? Is Labour responsible for the record number of
476
bankruptcies? I do not understand how the Secretary of State could make such a statement in open debate in the other place.
Again, with all due deference to the right honourable lady, she then came out with what I would term a classic piece of nonsense when she said:
"For the first time, the Bill gives employees the right to join the union of their choice—not the union chosen for them by a Trade Union Congress committee".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/93; col. 326.]
I only wish that the Secretary of State would elaborate on what she was referring to. Obviously, it has some reference to the clause that seeks to abolish what we know as the Bridlington Agreement. That would undermine the orderly arrangements for regulating membership competition between unions which the TUC has exercised for many years. Moreover, many employers' organisations have soundly criticised that proposal. As I have already suggested, the CBI has drawn attention in particular to the effect that the abolition would have on single-union agreements. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will agree to any amendment that is tabled to deal with the question of the Bridlington Agreement. Its abolition would threaten industrial relations in a number of very large undertakings. I wonder whether when she made that speech the Secretary of State really understood that that would be the effect of the clause that she was advocating. Who actually asked for the proposal to abolish the Bridlington Agreement? After discussion with the unions, will the Government consider withdrawing that clause?
This part of the Bill seeks to undermine trade unions. The changes that are advocated are not needed. As I have said, employers' organisations have not sought them. It would be interesting to know who thought up the various clauses in Part I which will have such a terrific effect on the operation of trade unions.
In addition to the provisions affecting Bridlington, other proposals in the Bill will be damaging to trade union membership and finances. Perhaps I may list them briefly. The revised procedures for check-off arrangements for the payment of union subscriptions are obviously aimed at making it more difficult for those arrangements to continue. I refer also to the proposal to withdraw (from 1996) the provision for state funding to meet the costs of trade union postal ballots, for which a statutory duty is laid on the trade unions. There is also a provision to add to those statutory obligations the obligation that industrial action ballots must be conducted only by full postal balloting. However, there is evidence from many organisations, including from many employers, that in many cases workplace ballots, if properly conducted, are as efficient as postal ballots.
There is a further provision that the notice to be sent to members with their voting papers for a union merger ballot must not include a recommendation or opinion about the proposed merger. As my noble friend stressed, that will mean additional costs falling on the union which must undertake an additional circularisation of its members. The four points to which I have referred are aimed at making it more

477
difficult for unions to handle their membership and at impairing their finances. They are certainly not aimed at improving industrial relations.
Part III of the Bill, under the heading "Other Employment Matters", includes two completely unacceptable proposals. Clause 31, which has already been referred to, concerns the abolition of the wages councils. I do not want to go into that in too much detail, but it must be emphasised again that the wages councils cover 2.5 million of the lowest-paid workers in this country, the great majority of whom are women. Some 1 million of those workers are employed in the home industries—if one can call them "industries". Indeed, many of the employers who are covered by the wages councils are opposed to their abolition. They fear—and justifiably so—that their abolition could lead to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. I believe that the CBI has made that same observation.
The Secretary of State argued that fixing minimum wages, especially at a time of high unemployment, could lead to the destruction of many jobs. How often have we heard that sort of argument against trade union protection of workers' interests? Such arguments have bedevilled industrial relations through the years. Does the Minister agree with my noble friend Lady Nicol that the United Kingdom is the only EC country without some form of minimum wage protection? Is it also the case that the United Kingdom is the only one of the 94 signatories to criticise the relevant International Labour Organisation convention dealing with minimum wage provisions?
The question of a minimum wage opens again the argument about the social chapter of Maastricht. I take this opportunity to affirm once again—as I did in our recent debate—that the relevant article on social policy will not apply to pay. That is quite clear in the treaty.
However, Article 6 states:
"Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work is applied".
The trade unions are convinced that the abolition of the wages councils will give the opportunity for more than 2 million women workers to be paid less than they are now. Trade unions have emphasised the fact that the gap between men's pay and women's pay is narrower in industries covered by wages councils than in other industries.
Noble Lords may have heard on the radio or seen on television the Prime Minister on Saturday when he said:
"They can have the social chapter, we will have the jobs".
If he knows, will the Minister tell the House what the Prime Minister meant, because my interpretation of that statement is, "Let's go hell for leather, boys. Let there be complete competition in the Community as to who can pay the lowest wages and who can offer the worst conditions to try to get the most work?".
That can be the only explanation of the Prime Minister's statement.
The other matter that causes anxiety is one that has been stressed by some of my noble friends. It is Clause
478
37, which removes from local education authorities their statutory duty to make provision for careers services and to make them the responsibility of the Secretary of State who will determine how he will handle them. I thought we all welcomed the provision in the Maastricht Treaty under which subsidiarity is clarified as placing responsibility for deliberations at the lowest level—as near as possible to communities and citizens. The proposal for the careers services backtracks on that. It is a further example of the Government carrying out centralisation with the belief that Whitehall knows best. They are ignoring the desires and aims of local authorities, which, as my noble friends have said, have been carrying out the duty of providing careers services efficiently over the years.
I have mentioned only a few matters. Many of the issues will undoubtedly be dealt with in some detail in Committee. A great deal of the Bill needs to be changed. Clauses must be withdrawn. I hope that when he replies the Minister will not use the same language as that used by the Secretary of State in another place—he is too nice a chap for that—but will neveŕtheless deal with some of the criticism of the Bill, particularly of the contents of many of the clauses, made by employers' organisations.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall not go into the Bill in detail because almost everything that needs to be said has already been said. We need to get clear what the Government's present policy is. One noble Lord said that through the Bill the Government will remove some existing powers of LEAs and take them over themselves. The Prime Minister was specific in what he said at the weekend. He said that he wanted there to be a better relationship between central and local government; the fighting had to stop; and we should all be friends with a common goal. But once again the first thing the Government want to do is to remove a major responsibility from local authorities. If anything needs to be left alone to settle down so that the people involved can do a worthwhile job, it is the local authority education system. It has been knocked from pillar to post by successive Secretaries of State. The poor performance in some areas lies at the Government's door because of what they have been doing. I am describing something which is rather like the mugger asking his victim to be friends after the event. The Government are standing the issue on its head.
I listened with horror to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. He is not in the Chamber. I make no comment about that, but I wish that he were. After listening to his speech and looking at his background, I say that he is light years away from having any knowledge of how industry in this country works. I have looked through Dod, and I would go so far as to say that he has lived his life between academic tramlines. There are academics and academics; and there are politicians and politicians. I am talking about the positions the noble Lord has held as set out in Dod. He did not talk about industry as we know it. I started in industry at the age of 14 and was in it until

479
I was 40. I do not remember the Engineering Employers' Federation offering a pay increase. We had to battle for one every time. We sometimes received what was then colloquially called "an Irishman's rise", where one received a rise but paid for it out of the productivity bonus.
It is nonsense to say that the trade union movement, in the widest sense, is responsible for what has taken place in this country. Powerful groups of workers may have over-used their muscle, but that has gone. The newspaper industry was disciplined by other means. The car industry nearly disappeared from sight. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, complained about the present activities of trade unionists. But let us make it clear—the Minister rightly claimed some credit for it—that there is a resurgence in the motor car industry at present. Who played a part in that? It was the AEU, which is my union. It broke all the conventions of the past and accepted just one union in a factory so as to overcome the hamstringing caused in the past by different unions being at cross purposes in a single factory. The union has done away with that. Why, if the trade unions are bad, do the Government think that the Japanese want to invest money here? They are queuing up to come here. More of them will come. What is there that we need new laws to deal with?
If one takes the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to their ultimate conclusion, he is talking about returning to the philosophy of queuing at the factory gate. The workers have no protection. It is first come, first served. What a way to run a highly technical factory: "Let's see if there's someone at the door with the technical know-how. Let's not have a contract with someone who is highly skilled. Let's take a chance; there may be someone standing outside". That is utter nonsense.
As I said earlier, I spent 26 years in industry. I never came across anything where I worked which resembled what the noble Lord has described. He said that he was speaking wide of the Bill, so that is what I shall do. If he wants to discover what is wrong with industry and to put it right, I can throw something else into the ring. There was a press report over the weekend claiming that the Secretary of State, the right honourable Michael Heseltine, and another Minister had given conflicting views about industry and how it should be run. It appears that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had said that Britain had far too many accountants running industry and not enough managers or technical people who knew what managing a factory or an industry was all about.
About two years ago I went to an exhibition in the engineering department of London University. It was opened by the former chairman of ICI, Sir John Harvey-Jones. He said that the country closest to ours in terms of national production and so on was France and that France manages with a third of the number of accountants that we have. He wished there were more practical people in boardrooms who had come up from within industry rather than just people who understood figures on a balance sheet and thought that there lay all the answers.
480
One of the most offensive parts of the Bill—we have not had a proper explanation for it today—is the proposal to do away with the Bridlington agreements. Those were formulated years ago and have stood the test of time. I was associated in a rather detached way with the people who worked on the agreements. The agreements worked very well and I never found any case of people being overpaid under them.
Like my noble friend Lord Eatwell, I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was trying to get at—that to do away with the wages councils would be beneficial in terms of increasing jobs. Every statistic demonstrates that that is absolute rubbish. How many replies will there be to an advertisement seeking a graduate with good qualifications and offering, say, £15,000, £16,000 or £17,000–300, 400 or 500? What happens to the disappointed ones who do not get the job? Is that all we can offer the young people whom we have trained to lead this country back into prosperity? Are we to say to them that they can get a job but that they have to negotiate their own salary because there are no wages councils?
I remember from my days in another place a member from another party saying during a debate that he could put all these educated young people back to work. He explained that he would have a massive road building programme and that all the work would be done by manual labour. I had the temerity to intervene and say, "Will your son be using a shovel or a pickaxe?" Oh no, his son was at Oxford. It was all right for my son to use a pickaxe or a shovel but not his son.
We have to get this philosophy correct. On the basis of assisting young people there were only a few years ago over 300,000 apprenticeships working in the engineering industry. The figure is now well under 100,000. What will this legislation do to encourage firms to take people on and train them as engineers?
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, used one phrase which I objected to. He talked about people who were in non-transferable jobs demanding high wages. I can tell the noble Lord that people who have served as apprentices in engineering, the building trade and other trades are not one-job persons. I myself had to move three times in my adult life as redundancy caught up with me. I had to move to other factories and into a different type of engineering. I had to accommodate that. So the noble Lord is completely wrong when he says that everyone who loses a job needs retraining and that while they are in a job they are demanding too much money.
I think that the Bill was accurately summed up by the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right honourable Edward Heath, a few months ago. He said that the Government had to be careful that they were not going over the top in their attack on the trade union movement. I think that the clause which reneges on the Government's promise to fund enforced ballots is the dirtiest little piece of legislation I have seen since I first came to Parliament. I hope that enough Members on the other side of the House will stand by principle, turf that nasty little clause out of the Bill and throw it in the dustbin where it belongs. We on this side of the House will do our best to alter the parts of

481
the Bill that we think need altering. However, I think that this House and another place could have been better engaged on something more worth while than this Bill, which the Government want because they wish to divert attention away from the mess they have got the country into and once again blame someone else.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It has been a lively, robust and on the whole good humoured debate in which the motives of the Government have been challenged by both the Labour and Liberal Parties as a trade union emasculation Bill, as a window dressing for overseas investors, as irrelevant, as unnecessary, as enabling employers to finger the striker and then to victimise him, as an attack upon the funds of the trade unions so as to weaken the finances of the Labour Party; and it was stigmatised by one noble Lord from the Cross-Benches as the labour law of a Mad Hatter. Well, that is all very fine. And, in my opinion, if any of those charges had a semblance of veracity I would decline to support the Government. I hope that noble Lords in this House will accept that as true.
It is not surprising that there should have been this attack on the motives of the Government as the essence of the Bill is to extend individual rights—to extend the individual rights of the members and so to hand the unions back to the individual members. So of course it is opposed by the Labour Party. For such is the wholly consistent stance of the Labour Party— certainly in your Lordships' House—since 1980 on each of the five industrial relations Bills which followed as part of the step-by-step approach, of which this is the last step.
In effect, nothing has been said by noble Lords on the other side of the House which has not been said in substance on each and every occasion that these Bills came before your Lordships' House. They complain that the Bill removes self-regulation by the unions and that the Bill is a calculated affront to the trade union movement. They say, as they have always said, "Hands off the unions. Leave it to them to put their own house in order and regulate their own affairs". But have the unions ever put their own house in order? Have they ever regulated their own affairs? Are they able or willing to do so? Are the affairs of which they speak as their own affairs of exclusive concern to the unions? Are they not also of concern to the membership, to the public, to the state and to the perceived status of the TUC General Council; and which noble Lord in this House today could say whether the militant dragon is slain or slumbers?
Noble Lords opposite oppose the three main principles of the Bill. I am concerned only with matters of principle, and in that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. First, Clause 13 provides for the freedom of members to belong to a union of their choice, a right which has not as yet been recognised by the trade union movement but which is a manifesto commitment. The second principle is the
482
check-off provisions in Clause 14, another manifesto commitment which substitutes contracting in for contracting out, which has been a political shuttlecock since 1913. Thirdly, there is what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, described as the most controversial provision of the Bill—and I accept her estimate of that —the abolition of the wages councils, which for many years have failed to serve any worthwhile purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, opposes the Bill as mean-minded and a step too far while welcoming the provisions of Part II and also taking what seems to me to be the wholly inconsistent position of supporting wages councils, which create minimum wages, while opposing a national minimum wage. I understand but do not agree with the reasoning of the Labour Party. As yet I cannot understand the reasoning of the Liberal Party but await clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who I am sure will give that in due course.
The fundamentally important point is made that the Bill must be seen in the context of the needs of the 1990s, the decade ahead, so that it creates an environment for economic recovery. I take issue with noble Lords opposite. To say that because we are in deep depression today and because today there is massive unemployment, the matter is irrelevant and unnecessary is, with respect to the noble Lords, to emulate the antics of an ostrich. I say that with particular respect to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
There are fundamental questions which divide your Lordships' House. Why should we have a Bill at all? Why should we do away with contracting out? Why abolish the Bridlington system and create rights for members to belong to the union of their choice and so remove the right of the TUC General Council to decide the appropriate union to which a person should belong? Lastly, why should we abolish the wages councils?
That ground has already been covered by noble Lords who have spoken on this side of the House and I shall not say much of what I was going to say. However, at the outset I should like to deal with the freedom of choice to belong to a trade union. As to that, many trade unionists, including Mr. Frank Cousins, Lord Robens and Mr. Vic Feather, have expressed the view that a man should not be made to join or belong to a trade union. They have expressed that in the form—and I have the material but I shall not quote it—that one should be proud to be a member of a trade union. It should be a matter of persuasion and not of compulsion. Noble Lords opposite know that there is a division—and we are arguing it in a tough way but fairly—within the trade union movement on this question.
Because the right to belong to a trade union of one's choice did not exist, the Bridlington procedures were introduced to resolve disputes between unions and membership rights. As recently as 6th December 1992 Mr. Gavin Laird, the secretary of the AEU, in the Sunday Times stigmatised Bridlington as:
"outdated and irrelevant in modern industrial relations".
Therefore, I repeat that there are two views within the trade union movement.

483
Clause 13 ensures that the Bridlington agreement can no longer operate to compel an individual to belong to a union which the TUC considers to be appropriate. For my part, I believe that to put that as a TUC diktat is rather unnecessary because that system has worked for so long that it is a proper system to operate unless, on consideration, it were to be changed.
However, I am anxious to make a point which seems to have become lost in the debate and I think some noble Lords on both sides of the House have got it wrong. Those provisions are concerned only with inter-union disputes—disputes over membership which are relevant to recognition of the union by an employer. They are not concerned with disputes between a union and an employer as to recognition. The employer retains his freedom of choice as to which, if any, trade union he wishes to recognise. If that approach is right—and I hope it is—the question of affecting single union agreements, which has worried certain noble Lords, does not arise.
As regards the check-off, your Lordships will know that in 1913 a Liberal Government introduced contracting out. After the general strike in 1926 the 1927 Act introduced contracting in. The Labour Government's 1946 Act restored contracting out and now Clause 14 proposes to reinstate contracting in. I do not know but I would assume that it is common ground between us all that as a truth of life inertia infects contracting out. That was frankly admitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, in the debate in 1946 when he was Attorney-General.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am becoming rather confused by the noble Lord's argument. He is talking about contracting out of the check-off system. Does the noble Lord not appreciate that it is not a question of contracting out? A unionist must contract in before his employer can take any union subscriptions at all. It is not a question of contracting out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point but he is mistaken in the analysis as to how, at the end of the day, it works. The system which is proposed to be introduced by Clause 13 reverts to the system of inertia because deductions are made at the check off irrespective of there being a written consent by the individual. That is all that I am saying. That element of inertia—perhaps I explained this badly; I probably did—was, frankly, dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, in the debate in 1946. I read that debate but I shall not quote from it. The second matter of common ground is that on contracting out, I would have thought, disclosure of identity—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord is talking about the political levy when he talks about the 1913 Act. When he talks about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and what the Labour Government did, he is talking about the political levy. That has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing. The clause the noble Lord is discussing is about the check-off not the political levy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, exactly the same principle applies to both. I know the difference between one and the other. As I sought to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—I think he took the point—exactly the same principle applies on contracting out where disclosure of identities to trade union executives is liable to create embarrassment and victimisation. That point was made by Lord Wolmer in the Report stage of the Act of 1913. The threat of victimisation was rejected by the Liberal Government.
The third matter that surely is common ground between us is that it is not desirable that inertia, or the threat of victimisation, should be able to operate or should operate. I say quite specifically that this is not an attempt to inhibit trade union activity, as was roundly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden.
The fact that for some 45 years both employers and trade unions have operated the system as a method of administrative convenience has to be taken into account, but the position of the members of the union also has to be taken into account. Automatic deductions without individual written consent will no longer be possible. The freedom of the individual to be able to exercise his rights without being subjected to a system akin to direct debiting without a written authority ought to come to an end. I do not propose to deal with the abolition of wages councils as there is not time to do so. I adopt all that has been said by other noble Lords who have spoken. However, for reasons which are slightly different, I would have also supported the abolition of wages councils.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall not tangle with the noble Lord, because the clauses I wish to deal with were not mentioned by him. I always admire the noble Lord for taking an independent line. He is prepared to support the other side occasionally, or at any rate to take the line he thinks is right. I believe we shall perhaps have his support on one or two matters in the course of this Bill.
I wish to discuss Clauses 37 and 38, which deal with the careers service. As has been said by some of my noble friends, these clauses amend the Employment and Training Act 1973 to transfer responsibility for the careers service from local education authorities to the Secretary of State, who will be free to arrange for the service to be delivered by local education authorities, by others, or by LEAs and others in partnership.
When the then Secretary of State consulted on this proposal in 1991, the local authority associations responded that the case for change had not been established and they advised against structural reorganisation of the service in order to experiment with different arrangements. Whether we should have had the same response after Mr. Major delivered his speech at the weekend is something I cannot comment on. My noble friend Lord Dean referred to that speech, in which Mr. Major said we should stop bashing one another about. I thought most of the bashing had been from the Government's side as regards local authorities. However, there we are.

485
Local authorities remain concerned about the further fragmentation of their education services; the distraction of staff and management time from much more pressing issues and about the continuing uncertainty in the longer term because the Bill leaves the Secretary of State free to change arrangements at will. My noble friend Lady Turner said she thought privatisation might be the end result of this. I am anxious about what the Secretary of State might do.
Significant improvements in the service to young people and in the relationship with educational institutions have been achieved since the careers service was first made a responsibility 20 years ago. More recently, new partnerships with the training and enterprise councils have begun to be created but they still need time to develop and prove themselves. If the boundaries of the TECs and local authorities had been coterminous, matters might have been much simpler for them. However, the recent Audit Commission/OFSTED report entitled Unfinished Business on education for 16 to 19 year-olds states:
"students portray a guidance system which is working well".
That statement comes from a report that is highly critical in many areas of what is happening in certain establishments. However, the Government's passion for centralising knows no bounds.
I intended to say a few words about the disabled and those with learning difficulties, who rely greatly on the careers service. However, my noble friend Lady Fisher covered that matter very well and I shall leave it at that. If we fail to delete these clauses from the Bill, we must have safeguards. The Bill is currently silent on those safeguards and it needs strengthening in that respect. The Bill is open to abuse by a Secretary of State of whatever political persuasion, as she—at the moment we have a female Secretary of State—will be accountable only to Parliament, without even being required to produce an annual report on how her duty has been discharged.
The Audit Commission and OFSTED have recommended that the new framework for the careers service should preserve and enhance the service's role as the champion of students. I would add that it must do just as well for adults, who will be needing guidance on careers and on change of jobs for a great part of their lives. What we do not want is to risk the service being seen simply as a recruiting agency by any particular interest that might secure the contract to provide it.
It seems to us quite inappropriate to put the careers service out to tender. Those qualified in careers counselling are almost entirely taken up within the local authority service. The likely outcome of attempts to seek competitive tender would either involve reshuffling of existing personnel or would bring into the management of the service those without prior experience who nevertheless believe that they could control existing staff better than the current managers.
Clause 38 allows a local authority to provide goods and services to other persons and bodies who are providing the careers service in the area of that authority for a period of two years. While welcoming that relaxation in local authorities' powers to provide
486
goods and services, local authorities are concerned that the limit may prove too strict. The Government's assumption that during this period a market will grow up to supply relevant goods and services may well prove false. I hope we can persuade the Government to extend that two-year period to ensure that careers service providers are not left unable to attain the relevant goods and services. I remind the House of what Mr. McLoughlin said in another place in Committee. He said:
"The present system has been in place for nearly 20 years. It has done well in the circumstances in which it has been required to operate. We know of very good work being done by the service to help many young people, but the service is constrained by a bureaucracy that governs local authority structures and systems".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 2/2/93; col. 709.]
One can only wonder what central government may do.
Current arrangements generally work well. Throughout the country, local accountability ensures that local citizens receive careers guidance services which meet local needs. Local accountability is open and public. In replacing that with a new, national accountability, we need to ensure that the Secretary of State consults with representatives of education, training, employment and community interests in discharging the duty. It surely will be unacceptable for the Secretary of State to consult only Civil Service officials in drawing up specifications for the careers service, guidance on its operation, the award of contracts and the inspection of performance for the new careers service contractors.
At present there are checks and balances through local councillors, who are accountable to their electorate. If we are not to have that accountability we must have something else, and the proposal for a National Council for Career Guidance has the support of Sir Bryan Nicholson of the CBI, the local authority associations, education officers, head teachers and careers teachers, as well as of careers officers and the Institute of Careers Guidance. There is a need for such a national framework. The council's key role would be in advising the Secretary of State on issues of quality assurance in careers guidance. It should advise on the quality threshold against which all would-be service providers would be judged.
Last month I attended a first class Royal Society of Arts conference on careers education and guidance, at which Sir Bryan Nicholson and Tony Watts, the director of the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling, made excellent keynote speeches. Sir Bryan and Tony Watts stressed the fact that guidance offers public as well as private benefits and has an economic as well as a social value.
The CBI report, Towards a Skills Revolution, helped to place guidance higher on the public policy agenda than ever before. It also made two very important points. First, it emphasised that careers, and by implication careers guidance, should be for all. Secondly, it proposed that career development, and by implication careers guidance, should be lifelong. We need the broader vision and the longer-term view.
A letter from Sir Christopher Ball, who chaired that conference, Sir Bryan and Tony Watts appeared in

487
The Times last Wednesday. In it they urged the principle of partnership, especially that between local authorities and TECs, and commended to the Government the creation of a national council to define standards, monitor quality and offer strategic leadership to organisations and individuals providing guidance for learning and work. They say that such a body would have a wide remit and broad membership. Without it the nation risks allowing bad guidance to drive out good. I hope that in this House the Minister will be more receptive to those powerful arguments than was Mr. McLoughlin in another place.
The Secretary of State has assured another place that, in preparing guidelines for the operation of the new careers service, she will ensure that professional service remains. We need to know more about what she means. The current service is staffed by careers guidance professionals who, through their skills, training and experience, are manifestly providers of quality. The overwhelming majority possess the diploma in careers guidance or its equivalent. To safeguard the interests of individuals receiving guidance we must ensure that all new careers service contractors are required to employ professional practitioners at least to the existing level of competence and training.
It is those key areas of quality assurance, open accountability, wide consultation on a national framework, publication of independent inspection reports, clear evidence of accountability and acceptability of contract providers to local people and the requirement to employ skilled and competent staff that need to be addressed in this House. For that, we need a broadly based and independent national council to advise the Secretary of State on the definition and monitoring of quality standards. It could help to ensure that guidance services meet the interests of consumers as well as the wider public interest. It could focus not only on quality but also on coherence and continuity of guidance provision. In short, it could provide strategic leadership.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wish to address just one part of the Bill, namely Clause 31, which will abolish wages councils.
As your Lordships will be aware, this is the second stage in a two-stage process of abolition which began with the Wages Act 1986. That Act removed the protection of wages councils from young people, as we have already heard this afternoon. Then, as now, the Government claimed that taking away the ability of wages councils to fix minimum wages would increase employment. Indeed, it was reported in the Financial Times of 18th July 1985 that the Government estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 new jobs would be created by withdrawing wages council protection from young people. Later, the Government became more cautious. On 6th June 1986 (at col. 1240 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, conceded to your Lordships that it was "impossible to predict" what the employment effect would be.
It might be thought by rational people that to introduce a measure the prime objective of which was
488
impossible to predict was, to say the least, somewhat odd. Yet that is exactly what the Government did. Fortunately, there is no need for that to happen again. Now, at least, the Government have the fruits of the experience of the 1986 Act to guide them. It is important that in his summing up the Minister should tell your Lordships' House what that experience has been. Will the Minister tell us how many jobs have been created for young people by the abolition of wages council protection in 1986? He must know. How else could he have the confidence to proceed with this measure?
When the Minister tells us how many jobs have been created, will he explain to your Lordships' House how the Government's analysis differs from that of Messrs. Machin and Manning of the University of London in a study produced as recently as May of last year? I referred to that study earlier and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it was a serious study which took account of cyclical effects. Machin and Manning concluded that:
"there is no evidence of an increase in employment from the decline in the effectiveness of the Wages Councils. If anything, our conclusion is that employment has declined".
I am sure that the whole House will look forward to hearing what evidence of job creation among the young the Minister has to offer.
Clause 31 of the Bill before your Lordships' House today will continue that process by removing wages council protection from about 2.5 million low paid people—mostly women, as we have heard—who work in areas such as retailing, hotels, catering, hairdressing and the textile trade.
Much has been made of the fact that about two thirds of workers in wages council industries are paid at above the minimum levels. But that, of course, means that one third of all workers in those industries are paid at the minimum levels. We are talking about the well-being of one million of our fellow citizens.
As before, we are told that this measure will increase employment opportunities in those industries. At the Second Reading of the Bill in another place the Secretary of State said that the effect of statutory minimum wages by the wages councils was:
"damaging both for competitiveness and for jobs". —[Official Report, House of Commons, 17/11/92; col. 177.]
She did not feel it necessary to present any evidence to support those assertions.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Skidelsky.
Will the Minister tell us how many new jobs will be created by the enactment of Clause 31. Surely we shall not be told again that the figure is "impossible to predict". Surely, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Government have some idea of what they are doing. Surely they have some notion of the consequences of their actions.
Since the Government argue that new jobs will be created by the removal of minimum wage protection, then they must expect—and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave the game away—that wages will fall. That is the mechanism of job creation which is being invoked. That is why minimum wage protection is to

489
be removed. Will the Minister tell us by how much the Department of Employment estimates that wages in the industries covered by the 24 wages councils will fall as a result of the enactment of Clause 31? The noble Viscount must have some idea, otherwise it would be quite irrational for him to argue that employment will be increased. How much will wages fall?
Assessing the economic impact of the measure and predicting the probable fall in wages and the number of jobs created, if any, is not the end of the story. Removing minimum wage protection will have significant Exchequer costs too. Your Lordships will be aware that wages councils cover some of the most poorly paid people in the country. If their wages are cut—that is the only rationale underlying Clause 31 of the Bill—many of the families, even when the person affected is not the principal breadwinner, will become eligible for family credit, housing benefit, rebate of council tax and a variety of other means-tested social security benefits. Families which have never in the past had to rely on the social security system will now be forced into dependence on the state by the very mechanism—wage cuts—which the Government promote. Is that increased dependence desirable on economic or social grounds?
To those Exchequer costs must be added the loss of income tax revenues and national insurance payments due to lower wages. Even if employment increases, wage cuts will result in many workers being placed in lower income tax and national insurance bands, including lower bands for employers' national insurance contributions. Therefore overall revenues are likely to fall.
Taking together the falls in revenues and the increase in payments benefits, will the Minister tell us the Government's estimate of the overall cost to the Treasury of abolishing the wage-setting powers of the wages councils? Will he also tell us why the Government consider it wise to add that extra burden to the PSBR at a time when all government departments are being urged to cut expenditure? The answers to those questions are central to the Government's case for abolishing the wage-setting powers of the wages councils.
The removal of the floor to low pay which the wages councils provided will result in an increase in government social security expenditure to maintain family incomes at the minimal level of decency as defined by the social security regulations. That was revealed by the Department of Employment in its consultation document on the wages councils published in 1988. In that document the department argued that family credit will take up any fall in wages which follows from the abolition of minimum wage rates set by the wages councils. The Department of Employment document makes a mockery of the image put forward by the noble Viscount of women earning pin money to add to the incomes of prosperous families. Is he repudiating the document published by his own department?
The Government's case is clear. With the abolition of wages councils, the responsibility for paying a living wage will have been shifted in part from the employer
490
to the taxpayer. Where once wages councils insisted that employers maintain minimum standards of decency, now the taxpayer will have to take up the burden. Allowing the employer to cut wages will result in the taxpayer subsidising low-paying employers. That subsidy is Government policy. We must give the Department of Employment credit for owning up to that fact.
Will the Minister tell the House the Government's case for using the taxpayers' money to subsidise some of the least efficient employers in the country? If the Government are determined to throw around largesse in subsidies in this manner, why do they not subsidise the most efficient employers who might at least hold out some prospects for the future competitiveness of the country?
The cuts in wages which the Government hope that the abolition of the wages councils will bring about, will enhance the competitive strength of the least efficient employers in the country. It will prolong the use of obsolete equipment. It will encourage backward producers to cut wages to undercut those who might invest in new techniques. It will encourage the use of casual labour and discourage the firms which invest in the training of their workers. As the CBI put it in its evidence to the Select Committee on Employment in another place,
"Wages Councils had an important role in preventing the competitive under-cutting of labour, which would create a climate of uncertainty within the industries affected".
Does the noble Viscount really wish to create a climate of uncertainty in these times in which investment is already depressed? If Clause 31 of the Bill is enacted, the best competitive strategy in the industries affected will be no longer to invest for the future, but to cut wages and indirect labour costs and to go downmarket. That is why forward-looking companies, including leading retailers like Tesco, Sainsbury and Kingfisher, are opposed to the abolition of wages councils.
Clause 31 of the Bill is a logical extension of the Government's entire labour market strategy. The abolition of wages councils fits in with that part of the strategy which has consisted of a series of changes to tax and benefit systems and to employment regulations which have in turn resulted in systematic increases of subsidies to those employers who pay poverty wages and offer only casual employment. The firms which exploit those subsidies best are the firms which survive. The continued survival of those firms becomes dependent on the maintenance of the subsidy. The result is a vicious cycle in which the employer and employee are increasingly dependent on the public purse, in which the working of the labour market is not improved and in which public expenditure is not cut. It is called the Speenhamland system.
The abolition of the wages councils will increase poverty, inefficiency, dependence on social security and the public deficit. It is both a shameful and an incompetent measure. At a time when unemployment is set to reach a post-war high, and when the future prosperity of our country depends vitally upon investment and the quality of our labour force, it is totally counter-productive to proceed with a measure

491
that can only add to the degradation of labour in the industries affected and will push this country yet further downmarket. I believe that it is the duty of your Lordships to reject Clause 31 of the Bill.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, first, I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to take part in the debate at this stage. I was happy to see that my friend and author the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has jumped neither out of his academic nor his political tramlines. I must also apologise for a somewhat tardy arrival. I was engaged in developing the forward plan for the provision of a comprehensive careers service, including assessment and aptitude counselling, in the London boroughs of Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, in full co-operation with the local education authorities and the relevant FE colleges.
As chairman of CENTEC, the training and enterprise council for central London, I should declare an interest in Clause 37. I listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Fisher, and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I can honestly say that the TEC movement and the officials of the more enlightened local education authorities welcome the flexibilities that the clause introduces. On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, as the co-founder of the special needs group of the national TEC network, I cannot see why the proper provision of careers advice and training for those with special needs will not be improved by the rights outlined in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords have boasted rightly of their trade union links. I wish that I could say the same. I was a member of the National Union of Journalists, at one time a deputy father of the chapel in Glasgow, and a delegate to the Scottish Trades Union Conference. However, sadly, when I joined my present company I was obliged to give up my membership, although the company recognises the National Union of Journalists and that union represents the largest group of workers in the company. Perhaps the union did not feel that having the proprietor's son as a member was appropriate, particularly as by now I think I would have been easily the most long-standing member of the union on the staff.
Having studied the position of unions in Europe, I hope that before your Lordships reach the Committee stage of the Bill I shall have taken part in a European seminar organised by Cologne University. I hope to be able to confirm that the Bill brings us into a practice closer to that of our EC partners. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is correct in saying that the current practice of bureaucratic tack-on is much in evidence and should be avoided if we can do so.
I must express my concern about the abolition of the Bridlington principles. I recall my late father and the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, being much concerned with them in the early 1970s. As an
492
employer I have used the Bridlington principles to considerable effect, I believe, both for the company and for the workforce.
There are of course opportunities to improve any Bill, especially in your Lordships' House. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will listen carefully to responsible and constructive suggestions. But I trust that he will turn his face against any attempt to put the clock back to the bad old days.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, being temperamentally unwilling ever to follow the crowd—and that may be one reason why I am on these Benches—I have been searching for something nice to say about the Bill. I was much encouraged and helped by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. I too welcome the improvements in maternity benefits and the fact that the two-year limit has been removed. With it goes the nasty little practice—pursued, I am sure, by only a minority of employers—of getting rid of people just before they come up to the two years. That will end at least one objectionable way of behaving.
However, I am afraid that this is where my enthusiasm for the Bill comes to an end, even though there are points about safety which are much to be applauded. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, in relation to part-time workers and the benefits of the rights for part-time workers. She made the point which is surely right that because so many women are part-time workers in relation to the number of men who are part-time workers any adverse conditions for such workers could be regarded as indirect discrimination. That perhaps is another point rather than being central to the discussion today.
The point I wish to make about part-time workers is that in the present, and I think future, labour market, particularly if we take seriously the analysis of Professor Handy of the London Business School, an increasing number of people at all levels, both male and female, are likely to be employed on a part-time basis. In many ways there is a great deal to be said for that. But if part-time work is to become a regular and desired feature of the labour market, surely part-time workers should pro rata have the same rights as full-time workers. We shall not encourage the sensible development of part-time work, which I think in labour market terms is desirable, unless those rights are in place. For that reason, quite apart from justice for part-time workers, I hope that the Government will think again and take more seriously the line given to us by the European Community on the position of part-time and temporary workers.
Viewing the Bill as a whole, it seems to me that the Government do not do themselves justice in relation to what they have achieved in the past. On all previous legislation except the last Act we on these Benches have supported the Government. It is no good the Labour Benches pretending that everything in the trade union movement was always sent straight from heaven. A great many things were wrong with the trade union movement from the days before Donovan and onwards, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, knows. He had a big hand in the Donovan report and

493
even employed me to do some work on it, which shows his discretion. There was abundant evidence in those days of a great need for trade union reform.
The point I wish to make is that, as a result partly of internal changes following Donovan brought about by the trade union movement itself and partly of the legislation by this Government and the previous Conservative Governments, a great deal has changed for the better in the trade union movement. But, why can they not leave well alone?
We on these Benches were very much in favour of giving the trade unions back to the members. It was one of those slogans. It rolls off the tongue and sounds rather good. The objective was certainly to be applauded. But a great many rights have been given back to the members. Ballots were fine. All manner of changes have strengthened the position of the member against the bureaucracy of the trade unions. That we wanted; it has happened. Why try again?
Trade union members are quite big boys now. They can look after themselves. If they think that the union is behaving in a bossy and bureaucratic way, they can stand up and say so and make feelings known. Union members are not too feeble—there is plenty of evidence of that—to make themselves felt. If the union is not doing the things it ought to do, it is up to the members to do something about it. It is very much the nanny state coming back again and I find that extraordinary from a Tory Government. The nanny state is rushing in to protect the poor little union member against the big bully union boss. Surely that is not the way to go on.
I wish to take up a few of the points raised, although it is impossible to cover them all, even in a winding up speech. On the subject of Bridlington have mixed views. We all liked the idea of the freedom to choose our own unions. This is an instance in which the improvements in the trade union movement have made a considerable difference. In the days of the unreformed electrical trade union which led to court orders of a most monstrous kind, many members tried to get into other unions but were unable to do so because of Bridlington. I remember being told a great deal about it at the time.
However, that is all past history. It is 30 years ago. The changes have been put in place. Against the desirable idea that people should choose their own union—with which I have much sympathy—I put strongly the development of the single union. We have talked about investment from Japan and elsewhere in this country. All of us who know anything about it realise that one of the major demands of the Japanese employers was for single unions. The development of single unions, desirable as it is, has come in no small part because of the insistence of the Japanese employers and the inducements that they offered in order to get single unions.
I wish to know from the Government whether it is true—to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray—that there is no danger to the single union from the retention of Bridlington. If there is none, if one can have the freedom to choose and also have the single union, that is fine by me. But if it is a
494
choice between the two, I come down in favour of maintaining the single union because of its great importance for the development of trade unions in the future and also for industry in this country.
As regards ACAS, may I put in a plea not to get rid of the non-legal assessors, the union and the employer? When the industrial tribunals were set up, we were told that they would be informal, unlike courts of law. People would be able to go along on their own and plead their case. It would be understood by people who knew about industry, both from the employer's and from the employee's point of view. Little by little the process has become more and more legalistic. I still belong to the school of thought in industrial relations that the fewer lawyers there are on the scene the better for everybody. In my view the legalisation of labour relations is a very great pity—I know there are many in your Lordships' House who have done very well out of it—and a great mistake. I want the lawyers' sticky fingers taken out of it in every possible way.
To hand over tribunals exclusively to lawyers seems to me a most retrogressive step. I would rather they were without any lawyers at all; I would rather leave the employers and trade unions to sort things out. But that is another issue. I ask the Government to think again. It is against all the traditions. If it is left to the lawyers, one will not get people who have a real feel for what is going on behind the case that has been brought forward.
With regard to the wages councils, it would be marvellous to get rid of them under the right circumstances. The Liberal Government of 1906 introduced the Trade Boards Act in 1909, which was a forerunner of the wages councils. They did that because of the weakness of trade union organisation. The whole idea was that wages councils should be set up and with encouragement toward the strengthening of negotiations between employers and employed in those industries they would fade away. I am all for such fading away. However, this is scarcely the moment to fade them out. This is not the time to do it. The alternative is simply to leave people to make such arrangements as they can for themselves.
A great deal has already been said and I do not want to say much more about wages councils except to add one point which I believe has not been made by other noble Lords who spoke against their abolition; namely, that if wages drop still further below the wages council level, the poverty trap will get bigger and bigger. There will be practically no inducement to get out of unemployment if wages are so low. Surely we want to reduce the significance of the poverty trap and not increase it.
I take the greatest exception to the argument put forward by the Secretary of State and others that some of the lowest paid people are women whose husbands are in jobs and therefore it does not matter. That is a most dangerous argument. In this country we pay for the value of the work done. We do not pay according to whether a woman does or does not have a rich husband. Otherwise a lot of people—not me—would do extremely badly indeed. Once that argument is accepted—namely, that one looks at the family

495
income and need not pay much because the husband is doing nicely—one is on a very slippery slope indeed. I do not want to take up more time on those points.
Let me finally make what seems to me to be by far the biggest point of all. I had never thought until I read this Bill that what the Government were about was trying to get rid of collective bargaining and collective organisation altogether and move towards a situation in which all contracts of employment were individual contracts between the individual and the employer. My support for previous legislation was given on the basis of an assumption that we were reforming collective bargaining, not that we were trying to abolish it. That is an extremely important point which runs through the way in which the Bill is written and at any rate some of the speeches made in support of it. Let me pass on to your Lordships the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, whose experience in trade union matters is most extensive. On leaving the Chamber—it was good to see him here again despite his illness—he said to me that three countries abolished trade unions—Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and China—and they are all putting them back. That is not a very good precedent for people who are thinking of abolishing trade unions.
If the Government want another trade union Act they ought to ask: what sort of collective bargaining do we want to have in the future? One cannot run an industrial economy without proper organisation of the people who work in industry. One cannot work changes in industry unless there is proper representation through which to explain, develop and extend those changes. We need proper trade union organisation. We need to work out the rights of trade unions and the rights of employees as distinct from being members of trade unions, and we need to define where their powers reach and where they are limited. We must know whether we want something like the German system, the French system or a reformed system of our own. We need that extremely badly. Instead, we are dismantling the system and not putting any reformed system of industrial relations in its place. That is what this Bill should be about. In fact that is what it is not about.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and far-reaching debate. There have been 20 speakers, and rather more from the government side than is usual in debates of this kind. There have also been some new faces. Eight Members have supported the Government and 12, in one way or another, have attacked them. But it has been an interesting and rewarding debate.
I begin by thanking the Minister for making as far-ranging a speech as that made by the Secretary of State in another place but in less than half the time. He covered all the ground that she did.
I should like to make one thing absolutely clear and I know about this matter. This Bill is the eighth son of Frankenstein. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I have been at the birth of every one of them: the 1980 Employment Act; the 1982 Employment Act; the 1984 Trade Union Act; the 1986 Wages Act; the 1988
496
Employment Act; the 1989 Employment Act; the 1990 Employment Act and the 1992 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. I do not mention sundry other Bills. This is the latest son of Frankenstein. Each one of those sons had three heads—I shall come back shortly to the way in which the latest son is a little different. Each of the previous sons of Frankenstein was designed to do three things: first, to remove the rights of workers against their employer (they all did that, particularly those which are never mentioned; for example, the 1986 Wages Act which took away a great number of workers' rights against their employer); secondly, to remove the protection of trade unions and the protection of workers involved in industrial action. In addition, every measure—there are more provisions in this field than in all the others —sought more systematically to regulate trade union government.
The great dichotomy in this Government's mind has been to deregulate throughout the country, except in the area of trade unions where regulation gets more extensive and more precise. This Bill, this son of Frankenstein, is not quite the same. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked why we should have a Bill at all. There is a rather special reason for it. As everybody in the House knows, this Government are dominated by the problems created by the division over Europe inside the Government and inside the party. That is the secret of the Bill. For this Government the Bill is most unfortunately timed. At this moment they have to introduce a whole range of measures which they would much rather not have to do; namely, the most significant advances in individual employment rights that Europe has forced upon this Government. Noble Lords must admit that they come at a frightfully embarrassing moment.
One therefore has to do something to cover up, as it were, the little bit of jam in the middle or the little bit of meat in the sandwich. That is why they have dug up all these old ideas, most of them old friends of ours. We know them. We have had them before—only this time they have gone further. That is why we have all this about trade union government; that is why we have all this about strikes; that is why we have a whole range of pseudo rights for members against trade unions because this time we have a number of real rights for workers against employers.
That leads me to my first question for the Minister. If the Government had had their way, is it not the case that there would not be any improved maternity rights? There would not be additional employment particulars. The Government got rid of them a few years ago and reduced the number of rights. There would also not be any improvement in worker rights in relation to transfer undertakings. The Government do not favour that. Moreover, all these measures would have been introduced several years ago, in a much more extensive form, had the Government not been opposing them through every corridor in Brussels over the past few years.
I ask the Minister to say whether or not it is the case that, were it not for those devils in Brussels, there would be nothing that anyone on our side could support. In fact, there might not even be a Bill and, if

497
there were, it would not look like this. Is it not the case that the Government have their hands up their back producing the whole of Part II of the Bill and wish it was not there at all?
When I come to the other parts of the Bill I see the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She twits us with the fact that we have been to this Dispatch Box for 14 years or so fighting strenuously against every attempt by the Government to regulate the trade unions. I accept that. It is partly because we knew the direction in which they were travelling, which seemed to surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, this evening. It was obvious where it was all going to end and indeed it has ended there. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, let the cat out of the bag in 1982 in his Second Reading speech. From that moment on it was clear that the Government had in mind the reduction of trade union power as a prelude to a reduction of the scope and coverage of collective bargaining.
One of the main reasons why we opposed them—and I would oppose them all again—is that we said that the case for them was never proved. The Government took isolated examples of scandals. The noble Baroness mentioned dear old Frank Chapple.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, my Lords.
Lord McCarthy: God bless him. They dug up Frank Chapple and told us what happened to him back in the 1950s. That was their paradigm case of a scandal at that time. Now they do not have to dig up Frank Chapple; they dig up Arthur Scargill. They then created a character called the CROTUM. At the time we said that it was a great mistake and we opposed the establishment of the CROTUM. Had we known what we know now we might have supported it because it went out into the highways and byways of this country looking for union scandals. I last met the CROTUM officials at the national conference of the Institute of Personnel Management. I asked what they were doing there and they said, "We go everywhere".
They tried to use £5 million to drum up business. Last year they had 10 cases. In the end they secured redress in five cases at an average of £58,000 each—this at a time when the Government were doing what everybody says they were doing to other forms of legal aid. The CROTUM failed them. It could not find anything. I sometimes wondered why it did not find a little more because certain maladministrations did occur. Everything is not perfect in the trade union movement, as everybody says, but the CROTUM goes into the highways and byways and finds virtually nothing. Nevertheless, as we must have a Bill, we must keep on about the CROTUM. In fact we are now to have a second CROTUM. I will make a prophecy: the second CROTUM will be amalgamated with the first CROTUM; she will have two heads and find nothing.
I therefore move to Part III of the Bill. Most of what I wanted to say in regard to Part III and the abolition of wages councils has been said by previous speakers, notably by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. I look forward with enormous pleasure to the Minister's response to his questions. I know that he
498
will respond because his helpers have been scribbling away and that is what happens when they do that. But I should like to make one point in regard to the contradictions in what the Government say about the wages councils.
The Government have been so keen to demonstrate that wages councils should be abolished that they have created five different arguments, all of which I believe the Minister mentioned. The trouble is that three arguments point in one direction and two point in the other. First, they say that the wages councils are outdated. That arose because the Secretary of State in another place was saying something in regard to wages councils and a rather impolite Member of the Labour Party shouted out, "What about Winston Churchill?" The Minister said that he was a Liberal at the time. Apparently she then thought that that was not good enough and on 17th November at col. 177 she said, in effect, that when Winston Churchill brought in the wages councils he did not realise that in time there would be statutory employment rights and health and safety protection and social security provisions, and now we do not need them. Anyway, he was a Liberal.
The point is that that is not what wages councils do. They protect wages. They do not protect employment or dismissal. If they were necessary in 1909 then they are necessary today. Secondly, the Government say that they are also ineffective; that 75 per cent. of the workers covered get more. Moreover, a million or so low-paid workers are outside the net. One might think that that was an argument for improving the scope of the wages councils. If they are not doing their job well, it might even be an argument for a national minimum wage. But to this Government the fact that an institution is ineffective is not an argument to make it more effective. They want to abolish it.
Thirdly, the Government say that wages councils are irrelevant. We have been through this already. An article in the January Gazette said that since 1986:
"There is no widespread evidence that the relative pay of young people fell in wages council trades when compared with the figures for the relative pay of all young full timers".
The Government made a great deal of this finding: that young people had done just as well outside the area of the wages councils—now that they have been abolished—as those who have never had wages councils. But, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell says, if that is the case why do we expect them to put people into work? They can only put people into work if they reduce wages, and if they have not reduced wages they will not put people into work.
The net effect of all those arguments is to ask why all the fuss. At this moment in time why should we for our part be so firm in our desire to oppose the abolition of wages councils? Why should the Government be so keen to press for it? On the basis of those three arguments it is difficult to justify why the Government are pressing on and why the Opposition are worried about them pressing on.
The Government therefore turn to their two further arguments. The first is a strange one. On 17th November at col. 177 of Hansard the Secretary of State also said that the trouble with wages councils is

499
not that they protect the low paid but that they push up the wages of the highly paid. That is amazing. She said further:
"the effect of statutory minimum rates is to push up the rates of pay of those earning above that level, with results which are damaging both for competitiveness and for jobs".
I ask your Lordships to think about that. A 5 per cent. rise to a part-time barman earning £3 per hour necessitates a 40 per cent. increase to Rocco Forte. It moves all through the system; it is inevitable. Anything one does for the little man at the bottom goes through the system and produces a 40 per cent. increase for the chairman of the board. That is what we are being asked to believe.
To put the matter another way, if the retail wages councils were abolished, the chairmen of Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer would never give themselves a wage increase again or they would narrow their wage increases. That is rubbish. It is nonsense.
We know very well that the good employer moves his rates in line with the general movement in rates. We know that he maintains his real wage differentials and that he would do that if there were no wages councils. Wages councils do not push up rates throughout the whole range. They protect a small number of workers who are in an extremely weak position. All the evidence suggests that without that protection a number of workers in a very weak position suffer a reduction in their pay. Apart from that, in almost every case that has been studied—not via simulations, because one can do anything with a simulation but in studies —where people go out into the countryside, into shops and offices, and ask what happens, what one finds is that any modest employment effect is totally smothered by all of the other things that are happening to the economy at the same time.
So what can be said in favour of the Bill? I suppose that the Government must say—and that includes the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—that it is not so much this particular son of Frankenstein, it is all the other sons of Frankenstein way back from 1980: they did good. They improved the state of the economy. They contained trade union power. Therefore, even if this Bill does not seem to be doing very much in that direction, or does not seem to be necessary, have faith: we are proud of our legislation. It has transformed British industrial relations; let us have another one. Do not look at the industrial base; feel the industrial peace that we have produced through our legislation.
That kind of argument had a certain plausibility in the middle 1980s—yes, it did. In those days, when manufacturing productivity was above trend and when unit labour costs were relatively low, in the heyday of the Thatcherite miracle between 1983 and 1987, one could argue that that miracle was the result of the legislation. There was never much evidence to connect it with the legislation, but that could be argued. However, one cannot make that argument today because there is not a miracle. We have had a two-year recession. The level of unemployment has been above the OECD average and above the EC average.
More importantly, in the last two or three years it has become quite clear that even without trade unions,
500
in areas where trade unions are not recognised, where they do not exist, a new form of earnings drift is developing. The non-unionist is getting more than the trade unionist, the well paid is getting more than the lesser paid, and nowadays rates of pay are being dragged up from the top and not from the bottom. In other words, the British wage structure, without trade union power, is no more under control than it was in the bad old days of the 70s or the 80s.
So what are they going to abolish now? What are they going to restrict now? Will it be the CBI?—now things are seen to be much more complicated than the simple nostrums that have been in past Bills. For that reason we are not convinced that the Bill has any function, any role or any future and we shall oppose it at every stage of its passage.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have had an interesting and informative debate covering a wide range of issues. That should come as no surprise, for this is an important and wide-ranging Bill whose provisions extend across large areas of industrial relations and employment law. Its proposals warrant proper and serious analysis, and I am delighted to acknowledge that they have been accorded precisely that in our debate this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, stated that the Bill was out of place at a time of high unemployment and that there was no pressing need for such legislation. She stated that trade unions were not the oppressive ogres that they once had been. I am pleased that there is a recognition that the trade unions were oppressive ogres.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have never stated that they were oppressive ogres. The Government have said so in some parts of the media.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness and I believe that there was recognition that there was a need for some reform.
I am pleased also that many of the provisions in the Bill have been welcomed by your Lordships. Again, that is not something which should come as a surprise. As I made clear in introducing the debate, much of the Bill is concerned with enhancing and improving individual rights, and in particular the rights of employees and of trade union members.
My noble friend Lady Young encapsulated the Bill by stating that we were building on success, and I agree with the noble Lady. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter welcomed the introduction of the Bill. He stated that it contains measures that will help unemployment and quoted the inward investment from Japan in particular resulting from our stable and peaceful industrial relations. The Bill will build on that foundation.
I recognise that in one or two respects a number of speakers have urged us to go further in developing these rights. That will always be the case in matters of this nature, and I shall deal with some of the issues

501
that were raised in a moment. However, the important point is that the House has shown strong support for the nature and direction of many of our reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, took me to task, claiming that we would not be proposing any of the reforms if we had not been forced into doing so by EC directives. I believe that the noble Lord is wrong. The reforms appear in our manifesto as commitments. We went into the election signalling these changes, and I should like to highlight the improvement of rights for women and the proposal for clear written statements of their terms and conditions of employment. It would be wrong for the noble Lord to think that we had been pressed into these matters by the European Community.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord does not deny that the Government have been arguing successfully in the European Community councils for a reduction in the rights and that they are a great deal less extensive than they would have been if the Government had not taken the view they have.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I could argue with that premise but for the moment it would be better if I got on with the speech.
Many points have been raised by noble Lords in the debate. I should like to address them in detail, but I suspect that it would be best to do so in Committee. However, I will deal with some of the most important issues during the course of my wind-up speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, amongst other noble Lords, were concerned that Clause 13, which deals with the Bridlington rules, would undermine the single union deals. There is nothing in the clause that would undermine an employer's right to enter into and maintain single union deals. Trade union recognition is a completely separate matter from trade union membership. Single union deals are a form of union recognition, whereas the clause concerns union membership. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was correct in his analysis of the matter.
However, I am quite certain that we shall argue about the matter in Committee. That will be the best place to do it and it will also be the best place to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The provision establishes the important point of principle that individuals should not be prevented from exercising their free choice about which union, if any, they wish to join. We do not believe that it will lead to instability in the workforce or mass defections from one union to the other, and neither does the Engineering Employers Federation, whose members have considerable experience of single union deals.
Where an employer has entered into a single union deal, he will doubtless have chosen a union with a number of factors in mind, including its ability to attract the membership of a significant number of employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, asked whether the legislation was an attempt to prevent a worker from being a member of a trade
502
union. There is nothing in the clause that would suggest anything of the kind. It would be up to the union to provide the service that the individual required.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that that service, which the individual requires, must be borne of representation and that, therefore, the union must seek representation and recognition? Furthermore, the TUC could not stop it engaging in a strike. Does the Minister agree that the inevitable outcome will be extra unions at the bargaining table; or does he deny that the individual, having moved, can seek representation from that union?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I see the evolution of single union deals as being a forward-looking way which the trade union movement has decided for itself. I welcome single union deals and I suspect that the individual freedom that we are providing in this legislation will not interrupt such deals.
It is hard to believe that members will defect en masse when the clause becomes law. If some of those members want to change union, that should be and will be their right. It is wrong to prevent them from doing so. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway quoted from an article written by Gavin Laird which appeared in the Sunday Times on 6th September 1992. In that article Mr. Laird also said:
"in the past, Bridlington rules have been used to force workers to join a particular union. Their replacement must have as a guiding principle the fundamental right of freedom of choice".
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked who wanted a change in the Bridlington rules. I suggest that there has been an active debate within the trade union council movement. The article by Gavin Laird was in anticipation of last year's Trades Union Congress meeting. That is where the impetus for the debate has come from. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, ticked me off for calling it a TUC diktat. I stand corrected; perhaps the word I chose was unsuitable. However, I still stand by the fact that we wish to support individual freedom.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray. Let us suppose that a group of workers in the transport department of a company decide that they are fed up with the single union and that en bloc they join an outside union. Perhaps they say, "We want to negotiate. We are transport workers and we are fed up with the process workers and of being lumped in with them. We want recognition to be able to bargain on our own terms". If they push the matter to strike level, as they will, what will happen? Is the employer to fight it out in the interests of the single union or is he to concede and break the single union principle? That is what we are worried about. We may be worrying unnecessarily but it is a real worry and the event could easily occur.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is worrying unnecessarily. At present there is no reason why trade union members at one plant should be members of one particular union. We

503
are saying that they should not be excluded from a union of their choice and that is what Clause 13 provides.
I turn next to check-off, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said he opposed originally. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and other noble Lords commented on the provisions in the Bill. Employers and many employers' organisations indicate that they support the provision. However, we must remember that its basic purpose is to protect the interests of employees who pay their union subscriptions through the check-off and who currently have little legal protection. The current legal position regarding the check-off is unsatisfactory for two reasons. The first is because it can, by virtue of a collective agreement, be imposed on a worker without his prior knowledge or consent. The second reason is that currently a worker has no legal right to withdraw from the check-off without leaving his union, which he may not wish to do.
Let us also remember that employers are not obliged to operate the check-off. They do so voluntarily and any administrative burden is therefore voluntarily assumed. My noble friend Lord Mottistone was anxious about that matter. Moreover, we have made a number of amendments to our original proposal in order to reduce the administrative cost to employers who choose to operate the check-off, including extending the period of reaffirmation from one to three years.
I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that unions should notify all their members, not simply those who pay their subscriptions through the check-off, when there is an increase in the subscription rate. But, when employers are deducting sums of money from their employees' wages at source, it is only right that they should inform those employees before deducting a higher amount. Employers are responsible for ensuring that any check-off deductions that they make from their employees' wages are made lawfully. That includes notifying employees of any increase. Again, I am aware of the administrative burden outlined by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am worried about a comment which the Minister made. He said that if an employee wishes to withdraw from the check-off system he must leave his trade union. I know of no such cases and I should be obliged if the Minister would give chapter and verse.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the check-off is done by collective agreement it is implied not only that the employee has given his consent but that it is done under a collective agreement by the employer. If he wishes to withdraw, the only way in which he can do so is by leaving the union, otherwise the employer will deduct—
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that is not true. In my experience as a union official I was aware of many people who preferred not to pay by check-off where such arrangements existed. They still belonged to a union—there was nothing to prevent them from
504
doing so—but they did not want the employer to know that they were union members. Therefore, they were not part of a check-off system.
Moreover, it is customary throughout the trade union movement—I do not know whether it is required in law—for individuals to sign a piece of paper stating that they want check-off to be operated.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that we shall return to the important detail in Committee—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, it is a simple point. The Government have based their case upon collective agreements implying the consent of the individual. Will he bring to the Committee stage an example of that and explain how it works in law, because we do not believe it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall be happy to do so. The noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Murray of Epping Forest, were concerned about the frivolous or vexatious nature of some of the Citizen's Charter rights. It is difficult to foresee that that should happen in practice. First, in order to exercise the new rights, individuals must be able to satisfy the court that they are deprived of goods or services as a consequence of unlawfully organised industrial action. Secondly, those seeking assistance for proceedings under the new right from the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action will, of course, have to satisfy the commissioner that they have reasonable grounds for proceedings. The commissioner is hardly likely to assist proceedings which he or she judges to be frivolous or vexatious. I do not believe that "DoT" will get through the commissioner, if I may borrow a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
I turn next to the maternity provisions. My noble friends Lady Young and Lady Platt asked whether the 14-week period was too short for maternity leave. Both my noble friends have requested the extension of maternity leave to 18 weeks. I am sure that we shall return to this on Committee, and I certainly take note of what they say. However, the Government consider that 14 weeks is an appropriate period for statutory maternity leave, and strikes a proper balance between the rights of employees and the obligations on employers. All EC member states have recognised, under the terms of the pregnant workers directive, that 14 weeks is a reasonable statutory leave entitlement. Employers and employees can agree longer contractual leave if this accords with their own priority and needs.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, was talking about her own experience of maternity and the problem about babies coming late. To protect women who start their maternity leave at the earliest permissible date and whose babies arrive unexpectedly late, the Government introduced an amendment on Report in another place to ensure that maternity leave can never run out before the birth. Of course every

505
woman will benefit from the two weeks' ban on working following the birth required by the directive, and again women employed in factories are protected by the Factories Act from working for four weeks after giving birth. I believe that there are protections there.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone—and I understand the direction from which his speech came —asked me to think carefully whether we should consider a requirement to notify return from maternity leave. Again I am certain that we shall return to this at Committee stage. He also asked why it is proposed that details of hours, pay and holidays should now be given explicitly in the written statement rather than by reference to another document. He asked me to consider carefully whether these provisions went further than any of the directives.
The proposals that details of hours, pay and holidays should be given explicitly rather than by reference to another document was contained in our White Paper, People, Jobs and Opportunity, and received widespread support, including from many employers and employers' organisations. The Government consider it only right that employees should be notified individually about such fundamental terms of employment rather than be referred to a collective agreement, which they may not have seen or even been a party to. It may indeed go beyond the EC directive, but it has been carefully considered and, as I said before, it is a manifesto commitment.
Perhaps I should usefully turn to wages councils, because a great deal of our debate has centered upon that. Practically every speaker, with a few exceptions, has concentrated their remarks very much on this. Your Lordships have raised concerns that are felt all the way round the House; that is, about the Government's decision to abolish the remaining wages councils. I made clear in my remarks at the beginning of the debate why we believe this decision to be correct. However, I recognise that the concerns that have been expressed are genuinely held, and I hope that I can demonstrate now and in the future that they are ill-founded.
In particular I want to deal with two criticisms that have been made about the abolition of the councils. First, that it will have an adverse effect on women, and, secondly, that it will lead to an increase in poverty. The first is, of course, the effect on women. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, called it "this gender issue". Wages councils have never been seen as playing a part in equal pay. The Equal Pay Act and the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value provides redress for women who believe that they do not get equal pay because of their sex. The gap between men's and women's earnings has narrowed over each of the past five years, and women's earnings to men's are at their highest level ever.
I note the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Platt to consider the part-timers. They form an extraordinarily useful part of the labour force, and we must always hold them in our minds. We shall continue to improve the job prospects for women. We shall continue to reduce barriers to employment. We
506
shall continue to promote flexibility in working arrangements to allow women who have family commitments to combine them with job opportunities. We do not believe, and I simply cannot accept, that the wages councils represent an essential or effective means of protecting the pay of women. Indeed, to the extent that statutory minimum wage-fixing destroys jobs, the councils clearly have an adverse effect on women's employment prospects, and therefore women's earnings.
Similarly I must emphasise that there is no inevitable link between low pay and poverty in the way that a number of noble Lords appeared to suggest. Some 80 per cent. of wages councils workers, including many women, live in households with more than one income earner, and the statistics show clearly that very few lower paid workers live in poor households. I of course recognise that some individuals find that at times they cannot earn the money they need to support their families. That is why this Government have introduced family credit, and a range of other benefits designed for those in work on lower pay.
My noble friend Lady Young asked me how many would be affected by the abolition of the wages councils, and the number on family credit. I cannot give details about the number of wages councils workers claiming family credit. However, there is no reason to think that abolition of the wages councils will give rise to any significant increase in benefit payments.
Those on lower pay are frequently young people, or new entrants or re-entrants to employment. A lower paid job represents the vital first step on the employment ladder. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky, in a useful and interesting speech, made two important points. He said that what we ought to be doing is helping young people into jobs. I believe that this will be a great help to them, and what we should be concentrating on is improving the long-run prospects of employment. We need more flexibility in the workforce rather than less, and I would agree with him.
It makes no sense to outlaw every job that does not pay wages high enough to support a large family. That is the way in which those who confuse low pay and poverty would point us. It ignores the existence of far more effective means of tackling poverty through the social security system. Of course it would leave many of those who are in lower paid jobs infinitely worse off if, as a result, their jobs ceased to exist and they received no pay at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked me whether I could demonstrate the number of jobs that will be gained by the abandoning of wages councils. I believe he quoted a study by Machin and Manning that there was no evidence that a decline in the effect of wages councils in the 1980s had increased employment. That study is controversial, and other economists take an opposing view. The basic data used by the authors seemed to have excluded part-time workers, who make up a large proportion of the workforce covered by wages councils.

507
In 1985 and 1988 the consultations carried out by the employment department showed that employers found wages councils had an adverse effect on employment. Since 1988 employers have made it abundantly clear that statutory wage fixing destroys jobs. Hundreds of representations about the abolition of the councils have been received since the publication of the Bill. Some 90 per cent. of employers and employer bodies have stated that they support the abolition.
I believe that in considering this issue we come back to the essential economic truth which I set out at the beginning of this debate. Statutory minimum wage fixing can only hinder the creation of new jobs. It interferes with the employers' ability to set wages at levels they can afford to pay. To that extent, it harms the very people it seeks to protect. For those reasons, the Government have repeatedly made clear that wages councils have no permanent place in the modern labour market. It is right that we should take this opportunity to bring their activities to an end.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I asked the noble Viscount a number of specific questions concerning the evidence for the assertions that he has made. He has simply repeated those assertions. He has produced no evidence whatsoever for them. He has simply told us just now that a group with a particular interest in the employment process wanted the wages councils abolished, but there are many other groups (including the representations which I have quoted from the CBI) which ask that the wages councils system be maintained. When will the Minister produce any evidence whatsoever to back up his assertions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this is a Second Reading debate of a long Bill, and I am trying to wind up in under half an hour. I believe that I have addressed the anxieties of many noble Lords in some detail. If I were to deal in the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wants in relation to his particular worry, we may be here a lot longer. I believe that it is right in such a debate to try to address as many points as I can, rather than concentrating my remarks on just one question.
After some interruptions, perhaps I may now turn to the careers service before I sit down. This was a particular anxiety addressed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Underhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. The Government thought it right after nearly 20 years to look carefully at the current arrangements and accordingly to make changes. It is not change for change's sake, and it will not be introduced irresponsibly and at once.
Change does not imply criticism. We are not saying that the existing services have failed. They have provided—and I am confident that they will continue to provide—a valuable service. What we are saying is that they could be better if they were not constrained by having to work within the current restrictions of a local education authority organisation.
508
We want to open up options for managing services. We want services to work more within a framework of private sector disciplines and able to enjoy commercial freedoms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked me one pointed question which I should like to answer by quoting the words of my honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin in Committee in another place when he said:
"Can I make it absolutely clear at the outset that the core service as defined in new section 8, regarding the new duty on the Secretary of State will remain free of charge".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 2/2/93; col. 716.]
He was referring to the fact that the career, information guidance and employment service will continue to be provided free to all young people in education and those who have recently left it. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.
I should have liked to address a number of other points, but I see that time is running on. I understand that we shall have the opportunity of a number of days in Committee when I am sure that we shall address these points. I shall of course study the record of our debate carefully. My noble friend Lady Denton and I look forward to the opportunity of the more detailed consideration of the Bill's provisions that will arise during the Committee stage later this month. I know that many of your Lordships will want to contribute fully to those deliberations. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Animal Procedures Committee
9.4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question asks the Government for their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee which was appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The report comes to us once a year from a committee that is required by the 1986 Act to report direct to Parliament once a year. The report has an extremely fascinating companion for bedside reading, which is entitled Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 1991. Taken together, the two provide probably the most elaborate report on the treatment of animals in laboratories of any country in the world—and we must be grateful for that.
I shall be as brief as possible, but I cannot let the occasion pass without saying a word of respect and gratitude about the founding father of the 1986 Act and all its beneficent works. I refer to the right honourable David Mellor who was the Home Office Minister who shaped and produced the 1986 Act. He moved mountains in the Home Office. He moved mountains where his contemporaries had not been able to move the cobwebs from the files on this complicated and controversial issue which had been kicked about in the Home Office year after year on the

509
grounds that the 1876 Act was still good and had been adapted, so it was not necessary to introduce anything else. David Mellor cast all that aside. He held consultations with many people from all quarters and together we produced an Act of Parliament which has stood the test of the first five years remarkably well.
I must say a word too about the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whom I am glad to see in his place tonight. He has been chairman of the committee for the past three years—three of the committee's five formative years—but he now feels it necessary to give up. I have not pressed him for his reason for giving up, whether, for example, he wishes to give way to a younger man, or to spend more time with his wife and children, but I am sure that he has a good reason for giving up a job after three years when it may have been better for him and for us if he had stayed for another year or two. We are grateful to him for the work that he has done. He has provided the committee with a few more stepping stones in the development of its future work. I am glad that the noble Lord will contribute to the debate.
I must say a few words about the committee's composition. It consists of 19 members plus a chairman, and the Act provides that in selecting people to serve on the committee, which has the duty of advising the Home Secretary on matters concerned with the Act and his functions under it, the committee shall reflect a broad range of expertise from across the scientific community as well as those whose main concern is for animal welfare. I am not sure what inference is to be drawn from the use of the words in that order: whether the scientific world can be represented by anyone, because those whose principal purpose is to safeguard the welfare of animals will be in a majority. However, there are only two, or possibly three, out of the 19 members who can be said to have as their principal interest the welfare of animals. That is too small a proportion of the whole. When the opportunity arises to make any fresh appointments, the Government might consider adding one or two more people whose avowed purpose in life is to try to protect animals from distress and suffering.
The committee is not an auditor; it is not a supervisor; it is not there to sit in judgment; it is a regulatory body. It has powers of regulation under the Act itself. In the course of that it is desirable, however expert and concerned many professional scientists may be, to have the voice of the public (the interests of the people at large) represented on the committee. I hope that notice will be taken of that point.
Before I finish I shall refer to what I believe to be a few important respects in which the advisory committee's work could be broadened. The committee's structure is sound. Its terms of reference are good. The work that it is doing is excellent. The question is: what should it do next? If we look at the problems worrying the committee, which are referred to in the report, we shall find matters that we have had before us previously. I am sorry to say that we are likely to have them before us again. The first is the grievous problem of toxicity testing (substance testing) which uses up hundreds of thousands of animals. The infamous LD50 test is part of that. As
510
your Lordships may remember, that means stuffing animals with substances until one can see what it takes to kill them. In that area there is more animal misery to the square mile than in any other section of the animal kingdom. They are all having to chew alien substances to see what their bellies will stand before they die. There should be some more humane and scientific way of getting the answer to toxicity.
Cosmetics is another question which has occupied a good deal of time; but we have an answer from Europe now. If we wait until 1998 or 1999, we may get a ban on the use of animals to test cosmetics. The definition of "cosmetics" under the EC is wider than purely beauty preparations. We think of cosmetics as if they were all lipsticks, eye shades and pink cheeks. There is more to cosmetics than that. However, I remind your Lordships that in the other place there is more interest in animal welfare than ever I remember before in the 40 years that I have known it. There are 44 Early Day Motions down on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at the present time dealing with the welfare of animals. By far the biggest support is behind the cruelty of whaling, but there are two on the use of animals for toxicity testing which have attracted more than 100 signatures each.
The next worry referred to in the report is primates. Here we have to generate a feeling of guilt among the human species at the way it is going for its nearest likeness for greater use in experiments to deal with conditions of the human species, many of which are due to the follies of man. I am glad to say that the procedures committee was recently asked to receive a deputation from the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, a body that has been in existence for a number of years but which has taken on a new lease of life under a new chairman, Mr. Roger Gale, Member of Parliament. The group went to see the procedures committee. It was the first time that the animal welfare group had been to see one of the statutory committees. What it asked the committee to recommend to the Government was that the use of wild-caught primates should be banned with immediate effect and that within a period of five years only purpose-bred primates from Britain and other European Community states should be used for scientific procedures. What is going on throughout the forests of Indonesia and elsewhere is disgusting. Large companies are at work employing thousands of people to raid the forests and bring back primates and other types of animals for animal experiments. The committee has those issues on its hands.
The next thing the committee will have to give attention to is replacement. Chapter 4 of the report on replacement, reduction and refinement is probably the most important in the book. The Fund for the Removal of Animal Experiments and other bodies are doing their best to assist in this area. The grant given by the Government to the procedures committee for use in research to get rid of research is woefully inadequate. But I am sure that the committee will press on.
In conclusion, I want noble Lords to refer to the "Forward Look" at the end of the Animal Procedures Committee's report. Five years is not a long time, but

511
it is a quinquennial period and a little stock taking does not come amiss. My complaint against the report rests more in its outlook and attitude towards the future in the chapter headed "Forward Look" than anything else. Here I think that the committee should become bolder in its task. It should become exploratory as well as regulatory, and it should get to know more of what people are doing in the laboratories and the purpose for which they are doing it.
I should like to see a bolder approach to that forward look. I know that Whitehall language tends to be full of bromide and grace but there are times when it can thrust forward. I believe that for this committee the time has already come for that. We want a tighter regime of control. The 1986 Act banned nothing but controlled everything. We want to see everything controlled.
The committee must give more attention to numbers. I know that numbers are not a true indication of the extent of the use or value of animals in laboratories, but it is the only test which the public can apply. How else are they to know? It must be taken on trust. We must take the Animal Procedures Committee on trust; to a large extent, that committee must take on trust the Home Office which authorises the work to be done. The Animal Procedures Committee does not do that.
The biggest martyr in the whole world of laboratory animals is the mouse. The mouse, the rat, the rabbit and other rodents account for over one-third of the total number of animals used in laboratories at present. I know that we do not think they are very important, but they have a capacity to suffer like everyone else. Therefore, the procedures committee should have regard to public attitudes.
It is about time that we set a few targets as the European Community tends to do. We should stake out the future in a more positive form so that we know what we are working towards. Also, the procedures committee should examine more closely the cases in which the pain to be suffered by the animals is severe or extremely severe. I should like to know why animals still suffer pain in the laboratories, quite apart from the toxic testing grounds. Animals suffer pain there because they are stuffed full of toxic substances; and if enough of those substances are stuffed into them, the animals die. However, I am thinking of the more fundamental research.
I should like to see the committee attempt a valued judgment of various areas of work that is done under licence from the Home Office. I should like the committee to examine rather more closely the project licences granted so that it can gain an idea of what the Home Office is doing. We are largely in the hands of the inspectorate which is the vetting body for such applications. Only extreme cases are put before the procedures committee.
I wish the procedures committee every success in its work. As I say, it needs a bolder approach and firmer hands on the controls which exist. It should have a critical approach as to how the Home Office is exercising its responsibilities. However, the committee has stood the test of the first five years. The structure
512
is right and the controls exist. The Home Secretary has powers which he never had before to evaluate what is being done. Taking all those matters together, the future should offer conditions of progress. We can be the leader of Europe without putting our hands on the European progress machine every time it moves. We are always asking to be left out of things; for example, we want to put on a brake as regards cosmetics. However, we should be leading Europe and this committee gives us an opportunity to do so.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having introduced this debate about the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991. I must also say how very grateful I am for the kind remarks he made about me and indeed about the work of the committee. I intervene in the debate because I had the honour to serve as chairman not only throughout the period covered by the report now being debated but also during the period of its successor for 1992, which will, I hope, appear during the summer.
Today is my first day as "past chairman" after serving for some three years, and this itself is therefore something of a new experience! Service as chairman has been a pleasure and a privilege. There are around 20 members, each of whom contributes from widely different experiences and backgrounds. However, they are united in commitment to the main purpose of the 1986 Act; namely, to seek a balance between the requirements of animal welfare and medical science. A number of the members contributed to the evolution of the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did to such remarkable effect.
The committee is an advisory committee and we have no disciplinary powers. That is a matter for the Home Office and in particular for its excellent inspectors. This debate provides me with the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the committee for their forbearance on matters which are of passionate concern. Indeed, despite strong differences of view vigorously expressed—as they should be—there has never been any personal attack. During my term there has never needed to be a vote except on one matter; that is, on what advice should be given to the Secretary of State, at his request, on whether or not cephalopods should be brought within the scope of the Act. There was a full, vigorous and reasoned debate, the essence of which is recorded in a letter I wrote, with the approval of the committee, to the Secretary of State, a copy of which is in the Library. That copy may be of interest to some noble Lords.
It might be thought that a debate in the spring of 1993 on an annual report for 1991 involves discussing subjects which have become stale or have been overtaken by events. In this case I believe there is merit in the debate, even though deferred, because the report looks forward to much that features centrally in the committee's work in 1992, and indeed in this current year.
In 1991 the committee commenced work on the issue of cephalopods—octopus, squid and nautilus

513
—as a result of a request from the Secretary of State for our advice as to whether they should be brought within the scope of the Act. The matter having been referred to us, we felt it appropriate to carry out the study in the full committee, rather than by a sub-committee. Although there are members who have some knowledge of the subject—which had been discussed, by, among others, some members of the present committee when the Bill was under consideration—we decided to seek evidence from experts in the field.
The subject, as I learnt, is complicated, involving as it does questions relating to the nature of pain, distress and suffering in creatures so different from ourselves and the vertebrates with which we are more accustomed to deal, to which alone the Act originally applied. A majority of the committee favoured bringing Octopus vulgaris (but not other cephalopods) within the scope of the Act, and Government have accepted and implemented that advice.
This exercise represents one facet of the committee's work, providing advice requested by government involving sifting relevant material and assessing it and expert opinion, and exercising our own judgment as best we may on what advice to give on changing the law.
Quite a different matter which we mentioned in the 1991 report and which has, as it still does, absorbed our attention relates to primates. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has already referred to that. Questions relating to primates and their use in medical research are of great and immediate public concern and lie close to the reason for the existence of the Act and indeed its predecessors. It was clear to us in 1991 that a full scale study should be undertaken by the committee.
It is a large and complex subject. We therefore established a sub-committee to undertake the main burden and to report to the full committee with its findings. Setting the agenda for the study has itself been a major task. It will certainly include looking at the breeding and sourcing of primates for research, the nature of the research for which primates remain essential, which primates are appropriate and what the way forward should be in terms of primate use and care in this country.
We were delighted to have the visit of Mr. Roger Gale and one of his colleagues. We learnt much from them. My successors in the committee will take into account the very interesting and important points which they raised. The committee did not express a view when that meeting took place because these are obviously matters which require careful consideration.
Into that somewhat academic study allegations of gross abuse of primates in supplying and research establishments were injected. Like so many others we saw the television film. We were also made aware of the written and video material supplied to the Home Office. We were closely concerned in the investigation mounted by the inspectorate and our views were reported to the Home Secretary alongside the
514
inspectorate's findings. The firm and speedy action of the Home Secretary seemed to us a good example of how the system should work.
Toxicity testing has been a continuing concern. It was in our 1990 report that we announced that we would be undertaking a special study, for which a further special sub-committee has been formed. Progress has been made but, again, it is a subject of great complexity. I hope that the sub-committee will soon be ready to report to the main committee.
In the scientific context there are certain tests to assure safety which necessarily involve the use of animals. The United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry sells throughout the world. The tests it carries out must satisfy the requirements of the countries to which it sells. Some require the use of a greater number of animals and procedures of greater severity than ours. OECD plays a role in setting standards. Therefore there is a task for the Government in influencing other countries and the OECD to adopt our standards in preference to those which are more severe. Some success has been achieved. For instance, we have been concerned to substitute for the lethal dose test —to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred as the LD50 test—the fixed dose procedure. That has been included in the OECD guidelines for 1992 but, to our regret, only as an option rather than as the preferred alternative. I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to gain acceptance of that less harsh test.
A further reason for the continuance of severe toxicity testing is fear of liability with increasing adoption of strict liability (liability without fault). That is a problem which will have to be addressed.
The research sub-committee is a standing sub-committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley. Its purpose is to promote research into ways of refining, replacing and reducing animal experimentation, in which the main committee is of course closely concerned.
I have already referred to our long-standing desire to see the lethal dose test replaced by the fixed dose procedure. Likewise, we have been concerned to see the Draize irritancy eye test replaced by an alternative. It is cheering to note the Government's initiative in conjunction with the European Commission in that context. The committee was present at its launch.
In selecting projects, the sub-committee gives preference to projects likely to result in early and substantial reduction in animal usage and to reducing severity of procedures rather than supporting basic research. Grants for studies to replace laboratory animals by in vitro tests for vaccines are an example. In the veterinary field the development of a tissue culture system in relation to TSE with a view to replacing inoculation of animals has been funded. It will, however, take several years for the answer to be forthcoming. Since 1988–89, when the programme started, nine projects have been completed, with substantial benefits in reducing, refining and replacing animal procedures and improving the welfare of laboratory animals.
Research and research financing cannot be managed on an annual basis since a project will most

515
commonly be on a three years or more basis. The projects established by the sub-committee, which are central to the purposes of the committee, inevitably rely on continuity of funding. I hope that the Minister may be able to confirm that current funding will be maintained or indeed improved and that he will bear in mind that the funding derives from the licence fees paid under the Act. It is therefore a self-financing arrangement.
For the future, I believe that one of the key interests of the committee will continue to be education. Education and training of those engaged in operations coming within the scope of the Act are now firmly on the Home Office agenda. It is essential that those so engaged know not only the regulations but how to handle animals and to care for them. It was that lack of knowledge, as well as other factors, which became so evident in the scandal at the primate establishments to which I have referred.
However, I believe that there is a further element of education which requires action; that is in schools. It appears to be a common view among students, children and their teachers that animal experimentation in connection with medical science is unnecessary. I wish that that were so. There appears to be little general understanding of the need for animal experimentation not only for toxicity testing, to which I have referred, but also in the context of new medical treatments, for instance for AIDS, Alzheimer's disease and for finding cures, perhaps by some form of genetic engineering, for diseases which hitherto have been found to be incurable, of which muscular dystrophy may be a good example. Any step which Government can take to influence the introduction into education of some knowledge and understanding of these matters would be of great value.
What I have said will indicate that the committee is proactive in taking initiatives to find solutions to some of our most difficult and intractable problems. As a result, instead of meeting about six times a year, as it did three years ago, it met 10 times last year. Visits ensure that the committee does not become remote from what those engaged in research are doing and the problems with which they are confronted. Last year we went to a research establishment in Edinburgh; it was extremely enlightening. Such visits also have the benefit of enabling those engaged in research to meet the committee so that the members of the committee do not remain to them like white rabbits—invisible creatures in a distant world.
The visits are in addition to meetings of the new sub-committees to which I have referred. There is a great burden on the members and I wish to express my appreciation of their constant support. I fear that the pressures may increase further in the coming years and I take this opportunity of wishing them and my successor chairman—whoever he may be—well.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, even at this late hour, with a much more thinly represented House than the debate deserves, tribute should be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for once again raising this important Question. It is a subject which
516
he has raised previously. We should pay tribute too to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee members for the excellent report which they have produced. It is both lucid and brief, unlike many reports which have to be considered by Parliament.
I speak as one who is not of the scientific world but who has a great interest in medicine having visited a number of pharmaceutical companies and having seen a certain amount of animal testing.
The penultimate point of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with regard to schools is of the utmost importance. Those who oppose animal testing have been active in schools. I make no complaint about that because there are clearly two sides to this important and emotive issue. But many of our sixth formers will go into the medical profession and will have to deal with such dreadful diseases as Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis and others. The need for animal testing, albeit with reluctance, is still paramount there.
I wonder what facilities are given for schools to visit laboratories. Obviously, children who go there must be carefully selected; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, mentioned just now, those who will carry out experiments in years to come are the children at present in school.
I wish to say a few words about cosmetics because it is one of the most important issues. There are a number of nasty skin diseases such as psoriasis, impetigo and scabies, where medical products are needed and animal testing may well be necessary.
However, some of the beauty preparations constitute a different issue. One large chain of chemists —whose name I shall not mention in the interests of advertising, but most noble Lords will know which it is—specifically states on its containers that animals are not used for testing products. I feel sure that with some products other organisations could follow suit. One of the great issues is shampoos which are necessary but they seem to me to be a borderline case. It will be interesting to see what difference the European Community directives post-1991 will make.
Noble Lords will be much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for initiating the debate. This is an on-going matter and we hope that next time the debate occurs there will be a fuller House on a subject which remains of the utmost importance.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who asks Her Majesty's Government for their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991. This seems likely to become an annual event, and an important one, where we have the chance of examining the working of the system which was set up in 1986. That system owed a great deal to your Lordships' House and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who anticipated the 1986 Act with two Private Members' Bills, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself.
I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate to the occasion and the hour, to rehearse differences between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the

517
use of animals in experimental procedures. Rather, I wish to emphasise our agreement on the need for effective oversight and control.
I congratulate the Home Office and the Animal Procedures Committee. The report seems to me to be evidence that the initial transition period for the new arrangements has gone extremely well and that those arrangements are now well established and accepted. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply. I hope he will lay some stress on the importance to the country—indeed to humankind in general—of continued though controlled, use of animals for the purposes which are specified in the 1986 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already mentioned the position in schools and the value of an awareness of the importance of those purposes. To that end, I commend the recent report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on these topics as a balanced and dispassionate account of those purposes.
I believe it both useful and important that the report deals openly with some of the transgressions that have taken place. No doubt we shall have to face the "iceberg" argument and we should not put too much weight on the number of transgressions, however low it would seem to be. But publication of the kind of breaches of the law and their consequences not only alerts the inspectorate and institutions to deficiencies in practice and deficiencies of the system itself; I believe it also strengthens the vitally important climate of opinion among the scientific community. In general, scientists dislike causing suffering and an unwillingness to inflict cruelty is to my mind as important as the precise form of departmental control. The disapproval of colleagues is a powerful influence. Losing one's licence, which is now a very clear consequence of transgression, brands the loser as callous or incompetent, or both.
The success of the inspectorate is due to its very considerable knowledge and equally considerable integrity. I believe that it is enhanced because the scientific community understands its responsibilities and point of view. The inspectors are working with the grain, not against it. I hope that the Minister's reply will dwell for a moment on some of the wider issues that are understandably not stressed in the report, which deals with the much more detailed work of the committee.
Finally, I should like to say how grateful we all are to the committee for an extremely important and demanding task admirably carried out. Perhaps I may express, as I believe we all have done, our special gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whose term as chairman has just ended.
9.48 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, notwithstanding that his name appears on the list of speakers, I fear I am a late substitute for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I apologise for his absence and for any disappointment to the House at finding me in his place.
518
I find it difficult if not impossible to pay adequate tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The legislation for which he has in great measure been personally responsible in so many different fields of animal welfare is perhaps a greater tribute to him than any words of mine could be. In his work in this House over many years he has been indefatigable in his efforts to bring to our attention many of the shameful aspects which have blighted our record of the treatment of animals in this and other spheres. His success in so doing has resulted in significant improvements in many different areas of concern. His work on behalf of animals and his courage in carrying it out has been and continues to be an example to us all.
Tonight the noble Lord has given this House an opportunity to consider the report of the Animal Procedures Committee. I hope to hear from Her Majesty's Government their proposals in response to a number of its more important recommendations and also its criticisms. The chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, as other noble Lords have said, deserves not only our gratitude for the clearly very considerable work of his committee but also our congratulations on producing a report which I, as a non-scientist, am glad to feel I can readily understand.
My qualifications for speaking in the debate are limited. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and other noble Lords spoke of the need for education in schools. As a schoolgirl of 15 long ago, in the days before the term "animal rights" or the Animal Liberation Front became commonplace, I proposed and carried a motion during a school debate to ban vivisection —as I remember to the annoyance of the biology teacher who argued on the other side. The anxieties which I and my fellow schoolgirls expressed then are shared by an even wider public now, fuelled by increased public awareness over the years since then about the nature of animal experimentation and also a distaste for animal research, some of which was and still appears to be seen as causing unnecessary suffering often only in order to feed human vanity.
As my noble friend Lord Houghton above all has reason to know, the 1986 Act was in part a reaction to that widespread public concern, providing as it did stricter controls on scientific work on living animals, including the provision of licensing for individuals and for individual projects; including the stringent safeguards on pain and suffering and the other detailed requirements which were designed to meet a growing public anxiety about the care and welfare of the animals that were involved.
Public anxiety has not gone away. Although there is a general acceptance today that some experimental and other scientific procedures involving living animals are necessary for the benefit of man and of animals too, the public still need reassurance that such experiments are essential; that they are kept to a minimum; that where possible alternative procedures are being sought and found; that suffering is kept to a minimum; and that the stringent safeguards for which that Act provided are being applied. For all its

519
optimism, the committee's report highlights a number of matters of real concern, which I ask the Minister to address when he replies to the debate.
The committee reported that on 31st December 1991 there were 19 inspectors who had either medical or veterinary qualifications and who were available to give advice and assistance to licence holders. They had the power to require the destruction of an animal which, in their view, was suffering excessively. I shall be grateful if the Minister can tell us what the number of inspectors is today and whether he considers the present number to be adequate in view of the committee's opinion expressed in the report that just over five years after the operation of the Act, there appears to be at times,
"A singular lack of understanding of the importance of the controls".
Clearly—the report is frank about it—there have been a number of infringements. The report details 13 in 1991. The most serious appear to have resulted in revocation of personal and project licences but there was no prosecution, despite avoidable animal suffering having been caused in each case. Will the Minister confirm that infringements are continuing to be met not simply with tough administrative action, but also with referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions where that is considered appropriate?
Perhaps the Minister can also say whether Her Majesty's Government are confident, in so far as it is possible to be so, that all serious infringements are coming to light and that the inspectorate is adequately staffed in order to pick them up. Perhaps he can reassure the House that in his view adequate steps are being taken to deal with those infringements as they become known.
We on these Benches share the concern of the committee that the budget for funding research into ways of reducing or replacing living animal experiments should be properly safeguarded. The research budget, as I understand the situation from the report of the committee, has in the past been subject to arbitrary cuts, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, stated, it does not represent any additional burden on overall government expenditure because it is covered by license fees under the Act. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the research sub-committee's funding is secure for the three years ahead for which planning has to take place?
The public surely require the Government to use their best endeavours to find alternatives to live animal experimentation where possible. If the Government cannot or will not guarantee the funding for that essential research, we must be entitled to ask why not.
It is not only the provision of finance to seek alternative procedures that concerns us. Two existing procedures have attracted public attention and public horror over the years, and they continue to do so. The Draize eye test is still in use, although it is not used extensively. Can the Minister tell us what progress was made at the London conference, which the committee noted was to be held in October 1992 with the aim of
520
reaching EC-wide agreement on alternative methods which would be acceptable within and outside Europe, towards phasing that test out?
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has graphically described the LD50 test and the LC50 test in relation to toxic substances, which normally involve the feeding of toxic matter into the stomach of an animal to the point of death, which is the end of the test. That test continues to cause great anxiety, notwithstanding its reduced use, because severe suffering to the animal is likely to result. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has pointed out that the fixed dose procedure, which does not require the animal to suffer to death and is a viable alternative in most cases to the LD50 test, is not the preferred alternative under the 1992 OECD guidelines. What steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to ensure that in future, in particular in relation to the United Nations transport regulations, the LD50 tests are phased out with more humane alternatives taking their place?
We welcome the steps that are being taken to reduce the animal testing of cosmetics. Such testing, in so far as it continues, is seen by the public as inessential and inhumane. I should like to ask the Minister what further steps are proposed to achieve a further reduction and hopefully a rapid elimination of those tests in the United Kingdom and Europe, and in advance of 1998.
We welcome the attempts by the Government to encourage member states to implement the EC directive on the protection of animals used for experimental and scientific purposes. It is a matter of pride that this country is at the forefront of those changes. The British public has a right to be satisfied that such experiments, which are carried out in its name and, ostensibly at any rate, for its benefit, are essential and carried out with the minimum of suffering, in accordance with the strict rules and conditions that were laid down in the Act.
It is easy to lose sight of the ultimate aim, even reading through the committee's report, which must be the elimination of pain from the laboratory in relation to laboratory animals. Despite the progress that has clearly been made over the past three years, over the period of the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, of the committee and over the five years or more that have elapsed since the passing of the Act, it is clear that a great deal more has still to be done before any of us, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have reason to be satisfied with the working of the legislation.
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not only for the characteristically eloquent way in which he introduced this evening's debate but for the opportunity that he has given us to consider the important subject of animal experimentation and the key role within the United Kingdom system of control played by the Animal Procedures Committee.
This debate is principally about the Animal Procedures Committee and I want to begin by paying

521
tribute to the work of that body. The committee performs a vital function in the system of control over animal experimentation in this country.
We are particularly fortunate in having heard this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who, though recently retired from chairmanship of the committee, was able to inform your Lordships on what the committee had achieved and how and where it will be making its principal contribution in the immediate future. The noble Lord's message was that the committee is working harder than ever and is pressing ahead on a number of important topics. This is a tribute to the wise leadership which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has provided during the past three years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, it is also a tribute to the whole committee. I want to thank all its members for the unstinting public service that they provide in this important area of national life. I know that there are some people who allege that the committee is over sympathetic to research interests and that animal welfare considerations are inadequately represented. But that is simply not the case. Nothing that I hear about the committee leads me to suppose that any one interest predominates. It is a microcosm of views within society at large and in that lies its strength. We have an elaborate and effective system in place for regulating research and for considering the justification for each piece of proposed work.
It is important to put clearly on the record the nature of the controls which exist and why the Government believe it right to have created an environment in which properly justified research can take place. Of course, things may sometimes go wrong; no system is perfect and the trust upon which our arrangements are founded may sometimes be abused. The question is whether the Home Office and its inspectors are capable of an urgent response to put matters right. The Government believe that the principles underlying the legislation are sound and working effectively.
I want to deal now with the particular points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and others, in regard to the operation of the 1986 Act. I welcome the noble Lord's support for the Act and I am particularly grateful to him for giving me prior indication of the points that he would be raising. Some of those points have a particular relevance to current concerns of the Animal Procedures Committee. That is certainly so in respect of the use of primates in research where we welcome the fact that the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging study of this difficult issue.
I recognise the particular sensitivity that is felt about using wild-caught primates in research. The Government certainly share the wish of those who want to see an end to the use of wild-caught primates, and the most recent signs are that we are getting close to that position. A recent survey of holdings of larger primates in the UK has shown that more than 80 per
522
cent. of animals have been captive-bred somewhere in the world. I believe that the Home Office can claim a good deal of the credit for that result.
We are considering setting an early target date beyond which use of wild-caught primates would no longer be permitted unless a sound scientific case had been made out for doing so. I know that that will not quite satisfy some noble Lords who want an immediate ban on all use of wild-caught primates. However, I fear that we could not do that without possibly endangering important areas of research. We are very near the point where any routine use of wild-caught primates will have become a thing of the past and where such use at all is wholly exceptional.
There are also those who would like us to go further still, and restrict primate use to animals bred in this country, or indeed elsewhere in the European Community. Obviously, the shorter the distance animals have to be transported, the better. It is also better that breeding takes place in United Kingdom or European establishments in which we can have confidence. We have already made some progress with breeding programmes in this country. Although the number of primates bred in the United Kingdom remains small, a number of research establishments have become self-sufficient through in-house breeding programmes. In the case of marmosets, we are near self-sufficiency. In respect of other primate species, we are still a significant way short of that position.
Developments elsewhere in the European Community are crucial, and this is an issue which we have raised with our Community counterparts. I understand that the situation in other member states is mixed so far as progress towards the use of captive-bred primates and the development of domestic breeding programmes is concerned. One of the problems of the European breeding programmes is that of anticipating future demand, since it would be sad if well-intentioned efforts in this area led to the breeding of surplus animals which then had to be destroyed.
There is also the issue of animals bred outside the Community, but supplied through another Community country. For all these reasons, I do not think we can yet agree the sort of precise target which has been suggested. But I hope that what I have said will convince your Lordships that we take very seriously indeed, and are actively engaged domestically and with our European partners, in seeking progress on this important subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised the further, sensitive issue of regulatory toxicity testing. The Government are very pleased that the Animal Procedures Committee is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has mentioned, undertaking a special study of this important topic. The Government have long shared public concern about the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50 per cent.) test in particular. There is, though, some cause for satisfaction on the subject. Progress has been achieved on the development and acceptance of the fixed dose procedure as an alternative to the LD50 test in some areas of testing. This resulted from a research study co-ordinated in the United Kingdom. This is a very positive development but it is by no

523
means the end of the matter. It remains to be seen whether individual regulatory authorities in other countries will, in practice, be willing to accept data derived from the fixed dose procedure.
It is encouraging that that procedure has recently been accepted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as an alternative to the LD50 test, although I understand the noble Lord's regret that the procedure is regarded as only an alternative rather than the preferred method. Obviously, there is only so much persuasion that any one country can bring to bear on independent regulatory agencies. But we do strongly encourage the use of the fixed dose procedure, and we hope to see a significant decrease in LD50 testing in the coming years.
I understand your Lordships' and the public's concern to reduce the number of animals used in research. I understand also why there has been concern at the small rise of 1 per cent. in the total number of experiments conducted in 1991, the last year for which figures are currently available. I believe, though, that that latter figure has to be set in the context of the significant decline that has gone on over a long period. The rise last year was brought about partly by the clarification of the rules on the re-use of animals and partly by the development of new techniques. But even within the latest figures there were some encouraging developments, particularly the fall in the use of primates and in the number of animals used in safety testing cosmetics.
The Animal Procedures Committee makes a significant contribution to the search for alternatives to animal use. The committee's research subcommittee plays a key role by administering the Home Office's own research budget. Since the research scheme began in 1988 the Home Office has funded some 16 projects, ranging from the refinement or reduction of lethal toxicity and potency tests to the reduction of animal usage in vaccine production and improvement of husbandry techniques.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked me for an assurance that the budget will be maintained and expanded in future years. She will, I think, understand that I am constrained from making any commitment in regard to future spending levels. I can assure your Lordships, however, that it is the Government's wish, within the overall constraints of public expenditure, to enable the research sub-committee to develop its work as much as possible.
There has been concern about evidence of infringements of the Act and the implied lack of effective follow-up action. The Government understand the Animal Procedures Committee's concern that after more than five years of the operation of the Act there is still misunderstanding about the need for and significance of the controls that it introduced. A strict adherence to those controls is the constant message of the inspectorate. There are 21 inspectors and we are satisfied that its present strength is adequate. The new training arrangements currently being introduced by the Home Office will reiterate the significance of the controls. But there should be no
524
misunderstanding that when infringements do come to light effective and appropriate action is always taken.
I understand the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, at the rarity of prosecutions so far under the Act. I know that the Animal Procedures Committee was itself concerned that no prosecution has resulted from the specific case noted in its annual report. Obviously the Home Office has no influence over prosecution decisions, but once it was clear that no prosecution would be instituted in that case, the Home Office took action against the two licence holders. One of those accepted the Secretary of State's decision to revoke his licence. The other exercised his right to make representations. A legally qualified assessor has been appointed to hear those representations, and the proceedings are due to take place in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Auckland referred to the equally sensitive question of cosmetic testing on animals. A number of points need to be made. First, when talking of "cosmetics" we are covering not just beauty products but toiletries, barrier creams and even heavy duty industrial cleansers. Secondly, as the Animal Procedures Committee notes in its annual report, there has been a reduction of 79 per cent. in the number of procedures carried out for the purpose of cosmetics safety testing over the past five years. Between 1987 and 1991, the number of such tests conducted on animals fell from over 14,000 to a little over 3,000. Nevertheless, there remains a need for some safety testing on animals—not just in regard to the safety of consumers but also for those who may be involved with the substances in manufacture or transport.
Internationally progress has continued to be encouraging. In line with the opinion of the European Parliament of 10th June 1992, my noble friend Lady Denton persuaded our European partners at the Consumer Affairs Council on 3rd November to agree unanimously to ban cosmetics testing on animals by 1st January 1998, subject to the availability of suitably validated alternatives by that time. This was a significant achievement of the UK presidency. It will certainly remain United Kingdom policy to achieve the 1998 target date and to that end to encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing.
The noble Baroness asked me about the London conference. It agreed upon a programme of research to validate alternatives to the eye test. That process will take some time, but we look forward to the results and to it achieving its desired effect with the other international regulatory authorities.
As always on this subject, we have had an interesting debate and I hope that I have been able to answer the points that your Lordships have raised. In the course of our debate we have touched on the many issues which generate public concern about the use of animals in research—toxicity testing, primates, infringements, cosmetics testing and education. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Auckland that it is important that all sides of the argument are raised in schools so that

525
school children can understand and make up their minds about the very complicated issues that are involved.
I believe that the committee has its finger very much on the pulse of public concern. It is bringing its expert attention to bear on key issues.
The Government believe that we have in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 an effective instrument for regulating animal research and for ensuring that only well-justified work takes place, by
526
suitably qualified people and in the right surroundings. It is a good Act, but that does not mean that it does not require constant monitoring and scrutiny. That is where the Animal Procedures Committee plays a crucial role.
With other noble Lords, I pay tribute again to the committee and the work which it performs. I look forward to its on-going role in ensuring that the legislation works as effectively as possible.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
  IRAQ: ALLEGED REPRESSION
  IRAQ: ALLEGED REPRESSION
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SLOVENIA AND CROATIA: CSCE PRINCIPLES
  SLOVENIA AND CROATIA: CSCE PRINCIPLES
  SOCIAL CHARTER
  SOCIAL CHARTER
  FAMILY PLANNING SUPPORT
  FAMILY PLANNING SUPPORT
  MALAWI: POLITICAL MEETINGS
  MALAWI: POLITICAL MEETINGS
  MALAWI: HUMAN RIGHTS AND AID
  MALAWI: HUMAN RIGHTS AND AID
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM
  IRAN: EXPORT LICENSING CRITERIA
  IRAN: EXPORT LICENSING CRITERIA
  HONG KONG: VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS
  HONG KONG: VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS
  MURDER STATISTICS
  MURDER STATISTICS
  PASSPORT FORMAT
  PASSPORT FORMAT
  INLAND REVENUE: COLLECTION OF SMALL SUMS
  INLAND REVENUE: COLLECTION OF SMALL SUMS
  ANGLO-TAIWANESE AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION: JOINT VENTURE
  ANGLO-TAIWANESE AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION: JOINT VENTURE
  ARMED FORCES: REVIEW OF SECONDARY MEDICAL CARE
  ARMED FORCES: REVIEW OF SECONDARY MEDICAL CARE
  SOMALIA: WITHDRAWAL OF RAF SUPPORT
  SOMALIA: WITHDRAWAL OF RAF SUPPORT
  DEFENCE HELICOPTER SUPPORT
  DEFENCE HELICOPTER SUPPORT
  PESTICIDES: ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM RISKS
  PESTICIDES: ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM RISKS
  SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS IN SHEEP
  SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS IN SHEEP
  SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS IN HUMANS
  SHEEP DIPS: ADVERSE REACTIONS IN HUMANS
  SHEEP DIPS: INTRODUCTION OF STABILISERS
  SHEEP DIPS: INTRODUCTION OF STABILISERS
  SHEEP DIPS: EXCLUSION OF TEPP AND SULPHOTEPP
  SHEEP DIPS: EXCLUSION OF TEPP AND SULPHOTEPP
  SHEEP SCAB: PREVENTION
  SHEEP SCAB: PREVENTION
  BLOWFLY STRIKE: PREVENTION
  BLOWFLY STRIKE: PREVENTION