Sitting of 25 March 1993

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID
TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)
RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS)
BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 April.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Special Premium
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will be taking to reduce bureaucracy involved in the beef special premium.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): We are operating the new beef special premium scheme as simply and as flexibly as we can, within the framework laid down by the European Community rules and remembering the need to make sure that public money is fully accounted for.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Richard Cowan, the head of the Ministry's beef division, that no sane person could have devised the beef special premium scheme? Does he agree that the introduction of the CID passports will create immense problems for farmers, particularly in relation to the larger cattle markets? Does he further agree that in conjunction with the integrated administration and control scheme—IACS—bureaucracy, which will come in too late for farmers, they will have too little time to complete the forms, so many of them may be brought close to despair? Will he further agree that if he can take decisive steps to ameliorate this nonsense, he will have done something tangible to put alongside the vaunted campaign by the President of the Board of Trade to reduce over-regulation and red tape?
    Mr. Gummer: I am extremely enthusiastic about getting rid of over-regulation and red tape. That is why I introduced a Bill to abolish the milk marketing boards and to take powers to abolish the Potato Marketing Board. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman was here voting against both those deregulation measures two days ago.
    The beef arrangements are not what I should like, because there are two payments of premium, not one. One would facilitate a simpler system, but, because of this system, we have to have what we propose, and it will be as simple as we can make it.
    Under the IACS scheme we will pay out large sums of money to the public. Farmers will have six weeks to fill in the forms, which are as simple as we can make them. They have been carefully written—I have taken great care over them. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that farmers will be pleased with the results, which will be much better than those in many other countries.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to the extra office work that this involves, it will also involve farmers in a considerable amount of extra work handling cattle—they have to be handled on several more occasions, to check their tags and the documentation? My right hon. Friend will not be aware, but he may be interested to know, that my next-door neighbour has 200 cattle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I have asked a question. It took three men almost half a day to sort those cattle out. Is it really impossible to go back to the old system?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sorry, but it is impossible; otherwise, my hon. Friend's neighbour would not be able

    1221
    to get the money that he deserves, and it is likely that the money would go to people who should not get it. If my hon. Friend's neighbour fails to get the money that he wants, deserves and needs, the first person to whom he will complain will be my hon. Friend. I am insistent that he should not be put to that trouble as well.
    Mr. Tyler: May I press the Minister a little more on the timing of the integrated administration and control scheme forms? He said just now that farmers would have six weeks to fill them in. Can he guarantee that the forms will be in farmers' hands by 1 April, All Fools' day? Can he tell us, if he cannot give that guarantee and six weeks cannot therefore be used for the purpose, whether he will postpone the deadline?
    Mr. Gummer: There will be no question of a delay, because we are trying to stop fraud throughout the Community. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are always pressing on that matter, and I entirely support that. We will meet the deadline. The forms will be out to farmers by 2 April—I chose that date as being a little more elegant than the one the hon. Gentleman would like—and that will give people six weeks to fill in the forms.
    We have continually reminded farmers that they will need to have certain maps beforehand. Press releases have again been issued this week reminding people of the need to do that. The Ordnance Survey has done its best to provide those facilities and, as long as people get in touch with it before 17 April, they will have the full one-stop shop arrangements from the Ordnance Survey. My fellow Ministers and I will be available to help them in that respect. We will do everything that we can to ensure that Britain does better than anyone else.
    Mr. Marlow: We all sympathise very deeply with the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend finds himself. However, if the scheme runs into the sand, as some people believe is likely, could my right hon. Friend send a party to Italy to see how they do it there, because I am sure that they will have it fixed up quite nicely?
    Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend had supported the Government in the Lobbies last night and on previous nights, we should be in a position to deal with such matters much more effectively. If my hon. Friend would put his vote where his mouth is, that would be much more helpful.

    English Fishing Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the English fishing industry.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The most pressing immediate problem facing the fish catching industry is the weak state of the market.
    Mr. Mitchell: Instead of blaming the fishermen for the bankruptcy that they face and instead of compounding that bankruptcy by the insanity of days-at-sea limitations, why does not the Minister act? Why does he not deal with the small haddock crisis by increasing the minimum landing sizes? Why does he not ban the landing of round fish? Why does he not increase mesh sizes? Why does he not deal with Russian imports on a temporary basis, with a dumping ban? Why does he not provide the same kind
    1222
    of financial support for the industry as that provided by the French? Why does he not suspend the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and talk to the industry? Most of all, why does he not stand up for fishing instead of lecturing—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Curry: And why does the hon. Gentleman not think for himself instead of simply repeating every prejudice of the fishing industry? He would do fishermen a greater service if he did that. And why does he not think of his own constituents and the large number of people in the processing industry whose jobs depend on an adequate supply of fish? We will tackle the problem of small fish if the whole of the British industry will agree. We are asking its opinion and we will await the response from Northern Ireland and Scotland. I can act only if there is agreement. We will wait and see whether there is agreement. I have my doubts.
    Mr. Harris: If there is another blockade by fishermen tomorrow—we hope that there will not be—will my hon. Friend accept that such action stems from a feeling of despair among many of our fishermen, not least in the south-west? However, will he cast some light on imports, particularly from Russia, and tell us exactly how much fish is being imported from Russia and how much cod is being landed by our own fishermen?
    Mr. Curry: I hope that the industry will not resume its saga of blockade, demonstration and destruction of fish, particularly as recent signs are that fish prices have firmed considerably. That is what we said would happen. Perhaps that has happened because fishermen have been demonstrating so much that they have not been catching so many fish and fewer fish have been landed.
    The prices of cod, haddock and plaice are roughly at last year's level and I am glad about that. That is very good news indeed. However, it shows that the whole of the problem does not lie with imported fish. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) acknowledged implicitly, there is a problem with small fish in the marketplace. There have also been very heavy landings of cod in Humberside. Some estimates state that twice as much cod is being landed as was landed this time last year from the north Norway fisheries.
    It is difficult to know the precise quantities of Russian fish. Some of it is imported by the British fishing organisations themselves. However, it is certainly not enough to account for the whole of the problem in the market. We must look within our own industry to discover the reasons for some of those problems. If we look objectively, we can find the answers.
    Mr. Salmond: Are not the short tempers and insults from the Government Front Bench a combination of panic and guilt about the situation in the fishing industry? When the Minister meets the English fisheries, will he synchronise that meeting with the Scottish fisheries Minister so that they both accept their inescapable responsibility for the destabilisation of the fish market at the present time? What measures is the Minister taking to improve the situation for English and Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. Curry: The English and Welsh fishermen are telling us at the moment that they wish to ban imports of Russian cod. However, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation tells us that it does not want to ban those imports because it depends on the Klondiking fee for the sale of herring later

    1223
    in the season. As the two major parts of the industry are diametrically opposed, it makes it more difficult than it would be for fisheries Ministers if the two parts held the same point of view, and that point of view was sensible.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend time and again continue to repeat, for all the people of the fishing industry, the need for conservation? The sort of attacks that we have heard today do not take any account of the need to safeguard fish for the future, which we shall not have without the proper conservation measures.
    Mr. Curry: I will certainly repeat that. My hon. Friend will be happy to know that we think that we are very close to agreement with the industry on a fully fledged conservation forum, to look at all the conservation measures, in which the Scottish and Northern Ireland industries will participate. The only problem is that, yesterday, the English fishing industry suggested that it was getting last-minute hesitations because it wished me to defer the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill entirely before it would talk. As we have made it clear that that was not a possibility and that technical conservation cannot provide all the answers, it would be very silly if it withdrew from that forum at the last minute. Conservation means the future of the fishery—if there are no fish, there is no future. Fish depend on conservation.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister accept his responsibility for fisheries management? What kind of management is it that produces a fish famine before Christmas and cod mountains in the new year? Will he take action on round fish and minimum landing sizes? Above all, will he have genuine talks with the fishermen and take the opportunity of surplus fish to bring in proper conservation measures? He should consider them as an alternative to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, which has been widely rejected.
    Mr. Curry: Before the hon. Gentleman invites me to start regulating the amount of fish that must be landed from north Norway and to regulate every single day's catch by the fishing industry, he should think rather harder. We have producer organisations with responsibility for managing the fisheries. We have suggested how they can manage them more effectively, but they do not want to do it that way; they want to be left to do it their own way. We will do our best to eke out the fishery throughout the whole year, but those organisations have their role to play as well. It is not good enough for the industry always to find somebody else to blame for its problems. We will keep talking to the industry, but it must accept that there is a problem in the management which must be solved by the industry, as well as by me.

    Self-sufficiency
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the duration of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in food in the event of docks and airports being unavailable.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Food stocks would be sufficient to maintain the current levels of supplies in the United Kingdom if port and airport facilities were disrupted. In the unlikely event of long-term disruption, adequate supplies of food would still be likely to be available.
    Mr. Dickens: I thank my hon. Friend for his reassurance. Does he accept that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the farmers of the United Kingdom, and that self-sufficiency in food is of paramount importance? It is no good having the greatest nuclear deterrent in the world and placing ourselves in a position to have to submit through starvation. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.
    Mr. Soames: I think that my hon. Friend would do extremely well in those difficulties. He is perfectly correct in recognising that British farmers and growers are second to none in the world in the efficiency of their production. It is nevertheless true that we need to do more to ensure that the marketing of our food is better. If we were at any time placed in the difficult circumstances that my hon. Friend has described, I hope that he would take comfort from Mr. Jonathan Porritt, as reported in The Star today, and eat squirrels.

    Fishing
    Mr. Bowden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet a representative group of south coast fishermen to discuss the implementation of EC fishing regulations.
    Mr. Curry: Yes.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishermen in my area are very responsible—they have been following my advice not to involve themselves in any illegal or criminal action—but their patience is wearing thin? Is he further aware that a group of them went over to continental ports and found that there was no effective operation by fisheries inspectors and that the fishermen were getting away with murder by landing undersized fish and not obeying quotas? Is not it about time that we had a level playing field in the fishing industry?
    Mr. Curry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Effective control means effective conservation in fisheries. Our proposals will tighten up the controls and inspect the inspectorate. We are considering the use of more advanced technology to discover what is happening in the fishing industry. I shall take those matters up with the new French Government immediately. There does not seem to be a great deal of point in taking them up with the old French Government. My hon. Friend will accept that we are not wholly innocent in these matters, as Opposition Members will acknowledge.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that last week I was in the Commission building with Mr. Paleokrassas's chef de cabinet, who was abusive of nation states that did not implement the regulations that the Commission issued on 22 and 25 February on the size, health, quantity and minimum price of fish? Is he further aware that fishermen in Britain still complain that, in some markets, the minimum price is not being reached? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Curry: As I explained to the fishing organisations yesterday, we have been in touch with Customs and Excise and we have made sure that we have a proper system of control, not merely on the minimum import price but on the weight of the fish being landed, to ensure that there is no fiddling. That will put a floor in the market. The answer

    1225
    lies not in banning imports, given the damage that that would do to our processing sector and the ultimate consumer, but in ensuring that fish is landed at a fair price. This afternoon, the Commission will make proposals for more effective monitoring of landings by third-country vessels to ensure that they, too, observe the minimum price and hygiene rules. That is a measured response to a crisis. We must not let it get out of proportion, but the marketplaces suggest that what we expected to happen is happening, and that is good news for fishermen.

    Support Policies (Prices)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effects agriculture support policies have on the prices charged to consumers.
    Mr. Gummer: The consumer will benefit from the move to lower support prices, which form the basis of the recent CAP reform.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of Dr. Brian Burkitt, a specialist on EC finances at Bradford university, who has produced a report that says that most of the £10 billion net that we have contributed went to the CAP? He also tells us in that report that for every £3 spent by the British people on food, £1 could be saved if we were to open our markets to food imports from other parts of the world. Is that not a better way to put a bit of butter on people's bread than paying out to the farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend would not wish the farmers of Essex in and surrounding her excellent constituency to find themselves unable to look after the land or to produce the food to which our hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) referred earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we are proud of what our farmers do in producing a high proportion of the food that we eat. We want to encourage them to sell more in the new home market of the single market. I know that my hon. Friend will want to support us in doing that, through her support for the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable public hostility to the CAP, especially as so many of its resources are devoted to the storage and disposal of unwanted surpluses, and when 80 per cent. of its resources go to the 20 per cent. richest farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that money needs to be redirected towards environmental protection, improving the landscape and more extensive agriculture, all of which would help to support more small farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: Surely the hon. Gentleman, who represents an agricultural constituency, has noticed that, in the CAP reform, the British Government were able to secure a wholehearted change from the original proposals so that environmental improvement is now at the heart of that policy. That is a British achievement and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, even if he is partisan in other things, would wish to congratulate the Government on that success.

    Small Farms
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures are being contemplated to assist small farms.
    Mr. Curry: Our policy does not distinguish between farms according to size. Our plans to reform agricultural tenancies should, however, help people to enter the industry through liberalising the rented sector.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend accept that the 28 farms and smallholdings in my constituency of Basildon welcome the proposals that he has just outlined? Will he recognise that many of those farmers support the deregulation of farming as they complain to me that they seem to have more forms to fill in than animals to feed?
    Mr. Curry: The people of Basildon are the first to demand firm controls and clear accountability when spending taxpayers' money. That is why they re-elected my hon. Friend to represent them—the result which shook the world, or at least the BBC. My hon. Friend can assure the smallholders and taxpayers of Basildon that we have the lightest and simplest controls consistent with ensuring that their money is properly spent.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the best thing that he could do to help small farms would be to make productive the set-aside land that is now running to waste? If it were used to grow biodiesel fuels, 750,000 tonnes could be grown, 7,000 jobs would be created and we should become less dependent on imported fuel. Biodiesel fuel is environmentally friendly. Why have France and Germany roared ahead with the mass production of biodiesels when all that we have is three buses running on such fuel? Why have we been so laggardly?
    Mr. Curry: The very small farmers do not have to set aside land. The real answer lies with the non-rotational scheme. That gives the possibility of planting crops, of biomass, of woodland and of recreational purposes—opportunities which are not realistic under rotational set-aside. We plan to build the non-rotational scheme to give just those advantages.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current number of bovines diagnosed as suffering from BSE.
    Mr. Soames: Up to 19 March, 89,014 cases have been confirmed since 1986. New suspects are being reported at a higher rate than last year because animals born immediately before the July 1988 ruminant feed ban are now reaching the age at which disease is most likely to occur. However, the rate of increase has slowed dramatically.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that if we had listened to the rantings of that lot opposite, there would not be a British beef industry? It is only as a result of my hon. Friend and his Ministry keeping their nerve that the British beef industry is in such good heart. When these beasts get the disease, do they jump up and down, do they shake their heads, do they lose their way and do they have glazed eyes? Does that remind my

    1227
    hon. Friend of that lot opposite? Would it be a good idea for my hon. Friend to send a senior vet down to Walworth road this afternoon?
    Mr. Soames: The House will be pleased to hear that a live test is about to become a fact of life. My hon. Friend may find it convenient to offer that test to the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct on the more substantial point. The scaremongering attached to this serious matter has not helped. My hon. Friend is also entirely correct in that the findings of the Southwood report and of the Tyrrell report, all the proper, fully constituted and substantiated scientific evidence that has been placed before the House and everything that we have laid before the House are going entirely according to plan. The disease is working its way through the system and we hope that we shall shortly see some substantial progress.
    Dr. Strang: As the experiment that the Minister set up to establish whether there is maternal transmission of BSE from cow to calf will not be concluded for another three years, would it be a wise, precautionary measure to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture and to extend the offal sales ban to all animals, including animals under the age of six months?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no evidence that there is maternal transmission; if it were a significant factor in the epidemic, we should have seen it now. Even if it does occur, it will not prevent the epidemic from disappearing. The question of the various other animal feeds has been around for some time, and both our professional scientific advisers have not felt it necessary to implement a ban.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend endorse the basic scientific research into BSE which is being conducted by the Medical Research Council, whose painstaking work on the different types of scrapie is most likely to bring the answer soonest, although it does not seem likely to be the answer offered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. The scientific research into this difficult and serious matter has been painstakingly and brilliantly conducted by a wide range of scientists from not only the Medical Research Council but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and others. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the increase in newly reported cases has slowed dramatically. There was an 80 per cent. increase between early 1991 and early 1992, but an increase of only 8 per cent. between early 1992 and 1993. Science has done us well and we look forward to the proper conclusion of this matter as the disease gradually works its way out of the system.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate in pound sterling of total expenditure throughout the EC under the CAP for 1993.
    Mr. Gummer: A total of £28,000 million to about 8 million farmers, who provide the food for more than 320 million people.
    Mr. McFall: When will the Government take an initiative to reduce the spiralling costs of the CAP, which already are unacceptable? Does he agree with Michael Jacquot, the EC controller, that they will remain within the 1994 budget guidelines only by creative accounting? Do not the MacSharry proposals only increase the costs of this policy to the EC taxpayer?
    Mr. Gummer: That is why we got rid of the MacSharry proposals and replaced them with our own. That is what the CAP reform achieved. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are seeking to reduce, and have reduced, the resource costs of the CAP. I hope that he will accept that the nation that battles most to keep the CAP within budget is the United Kingdom. I hope that he will ask his hon. Friends to accept that, if we manage to do so, they cannot continue to demand more and more for different groups of farmers while complaining about the bill.
    Mr. Oppenheim: As Opposition Members have clearly come to the sophisticated and intelligent conclusion that trade barriers and subsidies for agriculture harm taxpayers and consumers, why have they not reached the same conclusion for coal? As they are such keen advocates—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the CAP. Can he keep his question to the CAP?
    Mr. Oppenheim: As they are such keen advocates of industrial policy and intervention, which is exactly what the common agricultural policy is, why do not they praise the results of the policy—immense damage to third-world sugar producers, huge burdens on taxpayers and consumers and unsustainable surpluses?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to fight the Labour party with the enthusiasm that is so characteristic of him, but he would not find it so easy to do so if the farmers of Amber Valley and of surrounding areas were not given reasonable support to look after the land and produce the food that we need. I hope that he will support the way in which the Government have fought to ensure that developing countries, particularly those to which we owe so much in the West Indies, have a continued market for their bananas.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: We all welcome the Fontainebleau rebate, but has not its existence prevented British Ministers from demanding a fundamental review of CAP finances? Are not we, in effect, compromised?
    Mr. Gummer: No, certainly not. The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the fact that British Ministers have won their battles in the European Community and that the CAP reform is designed on what Britain wanted. There was no single major element of our negotiating list that we failed to secure in those negotiations. The hon. Gentleman would do well to follow that example, but he will not have the opportunity of doing so.
    Mr. John Greenway: When my right hon. Friend meets the new French Minister for Agriculture, who will be appointed soon following the annihilation of the socialists in France, will he remind him that the common agricultural policy reforms ensured a level field for producers and that there will be no going back on those reforms and the need for a GATT settlement?
    Mr. Gummer: I look forward to meeting my new French counterpart when he or she is appointed and to

    1229
    discussing with that person the need for Britain and France to ensure that the European Community provides a proper basis for competitive farming, from which both British and French farmers will benefit. I join in my hon. Friend's pleasure at seeing sister parties winning the elections in France and proving again that socialism is dead.

    French Fishermen (Attacks)
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the French authorities to protect consignments of British fish from attacks by French fishermen; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: Both the French Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers gave my right hon. Friend and myself undertakings in Brussels last week about the safety of British agriculture and fish products. We may need to update those shortly.
    Mr. Donohoe: Given the obvious frustration among both the French and British fishing communities, not least because of the massive downturn in fish prices at the quayside which they are having to put up with, why do prices in the shops remain at a high level? Given that fact, will the Minister instigate an inquiry?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has to distinguish between fish arriving in frozen blocks for processing—the largest part—and fresh fish that is landed. There is no great surplus of certain types of fish. The heart of the problem is the large-scale landing, both of cod into Humberside and of small fish into the Scottish and other ports, which are pulling down the market. There is a similar problem in France. The answer lies in tackling any abuses of imports, which the Community has acted to do, and in addressing how to manage fisheries better within the United Kingdom and France, including control.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are many more people employed in the fish processing industry than in fishing and that it is important that there are adequate supplies of fish for the industry to process and for the consumer to eat?
    Mr. Curry: That is exactly the case. The largest part of fish is sold not on the fresh market but in the processed market. It goes into fish fingers and fish and chip shops. That market depends heavily on imported products. The last thing that would help the long-term future of the industry would be to drive the consumer away through shortage when there are readily available competing proteins at low prices.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Although it is clear that compensation for British fishermen and imports must be tackled, does the Minister accept that we shall not solve the crisis in the fishing industry as long as the traditional distrust between those who catch and those who process persists? Therefore, will the Minister get together with both sides of the industry and look at ways to regulate the market better and, perhaps even more important, at ways in which the market for fish can be expanded, so that this wholesome food becomes a regular part of people's diet rather than an occasional product that they have when they can afford it?
    Mr. Curry: I have tried to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Yesterday, I met fishing industry representatives from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the processors. I suggested to each side that they might like to meet the other, either under my chairmanship or simply in my office. The processors were agreeable, but the fishing industry refused to do so.
    Dr. Strang: As the Minister has acknowledged that imports are part of the problem in both the French and the British markets, was not it unhelpful, to say the least, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to say earlier this week that prime responsibility for the problems facing the British industry lies with British fishermen? As the Council of Fisheries Ministers has accepted that the minimum import price arrangements have not been working, are not we entitled to attach a great deal of store to its proposals for more effective control of direct landings by ships of third countries, which the Minister announced that the Commission was to make public earlier today?
    Following what the Minister said about the processing and catching sides of the industry, does he agree that there is a strong case for having a summit of all the interests to see whether they can come up with more effective collective action to stop a repetition of these problems?
    Mr. Curry: The Commission proposal on making sure that landings from third-country vessels observe the same standards as we require came from me, so I am very pleased that, as I understand it, that is to be carried forward by the Commission. My right hon. Friend was stating the obvious. There are various strands in this crisis. One of them is imported fish, but it has been very much exaggerated. There have also been very large landings on Humberside of fish from north Norway. Some estimates put this at double the amount landed by this time last year. There is also a lot of very small fish on the market. It is true that the Government have responsibility, but the industry, too, must look at how it can manage its fisheries more effectively. That is why we are consulting on certain measures that might address the problem of small fish on the market.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the reports from Weymouth. Despite the fishing disputes all round France and Britain, our port has been open to all fishermen. We gave a warm welcome to French fishermen who wanted to unload their catches there. Will he ask his colleagues in the European Community if they would like to be as communautaire as Weymouth fishermen and Weymouth fish docks and perhaps follow the example that we are setting in Dorset?
    Mr. Curry: The fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency are behaving in the long-term interests of their industry. We have had some 89 requests now for safe passage of our products through France according to the system that we set up. They have been responded to and trade is now flowing much more normally. We should give credit for the fact that, after a period of delays, we are now getting free access to the French market, as we demanded, and the promises are being observed.

    Export for Slaughter
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on current progress towards improving welfare provision for animals exported live for slaughter.
    Mr. Gummer: I raised this at the last Agriculture Council and the Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals for further measures to protect the welfare of animals in transit. The present circumstances are not satisfactory and we will continue to press until we get a very much better answer.
    Mr. Lewis: I accept the Minister's response, but may I remind him of his statements during our EC presidency when he gave every indication that the matter was to be tackled more urgently? Is he aware that there has been a very large increase in the numbers of animals being exported? He will be aware that we have recommenced exporting to Spain. That cannot be good for the animals and every welfare organisation in the country is opposed to what is going on at the moment. I ask for even more urgency on a matter that we have discussed on many occasions in the House.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman and I are not far apart on the matter. We are seeking to ensure that the standards of animal transport throughout Europe are raised to the standards in this country. I hope very much that we can ensure that the rest of Europe learns about animal welfare from us. We have a lot to learn from them, perhaps, in our treatment of children and old people, but we have much to teach them on animals.
    Mr. Gale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while some issues can benefit from subsidiarity, environmental matters in general, and animal welfare matters in particular, require a European approach? Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any standards for animal welfare, particularly with regard to animals in transit in Europe, that are lower than those that constitute current practice in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no question of the welfare of farm animals being dealt with as a matter of subsidiarity. These are matters which bear directly on a common agricultural policy and we want the same standards throughout Europe. I have made it clear that I am not introducing unilateral measures in this country; I am insisting that the standards rise throughout Europe. There are very important areas in which subsidiarity should be applied, but this is not one of them.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: The Minister will agree that the best thing for animal welfare would be for all animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production. What measures is he taking, in conjunction with the Agriculture Council, to encourage that in Europe generally and in Britain in particular?
    Mr. Gummer: It will be a great help when we have, throughout Europe, slaughterhouses that are recognised by every part of Europe as reaching the same standards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more meat that can be carried on the hook and the less on the hoof, the better, but within the Community there will be transport of live animals. I am determined that that transport shall
    1232
    be at a standard that is proper and that it reaches the high standards we have in Britain and reaches from the north of Scotland to the south of Sicily.

    Dairy Farming
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve efficiency and profitability in dairy farming.
    Mr. Gummer: At last week's Agriculture Council, the United Kingdom opposed further cuts to the milk quota.
    Mr. Garnier: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and assume that he will recognise the quality of the grassland in my constituency and the quality of its dairy herds. Will my right hon. Friend promote diversification in agriculture by encouraging the breeding of buffalo and the eating of buffalo meat, which not only tastes good but is low in cholesterol?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend failed to mention the importance of buffalo milk, which is very important in import substitution because of the production of mozzarella cheese. I am very proud of the kind of mozzarella cheese that we can now produce in the United Kingdom and I hope that we shall be able to export it to Italy and elsewhere.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Meale: The House will well recall the promises made by the Prime Minister and many of his fellow Ministers before the last general election about the future of the coal mining industry. Now that, today, we are about to hear about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, will the Prime Minister apologise to those coalfield communities for what the Government are about to do?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have to curb his impatience for a few moments until my right hon. Friend's statement. He has very little time to wait and then he will be able to judge how right he is or how wrong he is.
    Mr. Heald: Has my right hon. Friend seen the 1992 results from Vauxhall Motors today showing huge increase in profits as a result of improved sales, improved market share and a huge increase in exports? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work force and all concerned, particularly those living in north Hertfordshire?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see those results. They are certainly excellent and I am delighted to congratulate the company on its results, which show what a well-managed company with the right product range can achieve, even in difficult world trading circumstances.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister now understand how foolish he was to claim last October that the closure of 31 pits was—and I quote him directly—"economically unavoidable and better done cleanly and quickly"?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we carried out a full review of these matters and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will set out in full detail the outcome of that review shortly. It is the most thorough review of the coal industry that has been undertaken for very many years. It posed many difficult issues which we have been prepared to face. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might also acknowledge the fact that we have supported the industry over the past 14 years to the extent of £18 billion.
    Mr. John Smith: The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister does not, indeed cannot, deny that his original intention, as he said himself, was to close all 31 pits immediately. How does he account for that appalling error of judgment?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately keen to get his usual fix on the early evening news, but he will have to wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.
    Mr. John Smith: In the course of the Prime Minister's twisting and turning over the past five months, has he yet begun to appreciate the vital importance of Britain's coal industry to our future energy security? Whatever is or is not in his White Paper, does the Prime Minister now realise that the rigging of the market to secure short-term profits for privatised electricity companies has put at risk the long-term security of energy supplies which should be the cornerstone of any Government's energy policy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it difficult to rewrite his own history. He should remember Labour's record on pit closures. The last Labour Government closed 313 pits and more than 200,000 of the work force lost their jobs. The Labour party cannot live down its past. It backed the National Union of Mineworkers when that union was holding the country to ransom during a year-long strike in the 1980s; it backed demands for unrealistic wages; and it backed demands for overmanning and bad working practices. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not backed those things in the 1980s, many more pits might be open today.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that charge capping and council tax capping are necessary evils to protect the payer from the worst excesses of socialist local government administration? Will he abhor the proposal of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that capping be abolished and that control of local government spending be handed over to the unions?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The capping of spendthrift local authorities is necessary in order to protect taxpayers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will cap wherever necessary this year, as in other years. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) may be keen to know that it is most unlikely that Conservative Basildon this year, unlike Labour Basildon in previous years, will require capping.
    Ms Abbott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Abbott: Does the Prime Minister accept that, whatever is in the statement to come, what public opinion outside the House wants is the saving not of 10, 12 or 15 pits but of all 31? It is not out of sentimentality that public opinion demands this. Whatever the short-term interest of the privatised fuel industry, it would be madness, in the long term, for this country to become dependent upon foreign coal and it would be madness to add to the standing army of the long-term unemployed.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady cannot have heard what I said about the Labour Government's record in closing pits. In carrying the review forward, we have had to balance two conflicting factors—our desire to save as many jobs and pits as possible and the hard, cold, real fact that British Coal is producing more coal than its customers want or it can sell. I am confident that my right hon. Friend's review offers the best way forward, both for the coal industry and for the country.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House have watched with admiration President Yeltsin's courageous struggle to bring both economic and political freedom to Russia? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to send the good wishes of the House to President Yeltsin at this very critical time?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to offer my support to President Yeltsin and to express my support for the reform programme. Over the weekend, I sent the President a message precisely about that and I received a reply from him earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Moscow next week.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up time.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the shadow of last week's atrocity in Warrington, which has claimed yet another life today, was the Prime Minister as moved as I was by the spontaneous and powerful expressions of sympathy and support from the people of Dublin for the people of Warrington, who suffered in that atrocity at the hands of the IRA? Does he agree that people such as Susan McHugh and Gordon Wilson speak for millions when they say that enough is enough? Is it not the case that if the people of Dublin can put the past behind them in their search for peace, the politicians of the whole of Ireland should be able to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: The tragedy of another young life lost, sadly, this morning will have touched the hearts of many people in this country and far beyond. The events of last week demonstrate that terrorism brings nothing but agony and misery. But as we condemn terrorism, we must bear it in mind that there are many people in Dublin and elsewhere in the Republic of Ireland, elsewhere in Northern Ireland and Irish citizens in this country, who condemn and detest the terrorists as much as do hon. Members.
    Mr. Kynoch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much I welcome the further progress that he has made in the Budget to extending the 20p basic rate of tax? Will he make further extensions in the years ahead?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to seek to do that. Our aim is a 20p basic rate of tax. We propose to move towards that as rapidly and prudently as we can by extending the 20p rate.
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: In the continuing context of the Budget, is the Prime Minister aware that changes in the tax regime threaten jobs both offshore and onshore in the oil and gas industries in the north and north-east of Scotland, while the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel represents a threat to the welfare and lives of the elderly and needy in society? Is not it a travesty of justice that the Prime Minister should have introduced a Budget by which, in an energy-rich nation such as Scotland, we gain neither employment nor social benefits?
    The Prime Minister: The support that the Government have given the oil industry over many years has brought many tens of thousands of jobs to Scotland, as the hon. Lady knows. There have been changes in the oil regime for offshore drilling in Scotland. That has been welcomed by many of the companies that work there.
    Mr. Gale: Knowing him, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will already have sent a message of sympathy to the parents and family of Tim Parry. I hope that he included in that message the good wishes, thoughts and prayers of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Will he find time today to send another message, to the President of the United States, asking him to condemn the people in America who collect money that is paid to the IRA?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt, as I said, about the feeling in this country—which I know will be shared by President Clinton—over the very sad death of Tim Parry. I know that the American Administration view terrorism in the same way as we do. It is a matter which I have discussed with President Clinton and with his predecessor.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the document "Implementing Caring for People: Assessment," which can only be described as sinister, advises practitioners and local authorities that any unmet need should not be recorded, on the ground, in the explanatory note, that, due to the idea now of freedom of access to information, it would be wrong for that information to be recorded just in case the patients or the clients found out what their rights were?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have done more than any previous Administration to ensure that people are aware of their rights in the social security and health spheres. The new community care arrangements that will exist from 1 April will add to that remarkable record.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful decision of railway workers to bring this country's transport network to a standstill on 2 April? While he is about it, will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to issue a similar condemnation?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to condemn the suggestion that passengers should be severely inconvenienced by strikes of this kind. I hope that that feeling will be shared by the Leader of the Opposition and many others.
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government total taxation for most people is far higher than it was under previous Labour Governments? What advice will he give to constituents such as mine, Mr. and Mrs. Cook, who have worked all their lives for a little bit of works pension which is 36p a week above any kind of benefit level? What kind of assistance will they get with the crippling increase in gas and electricity charges when value added tax is applied?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman was really concerned about the tax burden, which allegedly he is said to be, perhaps he would withdraw his support from all the spending increases that Opposition Members propose week after week after week.

Coal Industry
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the conclusions of the Government's coal review. I must ask the indulgence of the House for what will be a lengthy statement. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making arrangements for a debate early next week.
The House will recall that this wide-ranging review was to look at the prospects for the 21 pits proposed for closure by British Coal last October in the context of the Government's energy policy.
First, I should like to pay tribute to the Trade and Industry Select Committee for the detailed work in its report.
I have a number of important new announcements to make about future opportunities for the British coal industry. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the generators and the regional electricity companies have now formally confirmed their intention to enter into base contracts and the necessary back-to-back contracts which will enable British Coal to supply 160 million tonnes of coal over five years, with 40 million tonnes in the first year and 30 million tonnes in each of the next four years.
The Select Committee identified the central issue—that it is only sensible to produce coal for which there is a market. The key question then becomes how big that market is. There is inevitably great difficulty in predicting the size of a long-term market as complex as the one for coal. The dominant market is in the England and Wales electricity supply industry. Estimates of the size of this market vary widely and a number of different fuels compete for it.
It is central to the Government's energy policy to help create competitive energy markets within which consumers can obtain electricity produced from a diversity of sources at competitive prices. This is the best way to keep consumers' costs down and thereby strengthen our industrial competitiveness. Let me comment therefore on the fuel sources that compete with British Coal: gas, oil, nuclear, orimulsion, coal from various sources and electricity supplied through the interconnector with France.
I agree with the Select Committee that it would be wrong not to take advantage of the massive public investment in nuclear power. Electricity produced from existing nuclear stations has the lowest marginal cost. The benefits should not be denied to British industry and other consumers. We will, however, wish to look closely at any requests from Nuclear Electric for approval for capital investment in relation to proposals for extending the life of any Magnox stations. We will also be bringing forward our review of the future prospects for nuclear power.
Let me deal next with gas. It has been suggested that I should withhold further planning consents for gas-fired power stations. In considering this, I must have regard to my statutory powers and responsibilities. I do not intend to interfere with existing power station consents, or to alter my policy in taking future consent decisions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Consequently, matters such
1238
as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel and type of plant remain commercial matters for applicants.
The House will appreciate that, whatever decisions I might take on new section 36 consents, they could not be relevant to the market for coal for at least another three years, since it would take at least that long for any new station to be brought into operation. In this context, I have decided that the Connah's Quay development in north Wales should be allowed to proceed. This is a sour gas project of a kind that the Select Committee favoured. I am also today granting consent to two smaller projects, one using sour gas at Ryedale in North Yorkshire and a combined heat and power scheme at Aylesford in Kent. Together, the three projects will involve investment of over £2 billion and will lead to the creation of over 5,000 construction jobs, as well as several thousand in related industries.
I have considered carefully the position of orimulsion. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 16 March, orimulsion, like other oil substitutes, will be subject to hydrocarbon oil duty. As such, it will bear duty at the same rate as heavy fuel oil. It will also be subject to the normal environmental controls for which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible. There are existing binding contracts for the import of orimulsion into the United Kingdom, with which the Government have no powers to interfere. The Government have, however, been informed that orimulsion imports to the United Kingdom are likely to be reduced by at least 500,000 tonnes equivalent of coal a year from current levels and to remain at the minimum contractual level for the foreseeable future.
In one area I have been driven to a different conclusion from that reached by the Select Committee. It recommended that I should remove Electricité de France's non-leviable status and ensure that British-produced electricity should gain access to the French electricity market and to third markets through France. I have considered this carefully and I published on 18 March a summary of the legal advice that I had received. The position is clear. Any governmental measure to prevent or restrict imports of electricity across the interconnector with France would run counter to article 30 of the treaty of Rome. Further, the Government would be at financial risk under the indemnity given to the National Grid Company at the time of electricity privatisation and reported to this House.
Electricité de France's electricity's non-leviable status could not be removed without giving EdF the benefit of levy payments. In other words, EdF could have to be given the same premium for its electricity as is now given to Nuclear Electric and financed by the levy. Far from reducing imports from France, this would reinforce their position, and our consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
I have to tell the House that I see no prospect of reducing the net amount of electricity coming across the interconnector to zero, as indicated by the Select Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and I have explored the scope for sales of electricity to France across the interconnector. The Minister has had talks with his French counterpart and the indications for sales in later years are good. Confirmation of this came in the announcement earlier this week of an eight-year export contract representing potential sales in excess of

1239
£100 million from the United Kingdom to France. The House will also wish to note that the latest forecast shows that sales by EdF in the United Kingdom are likely to decline progressively and significantly.
I must now address that section of the market which is supplied by deep-mined, opencast and imported coal. The base contracts that I have just announced secure 160 million tonnes over five years at a value of £5·5 billion. This leaves British Coal as one of the world's largest coal producers. Opencast coal is a significant generator of employment providing jobs, whether directly or indirectly, for some 17,000 people throughout the United Kingdom. It is an economic source of energy which needs no subsidy from consumers or taxpayers. It can also play an important role in reclamation and redevelopment of derelict land.
While the Government do not think it would be right to impose arbitrary limits, British Coal has indicated in its evidence to the coal review that it expects its opencast output to fall over the next five years from the current level of 16 million tonnes to 12 million tonnes. British Coal's latest expectation is that opencast output will be lower still.
I welcome the increased scope for deep-mined coal which this represents. It will not affect British Coal's current contracts with companies that operate their opencast sites; nor will it affect the private sector opencast producers licensed by British Coal. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently reviewing the guidance to planning authorities on opencast coal. He will be announcing today how we will be carrying this forward in the light of the White Paper.
British Coal's prospects of winning and holding a share of the wider market for coal depend on increased competitiveness. There is a critical role here for the private sector. We believe that privatisation is the only way of enabling this industry to take full advantage of the opportunities that the market offers. British Coal will therefore begin immediately to prepare for full privatisation. It has confirmed that, in advance of full privatisation, any pits which the corporation does not itself wish to keep in operation will be offered to the private sector. The Government will be making available up to £1 million to assist in funding consultancy studies for management and employee buy-outs.
To provide a further impetus for this, I intend to appoint a board member who will have special executive responsibility for privatisation. This will be supported by a new unit within my Department. The Government will consider legislation to remove the manpower limit for private mines if this proves necessary.
The Government have looked carefully at the position of large electricity users. I am working with the Director General of Electricity Supply to examine the circumstances under which they might bypass the pool. I will also embark shortly on further consultations with the director general, the electricity industry and large users on whether demand-side bidding would improve the workings of the electricity market. In addition, the Government are reviewing the current regulation of on-site generation, which could offer large users an alternative source of electricity.
I turn now to the most important of the Select Committee's recommendations. I have authorised British Coal to negotiate for future contracts on the basis that it would supply at a world market-related price. The
1240
Government are prepared to subsidise the difference between this price and British Coal's cost of production. This subsidy will apply for any additional tonnages that British Coal is able to sell to the generators, whether or not these are on long-term contracts. The subsidy will reduce progressively over the period to full privatisation. The amount of subsidy will depend on the outcome of commercial negotiation, but we are prepared to embrace the range of figures put forward by the Select Committee. These arrangements will be notified to the European Commission under the relevant state aids provisions.
Private sector mines will also be able to seek Government financial backing for supplementary sales at world-related prices on the same basis as British Coal and consistent with the relevant EC provisions, provided that they can demonstrate that this was for genuinely additional tonnages.
I cannot guarantee that supplementary sales will be achieved by British Coal, but both generators have said that they will continue negotiations for such sales. To the extent that these sales fall short of the level envisaged by the Select Committee, expenditure will of course be less than that which they estimated.
I am also aware that coal stocks are at very high levels. There are 33 million tonnes with the generators and a further 12 million tonnes at the pithead. Some reduction in coal output is therefore essential.
As the House would expect, we have kept British Coal closely in touch with our thinking and we have provided it with an advance copy of the White Paper. Having considered this, British Coal has announced today that it is to consult on closure proposals for two of the 21 pits under review—Bolsover and Sharlston—whose reserves will shortly exhaust. Any redundancies will be subject to statutory consultation and notification requirements.
British Coal has also announced that, again subject to consultations, it proposes to place the following six pits on a care-and-maintenance basis—Bevercotes, Clipstone, Easington, Rossington, Shirebrook and Westoe. These six pits and the two proposed for closure in the coming months will be made available to the private sector.
Twelve of the 13 remaining pits will continue to produce while British Coal, with Government financial backing, looks for additional sales at world-related prices. British Coal is proposing that, again subject to consultations, one further pit—Maltby—will be placed on development. This will help to ensure that its reserves are available into the next century. The future of coaling in individual pits will depend on the extent to which intensive efforts over the coming months identify a market for their product or realistic prospect of sale to the private sector.
Safety must continue to be paramount. The Government are determined to ensure, in consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, that the existing high safety standards in such mines are maintained after they pass into the private sector.
I have a general responsibility for competition, which of course includes the electricity market. Both I and the Director General of Electricity Supply have a statutory duty to exercise our functions under the Electricity Act 1989 to promote competition. The director general has the full support of my Department in rigorously policing the competitive electricity market.
I have taken the opportunity of the review to consider a number of long-term issues about the future of the industry. Clean coal technology will be vital to ensuring

1241
that coal continues to play a long-term role in the energy industries. The Government intend to make available an additional £12 million over the next three years to secure the future of the Coal Research Establishment before its transition to the private sector. The Government also intend to encourage links with international research programmes.
The Government intend to publish an annual energy report to provide information relevant to business and investment decisions. In keeping with a recommendation of the Select Committee, the Government, in preparing the report, will be advised by a new energy advisory panel of independent experts.
The Government are acutely aware of the impact that any mining closures have on miners, their families and their communities. We announced a substantial package of measures in October to help areas that might be affected by closures. The Government have decided to increase the amount available to £200 million. The additonal funds will allow major new projects to go ahead. These include a flagship business park in the Nottingham area and advance factory provision in several areas. The regeneration measures are to be co-ordinated by Lord Walker.
I can also announce our intention that the headquarters of the new coal authority proposed under our privatisation measures will be located in Nottinghamshire. In addition, my Department will support the establishment of a new regional development organisation based in Nottingham to attract inward investment to the east midlands.
Finally, let me remind the House of what I said earlier. There can be no guarantees. The market for coal is complex and unpredictable. Even among the experts, opinions differ. I have done all that I reasonably could, consistent with economic realities and legal constraints, to increase the opportunities for British Coal.
It is now for British Coal to make the most of these opportunities. The outcome will be settled, as it should be, in the marketplace. Our policies will give the industry every chance of strengthening its position and achieving future success. It is now up to the people who work in the industry to build on this.
Mr. Robin Cook: The House has just heard a comprehensive admission of failure. There was little in what the President of the Board of Trade said to the House that he could not have said on 13 October and there was much in the statement that he did say on 13 October.
The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would look for new markets for coal. He has just admitted that he has failed to find a market for one single extra tonne of coal. The contracts, which the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to announce to the House today, are precisely the same tonnage as the contracts on 13 October which forced the closure of 31 pits. How can the right hon. Gentleman claim to have saved 12 pits when he has not sold a single additional tonne of coal?
Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that his negotiating skills have delivered a bargain in which he has provided a subsidy on coal to the generators without getting them to agree to one extra tonne of coal? Does he
1242
really believe that a two-year subsidy will change anything? That is not a rescue plan; it is only a stay of execution.
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the period of two years has nothing to do with the time to turn round those pits and everything to do with his timetable to privatise the coal industry and wash his hands of it? The right hon. Gentleman complained that coal is a complex market in the electricity system. He should know: the Government created that complex market. They created a rigged market which is denying coal a fair chance to compete.
Why did the statement do nothing to cool the dash for gas which is closing the coal mines? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman challenge the sweetheart deals between the electricity companies and the new gas-fired power stations which guarantee them sales, not for two years, but for 15 years? Is not the conclusion from the statement that the only thing that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do about the dash for gas is to license three more contracts for new gas-fired power stations?
Why does the statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about jobs?"] What about jobs? Conservative Members should consider the 30,000 miners' jobs, the 20,000 people who work in factories, the 10,000 people who shift coal on the railways and the 100,000 who will be made unemployed as a result of the statement.
Why does the statement do nothing to check imports of electricity from France—electricity which is more expensive than electricity produced from British Coal? Does the right hon. Gentleman or any Conservative Member imagine that the French Government would import electricity from us if they had to close French pits to do that? Why do we continue to accept that Community rules oblige us to import electricity from France when we cannot get the French to agree to carry our electricity to Spain?
Why does the statement do nothing to create a level playing field for competition between coal and nuclear electricity? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if coal received subsidy as large as that received by Nuclear Electric, it could deliver half its coal to the power stations for free? What kind of competition is that?
Why does the White Paper do nothing to provide stability for coal sales by postponing next year's cut in the guaranteed market to the power generators? Is that why PowerGen withdrew its offer of 4 February to take an extra 55 million tonnes over five years? Why is it that, the longer the review has continued, the less the right hon. Gentleman has been able to deliver?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are about to hear in the business statement that the House will be expected to debate a White Paper on Monday which has only just been placed in the Vote Office? Is not the reason for that panic timetable the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that, the longer the public consider the White Paper, the more they will see through it? The right hon. Gentleman has taken five months to write a White Paper which he dare not allow the House five days to analyse.
Britain's pits have doubled productivity in eight years. They are modern and efficient pits which have cut the price of coal by one sixth in the past five years. What a contrast that is with a Government who have just put up fuel bills by one sixth by slapping VAT on them.

1243
The White Paper does not save a single pit beyond two years; it does not save electricity consumers from paying, through their bills, the extra costs of constructing new gas-powered stations; it does not save the balance of trade from the extra costs of importing coal and gas; it does not save public spending from the cost of closing pits which it would be cheaper to keep open; and it will not save the right hon. Gentleman's reputation.
This mix of short-term subsidy and long-term betrayal may be enough to buy off the rebels on the Government Benches, but it will not buy off the nation, who will not forgive the Government for abandoning Europe's richest coal reserves.
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the whole House will have noted the central accusation of the hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) that this was an admission of failure. It is, if I may say so, characteristic that when I have committed hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' support and agreed with the Select Committee report in substance, the hon. Gentleman should think that is a question of failure.
The fact of the matter is that an all-party Select Committee with a majority of Labour members [Interruption.]—a majority of Conservative members and a Labour Chairman—indicated the way forward and I have broadly accepted the thrust of its central recommendation. That is not failure; that is listening to the House of Commons and responding to it.
It is characteristic that, whenever the Government provide an opportunity for British industry to win, the first thing the hon. Gentleman does is to run down the prospects of success. It is quite apparent that he has missed the central point about the nature of the market which the Select Committee and I have identified. What he has done is to fall back on the old arguments about a rigged market.
Why did I not suppress the demand for gas? First, because it is efficient; secondly, because the market has demanded it should be there; thirdly, because a large number of jobs are dependent on it; and, fourthly, because I agree with the Select Committee that we should not do it.
Let us consider the easiest response to the hon. Gentleman. "Why did you not deal with the French?", he said. In the House, on 3 August 1978, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when Secretary of State for Energy—[Interruption.]—had this to say:
"I am informing the Central Electricity Generating Board that it has my approval in principle for investment in the proposed 2,000 mw cross-Channel electricity cable to be constructed and operated jointly with Electricité de France… The expected cost to the CEGB is £131 million. The link is planned to come into operation in stages, the first 1,000 mw in 1982 and the second in 1983."—[Official Report, 3 August 1978; Vol. 955, c. 545–6.]
The problem is that, when he gave permission in principle to the CEGB, he had not wrapped up the details of the contract.
I do not think that we want to preoccupy ourselves only with the unreconstituted left. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy all through the time when this was going on. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield might say that he was only a little fish. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), however, was Minister for Trade.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. A great many hon. Members want—and are expecting—to put questions. Therefore, time should not be wasted with a lot of noise.
Mr. Heseltine: It was not rigging the market; it was selling out the market. That is what the Labour Government did.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham): Shame on you.
Mr. Heseltine: No, shame on the party that did it.
The next phoney accusation of selling out is the nuclear allegation that the hon. Member for Livingston paraded before the House. Once again, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, on behalf of the Government of which he was a Member, explaining what he felt to be the future for nuclear provision, said:
"If we look ahead at the mix of fuels which we think we shall need in this country in the year 2000, it is not possible to abstract the nuclear component without running a serious risk which no energy Minister could recommend to this House.—[Official Report, 15 May 1978; Vol. 950, c.174.]
That is the argument that has to be presented. I join the right hon. Gentleman, for the first and perhaps the only time in my life, in presenting that argument to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the figure. On 25 January 1978, he told the House—
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the entire House, including Ministers, that we are not into debate. Debate comes on Monday. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. Hon. Members are expecting to be called, so they should keep quiet now and they might then be called. I seek brisk questions—[Interruption.] Order. Allow me to finish. Equally, I seek brisk responses to those questions so that we might make some progress this afternoon.
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand your ruling, Madam Speaker. I was merely trying to respond to the inquiries from the hon. Member for Livingston. Let me help you, Madam Speaker. I believe that we have shown British Coal the way forward. We have offered it a chance. We have recognised what the Select Committee said and I commend the White Paper to the House.
Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members appreciate his statement this afternoon and would like to compliment him on his hard work and diligence in coming up with a statement that will be so helpful to the British coal industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, British Coal has been saying that, by 1995, it will be able to produce and sell coal at world market prices if it is given the opportunity to have assistance through to 1995? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement this afternoon gives British Coal not only that very opportunity but the opportunity to have a long and viable future?
Mr. Heseltine: I say at once to my hon. Friend and to his colleagues on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that I have listened as carefully as possible. It has been an extremely constructive dialogue and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has particular knowledge and expertise. I and the Government are trying to give British Coal and, as soon as it can be arranged, the

1245
private sector the opportunity to seek markets with a competitive price for their product. We are all well aware that the more we have privatised the former nationalised industries, the more they have gone out into the world and won for Britain.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that we welcome the fact that he has listened to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? However, he should not anticipate that he has the Committee's whole-hearted support, because he has not been able to accept the recommendations in full or to an extent that would have saved more of the pits. I welcome his assurances on gas, but does he acknowledge that it is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not consider the confidence of the North sea oil and gas industry when he introduced the tax change in the Budget? There could have been a more helpful combination.
The energy industry is in its present state precisely because of the Government's privatisation of gas and of electricity, which was carried out in ways that failed to create a genuinely competitive market. Is not that why Sir James McKinnon now demands the break-up of British Gas? Is not it high time that the Secretary of State reorganised the electricity industry to make the market work? Will he, therefore, accept that the only consistency of Government energy policy is not to have had a policy for the past 13 years? Is not that a denial of the White Paper, which he claimed was to be a comprehensive energy review? There is no mention of an energy review, but just a discussion of a market for coal. This is a short-term fix, which does not meet the long-term needs of the nation.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must have failed to hear what I said. I said that there would be an independent group of energy experts and that there would be an annual energy report. Those ideas were included after consultation with my colleagues, as a result of the Select Committee's proposals.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the North sea. When a tax regime is changed, some win and some lose. Many companies in the North sea can look forward to an improved position from the lower levels of petroleum revenue tax which have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be drawn on the issue of British Gas because it is the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recognise the work undertaken by him, by the Minister for Energy and by many in his Department to produce the White Paper? However, will he assure the House today that the White Paper provides an extra and further market for coal? If it does, what will be the immediate effect?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has taken an acute interest in the matter and I have been especially grateful to her for her advice on the ways in which we should make speedy progress towards privatisation. What both the Select Committee in its report and the Government in the White Paper have emphasised is that we are dealing with the marketplace. One can analyse and make predictions
1246
about the marketplace, but in the end one is dependent on customers. British Coal must now, with the advantage that we have given it of being able to compete at world market prices, secure that market. We shall give British Coal every help in doing that.
Sir Harold Walker: Did not the Select Committee make it clear that its recommendations should be taken as a comprehensive whole? It is therefore wrong for the Secretary of State to pick the bits that suit his case and then to claim to support the report. Is he aware that his statement today is an economic disaster for Doncaster? He talks about the marketplace. I am concerned about the job marketplace in Doncaster through which the right hon. Gentleman has driven a big hole today. He spoke in October about the support that would be given to areas affected, yet we have seen none of that yet in my area. When will we get that support? What does he intend to do about the disaster that he has created for my constituency?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I am very concerned to ensure that where closures take place, there is the help that I have announced. It is self-evident to those who understand these matters that no one is allowed to prejudge consultative procedures that are under way. Until British Coal comes to a conclusion, through the consultative processes, about the way forward, we do not know exactly what closures will take place. It is therefore not possible to anticipate and to start spending money.
The House will understand that one of the great advantages of Select Committees, which I strongly supported when they were extended in 1979–80, is that they can range over a subject and put forward many different proposals. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has done a commendable job. However, nobody believes that a Select Committee is a substitute for Government. We have to study the Select Committees' proposals and we have to take the decisions. There are often lonely questions about the allocation of priorities. I hope that, on reflection, the Select Committee will feel that its work has been taken extremely seriously.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement proves that the Government are determined to do all that they can to help the British coal industry—whether it is in the private sector or the public sector—to become competitive so that it can supply coal to the market at the price that the market demands? Will he ensure that the subsidies are prudently spent, because they come from taxes paid by other successful businesses throughout the country? It is very important that they are spent carefully.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He addresses the central issue that faced me last October and has faced my colleagues ever since. If my announcement leads to extra contracts, it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. We will therefore ensure that the negotiations that lead to such potential are carefully and rigorously conducted and that they are of a tapering nature to ensure that British Coal continues to have the incentive to improve productivity.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the President of the Board of Trade, through the usual channels, allow a debate on Monday not just on the White

1247
Paper but on the 39 recommendations made in the Select Committee report to give the House the right to make decisions on them? I am concerned that, after six months of delay by the Government—the President of the Board of Trade knows that the Select Committee report was published on 29 January—we are now to be forced to debate a serious issue in an unacceptable time span of about 48 hours. I ask the usual channels to allow a little more time not only for the House to reflect on the issue, but—[Interruption.] As the President of the Board of Trade has raised the subject of the Select Committee report, and if it is not too much for Conservative Members to listen, the Chairman of the Select Committee has the right at least to put down one or two markers.
May serious consideration be given to the report to allow the nation time to reflect on the content of the 152-page White Paper, which will be debated on Monday? My quick analysis—and it has been quick—of the main provisions of the White Paper suggests that all 31 pits will be closed in the next three or four years. That will cost the British taxpayer about £2 billion. Eighteen of those pits and 18,000 jobs will be lost this year alone. This package is merely a change of tactics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question".] I want to deal with the points that the President made—
Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman heard me earlier when I reminded the House that hon. Members should not ask questions. A debate will be held on Monday. We want to hear the hon. Gentleman put his question to the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Caborn:I will ask the President of the Board of Trade specific questions. Why has he, again, failed to question whether there is a larger market for coal—the very question he posed to the House on 21 October? Why has he chosen price support for British Coal in the full knowledge that his proposals do not provide the market beyond the 40 million tonnes this year and 30 million tonnes in the subsequent four years? Why has he not answered the Select Committee report, which addressed the question whether there is a larger market for coal? Will he now answer questions on the licensing of gas, on the baseload of gas, on the letter that I wrote to him about EDF and on opencast mining by British Coal and the private sector? Why has he chosen not to comment on the franchising of the regional electricity companies—which is mentioned in the report that he has ignored—which would make a further market for 20 million tonnes? The right hon. Gentleman has ducked those questions this afternoon, but he should answer them.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, who, as the House knows, is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, misunderstands the nature of what I have said today. While it is entirely for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to determine the subject of the debate, within my White Paper there is reference to every recommendation of the Select Committee and a Government response to it. It would be difficult for us to debate the issue without referring to the Select Committee report. We are under pressure to make progress on the matter because the contracts for British Coal run out on 31 March, so there is great uncertainty in the industry and it is important that the House has an opportunity to debate the matters.
1248
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the central issue, to which I have referred many times already—the market-place. As I understand it, the view of the Select Committee about the market place is that we should do certain things to expand it, some of which I have been able to do in part. Secondly, it recommended that we should provide a subsidy to enable British Coal to obtain part of the additional market space. I have accepted that recommendation. It named certain rates of subsidy that might be necessary and I have already said that I am prepared to embrace figures broadly in line with those of the Select Committee.
The only issue is whether I could have been expected, by now, to have seen British Coal sign up the additional contracts. The Select Committee never told me to come back to the House with signed contracts. It told me to allow British Coal to go out and negotiate for contracts. That is what I have announced that I shall do.
Sir Trevor Skeet: I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on maintaining a competitive energy industry and on his recognition of the fact that it is no good curing unemployment in one industry only to create it in another. Will he keep a watchful eye on coal stocks which, at 45 million tonnes, are excessive, so as to ensure that they do not deteriorate and go to waste?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend touches on another central dilemma in the debate. It is that it is often a question not of protecting jobs in general but of protecting jobs in one industry or another. The more that one chokes off the market to enable coal to fill it, the more one destroys jobs and confidence in a range of alternative industries, many of which are doing extremely well. The House will have recognised that I have today announced the go-ahead for a project with which 5,000 jobs are associated. It is very much a question of priorities, but British Coal now has a chance to compete in the market place with a product that is priced competitively.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that what he has done today is to confirm unemployment for between 80,000 to 100,000 people and condemned to death the communities whose pits will close at a time of mass unemployment and that, for those people, his statement will have been the most cynical, arrogant and inaccurate that has been heard in the House for many years? That is so not least because the aim of the interconnector with France was to export British coal to France. As he knows, that is the purpose. The Labour Government launched the Selby coalfield and authorised the Drax B coal-fired station.
The most dishonest thing of all is that the money that was supposed to be given to help the areas has been diverted to subsidise the pits for privatisation. When private owners buy pits, they will find them already subsidised. If the Minister is interested in history, will he look back and find that, when the pits were last privately owned, in the 1930s, 1,100,000 miners were injured and 7,800 killed?
The amount of money made available, allegedly to help that group of people whose livelihood is ended, contrasts with the £10 billion made by market forces when the currency collapsed last September. The Minister has made an utterly unacceptable statement and, apart from the

1249
cheering crowds behind him, nobody in the country will believe that he has done anything but confirm the betrayal of his earlier statement.
Mr. Heseltine: When the right hon. Member stands before the House and says that really what the EdF deal was about was exporting to France—he nods his head—I can only ask the House who is misleading whom. I will quote from Hansard. The right hon. Member, when he was in power, said:
"The link will add to the security and diversity of the CEGB's sources of electricity".—[Official Report, 3 August 1978; Vol. 955, c. 546.]
Who, I ask again, is misleading whom?
Sir Cranley Onslow: I assure my right hon. Friend that, just because an hon. Member happens to be Chairman of a Select Committee, that does not mean that he owns the Committee or speaks for it. As a member of the Select Committee, I can assure him that some of the criticisms which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has levelled at him are not shared by the majority of the members of the Committee. We are very willing indeed that this matter should be debated as soon as possible so that we have an opportunity to emphasise what really matters. British Coal must save itself by its exertions and my right hon. Friend has given it the opportunity, with privatised industry, to do just that.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has been immensely helpful to me in advising me on many matters in this connection. I believe that the views that he has expressed represent the views that anyone reading the Select Committee report would form. I very much welcome the fact that the Select Committee said as clearly as it did—and, in the report it published, as fairly as it did—what the reality of the opportunities was.
Mr. Kevin Barron: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade what I should say to my constituents who work at Maltby colliery, the most modern deep mine single complex in Europe, which has just had £190 million spent on it, now that it has been announced this afternoon that the work force is to be sacked?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member should tell his work force that we intend to put the pit into a development phase in which £30 million of taxpayers' money will be invested in order to carry on the life of that pit into the next century. If the hon. Member would look to the positive opportunities and stop trying to undermine every opportunity created, his constituents would be better off.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I thank my right hon. Friend for the very considerable distance that he has travelled since 13 October last year. Can confirm that the purpose of providing a short-term subsidy to these 13 pits is to put them in a position to carry forward into the future once they have reached world market prices, and that he and the Government will use their best endeavours to help carve out a wider market for coal? Specifically, can he undertake that the Government, once there is a new French Government in place in Paris, will conduct political discussions at the highest level in order to arrive
1250
at a situation in which there is a more neutral flow across the interconnector and for exploring the prospects for exports to third countries?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in this matter and I am most grateful to him for what he has now said. Within the legal constraints which I have explained to the House and on which I have taken advice, we are in discussion with the French Government. This is not, perhaps, the best moment in history at which to pursue these discussions, but I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks: they will be continued. We have seen some welcome developments since these discussions got under way and my hon. Friend has played a conspicuous part in that.
On the central issue which my hon. Friend put to me, we are trying to give British Coal the opportunity to seek out these additional markets, partly because we have been able to show where some of those markets will be and partly because the generators are now saying that they wish to negotiate supplemental contracts over and above the base contracts which have been concluded effectively today. So the only lasting position for their future is to seize that opportunity at a moment when there is a drive to competitive positions.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that his statement today does nothing for the long-term energy future of this country? Nor, indeed, does it do anything to save Parkside, the last pit in the north-west that is viable and has long-term reserves. What has happened to the right hon. Gentleman's promise to intervene? Does he no longer eat breakfast, lunch and dinner? Does he not realise that his reputation and career are in tatters?
Mr. Heseltine: The pit to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one of the 10. He will know that it is now subject to consultation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. If British Coal is determined to proceed to closure, there will be an opportunity for the private sector to make arrangements to take it over.
Mr. Tom King: While everybody regrets the loss of any jobs, particularly in the mining industry, is not the truth that no Government of either party has been able to guarantee jobs in the mining industry, an industry which as recently as 1955 employed no fewer than 750,000 people, and that the only guarantee comes from the level of the market?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be seen as a genuine and thorough attempt to give the coal industry the best chance for the future without undermining the competitive position of the rest of British industry? Will he also give an assurance that the energy market, the review of the Magnox stations and new investment will be looked at fairly, on their merits?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend knows a great deal about this market and I can readily give him the assurance that he has sought. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has described the work that we have tried to do. This is about an opportunity, but I think that British Coal is only too anxious to respond to that opportunity. Some of the recent productivity gains that have been achieved will help them on their way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he has just delivered a confidence trick that would have done Paul Daniels proud? This is set against a background of more than 4 million people out of work, so I plead with the Government not to weep crocodile tears today about unemployed people. More than 50,000 people will lose their jobs in the mining industry and elsewhere as a result of this statement. The Minister said that his hands were tied, but if he had taken the import levels back to 1979 and the opencast levels back to 1979—he always quotes that year—and if he had stopped orimulsion, he would have saved 25 pits. If he got rid of the Magnox nuclear reactors he would save another five pits and if he had had the guts to say to the French that we were not going to have their electricity sold here in Britain, just as the French are saying that they will not buy our fish, we could have saved another six pits and thus saved all 31.
The truth is that we are faced with a gutless and spineless Government who should be got rid of as soon as possible.
Mr. Heseltine: The real question for the hon. Member is, what was he doing before 1979 pursuing policies, the logic of which we are discussing today?
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware, that since this review began, not one new exploration platform has been authorised for the North sea and not one new platform has been commenced at any yard in the north-east of England? While all of us in the north of England want to save the coal industry in our part of the country, by any means that we can, we also realise that the benefits of the future rest on the North sea and the riches that it possesses, and we look forward from today's statement for a further development there in the very near future.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend comes to the heart of the matter. The announcement I made today about Connah's Quay is very important to British industry. Creating jobs there might have a very attractive long-term potential, for work not only in the North sea but in the international exploration industry.
Mr. Greville Janner: Why did the President of the Board of Trade studiously ignore, in his statement, the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Employment on the employment consequences of the pit closures? Could it be because it was the unanimous view of all the members of the Committee, whatever their political views, that both the true national costs and the social effects of pit closures should have been, and were not, taken into account and that no pit should be closed, unless and until there has been full consultation and complete consideration of all the factors in that unanimous report, and every effort had been made to safeguard not only the miners concerned, but the other affected workers, of whom there are twice as many?
Why did not the Government permit their response to the report to be made available to members of the Committee until after the President had sat down, when the report was placed in the Library? Could it be because the Government's response to the unanimous report included this disgraceful sentence:
"The Government considers that the estimation of the financial costs of unemployment referred to in the Select Committee's conclusions would not be meaningful"?
1252
Surely it is meaningful that there are national costs, personal costs, social costs and misery in the devastating effect referred to in this unanimous report on all the pit closures. Will the President please consult the Employment Secretary and come back with a worthy reply that will help the people whose lives will be wrecked by his statement?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has replied to the Select Committee's report—an entirely proper course. Let me take one central issue. When jobs are created, very few people go round multiplying the number by three to indicate the number of potential jobs in the economy. However, when jobs are destroyed, people immediately multiply the number by three in order to show the harm that is being done. In my view, in both cases people are likely to be far short of the real world.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the new hopes and the new opportunities that his statement gives to British Coal as a whole will be even more advantageous to the low-cost, high-productivity, Conservative-financed pits, such as the Selby complex? Does he recognise that he may even have underestimated the scope for exporting British coal to Europe, particularly from pits like Selby, where the cost of production is already at the low world-cost level?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has a deep interest in the matter. I am very well aware of the excellence of the Selby pit. British Coal is now beginning to achieve remarkable advances in productivity. The sad reflection—indeed, the tragedy that lies behind this entire debate—is that, if there had been such achievements years ago, we should be having a very different sort of debate today.
Mr. William O'Brien: What we have had from the President of the Board of Trade today indicates that he has no knowledge of the mining industry. The fact that he has named Sharlston colliery—my colliery—for early closure amounts to a stab in the back for 700 men who work at that pit. Will the President of the Board of Trade explain to those men why, with the fuel fossil levy that all of us pay through our electricity bills, which will be 10 per cent. of the total account from next April, they cannot have a share of that levy to help save the pit? The reserves are there. What we need is investment and a visit to Sharlston by the President of the Board of Trade to hear what the men have to say about his decision to close their pit early.
Will he also explain why, in an area where there is to be early closure of pits, assisted area status is not being afforded to the local authority? What we are witnessing is a stab in the back from the President of the Board of Trade for miners in general, but for Sharlston in particular.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will be fully aware that decisions about moving a pit to closure are a matter for the board of British Coal. It is a little unwise of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the members of that board do not bring a very great degree of expertise to such matters. It would not be appropriate for me now to comment on the individual pits that are the subject of this announcement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because they have to move to statutory consultation procedures. That is a matter for British Coal to continue, which is what it will do.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the decision to locate the headquarters of the energy commission in Nottinghamshire, the pit closure programme that he has announced today will cause devastation in north Nottinghamshire, particularly at Bevercotes, where I have 500 constituents who will be out of work immediately? Does he recollect giving an undertaking to the president and secretary of the UDM that he would do everything that he could to keep UDM pits open? [Interruption.] How does he square that with the fact that, at the end of the day, only three of the formerly seven UDM pits will remain open?
Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the acute interest that my hon. Friend has in today's announcement. It is not possible for me or British Coal to distinguish between pits on the basis of which unions happen to represent them. We are acutely aware of the remarkable contribution that the UDM made towards the advances of the industry in the early 1980s. While that is true, it is not a factor that can enter into the consultative procedures.
My hon. Friend said that there would be an immediate change and people would lose their jobs. That is not the case. The procedure is that the pit moves into a closure consultation procedure, not for closure, but for a regime of care and maintenance, so that, if the market should prove to be even larger than we are talking of in respect of those that remain open, there is the possibility of reactivating the pits.
But should Bevercotes move through the consultation procedures and as a result British Coal decides that it should close, at that stage there would still be the opportunity for the private sector to make an offer to take it over.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if Taff Merthyr colliery closes, it will be the end of one of the greatest and proudest traditions, the end of mining in the Merthyr valley, even though that valley has more than 20 per cent. of men out of work and another 20 per cent. economically inactive? We passionately believe that we have economic reserves that could go to a power station no more than 15 miles down the road by direct rail line. Will the so-called consultation procedures now allow us to put before an independent review body the case that we want to make for Taff Merthyr colliery?
Mr. Heseltine: My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is relevant to the questions that the hon. Gentleman is asking. If British Coal determines that the pit should close, it will be available for sale to the private sector. It is already in the consultative process and it would not be right for me to interfere in that process. Anyone who knows south Wales as well as the hon. Gentleman does—and I have some knowledge of the area—knows that there has been a dramatic rundown in the coal mining industry in recent years, a wide diversification of the Welsh economy and a substantial improvement in prosperity as a result.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that few fair-minded people will wish to argue that he and the Select Committee have not worked extremely hard to find as good a future for the coal industry as is reasonable? How much will the package
1254
that he announced today cost the taxpayer? He said that it could cost several hundred million pounds. I am sure he had to be more specific than that with the Treasury. How much is it likely to cost, and did the Chancellor of the Exchequer include that sum in the PSBR estimates that he gave in the Budget last week?
Mr. Heseltine: There is a complication about the questions that my right hon. Friend asks. I cannot know what level of contracts will follow from the opportunites that I have created, so I have given an indication. The Select Committee mentioned rates of subsidy that would, in its judgment, take the price of British coal from the present production costs to world market prices. The language that I chose, to indicate as much support as I could, was that I would embrace the range of figures that the Select Committee had given.
But I am not prepared—the House will understand—to put a sum of money on the table in public, because we are negotiating with private sector companies, which have their own self-interest for which to negotiate, and the moment they see our price, they will seek to increase it or to give less for it than we would wish to achieve.
While I have discussed this matter fully with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be naive to put one's negotiating cards face up on the table.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept what every financial fuel consultant and accountant in the energy industry accepts, that the aging Magnox power stations are the most expensive fuel on base load for the electricity grid? [Interruption.] Hon. Members can say what they want. It is a fact. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that even half the £1,270 million subsidy to the nuclear industry, which is roughly the amount that should have been given in an answer to the hon. Gentleman from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or about £500 million, would save seven collieries, not only in the short term but guaranteeing their long-term security for nearly 15 years?
Mr. Heseltine: On reflection, the hon. Member may feel that he has not totally reflected the situation as it is. British Coal today is coming to the end of a contract which was worth something like £1 billion a year to it in the prices that it was receiving, over and above the market price of coal. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during questions, about £18 billion has been put into the industry since 1979, so there is no question but that the coal industry has received, and is receiving, substantial subsidies.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the members of the Select Committee agreed that there were severe limits on how far one could extend the coal-generated electricity market? There are no easy answers such as the acceleration of the closure of Magnoxes. The 16 million extra tonnes we thought might be possible could not be written in stone, simply because it was predicated on a total closure of the French link. Will he therefore confirm that, in offering his subsidy to British Coal, he is seeking to increase the market in that range of 12 million to 15 million tonnes a year, and will he confirm that to bring the price of British coal down to import price levels, it is vital that the productivity of British pits is enhanced as quickly as possible? That will need assistance from the House,

1255
enabling British Coal to improve management practices and working practices in the pits and enabling the private sector to do a better job than it otherwise would do.
Mr. Heseltine: As a member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend knows a good deal about the subject. He is right to point to the essential need for British Coal to achieve its productivity levels, not just in the pits but in the management of individual pits and in headquarters staff. These gains must be achieved if there is to be a competitive future for British Coal. I am assured by the management of British Coal that it intends to move forward with dispatch in this direction.
My hon. Friend then asked whether I would give a broad indication of market. I would have to say, having looked at the Select Committee report, that even if one takes out the calculations included for EdF, the assumptions of the Select Committee are still at the top end of the range. They are significantly above, for example, what my own consultants, Caminus, indicated and Caminus are above what British Coal indicates as the likely market, so there is a judgment to be made. The only way to determine the market, however, is for customers to sign contracts, and the customers in this case are bound to be, significantly, the electricity supply industry. It has its own views of what the market will be. It is only on that view or any other market that we can find that contracts will be forthcoming.
Mr. John Evans: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that 800 miners and their families at Parkside colliery in my constituency will have listened to his statement today with anger and dismay? In a 20-minute presentation to the House, he said not one word about Parkside and the other nine collieries which, it would appear from his statement, are doomed. Will he confirm that British Coal is determined to close Parkside colliery, a colliery that has been profitable in each of the past six years, and throw 800 miners on to the scrap heap in an area where there is already more than 15 per cent. unemployment, at considerable cost to the taxpayer? Is it not a fact that the short-term fix that he has offered to the House today will do nothing for the British mining industry and, in fact, seeks to save his own job?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will be aware that 30 per cent. of the miners from Parkside have already accepted since last October the redundancy terms that we have made available to them. [Interruption.] He will also be aware that the reason why I did not mention the 10 collieries in my statement is that they are subject to the procedures of consultation and it would be wholly inappropriate for me to refer to them.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the immense time and trouble that my right hon. Friend has taken to produce this report, for which I thank him, and in view of the detail that it contains, would not it make sense if we debated it slightly later next week, when people have had a chance to digest it and make representations to hon. Members? If we were to debate it on Wednesday or Thursday, it would still be before Easter.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a matter that is essentially for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I must allow him to judge the order of priority of Government business.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that he has offered nothing to the coal-mining industry today? Will not the subsidy simply come out of the VAT that is to be levied on electricity in a year's time? Will that subsidy simply go to encourage the privatisation people, who will come into the industry to try to lower wages arid make miners work longer hours and then, if the miners refuse, close the pits because they are not interested in digging coal, but rather in getting cheap land, railway sidings, the property, everything else that is attached to a pit—
Mr. Eric Clarke: Yes, and miners' pension rights.
Mr. Ashton: And pension rights, as my hon. Friend says. They will use his subsidy to make massive profits without producing one extra tonne of coal.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about assisted area status? He quotes 1979, when my area was given assisted area status by the Labour Government, but his Government took it away, with no promise at all of ever putting it back.
Mr. Heseltine: I assure the hon. Member that there will be no threat to any pension rights of any miners in whatever circumstances develop. [Interruption.] The longer Labour Members tell their constituents the sort of things that we are hearing in the House, the longer the threat to British Coal will exist. If we had faced the need to modernise the coal industry throughout the early decades of this past half-century, we would have seen the coal industry of this country enjoying a far larger market than it currently does. It is because the Labour party told them that there was some other way that we have delayed making many of these difficult decisions.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Select Committee will wish to study in some detail the White Paper that he has presented to the House today? We are all very grateful that he has accepted our principal recommendation, that British Coal be given a subsidy to enable it to become world-competitive over the next few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, that will require considerable productivity gains. While we accept that he has done a great deal to try to influence the French, will he also accept that, whatever the legal technicalities may be, it is not really acceptable in terms of Community spirit that the traffic across the interconnector should be all one way?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. I can assure him that, of all the subjects we have had to look at in the context of this review, it would be fair to say that the interconnector has taken a disproportionately large amount of time. It merited a great deal of time, and I was the first to recognise that, but I had no choice but to publish for the House the summary of the legal opinions—because I did not rely on one alone—that I was presented with. I could find no way through and I have published it for the House. So one must adopt the only alternative route, which is to discuss the thing with our French opposite numbers. This my hon. Friend the Minister of State has done, and I believe that we will have an improved position as a result.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Is it not the case that the President of the Board of Trade inadvertently misled the House this afternoon when he said that he had considered every recommendation of the Select Committee report? Having read through it very quickly, I do not think that that is the case, and the record will prove different. Is he aware that Scottish Power and its Scottish consumers take a disproportionate share of the sulphur dioxide emission reductions? What guarantee can he give Scottish consumers that their electricity prices will not go up and that they will not be further disadvantaged by his statement today?
Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong; certainly, he is describing something entirely different from my intention. I have assured the Select Committee, and instructed my Department, that I want the White Paper to respond thoroughly and comprehensively to the report that I have praised in the House. I believe that the White Paper covers each of the Select Committee's substantive recommendations. Of course, we shall debate these matters further; if the Select Committee wishes to pursue them with me in its own way, it is fully entitled to do so and I shall co-operate.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for assurances about future prices. That is not a realistic question to put to a Minister, who cannot be expected to give hard and fast views on prices in a complex marketplace without any time constraints.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Opencast coal is cheap and sulphur-free; there are large stocks of it and, when blended with deep-mined coal, it greatly improves the marketability of such coal. Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about why he believes that production of opencast coal will fall from 16 million tonnes a year to 12 million?
Mr. Heseltine: I have consulted British Coal about that. As I said in my statement, in evidence to the Select Committee, British Coal anticipated that the present output of 16 million tonnes would fall to 12 million; it now believes that it will fall further.
I appreciate the considerable advantages of opencast mining, particularly in derelict land reclamation. I also understand the arguments for fuel mix, which render opencast coal especially important in terms of both price and technical qualities. There is another side to the matter, however. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will this afternoon publish his planning guidance, which suggests that the environment and its protection must also be weighed in the balance. It is on that basis that judgments can be made in the future.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Is it not the case that 12 pits will close now, six will be mothballed—which means that they will never open again—and one, Maltby, will gain development status? Nineteen pits will be closed, while 12 will not be subsidised for two years, until the union members accept the redundancy terms that they will be encouraged to accept during that period.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of the market and the loss of the market. Has not the market been rigged against coal ever since privatisation? Gas-fired stations can bid into the pool at a negative price: in other words, they bid their electricity into the pool at nothing, knowing full well
1258
that they will then be brought on to the grid. They must compete with orimulsion—which can be piped in for next to nothing because it comes from Venezuela—and with opencast coal. Such coal is not from derelict sites; 93 per cent. of it comes from green field sites that are left as green field sites afterwards. It is a rigged market, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Heseltine: I know that the Select Committee raised some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's point, but, although the Committee asked me to examine the question of bidding into the pool, I felt that it was not convinced that a simple solution existed. Having considered the issues, I concluded that the Committee was right to have its doubts.
I wholly reject the suggestion that the market is rigged. As I said in my statement, even if British Coal secures no further contracts, it will still be a substantial company in world coal terms. That in itself is an opportunity. I also wholly reject Labour's defeatist view that when I accept the Select Committee's recommendations, I enable British Coal to negotiate for additional markets. The thrust of Labour's view is that there is no additional market, but I do not accept that.
Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed in north Wales, especially by those who work in Point of Ayr colliery? Is he further aware that the section 36 consent that he has given to the Connah's Quay power station heralds a new economic era for north-east Wales, generating thousands of jobs and many hundreds of millions of pounds in investment?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Connah's Quay announcement is a good one. Along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend will know better than most that we went through a similar difficult readjustment in the context of Shotton. Without doubt, the Shotton area has experienced a transformation as a result of investment and diversification. We must always look at how we can help declining industries to reach a position where new jobs, investment and companies and a better future are on offer.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to Connah's Quay. Not only will it help jobs in north Wales, which is extremely welcome; it will be a signal to one of Britain's most successful industries.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be keen on quotations. May I draw his attention to page 68 of the White Paper, which states:
"The United Kingdom undoubtedly has the lowest cost coal in the Community."
How will the Secretary of State explain to the miners of Silverhill—whom he appears today to have finally condemned to lose their jobs—that the German, French and Spanish industries will continue to produce 100 million tonnes of coal? Why are those countries' Governments so successful at subsidising their industries, while our Government sell our miners so short?
Mr. Heseltine: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed about what is happening to the coal industry in Europe. I, too, have looked at the figures and perhaps on Monday we shall have a chance to debate these matters. By and large, the coal industry is in decline across Europe and in Community countries such as ours.
Mr. James Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on the part of his statement that referred to privatisation? Can he say what interest the private sector has displayed in acquiring the pits that it is proposed to mothball? How many pits will be involved and how many jobs?
Mr. Heseltine: It is encouraging that we have received a number of inquiries, but it is fair to add that, at the stage that we have reached, such inquiries are bound to be tentative. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in partnership with British Coal, hopes tomorrow to see a number of people who have approached us in the context of privatisation.
I very much hope that, as the position has now been clarified, we shall be able to see how far the interest that has been expressed can be extended. As I told the House, I have announced £ million of Government support for those who want to prepare management buy-outs. As I have said before, I do not wish miners to buy into pits that have no significant future, as an emotional reaction to admittedly traumatic circumstances. I shall do my best to warn them of the difficulties; I think that that is only fair.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Today's statement shows that the President of the Board of Trade has not been listening and has not been reading. He talks of the subsidy. The Select Committee suggested that the subsidy paid to British Coal as price support should be paid within the context of the franchise market, but there has been no mention of the franchise market. Has the right hon. Gentleman explored the possibility of extending that market? Has he examined the other recommendations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) referred? Has he looked at the conclusion of the Select Committee report, which states that there is a substantial market in excess of that which the Select Committee recommended for price support?
The Committee's recommendations add up to a market of 62 million tonnes, enough to keep all 50 collieries working. It should be borne in mind that seven of those collieries will be exhausted in the next five years. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his recommendations, and today's statement, have more to do with preparing the industry for privatisation than with developing an energy policy?
Mr. Heseltine: Preparing the industry for privatisation is a very important part of an energy policy. I believe that, with hindsight, that will prove to have been the case with coal, as it has proved in so many other privatised industries that have been able to develop potential in the private sector that they were denied in the public sector.
I have considered the protection of the franchise, but I decided that it would not increase the size of the available market. I have said that the subsidy that we are prepared to make available is not dependent on extending the market. It is an offer that British Coal and the private sector—if it can find additional markets—are now able to exploit.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am the one member of the Select Committee who did not vote for its report, on the basis that I thought that the extension of the market was on the optimistic side. I am grateful, however, to my right hon. Friend for dealing in detail with the
1260
Committee's recommendations. His response has been extremely realistic and sensible. I wish to thank him especially for the decision that has been made in respect of Connah's Quay and gas.
We must accept that there will be severe social difficulties in the mining communities. Will my right hon. Friend examine again, in the context of the entirety of the White Paper, what redundancy payments can be made to miners? Bearing in mind that it must be accepted that jobs will go, let us make the terms of redundancy as sensible and remunerative as possible, as we did for the dockers in days gone by.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hear what he says about not having voted for the central recommendation contained in the Select Committee's report. As I have done my best to praise that recommendation, I hope that he will not hold that against me when it comes to any decisions that the House might have to make.
The redundancy scheme that I announced last year is a generous one. It is almost without parallel anywhere else in the public or private sectors. It would be to let down the members of the coal industry who have accepted it over the past few months if I were now to increase the payments. The Government have no plans to increase the level of the already extremely generous redundancy scheme.
Mr. Mark Fisher: As the President of the Board of Trade has not mentioned the 10 pits that are to be closed, will he undertake to return to the House to make a further statement, or are they condemned to closure in silence? Does not he understand that the deep anger that people expressed following his closure statement in October 1992 will be refired and redoubled by his statement today? Last October, the British people expected the right hon. Gentleman to work for a proper, unrigged market for coal and an energy policy that made use of all our assets. What they have instead is a political stitch-up that will destroy industry and create only unemployment. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the British people will not forget the smirk that played over his face when he answered questions following a statement which condemned hundreds of thousands to unemployment in the years ahead? He smirks and they will suffer.
Mr. Heseltine: When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can get elected to speak for the people of Britain, I shall listen to what they say on behalf of the people of Britain. I reject the sneering and contemptible way in which he has dismissed one of the best offers that I have been able to make to the coal industry.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said this afternoon will substantially reassure the many hundreds of people who contacted me in my constituency last year? Does he agree that there is a conclusion that they could draw from his statement and the evidence to which he has referred? That conclusion is that the economic analysis that my right hon. Friend made last year was right then and is right now. He has enabled those within the industry to face the consequences of that analysis.
Mr. Heseltine: Certainly, my hon. Friend is right. The decision that I announced in October 1992 was an extremely harsh one, and I felt anguish at having to make

1261
it, but economically the arguments were clear. Public opinion took the view that it did. As a member of a democratic political forum, I would be the first to recognise the strength of public opinion in such circumstances. We have come forward, therefore, with a set of proposals that have the virtue of maintaining a realistic background but giving a new opportunity, at least in part, to significant parts of the industry. It is possible to do that only at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. That means that other people in other industries will have to pay the bills that are necessary to make my announcement possible today.
Mr. George Stevenson: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that as a result of today's announcement, which must be described as one of the greatest examples of industrial butchery that the country has ever seen, he will qualify his nickname of Tarzan to become the political equivalent of Hannibal Lecter? He never mentioned the unemployment that will be created when the measures contained in the statement are implemented. Similarly, he did not refer to the fact that he has been presented with effective arguments on behalf of the 10 collieries that are earmarked for immediate closure. Those omissions will be seen as nothing short of a national disgrace and a betrayal of his commitment to intervene in the market.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say many times that I cannot comment on the 10 pits that are subject to the consultative processes. British Coal must undertake those processes and reach conclusions on the basis of them. I cannot interfere in that.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. Friend put on measures to help large electricity users? Is it not the position that excessive electricity costs in heavy industry, such as the Blue Circle cement works, Scotts and other plants in my constituency, put thousands of jobs at risk? We have heard nothing from Opposition Members about jobs outside the coal mining industry.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, as I would expect, seeks to preserve the proper balance. A huge number of customers and a great deal of British competitiveness are at stake as a result of the issues that we are discussing. There is an important opportunity to enter into discussions—I cannot predict the outcome of them—with the large users.
Mr. Derek Enright: Did not the President of the Board of Trade have the opportunity to put in place a long-term strategy for energy? Instead, he has produced a mish-mash of contradictory tactics. I ask him a specific question concerning the 10 pits that are destined for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had much to say about the consultation process, will he condemn British Coal for announcing in its press release, on the day that it announced that it would undertake consultation procedures, that it would close all 10 pits? Will he defend the 10 pits from closure, or will he hand them over to his right hon. Friend Herr Himmler, the Secretary of State for Social Security?
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will do the honourable thing and withdraw.
Mr. Enright: I shall certainly withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may feel that his observations are not in keeping with the reality. He must be fully aware that I cannot and will not become involved in the slagging match that he requests over the management of British Coal.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: In his welcome and balanced statement my right hon. Friend spoke of the continuing negotiations between the generators and the coal industry and of the privatisation process. In that context, will he be encouraging those who will be seeking to put pits and coal-fired power stations together so that coal can have more direct access to the energy market?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend understands one of the potentials. It is not easy to see precisely how to bring about what he says, but it is something that is on the table for discussion. Many complex arguments are involved and I have had discussions which have focused on them. There are no announcements that I can make today.
Mr. John Cummings: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the consequences of the closure of the Vane Tempest colliery and the mothballing of Easington are not confined to the many tens of millions of tonnes of coal lying under the North sea, which will never be extracted by means of an opencast operation? In Easington, with a population of 20,000, 1,693 unemployed people are chasing 12 vacancies. It is clear that unemployment will rise to over 20 per cent. Does not he believe that there are markets around the Thames and in Europe and that we can provide the necessary resources—for the benefit of the people of Easington and of Europe?
Has the right hon. Gentleman applied himself to the question of the pumping arrangements that are absolutely necessary in the county of Durham to prevent an ecological time bomb from going off? Will he join me in applauding the magnificent efforts of the miners since October last year? They have broken all productivity records—a fact that the right hon. Gentleman failed to mention.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that more than 51 per cent. of the miners in Vane Tempest have already gone. I believe that some of them have already secured alternative employment.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important subject which I happen to regard as one of the most tragic aspects of this whole affair. In February, the shortest month, British Coal mined at an annual rate of 60 million tonnes, with 10 pits not coaling and with 9,000 fewer workers. Had that escalation of productivity been going on earlier, British Coal would have been incomparably more competitive. The longer the Labour party denies this, the longer they deny the spirit and determination of the miners, who have to go and negotiate the supplementary contracts that I am talking about.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: May I add my congratulations on my right hon. Friend's statement? I notice that it received a near-unanimous welcome among Conservative Members. It struck a balance between the

1263
interests of preserving coal miners' jobs at a time of high unemployment and developing a real market which is in the interests of other industries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Opposition to accuse the Government of rigging the market when it is their policy to keep every pit open, regardless of the economics and even if the coal has been exhausted?
What would be the likely cost in terms of jobs in other industries and the likely bill to the taxpayer if we adopted the foolish policies of the Opposition?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party is talking the language of opposition. It never talked that way when in government, when it closed pit after pit—and Opposition Members know it.
Mr. Eric Clarke: May I put the record straight? I have fought the pit closures imposed by all Governments, including the Labour Government. I am here today to say the same as I told the Labour Government in the past.
I am disappointed. This has been a wasted opportunity to maintain a viable coal industry and the freedom to have cheap indigenous fuel. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that many bitter people back home will not even be disappointed, because they are cynical enough to realise that he is going to sell them out. How can the Secretary of State claim to have negotiated? The Government own 100 per cent. of the coal industry and 40 per cent. of the electricity industry, yet they cannot do a deal. The right hon. Gentleman must be some Minister.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the dilemma. I do not dispute his sincerity in fighting for pit after pit. The real test, however, is whether his colleagues, if they were sitting on the Treasury Bench and had to confront the decisions that I face, would have acted any differently. They did not—and the hon. Gentleman's remarks clearly show that, although he fought, he always lost.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has today allayed the deep fears of tens of thousands of workers in the North sea oil and gas industries who know all too well that, had the Labour party had its way, the miners' subsidy would be their redundancy notice? Does he accept that I care just as passionately about the jobs in my constituency as Opposition Members care about the jobs in theirs? Just as it is unacceptable for them to tell their constituents to prepare for redundancy, it is unacceptable for me to go to mine and say the same?
Mr. Heseltine: There is no more eloquent case than the one that my hon. Friend has paraded. That is the dilemma. My hon. Friend represents a constituency at the heart of one of Britain's great industries. Am I to subsidise and keep going the pits, the effect of which will be to keep jobs in the pits which will be denied to the North sea oil industry? That is the choice; there is no escape from it. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend.
Ms Joan Walley: The right hon. Gentleman is the President of the Board of Trade. He has had 14 years to produce a coherent energy strategy, but none has been forthcoming.
Why has not the right hon. Gentleman mentioned what is to happen to the 10 pits earmarked for closure? How can he pretend that the contracting procedure is nothing to do
1264
with him? He is the President. We need a proper energy policy. We do not want coal imports coming into our ports. We want a coherent opencast policy. What am I to tell constituents when they hear the results of this statement?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can help the House, because I have with me the "Plan for Coal" published in 1974—[Interruption.] This was the heyday of national planning; it was all about prediction—[Interruption.] I know that the Labour party does not want to listen, even though Opposition Members keep harking back to how they would have done things differently—forgetting what they actually did. So I shall tell them what they did. They published the "Plan for Coal". This is what it said—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heseltine: On second thoughts, I will forbear. There is a debate on Monday.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: My right hon. Friend referred to special measures to help the large energy users. Has he any estimate of the number of jobs that would be lost in steel and chemicals if they were not recipients of energy at internationally competitive prices?
My right hon. Friend referred to the nuclear review. Can he give us an estimate of whether we can expect it this year?
As there is 14 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will have a statement on the assisted areas map before we rise for the Easter recess—
Madam Speaker: Order. That last question is totally out of order. It should be addressed to the Leader of the House—if ever we get to business questions.
Mr. Heseltine: I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that I share your ambition to get to business questions.
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the large industrial users. They are a tough lot. They will tell me what they think potential job losses are. I have to stand back a little before accepting their forecasts hook, line and sinker, but I accept that there is a case. I intend to examine it in the way that I have described. My hon. Friend was right to bring it to my attention.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Today we have witnessed a performance by the Secretary of State and he has promised us another on Monday. It was silly, knockabout, political stuff when what we needed was an act of statesmanship. That is what my constituents, many of whom are miners, want for their future.
The Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, the Nationalists and the Unionists should unite in opposition to the White Paper measures, and we hope that those in the Conservative party who say that they are rebels will join us.
Madam Speaker: Order. Ask a question, please.
Mr. Barnes: If we unite against the proposals successfully, will the Secretary of State resign?
Mr. Heseltine: My job is always at the disposal of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the £95 million levy paid to EdF each year, with

1265
a view to stopping this money being paid to the French until they make it clear that it is being used to pay for the decommissioning of their nuclear power stations, not to subsidise their operating costs?
Mr. Heseltine: Complex discussions about all these matters are being held with EdF, so I ask my hon. Friend not to draw me too far on that one. The discussions have moved in a positive way and I will continue to hold such discussions—I hope, with the new French Government.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that I have constituents working in four of the pits on his original hit list and that they will not be under any illusions as a result of the statement? We have heard the nonsense about care and maintenance before when the right hon. Gentleman's Department came for our shipyards. There is now a large, deserted hole in the ground where the shipyards used to be. Everyone knows that, to understand why we are in the current situation, we need go back no further in history than to the moment of electricity privatisation. Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say a small "Sorry" for that folly for which we are all now paying the price?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to convey his message to the 5,000 new job holders that I announced this afternoon.
Mr. Alan Williams: During the past week, the Government have tried to justify VAT on fuel in terms of energy efficiency. In that context, what sense does it make to be burning large quantities of our gas resources in power stations with 40 per cent. efficiency, when that gas could be used in our homes and factories with 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. efficiency? Is not today's statement a frittering away of our gas resources? Does not it sound the death knell of the coal industry which we will desperately need in the longer term?
Mr. Heseltine: That argument was carefully explored by the Select Committee and the hon. Gentleman will find that it did not accept his analysis. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that the Labour party and the whole House are committed to achieving our environmental targets. We cannot achieve those targets without taking decisions about constraints on energy use.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a little assistance? I represent a constituency which had two coal mines, at Bold and Sutton Manor, which have both now closed. The employees of those mines went to Parkside in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) which is now about to close. In other words, the mining fraternity has nowhere to go in St. Helens. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, so that I can tell them, what he is going to do for areas like St. Helens which have lost a whole industry?
Mr. Heseltine: What we did for Shotton, for Corby and for the whole of the south Wales mining industry. We will provide an opportunity for new investment, new jobs and diversity of hope and the opportunity to spread employment in a range of new industries that will cope with the market of tomorrow.
Mr. Boyce: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people in the mining industry, in engineering and in all the other industries that will lose workers as a result of the plan are not the slightest bit interested in what happened 15, 20 or 40 years ago? They are interested in what will happen in the next six months. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his squalid attempt to link the report of the Department of Trade and Industry with the report of the Select Committee, to which, after all, the Government referred the matter, fools no one? If he is serious about the Select Committee recommendations, why will not he follow the recommendation to return the 10 pits to coaling and go immediately into the review procedure? Or does the right hon. Gentleman not have the guts to do that?
Mr. Heseltine: I realise that it may be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to say those things. Of course the people who face the uncertainties and who may lose their jobs are not interested in what happened five weeks ago, let alone five or 15 years ago. That is not the real issue for the House. The issue is whether we should tell those people the truth and the truth was as clear and as truthful for the Labour party when it was in government as it is for me. I can no more save the industry artificially than the Labour party could when it was in Government. However, now that Labour is in opposition, it tries to pretend that that is not the case. If there has been a time when Labour refused to close pits because it had some magic way of saving them, I would listen to Labour Members. The Labour party has forgotten what it did.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will accept from me that it would be grotesque in the extreme if Parkside pit, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), was closed while, at the same time, British Coal was allowed to opencast what is essentially a huge area of green belt in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) in the not too distant future.
The right hon. Gentleman's contribution on opencast was a little disingenuous. He talked about 17,000 people being employed in the industry. In most opencast sites that I am aware of, there is also a downside. Many industrialists and businesses go out of business as a result of the intrusion of opencast in their areas. In addition, areas with hugh opencast sites discourage inward investment. There are two sides to the story and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take that into account.
The figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred do not bear any relationship, in terms of tonnage, to the information given by British Coal to the Select Committee.
Mr. Heseltine: The information that I gave to the House was the information that I received from British Coal. Naturally, British Coal will read what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, with regard to opencast, I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard my words because, frankly, they were almost indistinguishable from the comments that he made.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to 20,000 people in north Warwickshire face the threat of opencast and that 587 miners at Daw Mill pit face redundancy? If he really wanted to save miners' jobs, should he not have accepted

1267
the Select Committee's plan virtually to halve the production of opencast by giving local people a veto—the right to say no to opencast?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot just say that local people have the right to say no. There is no way of measuring how to judge the right of an individual to make such a decision, over a particular period or in which representative forum. We therefore have a planning regime. Hon Members will want to consider the new planning regime that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published this afternoon.
Sir Peter Emery: Having sat through all the questions this afternoon, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I was the respective Minister before him? When the cable under the channel was first considered, it was to be introduced to bring electricity into this country for peak shaving purposes. Will my right hon. Friend also emphasise the fact that every Minister since Alf Robens has tried to present at the Dispatch Box a way in which the coal industry could save itself? That dates back decades. In my judgment, no Minister has tried, from the Dispatch Box, to put together a better package to assist the coal industry than my right hon. Friend has today.
Mr. Heseltine: Since I have been a Member of this place, I have been aware of my right hon. Friend's deep interest in and knowledge of the industry. I deeply appreciate what he said. We have done our best to respond to the work, which I have praised, of the Select Committee. We have tried to recognise that, in the end, it is about competitiveness and marketplaces, as the Select Committee indicated. We have given British Coal the best chance that we prudently think that we can, within the constraints of public expenditure, to go out and win a place in that marketplace. I cannot do more than urge hon. Members to encourage their constituents to recognise that there is a huge opportunity here, which is not to be disparaged or undermined by the language that Opposition Members have used to describe it.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, on 21 October, he said that he
1268
would examine the ways and means to increase the use of coal? However, paragraph 31 of the report states that the increase in stocks, which I realise are not the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility as the good winter has been a major contributory factor, has resulted in the need for a reduction in coal output. He said that he cannot guarantee supplementary sales. Does he accept that the Minister for Energy, sitting next to him, has already indicated that there will be a 2 per cent. drop in coal output this year as a consequence of the imposition of VAT?
In all these matters, the statement today is a testament of failure. The right hon. Gentleman said that the coal industry, and anyone else who can do so, will have the opportunity to find new markets. No Opposition Member is impressed by the failure, after five and a half months of hand-wringing, to provide any new or substantial markets for coal.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many people will be made redundant as a consequence of the announcement? We know that six collieries will be placed on care and maintenance and that Maltby will go into development. Development work is not carried out by British Coal employees but by contractors. Will he say what will be the net effect on jobs at those seven collieries of the development work which is to be carried out?
A number of people are not prepared to be impressed by the failure that the right hon. Gentleman has announced or by his soft-soaping and avoidance of giving us the serious figures of the unemployment which will follow as a consequence of today's statement.
Mr. Heseltine: There has been an immensely depressing response from the Opposition. If the House were considering today a review by the Government, it would at least be understandable if it were criticised by Her Majesty's Opposition, but when an all-party Select Committe has crawled over every conceivable opportunity—and I have accepted the bulk of its recommendations—it is lamentable that the Opposition are now trying to wriggle away from what was an agreed all-party report. It undermines the credibility of the Select Committee procedures of the House.
I hope that the Opposition will not mislead their constituents into thinking that there is nothing in the opportunities of the sort that I have provided.

Business of the House
5.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 29 MARcH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
Motion to approve the White Paper entitled "Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review".
TUESDAY 30 MARcx—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: Progress in Committee—19th day.
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH—Until seven o'clock, motions on the Legal Aid Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC document No. 4608/93 relating to the common agricultural policy.
THURSDAY 1 APRIL—Motion for the Easter Adjournment, followed by debates on the Adjournment.
FRIDAY 2 APRIL—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 31 March at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee 'A'
Documant No. 4439/93 relating to guaranteed prices for cane sugar.
Committee 'B'
Document No. 9910/92 on co-operation with developing countries over demography and family planning. [Wednesday 31 March:
Legal Aid Regulations

1. Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993.

2. Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993.

3. Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1993.

4. Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993.

5. Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993.

6. The Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 565)

7. Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1993. (S.I. 788)

8. Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993. (S.I. 789)

9. Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993. (S.I. 790).]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Opposition have repeatedly asked for a statement on the coal industry, which the House has been promised from the early part of this year? We consider that it is an outrage that the statement should be left so late that the House has only between now and Monday to consider the White Paper and the options that the Government have put before the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that amendments to the Government's motion must be tabled tomorrow to be in order? When do the Government expect to have the motion ready so that we can scrutinise and amend it?
1270
As it is inevitable that there will be less than 24 hours for hon. Members to consider what amendments they may wish to table, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with all the force at my command, that it is the duty of the Leader of the House and his colleagues to table a business motion—which it is only within their power to table—to allow Madam Speaker to consider selecting more than one amendment for debate and Division? That is the only way that we can be certain that hon. Members will have the chance, in the brief period open to them, to draft their amendments and to acquaint themselves with the range of options that might be considered by the House. As the President of the Board of Trade made such a feature of his approval of the Select Committee's report, I am sure that the Lord President will find it easy to accept such a request as, in effect, this is the only way in which we can be sure of a Division on that report.
Secondly, in view of what has been said in the House about stock-taking on the developments in Scotland—the way in which Scottish business will in future be handled—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find Government time for a debate in which we can follow up the statement and consider its implications.
Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to early-day motion 1596?
[That this House notes that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has not met since 26th July 1978; finds it inconsistent that there is a forum for English regions within the European Community but not one within Parliament; and calls upon the Lord President of the Council to refer appropriate matters to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, as provided by S.O. No. 100.]
It draws attention to the potential existence of a Committee of the English regions. There is considerable support from the Opposition side—and I suspect from the Government side—for the reinstatement of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which has not sat since 1978. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when it is likely that we will have another Opposition day, and when he will be in a position to tell us the business of the House for the week after the Easter recess?
Mr. Newton: Taking first the right hon. Lady's remarks about the coal statement and intended debate, I hope that she will acknowledge that the statement on which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has just completed answering questions reflected a huge amount of work in a very complex area, and it understandably took more time than I suspect even he would have wished. The work needed to be done thoroughly, and it was right that he should make a statement in the House before the Easter recess. If that has meant a little less time than the right hon. Lady would have liked between the White Paper and the debate—I am sure that the House would have wished to have had that debate before the recess—I think that that is preferable to not being able to proceed before the Easter recess. We are now proposing, in the light of today's statement, to have the debate on Monday.
I hope that the motion will be tabled tonight in order to ease the problem to which the right hon. Lady referred. I will undertake to reflect on the other points she made, but that is very much without commitment and there will be discussions through the usual channels.
As to the Select Committee report, it is clear that the interrelationship between my right hon. Friend the

1271
President of the Board of Trade's statement, the White Paper and the Select Committee report, and what my right hon. Friend said about it—subject to your judgment, Madam Speaker, at the time—means that reference to the content of the Select Committee's report would be bound to be in order in the course of the debate.
As to the right hon. Lady's request about Supply days and Scottish stock-taking, it is manifest that I cannot undertake to find time for either before Easter, but I will consider what possibilities there may be afterwards, particularly in respect of her understandable request for some Supply day time.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I ask my right hon. Friend, for the second time, to find time next week to debate early-day motion 1222, which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House deplores the growing number of vicious and mutilating attacks upon horses; notes the appalling suffering this causes to the dumb animals in question; and calls upon all who have a responsibility for or care about the welfare of horses and other animals to spare no effort to stamp out this sick and evil practice forthwith.]
Attacks on horses are increasing and are now happening from Yorkshire to Land's End. Horses are being killed, maimed, and brutally assaulted, including an attack yesterday on a racehorse that had its tongue cut out. These attacks are causing much concern all over the country and great distress to animal lovers and others.
Mr. Newton: Again, I am conscious of the persistent and proper interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the matter. I noticed another report of an horrific incident in the newspaper either this morning or yesterday—after last night, I am having a little difficulty in distinguishing between the two. I note my hon. Friend's request, but I cannot add to what I said in response to him last week.
Ms Liz Lynne: When can we expect an announcement about assisted area status? It is particularly important for the people of Rochdale who already have assisted area status, the loss of which would make it difficult to attract new businesses. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that subject next week as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: Again, that is a subject about which I have been asked several times in recent weeks when I have referred to the review to which the hon. Lady herself referred. Clearly, the Government are in no way anxious to delay the outcome on those important matters, but they, too, demand careful consideration. I regret that at present I cannot give the hon. Lady a clear indication about timing, let alone about the timing of a debate.
Sir Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend find some way whereby the House can consider early-day motion 1489, on worldwide unitary taxation?
[That this House deeply regrets the continuing delay in resolving the use, by the State of California, of worldwide unitary tax; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to implement the retaliatory provisions in section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, if the issue has not been satisfactorily resolved by 31st December 1993.]
The matter is of such importance that it was initialed by leading Members of most parties in the House and has been signed by no fewer than 210 Members from all parts of the House. There is a general understanding that, if
1272
anything goes wrong, there could be grave consequences for British companies in the United States, for American corporations trading in the United Kingdom and for international tax treaties. Can we get the message through to the United States Administration that we must have President Clinton's support if things go seriously wrong in this important respect?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the importance of the matter and my hon. Friend is right to say that the continued imposition of worldwide unitary taxation on United Kingdom-owned companies in California has been of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House for many years. My hon. Friend will well know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all, within the recent past, impressed on their opposite numbers and others in the United States Administration the importance of an early solution to the problem.
I cannot at this moment promise a specific debate, but it occurs to me that the House is likely to spend some time in the not too distant future discussing the Finance Bill, and my hon. Friend's ingenuity will probably permit him to work out a way of raising the matter in the course of those proceedings.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the Leader of the House answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about early-day motion 1596 on the Standing Committee for the Regions?
Mr. Newton: I was conscious, even as I sat down, that there was something that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) had said of which I had failed to make a note and had therefore missed in responding to her. I promise the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady that that was not a deliberate attempt at evasion. However, I am afraid that they may find rather less than satisfactory my reply, which is that I am not persuaded at the moment that there is a sufficiently strong case for bringing back into use this procedure which, as the right hon. Lady said, it has not been found necessary to use since 1978. I do not rule it out, but at the moment I am not persuaded.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that it is just over a year since the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House was ordered to be printed, and that that Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), made excellent suggestions on the timetabling of Government legislation and other matters, some of us are disappointed that we cannot make progress or have a debate on the matter. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will be able to make some progress at the earliest possible time?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I have in no way forgotten or ceased to be concerned to make progress in the direction suggested by the report. He will know also that there is, as I have said several times in recent weeks, continuing interchange in the usual channels on the matter, but it has not yet been possible to make as much progress as I would like. In case it is the most recent events of parliamentary proceedings that are in my hon.

1273
Friend's mind, I remind him that the proposals in the report did not relate to proceedings on Bills that are taken in Committee of the whole House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House and your good self, Madam Speaker, know that early this morning five of my constituents perished in a house fire in Auchendarroch street in Greenock. Four of those who died were brothers aged four, three and one, and their infant sister aged four months. I am sure that the House will extend its deep sympathy to the family, my constituents. The Strathclyde firemaster, Mr. John Jamieson, said that it was a tragedy and that they had all died for the sake of £5—the cost of a smoke detector.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has plans to lay regulations before the House concerning the installation of mains-operated smoke detectors in new houses. In the immediate aftermath of that terrible tragedy, may I ask the Leader of the House to impress upon his right hon. Friend the need to lay those regulations next week and to extend them, if he can, to existing houses in the public sector where most of these terrible tragedies take place?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for courteously giving me notice that he wished to raise that matter if he had an opportunity to do so. I share entirely his sadness at this morning's tragic incident in Greenock when four young children and one adult died in a house fire, particularly as it comes so soon after a number of other fire fatalities in Fife in recent weeks. The Strathclyde fire brigade is investigating the full circumstances of the incident. In the meantime, I, on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of everyone in the House, endorse the expression of sympathy that the hon. Gentleman included in his remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has the issue under consideration and will bring forward regulations as soon as possible to make the fitting of wired-in smoke detectors compulsory in all new dwellings, but I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate promise that that will happen next week.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the excellent progress that we are now making on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? What comfort can he give me about the prospect of time for debates on a wide range of other equally important issues which have been squeezed out by the disturbing delaying tactics used, I regret to say, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am thinking in particular of an early debate on law and order and a review of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the shortcomings of which are becoming daily more apparent.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's satisfaction at the further progress that we have been able to make in recent hours, or recent days, however one wishes to describe it, on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I would wish to have a little more evidence of continued progress before responding as openly as my hon. Friend would like, but I shall bear his request in mind. However, despite the pressures to which he has
1274
referred, I have found time—I accept that it was on a Friday—within the recent past for a full day's debate, effectively, on law and order matters.
Mr. David Trimble: I remind the Leader of the House of a request for an early debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and myself on the recent television revelations about the origins of the Provisional IRA, which confirm the widespread belief that successive Irish Governments assisted in the creation and support of that organisation and that successive British Governments knew about that and did not make an adequate response. Does the Leader of the House realise that his actions in building a wall of silence round this by refusing a debate and by blocking questions, confirmed by a letter that I received today, will only lead to the conclusion that the Government still have something to hide?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not for a moment accept the implications that he chooses to read into what I have said on one or two occasions in recent weeks, what I think some of my right hon. Friends have said and what I have just written to him. I certainly shall not seek to add to that this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week, before the Easter recess, on the rates of council tax set by individual local authorities for next year? During that debate we could highlight the fact that the average council tax set by Labour-controlled authorities is £100 higher than the rate set by Conservative-controlled authorities.
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that nothing would please me more than to be able to respond to my hon. Friend's request, but I am afraid that I literally cannot find time for that specific debate. However, he is not doing badly himself in drawing attention to that important fact.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are groups of dreadful people who spend much of their time looking at and exchanging photographs of naked children in obscene poses? To get even more compromising poses, some sick people, who should be banned and locked up for ever, are using digital imaging techniques to create ever more terrible, obscene pictures. Will the Leader of the House co-operate with the Metropolitan police and with other police forces to get this practice stamped out and, more importantly, to get the perpetrators caught so that they can be locked up for life?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is barely a business question. The hon. Gentleman should be asking the Lord President whether there will be a debate on the matter.
Mr. Boyes: The Lord President has known me long enough by now.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have known him a long time. I not only bear him no ill will, but understand the spirit in which he has asked his question. He will understand that the proper response is for me to undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which I shall do.
Mr. John Garrett: The duty of the Leader of the House is to uphold the rights and privileges of the House. Does he think that he has carried out that duty with regard to the White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review"? Does he have any plan to improve the House's powers of scrutiny? If he has, will he make a statement?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way. I think that I have demonstrated in recent weeks a number of ways, some of which are better known in the usual channels than more openly, in which I have considered the interests of the House as a whole and of the Opposition parties in particular. I do not apologise for having contributed to the statement having been made before Easter and for having provided an early opportunity, on Monday next week, to debate it. I do not regard that as a failure of my responsibilities to the House; I regard it as the fulfilment of those reponsibilities.
Mr. George Howarth: Will the Leader of the House consider providing an opportunity as early as possible, preferably next week, for the House to discuss the role of receivers and liquidators in cases in which factories have closed and an alternative bid has been made? That would give me an opportunity to discuss the case of Pendleton's Ice Cream in my constituency. Following the closure of Clarke Foods, a viable business plan was put together by myself and others. The plan has been financed, and it has been supported by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the local authority, yet the receiver Robson Rhodes, headed by Mr. Ipe Jacob, has refused to reach a deal over a licence on the lease for the site. At this very moment, Nestlé is ripping out the machinery, plant and equipment, although there could have been a viable business on the site.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate on that matter next week. There are substantial opportunities for a wide range of matters to be raised within the business announced because we are due to have a number of Adjournment debates towards the end of the week. The hon. Gentleman may prefer not to or may be unable to raise the matter in that way. As he acknowledged by the direction of his gaze at one stage, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has heard his remarks and will no doubt reflect on them.
Mr. Brian Donohue: Will the Leader of the House make time next week for a debate on early-day motion 1669?
[That this House condemns the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary in intervening in the long standing successful pay formula adopted by the Fire Fighters National Organisation which has meant many years of trouble free operation; and calls on the Government to support its continuation as failure to follow this advice may lead to a damaging unnecessary dispute.]
The motion has been signed by more than 170 Opposition Members. Given the long-term industrial peace among the fire brigades, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that, at the very least, a statement on that important subject should be made by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as I recall because the subject was raised
1276
at business questions last week, made a number of points in the wake of his meeting with a number of members of the firemen's union in the middle of last week. He made it clear then, and I make it clear now, that my right hon. Friends have made no decision to do away with the fire service pay formula, to which the Government are not a party. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government's policy is that, in the current pay round, the pay rises of all public sector workers should not exceed 1·5 per cent. The Government do not consider that fire fighters should be an exception to that policy.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In contemplating future business of the House, will the Leader of the House have regard to the fact that this week alone the Government have made two major announcements which affect millions of people in south-east England—the statement in the House on the channel tunnel rail route, and yesterday, without coming to the House, the announcement of the east Thames corridor proposal? Does he agree that both those announcements justify a separate debate in Government time? If he feels unable to agree to that, will he contemplate a debate in Government time on south-east England, which was the battleground at the 1992 general election and will be at the next? A debate would give hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to refer to the high levels of unemployment and of business failure in south-east England, and to discuss the proposals, parts of which are quite absurd and not in the best interests of the 10·5 million people living in south-east England outside Greater London.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept, despite the county we have in common, the thrust of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The major infrastructure improvements about which we are talking are an advantage to many parts of south-east England and not simply to Essex and to Kent, although they happen to pass through those two counties and through parts of London. Leaving aside whether or not I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I cannot undertake to find time as he requested, but I shall bear his request in mind. I suspect that his request may interrelate with some of the suggestions made earlier about the Standing Order concerning a regional committee, or whatever one wants to call it.
Mr. George Foulkes: When will the Leader of the House be able to implement the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that we should have two weeks' business in one announcement? That would bring a little less chaos into our lives. Next Tuesday we are to have what is described as progress on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—the 19th day. Last night, I saw Ministers with folding beds in their rooms in the House. Who pays for those beds? Are they available to Opposition Members? We may need them in future.
Mr. Newton: I regard it as progress, whether the hon. Gentleman does or not. I managed to snatch an hour or two's sleep in a chair and not on a bed, folding or otherwise. I slightly envy those to whom he refers.
Mr. Foulkes: Two weeks' business?
Mr. Newton: It is probably the relatively modest amount of sleep I had in a chair that is leading me to miss some of the questions. I do not seek to evade the hon.

1277
Gentleman. I made some comment on that matter when we debated the Jopling report last July. It was not a report by the Procedure Committee in the technical sense. There are real difficulties about going as far as the Committee suggested in terms of the way in which we deal with Government business and the planning of the House's programme. I hope that it has been clear in the period since July, although I accept that this may be masked a bit at the moment by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, that I have been making every endeavour to move in the direction that the Jopling report recommended in a number of matters, including having announced the Easter recess so far in advance that some people did not realise that I had announced it.

Easter Adjournment
5.58 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will take place on Thursday 1 April rather than immediately following the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill. Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 30 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day.
Normally the time allotted would not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
May I take the opportunity to remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 2 April up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 March]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [24 March]: No. 81, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(with the exception of those Articles and Protocols set out in Schedule [Second stage for achieving economic and monetary union.])'.—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following: Amendment No. 83, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 109h)'.
      Amendment No. 170, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 73e on page 14 of Cm 1934)'
      Amendment No. 171, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 73f on page 14 of Cm 1934)'.
      Amendment No. 172, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 73g on page 14 of Cm 1934)'.
      Amendment No. 196, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 3a(2) on page 10 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 200, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73g(2) on page 14 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 204, in page 1, line 9, after 'II' insert
      'except Article 109e(2(a)) on page 25 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 206, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 109e(5) on page 25 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 207, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      except Article 109(f)'.
      Amendment No. 210, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 109m(1)'.
      Amendment No. 211, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 109m(2)'.
      Amendment No. 319, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 3a(3) on page 10 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 333, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except paragraph 5 of Article 109e on page 25 of Cm 1934)'.
      Amendment No. 363, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 3(a) Paragraph 3 as referred to in Article G on in page 10 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 366, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73b as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 367, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73b as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 368, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73c as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 369, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73D as referred to in Article G on page 14 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 370, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', Insert
      'except Article 73H as referred to in Article G on page 15 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 380, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 109g as referred to in Article G on page 27 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 381, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 109i as referred to in Article G on pages 27 and 28 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 382, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      1280
      'except Article 1091 as referred to in Article G on pages 29 and 30 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 409, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except the Protocol on the Convergence Criteria referred to in Article 109j of the Treaty establishing the European Community on page 112 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 440, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except from "(79)" to "force" on page 58 of Cm. 1934)'.
      Amendment No. 51, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 109c in Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 60, in page I, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not the Protocol on the statute of the European Monetary Institute.'.
      Amendment No. 205, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'except Article 109e of Title VI of Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 208, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 109j of Title VI of Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 209, in page I, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 109k(1) of Title VI of Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 225, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not the Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union'.
      Amendment No. 400, in page I, line 13, after 'Community', insert
      'with the exception of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on pages 114 to 116 of Cm 1934.'.
      Amendment No. 444, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, after 'intends', insert 'not'.
      Amendment No. 35, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add
      '; but in circumstances where convergence in economic performance as established in Article 109 has been achieved and where other major member states have decided to move to the third stage, the proposal for the United Kingdom to do so shall be placed before Parliament for affirmation.'.
      Amendment No. 42, in clause 2, page 1, line 23 at end add
      'and the decision in principle so to move has first been approved by a separate Act of Parliament'.
      Amendment No. 420, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add
      'and unless Her Majesty's Government has reported to Parliament on its proposals for the co-ordination of economic policies, its role in the European Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) in pursuit of the objectives of Article 2 as provided for in Articles 103 and 102a, and the work of the European Monetary Institute in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union.'.
      Amendment No. 39, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add—
      '(2) As from the beginning of the year 1993 the Secretary of State shall—

      (a) not less often than once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by the United Kingdom with a view to moving to the third stage, and

      (b) seek Parliamentary approval for any such steps as are being, or are proposed to be, taken with that objective in view.'.

      New clause 56—Convergence for economic and monetary union: reporting fulfilment—
      'In complying with the requirement to submit information under Article 103(3), Her Majesty's Government shall report annually to Parliament on the extent of its fulfilment of the criteria set out in Article 109j, and shall include within its reports a statement on the implementation of a programme to

      1281
      improve economic performance, including measures for investment and employment measures to realise the objectives of Article 2.'.
      Amendment No. 82, new schedule:—
      'SECOND STAGE FOR ACHIEVING ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

      (1) Article 109e.

      (2) Article 109f.

      (3) Protocol on the Statute of the European Monetary Institute.'.

      6 pm
      Mr. Stephen Byers: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will remember that, when the Committee met on 4 March, in response to a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Hamilton) about whether you would be in a position to permit a further debate on the protocol on social policy, you said that the nearer we get to a Division the better your position would be to judge whether to accede to requests for a further debate. As we have had the opportunity of spending 20 of the past 26 hours in Committee on the Bill, I assume that we are now substantially nearer to a Division. Do you intend to allow a further debate on social policy and, in that context, are you minded to rule new clause 74 in order?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I shall comment only on the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I am well aware of the Committee's concern about this matter, but I stand by my undertaking to make an announcement in good time.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): At our last sitting, we made good progress on the treaty's implications for Britain of economic and monetary union. Under the first group of amendments, we considered the implications for monetary policy of stage 3, if we choose to go that far.
      Under the second group, we considered the implications for fiscal policy at stage 3. This group concentrated on the obligations and implications for our national law of the interim stage—stage 2 of the process of economic and monetary union. For Britain, stage 2 is different from stage 3 because, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) rightly said at the beginning of the debate, we have a treaty obligation to move to stage 2 at the beginning of stage 2, which is envisaged in the treaty to be 1 January 1994. In addressing the question of obligations in stage 2, therefore, we are indeed addressing the obligations that will rest on Britain from the beginning of stage 2.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli said, I think, that he saw no clear divide between stage 2 and stage 3 within the treaty. I do not think that he meant to suggest that there was not a clear divide between the legal obligations that arise under stages 2 and 3, because it is clear from any reading of the treaty that there are fundamental and radical differences in the legal obligations. In stage 2, in so far as there is a Community monetary institution, it is the European Monetary Institute, not the European system of central banks. It is clear from the treaty that stage 2 envisages that monetary policy will remain a national Government responsibility.
      In stage 2, as we discussed in an earlier group of amendments, the treaty's provisions on deficits do not have the teeth that are envisaged in stage 3. If one looks at
      1282
      the treaty's text on stage 3, one finds that, by that time, the EMI will have dissolved itself and become the European system of central banks. It is clear that, for at least 10 of the 12 member states, stage 3 involves a single currency and does not therefore involve national responsibility for monetary policy. It also involves clear enforceable powers in the deficit provisions that we discussed earlier.
      It does not seem to be a sustainable argument that there is not a clear divide in terms of legal obligation between stage 2 and stage 3. I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelli was seeking to develop the argument that the web of obligations that is envisaged under the treaty is "seamless", and that the obligations that arise in stage 2, which are identifiably different from the obligations under stage 3, elide into each other in a way that does not allow for an effective break-point. He sought to argue, therefore, that it would be impossible for us to opt out of stage 3 because of the indivisibility of the obligations that arise between stages 2 and 3.
      It must be accepted in all parts of the House that there is a clear and fundamental difference between the obligations as defined in stage 2 and those as defined in stage 3. The question is whether the United Kingdom protocol effectively allows us a break-point so that we can choose whether we move from the stage 2 obligations, which we have accepted, to the stage 3 obligations, which in the Government's contention we have not yet accepted.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman has a fair case: the protocol makes it clear at what stage the break-point is reached. I am puzzled by the first paragraph of article 109j, which proposes that the Commission and the EMI will report on the progress of all member countries in moving towards EMU. That is not excluded from the process under the protocol, but it is under paragraph 2, because the United Kingdom will have to notify the Council before the Council makes an assessment under article 109j. Paragraph 1 of article 109j, which proposes a pretty formidable process, is not broken by the protocol.
      Mr. Dorrell: I understand that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 109j apply to all 12 member states, but the obligation under that paragraph is for the Commission and the EMI to report to the Council. I shall deal later with the nature of the convergence obligations that rest on individual member states. That is indeed a substantial issue, and I should like to go through that for the Committee so that it can be fully understood.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend has been dealing with the obligations that arise under stage 2, but there are a few others, such as responsibility for maintaining some connection with the EMS—he has already said that he proposes to rejoin at the first opportunity—and his obligation to exchange rates.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that I have not sought to give an exhaustive list of the obligations that arise in stage 2. I sought to draw out three of the obligations that are clearly different between stages 2 and 3 to substantiate my proposition that are that there are clear and identifiable differences of obligation between the two stages. The question is whether we can make an effective choice not to move, if we choose not to do so,

      1283
      from stage 2, for which we have a treaty obligation, to stage 3, for which, the Government contend, we have no obligation.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend give the Committee a categorical assurance that the British opt-in will not be overturned by the European Court?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend can be assured that the protocol, which has been accepted by all 12 member states, would not be overturned by the European Court—for two reasons. First, no party would wish to take us to the European Court over that issue; secondly, the protocol is robust in law and makes clear the implications that are supposed to flow from it.
      Mr. Tim Renton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dorrell: Let me just finish dealing with the last intervention.
      The terms of the protocol are clear. The first sentence reads:
      "The United Kingdom shall notify the Council whether it intends to move to the third stage"
      Mr. Renton: I am following with interest what my hon. Friend is saying, and I listened to much of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in the early hours of the morning. While there was much that he said with which I did not agree, at one point I thought that he was on, at least, interesting ground—the starting of the process leading towards the independence of the central bank.
      I understood my hon. Friend to say clearly this morning that there was no intention of starting towards that process. I agree with moving towards an independent central hank, because I think that it would be better if monetary policy were run by a central bank that was more or less independent of us politicians. That is by the way. In this, at least, there is an elision between stages 2 and 3, to use the elegant word that my hon. Friend has just used. It is hard to envisage a process whereby we do nothing in this respect while we are holding our horses and deciding whether to move on to stage 3.
      Mr. Dorrell: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not answer that question now. I intend to address it later, as I agree that it was one of the substantial points that came up in the debate.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the information that the Treasury Select Committee received in Spain, France and Germany, where we visited the Finance Ministers and central bankers? They were all of the view that, if the pound continued to float and, as they put it, obtain an unfair competitive advantage, that would be contrary to their idea of the single market, and that they would use all political and legal pressures available to them to get us back into the ERM as quickly as possible. It is possible that, if we do not go back into the ERM after 1 January of next year, we shall come under severe pressure from our European allies.
      Mr. Dorrell: I propose to make a little further progress in my speech before replying to my hon. Friend's point, so I shall have to give him the answer that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). That is, that I intend to cover precisely that ground
      1284
      because I know that it is of concern to hon. Members. However, I shall do so at the point in my speech when I intended to deal with it because that is the best way to develop the argument.
      The question is whether there is a break-point that allows use effectively to exercise the choice contained in our protocol. For 10 of the 12 member states, it is clear that there is no break-point. Stage 2 is envisaged, as I think it was put by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in a letter to me, as a bridge to stage 3. Ten of the 12 member states of the Community are under an obligation to cross that bridge, because they have a treaty obligation to join stage 3.
      That is not the same as saying that there is no clear divide between the two stages. As I have said, radically different legal consequences flow from whether one is in stage 2 or stage 3. However, they are clearly obliged to move from stage 2 to stage 3, according to the terms of the treaty. For the United Kingdom and Denmark, however, the position is different. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not enlarge at great length on the position of Denmark. I imagine that we are more interested in the position of the United Kingdom.
      Not only are there radically different legal consequences for the United Kingdom, as for all other member states, between stage 2 and stage 3, but we have, as a result of the protocol and the provisions of our domestic law, a clear right to choose—subject to the provisions of the Bill, which require that the House of Commons passes an Act of Parliament before the Government can communicate the decision to join—whether we move from stage 2 to stage 3. That is the difference between us and the other 10 member states.
      I shall deal now with the legal obligations that arise during stage 2. The key question during stage 2 is monetary policy. Some, like the right hon. Member for Llanelli, have argued that the effect of the terms of the treaty is to pass significant, if not all, amounts of monetary authority, even at stage 2, to the European Monetary Institute. I shall go through the treaty next so as to show that I do not believe that that is true.
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be happy to give way.
      Mr. Davies: I did not say that. I said that the monetary institute was obviously going to prepare the way for monetary union, and had a considerable part to play. I accept that, until one gets to stage 3, the member states have the main jurisdiction.
      Mr. Dorrell: In that case, I shall not dwell on the point at any length. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that, at stage 2, there was a significant qualification of the monetary responsibility of major states. If the Committee accepts that, until we get to stage 3, the monetary authority in each member state is that member state's national monetary authority, I need not develop that argument at length.
      I simply refer any hon. Member who is interested in that subject to article 3 of the EMI statute, the general principles article, which clearly states that anything in it is without prejudice. On page 104, article 3 states:

      1285
      "The EMI shall carry out the tasks and functions conferred upon it by this Treaty and this Statute without prejudice to the responsibility of the competent authorities for the conduct of the monetary policy within the respective Member States."
      Earlier, we debated the effect of article 8, page 107, of the EMI statute, headed "Independence", which covers the independence of the members of the council of the EMI. I conceded in interventions in the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli that that article was not a model of clear drafting. However, its effect is to safeguard the existing responsibility, within national law, of the members of the council of the EMI, in exactly the same way as is currently provided for in the Committee of Central Bank Governors. It is only the council as an institution that undertakes not to take instructions from community institutions or governments of member states.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister clear up a concern that I have about the review of monetary and financial situations of the member states? Am I right in thinking that, during stage 2, the monetary committee, as set out in article 109(2) on page 24, will have the right and the power to review the monetary and financial situations of all 12 states, whereas, when we reach stage 3, the monetary committee is to be dissolved and, in its place, we have an economic and financial committee? Is that committee responsible only for the reviewing of the monetary and financial situation of the 10 countries that have signed up to stage 3? Will it have the right to examine the financial circumstances of Denmark and the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Dorrell: Both the monetary committee and the economic and financial committee have the right to examine the conditions in all 12 member states, because the monetary committee, re-formed under article 109c, is exactly the same body as currently exists, is regularly reported on television, and has its roots in the treaty of Rome. The functions of the monetary committee in the indents to which the hon. Gentleman was referring are not changed from the present arrangement; it is only the later indents that add new tasks to the activities of the monetary committee—that is, the last two indents of paragraph 1 of article 109c.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of monetary restraints in the second stage, could he say something about article 109m, the question of the common interest as it affects the exchange rate, and the effect that that would have as a constraint on monetary policy, where the exchange rate is apparently being put first, and the monetary policy is subservient?
      Mr. Dorrell: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I return to article 109m when I am addressing the question of the ERM. I am now concerned with the responsibility of the EMI and the extent to which it is a monetary authority.
      I have sought to argue that the EMI is not in any meaningful sense of the term a monetary authority. If the Committee looks at article 109f(2), it will see clearly set out the tasks of the EMI in stage 2, and the two leading ones are to strengthen co-operation between national central banks and the co-ordination of the monetary policies of
      1286
      member states with the aim of ensuring price stability. We do not need at the moment to go into the question whether price stability is desirable. It is a co-operation and co-ordination role; it is not a policy-making role.
      Mr. Peter Hain: I am grateful that the Minister is just as generous about giving way in normal debating hours as he was in the middle of the night.
      On the specific points about the powers of the EMI and the argument that he is advancing, which puts up a Berlin wall between stages 2 and 3, which I dispute, I draw his attention to article 109j, on page 28, and in particular to the point that is made in the opening sentence:
      "The Commission and the EMI shall report to the Council on the progress made in the fulfilment by the Member States of their obligations regarding the achievement of economic and monetary union."
      We are still in stage 2, but the EMI is reporting on the progress that is being made in fulfilling obligations regarding stage 3. There seems to be a clear contradiction in the Minister's argument there, which shows that the argument that some of us have been seeking to advance—that stage 2 is a precursor to stage 3 and is almost umbilically linked to it—is correct.
      Mr. Dorrell: I have not sought to argue that there is not an umbilical link. I have accepted the proposition that, to use a different metaphor, it is a bridge across which we have to pass to get to stage 3. The question is whether this country is under the same obligation as the other member states of the Community to pass over that bridge. The only obligation which arises under article 109j is an obligation to produce a report. The convergence criteria which are set out in that article and are refined in the protocol are criteria against which the report will be judged. That article, in itself, does not impose an obligation on any member state to satisfy those criteria.
      I will come back to the question of convergence criteria, how they have developed and how they apply to individual member states later in my speech.
      Ms Diane Abbott: The Minister insists on using the analogy of a bridge; he says that stage 2 is a bridge over which member states have to pass. Would not a better analogy be a moving train, and is not the real question whether this is a moving train that we can leave at intersections between stages 2 and 3?
      Mr. Dorrell: I am rather wary of analogies about trains and platforms on the whole subject of the European Community. So, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will stick to the bridge.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Like my hon. Friend, I am not too happy about trains, but I want to ask him about bridges. Surely the question is how long the bridge is and at what point we expect to be on the bridge, and where on the bridge, at any given time. Any careful reading of article 109j shows very clearly, in my view, that, if this were to go to the European Court, it would determine clearly what point on the bridge we were supposed to be at.
      Mr. Dorrell: I will, if I may, make a little more progress in my speech, because I suspect that members of the Committee are beginning to think that I am playing into the long grass with no intention of finding the ball again. That, I can assure them, is not true.
      Mr. Barry Legg: One point that needs clarification is the fact that the first sentence of article 109j clearly states that member states have obligations. So I hope that we all accept that member states have obligations within stage 2.
      Mr. Dorrell: Member states certainly have obligations within stage 2. Indeed, as I shall come on to discuss when we look at the question of convergence criteria, all member states have some obligations in this regard. The point that I shall seek to argue in a minute is that the obligations with regard to convergence criteria that rest on the two member states that have an opt-out from stage 3 are different from the convergence obligations that rest on the other 10 member states.
      I come now to the point raised with me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the former Chief Whip, whom I always treat with great respect. He asked me to address the question of the independence of national central banks and whether it was true that we would be able to pursue the policy that I described as our policy—to maintain our existing arrangements for the Bank of England unless and until we decided to make the choice to move to stage 3. I will take the Committee through the relevant texts which the Government believe safeguard our right to leave the Bank of England in its present condition indefinitely, unless and until we choose to move to stage 3.
      The first text that the Committee needs to examine is article 108, which says:
      "Each Member State shall ensure, at the latest at the date of the establishment of the ESCB, that its national legislation including the statutes of its national central bank is compatible with this Treaty"—
      in other words, provides for independence.
      Article 109e provides:
      "each Member State shall, as appropriate,"—
      those were the two words that were regularly missed out by those asking me about these provisions earlier in the debate—
      "start the process leading to the independence of its central bank, in accordance with Article 108"—
      the article that we have just examined. The Committee could be forgiven for concluding that the significance of the words "as appropriate" is a little obscure, but those two words were written in to accommodate the fact that the United Kingdom, under its protocol, has no obligation to move to stage 3, and therefore no need to provide for the independence of its central bank within the terms of the treaty.
      The key phrase is "as appropriate". It is the inclusion of those words which exempts the United Kingdom from what would otherwise be a treaty obligation to initiate a process to provide for the independence of the central bank.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I cannot understand the compatibility between that and the other provisions of the treaty. The protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom says:
      "1. The United Kingdom shall notify the Council whether it intends to move to the third stage before the Council makes its assessment under article 109j(2)."
      We turn to article 109j which says:
      1288
      "The Commission and the EMI shall report to the Council on progress made in the fulfilment by Member States of their obligations regarding the achievement of economic and monetary union."
      That is in stage 2, and we will not be going into stage 2 until we give notice that we are not going into stage 3. This is before we have given that notice, and it says that the obligations
      "shall include an examination of the compatibility between each Member State's national legislation, including the statutes of its national central bank and Articles 107 and 108 of this Treaty."
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman correctly observed that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to give notice before the examination, which takes place, not under article 109j, paragraph 1 which we have been examining, but under article 109j, paragraph 2. That obligation arises from paragraph 1 of the protocol. Paragraph 10 of the protocol provides that, if the United Kingdom does not move to the third stage, it may change its notification at any time after the beginning of that stage.
      In other words, the position is that we have to give notice before the examination under article 109j, paragraph 2, takes place. If we decide in that notice to join stage 3, clearly that is a commitment and we sign up to the obligation. If we decide not to join, that is without prejudice to our right to change our minds at a later date.
      Mr. Mitchell: But the obligation and the examination of our national legislation including the statutes of the central bank, arise under article 109j(1), which we accept before article 109j(2) comes into force. It is under 109j(2) that we shall be giving notice.
      Mr. Dorrell: Article 109j(1) does not of itself give rise to obligations. It provides that the Commission and the EMI report on the performance of member states against obligations which arise from outside that article. The argument that I am advancing is that, because of the inclusion in article 109e(5) of the phrase "as appropriate", the United Kingdom does not have an obligation to provide for the independence of its central bank.
      Mr. Legg: We are getting to the heart of this point about the United Kingdom's obligations under stage 2. I think that references to the protocol and the United Kingdom option at this stage are probably not appropriate. The United Kingdom, to coin a phrase, is on a level playing field with other member states during stage 2. It may never exercise that opt-out. It is only when the United Kingdom exercises the opt-out that the United Kingdom becomes in a different position from the other l1 member states. That is what is at the heart of stage 2. If my hon. Friend is telling us that the United Kingdom Government intend to exercise their opt-out, as they could do, on 1 January 1994, I should be most interested to hear that.
      Mr. Dorrell: No. I have said many times in the course of our debates that the United Kingdom Government do not intend to reach a decision about the desirability of joining a single currency or not doing so until we are far better informed about the nature of the circumstances in which that decision had to be made.
      Mr. Budgen: On the construction of the words "as appropriate" in article 109e, paragraph 5, those are words to which my hon. Friend attaches considerable

      1289
      importance, but the important question there is surely who decides "as appropriate". Is it a subjective decision which is taken by the British Government, perhaps even assisted by the British Parliament; or is it a test of appropriateness which may be imposed upon us by some form of majority will, by the remainder of the countries of the EEC? It is by no means clear that it is a decision which is exclusively within our national power. Knowing, as we all do, the resentment felt against the United Kingdom because of the advantages gained by having a floating pound, it seems to me to be highly likely that "as appropriate" will be "as appropriate" as judged by the other countries.
      Mr. Dorrell: All I am seeking is to explain the interpretation that was placed on the words that were written into the treaty by the people who signed it. The writing of the words "as appropriate" in that section of the transitional provisions chapter was intended to accommodate the fact that the United Kingdom protocol gave us a clear opportunity to make a decision later whether we were going to join the single currency or not.
      Mr. Gill: May I remind my hon. Friend of the answer that he gave me when I intervened previously, when he said that he could not think that there would be any other nation that would wish to take this nation to court over the justiciability of our opt-out? Is the Minister saying that he cannot envisage circumstances under which other nations of the Community recognise that we have a competitive advantage as a result of the floating exchange rate referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), and that they would not therefore wish to take us to court to invalidate the opt-out?
      Mr. Dorrell: The point I was seeking to make was that our Community partners unanimously signed up to a United Kingdom protocol which says, in terms, that the United Kingdom is not obliged to join stage 3. The more important of the two points I made in reply to my hon. Friend's earlier intervention is that we are absolutely confident that the protocol is enforceable at law, that its terms are clear, and that there cannot be any reasonable doubt of what the people signing the treaty meant the words to mean.
      I want to move on now to deal with convergence, because it is another of the issues which have been raised and about which there is concern in some parts of the Committee. My first point is to stress that the concept of convergence is not new in Community law. It was not invented at Maastricht, or even in the years before Maastricht. When I asked for a trace of the development of the concept of convergence, I was taken back to article 2 of the treaty of Rome, which was signed 36 years ago today.
      Article 2 of the treaty of Rome says:
      "The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of member states"
      to promote the Community, and so forth. Progressive approximation of economic policy of member states was there in article 2 of the treaty of Rome. It was developed by a Council decision dated the 18 February 1974, which provided in loving detail that the Council was going to hold three meetings yearly
      1290
      "to examine the economic situation in the Community, to adopt guidelines for the economic policy of the Community which each member state"
      had to follow in order to achieve harmonious economic development and so forth. I will not read the whole decision to the Committee, but in that decision of February 1974, there is not the slightest doubt that there was a clear political will to establish a machinery by consent to take the concept of convergence significantly further.
      That decision was replaced on 12 March 1990 by a further Council decision headed "Decision on the Attainment of Progressive Convergence of Economic Policies and Performance during stage 1 of Economic and Monetary Union". Once again, I shall not burden the Committee with the precise commitments and provisions of that decision. It was clearly intended to promote the concept of convergence. In fact, it is the Council decision that first introduced the concept of multilateral surveillance, which finds further expression in the treaty. The principle of convergence criteria—the principle that, as a member state of the Community, we have accepted obligations going right back to the treaty of Rome to approximate our economic policies alongside those of other member states—is not new, and it should not come as a surprise to the Committee.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: It may or may not come as a surprise to the Committee, but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that, in the past, this has always been a pious statement of intent. In terms of achieving anything, there is much more divergence than convergence, and it looks as if that will continue to be the case for a year or two. What is new is that the Commission has the right to initiate beastly reports, which can be put to the Council. By a majority vote, we can have our wrists slapped-a totally undignified state for a sovereign nation like the United Kingdom to find itself in. This is not the slightest bit necessary unless we decide to go for stage 3. Why is it happening so early?
      Mr. Dorrell: It is not true to say that there is something new about the idea that the Commission may launch inquiries into the activities of member states. Article 3 of the decision of March 1990 says:
      "Multilateral surveillance shall focus on the macroeconomic and micro-economic and structural policies. This surveillance will be conducted by the Council on the basis of reports and analyses submitted by the Commission. These shall include:—indicators of economic performance, including monetary and budgetary policies such as supply and demand trends, price and cost developments, employment, regional development, financial markets, public finance, monetary aggregates, interest rates, exchange rates and external imbalances."
      That is a pretty impressive list, which is already the basis of reports submitted regularly by the Commission to the Council and considered regularly, before ratification of Maastricht, at meetings of ECOFIN.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: Is not the difference that dates are now being set and that Governments are expected to do something? Especially now that we are in recession, attempts by Governments to satisfy convergence criteria will be very deflationary and extremely damaging.
      Mr. Dorrell: It is not part of my argument that there is no difference. For the moment, I am seeking to establish that we had already travelled a substantial way down the

      1291
      road of convergence before getting to Maastricht. What is the nature of the new obligations assumed at Maastricht? Here, I want to develop a point that I made a moment ago. The convergence obligations that rest on the 12 member states as a consequence of Maastricht are divided. The convergence obligations of the 10 member states that are committed to moving to stage 3 are different from those of the other two member states—the United Kingdom and Denmark—which do not have an obligation to move to stage 3.
      Mr. Budgen: The recommendations and findings of this committee, if published, might have a very considerable and adverse effect upon the Government's capacity to borrow large sums of money. The £50 billion that the Government propose to borrow next year is massively outside the convergence provisions. I know that my hon. Friend, in his loyal way, would have made a great deal of the then Labour Government's borrowing requirement—much smaller than the current figure—and of their humiliation at the hands of the IMF. Does not my hon. Friend agree that we shall suffer humiliation at the hands of our European partners, and will not this make it even more difficult to raise such an enormous amount of money?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: I should like to make a minor point of detail. My hon. Friend is not quite right to say that the Budget deficit of the period 1974–79 was lower than the one that we are running now. In fact, at that time it peaked at more than 9 per cent—[Interruption.] It is projected to be just over 8 per cent., which is less than 9 per cent. This is a nit-picking point.
      Mr. Budgen: The important point is the market point.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to a good point when he says that there is clearly a difference between a report being prepared and considered in private in ECOFIN and a report being made available, with opinions expressed to the wider world. That arises mainly as a policing mechanism under the budget deficit provisions, which we discussed in the debate on an earlier group of amendments.
      As I said in that debate, the purpose of those budget deficit provisions is to recognise that, if we move to stage 3, each nation state in a single currency area will have an interest in reasonable official deficit performance on the part of the other nation states in the area. If official borrowing in a part of a single currency area were to go out of control it would lead to market distortions and possibly to market disturbance, which would damage the interests of member states other than the one that was running the excessive deficit.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to article 109k(6), which says quite clearly:
      "Articles 109h and 109i shall continue to apply to a Member State with a derogation."
      Does that mean that at stage 2 we would have an IMF-type obligation, particularly with regard to our balance of payments?
      Mr. Dorrell: Articles 109h and 109i deal with balance of payments assistance. They are already in the treaty. Of
      1292
      course, they will become otiose at stage 3, as it will not be necessary to give balance of payments assistance to one part of a single currency area.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am following this argument very closely indeed. The Minister has been developing a point about the revision of the treaty of Rome under article 2. But the final revision, which appears in this treaty, says:
      "The Community shall have as its task…a high degree of convergence of economic performance".
      There is a convergence obligation, which will go right through state 2.
      Mr. Derrell: My hon. Friend confirms the point that I was seeking to make. There is indeed a Community convergence obligation. The word used in 1957 was "approximation", which I have interpreted as having substantially the same meaning as "convergence". There has been a commitment to convergence since the day the Community was established. As the Community has developed, more meat has been put on the concept of convergence, and we now have a clearer understanding of its meaning.
      Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
      Mr. Dorrell: I want to make a little more progress. I have already been speaking rather longer than was ray intention. However, I promise that I shall give way to the hon. Lady before finishing.
      I want to consider the nature of the convergence criteria that are the consequence of the Maastricht treaty. The 10 member states that are committed to stage 12 are committed to crossing the famous bridge. The conditions set out in article 109, which are elaborated in the protocol, take the form of conditions precedent for the establishment of a single currency.
      The obligation that rests on the 10 member states which are obliged to join the single currency is an obligation to match those convergence criteria because they are under an obligation to join the single currency. They are therefore committed to the criteria, and there is a clear date and mechanism for their establishment. In the case of ourselves and Denmark, there is not a treaty commitment to join a single currency. So there is not a treaty base obligation to satisfy those specific convergence criteria. That is not to say that this country is not subject to a commitment to converge. I have already accepted that it is.
      Nor would I argue that the Maastricht treaty makes no difference to our convergence criteria. I accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) in an earlier debate that the words will be interpreted in context. It is true that the convergence criteria set out in the treaty will influence an understanding of the nature of this country's convergence commitment. But it is significantly different from the convergence commitments of those 10 member states which have a treaty obligation to move to stage 3, because we have not committed ourselves to the enforcement mechanisms of the convergence criteria to which they have committed themselves.
      Mr. Shore: We have committed ourselves to an obligation to converge, and we have accepted coercive measures which will operate if we do not converge. One such coercive measure is the weapon of publicity and public condemnation. So we are being, as

      1293
      it were, forced to converge, even if it is not the same kind of coercion as the treaty obligation imposes on the other 10.
      Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a fundamentally different convergence commitment resting on this country compared with the other 10 member states.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I wish to follow up a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I accept that the nature of the obligation is different for the 10 than for the two, but there are obligations on the two in the sense that if the United Kingdom wished to move to the third stage, we would, by a certain date under the provisions of the protocol and the treaty, have had to have done certain things.
      I put to the Minister the example of the protocol and convergence criteria which would require member states to have been in the narrow band of the ERM without severe tensions for two years. Is it not a fact that if we were to move at the earliest opportunity to stage 3—that is, by the first examination—we would have had by 31 December 1996 to have been for two years in the narrow band of the ERM, so that we would have had to have taken the decision to enter the ERM by 31 December 1994?
      Mr. Dorrell: It depends on the date on which stage 3 comes into force, and there is not a fixed date in the treaty. To satisfy the convergence criteria, one must have achieved the objectives for a given time before the point is reached at which one joins stage 3. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it depends on the date on which stage 3 comes into effect, and there is no fixed date in the protocol which commits us to reach a conclusion on our opportunity to change our mind.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Dorrell: I will not give way again. I have permitted many interruptions, and I am anxious to conclude my remarks. [Interruption.] I recall promising to give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I think the Minister accepts that we are obliged to try to meet the convergence criteria, whether or not we decide to go on to stage 3. That implies that we should be joining the ERM or at least pegging the pound to the ecu.
      Mr. Dorrell: I do not accept that. I made it clear that I regard the protocol as giving this country a clear choice, on the terms set out in the protocol, whether to join the single currency at a date of our own choosing. The opportunity for this country is that, under the terms of the treaty, we have the opportunity to influence the nature of the single currency. That is the main chance negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht which I am keen for this country to safeguard.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Minister makes certain allegations about the date on which the single currency comes into effect. Under the protocol which is adjacent to our opt-out, it is clear that it comes into effect on 1 January 1999. We cannot veto it, and it is irrevocable and irreversible, so—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is in no sense a point of order for the Chair, and the hon. Member knows it.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: It is over 25 hours since we began debating the economic groups of amendments. I have said before that it is appalling that, on issues of such importance, we are forced by a combination of the Government's preference and a deal done by the Government with the Liberal Democrats to discuss the issues in a condensed way when hon. Members are tired and we do not have a full opportunity to explore many important matters. Whatever view hon. Members take of the treaty or the Bill, this is a disgraceful way in which to handle such important matters.
      I need not detain the Committee for long, not least because much of the territory of the debate overlaps the discussion of earlier groups of amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) took us on a prolonged, perceptive and entertaining tour of the transitional provisions and the protocol of the European Monetary Institute. So entertaining was he that, despite the hour, we were disappointed when, in midstream, he leapt from article 8 to article 23 of the protocol.
      My right hon. Friend made great play of the Financial Secretary's description of the Red Book as a set of multi-annual programmes. That was an apposite phrase, considering that this year we have had a multi-annual Budget containing multi-annual tax increases, providing for increases this year, next year and the year after that.
      A consistent theme throughout my right hon. Friend's speech dealt with a question which the Government have refused to answer—whether they propose to take the steps necessary to move towards stage 3 of economic and monetary union. When, if at all, do they intend to take that decision? I had hoped that the Financial Secretary would give at least a hint of an answer.
      Nor could the Financial Secretary give more clarification of the position of the poor old Governor of the Bank of England under article 8 of the protocol on the European Monetary Institute. He left us with the curious understanding that each of the governors could take instructions from their member states as individual members of the Council, but that none of them could take instructions in their collective capacity as members of the Council.
      That was unconvincing and was typical of those whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli called the Januses on the Government Benches. The measure means either that the governor can be instructed or he cannot. To imagine the capacity in which he can be instructed as a member of the Council is fanciful beyond credibility.
      Mr. Leighton: I got the impression from the Minister's response that he is rather agnostic about what we are debating. Does my hon. Friend support the convergence criteria? Does he think that they make sense, considering that they are all monetary in form? They are not concerned with real convergence in terms of growth, output and employment.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I made it very clear in responding to the previous debates that, taking all these criteria together, considerable reinterpretation and reapplication of the criteria is necessary and I intend to develop this point further towards the end of my contribution.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he is generous in giving way, but we are eager on these Benches to know how many basic Labour party principles are going to be chucked away in our enthusiasm for this monstrosity of Maastricht. Would we as a Labour Government, if we were in power, or do we as a Labour party in Opposition, want to invoke the protocol, or do we want to move straight away with the others, as opportunity allows, to stage 3 and to full monetary union?
      Mr. Smith: I can best answer that by citing the policy approved by the Labour party conference, which is:
      "Conference believes that the Maastricht treaty, while not perfect, is the best agreement that can currently be achieved."
      That is the basis of our policy and of our approach. I have been through on a number of occasions, and I will return to it later in my speech, the particular importance that we attach to the provisions of article 2a and the goals of high employment and social protection.
      7 pm
      Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has laid great stress—and he has done so with considerable coherence—on the need for flexibility in interpreting the targets, convergence criteria and so forth. Does he apply the same flexibility to that Labour party motion?
      Mr. Smith: I do not, because all of us are lectured on the Labour party manifesto and, as members of the party, it is incumbent on us to take very seriously the policy passed by our party, especially something, I might add, that was passed by such an overwhelming majority.
      Ms Diane Abbott: All of us sitting behind my hon. Friend are impressed with his reverence for party conference decisions—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: And we will remind him of it.
      Ms Abbott: —but does he agree that when conference passed that resolution the text of the treaty was not before it?
      Mr. Smith: I think that hon. Members knew full well what they were voting for when they voted for that resolution. [Interruption.] It is not as though arguments within our party, as well as among the public at large, on many of these issues have not continued for some time. I have great confidence and trust in the good sense of ordinary Labour party members when they vote for resolutions at conference.
      Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
      Mr. Smith: I would like to make some progress with my contribution.
      I agreed strongly with the points made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), a speech which was all the more impressive as its quality betrayed no hint that he had been here all night, waiting to make it. The core of his argument was that Britain will be better able to take effective action for sustainable growth, for jobs, for investment and for environmental protection if we do so within the framework of Maastricht than if we attempt to do so outside it. That is the crucial choice.
      1296
      Of course there are many things in the Maastricht treaty that we do not like. Of course many of these criteria must be subjected to further interpretation. Of course the whole question of the pace of progress towards economic and monetary union must be carefully examined. But, when it comes down to it, the choice is whether we are better off and can better serve the people of this country in moving towards the goals to which we all aspire by being part of the Maastricht process or whether we should turn our faces against it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, I believe that we would better serve the people by being part of Maastricht.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe also rightly pointed out that the Government were directly responsible for many of the weaknesses in the treaty which have been the subject of debate in this group, not least because the Government squandered a great deal of negotiating capital, for example, on securing the wholly damaging opt-out from the social chapter which we on the Opposition Benches are determined to continue to seek to reverse.
      Let me turn to our Front-Bench amendments in this group, which have not been a focus of the debate so far. They are important and I want to stress them. Amendment No. 35 would ensure that in the event of the United Kingdom satisfying the necessary economic convergence conditions and other member states deciding to move to stage 3, Parliament would have an automatic opportunity to decide whether this country should proceed to stage 3 and full economic and monetary union. We regard that as a very important amendment and wish to press it to a vote.
      As the treaty and the Bill stand, it will be up to the Government to decide whether to propose to move to stage 3. It is left open to them simply to choose not to do so if they so wish. In this way, Parliament could be excluded from a decision which would or could consign the United Kingdom to the second division in Europe. It is surely right, whether or not the Government wish to proceed to stage 3, that the House should have the opportunity to express its view on this decision. That is why we regard the amendment as so important.
      Amendment No. 420 is also important in seeking to strengthen and clarify the role of the European Council of Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, in the formulation of economic policy. I do not intend to go over all the arguments and discussions that we had in the night on the importance of ECOFIN. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government do everything possible to see that the economic objectives of article 2, for which ECOFIN has responsibility under articles 102a and 103, are fully realised.
      Should the amendment be carried, the Government would have to inform Parliament of their contribution to ECOFIN in the co-ordination of economic policy and in the achievement of a high level of employment and social protection provided for in article 2, as well as reporting on the work of the European Monetary Institute in preparation for economic and monetary union.
      These matters are important. We have argued all along that the overall responsibility for economic policy must remain with elected Ministers, accountable to the European Parliament and to their own national Governments and Parliaments. ECOFIN must become art effective political counterpart to the European central bank. I therefore strongly urge the Committee to support that amendment.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that some of the provisions of the treaty needed amending. He has now made a suggestion. He says that ECOFIN must have political control. How will he secure those amendments to the treaty? How will he ensure that ECOFIN gets economic control? These are very detailed provisions in the treaty. How confident is he that, once the treaty is ratified and becomes the bible of the Commission and the European system of central banks, he will be able to get any change out of it? And if he cannot get any change out of it, why does he take it on trust and vote for it now?
      Mr. Smith: These amendments do not seek to amend the treaty. They seek to amend the Bill and therefore to determine how the Government—this Government or a future one—should behave in operating the provisions of the treaty, and that is very important indeed, just as, for example, in the previous group, the effect of new clause 56 would have conditioned the information that the United Kingdom supplied to the Commission for the purposes of the evaluation of our compliance or otherwise with the excess deficit procedure. These are not trivial matters: they are important matters both of substance and of signalling the way in which we on the Opposition Benches believe that the treaty might be implemented so as to serve the best 16interests of the British people as well as of the people of the rest of Europe.
      Mr. Cash: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going in the right direction in trying to improve political accountability; for heaven's sake, Conservative Members regard that as probably the most important central question. We do not want our monetary affairs to be taken over by unelected, unaccountable bankers, but that is what will happen, and that is what the Government are allowing.
      Nevertheless, what the hon. Gentleman has just said does not solve the problem. He must bear in mind the fact that the treaty itself has been implemented in European law and that that basis will determine the manner in which it is implemented in the United Kingdom under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is putting the cart before the horse. He has fallen into a trap and his argument has collapsed. He is saying, "We would like to have a system in the United Kingdom that would enable us to implement what we wanted."
      Unfortunately, when the matter gets to the House of Lords and, subsequently, to the European Court of Justice, the hon. Gentleman will find that he has been caught and will have to do what the European Community has already decided by treaty. That is the problem that the hon. Gentleman is up against—although I entirely agree with the direction in which he is moving.
      Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with the direction in which the amendments are going—even if he does not accept the reason for which they were tabled—I suggest that the best way of expressing that view is to vote for them. In his lengthy intervention, however, I detected signs of what we already know: that he is absolutely opposed to the way in which the European Economic Community, and subsequently the European Community, has developed. The hon. Gentleman makes no secret of the fact that he objects to the idea of a more closely integrated European Community.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I have always wanted the European Community to work effectively: indeed, the Foreign Secretary invited me to write a paper on the future of Europe for the Conservative manifesto committee. In that paper, I said that I wanted the Community to work—and, moreover, I voted for the Single European Act. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with the suggestion that I do not want the European Community to work simply because I do not want this crazy treaty, which will make Europe dissolve and implode.
      Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wrote the part of the Conservative party manifesto that dealt with this issue, he clearly made a bigger hash of it than those who drafted the original Maastricht treaty, given the consequent division and confusion in Conservative policy on such matters. [Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have seated interventions criss-crossing; it makes for confusion.
      Mr. Smith: Thank you, Dame Janet.
      Let me return to the amendments and new clauses that we wish to press to a vote. New clause 56 aims to ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament in their fulfulment of the criteria for economic and monetary union. It would require them to observe the need for proper programmes to achieve the objectives of article 2 as they pursue those criteria.
      At the heart of the amendments and new clauses, and those in earlier groups, are the provisions of article 2, the bridge between stages 2 and 3 and the way in which those stages can be tied to article 2—which, after all, sets the European Community's task. Article 2 asks for
      "sustainable and non-inflationary growth…a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life".
      The Labour party believes that those aims are crucial to progress towards economic and monetary union. Through all the amendments and new clauses to which I have referred, we seek to tie the United Kingdom's interpretation of policy under the treaty more closely to the goals that I have quoted, so that there can be no doubt about the force for social and economic progress that we want our participation in the Community to realise.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Legg: We have heard some excellent speeches, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He told us a good deal about stage 2, the obligations involved in it and the convergence criteria that we are required to follow. By covering so much of the ground, the right hon. Gentleman has made it much easier for me to make my speech.
      Let me begin by addressing article 109j—which has been subject to some debate in the Committee—and article 109e. Article 109j sets out the stage 2 obligations for member states: they cover price stability, Government deficits and membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I commented during my intervention on the Financial Secretary's first speech that under stage 2 the United Kingdom has the same obligations as all other member states. Under the protocol, we have the possibility of exercising an opt-out during stage 3 so that we do not move to a single currency; but that will not happen until

      1299
      stage 3. We may or may not exercise the opt-out. I contend that, until we do so, we shall be on a level playing field with all the other member states.
      Yet again my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has shown a positive attitude, suggesting that Britain wants to be at the heart of Europe and to play a full role in stage 2. The wish to ensure that Britain can influence developments that are happening at that time confirms my view that we are at one with the other 11 states in regard to stage 2.
      I know that Ministers such as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—and, indeed, the Economic Secretary—often say that the criteria involved are admirable in themselves. Price stability? All Conservative Members agree that we want low inflation. Low Government deficits? Again, Conservative Members generally approve of that. The Committee must, however, accept the overall scheme of the treaty. In fact, the convergence obligations are secondary; the primary obligation is economic and monetary union. We are going through the process of convergence so that we can take part in, and be a full member of, economic and monetary union. That is the rationale of the treaty.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The convergence obligation arises from article 2, but does not my hon. Friend agree that a number of subordinate obligations are involved—for instance, the obligation to return to the exchange rate mechanism at the earliest opportunity? Obviously, we cannot subscribe to the conditions in article 109j unless we are within that arrangement. Moreover, we must have an exchange rate obligation.
      Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend has raised a number of interesting and vital points, with which I shall deal later.
      Let me retun to our obligations in the treaty, including our obligation to achieve economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary claimed that the treaty made no major change in economic obligations; he even suggested that member states should have foreseen all this when the treaty of Rome was signed 36 years ago today. Surely my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is overstretching his argument.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I ask a question which perhaps I should have put to the Financial Secretary, who was arguing, apparently, that the conditions did not apply to the United Kingdom because there were conditions precedent, as it were, for those who wanted to enter stage 3. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the four criteria are described as criteria, and that to enter stage 3 it is necessary to fulfil the necessary conditions? Can he find anything that links the conditions to the criteria?
      Mr. Legg: No, I cannot. The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Legg: I shall make a little progress and then I shall be pleased to give way to my hon. Friend.
      In the Maastricht treaty we are seeing something quite different from that which was in the treaty of Rome. Article 2 of the treaty of Rome dealt with progressively approximating the economic policies of member states. That was loose terminology. We are now changing the objectives under article 2 to include that of economic and monetary union. It must be emphasised once again that
      1300
      the United Kingdom opt-out does not relate to economic and monetary union. Instead, it is a potential opt-out from stage 3, the single currency.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend takes up the point made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary about our obligation under the treaty of Rome. When we first went into the treaty of Rome in 1972 we entered the snake, albeit for a short time. I think that it was for about two months. That was a preliminary attempt to get the United Kingdom into a fixed exchange rate mechanism. As the Committee knows, we came out of the snake. The danger that we now face is that many more legal pressures can be exerted upon us to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism.
      Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend has made a valuable intervention. I shall speak about our membership of the exchange rate mechanism later in my speech.
      All 12 member states are working towards the objective of economic and monetary union. Article 5 of the treaty of Rome puts obligations on member states to fulfil the tasks that are set out in articles 2 and 3 of the Maastricht treaty. The United Kingdom has an obligation under article 5 to facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks, one of which is now economic and monetary union. It would seem that the other member states, possibly with the exception of Denmark, are keen to get on with economic and monetary union and do not wish to see one or two other members seeking to undermine their attempts to achieve that goal within the context of the treaty.
      Furthermore, under article 5, the United Kingdom has an obligation to abstain from any measure that could jeopardise the achievement of the objectives of the treaty. That means that the United Kingdom must have the objective to abstain from taking actions in its economic, monetary and foreign exchange policies that could jeopardise the attainment of economic and monetary union which is being pursued by the other members of the Community.
      Mr. Marlow: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the speech made last night by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. We are, of course, committed to economic and monetary union, but that does not necessarily mean a single currency. There are other ways of achieving economic and monetary union. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House what those other ways might be and what chance we might have of achieving or implementing them.
      Mr. Legg: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. I hope to deal with his point and others in a way that will ensure that they have the necessary cogency.
      The Treasury has said that article 109m changes only slightly what is in the treaty of Rome. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary did not follow that route this evening, and that may be significant. He followed it, however, in Committee on 14 January. When the Treasury submitted a memorandum on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty to the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service Affairs, it, too, referred to article 109m, and tried to argue that there was no effective change from our obligations under the treaty of Rome.
      I maintain that the common interest that is set out in article 109m is a stronger obligation than the common concern that existed under the treaty of Rome. Secondly, and even more importantly, when it comes to common

      1301
      interest, we must assess "common interest" and the meaning of it within the context and colouring of the Maastricht treaty. We find that common interest is clearly set out in the treaty, but what is it? It must be economic and monetary union. There is the obligation in article 109m that our exchange rate is treated as a matter of common interest to the other member states, with those states striving to achieve monetary union and wanting the United Kingdom to play its part in that process.
      Mr. Cash: I much like my hon. Friend's style. He is taking us, with relentless but clear and cogent force, along the route of reality. I am sure that he will recall the protocol that is adjacent to the one that is supposed to be our opt-out. I am sure that he will agree with me that that makes irreversible and irrevocable that which is due to come into effect on 1 January 1999, come what may. Does he accept, like Chancellor Kohl, that there are those in the Community—most of them in the other member states—who say yes to economic and monetary union, but go on to say that that carries with it political union? That is where the rub comes. We are being taken in that direction.
      Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend has made a significant point. It is one that has been made to me by members of the Bundesbank council. They say that there must be a political union alongside monetary union. Chancellor Kohl has made his position clear. Those who go to the Library and consult the Financial Times of 4 January will see set out the Chancellor's commitment to political union and his recognition that monetary union will work only with political union.
      The United Kingdom's obligations in the context of the exchange rate mechanism are a source of concern to many of my hon. Friends. Article 109m is directly relevant in this respect. The other member states regard our exchange rate as a matter of common interest to them. I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of Treasury Ministers that many of our Community partners have been somewhat startled and dismayed by Britain's exit from the ERM. A perusal of the press of the past six months since white Wednesday will elicit a range of comments by our European partners expressing this concern. The French Finance Minister, for instance, cannot understand why we are out and considers it necessary for us to return to the ERM. He cannot see how Britain can ratify the treaty and stay out of the mechanism.
      7.30 pm
      One does not have to be particularly sophisticated, reading between the lines, to understand the concerns of the Irish Finance Minister, Prime Minister, and Foreign Secretary, at the time of the Irish devaluation, about the financial problems that Ireland faced following Britain's exit from the ERM—especially in view of Ireland's close trading links with the United Kingdom.
      Pedro Perez, Spain's Economic Minister, spoke even more forcefully on 23 October about Britain's exit from the ERM. He said that there could not be a single market without a single currency and that there could not be two systems in Europe—an exchange rate mechanism for some countries and a floating currency for others.
      When Mr. Delors addressed the European Parliament, he made some trenchant remarks, without naming Britain, about countries that seek to devalue and thereby achieve
      1302
      a competitive advantage. We know, however, that many of our partners and members of the Commission are trying to play things fairly quietly at the moment, because ratification of the treaty is still in the balance.
      Under the Maastricht treaty, member states that are unhappy with Britain's exchange rate policy will have the opportunity to do somethiong about that—
      Mr. Cash: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived.
      Mr. Legg: I am sure that he does not want to intervene, however, even though he probably has first-hand experience of some of the unhappiness felt by our partners and by Finance Ministers on the continent.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way to the Chancellor if he will confirm to the Committee that, if we were to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism when article 109m is in force, we would, at a later stage—if the economy demanded it—be able to leave again?
      Mr. Legg: I thank my hon. Friend, but I must make some progress. It is certainly true that the treaty will provide the opportunity for our partners to press us, first informally and then more publicly, to return to the ERM. If Treasury Ministers resist that pressure, there are stronger powers in the treaty to compel Britain to return to the mechanism. The matter will not be solely in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during stage 2.
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Listening carefully to my hon. Friend it occurs to me that we are in the midst of a dispute about the Government's position in respect of stage 3—a dispute between us and Ministers. Bearing in mind the comments of other member Governments so far, when stage 2 has arrived and stage 3 is imminent, who will be forced to decide on the interpretation of our position? It will surely not be our Ministers; it will be the European Court of Justice that will be called to make the decision.
      Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend makes one of his now customary interventions in which he puts his finger precisely on where we stand. The intervention will not be for Treasury Ministers or Members of Parliament. Ultimately, it will be for the European Court—
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: A political body.
      Mr. Legg: I think that we have already explored that aspect. Certainly, the court will have the power to decide, but I suspect that we will not be taken to the court to compel us to return to the mechanism. The mere suggestion will be enough to ensure that Britain does so.
      I believe that many Ministers, perhaps even the Chancellor himself, feel as stongly about membership of the ERM as I and many of my hon. Friends do. The experience of the British economy, of British business and of the British people in the ERM was damaging—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disastrous."] Many right hon. and hon. Members share that view—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me and that he should bear in mind the practical consideration that his voice will be heard better if he faces the microphones insted of turning away from them—a thought that may not have occurred to him.
      Mr. Legg: Thank you, Dame Janet, that is most helpful of you. I am afraid that I was distracted by some sedentary interventions.
      Under stage 2, many provisions of the treaty will bring us closer to other countries of the Community in terms of economic policy making. As many hon. Members have said, we will find that we have common economic policies. The Treasury issued a rather strange statement to the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service in November 1992. It was about the operation of article 103.1, which concerns the Council of Ministers geting together to devise common economic policies for Europe. The Treasury line on that has been that, if some of the policies or guidelines drawn up under the article are of a sort that Britain would not like—setting out a timetable for a return to the ERM, say, or guidance about budget deficits—the United Kingdom can somehow block them in the Council of Ministers. It can block and spoil the overall economic policy devised by the Council of Ministers. That does not seem to be very much like being at the heart of Europe.
      I take seriously the comments from the Government Front Bench about wanting to be at the heart of Europe and wanting to exercise influence. I do not believe that Britain will adopt the role of blocker or spoiler in Europe in stage 2 and in the coming years. I believe that Britain will sit down at the table with its partners and accept the reality of the treaty, the obligations in the treaty, and that it will operate accordingly. Regrettably, I believe that that will be extremely damaging to the British economy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to previous experiments with fixed exchange rate regimes. To strengthen and legislate for this process, and to include in the supreme law of the European union the requirements to fix exchange rates must, in the current economic circumstances in Europe, be one of the most foolish and unwise economic decisions to be taken in Europe in the 20th century.
      The statesmen of Europe, who do not recognise the economic changes in Germany, the costs of reunification, the implication of the borrowing requirement in the unified German state, and the effect that those factors have in transmitting their consequences to other member states through a fixed exchange rate, are playing fast and loose with the economic prosperity of the peoples of Europe. They are also threatening recession, unemployment and worse. The concept of the Maastricht treaty and its obligations are not an appropriate agenda or statutory framework that we should adopt in the mid or late-1990s.
      Ministers have suggested that Britain might be able to continue to float its exchange rate during stage 3. Hon. Members should be aware that that idea is even more unlikely than the possibility that Britain can continue to float its exchange rate freely during stage 2. The idea that other member states like France, which had irrevocably fixed their currencies to the deutschmark, would then be content to see Britain floating its exchange rate and obtaining what they would consider to be unfair competitive advantages as a result is clearly inconceivable.
      When we move to stage 3, and those other member states have irrevocably locked their currencies, they will expect the United Kingdom—if it decides to exercise the opt-out—to be playing a part in ensuring that monetary union is successful. They will certainly not be prepared to see Britain floating on the margins. I am sure that the
      1304
      requirements to return to the mechanism and to operate on the narrow bands of the exchange rate mechanism will be fully enforced.
      We must then face the reality of the opt-out in stage 3 with Britain locked in the narrow bands against the European ecu. Britain would have no representation on the governing council of the European central bank, which would set interest rates for the ecu, while Britain was tied to the ecu within a narrow band. The governing council of the European central bank would effectively set interest rates for Europe as a whole. Is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary really offering us that tonight as an attractive proposition resulting from the opt-out?
      Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the middle of the night I produced a document which had been leaked to me? That document stated quite explicitly that advice was being tendered, apparently to Ministers, after white Wednesday on 23 September last year, which clearly stated that the conclusion was that sterling should go into the narrow band. Does not my hon. Friend find that a very chilling observation?
      Mr. Legg: Yes, that is a chilling observation, but hon. Members should not be surprised by it. In 12 months' time, I hope that hon. Members will not come to Members like me and express surprise if events such as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) occur.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Budgen: Why on earth should that be chilling? The Government have consistently said that they wish to approve the Maastricht treaty. They claim that they have democratic authority for that, having discussed it fully at the last general election and because there is widespread support for it. Plainly, we must return to the ERM as quickly as possible to fulfil our obligations on 1 January 1994. It would be monstrous if we were not trying to get back into the ERM.
      Presumably, we will hear from the Government tonight a clear indication of how they believe the ERM has worked to the benefit of the British people during the two years we were a member of the ERM. If this is only the preliminary period, we must assume that the Government regard it as having been a very successful one.
      Mr. Legg: Once again, my hon. Friend has made a valuable point.
      I conclude with an argument which is not often heard in this Committee, but which is put forcefully in the Corridors and elsewhere in the House. That argument seems to be particularly attractive to right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and even to Ministers. That argument is that there is no need to worry about the Maastricht treaty because its provisions will not be put into effect. The treaty is so deeply flawed and runs so strongly against the economic fundamentals to which I have referred that people say, "Don't worry. Support the treaty: it will not work." What a gamble that is to take with the future of the British people.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The people should have a say.
      Mr. Legg: As my hon. Friend says, they should have a say in that gamble.
      I urge all hon. Members to act with caution in this matter. They should not rely on assurances that what I

      1305
      have described will not happen. Hon. Members who visit our partners discover that there is a strength, will and determination for those things to happen. There is a strong commitment on continental Europe to economic and monetary union. There are many, what I would call unionists rather than federalists and they are strongly committed to such concepts. Hon. Members must weigh in the balance the benefits of the treaty against its risks, which are considerable.
      The House has many honest federalists, with certain views about Europe and Britain, who have put their case clearly and powerfully. I respect those people. It is a good process to indentify what Europe would be like under the Maastricht treaty. If the case for Maastricht was spelt out and the British people gave their full-hearted consent to the treaty, I would be happy to work to try to achieve their vision of the future. My great fear, however, is that those people will not realise the implications of the treaty. We will face continuing disillusionment, unhappiness and lack of success in our affairs for many years.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Legg: I will not take any more interventions.
      I urge hon. Members to be cautious and not to gamble with the future of the British people. They must realise that what they are doing now is ratifying the supreme law of the European union.
      Mr. Leighton: We are faced with an odd situation. The Government did not want a conference at Maastricht and they did not want the treaty. They have not said that they are in favour of monetary union or a single currency and they claim that they can exercise an opt-out from the treaty. I do not know how valid that option will be. As far as I am aware, the Opposition do not want an opt-out. They are all in favour of monetary union and a single currency. This odd situation is what psychiatrists term role reversal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) relies upon article 2 of the treaty for the basis of his support of it. We cannot take comfort from that article, because the treaty of Rome has a general, motherhood-and-apple-pie clause that contains vague good intentions, but what good has it done us? We now have between 17 million and 18 million people unemployed in the Community—the unemployment black spot of the world—so what good have those words done us?
      I do not think that any socialist can support the Maastricht treaty. I base that claim on article 105 of chapter 2, with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East is familiar. Article 105(1) states:
      "The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the objective of price stability, the ESCB shall support the general economic policies in the Community with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community as laid down in Article 2."
      That is without prejudice to price stability and I do not believe that there can be any doubt that article 2 is subordinate to price stability.
      Mr. Clive Betts: I believe that article 105 then goes on to provide a commitment to article 3a, which is in the treaty simply for the purpose of
      1306
      delivering article 2. One could read that part of article 105(1), which relates to article 3a, as unqualified support for article 2. I accept that the treaty is badly worded, but there are different ways of reading it.
      Mr. Leighton: I do not believe that article 105 is badly worded; it is specific and states:
      "The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability."
      There is no ambiguity about that. It could not be clearer. The objectives laid down in article 2 are set without prejudice to the objective of price stability.
      When this matter was raised before, one of my hon. Friends asked me whether I was in favour of price instability. Other things being equal, we would, of course, like low inflation, but since when has it been the sole policy of the Labour party to argue for price stability? Any fool can reduce inflation by destroying the economy, creating mass unemployment and bringing about a recession. That is what the Government have done, but they have now had to pull back.
      The "Bank Briefing" for November 1992, published by the Bank of England, referred to price stability and stated:
      "Had the United Kingdom remained in the ERM, it is quite possible that price stability would have been achieved during next year"—
      which means this year.
      "Although clearly desirable in itself, price stability attained so quickly might have intensified the problems of domestic debt inflation. Some easing of policy was, therefore, desirable."
      We could have had that wonderful price stability, but it was causing so much trouble that it was dropped as official Labour party policy. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench should note that we want some price stability and low inflation, but we have other aims. We want balance of payments equilibrium, growth in the economy and high employment.
      Article 2 makes no mention of high employment. Thousands of words, as well as protocols, have been printed about Euro-monetarism and price stability, but there is no mention of high employment, apart from a passing reference in article 2, which is itself subordinate to the idea of price stability. That must be anathema to socialists, and it is on that basis that I oppose the treaty.
      The convergence criteria are all monetary; they are about inflation and budget deficits. There is nothing about real convergence, real growth and real people. Flesh and blood will be subordinated to the theory of money. Money will be the master, not the servant. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Labour party could support such an idea.
      Mr. Budgen: I suspect that an observer of this protracted but useful debate would say to himself, "Well, they have, with great difficulty, defined what the position will be under stage 2, which is plainly the ERM with a large number of additional constraints added to it." No doubt that observer would say to himself how grateful he was for the elegant guidance that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had given to the Committee to help us to decide the possible extent of those additional obligations.
      The practical man listening to the Committee's deliberations, however, would say, "Surely, these chaps"—I must be careful—"these persons are not going to

      1307
      recommend going into stage 2 unless it is obvious that stage 1 was a great success, because stage 2 is stage 1 with knobs on."
      If we had found that stage 1 was such a great success, we might think of going forward, tentatively, to stage 2. If, however, stage 1 was a vast disaster which brought poverty, sadness and unemployment to the British people and was still exercising its most malign influence upon our economy, surely we would think rather carefully before going forward to a worse condition than that provided for in stage 1.
      The disgrace of the Government's position is that they cannot say that the ERM was a success. They cannot do other than admit that the present condition of the economy does not result from the Government's wisdom, forethought, brilliance, or anything of that sort. We may reasonably hope for some recovery in the economy, not because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's brilliance but because of the good fortune that speculators speculated against the pound and threw us out of the ERM, and because our central bank, having lost £3·5 billion of taxpayers' money, took the view that we could not afford to buy our pounds any more and stay in the ERM. The ERM was an absolute disaster. It is important to understand that the state of the economy when we came out was near to being in a credit crunch.
      8 pm
      Perfectly sensible, kindly, respectable business men ask, "Aren't you wasting an awful lost of time making a nuisance of yourself to the Government? Don't you think it would be better to think of ways in which you can help the Government to resuscitate the economy?" But most of the problems that business men have stem from the ERM. They ask, "What are you doing with the clearing banks? Why don't you get the clearing banks to lend more money to small builders?" The reason that clearing banks cannot lend any more money to small builders is that the clearing banks and the small builders are on the verge of going bust.
      The clearing banks went in for a lot of silly and excessive lending between 1986 and 1988, a period when we were shadowing the deutschmark and when what could be described as the most disastrous Chancellor in recent history was talking about an economic miracle. At that time, the banks were lending far too much money to commercial property. They are now finding that their credit base is severely eroded, so severely eroded through the large losses that they suffered because of high interest rates that they cannot come to the aid of small business, as no doubt they would wish to do. That, I repeat, all stems from the ERM.
      I remind my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that it used to be the theory of the Conservative Government that we were, broadly speaking, monetarist, and that a change in the money supply took between 18 months and two and a half years to come through into the real economy. There has been a remarkably large relaxation of monetary policy since 16 September. It is not at all surprising that that relaxation is not yet fully showing itself in the economy.
      But the irony is that, if we ratify the Maastricht treaty, only when we are under a legal obligation to go into stage 2 on 1 January 1994 shall we be finding that the relaxation, consequent upon our good fortune on 16 September, is starting to work through. We shall then find ourselves under a legal obligation to abort the good fortune of the
      1308
      monetary relaxation that has occurred since 16 September. The green shoots will be nipped off once again by the frost of economic and monetary union in its incipient stages.
      Surely we should be explaining to those confused people who hoped that that was all part of being at the warm, friendly heart of Europe that that is the basis for yet more deflation to be imposed upon us by the Bundesbank, which will give rise to yet more trouble in our lending institutions.
      Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who always argues his case on these matters so well, for giving way. Does he agree that the conventional wisdom at the time—some of us, certainly including me, and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman too, argued against it—was that the ERM was a necessity for the British economy and that it would be wrong for Britain for us to remain outside. That was the argument put by the Government and, unfortunately, by some Opposition Members. It was said that it was an inevitable step—the same argument that is being used on integration under the Maastricht treaty. Have we not been proved right, at tremendous cost to the British economy, on the ERM, and will we not be proved right again if, as the hon. Gentleman says, we go into stage 2 and return to the ERM?
      Mr. Budgen: That was not much of a critical question. The hon. Gentleman was simply intervening to say that he agreed with me, albeit that he used rather different language.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on marshalling his arguments and putting them forward in such a congent manner, as he always does. In doing so, he is projecting an image of being an objective commentator on the economic scene. Can he list the number of times and the occasions on which he objected or voted against the Government who introduced the policies that he is now condemning?
      Mr. Budgen: I am consistent on that. I opposed the shadowing of the deutschmark between 1986 and 1988 and I voted against the ERM on every possible occasion. I do not remember ever being ill; I have quite good health. As far as I remember, I have voted against this European economic entanglement on every possible occasion. That does not mean that I am right, but it does mean that I have been consistent.
      Mr. Rogers: I was not thinking particularly of the hon. Gentleman's voting record in relation to Europe, although I presume that he voted with the Government on the single market issue.
      Mr. Budgen: No.
      Mr. Rogers: If he says that he did not, I accept that. The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government's policies and the bank's inability to lend to small businesses, but when did he ever raise his voice against the Government's economic policies?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that we can keep to the substance of the debate.
      Mr. Budgen: I respectfully agree, Dame Janet. I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I have done my incompetent best to raise these arguments fairly

      1309
      consistently over the years. I am sorry if I have not brought them to his attention, but I have done my best to bring them to other people's attention from time to time.
      However, the Committee is interested not in my record but in the effect of the Government's disastrous policy on the British economy. The point that I wish to make as firmly as I can is that the only intellectually respectable argument that the Government could put forward tonight would be to say that the ERM had been a success and that, because of the success of stage 1, they wanted to build on that and move to stage 2.
      The ERM has been a proven disaster. It has been a disaster in that it has cost us £3·5 billion in lost resources. It has been a disaster in that it has been a proximate cause of 3 million people being unemployed and has caused a credit crunch from which it will take us many years to recover. It has been a disaster in that it has created untold sadness for many people in the south-east who find themselves locked into houses that are now worth far less than the cost of their mortgages. It has been an utter disaster, which has been pursued not for economic reasons, but for political reasons.
      Only a Government who were completely impervious to their mistakes and to the appalling humiliation of 16 September could have the effrontery to say, "Never mind all these proven disasters. Let us go into stage 2 at least at the beginning of January, cutting off the freedom that we have enjoyed since 16 September. Let us chastise the British people with a system that is even worse than the ERM."
      Sir Russell Johnston: I have noticed over many years that debates on the European Community seem to attract to a disproportionate extent those who are generally opposed to progress in the Community. At the end of debates, one gets a rather lop-sided view of the balance of opinion, and the Committee is following that trend. I do not say that in praise of those who hold the views that I hold; on the contrary, the critics are more loyal in their appearance and in their contribution. I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will forgive me for not following directly his remarks, which I have heard him enunciate so fluently so often.
      Although I disagree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) about Maastricht, I admit that he made a direct, forthright and logical speech. I thought that his catalogue of attitudes and responses within the rest of the Community to our economic and monetary union opt-out dealt most effectively with the Government's presentation, which is that they have somehow secured a unique discretion without losing any influence. I do not think that that is right.
      Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole basis for the Government's position on the Maastricht treaty is that we are winning arguments all around Europe and that the direction of the Community will be away from a federal Europe? The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West gave one example of one area of policy in which there is no evidence to support the Government's view that they are changing the mood of the European Community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I completely agree with that. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West quoted a number of individuals. One can quote many more. At one point in the Committee, Martin Bangemann was quoted endlessly as if he had suddenly said something startling, new and different. I have known him for years and he has been saying the same thing non-stop. It is the same with all the others.
      Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats remain committed to the things that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West are against. Our position has been and remains distinct both from the position of the Government and from the position of Labour Front-Bench Members. For different reasons and to different degrees, both find the prospect of full economic and monetary union and the development of the ecu difficult to accept, although both have moved a long way.
      The arguments against EMU have a great tendency to be based on emotion as much as on economics, although, in my humble and not very informed opinion, much of economics has a theological aspect to it. People believe passionately in certain economic solutions on the basis of certain theories which sometimes they find it difficult either to prove or to disprove. I believe that the arguments for EMU and for the single currency have an irresistible logic, whereas many of the contrary arguments tend to be conducted at a rather surreal level.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman's integrity in terms of his views on Europe cannot be in doubt anywhere. Does he base his views on EMU and on all the other matters to do with political and economic union on the belief that they will be good for the people of the United Kingdom and good because they will help us as a trading nation to trade better? If he does, how does he square that with the fact that the Japanese appear to trade better than any of us do, although they do not enjoy any of the so-called benefits?
      8.15 pm
      Sir Russell Johnston: The situation in Japan and the situation in the United Kingdom are dramatically different. The arguments about access to a large market are part of the arguments that have been used throughout in respect of the United Kingdom's membership of the Community. A new trading pattern has developed as the old trading patterns with the Commonwealth have slowly declined. Japan's industrial structure is so different that it is difficult to make direct comparisons.
      Much of the argument focuses on the points raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the main intervener, who has now vanished. He always talks about national sovereignty, which affects people's thinking about what is possible economically. Many people's thinking is based on a complex of beliefs which are still held almost as a matter of religious faith. It is believed that we are better, that we are more efficient, that we have better laws, that we are more democratic and that we are more able to trade in the world than to be successful in the Community.
      It is difficult to argue with all those ideas, because people believe in them deeply and passionately. I recognise that because I have been listening for the best part of 20 years to the arguments of those who are against Europe. It is not that I do not know the arguments, or that I do not

      1311
      respect the people who hold them. I have reached the conclusion that I shall never persuade them, and they may have reached the conclusion that they will never persuade me—[Interruption.] One sometimes wonders why we continue to debate the matter.
      Mr. Winnick: It is called democracy.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I suppose that democracy is about peaceful persuasion.
      In the history of the Community, we have been guilty of many missed opportunities. The opt-out, which is a major part of our debate today, is one such missed opportunity and another example of our excluding ourselves from mainstream developments as a result of economic weakness, of shortsighted nationalism and of political delusion.
      For those reasons, when the Bill first came into Committee, we tabled amendment No. 400 which aimed to delete the protocol and, as a consequence, the United Kingdom's opt-out from stage 3 of EMU. Such an amendment would now have the consequence of wrecking the treaty, so we shall not press it to a Division. However, we support the Labour party's amendment No. 35, which seems to be a positive contribution, because it would allow parliamentary affirmation before moving to stage 3, which would be perfectly reasonable if the economic convergence criteria laid down in article 109 were established.
      We shall not support Labour's amendment No. 420 or new clause 56. We do not feel that they are necessary, despite the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), to which I listened carefully.
      Long before Maastricht, we were in favour of a single currency. The arguments in favour of economic and monetary union, such as the elimination of exchange rate uncertainty, are well rehearsed. I do not accept the catalogue of ills that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West attributed to our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. During our period of membership, like myself, he spoke to many business men, who are quite given to writing to one about these matters. They emphasised that they wanted to know what price they could offer in advance. They wanted some stability rather than the loss that resulted from unpredictability.
      I am rehearsing old arguments, but it is recognised that the collapse of black Wednesday was related not to the intrinsic weaknesses of the system but to the fact that the level at which we joined was too high to sustain and to our subsequent refusal to realign although the opportunity to do so existed. It is not altogether fair to make the accusations that the hon. Gentleman made. Considerable savings would be made by the elimination of transaction costs, the obvious example of which is for the individual but it is also noticeable for business.
      The ecu undoubtedly would become one of the world's three major currencies, with the dollar and yen. I shall quote Sir Leon Brittan, which I do not do often.
      Mr. David Harris: Why not?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not go into that.
      In 1990, Sir Leon said:
      "Birmingham is considerably closer to Calais than to Glasgow. But even when the internal market is fully in place, selling from Birmingham to Calais is going to be more
      1312
      complicated, slower and more expensive than selling to Scotland, simply because, although we have a single market, we do not yet enjoy the benefits of a single currency."
      I accept that argument.
      The benefits of EMU, in addition to the ones outlined above, which are specific to a single currency, are based mainly on the assumption that this will render economic policy more effective by having it conducted, or major elements of it conducted, at a more appropriate level—by which I mean supranational level—and because economic policy will in any event be heavily influenced by the Community countries that are most successful. It is increasingly clear that macro-economic policy can no longer be effectively controlled independently by individual European Community states. Black Wednesday was not the only example of that.
      We are unequivocally committed to a federal union. The Maastricht treaty, despite the Government's denial, represents a significant step towards such a European union. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West quoted Chancellor Kohl, saying that political union is meaningless without economic and monetary union. That is undoubtedly true. The Government's recognition of that was reflected in their lack of enthusiasm for a supranational structure and their desire instead to concentrate on intergovernmentalism, which led to the three-pillared structure of the treaty.
      The core of the treaty, including the economic sections, is clearly within the supranational institutional core of the Community, which makes our opt-out all the more tragic. I take the Minister's point about continuing to participate in policy making on EMU, but, like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, I think that a semi-detatched position does not increase one's influence.
      We must recognise that the problems facing economic and monetary union are great indeed. Many circumstances have changed since the treaty was first negotiated, and the timetable in particular will have to be reviewed. One cannot be optimistic about the possibility of maintaining it. The convergence criteria—inflation performance, Government debt, membership of the narrow band for two years and the durability criteria reflected in long-term interest rates—may prove to be too strict within the confines of the current timetable. Last year, if I remember correctly, only two countries met those requirements—France, which is not looking forward to such a good position now, and Luxembourg. Even Germany did not meet them. Clearly there can be no monetary union without the deutschmark; that would be quite unthinkable. The problems will be overcome only if member states work together to resolve the reorganisation of the ERM, the problems of the timetable and the difficulties caused by convergence criteria. The economic and political advantages to be gained by full economic and monetary union in the interdependent world in which we live seem well worth fighting for.
      The opt-out and our non-commitment to move to stage 3 occupied much of the Financial Secretary's speech. We regret the opt-out and, logically, regret the unwillingness of the Government to take the other consequential steps, particularly making the Bank of England independent as a prelude to the establishment of one European Community central bank.
      It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about European issues, but his interventions on the basis of his experience with the

      1313
      Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in France, Spain and Germany were very apposite and foreshadowed what we certainly fear; that our opt-outs will either relegate us to some subordinate position or compel us to adhere to or to shadow what other people determine.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have listened to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) at length. Perhaps he will excuse me if I do not pursue him. Having been up all night, one is wilting a bit at this stage, so I shall cover the main points that I have in mind.
      The most significant feature of last night's debate was that we covered three important groups of amendments on the banking system, economic policy and deficits, EMU, and traditional and second and third stages in the course of 24 hours. That is absolutely critical to the Government, because the success or failure of Maastricht will depend on monetary union and a single currency. It might have embarrassed the Government considerably if the arguments that we have been advancing appeared in local newspapers and on local radio. It is interesting that, of the 24 groups of amendments, only three relate to the economy, banking and the two stages. It is almost unique that these matters have been swept aside. After all, we are the representatives of the public and we are putting the arguments to them. If they cannot hear us because it is not recorded, they will not read them because Hansard is read probably only by ourselves.
      There is another interesting point. Stages 1 to 3 will take us virtually from today through to 1 January 1999. We know that, under article N, we shall be renegotiating the treaty in 1996. Why are we legislating so far ahead when there are so many difficulties involved in passing the treaty? It would have made more sense not to have legislated to cover that period and instead looked at it carefully and decided, in 1996, whether we wanted all the convergence to go ahead to lead us to a single currency.
      8.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—who has left the Chamber—spoke about rejoining the ERM. I agreed with his analysis. We have no alternative. It is obligatory that we rejoin the ERM. The wording of some of the articles show that it is one of the criteria. For example:
      "The observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System, for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
      If that is one of the criteria, and we are outside the exchange rate mechanism, we shall have to get into it again to qualify for stage 3. That is only reasonable.
      There is another way to look at it. According to article 109m:
      "Until the beginning of the third stage, each Member State shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest."
      That is an obligation that arises under the treaty.
      The obligation on the EMS and the exchange rate mechanism is important. However, there are certain subsidiary obligations. Convergence, which I regard as extremely important, arises from article 2. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have raised that point on several occasions, so I shall not go over the same ground. I have spoken of article 109m, which sets out the exchange rate obligations, but I have not mentioned article 102a,
      1314
      which contributes to the achievements or the objectives of the treaty. That is another obligation that cannot be avoided. Article 103 says that we must agree with the economic policy of the union.
      Let us have a look at those two. Article 102a says:
      "Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievements and objectives of the Community".
      That is an obligation because member states "shall" do something. There is no way to avoid that. Article 103 says:
      "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of article 102a."
      All those articles set out obligations under stage 2. They apply to the United Kingdom fully, as they apply to all the continental states. We have the option to opt into stage 3 if we wish to do so. Then, things alter, because we go over to the protocol and there are general dispensations and derogations at a future date which may be of advantage to us.
      The interesting point about the debate in the past 24 hours is that many matters of concern to us—given that many people in Europe will be excited if we do not fulfil our obligations—are incompatible with Community obligations. For example, that is true of the floating of the exchange rate under both stages 1 and 2. If the other nations ventilate their complaints, that could lead to litigation before the European Court of Justice, which in turn could force the United Kingdom back into the ERM. I shall not go into it fully, but I shall set out some of the implications of a breach of that. The court could order us to return and impose a fine under article 171. There could be retaliatory action. All that would arise from that article.
      Mr. Dorrell: This may be something of an abuse of our procedures, but I want to correct a statement that I made earlier in answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). He asked me whether he needed to decide next year whether we would join the single currency. I replied that we had no such need and that our protocol allows us to exercise our option to join a single currency either at the time of the original report under paragraph 2 of article 109j or at any time after the start of stage 3. I also said that the convergence criteria were assessed for the period before the start of stage 3. That was wrong. The convergence criteria are assessed under the convergence protocol for the period before the submission of the report.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged for that clarification. If we decided to opt into stage 3, the protocol will begin to apply. Certain clauses will not apply to the United Kingdom. It is entirely different with regard to the ERM. The Minister has said that the Government would return the United Kingdom to the ERM when it was convenient to do so. However, that is conditional upon us returning at an early date.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The Government have always said that we would return to the ERM when the conditions were right. In stage 2, the conditions are put in there under the statutory obligations.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: That is correct. On one occasion, I heard the Chancellor say that the ERM was the best thing that he had ever entered. At a later date, he decided that he would have to come out of it. The Prime Minister shared that view. It is a big man who can think again and

      1315
      decide that it is best to get out. However, we are caught by the treaty and our obligations. If the other member states feel that, because of the size of the exchange rate and because we have a floating rather than a fixed currency we have an advantage, they can make complaints before the court and so force us back into the ERM, which could be damaging for the United Kingdom.
      Those who qualify for going into the third stage cannot be identified at the moment. The conditions for the successful applicants are set out in article 109j. We know them well. They include inflation at the correct level, a satisfactory budget balance, a reasonable level of general Government debt and long-term bond yields at a certain rate. Figures that I got from the Treasury in February this year show that only one country would qualify—France. We cannot have entry into the third stage if only France is capable of doing so. The Bundesbank is important to Germany and to the whole Community. Germany is a bigger nation than ours, with 70 million people, and will obviously have to be there.
      Established criteria mean something. We either walk through the portals and get into stage 3, or we are frustrated and cannot get in. That is a twin-speed Europe. It is no use saying that we will not have a twin-speed Europe; it is inevitable from the very conditions laid down in article 109j. Some nations will be getting away much faster than others, and at this stage it looks as though the United Kingdom may be in the slow lane. I hope not. I believe that several years ahead we may be able to improve our chances. At the lower end of the list there will be Portugal and Spain; at the higher end there will be Germany and France, and probably Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium. That would make a fairly strong unit. This need not unduly upset the United Kingdom, which is extremely resourceful and has shown its resourcefulness over the years.
      Switzerland is an example worth noting. It was invited to join the Community, but refused to do so, on the ground that it was extremely successful outside the Community. Its living conditions are excellent. Austria, too, is doing well. But many other countries would like to get into the Community at some stage in the game.
      I ask the Committee to bear in mind the fact that we are but 12 nations, and two have a right of exemption in stage 3. When we add another four countries by 1996, and probably another four after that, what will be the situation in Europe? Will the Community collapse, or will it be held up by its own braces? I am very concerned about this, and I believe that more information should be made available to the public so that they can come to the right conclusions in time.
      The Financial Secretary has said that he is quite prepared to go back into the ERM, on his own conditions, when the time is ripe for the United Kingdom. But we have heard other versions of this. We have heard that the time will be ripe only when German interest rates fall. I believe that the Prime Minister has said, too, that the time will be ripe only when the flaws in the situation are removed. What are the flaws? They have never been identified.
      Schlesinger has said that there are no flaws and that he is quite prepared to abide by existing arrangements. Others have suggested that perhaps the yen and the dollar should be admitted before we get to stage 3. I do not know; I am concerned and I think that we should look into the whole matter very carefully before we make the final move.
      1316
      I will say one thing with absolute certainty: while I agree that there is a two-speed Europe and there is likely to be one, I would not like to see a Bonn-Paris axis. That could be as dangerous as the situation that we had many years ago.
      I suggest to the Committee that, before rushing to ratify the treaty, we think of some of the strange consequences that could overwhelm us. Russia now is on the brink of civil war—but I will not go too far down that road, Mr. Morris. There are other significant movements in Europe. The former Yugoslavia is upside down and is developing some resources, which will be discussed in the next series of amendments. I will not go too far down that road, because you might check me, Mr. Morris. I am always willing to oblige and, if I am wrong, I will make myself right. There are complications in Europe. We do not know what the situation is likely to be in France with a new right-wing Government. I will not go too far down that route, because I would be checked then also.
      We are dealing with the three stages. On the acceptance of Maastricht, we will be in stage 1. On 1 January 1994, we will be in stage 2. We will amble on like everybody else through all the conditions, convergence principles, and so on, complying with the treaty, and complying with the small print, which many people have not been prepared to follow. Then we will come up to stage 3. Shall we go in or shall we remain outside?
      We will have no option. We will come to that point and the Prime Minister will say that it is right for the United Kingdom to enter the third stage. By that time the spring will have sprung. It will be irrevocable. There will be fixed exchange rates and we will be tied to Europe, tied to the most powerful country. The most powerful country, of course, will be Germany; it is very competitive and it can destroy our economy.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 195.

      Division No. 212]

      [8.46 Pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowis, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Alton, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Amess, David

      Bright, Graham

      Ancram, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Butterfill, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bates, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Batiste, Spencer

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chapman, Sydney

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Churchill, Mr

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Booth, Hartley

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Colvin, Michael

      1317

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dover, Den

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Knox, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lidington, David

      Evennett, David

      Lightbown, David

      Faber, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luff, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Madel, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Freeman, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      French, Douglas

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Gallie, Phil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Garnier, Edward

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorst, John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hague, William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Needham, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pawsey, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Horam, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, John

      1318

      Richards, Rod

      Thomason, Roy

      Riddick, Graham

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Tracey, Richard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tredinnick, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Sackville, Tom

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Tyler, Paul

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waller, Gary

      Shersby, Michael

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whitney, Ray

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steen, Anthony

      Willetts, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sumberg, David

      Sykes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Robert Hughes.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Connarty, Michael

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, Bob

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Alistair

      Battle, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dixon, Don

      Betts, Clive

      Dobson, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Boyes, Roland

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bradley, Keith

      Eastham, Ken

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Enright, Derek

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

      Etherington, Bill

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gapes, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John

      Cann, Jamie

      George, Bruce

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Cash, William

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clelland, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      1319

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mudie, George

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mullin, Chris

      Gunnell, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Hain, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hall, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hanson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Heppell, John

      Olner, William

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Home Robertson, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pope, Greg

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hutton, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Illsley, Eric

      Randall, Stuart

      Ingram, Adam

      Rogers, Allan

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Keen, Alan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Short, Clare

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Knapman, Roger

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Leighton, Ron

      Spearing, Nigel

      Litherland, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Livingstone, Ken

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Trimble, David

      Lord, Michael

      Turner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Vaz, Keith

      McAllion, John

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      McCartney, Ian

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Macdonald, Calum

      Walley, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Wareing, Robert N

      McLeish, Henry

      Watson, Mike

      McMaster, Gordon

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Madden, Max

      Wilkinson, John

      Maginnis, Ken

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Marek, Dr John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Milburn, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Morley, Elliot

      Mr. Alan Meale.

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 80, Noes 275.

      Division No. 213]

      [9 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Cash, William

      Barnes, Harry

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cohen, Harry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Connarty, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Cryer, Bob

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Cummings, John

      Burden, Richard

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Callaghan, Jim

      Davidson, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      1320

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

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Etherington, Bill

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      George, Bruce

      Olner, William

      Gerrard, Neil

      Parry, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Godsiff, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hood, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jessel, Toby

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Trimble, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Watson, Mike

      Leighton, Ron

      Wilkinson, John

      Livingstone, Ken

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Lord, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      McAllion, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wray, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Madden, Max

      Maginnis, Ken

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. Alan F. Bennett and

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Mr. Ted Rowlands.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Conway, Derek

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alton, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Ancram, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Ashby, David

      Day, Stephen

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Duncan, Alan

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bates, Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Eggar, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Elletson, Harold

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Enright, Derek

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Bowis, John

      Faber, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burns, Simon

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Butterfill, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gale, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gallie, Phil

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Churchill, Mr

      Garnier, Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Gorst, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      1321

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Needham, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heald, Oliver

      Norris, Steve

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hendry, Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Page, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Paice, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richards, Rod

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Tom

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Soames, Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spring, Richard

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Sproat, Iain

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lidington, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stephen, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stern, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Stewart, Allan

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Streeter, Gary

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sumberg, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sykes, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomason, Roy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Madel, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Malone, Gerald

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mans, Keith

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

      Marland, Paul

      Tracey, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Trotter, Neville

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      1322

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Walden, George

      Willetts, David

      Waller, Gary

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ward, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Yeo, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The Chairman: We now move to the group on foreign and security and amendment No. 227. Mr. William Cash? Mr. Spicer? Mr. Gill? Mr. Cran? Mr. Shepherd? [Interruption.] Mr. Shepherd.
      Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Before you called Mr. Shepherd, I had moved the amendment formally.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman did not.
      Mr. Rogers: Yes, I did. I stood and moved it formally.
      The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot do that. It is not the procedure. I have to go through the list of people who are attached to the amendment. Mr. Shepherd has the floor to move the amendment.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Then I move it formally as well.
      Amendment proposed: No. 227, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 238'.—[Mr. Richard Shepherd.]
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 231, in page I, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 228'.
      Amendment No. 232, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 228a'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and V.'.
      Amendment (a) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      '(except Article J.2 of Title V)'.
      Amendment (b) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      '(except Article J.4 of Title V)'.
      Amendment (c) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.1 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (d) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.3 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (e) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.5 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (f) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.6 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (g) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.7 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (h) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.8 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment (i) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.9 in Title V thereof'.

      1323
      Amendment (j) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.10 in Title V thereof.
      Amendment (k) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
      'but not Article J.11 in Title V thereof'.
      Amendment No. 224, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and V'.
      New clause 5—Foreign, security and defence policy—
      'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report of any case in which decisions taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Union in the course of implementing a common foreign, security and defence policy (pursuant to Article B in Title I of the Maastricht Treaty) are in his opinion inimical to the best interests of the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. David Howell: The amendments relate to the part of the Bill—and the relevant part of the treaty—concerning provisions on a common foreign and security policy. Article J of the treaty states:
      "A common foreign and security policy is hereby established which shall be governed by the following provisions."
      The provisions follow.
      This is supposed to be the part of the treaty, and the part of the Bill relevant to the treaty, in which the full machinery of the Community—and the machinery of the Commission—are to be kept at bay. We are presented here with one of the pillar elements of the treaty, which will be governed by intergovernmental co-operation rather than by the machinery of the Community. We should first examine the degree to which the Community machinery will indeed be kept out of the creation of a common foreign and security policy.
      9.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with his characteristic courtesy. Will he confirm that states making formal application for membership of what will be the European union must accept common security and defence policy as it stands?
      Mr. Howell: "Confirm" is too strong a word, but I understand that will be the case, although states may seek certain derogations in the negotiations leading to their membership. Broadly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is right: they will be embraced in this part of the union, and will be covered by the pillar of intergovernmental operations that is supposed to deliver a common foreign policy.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: At the Edinburgh summit, did not the Danes explicitly secure a derogation on defence? Denmark is not a member of the Western European Union, and it does not want the defence obligations contained in the treaty.
      Mr. Howell: What Denmark did and not get at the Edinburgh summit is a very interesting, almost surreal subject. The decisions about derogation for Denmark were not made by the Community; they were decided by the individuals who happened to be present as members of the European Council of Ministers, but not in their capacity as Community members. Oddly enough, however, the decision—which was not a Community decision—that Denmark should have those derogations was then recorded in the minutes of Community affairs.
      The set of derogations for Denmark has an almost Hamlet-like, almost ghostlike, quality. No one is quite sure
      1324
      what the Danes have or have not secured for themselves, apart from feeling that they are in some way not bound by these matters.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
      Mr. Rowlands rose—
      Mr. Howell: I want to proceed with my speech. I have already given way twice in two minutes.
      First, I want to examine the extent to which we shall see a separation between the activities of the Community machinery—particularly the activities of the Commission—and the activities of the Council of Ministers, acting in its intergovernmental role of dealing with foreign affairs. That requires examination, because the Commission has competences in external affairs. Those external affairs are meant to be of a commercial and economic nature, and indeed they are; but a large proportion of all foreign policy issues are intimately, inextricably linked with commerce and external financial matters. We must ask to what extent it will be possible, in practice, for a separation to be maintained between the foreign policy issues that do not impinge on the competence of the Commission and the Community, and the foreign policy issues that are inextricably woven together in both economic and non-economic matters.
      It will be difficult, first, because, as I have said, up to 80 per cent. of all foreign-policy issues touch on commercial, economic and financial matters. Secondly, as the treaty makes clear, the Commission will have a seat on the Council of Ministers. It will have certain rights to initiate ideas and proposals in the Council on issues of foreign policy. I hope that we can ensure that, as the treaty develops and emerges, that does not lead to a gradual erosion of the pillar that we are discussing until it becomes a mere needle and eventually evaporates altogether, so that foreign policy and common security policy, in practice, become the bailiwick of the Community machinery.
      That would be a pity, and it would go flatly against what some of us want to see, which is that the pillar elements in the treaty—the intergovernmental elements—far from being eroded and weakened, need to be strengthened so as to foster what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary calls an alternative model for European development. If we are to develop that, it is a strengthening of the pillars, rather than a weakening and erosion, that we need to see.
      Another difficulty is that the treaty insists in its early articles, long since debated, that there should be one institutional framework in which all activities, whether the intergovernmental pillar ones that we are discussing or the many issues that have already been discussed at great length in Committee, should be contained. That is a concept that we shall need to challenge as we begin to reform and revise the treaty in the period leading up to 1996, when I hope that there will be a major contribution, not least by Government and the United Kingdom, to a new constitution for Europe that will be rather different from the one that we shall find immediately after the completion of the Maastricht process.
      If we are to see a common foreign policy handled in a sensible, pragmatic way, and not turned into a mish-mash and blur of the sort that I shall outline later, leading to serious foreign policy errors, it is important that in due course we should move away from a single institutional framework that embraces all the activities of European

      1325
      nations, large and small, ancient and not so ancient—in other words, one massive structure or network. That would be a wrong starting point, and certainly a wrong finishing point. It is important for us to recognise that in future there can be different institutional frameworks to deal with different issues. Foreign policy and, I suspect, security and defence policies are different in their texture from some of the other issues that are embodied in the Rome treaty, the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Spearing: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has reached the kernel of an important issue. Has he noticed that in the title that he is discussing there are at least 20 references to the Council, and we know that the Council will be the pivot of a single foreign and security policy? The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, who will be much involved in the matters that we are discussing. That being so, I am glad that he is contributing to the debate. Has the right hon. Gentleman questioned any Minister on how the separation between intergovernmental and other issues will be dealt with in the general council of the Council, which is sometimes called the Foreign Council, by a single organisation in the Council, and a single organisation under COREPER? Surely that is the unity that he has said that he fears.
      Mr. Howell: The answer is yes. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has so questioned Ministers, and it hopes in due course to report to the House of Commons on its conclusions. Perhaps I should not go into too much detail about the conclusions we draw, but the evidence that has emerged suggests that it is very difficult to draw a permanent, hard and fast line between these two vast areas of foreign policy; and that the dangers of blurring and coincidence are considerable. We shall have to think of ways—they are not embodied in this treaty—of ensuring the continuation of the intergovernmental process by which we set great store and which is said to give this treaty a different flavour from previous European treaties. That process must be preserved and strengthened.
      Secondly, not only do we want to avoid a single institutional framework but we note—perhaps we need to reinforce—the absence of any great convergence of foreign policy interests between the different powers and member states of the Community. We must be very careful not to try to impose a false convergence of foreign policy outlook on the interests of member states. If we do impose one, it will lead to unfortunate results and we will be pushing against reality, which is going the other way.
      The truth is that, just as the economies of the member countries are not, alas, converging—in many ways they are diverging—so the politics and foreign policy concerns of the Community countries, although they overlap and there are areas of common interest that make a good case for working closely together in intergovernmental cooperation, are also growing apart. Changes of emphasis and contrasts of emphasis in foreign policy are becoming sharper as we move into the 1990s than they were in the 1980s. One has only to take a brief Cook's tour of continental Europe to see how these divergencies are growing. Unless we take them into account and understand them—as Keynes used to say, we must deal
      1326
      with what is really happening, not with what the theory says should be happening—we do not have much hope of establishing an effective framework for our foreign common policy.
      The Germans, for instance, have their own agenda: they are concerned with unification. They are also on the other side of the Community; they look eastwards, and, as they always have been, their concerns are with their relations with central and eastern Europe—and with the great turmoil which is Russia today. That is their primary concern. Many Germans think of nothing else and are not interested in other dimensions of foreign policy. We must not criticise them for that.
      I am not sure what the French agenda is. The French are going through a political earthquake, and what France's foreign policy priorities will be after it I am not sure. The concern in many French circles, however, is partly with eastern Europe—our concern, too—but much more with the Maghreb. The French look across the Mediterranean to the great nations of Algeria and Morocco, bound up as they are with French history and emotions. The primary fear of the Quai D'Orsay is about the problem of what will happen in these countries. Will there be a growth of vicious fundamentalism along the north African coast, ousting the moderate regimes that are trying to come to terms with the modern world?
      Mr. Winnick: Was not there a good illustration of the failure of the member states of the European Community to reach a common foreign policy when we were faced with criminal aggression in 1990 in the form of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? The need then, as the right hon. Gentleman realised at the time, was to take up arms to end the criminal aggression. If we had waited for a common foreign policy to emerge, Kuwait would probably still be occupied by Iraq, unless, of course, the United States had acted alone.
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point, and other examples could be cited. There is no doubt that, in the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, great forces were at work in the world which drew the allies together in a coalition that was subsequently blessed by the United Nations. It was not actually a UN force. The idea of a common European policy was secondary and almost invisible.
      9.30 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, during the events to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred, there was a consistent foreign policy on the part of EC countries through European political co-operation? However, there was no co-ordinated defence response from our European partners. That is one reason why the United Kingdom Government have taken the initiative in seeking to begin to develop, through the Western European Union, a defence dimension for Europe compatible with NATO. However, the political response during the crisis was there.
      Mr. Howell: That is partly true, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister recalls the hectic days before the final decision to send troops into Kuwait, he will remember that there were a number of rather dramatic wobbles in the French approach to the matter, quite aside from the views from Bonn and Rome. In the end, a common foreign

      1327
      policy view may have emerged, but it was sadly something following the event rather than at the cutting edge of the event.
      Before the intervention by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I was touring the Europe of today trying to illustrate the dangers of stamping too tight a mould on the concept of common foreign policy which, I do not dispute, is useful in certain circumstances. However, if it were a general demand for uniformity, that would be gravely mistaken.
      I have already referred to Germany and France. Italy is also a puzzle today. There are those, including senior statesmen in Italy, who question whether Italy will even exist as a state in a few years. It is certainly in a difficult position in respect of formulating and pursuing clear foreign policy. The previous Italian Government had a sort of agenda, particularly in respect of the Balkans. However, that is hardly a sound basis for a co-ordinated foreign policy.
      Similarly, I am uncertain about the perspectives and priorities of Spain. It seems that the Spanish socialist Government are approaching the end of their time. A new Government will emerge who will probably remain very committed to the European Community, although the high promises on the economic side are clearly not being met. There is considerable disappointment about that. I really would not like to comment on current Spanish policy priorities, but I do not feel any particular closeness between what the Spanish are saying and what we are saying and identifying as our priorities.
      Even poor little Belgium, which seemed to be the acme of the common approach whether in monetary affairs, economic competences or foreign policy, now seems to be quivering on the bough. It faces considerable difficulties on the economic side and in respect of foreign and internal domestic policies.
      We have our own foreign policy priorities, part of which relate to the European context. In respect of many of those priorities, we want to work closely with our continental neighbours, not least in establishing a common line in respect of what we can do—if anything can be done at all—about the chaos in Russia or whether we will see that vast federation splinter into 20 countries in the same way that the Soviet Union splintered.
      We have a very different perspective at the western end of Europe from that of the Germans and perhaps of almost all our continental neighbours. I have one example that I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee. We have a connection with, experience of and involvement in the Asian scene, particularly that of the south-east, as a result of chance, history and commerce of a kind that is not shared by any of the other Community countries. There is no doubt that events are now shaping in Asia in a hectic way as China begins to become the great economic power that it was always bound to become one day. The Chinese economic regions of Guangdong, Fukian, Hong Kong and Taiwan are beginning to trade with each other and generate capital flows across south-east Asia on a scale that makes our efforts in Europe look puny. It has almost reached the point where the inter-regional trade in south-east Asia is greater than ours in Europe.
      I do not want to pursue the sensitive and difficult issue of Hong Kong, but, partly because of that and our traditional interests concerned with our commerce and our
      1328
      involvement and attitude of mind to that region, we are extremely interested in that issue, and we have a great deal to offer.
      I make no apology for grinding a favourite axe, but there is no doubt that we and the Japanese have an intimacy and an understanding that is probably unmatched throughout the Community. Fears are aroused in Europe about a Japanese trade invasion, but hopes are also expressed about Japanese investment—a curious ambiguity of sentiments.
      There is no doubt that Britain has a particular role to play in interpreting Japan to the rest of the Community and the rest of the Community to Japan. I would be sad to see that unique role submerged or rolled into a common foreign policy of the Community. I accept that the Commission has competencies concerning external trade and negotiates with the Japanese, but it is important to consider security and foreign policies, which are of vast importance.
      We will have to become increasingly concerned with the defence structure of Asia. We will have to consider the attitude of the Asians, particularly the Japanese, to Russia, of which they see a far more brutal side than our own. That is of crucial importance to us.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: Is it not a fact that one of the problems of a relationship between the EC and Japan is its strong desire to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? In the long term, our relationship will also be influenced by our relations, as Europeans, with Russia. The Japanese-Russian dispute over the northern islands, as the Japanese call them, is also important.
      Surely it is absolutely impossible for us to have an important influence on the strategic debate within the EC unless we firmly endorse the processes towards the development of a common European policy on all aspects of security and international affairs.
      Mr. Howell: I quibble only with the word "all" in the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Whether one can apply to all aspects the commonality, the commonisation—to conjure up a hideous word that is not in the dictionary—I rather doubt. The position of Japan vis-a-vis Russia is delicate and sensitive. The debate about its northern Islands is curious, especially when one considers how much territory the old Soviet Union conceded. It is hard for us to understand why the Russians want to hang on so grimly to such rather sad little islands. It is something, however, of great concern to Moscow and leads to extremely bad relations between that city and Tokyo.
      Britain has a better understanding of some of the issues and how they might be resolved in a way to enable Japan to help Russia. If ever there was a natural matching, it must be between eastern Russia, a vast area of natural resources and commodities, and Japan, an island factory that uses them all up. That natural partnership does not exist at the moment because those countries detest each other. Perhaps we can help to overcome some of the problems.
      Finally, I come to the saddest aspect of all of the attempts to put an over-zealous mould on the European foreign policies of EC members, and that is the Balkan fiasco. Here was an occasion when there appeared to be a European issue and the European nations said that not only was it a European issue, but that, in a sort of inverted

      1329
      way, as the tail came to wag the dog, we must invent a common European foreign policy and demonstrate that there was such a thing in order to deal with the Balkan issue. As a result, some fatal steps were taken, the costs of which, the penalties of which, the blood from which, we see now flowing before us on the television screens almost nightly.
      I refer in particular to the decision, taken in the name of a common European foreign policy, to recognise as independent sovereign states Croatia and Bosnia—certainly in the case of Bosnia, flatly against the advice and overriding the criteria laid down by Mr. Badinter of the conseil d'etat, who was authorised to judge and assess whether those countries fulfilled the criteria to be recognised as independent sovereign states. He came to the conclusion that they were not, but they were recognised because, we were told, it was a choice between the common sense, particularly strong here in London and a view particularly held by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, with his vast practical grasp of these things, that it was wrong, and the demand that it had to be, because if everyone did not go along with the Germans they would do it anyway and that would bust up the common European foreign policy. Therefore, we had the extraordinary situation where unity was put before sanity.
      Mr. George Walden: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the situation is even worse than he expresses it, because there was a sort of unity of contradictions. Those who believed as a dogma in a common European foreign policy, and therefore wanted to demonstrate it in ex-Yugoslavia in the way that my right hon. Friend has described, were supported, paradoxically, by those who opposed, vehemently and dogmatically, a common European foreign policy and stressed much more the nationalism in Europe. Those people pressed strongly—I shall name no eminent names—without necessarily even knowing in some cases that there were Muslims in that part of the world, from an opposite side of the spectrum for the catastrophic recognition of parts of former Yugoslavia. Therefore, we had the terrible situation where two dogmas collided to produce the sort of catastrophe that my right hon. Friend has described.
      Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right and the catastrophe has scarcely begun. There is no conceivable end in sight. We now see the heroic attempts—I do not want to denigrate them in any way—to try to create some order after each stage, as the situation gets more and more violent in the Balkans, being frustrated more and more frequently. We now have the realisation that the famous maps put forward by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance are unacceptable and, according to, I think, the chief of the general staff in today's papers, unenforceable.
      There never was a possibility of even an EC-UN solution being imposed on the Bosnian quagmire, the Bosnian "sponge" and the Bosnian tragedy. Some difficult lessons are yet to be learnt about that sad area before there is the slightest hope that the balance of terror will be so great that the bloodshed and the shooting will cease and it will be possible to police some action to halt the atrocious Serbian aggression in some areas and the atrocities of other groups of combatants in other areas. Basically there must be a recognition—and it will take much swallowing
      1330
      —that the Serbians have won the war. The question is whether any of us, Europeans together or apart, with the Americans or with the Russians, have the political will to roll back the gains that the aggressors have made.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does it not give the most appalling signals of impotence that what has been recognised, rightly or wrongly, as an independent sovereign state is being subjugated by another sovereign state, with all the accompanying atrocities which are far worse than any since the second world war? United Nations soldiers, European soldiers and some British soldiers stand by—I make no criticism of them—while women and children are slaughtered in front of them. Is not that a damning indictment of our impotence?
      Mr. Howell: It is a damning indictment of many things, including past mistakes, present impotence and failure to understand with our fingertips what is going on and what motivates people in that part of the world. We can either go on analysing the mistakes that have been made or we can say that we must try to do something constructive to halt the horrific problem that has been created.
      We must ensure that both in the treaty and especially in the revision work that is to he done once the treaty is ratified we preserve and strengthen the pillars of intergovernmental co-operation. We put a question mark over the qualified majority voting. I was never in favour of that, although it is in the treaty. Even when joint action has been agreed, that system is a mistake. We must ensure that, when we build the European structure which will lie beyond Maastricht and which will have many qualities that are designed for a decentralised Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put in, we keep the pillars strong, pure and separate from erosion by ideas of imposing common foreign policy on all aspects of the diverse foreign interests of the different Community members, with the rich and encouraging differences that make up modern Europe.
      Mr. Rogers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman who, I presume, is giving way. I hope that he will carry on and give us more of his expert advice. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that structures should be set up on co-operation on these issues which are more elaborate than those proposed in the treaty and in the general context of the development of NATO?
      Mr. Howell: I sensed that the Committee wanted to move on and I did not want to detain it for too long. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is no. More elaborate structures are not what we need. Clearer structures of intergovernmental co-operation can certainly be developed. We certainly need structures that have a more strongly entrenched element to prevent the constant trend towards centralisation. The language and vocabulary in the treaty beyond this treaty, which should be seen through but must be built on, should be less patronising and should recognise that power comes upwards from the people. We need such powers governing matters such as a common foreign policy, as well as the more centralised competences, rather than powers grandly devolved from the centre. We do not need elaborate structures.
      Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend has given us a delightful explanation of the

      1331
      situation as he sees it, and in his usual precise and gentle way, he has taken to pieces the proposals that we are debating. Does he believe that the right way forward is to ratify the treaty and hope to take things forward in the direction that he wants, or does he think that that is the wrong signal and that now is the time to say, "We don't like the way it is going. We think that much of it is wrong and this is the point where we should stop and look at it anew"?
      Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend tempts me, but, no, I do not. Elsewhere, far outside the House, decisions may be taken and events will occur—perhaps in Copenhagen on 18 May or in some constitutional labyrinth in Germany, where there are difficulties with ratification of the treaty—which may stop this part of the Maastricht process. It would be utterly wrong for us actively to seek to halt the Maastricht process and its implications.
      Why do I think that? Because I want to see a reshaping of Europe in ways that will be far more congenial to the British temperate and attitudes and to the new applicants—the EFTA countries, the new democracies of eastern Europe and, dare I say it, even to millions of people in France, Germany and Italy. I want Britain to be involved in that and to recognise that, after 10 or 20 years of having been told that we must trail after the train of superior neighbours who will rush ahead otherwise, it is now the other way round and that, through our rather cooler thinking and our insistence on the derogations that we sought in the original Maastricht treaty—not least in the creation of the pillar of foreign policy separate from the Community—we may be in a position, if we can get the confidence in ourselves, which we always seem to lack at the crucial moment, to lead and shape the Europe of the 1990s.
      Mr. Rogers: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice that it would be wrong to set up elaborate structures. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) is present; when he was Secretary of State for Defence, Britain took the lead in setting up a rapid reaction corps. The Franco-German brigade is being developed and I should be interested to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Guildford on the development of a European security force.
      Mr. Howell: I do not think that these are beginnings. Practical bilateral and intergovernmental arrangements are being made between Community countries. People always underestimate, because there is little rhetoric attached to it, the closeness of French and British co-operation. We hear tremendous speeches about the Franco-German brigade, but the reality is that French and British senior soldiers and military personnel are co-operating in a most intimate and effective way. Such intergovernmental co-operation is good and welcome
      The NATO structure has been, to put it rather brutally, looking for a new role and new mission in the post-cold war world. I think that it will find one because it is a highly efficient model of intergovernmental co-operation. It is almost a supranational model, but it is a very subtle arrangement that we should perhaps think of copying in other areas. That NATO model has at its heart something which is very important: it is a transatlantic structure. What it tells us, the message of a successful NATO that it blinks at us, is that it is not just Britain but America that needs to be at the heart of Europe if we are to establish an
      1332
      effective European security structure to meet this extraordinary new world, in which we do not know where the next threat will come from.
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend has employed a seductive argument and put a great deal of emphasis on the separation of the pillars, but I am sure that he will agree that the Commission is associated with those activities. Furthermore, when one looks into the details a little more, one sees a problem. Under article J, the member states effectively subsume their security interests in a common position. It says:
      "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."
      Does my right hon. Friend have any concern that, in going down that route, the wise words that he used about the value that can be placed on our pragmatism might be subsumed by the problem of our being locked into words that give too much emphasis to the union and to the Commission and effectively undermine the virtues of the policies that he has been advocating for so long?
      Mr. Howell: That depends—this is where I differ from many of the things that my hon. Friend says—on the confidence with which one approaches those matters. He has described half the orange—the half that involves the Commission sitting round the table with the Council of Ministers. The Commission is apparently entitled to be another country and one with a considerable voice. There are dangers, as I began by saying, that the pillar dealing with certain foreign policy issues—not all—in a common way, an intergovernmental way, may be eroded, weakened and undermined by the sort of factors that my hon. Friend fears.
      I say to my hon. Friend that he should not have too much fear. Let us go into the Europe of the next five years in a spirit of confidence that we can hold the line and indeed reverse some of the trends that we have seen rolling over us in the past 20 years. I believe that it can be done, but my hon. Friend does not.
      Mr. Peter Mandelson: I found interesting, in the context of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about NATO. I assume that he is aiming to conclude his speech by 10 o'clock. In the remaining three minutes, will he say something about the role of the Western European Union as an expression of the European Community's defence identity and whether it might have a peacekeeping role in tandem with the European Community's operations and interest in these matters?
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman leads me to subjects beyond those on which I wanted to touch this evening. I do not want to keep the Committee any longer. As he knows, the problem with the WEU is that it is not an organisation in the sense that NATO is, and some of its members are not members of the Community, and some members of the Community are not members of the WEU. There would be real difficulties in trying to elevate that, as some of the Maastricht treaty architects wanted, into a European security force.
      I hope that, when we have ratified Maastricht—I believe that we shall unless the Danes sink it—the

      1333
      intergovernmental quality will be not merely defended but vigorously upheld and developed so as to give us a strong European foreign policy mechanism, which allows us to have our differences of view and pursue those differences without being submerged in a Euro-blur or a ludicrous foreign policy adventure of the kind that has brought only bloodshed and tragedy to the Balkans. I see that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Morris.
      9.59 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Morris, that once again you have given me the opportunity to interest the Committee rather late in the proceedings.
      I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and hope to interest the Committee in the next 60 seconds as much as he did for the duration of his speech.
      It now goes without saying that the main security problems for western Europe are no longer the military threat from the former Soviet Union or any of its successors, or indeed from the other former Warsaw pact countries. The problems now are the dangers arising from economic, political and ethnic instabilities.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Cambridgeshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I must confess that the standard spending assessment is not a subject which fascinates everyone. After a session in which many hon. Members were up all night, it is perhaps not surprising that so few of them remain in the Chamber for this debate. However, I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, Sout-West (Sir A. Grant) in his seat, because, as one of my fellow Members for Cambridgeshire, he obviously shares my great interest in this matter. I am very grateful to him for turning up this evening.
  There is a pattern in the Government's treatment of local authorities—a pattern, I am afraid, of failing to listen, undermining local democracy and removing accountability, and at the same time imposing spending cuts.
  The standard spending assessments fit that pattern in all three respects. That is not just my view; it is the view of the Audit Commission which, in a leaked draft report, says that standard spending assessments and cappings leave councils with only cosmetic accountability for decisions largely made by Ministers.
  That is not just Labour's and the Audit Commission's view. At a recent meeting of the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire county council, a resolution which referred to gross anomalies called for an urgent review of
  "such dubious measures as the Standard Spending Assessment and the Area Cost Adjustment."
  That resolution, I am pleased to say, received all-party support.
  That is all the more surprising when one knows that Cambridgeshire Conservative councillors quake at the knees at the mere thought of the tongue-lashing that they will receive from their former leader, the noble Lady Baroness Blatch for supporting publicly a resolution so critical of the Government. It is quite astonishing, and shows how strongly they feel. It is a situation in which anger conquers fear.
  I can therefore say that I speak on behalf of the people of Cambridgeshire when I call on the Government to review the basis of the standard spending assessment and to give a fairer deal to Cambridgeshire.
  If we look at some figures first to put the whole thing in context, we see that Cambridgeshire's SSA for 1993–94 is £380·6 million. The council budget has been set £2 million higher than this at the capping limit, and was negotiated because of the larger sums of money lost to further education than in the Government's formula calculations. This has meant an extra £10 on the council tax for a band B property across the county.
  I also welcome the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) who is now almost in his seat, and express my pleasure that he has chosen to attend this evening as well.
  The education SSA for Cambridgeshire is £217·8 million, and the education budget is £226·75 million. That is £9 million higher, yet, even in that situation, Cambridgeshire is well down the list of all counties for spending per pupil. What are very sad and have angered

  1335
  local people immensely over the past few months are the cuts in education which Cambridgeshire is having to impose.
  We have recently seen £400,000 taken out of the community education budget. That has affected many people and particularly many pensioners, people who may not have many pleasures in life and get a great deal out of community education, including social contact and the opportunity to develop their skills and talents.
  The county has also taken £340,000 from its post-16 transport, which means that pupils who previously had a free bus service to school are being charged £40 a term to get to college. That affects many of my constituent; who travel from the north side of Cambridge to the south side, to get to the sixth form college. It also affects much more drastically the constituents of the Conservative Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East and for Cambridgeshire, South-West. One could call it a tax on rural communities.
  Also, £200,000 has been taken out of the discretionary further education awards budget; that also affects the opportunities of people in Cambridgeshire.
  These, however, pale into insignificance when compared with the £1·3 million taken from the central education support services, even though Cambridgeshire is among the top 10 authorities for delegating resources to schools.
  That is not all. Because of the increasing pupil numbers in secondary schools, they would have expected to receive an additional £900,000 this year, simply because of the way in which the local management of schools budget works, but that has not happened.
  This is not a profligate, spendthrift, giveaway authority but a county that was so mean with its spending that the Conservatives lost control in 1985 when its leader was the noble Lady Baroness Blatch, now a Minister in the Department of Education. The Conservatives must be worried that they look set to lose control again in 1993 because the people of Cambridgeshire are fed up with penny-pinching and cuts. They want a quality service, investment in the future, in our children, in our excellent community education service; and they want the opportunity for students, particularly mature students, to win discretionary awards, so that they can gain the qualifications which they need and which the country needs.
  The area cost adjustment is based on the new earnings survey, which is valid statistically at the economic planning regional level. Cambridgeshire comes into the East Anglian economic planning region, with Norfolk and Suffolk, and it gets no area cost adjustment, unlike Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, which come into the south-east region.
  The Library has supplied me with statistics looking at the standard spending assessments per pupil for five to 15-year-olds for 1993 to 1994. I see that the SSA per pupil for that age range in Cambridgeshire is £2,218. It is £115 more per pupil in Essex, £135 more per. pupil in Hertfordshire and £215 more in Bedfordshire. That money buys a great deal in terms of resources.
  The area cost adjustment is unfair. First of all, it is based on insufficient information. The economic planning region statistics are being used to determine spending at county and district levels. In fact, if the funding of grant-maintained schools is based on future standard spending assessments, we shall see the economic planning region statistics being used to determine spending in
  1336
  individual schools, and the situation will become even more ridiculous, and will give rise to even greater anomalies.
  The area cost adjustment is unfair because it is based on insufficient, and insufficiently detailed, information. It is also based on the wrong information, because it assumes that, in expensive areas, staff are paid more to compensate for higher costs. In fact, a survey carried out by the Association of County Councils showed that there was very little variation in pay levels for teachers, police officers and fire fighters. These people are paid on national scales, so the whole basis of the area cost calculation is anomalous and inconsistent.
  There is also in my area an inconsistency in the regional organisation of the Department of the Environment. It is a little curious that the Department's regional office covering Cambridge is in Bedford, yet, for the area cost adjustment, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire are in different economic planning regions. That does not seem to make sense.
  When the SSA system replaced the grant-related expenditure assessments in 1990–91, the proportion of education control totals distributed for additional educational needs rose from 10 per cent. to 24 per cent.—a massive leap. Since then, the proportion has fallen a little, but it remains far higher than is justified. In fact, it is being used as a political fudge factor. A much higher proportion needs to be allocated for basic educational needs.
  Finally, I believe that there is consensus that standard spending assessments are inequitable and that they are being abused—inequitable because they do not reflect the true costs of providing local services; abused because they are being used to impose on local authorities spending limits that should be decided by local people at local elections, and not by way of Government diktat.
  The term "standard spending assessment" implies that the SSA takes account of the cost of providing a standard level of service in each local education authority area, but this is not true. In fact, each Department at Government level decides its control total, and then the SSA is simply used to divide this total between local authorities.
  I am obviously fascinated to learn that the Secretary of State for the Environment is planning a review of the standard spending assessment system, including the area cost adjustment, in the coming year. I very much hope that that review will be more than window-dressing, that it will not be designed simply to fob local authorities off for another year. I hope that it will result in a fairer deal for the people of Cambridgeshire, but the precedents are not encouraging. I fear that the ugly pattern of imposing cuts and undermining democracy will continue. That is why I initiated this debate. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made.
  10.13 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Ms Campbell) for allowing me a moment to participate in this important debate. She put her case with great care and a great deal of charm. In fact, so charming was she that I shall not say a word about the mismanagement of Cambridgeshire under a Lib-Lab coalition. I draw a veil right over that and confine myself to saying that Cambridgeshire county council, under Conservative

  1337
  control, has displayed very good, efficient financial management. The hon. Lady described it as penny-pinching and tight-fisted.
  However, the hon. Lady and I are in total agreement about the fact that the council has been unfairly treated for a very long time by the central Government over the question of the SSA. I can go back as far as 1983, when I had very serious complaints. With my noble Friend Lord Pym, I abstained. We were given an acknowledgement by the Minister—now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that Cambridgeshire had been unfairly treated, and were told that the Government would try to be fair in future. I have not seen much sign of fairness. We are still stuck with the wretched area cost adjustment, to which the hon. Lady rightly referred, which seriously militates against us.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and I have nagged about this issue year after year. On 3 February this year, I raised the matter with the Secretary of State. I pointed out that it was ridiculous that Cambridgeshire
  "does not benefit, whereas Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire do. This creates great ill-feeling. I do not believe that it can be rectified by the Association of County Councils"
  and I said that the Government should get a grip on the matter. The Secretary of State replied:
  "I understand very well the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. Indeed, it has been expressed to me very often by several of my hon. Friends. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, and I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he has asked".—[Official Report, 3 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 339.]
  I hope that that will be reiterated by the Minister when replying to tonight's debate, and that we shall have some action at long last. The whole principle of area cost adjustment is completely outdated. It is stuck in a sort of rigid time warp. It is time to scrap it and start again from scratch.
  I have been pleased to note the way in which the mood of Government seems to have changed over the years. For example, yesterday the Secretary of State repeated that he was
  "going to undertake a fundamental review of the SSA system in time for the next settlement".—[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 908.]
  I hope that the consensus on the issue between all Cambridgeshire hon. Members will work on the hearts and heads of Ministers, so that next year there will be an end once and for all to the unfairness from which the fastest growing county in the country has suffered for far too long.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her good fortune in securing this debate and on the way she spoke. I also congratulate my hon. and long-time Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has been in his place throughout this short debate. At some
  1338
  time this morning—which, as we know, was Wednesday—hon. Members on both sides must have wondered whether this debate would take place.
  I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak about the calculation of standard spending assessments, or SSAs as they are known, focusing this time on the calculations for Cambridgeshire. Those assessments have an important place in the system of local government, but they are often misunderstood. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I begin by explaining some of the general principles, before going on to explain how they apply to Cambridgeshire in particular. Indeed, only by understanding the general principles can one hope to understand any individual calculation. That is because it is a hallmark of SSAs that they must be calculated on the basis of general principles, applied fairly and consistently to all authorities providing a particular service.
  Hence, the method of calculating the SSA for Cambridgeshire is, and must be, the same as the method of calculating the SSA for other counties. That is a vital safeguard against arbitrary determinations and a safeguard which, I trust, commands widespread support in the House. I do not wish to stray into very controversial territory tonight, but I assure the hon. Lady that, back in the days when I was leader of a local authority, before I came into this House and when there was an alternative Government in power, the system allowed for a significantly greater variation on precisely the lines that she mentioned—I think her words were "political fudge".
  In any discussion of SSAs, we must bear in mind the underlying aim of the SSA calculation: to calculate a figure for each authority—its SSA—which represents the Government's assessment of the level of revenue spending by that authority which should enable it to provide services to a common standard. This common standard is that which is consistent with the Government's view of the appropriate level of revenue expenditure for all local authorities combined, bearing in mind the position of the economy.
  The SSA has two main functions. First, it helps to determine the amount of revenue support grant received by each authority. In effect, the grant is distributed in such a way that, if all authorities were to spend at the level of their SSA, the level of local tax could be broadly the same in all areas of the country. This was the case with the community charge, and will also apply to the council tax. Secondly, SSAs are used—as the hon. Lady is aware—as a benchmark for comparison within the capping framework when forming a view as to whether the level of an authority's budget, or the proposed increase in that budget, is reasonable or excessive.
  These are vital roles, and they explain why I have stressed that it is important for SSAs to be calculated on general principles which are seen to be fair. I should therefore like to spend a few minutes explaining the basis of the calculations.
  Although SSAs were actually introduced for the first time in 1990–91, they are the end result of a long period of evolution, in comparison with their predecessors under the previous system, which were known as grant-related expenditure assessments. SSAs have the great advantage of a much reduced degree of complexity. Nevertheless, they build on the large body of detailed research evidence which underpinned the earlier assessments. They also

  1339
  share with them the characteristic of having been extensively discussed, over a number of years, with the local authority associations.
  SSAs aim to take account of the main characteristics of an authority which will affect its spending requirement. This is a daunting task covering expenditure in 1993–94, of some £37 billion by over 400 local authorities. There are, of course, constraints on the extent to which this objective can be achieved at any one time. In particular, SSAs have to be based on sound data sources—the census being a prime example—which are available on a consistent basis for all authorities.
  Many factors are taken into account in the formulae, and they fall broadly into three categories. There are demographic factors—for example, what proportion of the population are children or elderly. These give us the size of the actual or potential client groups which help determine the need to spend in key areas such as education or personal social services. There are the socio-economic characteristics of the population. Research has shown that, for some services, the need to spend can vary with the number of people falling into certain disadvantaged categories—for example, the numbers in single-parent families or those receiving income support.
  These indicators are reflected in SSA calculations. For example, over one fifth of the education SSA element is distributed by reference to an indicator of this kind representing additional educational needs—referred to by the hon. Lady.
  Finally, there are adjustment factors to allow for higher employment costs in London and the south-east.
  How then do all these factors affect Cambridgeshire? The total SSA for Cambridgeshire in 1993–94 is just over £380 million, which is an increase of 2·6 per cent. on last year's total. After adjusting for major changes of function. of the total, about 57 per cent.—£218 million—is accounted for by education, up by 2·6 per cent. on 1992–93, and a further 13 per cent.—£50 million by personal social services, up by 4·2 per cent. on 1992–93. This, incidentally, excludes the special grant in respect of the local authority's new responsibilities for community care. The remaining 30 per cent. of the SSA is distributed across a number of other services, such as police, fire, and highways maintenance.
  It is, however, difficult to discuss such figures sensibly without providing some basis for comparison. If, for example, we divide the total SSA by the resident population of Cambridgeshire, we find that Cambridgeshire's SSA is £568 per head of population. That is a little below the average for all counties, which is £584 per head. In fact, Cambridgeshire ranks 22nd of the 39 counties on this basis. I might also mention here that Cambridge city, the constituency represented by the hon. Member, has an SSA of £116 per head, which is over 25 per cent. above the national average for shire districts, which is £92 per head; it has, moreover, increased by 5·2 per cent. on the equivalent figure for 1992–93, an increase which is more than twice the overall average for shire districts.
  We find much the same picture if we examine the figures relating specifically to education. Cambridgeshire's education SSA includes £1,802 per pupil aged five to 10 and £2,613 per pupil aged 11 to 15—again, in both cases just below the average for all counties.
  What underlies those figures? If we concentrate on education, which is far the largest component, we find that
  1340
  the formula includes a basic element per pupil in each age group which is the same for all authorities. There are then additional amounts in recognition of various special factors, the three most important being sparsity of population, an index of additional educational needs and a cost adjustment to compensate for the higher employment costs in London and the south-east.
  Cambridgeshire receives a relatively high allowance in respect of sparsity, an adjustment that recognises the inevitable diseconomies of running small schools or incurring high school transport costs. It also receives an amount just above the county average for additional needs. This in turn reflects the fact that they are positioned towards the middle of the range in terms of the indicators used to measure the incidence of additional needs.
  To take one example, the 1993–94 indicators show that about 12 per cent. of children in Cambridgeshire are children of income support claimants. That compares with 29 per cent. for Cleveland, at one end of the county spectrum, and less than 8 per cent. for Surrey at the other. In fact, in terms of the overall index for additional educational needs, Cambridgeshire again ranks 22nd of the 39 counties. Such reasons explain the differences between SSAs per head to which the hon. Lady referred.
  Then there is the area cost adjustment. I know that it is an issue of particular concern to the hon. Lady. It is a topic which has been raised by Cambridgeshire on several occasions, including a meeting which took place just before Christmas with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West pointed out, he has raised the issue several times. It is a fact that Cambridgeshire does not benefit from the area cost adjustment, which is confined to London and to counties in the south-east. It is based mainly on evidence from the new earnings survey. This is a survey based on a sample of information from employers, and the sample is too small to allow reliable figures to be calculated for individual counties, even if that were considered desirable. The analysis does, therefore, have to be calculated at a regional level and, on this basis, results have shown that only London and the south-east face costs which are consistently and significantly above the national average.
  It has also been suggested that the area cost adjustment may be too high because it is well above the standard rates of London weighting paid—as the hon. Lady herself pointed out—to groups such as teachers, police and firemen. We have not so far been convinced by this argument, as other relevant costs need to be taken to account. More generally, however, we have been struck by the number of representations being made about the area cost adjustment, arguing—I stress this—for changes in both directions, and by the strength of the feelings aroused. The Secretary of State has therefore already made it clear that this will be one of the topics to which we shall give very careful attention during this year's review of the SSA methodology.
  I shall write to the hon. Lady about at least one of the points she made, because time will not allow me to deal with it. She spoke about cuts in education in general. Of course, she is well aware that the detailed budgets of local authorities are a matter for the authorities themselves; in general, however, we believe that provision made within the settlement is adequate when account is taken of the

  1341
  much reduced level of inflation, the policy of pay restraint for public sector workers and the scope for improved efficiency in the delivery of public services.
  In reaching our decisions, we took account of the pressures on local authority services, but we also had to have regard to the capacity of the taxpayer, locally and nationally, to bear the burden of expenditure. Job losses are sometimes unavoidable, and of course they are always a matter of regret, but local authorities must play their part in the vital task of controlling public expenditure.
  With the hon. Lady's permission, I will write to her about the delays—as she would put it—in reflecting increases in pupil numbers, and about additional educational needs.
  Of course, all local authorities would like to have more money, and I am sure that there are many worthwhile projects on which the extra money could be spent. However, we all have to live within our means. I believe that the settlement that we have provided for 1993–94 is very fair, in the light of the current low levels of inflation
  1342
  and the difficult economic circumstances that the country faces. It is fair both to the beneficiaries of services and to those who pay for them.
  I am pleased to note that council taxes in Cambridgeshire will generally be well below the national average. No doubt that reflects in large part the prudent management by Cambridgeshire authorities in general of the resources at their disposal.
  I concede that many criticisms have been made of SSAs, but that is to be expected when everyone would like a larger slice of the RSG cake. I would never wish to pretend that SSAs were perfect. Indeed, I would say that perfection is a target that is always bound to prove elusive in an area of such complexity. It is one of the great merits of the system that the entire process is completely open, with all data available for inspection. The methodology is continually under inspection with local authority representatives and other interested parties.
  The process of trying to improve and update SSAs is never-ending. As I have said, 1993 will be an especially busy year in SSA development, not least because we expect to take on board the full range of indicators from the 1991 census.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Education
  Prison Education
  Hong Kong Entrants
  Hong Kong Entrants
  Legislation (Consultation)
  Legislation (Consultation)
  Farms (Thefts)
  Farms (Thefts)
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
DEFENCE
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Polaris
  Polaris
  HMS Gloucester
  HMS Gloucester
  Trident
  Trident
  Submarines (Missiles and Warheads)
  Submarines (Missiles and Warheads)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear and Chemical Weapons
  Nuclear and Chemical Weapons
  North Korea
  North Korea
  Bosnia
  Bosnia
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Eastern Europe (Tobacco)
  Eastern Europe (Tobacco)
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
EDUCATION
  Discretionary Awards
  Discretionary Awards
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Teacher Absence
  Teacher Absence
  Child Carers
  Child Carers
  Truancy and Expulsions
  Truancy and Expulsions
  Selection
  Selection
  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Teachers' Health
  Teachers' Health
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Market Testing
  Market Testing
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Church Business
  Church Business
WALES
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  University Hospital
  University Hospital
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Midwives
  Midwives
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Truancy and Expulsions
  Truancy and Expulsions
  Teachers (Ill Health)
  Teachers (Ill Health)
  School Age Carers
  School Age Carers
  Schools (Selection)
  Schools (Selection)
  Higher Education (Drop-out Rates)
  Higher Education (Drop-out Rates)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Regulations
  Regulations
  Patulin
  Patulin
  Bio-energy
  Bio-energy
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  French Fishermen (Attacks)
  French Fishermen (Attacks)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
  Fishing
  Fishing
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Food (Cost)
  Food (Cost)
  Milk Marketing Boards
  Milk Marketing Boards
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Herbicides
  Herbicides
  Meat Inspectors
  Meat Inspectors
  Horses
  Horses
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Fisheries Protection
  Fisheries Protection
  Genetic Diversity
  Genetic Diversity
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Religious Affiliations
  Religious Affiliations
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Pensioners (Fuel Prices)
  Pensioners (Fuel Prices)
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Self-employment
  Self-employment
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Executive Operations
  Executive Operations
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Channel 3 Licence Holders
  Channel 3 Licence Holders
SCOTLAND
  Jet Skis, Loch Lomond
  Jet Skis, Loch Lomond
  Cairngorms Working Party
  Cairngorms Working Party
  Inland Bathing Waters
  Inland Bathing Waters
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Schools (Capital Spending)
  Schools (Capital Spending)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Water and Sewerage
  Water and Sewerage
  European Community
  European Community
  Concessionary Rail Fares
  Concessionary Rail Fares
  Red Deer Commission
  Red Deer Commission
  Road Bridges
  Road Bridges
  Energy Study
  Energy Study
  Crafts
  Crafts
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
HEALTH
  West Midlands RHA
  West Midlands RHA
  Life Expectancy
  Life Expectancy
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Oral Contraceptives
  Oral Contraceptives
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Child Minders
  Child Minders
  London Initiative Zone
  London Initiative Zone
  NHS Services (Purchasing)
  NHS Services (Purchasing)
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Medicines Evaluation Agency
  Medicines Evaluation Agency
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  High Security Care
  High Security Care
  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Consultants
  Consultants
EMPLOYMENT
  Electricity at Work Regulations 1989
  Electricity at Work Regulations 1989
  Child Minding
  Child Minding
  "Age Barriers at Work"
  "Age Barriers at Work"
  Training
  Training
  Business Start-up Programme
  Business Start-up Programme
  Protection of Employment Regulations
  Protection of Employment Regulations
  Offshore Safety
  Offshore Safety
  Workstart
  Workstart
  Benefits (Disallowance)
  Benefits (Disallowance)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  London Exhibition Halls
  London Exhibition Halls
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Coffee
  Coffee
TRANSPORT
  Marine Oil Spills
  Marine Oil Spills
  Railways
  Railways
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Bus Deregulation
  Bus Deregulation
  Thameslink
  Thameslink
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Bus Drivers
  Bus Drivers
  Marine Accidents
  Marine Accidents
PRIME MINISTER
  Social Security Offices (London)
  Social Security Offices (London)
  Hepatitis B
  Hepatitis B
  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings
  Acting Prime Minister
  Acting Prime Minister
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENVIRONMENT
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Emissions
  Emissions
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Housing Market Package
  Housing Market Package
  Cryptosporidiosis
  Cryptosporidiosis
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Sites of Community Importance
  Sites of Community Importance
  Area Cost Adjustment
  Area Cost Adjustment
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Pollution Inspectorate
  Pollution Inspectorate
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Cohort Studies
  Cohort Studies
  Freedom of Information
  Freedom of Information

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

European Year of the Elderly
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to mark the European Year of the Elderly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, a full and varied programme of initiatives to mark the year is under way. There are programmes of both national and local events which we hope will provide positive images of older people and bring the generations closer together.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with me that much of what she has said is about public relations? The European Year of the Elderly would be more understood, and perhaps have greater impact in this country, if the Government were to use the opportunity to protect pensioners' health care, to work on their transport and housing needs and, above all, not to mark it by increasing VAT on fuel.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an enormous amount of investment has gone into the health care of elderly people. The state pension is not designed to be the sole source of income for pensioners. In 1989 state benefits on average formed about 52 per cent. of pensioners' total net incomes with savings and occupational pensions as the other major source of income. Ninety per cent. of recently retired pensioners have other income in addition to state benefits.
With regard to the VAT on fuel and power, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear in his Budget Statement that extra help will be given to poorer pensioners and other people on low incomes. They will have that help to pay higher fuel bills as soon as they arrive.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as one of the elderly—unlike the noble Baroness who asked the Question —perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make a suggestion. There is one totally inexpensive thing that could be done for us; namely, to instruct the police to stop bicycles going on the pavement.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would refute the suggestion made by my noble friend that he is elderly. I have never considered my noble friend as elderly. I believe that he is very spry and quite able to get out of the way of bicycles.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are 60 million people in the EC who
428
are over 60 years of age? By the year 2000 they will comprise one-fifth of the total population and by the year 2020 they will comprise one-quarter of the total population. The noble Baroness said that this would be a positive year for the elderly; I agree with that. What positive steps do the Government intend to take to harness the experience of older people to help the younger generation and to break down the barriers which have been erected by years of negative attitudes towards the elderly; for example, by talking about the burdens of the elderly and how we can contain the costs of provision for the elderly? We need to break down those barriers and to help to solidify the relationship between older and younger people. What positive action will the Government take this year to improve that situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the whole purpose of the European Year of the Elderly. My noble friend—and he is my friend—is absolutely right: that the elderly are the spearheads of our voluntary organisations. They have an enormous contribution to make. This Government subscribed very much to the World Health Organisation's views that we should add not only life to years but also years to life.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the Minister welcome a revival of the Bill which was piloted successfully through the House by Lady Phillips and which prevented ages being included on curriculum vitae? Perhaps we should include also the prohibition of age limits in job advertisements because that would help people in their later years to obtain employment. Many of them are capable of such employment and would be wealth-creating instead of making demands of the community.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are many things that we can do. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to incorporate elderly people's attributes in all kinds of different ways, including employment. Indeed, that is happening. A working party has been set up to try to incorporate older people into equal opportunities policies.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as it is not entirely unknown for criticisms to be directed at Brussels, will the Minister agree that on this occasion it would be right to give credit to the European Commission for this exercise? Although it is not attracting that much publicity, it is proving to be of great value to a number of organisations in this country by way of an exchange of information and experience with comparable organisations in other member states.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. Indeed, the European Commission is also helping to sponsor the year financially as well as giving it its moral support. I hope that this year will he as successful as the International Year of Disabled People which did a tremendous amount in terms of easier access for disabled people as well as attracting attention to the contribution which they make to society.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the last question, will the noble Baroness put some pressure on the European Commission to employ people who are over 35 years of age?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I suspect that there is a hidden agenda here of which I am not totally aware.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, as next month will see the publication of the results of a major two-year study of the third age by the Carnegie UK Trust, will the Minister ensure that UK representatives will be involved in the launch? In particular, will she study that report and ensure that all its ramifications are followed up, together with all the issues that have been raised today and many, many more?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that I will study that report.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure that she is—that, although I am one of them, I did not know that this was the European Year of the Elderly? In the circumstances, could not the activities be given a rather higher profile than they apparently have been?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this has the support of the Prime Minister. The United Kingdom launch was made in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It was launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is just the beginning of the year, so I am not surprised that the noble Lord was not aware of its existence. But there is a whole series of activities which are planned for the next 12 months.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to return to the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Jay in her supplementary question. As regards the great addition to energy costs that will cause hardship among many elderly people as a result of the Government's election-breaking pledge on VAT, did I hear the Minister say that the Government are saying that there will be absolute and total compensation for that extra cost which will fall upon elderly people or did she simply say that there will be an increase in the pension at the logical time?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that help will be given to elderly people for their fuel bills. That will be in addition to the automatic increase in pensions and other benefits to reflect the impact of any increase in fuel bills on the RPI. Of course, cold weather payments will also be adjusted to reflect increases in fuel costs.
Noble LordsNext Question!
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the conclusion reached by the recent Carnegie inquiry into the third age that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Murray that, unless attitudes and the Government's policies change, Britain's long-term recovery may be endangered by an increasingly
430
inactive but healthy and independent third-age population which is under-utilised and becoming a burden upon those who work?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I see elderly people—or third-age people, as they are sometimes referred to—as an enormous resource and asset to this nation. I think that it is up to us to make the most of that.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we ought, perhaps, to move on to the next Question.

Falkland Islands: DPP Investigation
3.16 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their purpose in sending police officers to the Falkland Islands to investigate allegations about war crimes, and what they intend to do with the officers' report.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, a former member of the Parachute Regiment last year published serious criminal allegations about members of the regiment, including conduct amounting to murder. Because of their seriousness, these allegations were drawn to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate them. The present inquiries are part of that investigation. The director will consider what, if any, action is appropriate once the investigation is completed.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. I should like to ask him a further question. Does he agree that there was no request for this inquiry from the Government of the Falkland Islands, from the Argentine Government or from any credible source of substance from within this country? Does my noble and learned friend really believe that a very cheap paperback, based on speculation and hearsay by a soldier who, according to the newspapers (and I am reading from the Daily Mail), is a convicted criminal who has been branded a liar by a judge and has a criminal record which includes cases of dishonesty, should be the basis for launching a long and hugely costly inquiry which would subject the British nation to what I can best describe as "indecent exposure" and which would cause deep distress and outrage to our gallant forces?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, after some preliminary inquiries, the existence of these allegations was brought to the attention of the prosecuting authorities by the Secretary of State for Defence. In the light of the information available, the Director of Public Prosecutions took the view that it was right that these allegations should be investigated. That is what the police are doing.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, there is strong circumstantial evidence that these accusations are

431
without any foundation. We are discussing an area where there was bitter warfare. Violent warfare took place on Mount Longdon in which the paras behaved with great courage. It is inconceivable, on the evidence that is now before us, that this inquiry should take place. However, it will take place but it may not yield a definite answer. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, ensure that the full story, some of which has appeared in detail in the Daily Mail, will be published abroad?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the investigation has begun and is proceeding. At this stage I do not think your Lordships would think it right for me to say anything about the detail of that investigation and what has so far emerged. When the investigation is completed, a report will be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it will be for the director to decide, in the light of that report, what, if any, further action should be taken. I have no doubt your Lordships will find it possible to seek further information as matters proceed.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I returned yesterday from a visit to Argentina where I met members of the government and of the parliament? I discovered that there had been no suggestion of any war crime from Argentina. In Argentina there is a great and universal desire to resume proper relations with Her Majesty's Government and to achieve a proper reconciliation with Her Majesty's Government. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this kind of operation not only casts a slur upon the activities of the British Forces but also militates against the resumption of proper relations with the Government of Argentina?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was not aware, until the noble Lord informed me of it, that he had just returned from Argentina, but I can inform the House that the inquiries have been brought to the attention of the Government of Argentina. That Government have been informed of the developments and they have raised no objection to any necessary inquiries being carried out in Argentina. I speak here for the prosecuting authorities. I am relating the decisions which they have so far taken and describing the inquiries which they have initiated.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the Argentine Government have made no complaint of war crimes against British personnel who served in the Falkland Islands?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said earlier, these investigations have arisen from allegations made in the publication to which I have referred. I am not aware of any complaint of any kind in this connection having been made by the Government of the Argentine. However, as I have said, the Government of the Argentine have been kept informed of the
432
progress of this investigation and they have raised no objection to inquiries being pursued, if necessary, in the Argentine.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the distress to which these allegations have given rise, will my noble and learned friend undertake that. just as soon as the inquiry has been carried through, a full Statement will be made to the House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the desire of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that these investigations should be completed as soon as possible. I have no doubt that it would be appropriate that your Lordships should be informed of the decision the director takes in the light of the investigation.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as the allegations have been made worldwide, would it not be much better for the matter to be investigated from the point of view of the good name of this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that when a serious allegation is made in relation to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is right that the director should take the action that appears to her to be appropriate—in this case, to carry out certain investigations and to invite the Metropolitan Police to undertake those investigations. I believe that that is part of our system of the rule of law and I do not believe your Lordships would wish to prejudge the result of the inquiries until they are completed.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Argentine Foreign Secretary is in this country at the moment and has already stated categorically that no complaints have arisen from the Argentine side, would it be possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ask his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to ask the Argentine Foreign Secretary what he thinks of this accusation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would certainly be possible for me to invite my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Argentina his opinion. However, your Lordships may feel that the better opinion will be the opinion ultimately formed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the light of the investigation. I do not myself know how much the Argentine Foreign Secretary knows about this matter. On the whole my experience has been that these matters are best investigated in a proper way and the result then published by the director.

Farmers: High Rate of Suicide
3.26 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, in their opinion, more farmers commit suicide than any other industrial group.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, farmers have a strong sense that they are custodians of the land for the next generation, and that brings added pressures.

433
They often work in isolation and are traditionally an independent group of people, which possibly leads to a reluctance to seek help at times of depression or anxiety. In common with a number of other occupation groups which share a high rate of suicide, farmers have easy access to the means to commit it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the best way to deal with this matter is almost certainly through local initiatives—for example, the scheme which has been devised by Wiltshire County Council which responded to an initiative from the Churches, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the NFU and the CLA to produce 10,000 cards with contact numbers of "farming friends" and a relevant organisation? All the "farming friends" who are available for a friendly chat come from outside the County of Wiltshire, as farmers are often notoriously reluctant to discuss their problems with their neighbours. Do the Government support that initiative and will they encourage its wider use?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we very much support this initiative. There is a county-by-county campaign run co-operatively among the Samaritans, the National Farmers' Union, the citizens advice bureaux and local organisations. The noble Lord was absolutely correct to say that it is local action that will bring results. The department has made available £5,000 in the current year to help towards the printing costs of this campaign. About 12 counties have so far held a launch and a further 10 are planned.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the first thing to be done in trying to solve this tragic problem is to try to find its cause? Despite the fact that my noble friend's husband is a successful farmer, does she agree that one of the problems is lack of profitability in the industry? The other problem is persecution by bureaucrats, by NIMBYs, by planners and indeed by "greens", who fail totally to understand the problems that the farming community faces.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in a personal capacity I am doing all I can to reduce the rate of suicide among farmers. I cherish my husband with all my ability. I understand that this year farming incomes have increased by 10 per cent., but I cannot say I have actually noticed that personally! As regards bureaucrats, I certainly share my noble friend's view. The other day I was concerned to see an EEC form which asked farmers to write down the number of cows they had and to give figures in whole numbers!
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, are any figures available on this issue from other countries?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the work of Professor Peter Blain of the toxicology unit of Newcastle-upon-Tyne University? He recently wrote a paper about the
434
long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning in which he described chronic neuro-psychiatric disorders as being one of the symptoms. Those disorders include depression. Will her Majesty's Government please bear that in mind if they make any inquiry into the incidence of suicide among farmers, particularly as an effort is being mounted to reduce the number of suicides?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the House will be aware that yesterday my noble friend Lord Howe told the House that an independent Veterinary Products Committee will be considering the matter today. If the committee is convinced that organophosphate dips are harmful to human health it could recommend that the Government suspend the licences. However, we must wait and see what conclusions that committee reaches.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, are there any figures from other countries to compare with the figures which my noble friend quoted?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have those figures. But when one looks at the suicide rates for farmers over the years they have been fairly consistent since the 1970s.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I hope that I may make a further point. The noble Baroness slightly misunderstood me. I know that I have been waging a long campaign to have the licences suspended, but will the noble Baroness look out for the possibility that people may have been poisoned by organophosphates and are suffering depression? Will she ensure that they are therefore counselled properly? It is not a question of the licences being suspended and then forgetting about those people because they will still be suffering from depression.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that in the campaigns ahead involving the Samaritans and other organisations causes of suicide will be looked into with great care.

Children Born Without Eyes
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking to discover why some children are born without eyes; and what action they are taking to help such children.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in view of the incompleteness of the data, we have asked the head of the Environmental Epidemiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Dr Paul Elliott, to submit a research proposal for an epidemiological study of anophthalmia. A wide range of statutory services is available to all visually impaired children: health, social services and education. A number of voluntary organisations provide further support and assistance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the sensitive

435
way in which she received a deputation of mothers recently and for the action she has taken since. Does she agree that it is terrible for children to be born with no eyes and that their mothers are even more upset when they are told, as some have been, that it is just one of those things? Does the noble Baroness agree that, where clusters of such cases are found, local hazards should be identified and removed? Does she further agree that we should scrutinise far more carefully the reasons for those episodes and tighten procedures? It is inexplicable that there is no legal obligation to report the accidental misuse of pesticides. Can the Government take action on that issue?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, so far, on the basis of the available data, there is absolutely no evidence either of clustering of cases of anophthalmia or of any link between the increased incidence of the condition and the pesticide Benomyl. However, I am anxious that we get to the bottom of the condition and try to research it in even more depth. That is why we have specifically asked for a research project to be put forward.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of any international organisations that may be dealing with the matter so that we could co-operate and perhaps gain more information in order ultimately to resolve this appalling problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have explored the condition with the World Health Organisation, but it has no projects or research planned. As far as I know, other countries are not as concerned about the matter as this country.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the policy of the NHS regarding the provision of artificial eyes for children born with this very distressing condition? Are they automatically provided if the parents ask for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, they are, and they are free.

Business
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, at a convenient moment my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on coal.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Child Benefit and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993, the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 and the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993 will be taken.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [References are to Bill [52] as first printed for the Commons.]
  1 Clause 4, Page 5, line 38, leave out from `had' to '; but' in line 41 and insert ', on the date on which the restriction direction ceased to have effect, been admitted to the hospital in pursuance of an application for admission'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
  The amendment affects the status of a patient who has been transferred to a mental hospital from a prison and who requires to be detained in hospital after the date on which he or she would otherwise have been released from prison. Once that date has passed there is no reason why the patient should be treated differently from one who has been compulsorily admitted to hospital direct from the community in pursuance of an application for admission. The amendment accordingly provides that the patient should be treated as if he or she had so been admitted.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 14, Page 12, line 15, leave out from 'with' to `for' in line 16 and insert:

  `(i) such requirements as are specified in the order; and

  (ii) such requirements as that officer may reasonably specify,'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
  Where an offender is subject to a supervised release order he or she will have to comply with such requirements as are specified in the order or by the supervising officer. I am sure that supervising officers—who are professional social workers—will specify only such requirements as are necessary and appropriate. The amendment nevertheless makes it quite clear that our intention is that all requirements specified by supervising officers must be reasonable.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 15, Page 14, line 23, leave out '212A(5) (b) of the 1975' and insert '14(5) (b) of this'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. The amendment rectifies an incorrect cross-reference.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 27, Page 21, line 2, leave out 'wholly or mainly'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
  The words which are deleted by the amendment would require every social worker who is appointed as a supervising officer to be virtually a specialist in such work. That is not always practicable, especially in less populated areas where individual social workers may be required to undertake a wider range of social work duties. The amendment therefore removes what would be an unnecessary and impractical constraint on social work authorities.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 32, Page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
  As your Lordships will be aware, the provisions in Clause 32 will enable a witness who is outwith the United Kingdom to give evidence to a Scottish court in trials under Solemn Procedure by way of a live television link subject to certain safeguards which will protect the interests of the accused. That provision will bring the law of Scotland in that respect into line with provisions which have been in force in England and Wales for more than two years.
  When the clause was previously before your Lordships an amendment was successfully moved to disapply any war crimes trial in Scotland from the ambit of the clause. As a number of your Lordships who were present then will recall, there were those who spoke in that debate with deep conviction and passion in favour of that exclusion. On a Division the amendment was substantially carried.
  When the matter came before another place the issue was not debated in Committee upstairs but rather it was, by agreement, left until the Bill came to the Report stage. It was thus debated on the Floor of the House. The amendment which I invite your Lordships to agree was moved in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. There was no opposition to the amendment and Members from all sides of the House
  438
  took part. Those included the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for North-East Fife, Mr. Menzies Campbell, QC, who, in his speech in another place, made it quite clear that he had voted consistently against the passage of the War Crimes Act but took the view that it was wrong in principle to exclude the provisions of Section 32A from application to war crimes and that the amendment made in your Lordships' House should be removed.
  There were two other contributions in the early evening during the debate. Both followed the line that Mr. Menzies Campbell had taken. When the Secretary of State for Scotland concluded the debate after those contributions, he first reflected on what had been the calm and measured tone of the debate. He stated:
  "I hope that the unanimity of those taking part in this short but important debate will not be lost on their Lordships in another place and that they will recognise the view of this House on an important matter".— [Official Report, Commons, 16/12/92; col. 495.]
  There was no Division following that debate.
  I do not propose to rehearse the arguments on this proposal again. On a number of occasions there have been full and detailed discussions of the proposal. I believe that the arguments are well known to your Lordships. I have no doubt that the views that were expressed with strong conviction on previous occasions will in many cases, if not all, remain. However, I am bound to say to your Lordships that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State and I hope that on reflection your Lordships will agree that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to disapply those provisions to this area of the law in Scotland. Accordingly, I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons in this amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  3.45 p.m.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, those of us who have consistently opposed changing the law in order to permit war crimes trials have done so because, among other reasons, we did not believe that it was possible for anyone to receive a fair trial where the evidence was some 50 years old. Three times we asked the Government to think again; and three times they refused. With a view to damage limitation, we considered that the rules of evidence should in those cases be no less stringent than they are now—that is to say, that witnesses should have to attend in person and be able to be cross-examined in the flesh, face to face, not through a television link. So we twice asked the Government to think again about making video-linked evidence acceptable in war crimes trials and they refused.
  Therefore five times now we have asked the Government to think again about an exercise which some of us consider to be both obscene and costly and an exercise on which I understand that more than £36 million has been spent to date at a time of financial difficulty, when our Armed Forces are being reduced

  439
  to a dangerously low level, when poor people will have to pay tax on fuel and electricity, and cheese-paring is the order of the day. It seems to me quite senseless.
  However, since it is quite clear that nothing that this House does or says will make the Government come to their senses, I see no object in continuing to fight them on the issue. It will lead only to prolonged friction between the two Houses, with the Government invoking the Parliament Act once again in order to get their way. Therefore I will agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that this House should agree to the rejection by the Commons of our amendment and I shall not insist on it. If any other noble Lord attempts to do so, I shall not support him but shall abstain.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, since we come to consider the amendment, an amendment which reverses the opinion of your Lordships expressed by a very substantial majority on two Scottish Bills, your Lordships may feel a sudden rush of renewed sympathy for the burghers of Calais. I do not propose to reopen the argument. There is no point in doing so. But even so, the essence of the disagreement between the two Houses is not on a question of fundamental principle such as whether those trials should ensue at all, but on a matter of procedure as to how a fair trial may be ensured.
  Your Lordships have taken the view that it is essential to secure a fair trial to exclude the evidence. Another place has taken the view, relying incidentally upon an amendment introduced by your Lordships, that it is perfectly proper that this exclusion process should be achieved by the exercise of judicial discretion. It is the settled will of another place, as is the constitutional entitlement, to insist and to continue to insist. This amendment, as your Lordships remember, was carried with the purpose of affording another place an opportunity to think again. It is now plain that another place will not think again; that there is no scope for accommodation; that to debate is wholly idle; that to oppose is to no constructive purpose; and that to exercise our constitutional entitlement to disagree would be but a futile and barren gesture.
  It is perfectly plain from two aspects. The first is that on the very day that your Lordships carried the amendment, a Secretary of State shot from the hips and said, "We shall reverse it". Then later my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook in another place to reverse it on Report. Each noble Lord takes his own stand according to his convictions. I do not follow the way in which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, sees it. I am unable to agree with the Motion. But as there is no prospect of accommodation with another place, I do not wish to oppose it. I shall decline therefore any invitation to enter the Lobby, and sit in my place to mark my dissent, knowing that the Government would have their Bill on the volt of those who are content.
  I refer to the hope expressed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place at col. 495 of the Official Report on 16th December 1992, to which my noble and learned friend referred, that the view of another place would be
  440
  recognised on this important matter. Perhaps the preservation of amity between the two Houses transcends the importance of any disagreement on the matter.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords., I do not believe that I need to remind any Members of your Lordships' House who participated in debates relating to war crimes that this is an extremely emotive issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicated, each and every one of us had our own separate views as to the appropriateness of proceeding, first, to prosecute war criminals and, secondly, of the method by which evidence should be obtained and presented.
  This is basically a non-party issue which has been decided on a free vote. In any prosecution of someone for war crimes and, I suppose, in any piece of legislation, there have to be winners and losers. In my submission, your Lordships' House should accept that it has lost the battle in this case. Noble Lords who spoke before me, including the Minister, accepted that and they would be disappointed if any Member of your Lordships' House were to take a contrary view, having regard to the constitutional importance of taking that step.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to support what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I am sure that she is right, as is my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I wish to comment, however, on something that the noble Lady said. She stated that several times this House had attempted to make the Government change their mind and she was then rather critical of the Government in terms which I shall not repeat. However, I must remind her that it was another place which passed by huge majorities, when the votes were taken, the principles of the War Crimes Act 1991. So it was not just a matter of the Government not listening to what was said in this House; it was perfectly clear that the other place, the elected Chamber of our Parliament, had in that way shown what they required to be done. The Government would have been foolish not to have heeded it. I hope that I have made that point clear because it was the other place that held that strong view.
  I respect the strongly held views which were expressed in your Lordships' House at the time of the debate here. I also think that, having spent many years in the other place myself, it was absolutely right for the Government to take the point at Report stage and not in a Scottish Standing Committee upstairs. That enabled Members of the other place from all parts of the country, not just Scotland, to indicate their views and object if they wished. I hope that the House will do what my noble and learned friend the Minister of State has proposed.
  Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I wish to associate myself entirely with what was said by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. It is important to bear in mind that two considerations are relevant to this piece of legislation. The first is, as the noble Lady said, the consideration that a person accused of a serious crime should have

  441
  a right to come face to face with his or her accusers and not to be confronted through an indirect television or video link. That is the first principle.
  The second principle which is equally valid and which weighed very much with me and, I believe, other Members of the House when we discussed it, was the inappropriateness, the wrongness of changing the rules of procedure after the alleged crime had been committed, retrospectively. That is changing the rules of the game in order that a particular trial should take place. So far as I am concerned, those considerations remain equally valid today as they did at that time. However, having regard to what was said by the noble Lady and other speakers, I am content to follow them in the course which has been proposed.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, of course, as I have said in previous debates, the Commons are absolutely right in expressing both the principle and the will of the nation.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I wish briefly to reply that, as I believe I accurately predicted, the strength of convictions that were expressed on the previous occasion remain undiminished. However, following the clearly expressed view of the other place, I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate for accepting that the Commons amendment should now be agreed to.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
  Evidence as to taking or destruction of eggs.
  1981 c. 69
  'After section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Evidence in Scotland as to taking or destruction of eggs.
  19A. In any proceedings in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) (c) of, or by virtue of section 3(1) (a) (iii) of, this Act, the accused may be convicted on the evidence of one witness."&
  The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
  The amendment introduces a new clause which relaxes the requirement for corroboration in closely defined areas; namely, cases relating to the taking or destruction of an egg of any wild bird, contrary to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  The nature of these offences and the circumstances in which they tend to be committed are such that it is often particularly difficult to find corroboration and obtain a conviction under the present provisions. The amendment should enable more successful prosecutions to be mounted and, accordingly, have a deterrent effect on potential offenders.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. As a member of the Council of the RSPB,
  442
  I have been aware of a number of prosecutions with which it has been impossible to proceed, for want of this provision. I am therefore glad to see it in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 After Clause 40, Insert the following new clause:
  Appeal by Lord Advocate against sentence in solemn proceedings etc
  `7.—(1) After section 228 of the 1975 Act (which provides for appeal by a person convicted on indictment) there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Appeal by Lord Advocate against sentence in solemn proceedings.
  228A. Where a person has been convicted on indictment, the Lord Advocate may appeal against the sentence passed on conviction—

  (a) if it appears to the Lord Advocate that the sentence is unduly lenient; or

  (b) on a point of law.".

  (2) In section 442 of that Act (which provides for appeal in summary proceedings)—
  (a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(c) the prosecutor in such proceedings may, in any class of case specified by order by the Secretary of State under this paragraph, so appeal against the sentence passed on such conviction if it appears to the prosecutor that the sentence is unduly lenient."; and
  (b) after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—
  "(3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any order so made shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. It may be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to the consequential Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 34 and 39.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 7 introduces a right of appeal for the Crown to challenge unduly lenient sentences. As I indicated, there are further consequential amendments to introduce that right.
  The main provision will enable my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to initiate an appeal against a sentence imposed in solemn proceedings which he considers to be unduly lenient, or to appeal on a point of law. This new power seeks to redress what is regarded by many as an imbalance in our criminal justice system. A convicted person may appeal against any sentence imposed on him, and will almost certainly do so if the sentence appears to be unduly severe.
  The Crown, on the other hand, has no opportunity to appeal against a sentence which appears to be unduly lenient. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate envisages that the power will be used very sparingly and only where he considers it important for the appeal court to review a sentence which appears to have been inappropriately or inconsistently light.
  The new provision is not a power to involve the Crown in the sentencing practice of the court. Sentencing will properly remain the preserve of the judges. The new power, however, will provide a

  443
  mechanism for the Crown to request the appeal court to look at the sentence once again. With that brief explanation, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this amendment and the policy behind it are welcome to this side of the House. We hope that it will help to rectify the public perception of fairness which was being grossly undermined by certain sentences passed in the courts which did not make sense to—if I may use the terrible phrase—the ordinary man or woman in the street. We shall watch the development and use of this power by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with interest.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Clause 42, page 28, line 39, after 'Board', insert 'for Scotland'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 which is a minor but necessary drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  9 Clause 46, page 29, line 25, leave out 'This' and insert 'Subject to subsection (3A) below, this'.
  10 Page 29, line 31, at end insert:
  '(3A) This section and, in so far as relating to paragraph' of Schedule 5 to this Act, section 45(1) of this Act shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
  Amendment No. 9 simply paves the way for the new subsection which is inserted by Amendment No. 10. The purpose of that new subsection is to provide for the earliest possible commencement of the correction which is made by paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Bill. That correction will in turn permit early commencement of certain provisions in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended, which relate to the identification of drivers whose vehicles are photographed when failing to obey traffic signals.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.— (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 46, Page 29, line 41, leave out '1(13)' and insert '1(12)'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in this short consequential amendment.
  444
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 46, Page 30, line 4, leave out subsection (7).
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  13 Schedule 3, Page 32, line 26, after second 'of' insert ', or of a material part of,'.
  14 Page 32, line 27, after 'manner' insert 'and by such person'.
  15 Page 32, line 27, leave out from 'prescribed' to 'shall' in line 28'.
  16 Page 32, line 31, after 'document' insert' or the material part,'.
  17 Page 32, line 32, leave out 'that' and insert 'the'.
  18 Page 32, line 37, at beginning insert 'Except where it is a statement such as is mentioned in paragraph 2A(b) and (c) below.'.
  19 Page 33, line 6, leave out 'but, if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied received' and insert 'unless, in the case of information supplied indirectly, it appears to the court that any person through whom it was so supplied did not both receive and supply'.
  20 Page 33, leave out lines 9 to 25 and insert:
  '(3) Where in any proceedings a statement is admitted as evidence by virtue of this paragraph—

  (a) any evidence which if—

  (i) the maker of the statement; or

  (ii) where the statement was made on the basis of information supplied by another person, such supplier,

  had been called as a witness, would have been admissible as relevant to the witness's credibility shall be so admissible in those proceedings;

  (b) evidence may be given of any matter which, if the maker or as the case may be the supplier had been called as a witness, could have been put to him in cross-examination as relevant to his credibility but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; and

  (c) evidence tending to prove that the maker or as the case may be the supplier, whether before or after making the statement or supplying the information on the basis of which the statement was made, made (in whatever manner) some other representation which is inconsistent with the statement shall be admissible for the purpose of showing that he has contradicted himself.

  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) (c) above, "representation" does not include a representation in a precognition.
  2A. A statement in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of the fact that the statement was made if—

  (a) the document satisfies the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 above;

  445

  (b) the statement is made, whether directly or indirectly, by a person who in those proceedings is an accused; and

  (c) the statement, being exculpatory only, exculpates the accused.'.

  21 Page 33, line 36, leave out from 'kept' to end of line 37.
  22 Page 33, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert:
  'a document which satisfies the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2(1) (a) and (b) above does not contain a relevant statement as to a particular matter (or that no document, within a category of documents satisfying those conditions, contains such a statement) shall be admissible evidence whether or not the whole or any part of that document (or of the documents within that category and satisfying those conditions) has been produced in the proceedings.
  () For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a relevant statement is a statement which is of the kind mentioned in paragraph 2(1) (c) above and which, in the ordinary course of events, the document (or the document had there been one) might reasonably have been expected to contain.'.
  23 Page 33, line 49, leave out from 'evidence' to end of line 50 and insert:

  '(a) on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or

  (b) as or on behalf of the office-holder by or on behalf of whom,

  the document is or was kept.'.
  24 Page 35, line 12, after 'but', insert ', except in paragraph 6(1) (a),'.
  25 Page 35, line 13, at end insert 'a statement which falls within one or more of the following descriptions'.
  26 Page 35, line 14, leave out 'or'.
  27 Page 35, line 15, leave out 'any other' and insert 'a'.
  28 Page 35, line 18, after 'investigation' insert: 'or
  (c) a statement made by an accused person in so far as it incriminates a co-accused;'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 28. I propose to deal with all the amendments to Schedule 3 en bloc.
  Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 3 was added to the Bill when it was last before this House. Since that time the Scottish Law Commission has published its report on documentary evidence and proof of undisputed facts in criminal proceedings. These amendments take account of its recommendations on the matter. The amendments are of a technical nature and the majority are made to implement more fully the Commission's recommendations. The remainder are minor technical or drafting improvements. They are not substantial, and with the leave of the House I do not propose to speak to them individually.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 28.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  29 Schedule 4, Page 36, line 22, at end insert:
  .'After the entry relating to the Immigration Act 1971, there shall be inserted the following entry—
  446
  "The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (c.40)Section 31(1) (permitting poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter controlled waters, etc.), 32(1) (permitting trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged into such waters, etc.) or 49(1) (a) (causing accumulated deposit to be carried away in suspension in inland waters) or regulations under section 31(4) (prohibition on carrying on without consent certain activities likely to pollute waters in designated areas).'. Two persons authorised to do so by a river purification authority (within the meaning of that Act). That they have analysed a sample identified in the certificate (by label or otherwise) and that the sample is of a nature and composition specified in the certificate.".
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. River purification authorities are responsible for monitoring the purity of water covered by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Prosecutions may arise in respect of a range of polluting offences under the Act. Those offences require to be established with the support of evidence as to the composition of samples taken from the polluted waters. At present that evidence has to be spoken to by two witnesses. The effect of the amendment is to allow, in a way which has already been established in other areas, that the evidence be provided by means of a certificate. That will result in a saving of valuable court time.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  30 Schedule 5, Page 37, line 20, at end insert:
  '(2) In section 20B (record of proceedings at judicial examination)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "a shorthand writer" there shall be substituted the words "means of shorthand notes or by mechanical means";

  (b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(1A) A shorthand writer shall—

  (a) sign the shorthand notes taken by him of the questions, answers and declarations mentioned in subsection (1) above and certify the notes as being complete and correct; and

  (b) retain the notes.

  (1B) A person recording the questions, answers and declarations mentioned in subsection (1) above by mechanical means shall—

  (a) certify that the record is true and complete;

  (b) specify in the certificate the proceedings to which the record relates; and

  (c) retain the record.

  (1C) The prosecutor shall require the person who made the record mentioned in subsection (1) above, or such other competent person as he may specify, to make a transcript of the record in legible form; and that person shall—

  (a) comply with the requirement;

  (b) certify the transcript as being a complete and correct transcript of the record purporting to have been made and certified, and in the case of shorthand notes signed, by the person who made the record; and

  (c) send the transcript to the prosecutor."; and

  (c) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  "(2) A transcript certified under subsection (1C) (b) above shall, subject to subsection (4) below, be deemed for all purposes to be a complete and correct record of the questions, answers and declarations mentioned in subsection (1) above."&
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
  The purpose of the amendment is to allow similar procedures to be followed for the recording of judicial examinations to those which are proposed for general solemn trial proceedings in paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. That will enable the proceedings of judicial examination to be tape-recorded without the need for a shorthand writer to be present.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  31 Schedule 5, Page 38, line 23, at end insert:
  '() In section 233(1) (note of appeal), the existing words from "within six weeks" to the end shall be paragraph (a) and after that paragraph there shall be added the word "; or" and the following paragraph—
  "(b) as the case may be, within four weeks of the passing of the sentence in open court, the Lord Advocate may lodge such a note with the Clerk of Justiciary, who shall send a copy to the said judge and to the convicted person or that person's solicitor.".
  () In section 234(1) (presentation of appeal in writing), after the word "appellant" there shall be inserted the words "other than the Lord Advocate".
  () In section 236B(2) (extension of certain periods), for the words "233(1)" there shall he substituted the words "233(1) (a)".
  () In section 236C (signing of documents), after the words "to appeal" there shall be inserted the words "or (except where the appellant is the Lord Advocate) any".
  () In section 238 (admission of appellant to bail), for subsections (1) and (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(1) The High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a convicted person, admit him to bail pending the determination of—

  (a) his appeal; or

  (b) any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction.

  (2) A person who is admitted to bail under subsection (1) above shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal or of any application for leave to appeal; and in the event of his failing to do so the court may—

  (a) if he is the appellant—

  (i) decline to consider the appeal or application; and

  (ii) dismiss it summarily; or

  (b) whether or not he is the appellant—

  (i) consider and determine the appeal or application; or

  (ii) without prejudice to section 3 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (breach of conditions), make such other order as the court thinks fit.".

  () In section 239(1) (notice of date of hearing), for—
  448

  (a) the words "appellant or applicant", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "convicted person"; and

  (b) the word "latter", there shall be substituted the words "appellant or applicant".

  () In section 240 (presence of appellant at hearing), for the word "An", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the words "A convicted".
  () After section 242 there shall he inserted the following section—
  "Special provision where appellant is Lord Advocate.
  242A. Where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, sections 241 and 242 of this Act shall apply in respect of the convicted person, if in custody, as they apply to an appellant or applicant in custody.".
  () In section 243 (provision as to warders attending court), for the words "the last foregoing section" there shall be substituted the words "section 242 of this Act".
  () In section 252 (powers of High Court), after the words "228(1)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".
  () In section 258 (sentence in absence), after the word "appellant" there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, the convicted person)"
  () In section 261 (notice of determination of appeal), after the word "applicant" there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, to the convicted person)".
  () In section 264 (disqualification, forfeiture, etc), in each of subsections (1) and (2)—

  (a) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "four"; and

  (b) after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall he inserted the words "or 228A".

  () In section 265 (fines and caution), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(4A) A convicted person who has been sentenced to the payment of a fine and has duly paid it shall, if an appeal against sentence by the Lord Advocate results in the sentence being quashed and no fine, or a lesser fine than that paid, being imposed, be entitled, subject to any order of the High Court, to the return of the sum paid or as the case may be to the return of the amount by which that sum exceeds the amount of the lesser fine.".
  () In section 268 (reckoning of time spent in custody pending appeal)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for the words "an appellant" there shall be substituted the words "a convicted person";

  (ii) after the word "appeal" there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be of any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction,"; and

  (iii) for the word "this", where it occurs qualifying the word "sentence", there shall be substituted the word "that";

  (b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  "(2) The time (including any period consequent on the recall of bail) during which a convicted person is in custody pending the determination of his appeal, or as the case may be of any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction, shall subject to any direction which the High Court may give to the contrary he reckoned as part of any term of imprisonment under that sentence."; and
  (c) in subsection (3), after the word "appellant" there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the appellant is the Lord Advocate, of a convicted person)".
  () In section 269 (extract convictions)—

  (a) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "four"; and

  (b) after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".

  () In section 270 (custody of trial documents, etc.)—

  (a) in subsection (2)—

  (i) for the words from the beginning to "proceedings" there shall be substituted the words "Until any period allowed under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for lodging intimation of intention to appeal (or any longer period allowed by virtue thereof for lodging a note of appeal) has elapsed, all documents and other productions pro-duced at the trial of a convicted person shall be kept";

  (ii) after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and

  (iii) the words "of two weeks or any extension thereof authorised by the High Court" shall cease to have effect;

  (b) in subsection (3)—

  (i) after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and

  (ii) for the words "to his" there shall be substituted the words ", as the case may be, to the convicted person's"; and

  (c) in subsection (4)—

  (i) after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and

  (ii) for the words "such period of two weeks or extension thereof as aforesaid" there shall be substituted the words "the period mentioned in subsection (2) above".

  () In section 273(1) (register of appeals), after the words "228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".'.
  32 Page 40, line 19, at end insert:
  '() In section 277(2) (list of provisions non-compliance with which may be waived), in the first column, under the entry relating to section 242, there shall be inserted the entry "242A".'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I have already spoken to these amendments in moving Commons Amendment No. 7.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  33 Schedule 5, Page 40, line 25, at end insert:
  '() In section 350(1) (additional evidence)—

  (a) for the words "after the close of that party's evidence and" there shall be substituted the words "at any time"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "time the party's evidence was closed" there shall be substituted the words "commencement of the trial".'.

  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. An unintended effect of Section 350(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is to deprive parties of the right to lead additional evidence or to recall a witness after their case is closed. That right would otherwise be available
  450
  by virtue of Section 4 of the Evidence (Scotland) Act 1852. A similar defect occurred in the solemn section of the Act. That was put right by legislation in 1987. The purpose of this legislation and this amendment is simply to make a corresponding change in the summary section of the Act.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  34 Schedule 5, Page 40, line 34, at end insert:
  '() In section 442(1) (b) (ii) (prosecutor's appeal against sentence on point of law), for the words "in such proceedings" there shall be substituted the words "on such conviction".
  () In section 442B (method of appeal against sentence alone)—

  (a) after the words "Where a" there shall be inserted the word "convicted";

  (b) after the word "Act", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or the prosecutor desires so to appeal by virtue of section 442(1) (c) thereof,"; and

  (c) for the proviso there shall be substituted the words "; but nothing in this section shall prejudice any right to proceed by bill of suspension, or as the case may be advocation, against an alleged fundamental irregularity relating to the imposition of the sentence.".

  () In section 452A (disposal of stated case appeal)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after the word "subject" there shall be inserted the words "to subsection (2) below and"; and

  (b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  "(2) The High Court shall, in an appeal—

  (a) against both conviction and sentence, subject to section 453D(1) of this Act, dispose of the appeal against sentence; or

  (b) by the prosecutor, against sentence, dispose of the appeal,

  by exercise of the power mentioned in section 453C(1) of this Act.".
  () In section 453B (appeals against sentence only)—

  (a) in each of subsections (1), (7) and (8), after the words "442(1) (a) (ii)" there shall be inserted the words ", or by virtue of section 442(1) (c),";

  (b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  "(2) The note of appeal shall, where the appeal is—

  (a) under section 442(1) (a) (ii) be lodged, within one week of the passing of the sentence, with the clerk of the court from which the appeal is to be taken; or

  (b) by virtue of section 442(1) (c) be so lodged within four weeks of such passing.";

  (c) in subsection (6), for the word "(2)" there shall be substituted the words "(2) (a)"; and

  (d) in subsection (8), at the end, there shall be added the words "except that, for the purposes of such application to any appeal by virtue of section 442(1) (c), references in subsections (1) to (3) of section 446 to the appellant shall be construed as references to the convicted person and subsections (4) and (5) of section 446 shall be disregarded".

  () In section 453C(3) (powers of High Court at time of disposal of appeal)—

  (a) after the words "442(1) (a) (ii)" there shall be inserted the words ", or by virtue of section 442(1) (c),"; and

  451

  (b) for the word "appellant", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "convicted person".'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. In speaking to Amendment No. 7, I also spoke to Amendment No. 34.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  35 Schedule 5, Page 42, line 27, at end insert:
  '() In section 14(1) (legalised police cells), after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "section 39 of".'.
  36 Page 42, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
  '(3) In section 19 (provisions of 1989 Act applying to remand centres and young offenders institutions)—

  (a) in subsection (3), for the words "the rules" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 39 of this Act"; and

  (b) in subsection (4), in sub-paragraph (iii) of the proviso—

  (i) for the words "paragraphs (i) and (ii)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (i)"; and

  (ii) for the words "of the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "under section 39 of this Act".'.

  37 Page 42, line 35, at end insert:
  '() In section 39(1) (rules for the management of prisons and other institutions)—

  (a) the word "and", where it occurs for the third time, shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) at the end there shall be added the words "and for any other matter as respects which it is provided in this Act that rules may be made under this section".'.

  38 Page 43, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'rules' in line 8 and insert ', for the words from "regulations" to the end there shall be substituted the words "an order made under section 37(1) or".'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 en bloc. All these amendments have one purpose in common. That purpose is to make it clear that all rules made under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 are to be made under Section 39 of that Act, and that any rules, regulations or orders made under the Act are to be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment. These amendments would clear up some anomalies which emerged as a result of the consolidation of the earlier legislation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 38.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  39 Schedule 7, Page 46, line 13, at end insert:
  'In section 270(2), the words "of two weeks or any extension thereof authorised by the High Court".'.
  40 Page 46, line 53, leave out 'Section 39(4)' and insert 'In section 39, in subsection (1) the word "and" where it occurs for the third time; and subsection (4)'.
  41 Page 46, line 56, leave out from 'or";' to 'and' in line 6 on page 47.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 en bloc. In speaking to Commons Amendment No. 7 I also spoke to Commons Amendment No. 39, and in speaking to Commons Amendment No. 35, I spoke to Commons Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 4T.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  42 Schedule 7, Page 47, line 11, leave out 'committees' and insert 'committee'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42, which corrects a drafting error.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Review
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the conclusions of the Government's Coal Review. I must ask the indulgence of the House for what will be a lengthy Statement. I understand that my right honourable friend the Leader of the House will be making arrangements for a debate early next week.
"The House will recall that this wide-ranging review was to look at the prospects for the 21 pits proposed for closure by British Coal last October in the context of the Government's energy policy.
"First, I should like to pay tribute to the Trade and Industry Select Committee for the detailed work in its report.
"I have a number of important new announce-ments to make about future opportunities for the British coal industry.
"I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the generators and the Regional Electricity Companies have now formally confirmed their intention to enter into base contracts and the necessary back-to-back contracts which will enable British Coal to supply 160 million tonnes of coal over five years, with 40 million tonnes in the first year and 30 million tonnes in each of the next four years.
"Madam Speaker, the Select Committee iden-tified the central issue: that it is only sensible to produce coal for which there is a market. The key question then becomes how big that market is.

453
"There is inevitably great difficulty in predicting the size of a long-term market as complex as the one for coal. The dominant market is in the England and Wales electricity supply industry. Estimates of the size of this market vary widely and a number of different fuels compete for it.
"It is central to the Government's energy policy to help create competitive energy markets within which consumers can obtain electricity produced from a diversity of sources at competitive prices. This is the best way to keep consumers' costs down and thereby strengthen our industrial competitive-ness.
"Let me comment therefore on the fuel sources that compete with British Coal: gas; oil; nuclear; Orimulsion; coal from various sources; and electricity supplied through the interconnector with France.
"I agree with the Select Committee that it would be wrong not to take advantage of the massive public investment in nuclear power. Electricity produced from existing nuclear stations has the lowest marginal cost. The benefits should not be denied to British industry and other consumers. We will, however, wish to look closely at any requests from Nuclear Electric for approval for capital investment in relation to proposals for extending the life of any Magnox stations. We will also be bringing forward our review of the future prospects for nuclear power.
"Let me deal next with gas. It has been suggested that I should withhold further planning consents for gas fired power stations. In considering this, I must have regard to my statutory powers and responsibilities. I do not intend to interfere with existing power station consents or alter my policy in taking future consent decisions under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Consequently, matters such as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel and type of plant remain commercial matters for applicants.
"The House will appreciate that, whatever decisions I might take on new Section 36 consents, they could not be relevant to the market for coal for at least another three years, since it would take at least this long before any new station could be brought into operation. In this context, I have decided that the Connah's Quay development in North Wales should be allowed to proceed. This is a "sour gas" project of a kind which the Select Committee favoured. I am also today granting consent to two smaller projects, one using sour gas at Rydale in North Yorkshire and a combined heat and power scheme at Aylesford in Kent. Together these three projects will involve investment of over £2 billion and will lead to the creation of over 5,000 construction jobs as well as several thousand in related industries.
"I have considered carefully the position of Orimulsion. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 16th March, Orimulsion, like other oil substitutes, will be subject to hydrocarbon oil duty. As such it will
454
bear duty at the same rate as heavy fuel oil. It will also be subject to the normal environmental controls for which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution are responsible. There are existing binding contracts for the import of Orimulsion into the United Kingdom with which the Government have no powers to interfere. The Government have, however, been informed that Orimulsion imports to the United Kingdom are likely to reduce by at least 500,000 tonnes equivalent of coal a year from current levels and to remain at the minimum contractual level for the foreseeable future.
"In one area I have been driven to a different conclusion from that reached by the Select Committee.
"They recommended that I should remove EdF's non-leviable status and ensure that British-produced electricity should gain access to the French electricity market and to third markets through France. I have considered this carefully and I published on 18th March a summary of the legal advice I had received.
"The position is clear. Any governmental measure to prevent or restrict imports of electricity across the interconnector with France would run counter to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. Further, the Government would be at financial risk under the indemnity given to the National Grid Company at the time of electricity privatisation and reported to this House.
"EdF's non-leviable status could not be removed without giving EdF the benefit of levy payments. In other words EdF would have to be given the same premium for its electricity as is now given to Nuclear Electric and financed by the levy. Far from reducing imports from France this would reinforce their position and our consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
"Madam Speaker, I have to tell the House that I see no prospect of reducing the net amount of electricity coming across the interconnector to zero as indicated by the Select Committee.
"However, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy and I have explored the scope for sales of electricity to France across the interconnector. The Minister has had talks with his French counterpart and the indications for sales in later years are good. Confirmation of this came in the announcement earlier this week of an eight-year export contract representing potential sales in excess of £100 million from the United Kingdom to France. The House will also wish to note that the latest forecast shows that sales by EdF in the UK are likely to decline progressively and significantly.
"I must now address that section of the market which is supplied by deep mined, opencast and imported coal. The base contracts I have just announced secure 160 million tonnes over five years at a value of £5.5 billion. This leaves British Coal as one of the world's largest coal producers.
"Opencast coal is a significant generator of employment, providing jobs, whether directly or indirectly, for some 17,000 people throughout the UK. It is an economic source of energy which needs

455
no subsidy from consumers or taxpayers. It can also play an important role in reclamation and redevelopment of derelict land. Whilst the Government do not think it would be right to impose arbitrary limits, British Coal have indicated in their evidence to the Coal Review that they expect their opencast output to fall over the next five years from the current level of 16 million tonnes to 12 million tonnes. British Coal's latest expectation is that opencast output will be lower still. I welcome the increased scope for deep mined coal which this represents. It will not affect British Coal's current contracts with companies who operate their opencast sites; nor will it affect the private sector opencast producers licensed by British Coal. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently reviewing the guidance to planning authorities on opencast coal. He will be announcing today how we will be carrying this forward in the light of the White Paper.
"British Coal's prospects of winning and holding a share of the wider market for coal depend on increased competitiveness. There is a critical role here for the private sector. We believe that privatisation is the only way of enabling this industry to take full advantage of the opportunities the market offers. British Coal will therefore begin immediately to prepare for full privatisation. They have confirmed that in advance of full privatisation any pits which the corporation does not itself wish to keep in operation will be offered to the private sector. The Government will be making available up to £1 million to assist in funding consultancy studies for management and employee buy-outs.
"To provide a further impetus for this, I intend to appoint a board member who will have special executive responsibility for privatisation. This will be supported by a new unit within my department. The Government will consider legislation to remove the manpower limit for private mines if this proves necessary.
"The Government have looked carefully at the position of large electricity users. I am working with the Director General of Electricity Supply to examine the circumstances under which they might bypass the pool. I will also embark shortly on further consultations with the director general, the electricity industry and large users on whether demand side bidding would improve the workings of the electricity market. In addition, the Government are reviewing the current regulation of on-site generation, which could offer large users an alternative source of electricity.
"Madam Speaker, I now turn to the most important of the Select Committee's recommenda-tions.
"I have authorised British Coal to negotiate for future contracts on the basis that it would supply at a world market-related price. The Government are prepared to subsidise the difference between that price and British Coal's cost of production. That subsidy will apply for any additional tonnages that British Coal is able to sell to the generators,
456
whether or not those are on long-tern contracts. The subsidy will reduce progressively over the period to full privatisation. The amount of subsidy will depend on the outcome of commercial negotiation, but we are prepared to embrace the range of figures put forward by the Select Committee. Those arrangements will be notified to the European Commission under the relevant state aids provisions.
"Private sector mines will also be able to seek government financial backing for supplementary sales at world-related prices on the same basis as British Coal and consistent with the relevant EC provisions provided they can demonstrate that that was for genuinely additional tonnages.
"I cannot guarantee that supplementary sales will be achieved by British Coal. But both generators have said that they will continue negotiations for such sales. To the extent that those sales fall short of the level envisaged by the Select Committee, expenditure will of course be less than that which they estimated.
"I am also aware that coal stocks are at very high levels. There are 33 million tonnes with the generators and a further 12 million tonnes at the pithead. Some reduction in coal output is therefore essential.
"As the House would expect, we have kept British Coal closely in touch with our thinking and we have provided it with an advance copy of the White Paper. Having considered that, British Coal has announced today that it is to consult on closure proposals for two of the 21 pits under review-Bolsover and Sharlston—whose reserves will shortly exhaust. Any redundancies will be subject to statutory consultation and notification requirements. British Coal has also announced that, again subject to consultations, it proposes to place the following six pits on a care and maintenance basis —Bevercotes, Clipstone, Easington, Rossington, Shirebrook and Westoe. Those six pits and the two proposed for closure in the coming months will be made available to the private sector.
"Twelve of the 13 remaining pits will continue to produce while British Coal, with government financial backing, looks for additional sales at world-related prices. British Coal is proposing that, again subject to consultations, one further pit— Maltby—will be placed on development. That will help to ensure that its reserves are available into the next century. The future of coaling in individual pits will depend on the extent to which intensive efforts over the coming months identify a market for their product or realistic prospect of sale to the private sector.
"Safety must continue to be paramount. The Government are determined to ensure, in consulta-tion with the Health and Safety Commission, that the existing high safety standards in such mines are maintained after they pass into the private sector.
"Madam Speaker, I have a general responsibility for competition, which of course includes the electricity market. Both I and the Director General of Electricity Supply have a statutory duty to

457
exercise our functions under the Electricity Act 1989 to promote competition. The Director General has the full support of my department in rigorously policing the competitive electricity market.
"I have taken the opportunity of the review to consider a number of long-term issues about the future of the industry. Clean coal technology will be vital to ensuring that coal continues to play a long-term role in the energy industries.
"The Government intend to make available an additional £12 million over the next three years to secure the future of the Coal Research Establishment before its transition to the private sector. The Government also intend to encourage links with international research programmes.
"The Government intend to publish an annual energy report to provide information relevant to business and investment decisions. In keeping with a recommendation of the Select Committee, the Government, in preparing the report, will be advised by a new Energy Advisory Panel of independent experts.
"The Government are acutely aware of the impact that any mining closures have on miners, their families and their communities. We announced a substantial package of measures in October to help areas that might be affected by closures. The Government have decided to increase the amount available to £200 million. The additional funds will allow major new projects to go ahead. Those could include a flagship business park in the Nottingham area and advance factory provision in several areas. The regeneration measures are to be co-ordinated by my noble friend Lord Walker.
"I can also announce our intention that the headquarters of the new Coal Authority proposed under our privatisation measures will be located in Nottinghamshire. In addition, my department will support the establishment of a new regional development organisation based in Nottingham to attract inward investment to the East Midlands.
"Finally, Madam Speaker, let me remind the House of what I said earlier. There can be no guarantees. The market for coal is complex and unpredictable. Even among the experts, opinions differ. I have done all that I reasonably could, consistent with economic realities and legal constraints, to increase the opportunities for British Coal.
"It is now for British Coal to make the most of those opportunities. The outcome will be settled, as it should be, in the market place. Our policies will give the industry every chance of strengthening its position and achieving future success. It is now up to the people who work in the industry to build on that".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we thank the Minister for the Statement and for the final delivery of the White Paper. In October last year it was promised for the New Year. Since then, it has often been heralded and leaked, or mis-leaked, and the three-month moratorium became six. It covers 150 pages and we on these Benches have had less then 30 minutes to read and absorb it. However, we will do our best.
It has obviously been a painful birth and we understand the difficulties and delays which the Secretary of State has suffered. We do not underestimate the prodigious energy and creative political mind that he has put into it. But nothing could get him out of the energy trap in which his political predecessors left him, especially with the botched privatisation of electricity which structured the energy market against coal. The ideological commitment to a rapid privatisation of coal rushed him into early mass closures, and the economic failures of the Government left little to invest in his coal rescue plan.
Having made the best possible defence for the Secretary of State—I believe that that comment is permissible from an old admirer and Oxford contemporary of his—we must scrutinise the White Paper's proposals for remedying the gross errors committed in the past by the Government in terms of energy policy.
First, if you are a mining family listening to this Statement, what it proposes, in a nutshell, is that 12 pits are to be closed immediately; six pits are to cease production and be mothballed, perhaps for ever and one pit will go into non-productive development; 19 cease production and 12 have their death sentences reprieved for what appears (though I have not had a great deal of time to study all the details) to be an unspecified period ahead of privatisation, which may be quite soon. We welcome the fact that the mining industry is not to be totally butchered immediately. To that extent I believe we should be willing to be generous. We share the relief of the mining community that 12 pits will receive transitional subsidy and will not be immediately closed. But I suggest that that is not much.
This is a menu for phased closure of much of the coal mining industry, and several questions must be raised in relation to that. The basic question is whether the White Paper offers what we have lacked for many years—a long-term strategy for Britain's energy future based on a diversity of sources, including secure supply from indigenous fuel, especially coal. At first sight, I cannot see that here.
However, the paper provides a great surprise on page 12 which contains the heading "The Government's Energy Policy". We view that as progress and it constitutes a U-turn. The Government now recognise the need for an energy policy—a matter that they have frequently avoided in the past. We will closely scrutinise the paper before any future debate to see what that adds up to. But a recognition of the need for an energy policy which assumes a strategy is progress. We note immediately that there are no serious proposals to deal with the dash for gas through

459
the withholding of consents or the reduction of net imports of expensive French electricity to a net balance, as the Select Committee recommended. I believe that that should still be possible by negotiation within the EC regulations. The White Paper's proposals for French electricity imports seem to me to be vague and distant. In general, there is still reliance upon the rhetoric of market forces when, as has been said frequently in evidence to the Select Committee, there is no free market operating for energy in this country.
My second question relates to the doomed 18 or 19 pits. Will the Minister tell the House how many miners and related workers will be made unemployed by these steps? After all this time and all the study, the Government must have those basic figures. What is the estimated cost of closing those 19 mines? I am referring to the true cost which includes the social costs of direct and related unemployment, the balance sheet write-offs, the liability for closed pits, the environmental costs, the medical insurance costs of unemployed miners, the provision of free coal and so on. What would be the cost of keeping open those pits for three, five or seven years? Is there much saving for all the human suffering involved? It would help to have some numbers, which I have not found in this enormous document.
On the question of subsidy, which lies at the heart of the Government's proposals—where I sense that they look for most political approval—I can find no statement of the maximum amount available. What is the timescale? At first sight I am confused by the timescale. It says in various places that the subsidy is available until privatisation. That can be a short timescale. It says that the subsidy will diminish ahead of privatisation. If that is the short timescale, it is diminishing very soon. It is also said that it can be based on long-term contract. How long is that? The Statement says that it embraces the Select Committee's timetable, which when I look it up I find is live years. It will help me if the Minister can clarify what is the maximum available and what is the timescale of the subsidy. How is that reconciled with the timetable for privatisation when it implies that the subsidy ceases?
I now come to the proposal to license private owners. The basic question I ask is: how does this solve the alleged problem that there is no demand for coal? If there are structural deficiencies in the demand for coal, surely that applies to private as well as public coal. I do not believe that the demand market can see a difference. If the Government are saying that private coal will be dramatically cheaper than public coal, how will that be achieved? British Coal's productivity is commendable; it is rising faster than almost anywhere else in the British economy. It is the best productivity in Europe, and getting better. How will private coal do what it is impossible for public coal to do? Is it conceivable that it means skimping on safety and health, or dangerously long hours? If so, perhaps the Minister can provide guidance in that area.
Finally, the question most frequently asked in the media, in another place and especially on the government side is whether the White Paper will
460
succeed politically or is a political fix, to use an oft-used phrase. Presumably we shall soon learn. It may well succeed in that sense and get the Government out of this particular parliamentary hole. But I should like to suggest that that is not the right question, nor the relevant answer. The question should not be about political fixes. The central questions concern energy policy. Does this offer a strategy for Britain's energy future? Does it offer a decent and secure future for tens of thousands of miners and their families in the mining communities? I am afraid that the message going out to those mining communities of Britain is, regrettably, probably no.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before I comment on the Statement we have just heard I should like to remind the House that I am connected with a group of companies covering a wide range of forms of energy.
The Statement deals with the central issue of the 21 pits under review. The document is a massive one, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out. I trust that we shall have an early opportunity to debate it in detail. I was slightly disappointed to find that it did not point out the short-term problem—and there certainly is one—significantly in the context of longer-term policies. While there is reference to the wider issues and to energy policy, nonetheless some of the things that I looked for I did not find.
I start with the question of energy security. To cast our memories back over the past 50 years (as some of your Lordships may be able to), coal has stood the nation very well in terms of crises in that period. For example, in the immediate post-war period the reconstruction of Europe was based on coal. During the oil price crisis of the 1970s the fact that we had substantial reserves and production of coal was an immense asset to the country. No one can say that there will not be crises of that kind in the future. Therefore, I should have liked to read something about the Government's concern regarding energy security and the role that coal might play in that respect in the years ahead.
Secondly, on new technologies for using coal, there is indeed a reference to clean coal technology. I am very glad that the Coal Research Establishment at Stoke Orchard near Cheltenham, with which I had much to do during my time in the coal industry, will be assisted before it falls into private hands. However, many of these technologies are now past the stage of research. They have entered the development stage. I happen to be concerned with a company which is quite ready to go ahead using the coal gasification technology developed by British Coal at Westfield in Scotland over a number of years to apply to coal fired power stations. As it will be a development project it will require some assistance, if not necessarily directly from the British Government than at least from the Community, with support from the Government to obtain it. Are the Government moving positively in the direction of trying to see whether these new technologies work and can be marketed?
Thirdly, there is the question of the other markets for coal. We know that the electricity market dominates the sector. Nonetheless there are other important markets. There is the general industrial and

461
commercial market, in which I also happen to be involved. The coal supplied into those markets is of suitable quality and is competitive, but its production depends on a sufficient production of electricity. The two go together. I should have thought that some further reference to the way in which other markets could be developed might be mentioned. The White Paper has a chapter on the subject but it seems to be, regrettably, fairly dismissive of the other markets. I believe that they are quite important. They amount to 14 million tonnes of coal when all is said and done, which is worth retaining and building up.
On the question of privatisation, I was a little surprised to read that it is proposed that some mines should be offered up to the private sector before privatisation. I do not know how that can be reconciled with the provisions of the 1946 nationalisa-tion Act, which put all the coal reserves in the country and its production, subject to very small licensing possibilities, into the hands of what was then known as the National Coal Board. In order to be able to license mines to the private sector in advance of the privatisation legislation, will the Government have to introduce special legislation, or is there some other way in which this can be done?
On a positive note, I was very pleased to see that the Government took account of what was said about large electricity users in the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Rochester and are trying to see whether they can obtain their supplies of electricity on a more competitive basis than going through a pool. That is a step in the right direction.
I conclude by expressing the hope that we shall very soon have the opportunity of debating this Statement and the White Paper in greater detail.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Ezra, for their comments on the Statement and I shall try to answer the points that they raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, commented that the White Paper is late. "Late" is not an appropriate word in this case. It was necessary that the White Paper was comprehensive and well done. That is what we have tried to make it and that is what I believe it is. It is a document which gives answers. He also suggested that there are no answers to the fact that coal is always at the wrong end of the market view. If the market has been tilted, it has been well tilted towards coal, with £1 billion of support a year and with this further adjustment which the Government are prepared to support to allow British Coal breathing space in which to operate and improve its productivity.
I agree with the noble Lord that much has been done on productivity in the coal industry. It is significant that British Coal produced 5.05 million tonnes of deep mined coal in February, only 10,000 tonnes less than in the equivalent period before the closure announcement. This has been achieved with 8,000 fewer employees and 10 fewer pits in production. If output continues at this rate annual production will be almost 66 million tonnes. Productivity has certainly improved, but it is still
462
significantly below the productivity of deep mined pits in America and Australia using the same technology and equipment.
The noble Lord referred to immediate closures. I think that there was a misunderstanding. The consultation process will continue and care and maintenance will allow the private sector to look at the possibilities of those pits which British Coal does not intend to continue with. On the development prospects for Maltby, this has to be tremendous news because it will allow the research and the necessary work to create a superpit in that area. This cannot be regarded by anyone as negative news.
I would point out that the subsidy is actually to the market place to provide an opportunity for British Coal. The noble Lord would not expect us to announce the subsidy in a pre-negotiation situation. I would simply repeat the remark in the Statement that it takes into account and is alongside the range of figures put forward by the Trade and Industry Select Committee. While I appreciate that noble Lords opposite have not had the White Paper for very long —I sympathise with their dilemma in that area—they have certainly had the report of the Select Committee since January.
The Government have always had an energy policy. I am sorry that it has taken a headline in a White Paper for it to be recognised that we have an energy policy. The Government's consistent policy has been to ensure the largest economically viable coal industry which the market can support in the long term. That is within our policy to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy in the forms that people and businesses want at competitive prices. The market provides the best means of achieving that and commitment to privatisation is the best guarantee of the industry's long term future.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, suggested that it would be appropriate to break contracts on the interconnector with France. I am sure he is not seriously suggesting that the Government should break contracts.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I said that this should be done by renegotiation with the French. I am sure that it would be possible.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord goes to the negotiating table with rather more optimism than realism. The discussions that my honourable friend had with his counterpart Minister for Energy in France have produced quite significant moves. Obviously we regard the opportunity of a market over eight years of £100 million as significant.
I stress very firmly that the market for coal from mines taken over by the privatised sector will not be achieved by skimping on safety. I can give noble Lords an absolute assurance on that. The private sector may operate in a different, smaller-scale way which could produce coal that can be sold into domestic and industrial markets, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, and which British Coal has said it cannot, because of its mining methods, produce in sufficient quantities. There is that possibility and the Statement

463
makes clear that the Government will be looking to take every possible opportunity to support and examine it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, expressed his hope that there will be a debate in due course. That is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that it will be examined. I am grateful to him for welcoming the £12 million for clean coal technology. It is an important move and it relates very much to the Government's technology policy over all. If some of the pits which British Coal no longer wishes to operate were to go into the private sector, he pointed out that it would be necessary to have legislation. As the Statement said, the Government will consider such legislation if the occasion arises.
There is absolutely no lack of concern or understanding on this side of the House for the future of the miners, their families and the communities in which they work. But I believe that the noble Lord was less than optimistic about the future for those people. Last month British Coal Enterprise conducted a special exercise on its services to miners who had volunteered for redundancy since the October announcement. About 60 per cent. of those made redundant had sought BCE help. Nearly 700 had already been found jobs. Training for an identified job had been provided or arranged for another 500. Approaching 40 per cent. of those made redundant before the end of 1992 had probably already been helped in one of those ways.
Other recent British Coal Enterprise research shows that within six months 75 per cent. of its clients who were actively seeking work have been helped in one of those ways. We should remember that the miners who will be available for other opportunities and jobs are highly skilled young men for whom there will be opportunities and who will be attractive to future employers. I believe that the Government's commitment to a £200 million package on helping to find job opportunities shows extremely well our concern for those people.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I should first declare an interest. I am president of British Alcan Aluminium plc, which I believe is the largest private generator of electricity and therefore a very large user of coal. Is my noble friend aware that, in so far as this White Paper heralds a degree of greater flexibility— and it would appear to do so particularly in paragraphs 14.31 and 14.32—it is greatly to be welcomed? Will my noble friend call to mind the joint and unanimous submission made by Northumberland County Council, the Wansbeck District Council, British Alcan and Ryan Mining calling for greater control over the fuel economy of Northumberland? Is she aware that there is a strongly held belief in Northumberland that such control could perhaps save not only British Alcan's smelter, but the Ellington Colliery, the Blyth power station and the port of Blyth as well, and a very substantial number of jobs? I hope my noble friend realises how welcome a review of the general pattern of the electricity supply industry will be. Is she aware that many of us felt that the previous
464
Administration made a great error, in the name of competition, in setting up only two generators which perhaps have had an undue influence over the whole situation which has since developed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am always impressed by the partnership which operates in the North East. The ability of people to put aside their own particular agenda and to work together for the benefit of the area is impressive. In the Wansbeck area in particular that has proven to be so. In preparing for privatisation, British Coal will be very happy to consider with interested parties proposals for the sale of regional coalmining packages. I am grateful to my noble friend for his recognition that, in opening up opportunities for people to talk with British Coal and other companies, that will be to the benefit of the market, the consumer and particular areas.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in deciding that it would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome to limit, imports of French electricity, did the Government investigate the extent to which nuclear-produced French electricity is heavily subsidised? Is there any evidence that the eventual decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations have been taken into account? If not, and these imports are heavily subsidised, are they not also contrary to the Treaty of Rome?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that the benefit of fuel flowing through the interconnector means that British industry has the benefit of competitive electricity.
Lord Jay: My Lords, that is not the question I asked. I asked: have the Government satisfied themselves that these imports are not heavily subsidised and therefore highly questionable under the Treaty of Rome?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government are always prepared to take to Brussels evidence that there is misdemeanour under the Treaty of Rome. Were such evidence produced, we would be happy to take up the matter.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, will the Minister note that Maltby is already a super pit? In places like Maltby and Rossington and where pits are being closed, mothballed or developed, and even in places where pits are being kept open for the present, if there can be no guarantees and everything is left to market forces, with no real restraint being imposed on gas or foreign electricity—I have no doubt that the laws would work quite differently if matters were the other way round; for example, the French would have found a way of switching off supplies—how can any plans be made for the future for the people who live in those communities by the local authorities, the school authorities, the shop owners and home owners and by all those making infrastructure plans for the future? How can those people make plans if we have no guarantees beyond tomorrow? How cart such people do anything to improve, survive, and maintain the quality of life in these sometimes very isolated mining communities?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fully recognise the right reverend Prelate's anxieties for the areas he mentioned. I hope I can reassure him that it is recognised that assistance should be available. As I said in the Statement, we have increased the package of support in England to £200 million. That will enable the people he has spoken about—the miners and the remainder of the community who have built themselves up around the mining villages—to look towards the future; to work, build and to attract investment which will have a long-term future. When we talk about the decline of the coal industry, that is not something that happened between 1992–93; it has been going on for a long time. We now have a support programme and the resources in place to help ensure that there is training. I spend a great deal of time in Yorkshire. I am delighted to say that the local authorities, the enterprise agencies and the training and enterprise councils are all working to ensure that these people have maximum help and assistance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has still not dealt fully and properly with the question of the French interconnect-tor? Is it not the fact that the French Government refuse to publish the full costs of their electricity even in their own country? Is it not a well known fact that to a very large extent the French in fact subsidise their nuclear electricity. While that might be all right if British jobs were not under threat, does the noble Baroness agree that, when British jobs in the mining industry are under threat, it is completely unacceptable that we should be importing into this country French electricity which is very heavily subsidised? In other words, it has been subsidised to undermine British jobs. Would it not be as well for the Government to take a much stronger line over this matter in relation to the Treaty of Rome?
The other point which I want to raise goes back to the strategic argument. It is all very well to say that at this point in time gas is a very competitive fuel, but what of the future? When gas supplies diminish, will not the price of gas increase? If it becomes more difficult to extract or import gas, will not the price go up and may not British coal at current prices then be more competitive? What if there are problems in Europe or in the Middle East and we are unable to bring gas and oil supplies ashore or to import them from the Middle East? What happens then? What happens if there is a war? And there could still be a war in Europe —indeed, there is one going on at present. What happens then if we have closed down all or most of our coal mines and we are unable to produce power for our people and for the war effort? That seems to me to be the part of energy policy which the Government have ignored, but which they ought to consider very seriously indeed.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, covered two points and I shall deal with the French interconnector first. Perhaps I may take the noble Lord back a little because it was his right honourable friend the Member for Chesterfield who introduced that, saying that the link would add to the security and diversity of the Central
466
Electricity Generating Board's source of electricity. It is not often that someone stands at this Dispatch Box and agrees with the right honourable Member for Chesterfield—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, he must have been wrong then.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, but what he identified was the fact that it is diversity of supply that protects British industry's energy supply. It is important that we ensure that there is diversity of supply and that we do not aim at one source at the expense of others. It is crucial to concentrate on those gas reserves which are economically recoverable—those where sales will cover the costs of extraction. On that basis, the United Kingdom's gas reserves will last roughly as long as coal reserves.
On the point about the French interconnector, the Government have received clear legal advice that action to cut off imports through the interconnector would breach Community law. All European Community governments must observe the law. The Government would certainly take action to ensure that the French Government met its Community obligations if we had to, and we would expect the French Government to do the same.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that certainly until recently coal imported all the way from Australia was cheaper than coal from the British coal industry? Can she confirm whether that is still the case and, if so, give us the figures?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry that I shall not be able to give my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter those figures, but I can confirm that there is still a great difference in productivity between deep-mined coal in Australia and deep-mined coal in this country. We hope that the White Paper gives the British coal industry the opportunity to catch up by providing a subsidy on world prices.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the right reverend Prelate in expressing some concern about the question of planning for the community in the future without proper information. Paragraph 2.3 on page 3 of the White Paper states:
"The Government intends to publish an annual Energy Report to provide information relevant to business and investment decisions".
My first question is: if any private sector organisation involved in energy wants, for commercial reasons, to keep its investment decisions to itself, rather than giving them to the Government, do the Government intend to enact legislation to compel such organisations to disclose their future investment decisions?
My second simple question is: when the Government talk about the pits that are going to be mothballed and about those that will be offered to the private sector, will they consider sympathetically (as opposed to the way in which they considered the buy-out proposals in relation to Manchester's buses) any buy-out application from the workforce?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the matter of the purchase of pits which British Coal is not

467
going to operate must be a matter for British Coal. However, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that applications from the workforce, the community and from currently non-commercial partnerships will be seriously considered and will form part of the examination. I think that the noble Lord knows the answer to his first question. Obviously, we shall not force commercial companies to share their commercially confidential information, but the energy statement each year will allow people to see the overall view on which decisions are being based.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in that case paragraph 2.3 is wrong when it talks about "an annual Energy Report". The Minister is now admitting that the figures that will be required to produce a realistic annual energy report will not be available.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry if there is some confusion. That is not true. We shall, indeed, produce an annual report using independent experts (and I stress the words "independent experts") which will enable people to examine the energy situation in this country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, how can that be fair?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Boardman: My Lords, although the closure of pits and the inevitable loss of jobs that follows from that is regrettable, I congratulate the Government on producing a White Paper which appears to recognise and to try to meet the problems that we are facing. Prior to taking any further action, would my noble friend agree that any action that increases the price of coal for which there is no market (we have about 55 million tonnes of that already) must inevitably put at risk jobs in industries that are dependent upon that energy? A balance must be struck. I hope that my noble friend will continue to bear that point in mind.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Boardman. As I have tried to point out, it is absolutely essential that we provide British industry with the opportunity to have competitively-priced diverse sources of energy. That must be our key role.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, when, in the Unstarred Question to which my noble friend Lord Ezra has referred, I asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would ensure that electricity prices for major energy users were internationally competitive I said that in my view it was imperative that a solution to that problem should be put forward in the White Paper that has now been published. No such solution has yet been found. Nevertheless, perhaps I may endorse what my noble friend has said and welcome both the discussions that the Secretary of State is currently having (and those that are in prospect) with the Director General of Electricity Supply and others, and the further steps which I understand are to be taken, aimed at dealing satisfactorily with this matter.
468
I very much hope that a speedy solution will be found because—does the noble Baroness not agree?—it is urgently needed.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade well recognises the role that the major users play in the British economy. As I said in the Statement, urgent consultations will continue. Various alternative solutions will be looked at to try to find the correct one for this problem.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, much of the Statement is extremely encouraging and constructive, but has full account been taken of the effect the proposed solution will have on the balance of payments? As I understand it, considerable quantities of coal will continue to be imported. In particular, has full account been taken of the costs—both revenue and capital—of putting the six mines on a care-and-maintenance basis? Would not it be better to spend some of that money on developing those mines so as to bring their production costs down to world competitive prices? Finally, will my noble friend give an assurance that every possible assistance will he given when selling those mines to private enterprise so that the proposition will be viable and that the purchasers will be able to sell coal at competitive prices and so keep them open?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, such matters have been taken into account. The subsidy offered to British Coal to give it breathing space to enable it to increase its competitiveness will allow it to compete with the price of imported coal. Development must be directed towards those mines which have a future and which can be world competitive so that this position does not arise again. It may not have been recognised by noble Lords opposite, but the whole aim of the White Paper is to ensure that this country has a competitive coal industry.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple, factual question about the French interconnector. She will have realised that there is concern on this side of the House as to whether something could, or should be, done about that electricity coming in from France. Have the Government requested the Commission to examine under its competition rules the possibility that state aids to the French electricity industry are excessive?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, no, but I shall repeat what I said previously. The Government would take action to ensure that the French Government met their Community obligations if we had to, and we should expect the French Government to do the same.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
5.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Notice of industrial action for employers]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 34, line 21, leave out from ("not") to ("his") in line 22 and insert ("protected as respects").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 65. It is a minor amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 87 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 inclusive.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 87
Page 34, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88, 89, 90, 94 and 95 because they cover much the same ground. We are in the same argument we had on Clause 17. In that clause the union is obliged to tell the employer who will be entitled to vote in a ballot on dispute action. We pointed out in our amendments, which were not accepted by the Government, that, in effect, that was compelling the union to finger—in other words, to name—its members to the employer. Despite assurances given in Committee in the other place that the clause did not mean that names and addresses had to be given, the amendment was designed to state that specifically.
We are now dealing with much the same argument, only one stage further on, and, arguably, at a more important stage. We have now reached the position where the union has had the ballot and is about to give notice of industrial action. Notice of that has to be given to the employer, and the Bill, if unamended, provides that the relevant notice to the employer must describe, so that the employer can readily ascertain them, the employer's employees whom the union intends to induce, or has induced, to take part, or to continue to take part, in the industrial action. Those are then referred to in the Bill as, "the affected employees".
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that it is clear that the union does not have to give the names and addresses of employees who are about to be called out on strike. The Committee in the other place was
470
assured, again, that that was not what the Bill meant. If that is so, I am pleased to hear it, but it should be made clear in the Bill.
It must surely be obvious, even to the Government, that if the employer is to be told precisely, and in advance, who will be called out on strike, or is likely to answer the strike call, the opportunities for intimidation of the would-be striker are great. Furthermore, there are many workers who would not want to be identified in such a manner. This is another little bit of intimidation being introduced by the Government, along with the requirement that unions must tell members on the ballot paper that if they vote for strike action they will, in effect, be sacking themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: When we debated a series of similar amendments to Clause 17 relating to ballots on industrial action, the Minister agreed to consider carefully what should be done about what was then said. I continue to feel that the requirement that a trade union should so describe employees to an employer that their identities can be readily ascertained amounts to an unreasonable breach of confidentiality. I trust that the Minister will agree to give to these amendments the same consideration that he has undertaken to give to the earlier amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for not having been in my place. On this occasion I support the spirit of these amendments. I find it almost unreasonable, to a point of being unfair—although that is not the intention of government, I know—to require that the names of the employees should be given in circumstances such as these. It militates against the whole concept of the proper functioning of relationships between employers and trades unions.
I am sure that such is not the intention, but, life being what it is, the employers can then approach the named employees, bring what they see to be proper pressure to bear upon them and, therefore so to speak, get at and undermine the authority of the union. That is not the way industrial relations in this country should operate under any government. I am sure that such cannot be the true wish of the Government whom I support. I feel also that it is getting near to an unwarranted interference, which again is not the intention of government, I know, with the right to strike. This is frankly going over the top somehow.
I support Amendment No. 90. I was a little late because I was trying to read the Bill. Amendment No. 90, which relates to subsection (3)(a), does not seem to me to be objectionable because it cures the problem with which we have been seeking to deal.
I know that the amendments are grouped together and I know that it is idle to waste time in seeking to serialise and deal with each one. However, I have chosen one amendment that seems to me to give a fair and reasonable result. I hope that my noble friend may find a way to achieve that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, have pointed out that we are taking in one discussion a

471
series of slightly different amendments in the hope that it will give the Minister a varied menu from which he can choose the right result.
When a trade union is about to call action after a successful ballot, I agree with my noble friend that to demand that it describes or identifies the members concerned in any way is an invasion of normal principles.
I add one further point which may impress itself upon the Government. The clause requires that the notice:
"describes (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer who the union intends to induce or has induced to take part",
in the action. It is not to name those that the union thinks will come out. If the union has a large majority in the ballot, it is entitled to believe that all its members will come out and it intends to induce them all to do so, including the minority who have voted against strike action. Therefore, the Bill demands that the trade unions should describe employees in the minority and the majority and, indeed, the abstainers, which it intends to induce. At that point what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, described as unfair becomes patently unfair.
Amendment No. 88 is perhaps a solution, a via media perhaps. In another place it was said that if all the van drivers are coming out on strike, then the union must say that all the van drivers are coming out on strike; that is effectively giving names. There is no way round an accurate description which does not fit, in a broad sense, the names of the members. Can we not escape from the dreadful prospect of a union being forced to name its members? If there must be something in the notice—and there are comparative sources for this—Amendment No. 88 suggests that the number of union members who will be involved in the action could be estimated. However, I support my noble friend's proposal to omit altogether paragraph (a).
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek clarification as regards Amendment No. 88. In practice, how can a union estimate the number? What will happen if, in good faith, the union makes a wrong estimation? What is the object of it? Amendment No. 89 proposes to leave out the words:
"so that he can readily ascertain them".
Let us suppose that the group concerned is in the machine shop. That seems to me to identify the group and that is perfectly reasonable as between the employer and the union. With respect, I do not see how Amendments Nos. 88 or 89 will work in practice, but I believe that Amendment No. 90 will work.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord prefers Amendment No. 90 and I see that it has merit, although the example he gives is not quite covered by the amendment. It is possible to estimate the number at the end of a process. A dispute has been brewing and all the other steps of the process are taken—seven days notice of the ballot, the ballot, the result and then another seven days notice. If the management does not know where the dispute is by that time, there is
472
something wrong with the management. I believe that it is quite reasonable for the union to estimate how many of its members will strike.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I always disagree reluctantly with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because I have an enormous regard for his judgment., particularly as regards the drafting of a Bill.
However, it seems to me that both my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite have somewhat exaggerated the effect of the words which Amendment No. 88 seeks to delete. It seems to me that, as it stands, the Bill merely contains a reasonable proposition that when notice is given, it should indicate roughly the categories of people who would be involved. That is a reasonable provision.
I believe that the Bill is right to contain a provision that notice should be given to the employer about forthcoming industrial action. Therefore, it does not seem to me unreasonable to lay down that that should indicate the broad categories of employees who will be involved. I do not know what the Minister will say but for my own part, I am quite unable to agree with my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If it were only a question of identifying categories, I should be much in the same boat as he is; for example, identifying the machine shop or whatever it is. However, the Bill does not say that. It says:
"so that he can ascertain them".
That is not categories; that is named employees. I may be wrong but I believe that the Bill as it is drafted constitutes a form of invasion of privacy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not agree with my noble friend. He seems to think that to describe them means giving names and listing them. The Bill does not seem to say that at all; it simply means describing the members in, for example, the machine shop. It does not ask for a nominal description.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: We disagree in amity. As we disagree in amity, this matter is obviously not clear on the face of the Bill. Could it not be clarified?
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. It is quite intolerable that names should have to be given. It is reasonable for the employer to know whether all his employees are to strike or only a certain number of them; for example, those in the machine shop. However, I believe that to give names opens the door to a whole series of undesirable practices. I believe that an estimation of the numbers should be acceptable but it is intolerable that the employer should be given names.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, is he willing to accept Amendment No. 94? It spells out that whatever may go before:
"Nothing in this subsection shall be taken to impose upon the union a statutory duty to supply' the employer with the names of the employees so described".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I shall answer that question when we reach Amendment No. 94 because it must depend upon the state of the Bill when we reach that point.
Lord Blease: I hope that what I am about to say will clarify certain points in connection with my participation in the discussions on the Bill. I know that the Minister who is to reply will have some sympathy for me and will be able to clarify certain points for me.
Some parts of the Bill apply to Northern Ireland and others do not. Clause 46 clearly states the parts which will apply. The part which we are discussing now does not apply to Northern Ireland. I intervene at this stage because in a statement on 6th November the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
"The application to Northern Ireland of provisions equivalent to the remainder of the Bill, and also the provisions of the Employment Act 1990, will be considered in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/92; col. 431]
I have been instructed and have carried out a fair number of inquiries. I have also been approached with the weightiest amount of briefing material that I have ever received since I came to this House some 14 years ago. There is complete opposition to this form of provision. At this stage I should like to make it clear that if such a provision was to appear now, or at any time in the future, in legislation affecting Northern Ireland, it would be strongly opposed. I have been asked to take my stand and oppose it in principle on this occasion. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments share great similarities to Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 which were debated when the Committee considered Clause 17 of the Bill. Although the notices covered by the provisions in Section 234A serve a different purpose, the expression of certain provisions in both this clause and in Clause 17 are quite similar. That is because our policy on the question of the employers' right to be told which of their workers are likely to be called upon to take official industrial action is exactly the same as our policy on their right to know which of them are likely to be balloted.
In both cases our proposals were clearly set out in the 1991 Green Paper. We believe that employers should be entitled to notice telling them which of their workers are likely to be involved in either a ballot or in official industrial action. That does not mean that the only way to satisfy that requirement is to provide an employer with a list of names. Indeed, as my colleagues and I have said before, we do not think that there would be cases where, in practice, it would invariably be necessary for a union to provide names.
If giving the categories is sufficient to enable the employer readily to ascertain the employees, then it will be enough to give categories. The vital point is whether the description is sufficient to enable the employer readily to ascertain the employees.
When we debated Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 I promised the Committee that I would study the Hansard record. I also promised the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I would consider his suggestion that it would suffice to require a union to indicate no more
474
than its estimate of the number of the employer's workers likely to be involved. However, I remain convinced that if we are to meet our goal of providing a new right to help employers protect their business, their customers and their suppliers, it would not be right to water down the presently-proposed requirements.
First, we must reflect upon exactly what is going on when an industrial action ballot or an industrial action is imminent. In such a situation, the union is contemplating calling upon a worker to take industrial action against the employer. If an individual actually takes industrial action, it is a fair assumption that the employer will be aware of that when it happens. If the employer knows that the action is being organised by the union, he will know that the individual is responding to the union's call; in other words, he is behaving as a member of a union might well be expected to behave. So if it comes to actual industrial action, the individual who takes part in it at that stage is clearly willing to be identified in that way by his or her employer.
Secondly, the law already affords protection for individuals whose employer might dismiss or discriminate against them on the grounds of union membership or activities. That protection is a real protection. It applies regardless of the length of time which an employee has been in employment with the employer. An employer does not have a free hand to discriminate against employees who are union members.
Thirdly, we have to remember the purpose of the notice requirements. They are intended to help an employer respond, as he judges best in the circumstances of his business, to the prospect of an industrial action ballot or industrial action. To provide that help and to provide it effectively the employer needs to have information from which he can judge, with a fair degree of assurance, who among the workforce is likely to be involved. Fortunately, industrial action is now much rarer in this country than it used to be. It is a rare situation, but it creates special circumstances in respect of the employment relationship.
Bearing all those considerations in mind, we have concluded that concerns about possible invasion of privacy rights are clearly misplaced. I very much appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but I must say that we remain convinced of the justification and need for the provisions that the amendments proposed would modify. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Viscount sits down I should like him to answer one clear question which lies behind our doubts. If an employer were to suggest that he could not ascertain the names of his employees, or could not ascertain who they were, would the Minister say that a union must give those names? Further, if the union refused to do so, would it he justified in that refusal or would it be a breach of the law?
Viscount Ullswater: It is difficult to give a very clear answer in respect of every circumstance. Obviously the circumstances will be different in each case. But I confess that there may be cases where it would be important for the union to be prepared to provide the names of the employees. Indeed, it may be very few individuals who could bring a whole factory to a close. If pit is a few individuals with very highly skilled, or perhaps health and safety duties, then it would be necessary for the employees to be readily ascertainable to the employer.
Baroness Seear: Provided that the employer knows the approximate number and the categories, for what reason could he possibly want to know the names except to bring undue pressure on those people not to strike? That is our anxiety: if he knows the names, he will put pressure on them not to strike. Some of us have the increasing fear that what the Government are doing—whether or not they intend to—is in fact undermining the ultimate right to strike. That is something that we cannot accept. Pressure put on individual members is a part of undermining the right to strike.
Viscount Ullswater: The law already protects individuals in employment from actions on the part of the employer such as those suggested by the noble Baroness—actions which may be constructed as short of dismissal—if they consider that they are being victimised in that way or have suffered some detriment. I believe that the law already takes care of that situation.
Lord Wedderburn of Chariton: Before the noble Viscount finally sits down, will he agree that there are many ways in which an employer can make a worker pay for being too militant and for having taken industrial action? He gave a good resume of the other parts of the law. But would he not agree that, for example, someone taken back in reinstatement can be put in a situation quite different from that which applied before he took industrial action? Indeed, the courts have upheld that. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the person who is given that unfortunate disadvantage by the employer after the dispute has been lost by the workers—which is obviously the Government's intention for all disputes in the future —might be one of those who voted against the stoppage and that the latter situation arose because his name or, should we say, his identity, must be disclosed by the union as being someone whom the union intends to induce to take action?
Viscount Ullswater: I really do not accept that view. Of course, this requirement is for the notice regarding the taking of industrial action rather than the notice regarding balloting, although I understand that the same words appear in Clause 17. It is important that the employer should be able to adjust his affairs in that way When threatened with industrial action, he will need to have them described so that he can readily ascertain the employees who intend to take industrial action against him.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very disappointed with the Minster's response. Following the discussion that we had on Clause 17 when very strong points of view were expressed on this side of the Committee about confidentiality, the invasion of privacy and the fear of intimidation—especially since similar views were expressed in Committee in another place—I had thought that the Minister might have been prepared to come forward this afternoon and perhaps choose one of the menu of alternatives (including the one in Amendments Nos. 94 or 95) which has been put forward today. Those amendments are grouped with Amendment No. 87. As I mentioned earlier, Amendment No. 94 states:
"Nothing in this subsection shall he taken to impose upon the union a statutory duty to supply the employer with the names of the employees so described".
However, the Minister has given us no ray of light at all this afternoon. We still have a situation where it is quite possible, given this clause, for an employer to insist upon being given names, even though the Minister says that he does not think the law as set out in this Bill would stipulate such action.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn has made a valid point. Of course not everyone in a ballot will vote for dispute action. But when a union puts the decision of the majority into effect, it will obviously call upon all its members, including those who voted against the action, to participate in that action. Those names will, of course, have to be made available to the employer in advance of the action, if he insists upon that. Clearly that provides an opportunity for intimidation. My noble friend is right to say that intimidation does not always constitute dismissal. There are all sorts of other ways in which people can be subtly intimidated because they have answered a strike call or have been willing to do so. In those circumstances and because I think we are discussing an important point of principle, I feel I must ask the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 87) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Annan, L.

Foot, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Chapple, L.

Healey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Howell. L.

Diamond, L.

Hughes, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Eatwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ezra, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Falkender, B.

John-Mackie, L.

477

Judd, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Kintore, E.

Redesdale, L.

Kissin, L

Richard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rochester, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shannon, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strafford, E.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mulley, L.

Wharton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Holderness, L.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Layton, L.

Auckland, L.

Leigh, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barber, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cadman, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Caldecole, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Prior, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cranborne, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rees, L.

Davidson, V.

Rennell, L.

Denham, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Dilhorne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Downshire, M.

Seccombe, B.

Elibank, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Goschen, V.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Suffield, L.

Swansea, L.

Hanson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

478

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.49 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 34, line 39, leave out ("and").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 91, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 93, 96 to 98, 100, and 102 to 104.
The proposals in the 1991 Green Paper to require at least seven days' notice of official industrial action won strong support from employers and employers' organisations. It is right to protect businesses and their customers and suppliers against the damage which can be caused by precipitate calls for industrial action. The new Section 234A will therefore give employers at least seven days' notice of the maximum extent of official industrial action which is likely to be organised against them. That is the fundamental purpose of the provisions.
Following the publication of the Bill, it became apparent to us that the provisions of the new Section 234A needed amendment to ensure that they were clear and produced the intended result. That is what the amendments achieve. They do not affect the underlying policy, which is exactly as set out in the 1992 Green Paper. They improve the drafting of the Bill and remove a number of possible ambiguities. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: At this stage we shall not offer any objection to the amendments which have just been moved, although I shall read very carefully in Hansard what has been said. I take it that the amendments are mainly of a technical nature as they are in line with the policy to which the Minister referred.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 34, line 47, at end insert (", and
(c) states that it is given for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Viscount said: I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 98:
Page 35, line 10, leave out first ("the") and insert ("an").
Page 35, line 20, after ("union") insert ("not covered by a relevant notice").
Page 35, line 26, at end insert ("not covered by a relevant notice").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 35, line 35, at beginning insert ("continuous" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 35, line 40, after ("action") insert ("(that is to say, industrial action taken in furtherance of the same dispute)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 101 appears in tandem with Amendment No. 105. Both amendments concern that part of Clause 20(7) which deals with the situation where an authority to take industrial action has been given but is later removed or ceases.
This is an important area, for this reason. It is commonplace in the reality of industrial relations that industrial action may be threatened or taken but once negotiations begin or there is a prospect of negotiations coming about, as a mark of its wish to enter into new negotiations, the workforce, or the union on its behalf, suspends the industrial action or part of it. The important question is what effect the Bill will have on such a situation. I should have thought that that is a question which interests management as much as labour, because negotiations to settle a dispute are always welcome. No one would wish to put on the statute book legislation which stands in the way of or is a disincentive to such negotiations.
The first of the amendments merely asks whether the clause, when it refers in line 40 to "the industrial action", is speaking of industrial action taken in furtherance of the same dispute. I hope that the Minister can accept that that is the case. He may say that the words proposed are unnecessary. However, at the moment the position is not entirely clear and the amendment would remove the uncertainty.
Amendment No. 105 attempts to make clear what is by no means certain in subsection (7) as it stands and as amended by the Government. I did not speak in relation to the government amendments in that respect because the point arises here. Amendment No. 105 proposes that the Bill should state very clearly that where industrial action—which I have limited to continuous industrial action although I am not sure that that is not being too conservative, as is my wont —is suspended for the purposes of negotiation with the other party and is subsequently recommenced by the union in furtherance of the same dispute, the subsections requiring a new notice and a new procedure and requiring the union to go through all the hoops again will not apply.
The present law recognises the same distinction; namely, a suspension of the dispute and of the action with a view to negotiation, and a cessation of the action and a new action taken later by the union side. The distinction is quite well known in jurisprudence. The then Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in the case of Post Office v Union of Communication Workers in 1989, pointed out that this was a question of fact but that in most cases the courts could recognise the difference between a suspension, as in a previous authority, and a cessation of' the industrial action, as in that case brought by the Post Office.
To my knowledge no one has criticised the way in which that distinction has been applied. Everyone seems to think that it is rather sensible. Perhaps the
480
Minister may tell me that I am wrong, but I do not believe that the new subsection (7), in the context of' the rest of the new clause, clearly reflects that very sensible state of the law. It is for that purpose that I have tabled Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I want to add a word or two in support of my noble friend so that the Committee will know that it has the full support of this Front Bench.
My noble friend is absolutely right. During the course of' a dispute one may want to go back to the negotiating table. One wants the sort of legislation which makes negotiation easy rather than difficult. From that point of view the amendments which my noble friend has proposed are very sensible. I hope that the Minister will support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is there not a slight problem? I hate being technical, but has not Amendment No. 100, by inserting the word "continuous" and taken in conjunction with "and" before paragraph (b), in effect preempted Amendment No. 101? In the case of Amendment No. 105, surely the continuation of industrial action is in no way inconsistent with negotiations. In fact, as soon as industrial action starts in practice, as a rule negotiations ensue to end it, if not immediately, at all events at a subsequent stage, because it is in the interests of everyone to resolve the dispute.
I am opposed to the amendment because I believe that it could cut away from the broad effect of the clause. Although I abstained on Amendment No. 87 for the reasons that I gave on the Floor of the Chamber, I broadly support the amendment as a whole. As the Committee has accepted the clause as a whole, and I do too, it would be wholly inconsistent now to accept the amendment. I hope that the Minister will oppose it.
6 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Both these amendments propose changes to the new Section 234A(7). As the Committee knows, that particular subsection is to be changed by virtue of Amendments Nos. 100, 102 and 103, which we have already considered. However, I appreciate that the issues which these amendments address remain relevant.
As part of its proposals for requiring union notice of intent to call for industrial action, the 1991 Green Paper addressed the question of what should happen where the union had made a call for action, later called off the action, but then wished to call for it to re-start. Paragraph 3.20 of the Green Paper said:
"Where a union planned to call for intermittent industrial action, such as a series of one day strikes, it would be required to give at least seven days' notice of each day or other separate period of industrial action. Similarly, if the union's support for industrial action was withdrawn or suspended, for any reason, further notice would be required before any subsequent call to resume the action."
These proposals won strong support—indeed, overwhelming support—from employers and employers' organisations such as the CBI, the EEF, the British Institute of Management, and the IPM. I am sure that they are also welcomed by every commuter

481
who has ever faced disruption to transport services by action called without sufficient warning—and by many others too.
The noble Lord argued that unless there is some special dispensation which would remove the requirement for fresh notice where a union calls off action for the purpose of negotiation it could be damaging to good industrial relations and the prospects of settling disputes. I understand the basis of the point that he makes. I have to say, however, that we simply do not believe that this aspect of the notice requirements should, in practice, have anything like the damaging results that he suggests.
First, it is, as I have said, a union's choice, in determining the tactics it wishes to adopt, to place itself under what I could describe as the "discontinuous action regime", or the "continuous action regime". If it decides on the former, certain results follow. The notice will be specific about the particular dates on which the union proposes that action will take place, and the union will be able to decide not to call action on any of those dates if it has a good reason for doing so—such as responding to an employer's offer of negotiations.
However, where the union has opted for the "continuous action regime", it will continue to be able to decide for itself exactly how to respond to an employer's offer of negotiations. If the employer is unwilling to enter negotiations unless the union calls off the action, that is the employer's decision—which he should also be free to make. I am very far from certain that in every instance an employer will refuse even to start negotiations unless the union makes an explicit move that amounts to withdrawing its authorisation or endorsement of the industrial action.
The crucial point, however, is that to make the kind of exception that Amendment No. 105 proposes would undermine a key principle of the new notice requirements. At the end of the day that is the nub of the Government's objections to the amendment. We proposed that fresh notice should be required where industrial action was called off, and it was clear that this applied regardless of the reason for that happening. The amendment seeks to make an exception, and to create a "special case". We are not convinced that it would be either right or welcome to those who supported the proposal for us to do so.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It has been an important debate. There was no clarification in another place that the Government intended that the Bill when enacted would cause it to be necessary for a union to go through all the hoops again whenever it calls off, suspends or ceases industrial action in the course of negotiation. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says: that it is not necessary to have suspension of the action for negotiation. Of course it is not. But it is a well-known part of the journey along the road back to the settlement of the dispute that management will say, "All right, we'll discuss that and that if you will call off the action or part of it". That
482
is the flexible approach in real life rather than the curious categories of "continuous action" or "discontinuous action".
However, the Minister insists that it is a key part of the principle of the clause that no case of suspension or the like will prevent the necessity for the union to take steps for ballots, and so on, all over again. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It is up to the employer"—
Viscount Ullswater: In my remarks I did not suggest that the union would have to go through all the steps again. I believe that the noble Lord indicates that various lengthy steps need to be taken. We say that another notice of seven days will be required.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am much obliged to the Minister. I apologise that I did not realise that he was asking me to give way; I did so willingly. I understand what he says. The new notice under new Section 234A is a notice of industrial action that has to satisfy all the requirements which have now been added in the new amendments today, about which we dared not speak when the Minister put them to us.
The Minister widens the point. Perhaps I may reply. The union has to consider subsection (5) again. Let us take a case of ordinary continuous industrial action. If any member of the union takes any industrial action on the day before the renewed industrial action is to take effect and can point to any inducement by the union at any time in the past on which he relies for so doing, then the union loses the advantage of the clause.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord's flow, but this is an important point. The union can obviously withdraw its consent for anything like that to happen. It has an opportunity to repudiate it if somebody takes action before the day notified in the relevant notice.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister but I disagree with him. If he considers new Section 234A(5) (a) (i) and (ii), and (5) (b) it is the action of the member which incurs the disadvantage. The Minister and I will have to read the provision; I shall do so willingly. I shall read it aloud, if he so wishes, but I do not think that I should do so at this moment.
In practice the new Section 234A will be the important section. The reality of industrial life involves a wave of negotiations, semi-talks and talks. Under this section the union has to say, "Of course, we cannot call off the action".
Lord McCarthy: The union will say to the employer, "We cannot call the action off and negotiate unless you give us some kind of indemnity so that we shall not have to go through this ridiculous procedure". The problem is that under Clause 21 the employer cannot give such indemnity because a daft worker or a customer of British Rail might bring an action.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend is quite right. He provokes me to say this. The Bill is like a ball unravelling; we touch the Bill and a puppy runs

483
along carrying twine behind it. We cannot discuss only a line or two of the Bill. My noble friend states rightly what will be said in negotiation. What grieves one so badly is that we have a Bill which will go on to the statute book containing the new section and other clauses which will impede the solution of industrial disputes. Let us have no doubt about the purpose of the clauses. It is to see that the union loses the dispute.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise for rising again but this is an extremely important point. The noble Viscount interrupted my noble friend to say that a union would not have to go through all the hoops again. In other words, it would not need to have another ballot, as understand it. However, implicit in my noble friend's amendment and in what he said—and I have great faith in his ability in these matters —is that the union will have to go through all the hoops again. How can we manage without this amendment? Ministerial statements mean nothing in courts of law, make no mistake about that.
I apologise—my noble friend says that they do. That is an advance—or perhaps not, it depends on what the statements say. However, I believe that it is essential to get the amendment on the face of the Bill in such a way that there can be no doubt for any court interpreting any action by a trade union.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend. Keen though I am to follow that part of yet another ball unravelling, I ought at this point to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that we have shown that there are sufficient important issues here for the Minister to have another look at least at the detail on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
Page 35, line 41, at end insert ("(whether as continuous or discontinuous action)").
Page 35, line 42, at beginning insert ("no relevant notice covering acts done to induce persons to take part in the earlier action shall operate to cover acts done to induce persons to take part in the action authorised or endorsed at the later date and").
Page 35, line 46, at end insert:
("(8) The requirement imposed on a trade union by subsection (1) shall be treated as having been complied with if the steps were taken by other relevant persons or committees whose acts were authorised or endorsed by the union and references to the belief or intention of the union in subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsections (3), (5) and (6) shall be construed as references to the belief or the intention of the person or committee taking the steps.
(9) The provisions of section 20(2) to (4) apply for the purpose of determining for the purposes of subsection (1) who are relevant persons or committees and whether the trade union is to be taken to have authorised or endorsed the steps the person or committee took and for the purposes of subsection (7) whether the trade union is to be taken to have authorised or endorsed the industrial action.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 106:
484
Page 35, line 46, at end insert:
("New employees recruited after ballot.
234B.—In this Part of this Act, where members of a trade union become employees of an employer after the date of a ballot (as defined in section 246) their participation in the industrial action authorised or endorsed by that union which has the support of that ballot does not in itself affect the lawful character of that action." ").
The noble Lord said: This new clause refers to a specific problem where there has been a ballot supporting industrial action. Action is called at some point within the following four weeks—let us say after two weeks—during which time the employer (and of course it is his choice) has recruited some members of the union as extra employees. That is not uncommon, The union calls on its members to come out. The question is: what is the legal position if the new employees come out on strike?
In the case of the Post Office v. Union of Communication Workers, to which I referred under the last amendment, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed to the situation and said that under the present law:
"It would seem to follow that any call for industrial action following a ballot should expressly be limited to those who were employed by the employer, and given an opportunity of voting, at the time of the ballot".
He said that the Act allowed only those who were entitled to vote in the ballot, as he read it, to be the subject of the call to take action. It is important that he added:
"I do not think that any court would be concerned at small changes in the workforce but, de minimis apart, this point may repay consideration".
In other words, if there are very few, the court would overlook it, but there is no basis in the statute for that. The amendment does not ask for some advantage to the union or indeed to the employer. It is the employer who recruits members of the union in the short period between the ballot and the action. It may be that if the Government see any merit in this they would wish to limit it as to time. I have not done so in the amendment; that is obviously a detail.
The amendment asks whether it is right, if it is the law now —and I shall be interested to hear whether the Government agree that it is the law—that a union is not allowed to call upon members who are recruited after the ballot to join their colleagues in taking action in a dispute which affects them as much as anyone else. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support my noble friend. The situation to which he referred is not uncommon, as I am sure many Members of the Committee will know. It is important that it should he clarified and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the submissions that have been made.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened with interest to the case which the noble Lord made for the amendment. However, I have to tell him that I believe that it is neither necessary nor desirable.
As far as industrial action balloting is concerned, the question of which members need to be given entitlement to vote in such ballots was discussed by

485
your Lordships during the passage of the 1990 Employment Act. The points which were made by the Government spokesman at that time remain valid.
In essence, a union is required to ballot only those members it is reasonable for the union to believe, at the time of the ballot, will be called on to take part in industrial action. Provided that a union does this to the best of its ability, it is capable of having the protection of statutory immunity even if it subsequently calls on others, who join the employer only after the ballot, to take part in the action.
I have read carefully what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said and his comment that looking at the issue "would repay consideration". The Government have considered the matter and our conclusion is that there is no need to modify the law in the way that the amendment suggests.
I understand what the noble Lord said about what information might have to be provided as part of a union's notice of intent to call for industrial action. The answer to his concerns, however, is simply that a union will be required to do its best to give an employer honest notice of its actual intentions at the time when the notice is provided.
Thus, if a union did intend to call for action by workers who might join the employer only after the giving of the notice or the start of the action, its notice should encompass this.
In such circumstances, it is obvious that the notice requirement could be satisfied in this respect by the union indicating that it intended to call for action by any workers doing particular work. This is, indeed, how we would expect the union normally to give notice. If the employer took on new workers to do the work of those taking industrial action, he would know that these workers might be called on to take industrial action because the union would have indicated this in its notice.
To summarise, therefore, the noble Lord is quite right in thinking that the new notice requirement means that a union will have to tell an employer which workers are likely to be called upon to take official action. If the union envisages calling on new workers, not yet employed by the employer, then honest notice, given in good faith, will make that clear. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If ever one wanted a tiny example of making sure that the union is in the worst possible position, with great respect to the Minister, this is it. Also, if there is ever any doubt about names and identities, here we have it. The union must say, "We are calling the members out in this or that area with John, Joe, Sophie"—and goodness knows who —"but not Harry because he was only taken on by you after the ballot". I can see that in a clockwork manner this might easily be worked, perhaps in a small works. It is obviously a case where the union is likely to trip over this new trip wire. It is new, it is not even something which most people think is sustainable in present law because most people think that it should be changed.
Obviously there should be limits, but the employer
486
takes on the new employees. The trade union might not even know who they were, if it called out all the members. I see that I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment so I do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Industrial action affecting supply of goods or services to an individual]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 36, line 2, after ("235A") insert:
("(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 235B and 235C, the services referred to in subsection (2) (b) are those public services which are so designated by order of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under subsection (10).").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 107 and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 110, 111, 117 and 126. I draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 107 where the reference to subsection (2) (b) is a reference to subsection (b) of the current subsection (1), which would become subsection (2) if my amendment were accepted. I say that just in case anyone wishes to study the details.
These are amendments to what has been termed the Citizen's Charter right, which provides considerable assistance to individuals who feel inconvenienced by unlawful industrial action. Essentially, the Government seem to have adopted a blunderbuss approach where a rifle shot was needed, with potentially damaging consequences for businesses with difficult disputes.
The Green Paper from which the Bill derives identified the case where an essential public service —for example, a rubbish collection—is disrupted by unlawful action and the public authority fails to take advantage of its right to pursue an injunction against the union with the objective of getting the service rapidly restored.
There is a particular problem in such cases because the ultimate customer, the public, has no clear contractual right which it can enforce, and no alternative supplier to whom it can turn. I have no argument with the desire to provide for customers of public services the same kind of advantages as they would enjoy in the market-place. I can fully endorse the Government's wish to see market disputes employed across monopoly public services in order to improve quality and price. But I suggest that in this Bill the Government have gone beyond the concerns of the Green Paper. Far from generating an approximation to market-place disciplines for the public services, they have instead imposed new obligations across the entire economy. By casting the net so widely they interfere with the market rather than replicate it, introduce a remedy in the private trading sector for no known abuse, and create an opportunity for needless interference in industrial disputes.
I believe that they should limit the provision to the scope of their original concern, and these amendments are designed to achieve that end. Accordingly, my Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 117 return the references to "services" only and leave out "goods", and they give power to Amendments Nos. 107 and 126

487
for the Secretary of State to designate any relevant service as a public service for the purposes of this part of the Bill.
If my amendments are not accepted, Clause 21 will enable any individual, however narrow his purpose, to apply for a court order to terminate unlawful industrial action. For example, a dealer in a particular sort of widget might invoke those powers if there were an unofficial strike in the main widget factory. Surely that means more interference in industrial disputes than the Government originally intended. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I appreciate from what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that, in moving the first of this series of amendments, he wishes, as I understand it, to confine applications by individuals under the clause to instances of unlawful action in public services rather than in, for example, commercial services.
I sympathise with that view as a means of limiting somewhat the damage that I fear the clause will do to industrial relations. I appreciate also that if public services are to be singled out, there is a need to find some means of defining them. But I am not very happy with the proposal that the Secretary of State may designate any service as a public service for the purposes of this clause. In my view that gives the Government far too much power to act by way of subordinate legislation. I wonder therefore whether some other means could be found to achieve the objective that the noble Lord has in mind in moving the first of the amendments. To that end I shall listen carefully to what the Minister may have to say in reply. I would much rather that Clause 21 was excised from the Bill altogether. But if that cannot be done, then I very much welcome the means provided by the other amendments that are grouped with this first one; that is, to exclude the supply of goods from the scope of the clause and to confine its application to services. I hope that the Minister will make a positive response to the amendments.
Lord McCarthy: We have to begin by seeing the amendment in the context of the clause. We cannot ignore what the clause does, and we cannot ignore the clause in the context of the legislation which the Government have introduced since 1980. Each time, in industrial relations Bills, the Government have presented one addition, one further step, one extra restriction on the right to strike. Unless one considers how far we have gone, how many steps we have marched down and the length of the road that we have already traversed, one might perhaps think that this proposal sounds vaguely, mildly reasonable. The question relates to how far we have come and whether the Government can justify going further down this road and in this particular way.
Since 1980 we have seen the abolition of secondary strike action; we have seen the introduction of ballots at every conceivable level of industrial action—and more are being proposed in the Bill; we have seen a ban on the use of a union's funds to indemnify officials; we have seen the repeal of all rights of strikers in relation to unofficial action; and the Government
488
have consistently refused to do anything about the statutory protection of workers in the context of a strike so far as the breach of their own contract is concerned. In this Bill, they now propose all kinds of additional restriction on the right to strike: additional ballots; as we have seen, the names of strikers, or potential strikers, have to be given to the employer; even during the interruption over negotiations further procedures have to he carried out.
Then we come to Clause 21. As I said a short while ago, Clause 21 stands like a great penumbra of liability, extending in effect all the other liabilities which the Government have introduced since 1980. Unknown persons who may have no entitlement at all so far as the employer or the trader is concerned, and who may not be in any way able to take action against the person who is supposed to supply the goods, are now given an action against the union. As we shall be arguing in subsequent amendments, they are given an action against the union whether or not there has been any damage. It is a monstrous clause. It is a monstrous passage in a monstrous Bill. We have to examine what: the Bill does, why we oppose the clause and how we shall oppose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has facts on his side. He is absolutely right. Here is a blunderbuss. Perhaps I do not believe and would not agree with him when he suggests that we should use a rifle; I would call it more a Gatling gun. But perhaps it is not as large, heavy and general a blunderbuss as the: Government want to apply. At least one might be able to tell certain parts where that Gaffing gun does not apply. The noble Lord is quite right: if one looks at the: Green Paper, that is not what the Government suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also said. In the Green Paper they said:
"The Government therefore propose that customers of public services within the scope of the Citizen's Charter should have the right to bring proceedings to prevent or restrain the unlawful organisation of industrial action in, or affecting, any such service".
They gave examples, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said:
"services such as refuse collection … health services… education services … the payment of pensions … railways … regulated services such as the supply of electricity, gas, water and telecommunications".
God knows, that is wide enough. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is right. In that sense one has to agree with him. The Government have widened the clause. In that respect one prefers his amendment to the Government's clause, even though there is much that is wrong with the amendment.
There are some questions that I want to leave with the Government, which I hope the Minister will answer. Why have the Government developed the legislation this way? Why have they moved away from their Green Paper? Why have they said that it will apply to goods as well as services? Why have they said that in effect it will apply to the private sector —any part of the private sector? As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, it would apply to the modest maker or seller of widgets or to the corner shop if they were unionised. They could not conceivably be said to be in the public sector.

489
I suggest that on any basis at all the answer is that the whole thing is manifestly impractical and lunatic. When the Government start to consider how to implement the proposals in the Green Paper, they will find that they cannot make distinctions of that kind. They know that it would be impracticable to make the kind of distinctions that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants unless they give very considerable power to the Secretary of State. They would not want to do that. It would be very much against the tradition of the whole of this legislation, which is to give weapons to third parties and keep out the Government. In fact what the Government have now is an enormous mess. The best thing they could possibly do would be to take the whole Bill away.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wish to make one point in relation to the discussion which took place between the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Rochester. We are peculiarly insular and this amendment brings out one point of insularity, although it may have other virtues. The point about essential services and industrial action is very well known on the neighbouring continent. There are special laws about it in many places. For example, in Spain part of that law requires negotiation and discussion between employer and unions in respect of the minimum services to be maintained. In France, the notice to be given has the express purpose of beginning negotiations. In Italy, the 1990 law of a similar kind was promoted by trade unions and all political parties. If those places are not attractive to the Committee, coming nearer to home in Ireland the 1992 industrial relations code of practice has a lengthy analysis of the same problem and requires that the solution be sought by discussion and negotiation—on a three party basis in that system as in some of the others I mentioned.
So when we come along looking for an answer—not the answer of Clause 21, as it originally was—to the question, "Who is to designate the essential services?" (for that is the nub of the question), why is the reply, "Well, it had better be the Minister"? It seems to me that the Bill marks the way that we have moved away from the common heritage of progress in industrial relations on the Continent of Europe. In my view it is most unfortunate to find the noble Lord and the CBI moving so far from it. I do not favour the amendment, albeit that it may have other virtues compared with the clause itself.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I should briefly like to indicate my support for my noble friend Lord McCarthy and question the special pleading, if I may so describe it, of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I point out that the legislation to which my noble friend referred, from 1980 onwards has been adopted largely with the support (and at worst with the silence) of the CBI. Now apparently the CBI has started to see the implications of the Government's attitude toward industrial relations and their broadening out as shown in this Bill. It sees the consequences of abolishing the
490
Bridlington agreement. Be that as it may. It has seen the matter as through a glass darkly; but now it is beginning to see some of the realities of the development of the Government's attitude and is starting to worry about the effects of it.
It is getting a little late for the CBI to come to the penitent's bench. I hope that we can emasculate this clause altogether. However, if there has to be a provision on the statute book, then let the private employers be in the firing line. Let them take some of the hassle which will result from this clause. Let us see how they like it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lords, Lord Rochester, Lord McCarthy, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Murray. However, I have to say—there was some understanding of the situation from Members opposite—that I am unable to accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend to Clause 21.
I find it strange that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should think it somewhat ludicrous that persons who could well be targeted with disruption should not have a right to do something about it. The Committee rightly draws attention to the fact that the 1991 Green Paper Industrial Relations in the 1990s proposed to give a new right to individuals to seek action to halt unlawfully organised industrial action.
Lord McCarthy: Does the Minister know that, as a long suffering commuter who travels through Paddington station, I am targeted with disruption by British Rail two or three days a week? Today my journey took another one and a half hours. I have no redress whatever from British Rail.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord might recognise, we are trying to give him in an individual capacity some powers. The original Green Paper proposed giving a new right to individuals to seek action to halt unlawfully organised industrial action affecting public services. On consideration, the Government decided that the provisions in Clause 21 should afford protection to all individuals affected by any unlawfully organised industrial action.
There were a number of very sound reasons for modifying the original proposal, which help to explain why I cannot accept amendments which would have the effect of reversing the extension. First, we believe that it is right in principle that individual citizens should be able to bring proceedings to halt the organisation of unlawful industrial action where that results in their being deprived of any goods or services. The extension of our original proposal is entirely in line with the spirit of the Citizen's Charter, which gives rights to individuals as consumers of both public and private services.
Secondly, limiting the new right only to those deprived of a "public service" requires the production of a restrictive definition of such services. However, the boundary between "public" and other services—even assuming one could be identified—is not fixed. As the Government's key programme of privatisation continues, individuals should not "lose" their right to

491
restrain unlawful industrial action just because a public service, on which they may continue to depend, has been privatised.
Finally, the approach now proposed in the Bill will avoid anomalies and inconsistencies which would otherwise have been likely to arise in practice. I hope the Committee will agree that it would be quite inappropriate to give individuals the right to restrain unlawful action by, for example, air traffic controllers but not give them that right if they were stranded at the airport due to unlawful action by airline pilots. Such an anomaly would be exceedingly difficult to explain. Similarly, how would we explain to a customer of a local bus service that he was powerless to seek redress against unlawful action affecting a privately-run bus service, but would have been able to do so had that service been run by the local authority?
Members of the Committee have identified that Amendments Nos. 110, 111, and 117 propose the removal of the term "goods" where reference is made to "goods or services" in the provisions. It is true that the 1991 Green Paper, and the Citizen's Charter White Paper, both used the term "public services" in connection with the new right created by Clause 21. However, it has always been our intention that the term "public services" in relation to the new right would include those organisations in the public sector which produce goods, as well as those providing a service; for example, Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It would make no sense to distinguish between goods and services for the purposes of the new right. Indeed, it would be somewhat peculiar to provide that the new right could be exercised only if the individual was deprived of services, but not if he was deprived of goods. We firmly believe that the right should apply to any individual who is deprived of any goods or services as a result of unlawfully organised industrial action.
Amendments Nos. 107 and 126 would have the effect of limiting the new right only to public services, as designated by order of the Secretary of State. I have already explained, and there is some sympathy in the Chamber, why we do not believe it is practical or desirable to limit the new right. I should explain also that we did consider whether it would be possible to include in the legislation an order-making power which would enable the Government to specify particular services to be covered by the right without the need for detailed primary legislation. However, such arrangements could put Ministers in a potentially invidious position during disputes where there were calls to use such order-making powers so that a specific service was brought within the ambit of the new right. We believe it would be quite wrong for the Government to become entangled in industrial disputes in that way as a result of such an order-making power.
Members of the Committee will not need to be reminded that the new right will be available only where the organisation of industrial action is unlawful; trade unions which conduct their affairs in compliance with the law will not be at risk. Nor do the new provisions replace existing rights provided to
492
employers and trade union members, who are already able to bring proceedings to halt unlawfully organised industrial action.
However, no similar right currently exists for individuals, even if they are deprived of goods or services which they might otherwise receive, as a result of such action. It is difficult to envisage circumstances where those who already have rights would delay in taking legal proceedings against unlawfully organised industrial action which causes hardship and damage to the public.
Baroness Seear: Can I ask the Minister a question? The theory of what she says is one thing—I do not agree with it—but if one brings an action against an unlawful stoppage and wins, who will pay?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It is an order to restrain the action. It does not give any financial benefit to the person bringing the action.
The new right would enable members of the public to take steps to protect the provision of the goods or services on which they depend.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that there are very valid reasons why we extended the original proposal to cover all goods and services, and why I cannot accept the amendments. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Denton for the full explanation that she has given for not liking the amendment. I am grateful also to Members of the Committee who spoke obliquely in support of it. It is clear that the amendments are not suitable in their present form. I shall take them away and read with care what has been said to see whether there is some way in which we can modify the clause so that it is not quite so all-encompassing. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 36, line 2, after ("235A") insert:
("() An individual falls within this section if, being entitled to the supply of goods or services, he has suffered damage as a necessary consequence of an unlawful inducement.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 108 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 and 116.
Amendment No. 108 contains the principal heads of objection to what is a highly objectionable clause. First, the clause allows anyone to bring a legal action, whether or not he has any entitlement to the goods or services of any kind whatever. The noble Baroness says that someone can sue if he is deprived of goods or services. But if he has no legal right to those goods or services, what does that mean?
Strolling up to the Tunbridge Wells railway station are those well-known characters "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and his wife. They had not thought of catching a train to London that day, hut on seeing a notice saying "We are all out on strike without a ballot"—to make the position plain—they may say,

493
"It would have been nice to catch a train. We are deprived of that". All those kinds of people can bring legal actions. There is no limit when one lifts the "entitlement" bracket. I do not wish to sound pompous but it is part of the rule of law that someone is "entitled" to bring an action; not just an adventitious visitor upon the legal scene.
The second point makes it worse. The provision exists for people who do not necessarily suffer any damage whatever in the legal sense. In extending the law relating to inducement to break a contract by indirect means in 1952, in a judgment which is a classic fount upon the matter, Lord Justice Jenkins said this:
"provided that the breach of the contract between the two other persons intended to be brought about by the third party does in fact ensue as a necessary consequence".
We are so far away from any "necessary consequence" of any kind of damage that the principle has gone out of the window. Indeed, the wrong appears to be suffered even when the "effect" is indirect.
What is meant by "prevention" or "delay" in supply, or "reduction in quality"? We have no contractual or other level against which to measure whether or not there is a reduction. It applies to the individual without any show of entitlement and to an individual who may well be the employer. That point has not been discussed before. Everyone seems to imagine that it is some "Dot" figure down in Tunbridge Wells. It may not be; it may be the employer. He is not ruled out from the clause as I read it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right then a whole new panoply of legal weapons opens up for employers.
Although the noble Baroness rightly says that the action has to be unlawful in one sense or another, again there is a sleight of hand. Under the clause the action must be either in breach of the duties which the union owes under the section which gives members only a right to an injunction if there has been no ballot (that has now been extended to other people without limit) or unlawful in the sense that it is actionable in tort by any other person—I say again, "any other person".
Walking up to the railway station, Mrs. Dot may say, "I happen to know that this union did not tell the employer the result of its ballot. Right, we are in! We can obtain a court order tomorrow or immediately if we ring up the duty judge". I do not know what effect that will have upon the need for more judiciary in the High Court. But I have a shrewd idea of what effect it will have on industrial relations where they have not already been shattered by the rest of the Bill.
We come later to an amendment where I want to make a specific point, but generally the provision operates even when the inducement by the union to its members is ineffective. This is another departure from the normal principle which the Government have enacted in the specific area of unions holding ballots at the request of members, which I understand, but outside in terms of liability in tort it has no effect.
It has been put to me that under the clause the inducement works even if it is ineffective, whether because of a person's unwillingness to be influenced by it or for some other reason. It conjures up the notion
494
of a union official sending letters to blind members who cannot possibly read them. Exactly what the clause means one does not know. What it amounts to is that nothing that the union says about its inducement will be listened to.
I beg noble Lords to notice that the clause does not deal only with liability, if there is a failure to meet the order of the court in any respect it deals sharply and firmly with any contempt, which I understand. A contempt of court is not something that one evades where there is liability, but when liability is built upon these principles, to be quite clear about contempt of court liability shows what the Government want to do.
I hope that noble Lords and Ministers will look at this. Surely, they cannot now put forward a clause of this kind even before the Bill comes to Report. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I want to try to rule out two possible answers that the Government may give to what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton has said. An amendment of this kind was debated in another place and on that occasion the Government spokesman seemed to rely upon two matters: first, that in Clause 235A(b) it was provided that there had to be at least an effect or likely effect, not a necessary effect. Secondly, in Clause 235A(4) it was provided:
"Where on an application under this section the court is satisfied that the claim is well-founded …"
Much was made of that. But that does not affect in any way what my noble friend has said. The fact is that there does not have to be any damage or contract. All it means is that if there is a likely effect it is founded enough for the Bill. Please do not let the Minister trot out any of this stuff tonight.
Lord Rochester: This amendment goes to the heart of the matter in challenging the basic aim of the clause to extend to actual or potential customers the right to take proceedings to restrain unlawful action, even though they are not entitled to be supplied with the goods or services in question.
I wish that the Government would pay more attention to employers with practical experience of these matters. For example, the Institute of Personnel Management has said that the proposal is likely to do great harm to industrial relations if it is implemented. Similarly, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce feels that it will provide a field day for inevitable vexatious litigants to exacerbate problems in situations, some of which will be at a stage that requires extremely skilled and delicate handling. No doubt it will provide the lawyers with more work, but that is not the way to handle the sensitive situations that arise in industrial disputes. Lawyers themselves do not seem to want the work. The briefing from the Law Society that I have in front of me says that it is doubtful about the desirability of introducing this provision in the terms proposed by the Government given that remedies already exist for parties to a contract and others suffering actual loss as a result of unlawful industrial action. I very much support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendment. The mind boggles at the particular clause. This Bill, together with other industrial relations Bills and Acts, is making it increasingly difficult for people to take lawful industrial action. It is very likely that in future for workers to get redress, particularly about local matters, they will have to take unlawful action or what used to be called unofficial action. In those circumstances, they will render themselves liable to be taken to court by a person on the street without any knowledge of the circumstances in which people have gone on strike. For example, it could be about safety at work or about a very bad employer. Anybody can come in from the street and take them to court. Let us say that that person wins and the court says, "You chaps get back to work because you have deprived this person of some goods or services". Suppose they reply, "We're sorry but this is a matter of high principle that affects our position at work. It may affect our safety. Therefore, we will not go back". What happens? Apparently they cannot be fined; there is nothing that the court can do to award damages to the person from the street who says that he has been offended. Will they be put in gaol?
Have we forgotten the five trade unionists who were incarcerated for two days until the Official Solicitor got the Government off the hook? Do we want that kind of thing to happen again? Implicit in this particular cause is exactly that situation. Noble Lords opposite are laughing. They were not laughing when hundreds of thousands of workers marched in favour of those who had been incarcerated and who were released after the intervention of the Official Solicitor. I have to tell the noble Baroness that there is grave risk of that happening again in relation to this particular clause. I urge her to go back to her colleagues and ask them to look at the implications of the clause. It may cause them a lot of trouble in the future, and perhaps this time the Official Solicitor will not be able to get them off the hook.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I still have trouble in understanding why there should be an objection from the other side and why, whilst trade unionists and employers have rights, there should be problems about individuals having rights. This is the whole purpose of the clause. I have been advised that there has always been legal fear of "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". But I do not see that this is a temptation to bring frivolous or spurious court cases. To exercise the new right an individual must be able to satisfy the court that he or she had been, or was likely to be, deprived of any goods or service and that such deprivation was the consequence of unlawful organisation of industrial action. The remedy that the court would award would be an order restraining the unlawful act and not damages. It is also important to remember that where an individual brings proceedings which turn out to be ill-founded he or she may be required to pay costs to the union. That will be an additional deterrent to frivolous or vexatious proceedings.
Let us be clear about this matter from the outset. We are not seeking to establish an unnecessary right —I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord
496
Rochester, that we are not aiming to take rights away from employers—as would be the case if we were requiring those wishing to exercise it to have all the grounds which they would need to bring their own proceedings in tort. We are creating a new statutory right which relates to a tortious act of inducement —but that is a quite different matter.
Naturally, anyone wishing to exercise the new right will have to be able to satisfy the court of his or her case. There will be appropriate tests. Those tests are already contained in Section 235A. Amendments Nos. 108 and 112 seek to add to those tests in a way which we believe to be unnecessary and undesirable.
A key test we propose is, of course, the test of "deprivation", or "likely deprivation", of goods or service. The amendments propose to add to this, or to replace it, with the test of "damage" The problem, however, is that "damage" implies that the individual will be able to show quantifiable financial or material loss. We do not believe it appropriate to do so.
If unlawful organisation results in deprivation of goods or services, and the individual can satisfy the court that that is what has happened, or is likely to happen, we believe that that is a sufficient test. We see no need to expect the individual to demonstrate or quantify financial or material loss.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Can the noble Baroness give an example of non-quantifiable immaterial loss?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We are saying that we do not believe it is necessary to expect the individual to demonstrate or quantify financial or material loss. He or she shows deprivation.
Lord McCarthy: So deprivation is non-quantifiable immaterial loss, but one cannot define it!
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord is following down a track entirely of his own. We are saying that the person who wishes to bring this order should demonstrate deprivation. He or she should not have to become involved in quantifying financial or material loss.
Baroness Seear: Can it be deprivation on any scale? What is deprivation? Is it that one cannot get a cup of tea, or something?
Lord McCarthy: That is a material loss.
Baroness Seear: What is deprivation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps it would help the noble Lord and the noble Baroness if they put in their minds the fact that there was non-collection of rubbish by a local authority on a particular day. That is not easily quantifiable but it is certainly a deprivation of service.
As I said, the individual should not have to become involved in quantifying financial or material loss. Indeed, would that be in any way appropriate, bearing in mind the remedy that the new right will provide? We are not providing for the individual to recover

497
damages under the new right, but have confined the remedy to what he or she needs—a court order halting the unlawful organisation of industrial action.
To introduce the notion, as proposed by Amendments Nos. 113 and 116, that the new right could be exercised only if an individual was "entitled" to the goods or service of which he or she has been deprived would simply drive a coach and horses through the clause. That, I suspect, is the purpose of the amendment.
Similar amendments were debated at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place with very much the same arguments as we have heard today. I fear that my answer will be very little different from what the Minister of State said on that occasion. The whole purpose of the new right is to afford new protection for those who are deprived of goods or services by unlawful organisation—I stress "unlawful"—of industrial action, but have no grounds—or very uncertain grounds—for protecting their interests under the present law.
Where a contract is broken, or its performance would be interfered with, by an unlawful inducement of industrial action, or where either of those things is likely to happen, the parties are able to bring proceedings in tort to stop the inducement. They will have to satisfy various tests in order to get their remedy from the court, but they have that option.
However, deprivation can result from unlawfully organised action, whether or not there is any entitlement to the goods or services in question. That deprivation is just as real —whether entitled by contract or anything else. That is why it would be quite wrong to limit the new right to circumstances of contractual or other entitlement. For the same reasons, it would undermine the right if Section 235A(3) was removed, as proposed by Amendment No. 116.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again but mine was not a frivolous question. Perhaps the example was frivolous. We must know what is meant by "deprivation". There must be some idea of the scale. It surely cannot be that one could not get some quite trivial thing. Is that deprivation? If that is not deprivation, where does one draw the line? When does not being able to get a little thing that one wants turn into deprivation? It must be definable. What is the definition?
Lord McCarthy: I may be able to help the noble Baroness. I have been trying to think of a character in literature who might fit this. It is unquantifiable and it is immaterial. The Merchant of Venice said:
"I know not why I am so sad".
Perhaps it was him.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am right to be nervous of assistance when it is offered by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his concern.
As said earlier, we are not looking at cases of frivolousness. In the exercise of the new right the individual must be able to satisfy the court. The court will decide whether it is a matter of no concern.
498
Turning to Amendment No. 114, it is true that there are various actionable torts, besides breach of contract, which may arise in connection with the organisation of industrial action. "Interference with contract" is clearly one, "threat to breach or interfere with the performance of contract" another and conspiracy to do such a thing yet a third. All these torts are, of course, capable of being protected by the statutory immunities—and hence are not "actionable". There are also other torts which the statutory immunities do not cover and were never meant to cover; for example, inducement to breach a statutory duty. However, the most frequent tort which arises when people are called on to take industrial action is the tort of inducing breach of contract. Such acts may be protected by the statutory immunities, but not, of course, unless the relevant conditions have been satisfied. These include, for example, that a union should have majority support from a proper ballot before calling for industrial action. In future, there will also be the requirement to provide sufficient notice to employers.
If it is unlawful, and unprotected by the statutory immunities, to induce industrial action involving breach of contract, it should be open to the individual to protect his interests by bringing proceedings under the new right. He or she will, of course, have to be able to satisfy the court that the claim that there has been such an act is well founded. That condition is apparent in Section 235A(4). To limit the new right in the way proposed by Amendment No. 114 would, in effect, deprive the individual of the ability to use it to protect his interests against unlawful, and unprotected, calls for industrial action. That is unacceptable and unjustifiable.
I appreciate that the amendments would wish to render the new right ineffective by imposing additional tests on its exercise. That is what they would do and it is exactly why we cannot accept them. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that under the clause, as a result of an action by one individual, trade unionists may very well in the end go to gaol?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The action would be against the organisers who, if they act against the court order, are in contempt. The unions usually suffer sequestration of assets for contempt.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We are not talking about trade unions; we may be talking about individuals.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We are talking about the organisers of the unlawful action.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Who could be a group of individuals.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am tempted to go down all these roads, but I must not. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the Committee.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McCarthy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

Meston, L.

Blease, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Rochester, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kagan, L

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Astor, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Auckland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Barber, L.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Morris, L.

Belstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Blatch, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blyth, L.

Moyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Orkney, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Caithness, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Reay, L.

Carnock, L.

Renton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Chelmsford, V.

St. Davids, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cranborne, V.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Selsdon, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B

Shrewsbury, E.

Downshire, M.

Skelmersdale. L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stewartby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strafford, E.

Elton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Erroll, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Suffield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hanson, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jeffreys, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Child Benefit and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In the uprating statement my right honourable friend announced that we would be introducing improvements in the benefit arrangements for orphans. This involved two separate measures. Guardian's allowance will be disregarded in the assessment of family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance, leading to an increase of up to £11.27 per week in the net income of recipients. That beneficial change has been dealt with in other regulations.
The second measure, the subject of the Motion today, is principally to ensure that a person bringing up an orphan alone can receive both guardian's allowance and one-parent benefit, increasing gross income by £6.05. At present only guardian's allowance is paid. From April, therefore, a person responsible for the care of an orphan who benefits from both these measures could find their net income increased by up to £16.41 a week. The regulations also make a minor change to clarify policy following a commissioner's decision. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side are happy to welcome and support the changes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we should like to welcome the changes also.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for their welcome for the regulations, which I commend to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993
7.20 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. Two packages of child support regulations were approved last year. The amending regulations before the House this evening are the fruits of our further detailed work to put the new scheme into practical effect. They are designed to ensure that our policy intentions are fully achieved when the Child Support Agency begins operations. Many simply make technical drafting improvements, and, with the permission of the House, I shall concentrate only on those provisions which make slight adjustments to the detail of the policy intention.
Under Regulations 3 and 4 there will now be a new, Category B, interim maintenance assessment which is designed to deal with the situation where the new partner of a parent with care or absent parent refuses to divulge information about his or her income when it is needed, for example, for the protected income calculation. It would not be right if the partner's failure to provide information meant that a maintenance assessment could not be completed and a child was therefore deprived of maintenance.
Regulation 10 covers the possibility that a child support officer may refuse an application for a maintenance assessment on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and a court then refuses to make a maintenance order because it does not have jurisdiction either, this meaning that neither the agency nor the court was dealing with the application. This amendment protects the parties' position by ensuring that the normal 28-day time limit for a review of the agency's decision runs from the date of the decision by the court and not from the date of the original decision by the child support officer.
Regulation 25 introduces a new Regulation 27A into the Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases Regulations. Together with Regulations 15 and 24, this will ensure that where a qualifying child is officially in the care of a local authority but is allowed to live with a parent, the case is treated as a special case for the purposes of child support legislation, and so the parent will be able to claim maintenance.
Regulation 26 deals with deductions from an absent parent's income support. As the House will know, absent parents on income support must normally make a small contribution towards maintenance, but there are several exempt categories.
This regulation slightly adjusts the grounds for exempting an absent parent from making this contribution, in particular extending the exempt categories so that the absent parent is exempt if he has day-to-day care of a child. This regulation also introduces Schedule 5, which provides for a decision on the making of a deduction to be open to review.
Among the remaining regulations, I should draw the attention of the House to only a few. Regulation
502
37 amends the Arrears, Interest and Adjustments of Maintenance Assessments Regulations and ensures that relevant persons have written evidence where an agreement has been reached between the absent parent and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for paying off arrears.
Regulation 46 amends Regulation 8 of the Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction Regulations and allows for payments made in respect of a maintenance assessment which is subsequently found to have been made in error because there was an existing court order to be deemed payments in respect of that court order. The same rule applies if the situation is reversed.
I have spent a few moments explaining the provisions in this statutory instrument in which I think the House will have particular interest. These provisions are largely of a technical nature and they are designed to ensure that the legal framework for the new child support scheme is as robust as possible. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and do not want to raise any detailed queries as most of our queries were raised in another place and were patiently and courteously answered by the Minister there. I should like instead to make a few wider points to continue to register our concern about the scope of the Act and the work of the Child Support Agency. Some of these points were made in another place but others perhaps were not.
We entirely accept that parents, both parents, have an obligation to maintain children and that when husbands walk away from wives, or when wives walk away from husbands, they do not also walk away from their children. We have expressed in the past some of our general concerns which have not yet been alleviated—and certainly will not be by the changes in the regulations. First, we continue to fear that under the Act women will be under severe pressure to name their former partners even if they fear some retaliation. The retaliation may be access. It may involve intrusion (where the relationship has long been ended) and the invasion of a new and still rather insecure step-parent relationship. There may be violence. We accept that the agency means to be sensitive and that it will do its best to be sensitive, but we shall all be monitoring what is meant by "reasonable grounds" for not pursuing a mother's former partner.
Secondly, we are concerned that under these provisions there is no financial advantage to a mother and child on income support. This point was argued in the other place. There is a disregard of £15 if the family is on family credit, but nothing if it is on income support. That seems unnecessarily harsh. Therefore, no child of a non-working parent on income support will be better off, so to talk about the "Child Support" Act is to use Orwellian language. We know that the children of single parents are more likely to be in poverty, to be malnourished, to become truants and

503
later to be at risk of offending. All the research backs up the obvious common sense that the best way to help a child is to support the mother and her wishes. But this Act ignores them by pressurising her, harassing her and imposing more bureaucracy on her. That is no way to help to keep a family (often at its wits' end) afloat.
Our third concern remains that the penalties are harsh. There will be a deduction of £8.80 per week in the opening period. That deduction in income is inevitably shared and experienced by the child and is at the expense of shoes, trainers or trips for the child —there is no doubt about that, as anybody knows who has sought to bring up a child on income support levels which are barely adequate now. To deduct £8.80 a week as a fine means that, to some extent, that child will go without food and clothing.
Fourthly, we are worried about the implications for the absent parent who is in a new family. We fear that the children of a second relationship may well be impoverished to help fund, support and maintain the children of the first relationship. I am not making moral judgments about the responsibility of a father in that situation (and I am not inviting the Minister to do so); I am concerned about the well-being of the children of both families—of the first and subsequent relationships alike. It is simply a fact that a man on a low income cannot afford to maintain two families, and if we insist that he does so, it is the families and the children who will suffer.
Fifthly, and following from that, I am worried about the intrusion into the financial circumstances of the partner of the absent parent who may or may not have children of his or her own. I refer now to Regulations 3 and 4. She (if that partner is a woman) may bring children to the relationship or there may be children within that relationship. I understand the logic, but once one goes down that route, one puts pressure on the second relationship, which, if it founders, will merely add more children to the problems besetting the original relationship. The cycle will then repeat itself.
Sixthly, and finally, it is clear from the new regulations that the role of the child support officer is even more pivotal in interviewing and ascertaining the situation of the parent in care. The quality of training is essential—I am sure that Miss Hepplewaite is taking great care over it —especially as the child support officer (if he or she is at all sensitive to the situation of the parent, as I am sure that all officers will try to be) will probably find herself or himself advising on a whole range of DSS benefits, including how to bend the Social Fund successfully. I hope that the Minister will ensure that high quality training continues to be available to child support officers as I expect it to be a very stressful job and therefore to have a high turnover of staff. If the officers are to be able to offer the service that we hope that they will offer, they will need all the support possible.
I do not have any queries remaining about the detailed aspects of the regulations; they were answered in the other place. It is, however, important to continue to register our concern about an Act which we feel (despite the assurances that I do not doubt that
504
the Minister will make to the contrary) is financially damaging to the most vulnerable children in our society, the children of single parents.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if, before getting down to the detail of the regulations, I spend a moment on a procedural point which I hope might be helpful to the House in general. I wish to refer to the memorandum submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord suggested that where we have an affirmative instrument before the House, but no one wants to make a fuss about it, it should be possible, by agreement between the Front Benches and if no noble Lord objects, to refrain from bringing the Minister to the House to explain the regulations. That seems to me to be a constructive suggestion. Those of us who have been arguing for scrutiny of delegated powers have been arguing in terms of "may" rather than "must".
We have been concerned that the House should be able, where it wishes, to scrutinise the regulations, but we are well aware of the pressure on parliamentary time that can be created by having affirmative powers for everything. We do not wish to clog up the time of the House unnecessarily. The instrument we are discussing would have been an ideal candidate for the procedure suggested by the noble Lord. If it had been the only instrument, it would have been unnecessary to bring my noble kinsman to the Dispatch Box to explain what all of us are prepared to agree to and what we could have done outside the Chamber.
On the other hand, I believe it is a good thing to bring the child support regulations before the House. My noble friend Lord Meston, taking advantage of the fact that they are on the Order Paper, has been looking at them with some care and has found some points of detail which in a few moments he will bring to your Lordships' attention.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I have profound misgivings about the policy, but I do not think that I should be telling my noble kinsman anything he does not know already if I spend time saying so. Also; I should not be dealing with the content of the regulations, because it seems to me that the content of the regulations is, on the whole, and with the exception that my noble friend is about to raise, beneficial. If the Government are following a bad policy, I would rather they followed it as well and as humanely as possible. On the whole, the regulations contribute to that end.
On Regulation 3, I agree, of course, with the point made by the noble Baroness about intrusion into the affairs of the partner of the second parent, but that is inherent in the policy of the Act which we have already approved. Since such intrusion must necessarily happen, I would rather it happened in a way which did not leave the child destitute because no one is prepared to co-operate with the procedure. So I believe that that regulation does meet a possible mischief. If we are to have the policy at all, that is the way in which we should have it.

505
In fact, the procedure is so useful that I should like to ask my noble kinsman to recommend it to the Department for Education for cases where the parents refuse o disclose financial information for assessing a student grant. There it could do a great deal of good.
Regulation 11 relates to where there are two separate disputes: a dispute about parentage and some other dispute. That can be treated as two applications. That is a good and practical regulation which I welcome.
I was pleased also to see Regulation 14: that a reduced benefit direction can be reviewed where it seems to be causing harm to the child, on information which comes from some other person. Let us say, for example, the woman is the victim of domestic violence. I can easily imagine a situation in which she is not prepared to say, but her mother is. In those circumstances, if the mother can have the reduced benefit direction withdrawn by giving the necessary information, that is a thoroughly humane and practical concession which I welcome.
One further point upon which I should like to touch is that, on the form which parents with care fill out giving details of income and so forth, one and the same signature, as I understand it, validates the information given and authorises the Child Support Agency to pursue maintenance. That is a double function of the signature which may not always be understood. There may be some risk that we shall have people authorising the Child Support Agency to collect maintenance without realising that they have done so. It could remove some of the problem if we had a provision for a double signature: one to sign for the information, and the other to authorise collection. If that could be considered within the department it might be helpful.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble kinsman, as did the noble Baroness, about the training of officers to take action under the Act. I understand that that is proceeding, but I should be glad of some reassurance about how many officers will have completed the training in time to begin using the procedures of the Act on 5th April when it comes into force, which is now in the very near future.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I was disappointed that the Minister did not refer to Regulation 41 which provides that,
"for the word 'lumps' there shall be substituted the word 'lump"'.
That seems to me to show a healthy preference for one lump rather than two. My more serious point is to express anxiety about the drafting of new Regulation 27. One problem that most worries those who have thought about how assessment will work in practice is of course the problem of the self-employed earner.
Partners were omitted from the original regulations and the new regulations appear to fill the gap. By "partners" I should hasten to say that I mean business partners. The gap is filled, apparently in the nick of time, by Regulation 27. However, I am by no means sure that it does so satisfactorily, because it seems to
506
me to confuse the earnings and expenses of the individual and the earnings and expenses of the partnership.
Paragraph 3(1) of the main assessment regulations requires one to start with the gross receipts of the individual self-employed earner. Then paragraph 3(3) requires deduction of that individual's expenses. The new subparagraph (7) requires deduction from the gross receipt of the partnership the sums mentioned in heads (a) and (b) of subparagraph 3(3) which, as I read it, refers not to the partnership expenses but to the individual's expenses. Surely it should be made clear that it is the partnership expenses which should be deducted to produce the individual's net income, having applied the appropriate partnership share to the resulting net figure.
A further point is that it does not seem to me that the new Regulation 27 allows for the more sophisticated and complicated deeds of partnership, which undoubtedly exist in some areas, where expenses can be borne in different proportions—that is to say, different from the ultimate share of profits —or where there are other complications in arriving at the partner's net share of the profits.
I appreciate that that is a technical point to have made, and unless I have missed something glaringly obvious I should not expect the Minister to deal with it now.
Lord Henley: My Lords, may I start by saying that I note what my noble kinsman Lord Russell said about the procedures we adopt for reviewing affirmative regulations in the House. I do not think it would be right for me at the moment to comment upon it, other than to say I am always more than welcome to come to the Dispatch Box to explain the purpose of any particular regulations that Parliament has felt in the past ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I note also the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the scope of the Act. I had rather hoped that she would repeat the general support of the principle behind the Act, as did her honourable friend in another place on behalf of her party. However, I hope that I can give the noble Baroness assurances on some of the points that she raised.
Of course we shall monitor the operation of the requirement to co-operate. I quite agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of managing those matters in the most sensitive manner. I accept that it is vital that the training for all the Child Support Agency staff should be managed well, and also that the role of the CSOs is pivotal. I shall certainly pass on her remarks to the new chief executive of the Child Support Agency. We are developing a suitable training package, and one has been designed in collaboration with Relate. It is important to co-operate with such organisations.
As regards the effect on second families, we believe that the maintenance formula provides for the needs of the second family to be covered by protected income which ensures that, after paying maintenance,

507
the absent parent and his second family will be better off than they would be if merely claiming income support.
As regards whether the penalties are too harsh, we argued about that late at night on many occasions during the passage of the Bill. I simply do not accept what the noble Baroness said about that.
Both my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness expressed anxiety about Regulation 3. That provides for the introduction of the new type of interim maintenance assessment which is called the Category B interim maintenance assessment. The existing Category A interim maintenance assessment is designed to dissuade an absent parent from refusing to provide information regarding his income.
A Category B interim maintenance assessment provides for circumstances in which the partner of a parent who is party to an assessment refuses to provide details of his or her income. The partner is not bound to furnish that information, without which it would not be possible to make a full assessment. It would not be right if a partner's refusal to provide that information resulted in the deprivation of a child's maintenance. For that reason, a new category of interim maintenance order was required.
A Category B interim maintenance assessment will be in essence a normal maintenance assessment, although it will include an assumed measure of income for the parent's partner which prevents the parent concerned from gaining any advantage because the partner has not disclosed details. We have provided powers for the cancellation and review of Category B interim maintenance assessments to be consistent with those contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.
The noble Baroness said there should be a maintenance disregard in income support. Again, we argued this long and late during the passage of the Bill. We do not believe that a maintenance disregard is in the best interests of lone parents and their children. We know from research that most lone parents want to provide a better standard of living for their children by going to work now or some time in the future. Disregard of maintenance in income support would do nothing to help those parents to realise their ambitions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that it may be unreasonable to expect a single parent with a child under school age—three or four—to be effectively in the labour market? The prime responsibility of that parent may be to the child. Therefore, the Minister's arguments about maintenance disregard would not apply. That is only relevant when the parent is in a realistic position to choose between going to work and obtaining benefit. At that point one does not wish to have perverse incentives to stay on benefit. However, that cannot be the case where the child is pre-school or pre-nursery school age.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness said, but I imagine that many single parents whose children are under school age may wish to stay at home to look after their children. However, that would not be true of all of them. Some would desire to
508
rejoin the labour market. I therefore feel that what have said about maintenance disregard still stands true, even in those cases.
Lastly, as regards the technical point which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised, I am grateful that he does not require an immediate answer. I thank him for his comments. I shall certainly ask officials to look carefully at the point that he raised. As the noble Lord will realise, it is too late to change these regulations, but I give him an undertaking that, should it transpire that the noble Lord is proved right and amendments are necessary to Regulation 27, they will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this helpful and constructive debate. The regulations will be implemented by the new agency. We already have in place a dedicated workforce to staff the agency on 5th April. Four of the six proposed centres will be fully operational on that date, with the other two ready by September.
The National Council for One Parent Families and the Child Support Unit have jointly produced a statement of rights for parents with care who are to be interviewed about the requirement to co-operate. That goes some little way towards reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as regards the need to operate these procedures in a sensitive way. We believe that the agency now has the foundation in place for its success. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to set up the Plymouth Development Corporation. An urban development corporation was formally offered to Plymouth on 6th March 1992. It was seen as the most effective method of regenerating parts of the defence estate which were surplus to the Ministry of Defence's operational requirements, along with some adjoining land. The UDC's task would be to promote development in its designated area. It would have planning and CPO powers, a proposed budget of £45 million and a board comprising equal numbers of local authority and other members.
The proposal was welcomed by Plymouth City Council and Devon County Council, with both authorities responding positively to the offer of partnership it involved. In particular, it was thought that the UDC would be able to make an important contribution to the city's efforts to combat rising unemployment and associated problems of physical decline and social deprivation.
The primary objective will be to secure the physical, environmental, economic and social regeneration of the development corporation's designated area, which has as its centrepiece the Royal William Victualling Yard. This comprises one of the most important

509
surviving groups of historic maritime buildings in the United Kingdom and contains some of the finest industrial architecture in Europe.
Mount Wise is the second of the three parcels of land which will form the urban development area. It is arguably the foremost waterfrontage site in Plymouth, offering very attractive views across the river Tamar to Mount Edgcumbe Country Park in Cornwall. Much of the site is currently derelict but there are obvious residential, light industrial and commercial development opportunities.
The final site is Mount Batten and it offers fine all round views of the Sound and much of the city. Although over half of the site is designated as an ancient monument, there is none the less much opportunity for residential and leisure development.
The UDC will work closely with its partners in the local council and the private sector to ensure that its objective of regeneration is met. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has encouraged the partnership arrangement by agreeing to equal numbers of local authority and private sector members on the board. He will be appointing Vice Admiral Sir Robert Gerken KCB as chairman and Councillor John Ingham as deputy chairman of the new development corporation. This composition is designed to reflect the spirit of partnership which already exists in Plymouth between the public and private sectors.
Plymouth Development Corporation will have a lifespan of about five years with £45 million proposed during the period, £7 million of which will be in the first financial year 1993–94. It will be financed jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. All the costs will be met from within existing PES resources. In addition, MoD land at Royal William Yard, Mount Wise and Mount Batten will be transferred to come under the ownership of the development corporation.
It is intended that the development corporation will take over the role of planning authority for its area from the city council. A planning function order has therefore been prepared and will be made immediately after the area and constitution order, which is before us today, comes into force. The planning functions order will be laid as soon as possible thereafter. Making the corporation the development control authority for its area will increase its ability to put into place more quickly and easily the necessary redevelopment strategies.
There have been extensive discussions locally about the proposal. All of the interested parties in Plymouth are fully behind the creation of an urban development corporation. By approving this order today, the House will be providing a tremendous boost for Plymouth and the South West as a whole. The proposed funding of £45 million in public resources will act as a magnet for private investment and bring about lasting regeneration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Commitiee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on this side of the House we usually have fairly jaundiced views of UDCs which have, in the past at any rate —and certainly in docklands—been property led, top down and unaccountable and have all too often distorted funding patterns within urban programmes. But, happily, in this case I believe that the Plymouth UDC does not fall into that situation. We strongly welcome it. More than almost any other UDC, apart possibly from one of the Birmingham ones, it is a partnership UDC which was promoted by Plymouth's Labour-controlled city council, half of whose members, including the vice-chairman, will be drawn from local authorities.
In the statutory instruments committee review, we have the assurance from the Minister Mr. Redwood, regarding one of the concerns elsewhere with UDCs, task forces and so on—which is that the trickle down assumptions of wealth created will not actually benefit local people—that, wherever possible, the UDC should employ local talent labour. I hope that the Minister will pass those remarks on to his honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities so that we can have the same permission inserted into compulsive competitive tendering where local authorities are also involved to ensure a trickle down so that local labour is employed.
As regards the finance of £45 million, perhaps the Minister should have emphasised rather more fairly that the £45 million applies over five years and not over one year—it is £9 million a year. Plymouth certainly regards that as being at the expense of its City Challenge. But given the fact that City Challenge is being abandoned, that was, perhaps, only to be expected.
I believe that the wider problems of Plymouth are fairly well known. Of course, Plymouth was the amalgamation of three towns—namely, Devonport, Plymouth and Stonehouse—back, as I remember, in 1921–22. But economically the powerhouse has always been the dockyard which over the past five to seven years has seen the number of jobs reduced from 30,000 to 5,000. Therefore, the rate of unemployment there now stands at 14 per cent. Apart from tourism, agriculture, electronics—I do not know how Toshiba is getting on—and food processing, there is little alternative manufacturing base in Plymouth. It is of course an isolated city. I was taken there as a child and lived all my young life in the area. We never heard live music.
The future of the dockyard fairly hangs on the Rosyth and Devonport decisions. But, in the meantime, we welcome the release and regeneration of this MoD land. It is actually physically separated from the dockland land. As regards Mount Batten—where my father worked—the heights must of course remain open space. That commands wonderful views of the whole of the Plymouth Estuary, and the Sound is a place of outstanding natural beauty that must be protected whatever else happens. While Mount Wise looks on to Mount Edgcumbe Country Park, one presumes that that would be appropriate for housing development and, perhaps, some associated light industrial use.

511
What concerns me is the future of the victualling yard. So far as I can remember, it was built by Foulstone in the 1780s along with adjacent houses in Durnford Street—in one of which I lived. It has magnificent Grade 1 listed buildings which, in my view, are comparable to Greenwich and rather superior to most of Liverpool's Albert Dock; and adjacent obviously to that superb promontory of Devil's Point. It is unbelievable that the MoD has allowed it to fall into disrepair over the years simply because it was legally exempt from supporting it. I understand from local estimates that, as a result, it will take over £30 million just to bring the victualling yard up to a usable state. If that is true, it will take almost all of the available resources of the UDC over the five-year period.
But, nonetheless, it is a major heritage area. I think that there may well be transport problems when the project is sorted oat, especially if it is intended to make use of the area for housing, offices, a museum complex and the like. However, it would represent a major asset to the city of Plymouth. They are wonderful buildings. I very much welcome the new UDC.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks about Plymouth and the UDC. I shall indeed pass her remarks on to my honourable friend as requested. Given the nature of the sites, especially Royal William Yard and Mount Batten with their preponderance of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments, the corporation will be acutely aware of the need to consult closely with bodies such as English Heritage. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 p.m. to 8.5 p.m.]

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 21.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 114 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 115 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 36, line 26, at end insert:
("(3A) In determining whether to entertain an application under this section the court shall have regard to whether any other application has been made under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It will impose a duty on the court to ensure that there is not a preponderance of time-consuming and otherwise costly applications, all pursuing one and the same remedy. In principle it cannot be disputed that those who suffer damage in law should have the right to seek redress. In a situation involving a breakdown
512
in industrial relations, however, the primary aim should be to settle the trade dispute. It is firmly maintained by a number of industrialists that the introduction of third parties to a dispute which exists between an employer and employees may not help to achieve that aim.
As the Government will be aware, negotiations to settle trade disputes can reach critical and sensitive stages, and it may well be that the parties are on the verge of settlement when the consumer intervenes. I know that organisations such as the CBI, which has some 250,000 member companies, have made this very point to the Government. At times of industrial action it can be extremely unproductive to have third parties, who are certainly not party to the trade dispute, taking action which may hinder negotiations.
In that regard it would be ideal if the new section did not exist at all. I am not asking for it to be removed, but rather seeking the Government's view on whether such a duty on the court, to check whether other applications for injunctions have been made, would assist the smoother and more efficient administration of an already burdened legal system.
This amendment seeks to offer a sensible solution. If each individual is to have a right to make application to the High Court or Court of Session, there should be some checks and balances to prevent multiple applications on one and the same issue. In this way the Government will still achieve their stated purpose of giving a right to the citizen, but there will also be an assurance that only one meritorious claim is being considered at any one time. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My name is added to this amendment. I welcome the proposal. It might at least limit the damaging effect that vexatious complaints from maverick individuals could otherwise have. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is carrying out the role of the truth teller in this debate. He is absolutely right once again. He said that just as the parties are about to reach a settlement and the matter is about to be put to bed, up jumps some vexatious litigant who brings an action and messes up the settlement. That is one of the reasons that we are opposed to the clause. That is something that we wish the Government would think about.
Unfortunately the noble Lord's amendment does not deal with the problem. It merely attempts to provide a procedure which would reduce the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" to one "Disgusted" so that one could not also have a "Disgusted of Birmingham" at the same time. It is better than having 16 of them, but the problem is to get them all out of the way.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that this was a probing amendment and I hope that I can persuade him that it is not necessary.
I understand that the courts have existed for years on the basis that they are fully aware of what is going

513
on with regard to proceedings brought before them. In particular, they will have full regard to duplicated proceedings.
The court's position on such issues is implicit. Indeed, am not aware of any other legislation which expressly states that the courts should have regard to whether or not an application has already been made to it in respect of the same matter. I believe that it is entirely unnecessary in this, as in any other, provision to state that the courts must have regard to duplicated proceedings when considering applications before them.
Indeed, I believe that there is a hidden danger in accepting such an amendment. If we were to include the text of the amendment in the provisions in Section 235A that might be wrongly interpreted as implying that no such consideration is given to duplicate proceedings in other legislation where such a provision is not expressly included. I realise, of course, that that was not my noble friend's intention.
I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that his amendment is entirely unnecessary and that he will withdraw it.
Lord Mottistone: From what my noble friend said, is it always the convention or the rule of the courts for all legislation which might fall into this bracket that they will look around to see whether there are similar proceedings in other courts? It would be very helpful to know that. I shall not press the amendment now but I may pursue the matter later if that is not the case.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As I said, the courts have existed for years on the basis that they are fully aware of what is going on with regard to proceedings brought before them, particularly duplicate proceedings.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 36, line 47, leave out ("section 20(2) to (4)") and insert ("section 20(2), (3) (a) and (4)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment illustrates the interaction between Clause 21, as the Government would have it, and the principles which they have already placed on the statute book which determine trade union liability.
Section 20 of the consolidation Act 1992 concerns a crucial part of any legal system in the way in which it deals with the vicarious liability of autonomous organisations and the persons for whose acts they will normally be liable. In our law in most associations it is liability for agents who act with their authority. Since 1992 that has not been so in the case of trade unions.
There has grown up in the statutes intricate legislation concerning vicarious liability which makes trade unions liable in extraordinary situations. I invite the Committee to consider the liabilities which we
514
have already probed in considering Clause 21 against the background of the paragraph which the amendment would omit from Section 20(3) (b) of the 1992 statute.
A union is liable for all its officials, subject to repudiation in many cases, which as the Committee knows now involves an obstacle course around a track, which few trade unions can negotiate with success, and the most extraordinary number of communications to every worker and employer concerned. Beyond that, under Section 20(3) (b) a union is liable for any act which was done, authorised or endorsed by a group, or any member of a group, of persons of which at the material time the official was a member and which included in its purposes co-ordinating industrial action.
What we have here in reality is a group of workers —who are not necessarily members of a union, because the Committee will have noticed that the legislation refers to a group of any persons—co-ordinating industrial action. They may be discussing whether they will come out on strike tomorrow. The group is attended at that time by an official. In reality that official is likely to be trying to stop them—certainly if they are members of his union —from taking the action in question before all the hoops have been successfully negotiated by the union. Well may he try to dissuade them, because the fact that at the material time he is a member of the group co-ordinating industrial action however briefly, means that the union is subsequently liable not only for an act of the official or of the group but of any member of the group. That goes beyond reason.
The Government may say that that provision has been on the statute book since 1990. It has. That is the method they employ. They put something which is scarcely reasonable on the statute book and then follow it up a few years later with something which is less reasonable and which they then justify on the basis of the legislation which they introduced a few years before.
I invite the Committee to consider the interaction between Section 20 of the 1992 Act as a whole. I am merely omitting the very worst paragraph, which is unjustifiable according to normal principles. In the amendment I suggest that the Clause 21 liabilities are the beginning of a new era of wide liability for a union which it can scarcely avoid in the realities of life. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It comes as little surprise to hear the noble Lord revert to the issue of the Employment Act 1990. I am sure that, equally, it will come as little surprise that I shall resist the amendment.
The new "citizen's right" is to be available to halt the unlawful organisation of industrial action. The rules which already apply to determine whether a union is to be held responsible for organising industrial action or for certain acts of contempt of court are, as the noble Lord pointed out, set out in Section 20 of the 1992 Act. It would make no sense whatever to have a different set of rules to determine whether a union was to be held responsible for such acts for the purpose of Section 235A.

515
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will see that the provisions which the amendments seek to modify replicate those to be found in Section 62(5) of the 1992 Act. Section 62 provides the statutory right for union members to restrain their union from calling on them to take industrial action without a proper secret ballot. It is right to have those provisions in Section 62 and right to replicate them in new Section 235A.
The Government believe that the rules set out in Section 20 are the right rules for establishing whether a union is to be held responsible for certain acts done by certain persons. Our views about that have not changed since the matter was extensively debated during the passage of that Act. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said. It bears out the notion that that which was put on the statute book—as it was in 1990 with a certain flicker, if not of shame, of daring —is now taken to be obvious gospel and is replicated again and again, as she stated. In those days the provision was put on the statute book only in respect of industrial or economic tort liability. It was specifically so confined, and later expanded. The records will show how progress is made by putting even more indefensible propositions on to indefensible propositions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 37, line 8, after ("reason") insert ("except where the inducement is a necessary constituent of the liability in tort").
The noble Lord said: This is the point which I left over when moving Amendment No. 108. To pick up the point made on the last amendment, the Government have introduced a provision in the past and have now replicated it. But they have done so with a rather squint-eyed vision as to its nature.
When the Government introduced the right of a trade union member to have a ballot before industrial action, they introduced it in relation to trade union inducements to take action. They followed it up with the proposition that the inducement need not be effective. I have referred to what that means. I am never clear as to when an inducement is or is not effective. However, broadly speaking, I suppose one can understand what it means. Indeed, the common law has a distinction between an inducement on the one side which must be persuasive, and a warning on the other which is a mere statement of fact or danger.
Having introduced the provision in trade union law in that specific instance, the Government have done what the noble Baroness candidly stated: they have replicated it and they have replicated it in the Bill. With respect, they made a mistake. New Section 235A(7) provides that,
"'inducement' includes an inducement which is or would be ineffective, whether because of a person's unwillingness to be influenced by it or for any other reason".
The provision "for any other reason" is quite extraordinary. If the union sertds out letters to its
516
members which are all lost at sea, that is still an inducement within the clause because it does not matter what the reason is for its ineffectiveness. The insertion of the formula, in my submission, is quite indefensible. If a union has tried to induce people and they are not induced, why should it be liable? However, the Government believe that it should be.
But the Government have still made a mistake. The types of liability covered under new Section 235A(2) are acts which are actionable in tort. Acts which are actionable in tort in industrial action are highly likely to be inducements of breach of contract, inducements of breach of statutory liability, or inducements of breach of equitable principles, but inducements which are wrongful interferences. Examples have been given already from the Government Front Bench. The inducements in our common law—the Government have not altered them all yet—are tortious only if they are effective inducements. Therefore within new Section 235A(2) (a) that which is actionable in tort for the most part (obviously there may be other torts) will be inducements to some kind of wrongful act—for example, a breach of contract. That inducement must be effective. Pro tanto the provision rests upon art inducement which must be effective.
It therefore cannot possibly be right, unless the Government wish to change the very fundament of tortious liability by a side wind, to say that throughout the clause an inducement is an inducement even if it is ineffective. It may be that under some other torts the ineffectiveness of an inducement might be passed off by a plaintiff. Under the new Section 235A(2) (b), under Section 62 of the consolidation Act, the ineffectiveness of the inducement has already been made of no account by the Government. At the lowest, throwing in the formula that inducements never have to be effective cannot possibly be other than a circular route. An ineffective inducement—let us take the lowest point, inducement of breach of contract, that is, knowingly and intentionally inducing a breach of contract without justification—is a tort but only if the causality is shown or, in an interlocutory matter, the likely causality is shown.
I seek to save the Government from an absurdity of their own making and to suggest that the wide inducement clause—I do not support it—that the Government provide could not possibly apply to all the torts in new Section 235A(2) which the Government are inserting. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I ask the Minister to take the amendment seriously. As the noble Lord said, we were worried about the ineffective inducement when it began its traverse of the industrial relations legislation. It is now taking wings. We now have reference again to the ineffective inducement. It is very serious from the trade union point of view. It is part of the trilogy of this clause: the ineffective inducement meets the unquantifiable, immeasurable factor and produces non-damage, but it still gives rise to liability.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I first assure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we take every amendment seriously and would not dream of not considering them in that light.

517
The amendment concerns the provisions of new Section 235A(7) (a), and would, in effect, negate the intended effect of those provisions.
However, there is really nothing "sinister" or untoward about Section 235A(7) (a). Indeed, the provisions replicate, as I stated in the reply to the previous amendment, those already part of the law in Section 62(6) of the 1992 Act, which provides the member's right to restrain his union from calling for unballoted industrial action. Both Section 62, and the new Section 235A, create new statutory rights to restrain unlawful organisation of industrial action.
In Clause 21 we are talking of the right of the individual. If an individual brings proceedings under the new "citizen's right", we see no need for him or her to have to satisfy the court that his or her claim is well-founded by showing anything more than Section 235A currently requires. We certainly see no need for leaving scope for an individual to have to convince the court that a particular unlawful inducement would be "effective". This would serve to interfere with the new right, for no good purpose.
The amendment would mean that that could certainly happen. We believe it therefore to be undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it may be convenient if I could ask her a question. Would she please read Section 235A(2) (a)? We find that a plaintiff may be relying on the fact that the act is actionable in tort. Tort is an external category to the section. Let us assume that the only possible tort is an inducement of breach of contract. Does the noble Baroness say that the inducement must be effective?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It is true that an inducement is only tortious if it is effective, but the noble Lord seems to forget that it is also tortious to threaten an inducement when it cannot be known whether the threatened inducement will be effective.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the noble Baroness. Of course it would not be right to threaten something wrongful. One can get a quia timet injunction for it. It is wrong to threaten to induce a breach of contract, but only if the causality between the inducement and the breach can be shown, as in this case, as a likely or threatened event. It is in all the books. I do not see why the noble Baroness is so ill served as to have this kind of common law presented to her.
It is clear that something which is actionable in tort as an inducement of a breach of contract—to take the simplest case—is actionable only if the inducement can be shown to have causality in relation to the breach in an ordinary action as in fact in a threatened quia timet interlocutory case as a threatened causality.
Of course, what the clause says is that that causality need not be there. Later on the clause says that no inducement need be effective.
One is not trying to be sinister or to negate the intended effect. I am trying to give people a night of
518
sleep rather than a sleepless night trying to make something out of the legislation. At the moment the clause is nonsense, it is circular in part, although I do not make the claim that it is circular in all respects. One would have thought that the Government, faced with an amendment like this, would see the point and would do something about it. However, one knows why they do not. They even do nothing about a nonsense because it might allow one out of a million trade unionists off a hook which none of us can think of. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 37, line 48, leave out from ("of") to end of line 49, and insert ("manifest public interest.").
The noble Lord said: There seems to have been much trouble in getting the phrase right as to when the commissioner should act in a case involving, we suggest, "manifest public interest". At the moment, the phrase which has come out in our discussions seems to be rather vague. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It is important to remember that the new Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action will be an independent authority. He or she will consider applications seeking assistance under the new citizen's right provisions. It is appropriate to allow the commissioner to form an independent view about many of the matters which are relevant when considering the applications.
Therefore, although the provisions in Section 235B(3) indicate matters to which the commissioner may have regard when considering applications, there is no duty on the commissioner to consider any of them. That is the significance of the words,
"matters to which the commissioner may have regard",
at the beginning of new Section 235B(3). Nor is there anything in the provisions which will prevent the commissioner from considering other matters when deciding whether to grant assistance.
I can assure the Committee that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord adds nothing to the discretion of the commissioner to grant assistance. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the expression "manifest public interest" could be distinguished from the present,
"substantial public interest or concern",
in practice. Even if there is an objective difference between the two expressions, it must be remembered that in this provision the criterion is whether in the commissioner's opinion the case involves a matter attaining the degree of public interest stated.
I also hope that the noble Lord will recall that in another place the Government accepted an Opposition amendment to add the words "or

519
concern". The present amendment would, of course, remove those very words. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 37, line 49, at end insert ("and
(c) whether, having requested and considered the views of the persons who are party to the trade dispute, there are good reasons not to grant an application.").

The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively simple amendment to which I hope my noble friend will give proper regard. Ideally, all would-be applicants should be required to act through the commissioner. However, I understand that the Government have reasons for not legislating in that way. Where an individual has sought the assistance of the commissioner, however, we believe that it is incumbent on him (that is, the commissioner) to have regard to the views of those concerned in the trade dispute (that is, the employer and the union). If the commissioner is required to contact the parties, he or she may well find that they are in the throes of a settlement, perhaps even with the aid of ACAS. I understand that they may shortly be required to pay for that. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the commissioner went ahead ignorant of that fact and an injunction was granted to a citizen. That would be unfortunate for the settling of the dispute itself and unfortunate for the necessary cost to public funds. I suggest that the amendment will prevent such unfortunate results.
As with my previous Amendment No. 118, we are concerned that when such rights as are contained in Clause 21 are prescribed for individuals, the law should proceed with caution so that it does not hinder in this case the sometimes delicate negotiation of a settlement of a dispute by giving third parties the right to jump in with both feet.
I can understand what my noble friend was saying on Amendment No. 118. I rather feel that perhaps this has more purpose to it, or it is more desirable. I feel that the commissioner may well not take that kind of action. It seems to me that having the phrase in paragraph (c) will be just as important as paragraphs (a) and (b), which are matters which may be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I wish briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. It is significant that I understand that it is the CBI, representing the interests of employers, which has made it plain that it would welcome an amendment of this kind to limit the disruption that could be caused by the clause. I believe that the Government would be well advised to heed that suggestion and I hope that they will.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have listened to the explanation of the amendment by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to the additional points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Of course, it is something which we have considered. I hope that I can explain to my noble friend why we consider the amendment to be undesirable.
520
The Committee would do well to remember in the first instance that the new Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action will be an independent body which cannot be directed by government or any other party to grant or refuse an application for assistance for proceedings under the new right created by Clause 21. Consistent with that approach, provisions in subsection (3) of Section 235B give no more than an indication of the matters to which the new commissioner may have regard when considering applications for assistance under the new right. It is important to stress that these are issues which the commissioner may consider. There is and should be no duty on the commissioner to consider any of these matters.
However, it is helpful to both the new commissioner and to applicants who might bring proceedings under the new right, to give such an indication of the kind of issues which the commissioner may consider. To that extent, I believe there is a danger that the amendment, if accepted, could give quite the wrong signal to those parties.
As I have already said, the commissioner is to be an independent authority and can be expected to discharge his or her functions in a proper manner. I should add that if an amendment were tabled in such a way as to compel the commissioner to consult with the parties involved before deciding on an application, we would have to resist it, since it would tend to undermine the fundamental principle of the "citizen's right" provisions of the Bill.
The new right will give additional protection to individual citizens deprived of goods or services as a result of unlawfully organised industrial action by allowing them to bring proceedings to halt the unlawful act. The remedy for such a right will be an order halting the unlawful act, which is what the individual deprived of those goods or services would need.
Requiring the commissioner to seek, and consider, the views of the parties involved could cause significant and unnecessary delays to the granting of that remedy, and to that extent undermine the effectiveness of the new right. It would also be quite wrong to suggest that the commissioner ought, as a matter of course, to seek the views of third parties about an application for assistance, since that is a matter to be settled between, and by, the commissioner and the applicant. I hope that my noble friend will understand our reasons for requesting that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: This is the third time this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has sought in the best way that he can find to mitigate and reduce the scope and effectiveness of the clause. It is perfectly understandable that the Minister gives us the answer from the Dispatch Box. Each time, each suggestion is turned down as being unnecessary, impractical or in the Bill anyway. That has been done three times, and I beg the Government to reconsider.
With regard to the amendment which the noble Lord moved earlier, business, as represented by the CBI, is very concerned about the contents of the clause. The Government, too, should be concerned.

521
One does not get that degree of criticism or sustained concern unless a very wide cross-section of employers in British industry are profoundly worried about a particular clause. That is coming through on this clause tonight. I ask the Government very seriously to think again before we return to it at Report stage. The Government are driving business and the CBI into a position which they do not wish to adopt, and in which they will have to say that they oppose the clause root and branch. That is the implied logic of the situation if the Government cannot find it in their hearts to make any change in the clause.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. I understood from what she said that the Government consider that what the noble Lord has in mind would, in effect, be a requirement on the commissioner. But as I understand the position, what he suggests would be covered by the words "may have"—matters to which the commissioner "may have" regard—so that it would be permissive rather than prescriptive, in just the same way as applies to the sentences under paragraphs (a) and (b). I wonder if she can clarify that a little further.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The Government recognise the concerns and the issues that have been raised by industry, and we consider them seriously. But it is important that the commissioner should be seen not as a representative of any of the bodies or as involved with either trade unions or employers, but as an independent person. Whilst replying to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I would add that since the new right applies only in the case of unlawful industrial action, employees will almost always have the opportunity to bring proceedings themselves.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I thank the noble Lords who have spoken. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was right to draw attention to the fact that there is concern on the part of the CBI about the whole of this clause. When I spoke to a member of that body, I was told that it has 250,000 members who do not like the look of Clause 21. It would be very much better if we could have the minor adjustments mentioned.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which I should have made if he had not done so, but I am delighted that he did. I was surprised that my noble friend said at one stage that if my amendment was compulsory she would have to reject it. It is not, of course, compulsory. It comes under the heading of the introduction to subsection (3):
"The matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining … [are] (a) whether it is unreasonable … [and] (b) whether … [the case] involves … substantial public interest".
Those kinds of things are rather similar to having regard to the state of the trade dispute. It is not about taking one side or the other. The commissioner, as an independent person, not only would not want to, but could not get an answer if he or she were to take one
522
side or other. Obviously he must find out both from the union and the employer what the state of the dispute is.
I believe that my noble friend, in resisting this amendment, perhaps goes unnecessarily far and makes the clause less acceptable than she need do. However, this is not the time or place to push it further now. I shall have to read carefully what has been said to see what would be appropriate, but my feeling is that I shall certainly want to come back on Report with something not very different from this amendment. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 38, line 26, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this section shall enable the Commissioner to provide assistance to the applicant which exceeds the amount to which the applicant would be entitled under the regulations of the legal aid and advice scheme current at the time of the Commissioner's decision.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment with some trepidation, since it might be regarded as rather radical compared with the very good sense in the straightforward amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to which I did not speak but which the Government seem to have extraordinary grounds to resist.
The amendment touches upon legal aid and advice, which is a tender subject at the moment on the Government Benches. But it does no more than that. I believe that the Bill as it stands does not answer the point that when the commissioner comes to render financial assistance to an applicant, it should be limited by the bounds of the legal aid and advice scheme, such as it may be at the time. I have not tried to draft in any technical sense precisely where to find that, but noble Lords on the Government Benches will be able to do it quickly I am sure.
At a time when the levels of legal aid appear to be descending in such a way that many people with few assets and low income are likely to fall outside the legal aid scheme, one must ask the question: why should those particular applicants be favoured who fall within the remit of the new commissioner? It is my contention that they may well have a case to be assisted but it is no more and no less than that of the ordinary applicant for legal aid in the system of justice in this country, and they should not be favoured beyond it. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for his comments. However, I do not believe that to imply that the provision of material assistance for proceedings under the new "citizen's right" is in some way comparable to the granting of legal aid. Perhaps I may explain why I do not believe it is right to make such a comparison.
There are important differences between the proceedings for which assistance is to be available through the new commissioner, and those eligible for legal aid. First, individuals bringing proceedings under the new right will not, and indeed, should not,

523
be able to claim damages. The remedy will be an injunction halting the unlawful act. In the case of legal aid, however, it is normal for assistance to be granted for proceedings where damages are the remedy. So the remedies available are quite different.
Secondly, individuals bringing proceedings under the new right may be doing so against the considerable legal and financial resources of a trade union. We firmly believe that for this reason, it is important to provide individuals with special assistance, regardless of their individual financial circumstances. I am sure the Committee will have realised that the commissioner's assistance will only be available for such proceedings, and not for proceedings brought against individuals.
There are, of course, a number of other instances where non-means-tested assistance is available for civil law proceedings. Such assistance can be provided by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. It is not being suggested that the amount of assistance from these sources should be restricted by reference to the criteria for legal aid in these cases, and rightly so.
Thirdly, an individual may bring proceedings under the new right where the outcome is of direct interest and concern to a wide range of other people affected by unlawful industrial action.
It is right that the independent commissioner should be able to grant assistance wherever he or she judges this to be appropriate. The commissioner will, of course, be accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public money in the discharge of the new functions. That is the right approach to adopt in these circumstances.
For those reasons we consider it inappropriate to make any kind of comparison in the provisions between assistance for proceedings under the new right, and assistance provided by the legal aid and advice scheme. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Yes, there are differences. I may not have noted all the differences mentioned by the noble Baroness. In fact, I only picked out three of them and she may have found more. The point is that the differences do not justify the Government's actions. For example, the noble Baroness said that there are no damages in these cases. But they are only doing for the CPAUIA (the Government called it that because they did not believe we would find a way to turn it into a word) what they are doing for the CROTUM. The CROTUM is totally costless, completely free and will pay out like a lottery. Also you can get damages from a trade union. So why do the Government suddenly give as an example that they are doing for the CROTUM the same as they are doing for the CPAUIA—namely, that it does not have damages? I do not understand.
The second difference mentioned by the noble Baroness was that one had to go against a trade union, and trade unions are very powerful bodies. But if you are wronged and apply for legal aid, you might find that you are going for a multi-national: you might be going against Sainsbury's or against Forte's. They
524
have a lot more money than the Transport and General Workers' Union. What has that got to do with it?
The noble Baroness mentioned the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality who, she said, also give similar kinds; of aid. But the aid is not precisely the same. Moreover, the Equal Opportunities Commission in particular has a very tight budget. It finds every year that there are all kinds of people to whom it would like to give aid but whom it cannot help because it cannot afford to dc so. It does not have the money. We all know that the CROTUM has money to burn. I dare say that the CPAUIA will also have money to burn. So it is not the case that the differences she mentioned can logically support her arguments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend. We take almost the same points and I shall not repeat them. I simply refute the notion that the claim against a union is anything special. As my noble friend said, there will not be any extra aid if one claims against ICI or IBM.
The point about damages is bizarre. The fact that one has no claim for damages and therefore one is presumably someone who has not necessarily suffered any material loss from the events would be a claim for getting less aid and not more aid, as the noble Baroness suggested. I follow the point of my noble friend with regard to the other agencies. I have a suggestion which the Government might perhaps consider before we reach Report stage. Let me put it to the noble Baroness.
The issue of money being spent by different agencies on different principles should be cleared up. There are the annual reports of the CROTUM but they are not extremely detailed and do not enable us to understand precisely where the money goes. We know most of the story but perhaps we could have a budget for the CROTUM which is broken down into its cases; also, a budget for the new commissioner who, it seems, will spend something like £300,000 in the first year (let us have the correct figure if that is wrong); and lastly could we have the budgets of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality broken down by caseload, type of case and successful case. Let us see where there is value for money. We suspect that the Government do not get value for money as regards what they spend on the new commissioners. Certainly we would like something for the CROTUM and perhaps for the CPAUIA.
I put to the Government that by Report stage they should give us, in the interests of open government, more information on what the commissioners are doing. Also, in the same document could we have precise examples of the legal aid equivalents of the type of case which would be brought and the level of support expected there? Of course there is equal treatment. Dicey would have rebelled against the noble Baroness's brief. Of course there is an equality argument between different kinds of applicants for state money to obtain civil justice and there are

525
different sectors of claim. This does not stand out as one to which largesse should be distributed without any bounds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 133 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Even at this late hour I feel that I have to put on record some views as to why, in our opinion, this clause should not stand part of the Bill. We have debated it at length in the context of the various amendments that have been tabled, but regrettably there has been no movement from the Government and no indication that they have understood precisely what a can of worms this part of the Bill may ultimately prove to be.
As we have heard, the clause provides a right for any individual—I stress the word "individual"—who feels deprived or disadvantaged to take action in the courts for an order to restrain industrial action. In Committee we have tried to explore what is meant by being deprived and all we have obtained is some reference to non-quantifiable and immaterial loss. I still do not know what that means. Does it mean that the individual is just a little unhappy?
The remedy will only be available in the case of unlawful industrial action. However, as I said at Second Reading, and my noble friend referred to the point this afternoon, vexatious litigants are not likely to know or even care whether or not the dispute action to which they take exception is lawful. Moreover, the individual concerned will have this new right even if he or she is not a party to a contract for the provision of the goods or services in question.
I should make it quite clear that the trade union movement does not defend unlawful action. The TUC wants to see disputes resolved through established procedures and in conformity with the law. It has said so recently, even despite the fact that the legal hurdles which unions must surmount in order that a dispute should become lawful, are extremely difficult and have been made much more onerous by the provisions of this Bill.
As has repeatedly been said from this side of the Committee during the discussion on the Bill, UK law is far more disadvantageous to unions and workers who have grievances than is the case in many other EC countries. We reiterate our view, which cannot be too often stated, that the Government are in breach of their obligations under ILO conventions.
Employers and union members already have the right to take proceedings to restrain unlawful action. Extending that right to customers or potential customers will be an invitation to anyone with a grudge or a chip on the shoulder to attempt to interfere in the process of resolving the dispute. We must also remember that sections of the media, some
526
of which are wildly irresponsible, may not be backward in urging that type of action upon gullible readers.
Employers, including the CBI—we heard something of that this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—have already made clear that they do not welcome such third party involvement in managing industrial relations. The Institute of Personnel Management told the Government in its response to the Green Paper that membership of the institute had not indicated support for the proposal. At that time the proposal was limited to public services. As we have seen today, the Government adhere to the policy set forth in the Bill and have included the private sector as well as public services. The British Institute of Management commented that the proposal could raise the temperature of disputes which should rightly be solved by the employer and the union concerned. The CBI expressed anxiety that individuals who are not genuinely inconvenienced could intervene unhelpfully in industrial disputes.
It is therefore surprising that, in the face of a distinct lack of enthusiasm for their proposition when advanced in the Green Paper, the Government should not only have gone ahead, but have gone further and included disputes in private industry in addition to those in public services. Not only that, as we have seen, a new official—presumably with office facilities and staff—is to be appointed to give material assistance to people who want to pursue such claims—that at a time, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, when legal aid is being drastically cut back so that far fewer people will qualify than formerly.
Presumably there will be no legal aid if one wants to pursue a claim for unpaid occupational pension, for compensation for an industrial injury, or if knocked down by a drunken driver while on the way to work. But should one want to institute a legal action because one's train is late through an industrial dispute, even though one may not even have bought a ticket, then one can go along to this new official who will have the funds to assist.
It is an outrageous proposition based on the Government's assumption that people who go on strike are always wrong; that if we do not like our employment or the wages and conditions involved, we should leave; that the market will presumably take care of us. Of course nowadays we will not get another job but that is just too bad.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart, who I am sorry had to leave, raised an important point. Suppose a group of people who are not in a union decide to withdraw their labour. Against whom would action then be taken? Suppose they all say, "There is no ringleader. We are all disadvantaged and disaffected. We are in it together". Against whom would action be taken? Would we not be proceeding down the slippery slope at the end of which individual workers could find themselves in gaol? That is an extremely dangerous path to follow.
Anyone with any sense knows that disputes do not materialise out of thin air. There are normally good reasons why people are willing to give up pay and go on strike. It should be the job of any decent industrial

527
relations system to establish procedures for resolving issues as quickly and efficiently as possible. Instead of which, the clause in the Bill will make matters much more difficult. It is a rubbishy idea dreamed up in a Conservative think-tank, and in my view it should not be proceeded with.
Lord Rochester: It must be apparent from what I have said in speaking to a number of amendments that I am strongly opposed to the clause, for the reasons that I have given. I shall not detain the Committee further therefore at this stage. I fully support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps I may have the tolerance of the Committee at this late stage to register briefly that this is one more "own goal" by the Government or perhaps more accurately put, one more instance of shooting the employers in the foot. The CBI would need to be a centipede to accommodate all the rules inflicted on it by the Bill.
It is said that its purpose is to deter unlawful strikes or, if a strike occurs, to get work started again. As my noble friend said, I have no sympathy for unlawful strikes, but I find it difficult to believe that, in the circumstances when unlawful strikes are likely to take place, people will be deterred from action by Clause 21. Far from making the situation better, it is likely to make it worse.
People on a job may lose their temper and walk out without following the proper legal procedures. The union may not have heard of the action or may even have told them to go back to work, but the members have got their backs up. They are inflamed by the talk of the rights of individual trade unionists which come from the Benches opposite. They may say, "We have the right as individual trade unionists to ignore our union and carry on in our own way". It may be that there is a pig-headed foreman, as my noble friend Lady Turner said.
The employer does not like the action. As the Minister said, the employer can bring proceedings. Perhaps the employer decides not to do that but to sort it out and is in the process of doing so. Then along comes an outsider and sets the heavy hammer of the law swinging just as the employer is sorting out the situation. He will make the situation worse. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is worried. I express sympathy with him in what happened earlier. He and his friends will have to understand that the only way of avoiding a situation which we all fear is by removing the clause. I hope that he will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and think seriously before the next stage about helping us to do precisely that.
Lord Mottistone: I wish to re-emphasise what I said earlier. There is obviously an underlying justification for a clause of this kind. But the points that I was making on the series of amendments which the CBI recommended to me, which represent the view of employers who have great experience in these areas, need a greater understanding and acceptance to modify the clause so that it is manageable for both
528
industry and trade unions. I believe it is necessary to have another look certainly at my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 118 and No. 129. 1 believe that the all-encompassing business of having goods and services without qualification is much too wide. It would be extremely helpful if my noble friends could at least take on board the need for this clause—it would be much better if they told us they were going to do that—so we could be reassured that something would come out at Report stage. In any case, I shall have to think very seriously about what can he done in view of the responses. I hope that something rather better than this clause will be available in due course.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: At present employers and, in limited circumstances, trade union members can bring proceedings to halt the unlawful organisation of industrial action. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, quoted several representative organisations in that group. However, such a remedy is not generally available to individuals who are deprived of goods or services as a result of such acts. The clause is based upon the Government's assumption that those individuals should have rights. The clause provides a new right for any individual deprived of goods or services because of unlawfully organised industrial action to bring proceedings to restrain that unlawful act. In addition, the individual may apply to a new commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action. He will have power to grant assistance for proceedings against a trade union under the new right. The provisions will create a new statutory right for an individual who is or is likely to be deprived of goods or services by unlawfully organised industrial action to bring proceedings in order to restrain the unlawful act. Such deprivation will occur if unlawfully-organised industrial action prevents or delays the supply of goods or services or reduces the quality of goods or services supplied to the individual.
The Citizen's Charter White Paper and my party's election manifesto set out the Government's aim to create a new right of the kind I have just described. In particular, we believe it is right to protect an individual who at present is defenceless in the face of unlawful industrial action by providing him with this new right. We believe that individuals who are affected by unlawful organisation should be given rights to stop that action. The new citizen's right is consistent with the spirit of the Citizen's Charter. It provides protection for individual consumers and customers who will otherwise be defenceless in the face of unlawful industrial action, which may have been targeted precisely to cause disruption and inconvenience. That is why we believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, answers perhaps I may ask the Minister whether or not she has any words of comfort for her noble friend Lord Mottistone. I believe that his was a speech that the Government would be unwise to ignore.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we take back everything from Committee and look at it very carefully.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may try to get clear where we start on Report. Does she accept that an individual whose disruption and inconvenience (her words) are brought about by an inducement that creates either the breach of a contract to which that individual has a right, or any other right which at law that individual has, will have an action at present? If so, how far beyond that does the new clause go?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The new clause gives the individual who may not have rights in any other circumstances the right to seek restraint of unlawful industrial action.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As the Committee will expect, I do not find the noble Baroness's response at all satisfactory. Had we reached this stage in the Bill a little earlier I am sure that I would have tested the opinion of the Committee. It is one of the most important issues in the Bill. I do not intend to do so now, but we shall certainly look closely at the clause again on Report. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will also be doing so because as things stand the clause is very unsatisfactory indeed. Unfortunately, we had a Statement on the coal industry earlier this afternoon which, although important in itself, meant that we started proceedings in Committee much later than I would have wished to do. In the circumstances, I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, but I want it clearly noted by the Minister that we are deeply, deeply, deeply dissatisfied with the clause. We shall certainly be exploring it further on Report.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Right to maternity leave and right to return to work]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 40, line 20, after ("Act")") insert ("for section 31A there shall be substituted
"31A.—(l) An employee who is pregnant and who has, on the advice of a registered medical practitioner, registered midwife or registered health visitor, made an appointment to attend at any place for the purpose of receiving antenatal care shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, have the right to time off during her working hours to enable her to keep an appointment.
(2) In subsection (1) above, antenatal care shall include relaxation classes and parentcraft classes." and").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this short amendment is simply to clarify a woman's right to time off for antenatal care during working hours. Women were given the right to paid time off for antenatal care by the Employment Act 1980. This time off was not to be unreasonably refused. However, evidence from the CAB shows that this right has been shown to be difficult to enforce on many occasions. The CAB reports many cases of employers refusing women paid time off to attend antenatal appointments despite the fact that this is unlawful.
It seems to me that so much hinges on the wording,
530
"not to be unreasonably refused".
This amendment clarifies the right completely by changing the wording of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 from,
"right not to be unreasonably refused time off",
to a right to time off. This right to time off for antenatal care is also part of the EC directive which the Bill implements.
When the amendment was moved in Committee in another place my honourable friend Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, stated:
"Article 9 of the EC directive states clearly that antenatal care should be provided in accordance with national legislation or practice. The existing provisions in United Kingdom legislation fully comply with that requirement". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 12/1/93; col. 291.]
He also stated that an industrial tribunal would be capable of deciding whether it was reasonable to allow time off. Therefore, in theory, if an employer refuses to allow paid time off from work a woman can complain to an industrial tribunal which may or may not order the employer to pay the appropriate amount. However, many women are afraid of,.or at least most apprehensive about, exercising this right because they fear dismissal, especially so if they are without two years' continuous service and are therefore not protected from unfair dismissal. There is also the fact that delays in taking tribunal cases could mean that the decision was not made until well after the child was born.
Subsection (2) of the amendment clarifies precisely what antenatal care was intended to cover. It is compatible with government thinking and would bring the law into line with existing tribunal decisions. Studies have shown that it is often the most vulnerable and lower paid workers who experience problems taking time off for antenatal care. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that this amendment will do much to rectify that—for it will remove all doubt, whether reasonable or not. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. It reinforces and clarifies what was clearly the intention of previous legislation and is also the intention of European Community legislation, although the argument is, I know, that this should be settled at the level of individual country. It is not a great deal to ask. It is surely reasonable and civilised that a woman who is pregnant and who is still at work should be able to get proper antenatal attention when and as she. needs it. It is part, surely, of policies which follow from the now widespread employment of married women. I cannot believe that the Government will resist the amendment. It simply amplifies and makes more clear what was previously the intention as expressed in earlier legislation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment as well. Organisations such as Maternity Alliance tell me that they often receive inquiries from women who are refused time off for the purposes set forth in the amendment but are hesitant about going to an industrial tribunal because it is important to them to keep their job and they are afraid to do so.

531
The Government may say that a woman refused time off could go to a tribunal, but that is not always a possible alternative. There are often quite long delays before an industrial tribunal can hear a case. For all those reasons and because of the way in which the noble Lord moved the amendment, I hope that the Government will feel disposed to support it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is a good thing to have this matter spelt out more clearly. On the industrial tribunals which I have sat on for the past 18 years, we get many cases of people attending who are not given time off or—and this is another common ploy—they have to use their day off. If people have one day off in the week and work on Saturday, they are regularly told that they must make their antenatal appointments on that day, which is not fair. It is quite good to have this matter spelt out clearly.
It is important from the employer's point of view and in the interests of justice, that people should only take the time off which is actually required. We get cases before the tribunals where people go for a morning appointment and then do not go back to work at all, or attend an afternoon appointment and take the whole day off. That occurs in areas where there is not much travelling and it would have been very easy to have taken time off for an hour or so and then gone on to work. One has to be a little careful.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on subsection (2) of the amendment. I feel slightly different about relaxation and parentcraft classes. Very often they take place in the evening when the husband and wife or the partners can go together. I am not so sure how that would be co-ordinated. Is that part of the EC directive or is it a new introduction here? In principle I support clarification of this issue.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may follow the noble Baroness in that last remark. I understood relaxation and parentcraft classes to be included in the definition of antenatal care and that it was in line with existing tribunal decisions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not know.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thought perhaps that the noble Baroness would be able to agree with that in view of her experience. Nevertheless, I shall ask that question of the Minister. So far no one has mentioned the child, having only mentioned the mother. I consider the child to be as important as the mother. Antenatal provision should be made with the child in view as well as the mother.
I mention that because I believe in another place—although I cannot put my finger on it at the moment—the quaint excuse was made by Ministers that this Bill has no connection with, or validity for, children because it is about employment. So one cannot move an amendment to this Bill because it does not fit neatly into the bureaucratic divisions between the Department of Employment, which promotes this Bill, and the Department of Health which is concerned with children.
I consider that to be a marvellous indictment of the barriers which are built between departments in Whitehall. Does not our future depend on our
532
children? Is their welfare only to be considered in legislation after the child has been born? Is parturition the division between welfare for children and no welfare? Children should be considered while they are in the womb. Antenatal care is very important for the purpose of bringing up our children especially in those parts of the country—for example, the inner cities—which we were talking about yesterday. As everything will be against them when they are born, for goodness' sake let us do everything we can to promote their welfare while they are coming to term. It seems to me that that is common sense. Perhaps I may add one very important consideration and ask the Government to consider bringing down the barrier between the Department of Employment and the Department of Health.
Lord Blease: I should like to speak generally to Clauses 22 and 24 which relate also to Northern Ireland. Our more particular concerns will be dealt with on another occasion in relation to the negative resolution procedure that will be placed before your Lordships' House on some future occasion.
Representations have been made to me by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. It states:
"The Bill contains a number of major legislative changes in relation to the treatment of pregnant workers. It deals with maternity leave and the protection of pregnant workers against dismissal. It does not address the issue of maternity pay … the EOCNI is deeply concerned it government's piecemeal approach to the law relating to maternity provision. In order that employees understand their rights and employers their obligations in this area, they will now he required to be familiar with the provisions of and the inter-relationship between the Industrial Relations (No. 2) Northern Ireland Order 1976, the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the EC Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85/EEC, domestic and European equality law and, in addition, this Bill if enacted for Northern Ireland".
The EOCNI briefing also states that the law in this area involves,
"inordinate complexity exceeding the worst excesses of a taxing statute".
It then states:
"The sheer complexity of the law in this area raises the question whether the Government has in reality provided access to protection for pregnant workers. The time is well past for a clear and unified code dealing with the treatment of pregnant workers which gives clear and full effect to the Government's European equality law obligations within this area".
It also states that also overdue is the establishment of a positive right to parental leave. I hope that the Government will accept that input in relation to the Northern Ireland matters that will be covered later in our consideration of the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I might first address one or two words to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and thank him for participating in our consideration of the Bill and for bringing to our attention concerns in Northern Ireland. I suspect that the list that he read out was not exhaustive. A whole myriad of laws seems to affect people in employment in one way or another —whether in relation to pay or discrimination. However, these are important measures and, I believe, bring important rights to individuals. I think that I

533
shall be able to demonstrate in my remarks on this clause that these measures should be welcomed by women generally.
Turning now to Amendment No. 134, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Wise, the Government fully recognise the right of women to take reasonable time off for antenatal care. Indeed, women in the UK have had such a right since 1980, whereas those in some other EC member states will get it only as a result of the recently agreed pregnant workers' directive. The Government are satisfied that this existing right, in Section 31A of the 1978 Act, is perfectly adequate. I cannot therefore support the amendment.
The amendment would introduce a new right to antenatal care which would differ from the existing right in two important respects. First, it would have the effect that the amount of time off which a woman was required to be given for these purposes was not subject to any test of reasonableness. In other words, noble Lords appear to be saying that employers should be required to give time off even where that is unreasonable. Such a change would, in the Government's view, be quite unacceptable.
The second change which the amendment would bring about is to qualify the phrase "antenatal care" by providing that it is to be regarded as including
"relaxation classes and parentcraft classes".
I do not accept that such a change is necessary or desirable. In order to exercise the right to time off under the existing Section 31A of the 1978 Act, an employee has merely to give her employer—and even then, only if he requests it—medical evidence that she is pregnant and an appointment card or some other document showing that an appointment has been made. There is no requirement on a woman to tell her employer the exact nature of the antenatal care which she is to receive at that appointment.
"Antenatal care" is not an abstruse technical term but one which is in common usage. Clearly it relates to health care for a pregnant woman and her unborn child during the period of pregnancy. In the case of a dispute, an industrial tribunal would have no difficulty in deciding what was reasonable time off in the circumstances. There is already case law establishing that the term "antenatal care" is sufficiently wide to cover relaxation classes, a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was inquiring. I know of no case law relating specifically to parentcraft classes., but there is no reason why such classes should not also be covered by the legislation as it stands. I see no justification for making a special distinction in relation to those two particular types of classes among the range of different types of antenatal care which can be provided.
The Committee may wish to note that in those respects UK legislation already provides greater benefits for pregnant workers than are required by the EC directive, which refers to time off for antenatal examinations.
Although I am unable to accept my noble friend's amendment, I am, however, happy to give him an undertaking that when, following the enactment of
534
this Bill, the Government publish a new guidance booklet on women's maternity rights, we will make it clear that relaxation classes and parentcraft classes are among the types of antenatal care for which it may be reasonable to allow time off. With those assurances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he was answering a charge which the movers of the amendment were not making. It was not being alleged that the Government have no respect for antenatal care. Our argument here is not essentially with the Government; it is with those employers who are, as I see it, in contempt of what Parliament has already enacted. I do not believe that the Minister understands how deep is the resistance of some employers to pregnant employees.
I shall give one example which I do not believe can be put down to ignorance. A CAB in Yorkshire reports of a client refused point blank any time off for antenatal care. Her employer is a solicitor specialising in employment law. The changes in the pattern of relationships between the sexes are probably the biggest changes in our social history in 2,000 years. We are probably something like half way through them. So it is not to be wondered at if we meet some resistance from time to time to things which are unfamiliar. That is why the Government have to give a healthy nudge forward here and there where they find people in contempt of what is already on the statute book. The point the Minister made about defining "antenatal care" is one upon which there will be scope for discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Women welcome the clause because it contains great improvements. We have a good record on this matter. The points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are valid. We are not just interested in those who show contempt for the law, and I agree that in the case to which he referred the person did know the law. I am constantly amazed by the number of small employers who have no idea what they should be doing for people. People involved in small businesses have no time to be looking up employment law or what they should do. Likewise, the employees have no idea to what they are entitled, what is reasonable and what is not. Therefore, I welcome the noble Viscount's statement that a code of practice will be produced. As I am speaking to this amendment now, I shall not need to speak to my Amendment No. 141; therefore, I am not detaining the Committee.
We need clarification as regards the maternity allowance. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, showed us how complex the matter is. We want a simple leaflet to be available to women and employers. However, it should be available not only through the CABs, because many working women never have time to get into the CABs. It should also be available through the antenatal clinics or through doctors. It should in some way tie in with the provisions of health care because we can be sure that the women will visit their doctors' surgeries. It would be desirable to have a simple explanation of the

535
legislation so that the employee could go along to her employer and say, "Look, I have this leaflet which tells me what the position is". That would ease a great deal of the irritation which arises on both sides because both employer and employee feel that the other may be taking advantage of the situation. Therefore, I welcome my noble friend's assurance that a code of practice will be published.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am not quite satisfied that guidance is sufficient. It may be preferable to incorporate in the legislation something along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. It may be that the concept of "reasonable" could be incorporated in the amendment. That is one suggestion.
I should like to follow up what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. There are many examples of bad practice of one kind or another and they arise from different types of example. They can arise through ignorance, bad practice or oversight. There may be a deliberate refusal. We heard the example of the deliberate refusal by a solicitor who specialises in employment law. That is shocking. If this provision were incorporated in the Act, that solicitor would not presume to deny time off for antenatal care.
We heard of another person who was refused such care. In that case it was described as company policy not to allow time off for antenatal care. Does that not indicate that there should be statutory provision? We heard of a third case where a condition was imposed. Only on the condition that the woman agreed to return to her employment after the birth was she permitted time off for antenatal care. Is the Minister satisfied that employers should be able to impose such conditions as regards the giving of antenatal care? I should have thought that those were extremely compelling examples that such a provision should be inserted into the Bill, perhaps with the qualifying word "reasonable". Those matters should not be relegated to direction or some kind of indication in rules issued by the Minister.
Viscount Ullswater: I should like to answer some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The section of the Act to which he referred gives women the opportunity to take action in this regard. Even if a woman is employed by a solicitor who says that she cannot have time off, that does not prevent her availing herself of the facilities provided by the Act. Indeed, we can only include such provisions in primary legislation once. It is there for women to use. I understand that some women may not wish to make use of it or may be in fear of doing so, but it is there in the Act. That is why, at present, we provide guidance for women to enable them to know their rights. I suggested to my noble friend that when we produce the new guide, which will update the current guide, with the new maternity leave provisions that will he the time to look carefully at these parentcraft classes.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Would the noble Viscount be kind enough to reply to my point about inserting the word "reasonably" in such an
536
amendment? Clearly the law is not being complied with, partly wilfully by some employers and partly because of ignorance. That means that the law needs to be publicised. In the noble Viscount's opinion, is it sufficiently well publicised? I should have thought that the examples put forward by the citizens advice bureaux show that it is not.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord confuses me. His amendment seeks to take out the word "unreasonably" from the section and now he wants to put "reasonably" back in. He should make up his mind on the matter. We shall certainly decide anything that is reasonable; but that is what the law states at present.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I understood that that was the noble Viscount's principal objection to the amendment.
Lord Wise: I should have thought that it could only be reasonable that a woman should be allowed time off for antenatal care because it would only be on the advice of her medical practitioner. Therefore, quite honestly, I do not see how that could possibly be unreasonably withheld.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think that we are travelling in circles and going the wrong way round on the issue. As I understand it, the answer from my noble friend the Minister was that the law already gives such a right which cannot be unreasonably withheld. Therefore, he thinks that the amendment as it stands is unnecessary because the provision is already on the face of the employment legislation. He thinks—and I certainly do—that people are not aware of that fact. That is why it is important to have more publicity, or more leaflets available, in order to explain people's rights. I believe that the rights are already there. I understood my noble friend to have said that. As I said, I think that we have gone slightly in a circle.
Lord Wise: Yes. The right is already there; but it is a question of this unreasonable refusal. If the amendment was accepted, it would eliminate all possible doubt. However, I am grateful for the remarks made by those Members of the Committee who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but will perhaps return to the issue at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 134A:
Page 40, leave out lines 38 and 39.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is intended to ensure that women are entitled to paid maternity leave. It would remove the provision in the Bill which excludes the right to pay from the general right to maternity leave. The EC directive on pregnant workers states:
"Provision concerning maternity leave would serve no purpose unless accompanied by the maintenance of rights linked to the employment contract and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance".

537
The Bill, however, excludes entitlement to pay—perhaps the most important contractual right of all —despite the fact that it is intended to implement the directive.
In Committee in another place, I understand that the Government objected to the inclusion of any right to pay in the Bill on the grounds that it was a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security, and that an announcement would be made in due course. However, no announcement has yet been made. It is quite unsatisfactory to exclude quite specifically any reference to pay as the Bill does, especially when the Bill makes major changes in women's maternity rights at work. Quite obviously the issues of pay and leave are interlinked in the minds of both employees and employers. While the Government may boast—they probably will - that the UK offers the longest period of maternity leave, it is certainly not the best paid. On the contrary, we are fairly near the bottom of the league of payment. In Germany the figure is 14 weeks on 100 per cent. of salary; in France it is 16 weeks on 84 per cent. of salary; and in the Netherlands it is 16 weeks on 100 per cent. of salary.
In the UK, however, we appear to have a two-tier system. For a woman who has worked two years full time for the same employer, the entitlement is six weeks on 90 per cent. of salary and 12 weeks on statutory maternity pay of £46.30 a week. The second tier arrangement is for women who have been employed continuously for 26 weeks with the same employer. In that event the entitlement is 18 weeks on statutory maternity pay of £46.30.
I am sure that it need hardly be said that the poverty of women and families is greatly increased by a lack of adequate income when women have to stop work temporarily to have a baby. Working wives contribute an average of 25 per cent. of family incomes and in the poorest families this proportion rises to 30 per cent. The period of child-bearing is one of relative poverty for many families, particularly those who are habitually low paid, as the new baby increases demands on the family budget while the income is reduced because of the lack of the woman's wage. Maternity benefits are therefore crucial in ensuring the health and well-being of both mothers and babies.
In case it may be argued by the Government that higher levels of maternity benefit would lead to less employment for women—the argument often advanced when there is pressure to improve social conditions and wage levels for women—it must be said that no evidence has been produced to establish a link between levels of employment and levels of maternity provision.
Incidentally, the amendment does not deal with levels of maternity benefit in any event. Nevertheless I would be grateful for the Minister's response. I must say it seems to me inappropriate—this point has been referred to by a number of Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Blease —that provisions relating to equal rights, maternity benefits and the rest should be scattered over so many different pieces of legislation. I think that pay is a
538
crucial element in the discussion of leave for maternity purposes. I await the Minister's response. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: If a woman's contract of employment entitles her to receive her normal remuneration—that is, her wages or salary—during maternity leave, then the Bill will not affect that entitlement. However, to provide that she should continue to receive her normal wages even where she had no such contractual entitlement—which would be the effect of this amendment—would place an entirely unreasonable additional burden on employers.
Improvements in employment protection rights have necessarily to be balanced against their costs and their likely impact on employment opportunities. The amendment would impose very substantial increased costs—of the order of £400 million to £500 million per annum, we estimate. Such a heavy burden could regrettably deter many employers from taking on women of child-bearing age and would have severely damaging effects on their employment prospects.
The EC Pregnant Workers Directive contains no such requirement. Rather it provides that women should receive an adequate payment or allowance during maternity leave. After long and difficult negotiations, which were brought to a successful conclusion under the UK Presidency, the EC Council of Ministers decided that women on maternity leave should be paid no less than the statutory pay to which they would be entitled when absent from work due to sickness. Maternity benefits are, however, a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and he will in due course be bringing forward legislation to implement the maternity pay requirements of the directive. I cannot therefore support this amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I wonder whether the Minister can give the Committee any indication of when the Secretary of State for Social Security is likely to make an announcement on this issue. We are debating maternity leave. As I said earlier, women also want to know what they are likely to receive by way of remuneration. I did not make the plea for full pay; I simply referred to those cases in the EC where full pay is available in certain instances. At present there is statutory maternity allowance. That is not a great deal of money. If we are looking at maternity leave presumably pay is also being examined, I hope to consider whether any increases may be available. Is it known when there is likely to be such an announcement?
Viscount Ullswater: The directive was not adopted until 19th October. Unlike the provisions concerning maternity leave and dismissal, the provisions on pay were in doubt until the very last minute. That is why negotiations on the directive were so difficult.
I can only say that the Government need time to consider the implications of the text very carefully. As the directive was adopted only on 19th October last year those implications are not clear.
Baroness Turner: of Camden: I hope that it will not be too long before there is an announcement because when considering maternity leave, people also think about the amount of allowances to which they are likely to be entitled when they take the leave.
I do not intend to press the amendment this evening, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to put on record the views just expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 40, line 44, at end insert:
("()For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) the provisions of any occupational pension scheme applying to the employee shall be treated as if they were terms and conditions of the employee's employment which would have been applicable to her if she had not been absent (and had not been pregnant or given birth to a child) and as terms and conditions of the employee's employment not relating to remuneration.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is an attempt to clarify the situation with regard to occupational pension provision. Section 33(1), on page 40 of the Bill, states that a woman shall be:
"entitled to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have been applicable to her if she had not been absent".
It is not always clear whether the terms of an occupational pension scheme can be treated as an employee's contract of employment. Therefore, if the woman cannot prove that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to her include the occupational pension scheme, she may find that in regard to that scheme she is not considered as having been continuously in employment for the period during which she took maternity leave. Perhaps the value of the employer's contributions will not, therefore, accrue to her.
The Minister may claim that Schedule 5, paragraph 5 of the Social Security Act 1989 already provides protection of women's occupational pension rights while on maternity leave. I understand, however, that that provision has not yet been brought into force. Meantime in this Bill we are dealing with maternity leave and the rights, to which pregnant women become entitled at work. It would be appropriate to deal with the matter of occupational pension provision in this section.
Indeed, this issue has aroused some interest in the press. I remember reading recently an article in the financial columns of one of the Sunday newspapers in which the issue of occupational pension provision during maternity leave was raised quite sharply. Therefore, we are not the only ones to have some anxiety about the matter. I await with interest what the Minister has to say on the subject. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, felt it necessary to table the amendment. I thought that the subject had been fully aired in another place. However, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that we are entirely in accord with the amendment's aims but that the amendment itself is wholly unnecessary.
540
The EC directive, and the Bill, provide that an employee's right to normal wages does not have to be continued during her maternity leave—in other words, it can stop when she stops work to have her baby. But that is the only contractual term which does not continue. All her other contractual rights continue throughout her 14 weeks' leave. That includes her contractual pension rights. Nothing more needs to be provided in the Bill to achieve that.
When it was first published the Bill used the word "pay" for that part of the contract which was not to continue throughout maternity leave. However, on further reflection it was considered that the word "pay" might, mistakenly in our view, be interpreted too widely, to cover matters such as pensions and other non-monetary aspects of the payments package which might then be withheld. We never intended that, and in any case it would be contrary to the Pregnant Workers Directive.
The Government therefore amended the provisions to refer to the narrower term "remuneration" rather than "pay". I can assure the noble Baroness that that will have the desired effect. The term is used elsewhere in employment protection legislation, in particular in Schedule 14 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 19'78, where it has been interpreted in the way that we intend. We will make clear in our explanatory guidance that pensions and other matters beyond monetary wages and salary are not included in the term "remuneration" and are therefore required under the statute to continue throughout the maternity leave period.
I hope that the noble Baroness is suitably reassured and will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that it was necessary to explore the issue again. I am quite convinced that there is a lack of understanding—there certainly was on my part—that occupational pensions were covered in the way that he indicated. In view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 41, leave out lines 1 to 20 and insert:
("34. An employee's maternity leave period commences on the date specified in section 37 being a date not earlier than the beginning of the eleventh week before the expected week of childbirth or the day on which childbirth occurs, whichever is earlier.").
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 136 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 137 and 138.
As the Bill stands, it could possibly penalise women who are off sick due to a pregnancy-related illness. If that involves an absence before or during the 11 weeks before the expected week of confinement, as I understand it the absence would be considered as maternity leave from the beginning of the eleventh week. It would thus seem that it would be possible for a woman's maternity leave to be used up if she had been sick before the birth. That clearly is not acceptable.
Therefore we welcome the response of the Minister. It is a relatively simple and brief point. A similar point

541
arises in Amendments Nos. 137 and 138. If the amendment were accepted it would protect someone who has sickness but who is in danger of using up the stipulated period of leave unless the amendment is accepted. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I am unable to support the amendment. I understand from the grouping on the Marshalled List that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 and 142 to 147.
While I am firmly of the view that the start of maternity leave as far as possible should be a matter of individual choice, this must not be at unacceptable expense to others. The Government have already given very careful consideration to the kind of matters raised by the noble Baroness, and indeed have already taken them on board as far as possible.
The two groups of amendments have broadly the same intention. Those moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also have the admirable aim of simplifying the provisions. Unfortunately, however, this is only achieved, and can only be achieved, at unacceptable cost. It would increase burdens on employers unjustifiably to allow women to choose when to begin their leave right up to the birth, even if the imminence of the birth meant they were not well enough to continue working. The provisions in the Bill need to balance employees' rights against the cost to employers. They need to provide flexibility where necessary. I regret that the noble Baroness's amendments do not meet those requirements.
It has always been the Government's intention to allow a woman freedom of choice about when to start her maternity leave right up to the birth in almost all cases. However, where a pregnant employee is absent for a pregnancy-related illness it becomes necessary to consider the additional burden that this may place on employers.
In such a case where she was obliged to start her maternity leave soon after the eleventh week before the baby was due, the woman's leave could run out much earlier than she had intended and she would be left with less time at home with her baby after its birth than she had planned for.
The provisions were therefore amended to give all employees, including the minority who suffer a pregnancy-related illness, complete freedom of choice between the eleventh and sixth week before their baby is due. Accordingly, a woman who is sick for any reason during that time will be able to choose to take sick leave rather than begin her statutory maternity leave.
No woman will therefore be obliged to start her maternity leave earlier than six weeks before the expected birth, allowing a valuable period of leave after the birth. Those who remain well will, of course, still have complete freedom of choice about when to start their maternity leave from the eleventh week right up to the baby's birth.
However, we did not think it justifiable to go so far as the noble Baroness proposes. If the employee becomes ill for a reason connected with the impending
542
birth as near as six weeks or less before the baby is due, her maternity leave will be automatically triggered to begin.
Indeed, most women will have already stopped work by this time. Only this small minority could be compelled under the Bill's provisions to begin their leave earlier than they would otherwise have chosen —and most of them are in any case likely to stop work of their own accord rather than because they have to.
The research found that 85 per cent. of pregnant employees were ready to begin their leave on or before the sixth week. However, if the noble Baroness's amendments were agreed, anyone who was unable to work for a pregnancy-related reason might continue to take sick leave right up to the birth of her baby. This would artificially extend her total period of leave and would be an unacceptable burden on employers, who would be obliged to cope without her for much longer than they had envisaged.
The noble Baroness will, I feel sure, acknowledge that we have gone a long way down the route that she proposes. I hope she can now also agree that it would be unreasonable to impose the further burden on employers that the amendments would require.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not altogether surprised that the Minister has taken that attitude to the amendment, although I would point out that the amendment and others of a similar nature appear on the Marshalled List with the support of a number of organisations. They include specialist ones concerned with maternity like Maternity Alliance, the Fawcett Society, the Equal Opportunities Commission and other organisations concerned with women's rights, particularly in maternity.
I am disturbed to learn that the Minister advanced as a reason for not accepting the amendment that it would be an unacceptable burden on employers, presumably because it would cost too much. Yet a few sentences later he acknowledged that it would apply only in a small minority of cases. We are talking about a small minority of women who become ill during pregnancy. Unless there is a provision of this kind, they could well use up the entire, or a large part of, their maternity leave, with only a small part left after the birth of the baby, in order to stay with the baby before returning to work.
I am disappointed that we have not received, if I may say so, a more understanding response from the Minister. However, it is not my intention to press the amendment at this stage, even though we may come back with something similar at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 41, line 23, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("eighteen").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment substitutes the period of 18 weeks for 14 weeks. Before the Minister tells us that this would be an unbearable additional burden on employers, I would point out that in some ways it will simplify employers' lives

543
because the statutory sick pay period is 18 weeks. This would bring the periods into line so that employers would not have two different periods with which to deal when making their calculations. The cases would be the same.
The extension of the period to 18 weeks is strongly supported by organisations such as Maternity Alliance and others concerned with the well-being of women. I very much hope that the Government—who are not in a giving mood this evening—will realise that this is an improvement which would be widely welcomed. It makes good sense and would add little to the burdens on employers. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment which has already been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Many women choose to leave work 11 weeks before the baby is due. A recent study showed that 48 per cent. of women had stopped work by the 1lth week; 37 per cent. said they stopped because of tiredness or illness. Under the new scheme, if a woman leaves 11 weeks before the baby is due, as said on the earlier amendment she will have only three weeks' maternity leave after the baby is born. As I said earlier, that is clearly inadequate. I am sure that, as with the previous amendment the Government will advance the cost argument as their reason for complying with the EC directive to only the minimum extent necessary. But many employers welcome what is proposed in the amendment. It takes time and money to train staff. If a woman is bound to return after 14 weeks, she may decide that it is better not to come back at all. If she has the extra time, her reaction will almost certainly be different.
One of the major banks, which operates very good child-care provisions, including leave for family reasons, estimates that the provision of good maternity leave—I emphasise good maternity leave —saves £8,000 to £10,000 a head on replacing employees.
Extending the period of leave to 18 weeks would also have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the advantage of simplification. It would line up with statutory maternity pay. Employers already administer 18 weeks' statutory maternity pay. There is no evidence that the additional weeks would add to administrative difficulties; the reverse may possibly be the case. There may well be savings if a woman's return to work is easier and smoother, as it surely would be after 18 weeks' leave. Maternity leave is too short. Some women may have to take sick leave after maternity. In such a situation the employer would be in a worse position than if we had had the longer period in operation already. So there are a number of arguments in favour of the amendment and I hope that the Government will look favourably upon it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: On a previous amendment, I asked if it was possible for the welfare of the child to be considered in an employment Bill. I spent a minute or two on that subject but received no answer from the Minister. I wonder whether he would consider answering on this amendment. There are compelling reasons why women should maintain breast-feeding. This amendment would help them to
544
do so. That is in line with the policy of the Department of Health. Recent research has shown that UK babies who are breast fed for 13 weeks or more a re three times less likely than bottle-fed babies to contract gastro-intestinal illness. Breast feeding also protects against respiratory infection, childhood cancer, diabetes and cot-death.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated:
"We are quite clear and unequivocal that mother's milk is best for babies—particularly for the first few weeks of life. This is the message we must get across to all mothers".
I would add: "To all legislators, and particularly to Ministers in the Department of Employment".
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked me to consider the effect on the baby as well as on the mother and chided me for not having spoken already to that point on a previous amendment. When looking at maternity leave, we have to consider very carefully indeed the health of the mother. In doing so we could not ignore the child. Therefore I believe that the remarks we are making about maternity leave implicitly include the health and welfare of the child.
I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who moved the amendment, that I cannot accept it. It has been thoroughly debated in another place. To increase from 14 weeks to 18 weeks the length of the statutory maternity leave to which all women are entitled, irrespective of length of service or hours of work, would increase employers' costs significantly. Fourteen weeks' leave has been accepted by all EC member states in the terms of the pregnant workers directive as being a reasonable minimum statutory leave entitlement. The noble Baroness argued that 18 weeks is necessary because 14 weeks may give women insufficient time with their baby after the birth and also because it coincides with the statutory maternity pay regulations as they exist at present.
Let us examine the facts. The Bill would allow all pregnant employees complete freedom to choose when to begin their maternity leave right up to the time of the birth, with the sole exception of the small minority who suffer a pregnancy related sickness during the final six weeks before the birth, whose leave will be triggered by their first day of absence.
I still have the feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in some way is indicating that sickness would compel them to start their maternity leave earlier, which would not allow them the full eight weeks after the child is born. I want to make certain that she understands that point. She said that it would leave perhaps only three weeks after the child was born. If it is a pregnancy related illness they would only have to start maternity leave six weeks before the estimated birth of the child, unless they chose to start earlier.
Accordingly, the great majority of women will be free to take most of their maternity leave after the birth and even the minority whose leave is triggered, by sickness will have a considerable period of leave remaining after the birth. The Bill does not prevent

545
employers and employees from negotiating a longer period of leave on a voluntary basis according to their own priorities, needs and circumstances.
Furthermore, women who meet the qualifying criteria will be entitled, as at present, to a longer maternity absence. In addition to their 14 weeks' maternity leave, which may begin up to 11 weeks before the expected week of childbirth, they will be able to take a further absence lasting up to 29 weeks from the beginning of the actual week of childbirth, giving a total of up to 40 weeks' absence from work (or longer if the baby is late) as under the present provisions of the 1978 Act.
With those reassurances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry but not in the least surprised by the reaction of the noble Viscount. At this time of night and with so few Members present, it would be foolish to press the amendment. Therefore I must regretfully withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 41, line 23, leave out from ("or") to end of line 24 and insert:

("(a) if earlier, until the employee returns to work in accordance with section 37A, or

(b) if later, until the birth of the child.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 149. Amendment No. 140 makes clear that a woman may, at her discretion, decide to end her maternity leave and resume her career at any point in time rather than having to wait out the full 14-week period or longer. I fully appreciate the requirement to provide for 14 weeks' maternity leave, which is an obligation placed on the Government by the European directive on the protection of pregnant workers.
However, it is highly probable that the proposed wording to implement that part of the European law will lead to confusion in what is already a complicated area for both employers and employees alike. The problem is that, if Clause 22 is left as currently drafted, it will introduce a new Section 35(1) into the 1978 Act. That in turn will state that once a woman commences her maternity leave it shall continue for at least 14 weeks. But what happens if the woman decides to return to work after, say, 13 weeks or some other shorter period? Is she to be treated as being at work —which she is—and paid accordingly? Or is she to be treated as not at work but still on maternity leave? We believe that the latter position, though contrary to good sense, is what the Bill currently demands.
By way of example of the problems that may arise, I heard of a dedicated and presumably healthy professional woman who only took one week off for both her children, including the birth. She would no doubt be extremely unpopular with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for not doing what, in his view, is right. But I understand that the children are healthy and so is the mother.
Amendment No. 149 achieves two further important advantages in the conduct of good employment practice. First, it will align the
546
requirements placed on all women who wish to return to work. Rather than have one rule for women who have two years' service or more and, confusingly, another rule for all other women, it would be far better to have a uniform rule; that is, that all women should have the right to return to their careers upon giving their employers advance notice. It is undoubtedly an advantage to have a simple uniform rule. The second advantage arises as a result of the first; that is, that the employer will know with some certainty that a woman is returning, when she is returning and that she has returned to work. It is the "when" that is important. As drafted the Bill does not call for that.
The current drafting of the Bill permits a woman to commence maternity leave, return to work, go back on maternity leave and so forth for a duration of at least 14 weeks. Meanwhile, the employer will not know where he stands in relation to the employee from one week to the next.
The problem does not arise only with the employer and the employee; it arises also with the person the employer has to find to stand in for the employee who is away. That is particularly difficult for the vast number of medium-sized companies which do not have the flexibility of large companies which have people who can come in as replacements in skilled jobs where replacements are essential. Small companies, which have considerable problems anyway, will have to make special arrangements to make themselves flexible. But it is the middle-sized companies, of which there are a vast number and which are extremely important, to which the problem mainly applies.
The Government may be sympathetic to Amendment No. 149. I hope that they are, because it is a problem that must be addressed. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find these amendments slightly worrying. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will make clear whether there would be a breach of the European directive if people were allowed to take less than 14 weeks as is provided for in the amendment. As I understand it, if it was by mutual agreement, the situation might be different. My worry is that an unscrupulous employer might put pressure on someone to come back before the 14 weeks expired if there was authority to do that.
As a small employer I find it extremely difficult when people say that they are going to return after maternity leave and the vacancy has to be kept open and temporary staff employed. On the two occasions I experienced it, the employees did not return. It was disappointing when such a lot had been done to keep the vacancy open for them.
I therefore understand the difficulties. But many women themselves are not sure whether or not they want to return or exactly how and what their circumstances will be after the baby is born. One must give notice before one takes leave and therefore the mothers have to commit themselves before they really know what their situation will be after the birth. I therefore have some reservations about the amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's points, particularly in respect of his second suggestion about notice of an early return.
In the majority of cases the employer will be in no doubt about when to expect his employee to return to work after maternity leave. Most women will take their full entitlement, and most of those who do not will want to be in touch with their employer in any case.
I can see that it may be difficult for an employer who has had to take on a temporary replacement to cover for a woman on maternity leave if she turns up on his doorstep without warning before her leave is exhausted and simply announces that she is back. The employer would probably have to give her replacement at least a week's notice. I agree that the Bill should provide some assistance for the employer in these circumstances. I hope my noble friend will accept my undertaking to consider this further and to return with a suitable government amendment on report. However, I hope I can persuade my noble friend that his first amendment is unnecessary and, to the extent that it has any effect at all, will be likely to call into question our adherence to the directive's requirements, as carefully pointed out by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
My noble friend is concerned that there will be confusion about whether a woman who has returned to work before the end of her maternity leave period will nevertheless still be treated as if she is on leave until the end of the 14 weeks. In effect, will there be a query about her entitlement to normal remuneration? This is very largely a drafting matter, but I think the provisions are clear enough on this point. The special provisions in new Section 31(1) which continue the woman's contractual benefits other than remuneration apply only when she is absent from work. If she is not absent her normal contract applies without any special adaptation.
In practice, we do not consider there will be a great deal of difference between the approach the Bill takes and that adopted in the amendment, but the Bill ensures marginally better dismissal protection and freedom of choice about working during the 14-week period. This is consistent with the directive and I cannot accept that we should change this position. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps my noble friend will clarify one point. I believe that he referred to new Section 31(1). Was he really referring to Section 35(1)?
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry if I confused my noble friend. I was referring to Section 33(1).
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend particularly for what he said about my second amendment, Amendment No. 149. I shall look forward with great interest to seeing an amendment of his to cover that ground at the next stage of the Bill.
I understand the misgivings of noble Lords. I will read with great care what my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes have
548
said to see whether I wish to pursue the first of the two amendments. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 41, line 24, at end insert:
("() Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an employee may extend her maternity leave if, before the expiry of her maternity leave, she gives her employer a certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner stating that by reason of disease or bodily or mental disablement, she will be incapable of work at the end of her period of maternity leave. In such case her maternity leave shall continue until the expiry of the period for which she is certified by a registered medical practitioner as being incapable of work.").
The noble Baroness said: I very much hope that the Minister will consider this amendment favourably. It applies to only a relatively small number of people and depends upon a registered medical practitioner making quite clear that a woman is suffering from a pregnancy-related illness. When that is so and the registered medical practitioner is prepared to state that such is her condition, her maternity leave can be appropriately extended. Obviously there are certain cases where this measure will be most appropriate, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I cannot think that it will involve a great deal of additional expenditure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The only point that causes worry is that the registered medical practitioner can be anyone, such as the woman's GP. We find in tribunal that many medical practitioners are quite happy to sign anything for anyone. Therefore, if one is to consider this amendment—which I believe has great merit—it should be possible for either the employer's doctor or an entirely independent doctor to give an opinion as well as the GP. My experience is that most GPs do not like to displease their patients and regularly sign certificates that the tribunal finds somewhat questionable.
Lord Mottistone: I support that second statement. The poor company that is landed with this would have to pay the person who is incapable of work for ages—for years perhaps. Any guarantee of the nature my noble friend suggested would be vital.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness but I do not agree that this is an amendment we should accept. It would, in fact, provide very little further protection than is already provided under the terms of the Bill before us; and to the extent that it does provide extra protection, it goes too far. The Bill has got it right.
The noble Baroness suggests that employers are likely to dismiss a woman purely because she is ill as a result of the birth of her baby and cannot return to work after maternity leave. I do not believe that this would be a common occurrence. In any case, if the real reason for the woman's dismissal is that she has exercised her right to take leave, she is protected under the Bill as drafted. If it is that her employer thinks mothers make bad employees she is protected by the Sex Discrimination Act. If she has two years' service she can complain of unfair dismissal. And the Bill

549
already protects the woman in exactly the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness for four weeks after the end of her maternity leave period.
What cases will fall through this tightly drawn net? The only cases will be those where the woman cannot return to work even four weeks after the end of her maternity leave and whose employer therefore sacks her. Such cases cannot be common. But in any event I do not think it would be right to insist that an employer had to carry such an employee indefinitely, as the amendment would provide. I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The provisions give women very strong protection against dismissal, going beyond the requirements of the pregnant workers directive. To go any further would be, as I have said before, an unreasonable burden on business. There must come a point when the woman cannot claim special treatment but must take what is offered to all the other employees in the workforce who have no special protection if they are absent on long-term sick leave. I hope we can all agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Seear: The noble Viscount is exaggerating the number of cases that are likely to arise. I imagine that the kind of case envisaged is postnatal depression, which I understand is not a very common complaint. But it does occur and it takes time to get over. It is in cases of that kind that the amendment would be helpful. Once again, there is no point in pressing it further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 41, line 24, at end insert:
("() Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, where an employee has been continuously employed for two years by the beginning of the eleventh week before the expected date of childbirth, her maternity leave period shall continue from its commencement for the period of 40 weeks or such earlier date as the employee notifies to the employer in writing.").
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to go into this amendment in detail but just formally to move it and say that its purpose is to simplify the Bill. I ask for the Minister's comments.
Viscount Ullswater: During the 14-week minimum period of maternity leave which the Government are introducing in the Bill, women's contracts of employment will subsist and they will have a statutory right to continue to receive all the benefits of those contracts as if they were still at work. The only exception is entitlement to normal wages or salary.
During the additional maternity absence period, however, whether or not the contract subsists will depend on its own provisions, and women will have no statutory right to their normal terms and conditions of employment. Rather, this will be a matter for negotiation and agreement between the employer and the employee, according to their priorities, needs and circumstances. That is the position at the moment for those women who qualify for maternity absence, and the Government see no justification for changing it.
550
If we were to accept the amendment, it would mean that a woman during the long maternity absence period would always retain the right to full contractual benefits—luncheon vouchers, say, or a company car, or continued accrual of pension contributions or holiday entitlement—even if the contract of employment, as agreed between the employer and employee, specifically provided that such benefits should not continue during that period of absence.
No such change is required by the EC pregnant workers directive, and it would in the Government's view be a wholly unjustifiable additional burden on business, which would damage women's employment prospects. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that very full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 149 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert:
("Paternity leave
39.—(l) An employee whose spouse has given birth shall be entitled to take ten working days leave (referred to in this section as paternity leave).
(2) Paternity leave can be taken at any time from the birth until the end of three months following the birth.
(3) An employee on paternity leave shall be entitled to full pay.
(4) The employee has the right to decide when to take paternity leave except that the employer must be given:

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

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

(5) For the purposes of this section a spouse includes a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife.
(6) Regulations may provide for the provisions of the 1978 Act and Schedule 2 to this Act, to have effect as if the words "given birth" were substituted "accepted the placement of a child for adoption" and the regulations may include such incidental or supplemental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or desirable." ").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a provision for paternity leave. It provides for 10 days paternity leave to be taken within the first three months, with due notice and reasonable provision to be given to the employer. It is a provision which already exists in the United States where it is extremely popular. Fathers often wish to get involved at an early stage. That is something which ought to be facilitated.
I have indicated already that I believe that we are going through an enormous process of change in the patterns of division of labour between the sexes. That is the situation in which stereotypes must change and in which the law has to change to keep up with them. It is not the business of the state to press people

551
towards one pattern or another. The process of adjustment will take a very long time and it will be very individual and very far from uniform. The state should avoid making it needlessly difficult for people to work out those adjustments for themselves.
Members of the Government talk from time to time about the need to encourage and strengthen the family. There is a lot of sense in that. I have never ceased to be grateful that my own eldest child happened to be born in the vacation. The extra involvement which that made possible did make possible a process of bonding which I believe otherwise could not have happened.
Those first few days with the new baby are also a very busy period indeed. Even if there is not any shifting of the stereotypes, there is a vast amount of extra things to do such as rushing to and fro to the chemist and fetching this and that. A great many men may wish to be at home to contribute to that. If they are able to do so the mother may—if I may revert briefly to the previous amendment—be able to recover faster and return to work sooner. That may well be in everybody's interest.
There is here a vast process of redefining roles to be done. When the man was the breadwinner then obviously the woman was the person responsible for childcare. When both parents work, I do not see why couples should not be able to work out for themselves how they divide the childcare. The Minister will probably make the point about the burden on business. It is a point which needs to be listened to because industrial costs should not wantonly be increased. However, if our industry is to work, it must be able to recruit the ablest people—the same sense as when Lord Palmerston, talking about Catholic emancipation, said that it was not in the public interest to exclude so many able persons from the public service.
If we are to employ the ablest people, which is in the interests of industry, the country and everybody, the law will have to make precisely the kind of adjustments suggested by this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I wish to support this amendment. It is a very modest amendment. It stipulates that 10 working days should be available to be taken as paternity leave. I understand that in the other place the Government claimed, in response, that it would place further burdens on employers—the usual argument which we have already heard this evening. However, no evidence to that effect has been produced.
There is now a widely held view, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred, that the sharing of childcare responsibilities between mothers and fathers is socially desirable. Not only does it mean that women are thus able to achieve greater genuine equality; it also leads to much greater involvement by fathers in their children's lives and in their development. It is believed that establishing strong paternal bonds at birth can facilitate that process.
At a time when there is so much concern (often voiced by Government spokespersons) about the decline of family loyalties and commitment—about
552
the breakdown of social cohesion—it seems strange that hitherto the Government have set their face against introducing provisions of this kind. A recent EOC study indicates that 91 per cent. of fathers favour the introduction of statutory paternity leave. Article 6 of the European Council recommends that member states should promote and encourage increased participation by men in order to achieve a more equal sharing of parental responsibilities between men and women to enable women to have a more effective role in the labour market.
There is some evidence that good employers are already providing varying periods of paternity leave to employees. The Government may say, "That is all right because it is a voluntary arrangement and up to the parties concerned", but a statutory obligation would mean that employers who are not quite so good would be bound to raise their standards. Surely that would be an excellent thing. I support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I am not able to accept this amendment. I do not consider that the measures proposed in this amendment are appropriate matters for legislation. The purpose of the statutory maternity provisions is to safeguard the mother's career while also giving her a period to prepare for and recover from childbirth and to nurse and care for her baby in its early life. The same considerations simply do not apply to paternity or adoption leave.
The introduction of such statutory requirements would unreasonably increase employers' costs and reduce job opportunities. I firmly believe that such measures—whether they concern paternity leave or adoption leave—are best dealt with on a voluntary basis by individual employers directly with the employees concerned, according to their own particular needs and circumstances.
With regard to paternity leave, the majority of companies in the UK do approach these matters on a voluntary footing. This ensures that they have the flexibility to tailor arrangements to the particular circumstances of each case, and allows them to take proper account of what can be afforded. Evidence has shown that this approach is working well. Recent CBI survey figures, for example, showed that 76 per cent. of employers surveyed offer men time off when their partners have a baby. To single out and impose one particular set of arrangements by law would undoubtedly jeopardise the wide range of voluntary childcare arrangements already in place.
Turning now to the suggestion that the maternity provisions should be extended to adoptive parents, I sympathise with the noble Earl's motives in bringing forward such a proposal, although it is doubtful whether the amendment as drafted would achieve this effect. I recognise that adoptive parents can sometimes face difficulties in combining work and family responsibilities. However, I have to say that I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for legislation.
The Government have carefully considered suggestions which have from time to time been made for the introduction of statutory maternity rights for adoptive mothers, but there are in our view too many

553
differences in circumstances between adoptive parents and birth parents to allow the application of the same provisions.
I understand that only about 15 per cent. of adoptions in England and Wales are of children under one year of age. Many adoptions can, and do occur up to the age of 18, sometimes after a period of long-term fostering. In these cases, the kind of considerations which underlie the provision for birth mothers are clearly different and would not apply.
Birth mothers who wish to return to work have a clear timescale on which to operate. In contrast, the timescale for adoption can be very uncertain. Sometimes the child is placed with adoptive parents at very short notice. In many cases, the employee would not be able to give the necessary advance notification. The unpredictability of adoption leave would create significant problems for employers and statutory regulation would clearly be an unacceptable burden on them.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: We are meeting with resistance the whole time on this Bill and I really do think that this resistance is absurd. The Minister said that 76 per cent. of employers are already making this provision. If that is so, it cannot be an intolerable burden or they would not be doing it.
Does not the Minister think that in the strains and stresses of having a new baby in the house (I speak at second-hand in these matters) it would be a tremendous help if the husband could be at home also? We no longer have aunts, grandmothers and other relations around, all lending a hand. One does not need much imagination to realise that, if the husband can be there to help, far from increasing the burdens on business it would speed up the woman's recovery, and—I was going to say ease the stress on the father, but I am not so sure about that on second thoughts. Surely this is a matter that can be reconsidered. It has been stressed again and again by the European Community, and the Government's obstinacy over this matter is extremely difficult to understand.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Earl replies, will the Minister say something about the noble Earl's assertion that a similar provision applies already in the United States? I wonder whether it applies by statute there. If it does, why is it inappropriate for it to apply by statute in this country? I did not follow the Minister's argument as to why it was inappropriate for it to be a statutory provision. The most substantial point the noble Earl made related to the changes taking place in civilised countries as a result of equal opportunities and the employment of women. That implies that there should be a sharing of the responsibility of looking after very young children. Therefore civilised countries should make the kind of provision that the noble Earl proposes.
I was pleased to hear the Minister tell us that many companies make such provision, but for some reason
554
he said that it should be left to companies to make it of their own accord and that it should not be a statutory obligation. That means that better off families in higher paid employment—in other words, middle class families—will benefit from the provision when they are already prepared to provide for the welfare of the child. Those people at the bottom of the heap who are poor or who may be out of work and living on social security benefits will not have that kind of provision and so they will be all the more deprived in comparison with their better off fellow citizens. A strong case can be made out for provision to improve the welfare and care of our young people. The amendment should be considered seriously by the Government. I hope that the Minister will take it away and perhaps reply more positively on Report.
Viscount Ullswater: I tried to give a considered and careful reply to all the points raised. I said that the provision relating to adoption would introduce complexity into legislation, and that it was an area into which we should not stray. On paternity leave, I have to remind the Committee that the EC pregnant workers directive makes no provision in relation to paternity leave. It gives rights to birth mothers only. There has been no movement on a draft directive on parental leave since 1986, when the European Commission shelved the current directive.
I tried to indicate that a number of firms—I quoted the figure of 76 per cent.—are making the provision available to men. I believe that that is the right way to go and I do not believe that it is right to impose this by law on others.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister is an optimist. He said that he hoped to convince me. It was not an extremely successful attempt. The Minister pointed out also that there is no provision for paternity leave in the EC directive but the Minister might, with profit, look again at the draft 1983 EC directive which made provision for this type of paternity leave. It is a breath of fresh air to read that directive after the reply that we have just had. The Minister may consider whether the fact that the EC has not recently tried to implement this provision is simply because it knows that it will encounter a veto from this country.
The Minister said—and I found this very curious—that this is not a matter appropriate for legislation. The Minister has already admitted that maternity leave is a matter appropriate for legislation and he has, by implication, admitted that that arises from a need to care for the child as well as the physical circumstances of giving birth. Therefore, I simply do not see why paternity leave is not appropriate for legislation unless it is on the very outdated assumption that the care of young children is something of which only women are capable. As a man, I take exception to any such view. That is a very curious argument indeed.
The Minister also argued against imposing things by law. I tried to argue in my original speech that this is a matter which should be left to freedom of choice in that different families will wish to evolve different

555
patterns. However, there is nothing in the amendment which would compel any new father to take paternity leave. If he does not want to do it, that is entirely up to him. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the course of action for those who wish to do so. I cannot see that that is imposing anything by law on prospective fathers.
I agree with the Minister about the importance of the mother's career and making it easier for her to return to work. But I agree also with everything that my noble friend Lady Seear said about the relevance of having a father at home capable of running about and helping generally, particularly if the mother has had a difficult birth and is for a while somewhat exhausted, as happens from time to time.
The Minister's arguments are already outdated and in five years' time they will look extremely outdated. I also am an optimist. I hope, in the end, to convert the Minister. However, I do not believe that I shall do that this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 151
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Computation of period of employment for purpose of maternity rights
. In Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act, the following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 3—
"save for the purpose of section 39(1) (b) where any week in which the employee is employed for eight hours or more shall count in computing a period of employment." ").
The noble Baroness said: This clause is similar to the one which follows it and both are concerned with the same point. The intention is to give part-time workers who work eight hours or more per week the same rights when it comes to computing the period which counts towards entitlement to maternity leave as full-time workers.
The present clause which we seek to amend in Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act reads:
"Any week in which the employee is employed for sixteen hours or more shall count in computing a period of employment".
Our Amendment No. 151 adds:
"save for the purpose of section 39(1) (b) where any week in which the employee is employed for eight hours or more shall count in computing a period of employment".
It seems fair to look at extending the rights to people who work eight hours or more and not limiting the provision in the way that we do currently. I remind the Committee that some time ago the European Communities Select Committee of this Chamber reported on the EC directive relative to part-time and temporary employment. At that time that committee dealing with the EC directive, which was based on the assumption that part-time employment was for eight hours a week and more, recommended that there should be pro rata benefits for employees in that category.
As the Committee will be aware, a large number of women find it difficult to work full-time. A large number of them find it difficult even to work 16 hours. Quite a substantial proportion of the workforce—about 88 per cent.—working between eight hours and
556
16 hours a week are women. It seems fair to say that when it comes to computing entitlement to maternity rights, they should have their employment taken into consideration if it has amounted to eight hours or more a week. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I wish briefly to support this amendment which, as the noble Baroness has said, is very much in line with the subsequent amendment which I shall not move as its substance is being discussed now. Part-time work has in the past been regarded as very subordinate to full-time work. However, we must face the fact that in future part-time work will form an important element of working life in this country. The rights of part-time workers and the opportunities for them should be reinforced and safeguarded. That is the intention of the EC directive. I know the Government have resisted that directive, but this is at least one way in which we can start to emphasise that part-time workers are just as entitled, on a pro rata basis, to the benefits which are available for full-time workers. The sooner we get that principle accepted—this is a good way of starting—the better.
Viscount Ullswater: In speaking to Amendment No. 151, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 152 and 194. Both noble Baronesses have done their best to persuade me to accept that these additional burdens should be imposed on employers. I am afraid I cannot do so.
Turning first to the amendments dealing with maternity, I have to say that 40 weeks is a very considerable period of time. It may well not he particularly easy for employers to keep a job open for such a length of time when their employee stops work to have a baby. It is, to repeat a well-worn phrase, a burden on business.
That is why we think it right to reduce the burden by applying the right, not to all employees, but to those who have established a substantial period of service with their employer. Two years' service is the period which was laid down by the Opposition's predecessors in 1975 for employees who work for as little as perhaps two days a week. Those same predecessors believed that women who worked less than two days a week should acquire this very significant right only after a period of five years' service with their employer. This Government agree with that.
It would not be justifiable, in our view, to ask employers to keep open a job for 40 weeks where the job consists of working for fewer than two days a week and the employee has not been in that employment for a very considerable length of time. It would be a very real deterrent from offering such jobs at all, or in particular offering them to women of childbearing age, and would therefore be counterproductive in effect.
I know there are strong feelings in the Chamber about the rights of part-time workers. I would like to emphasise that the Government are fully aware and appreciative of the valuable role played by flexible employment practices, and in particular by part-time working, in the British economy. The UK has a

557
greater proportion of women working part-time than any other member state except the Netherlands, and this reflects the fact that our policies are designed to encourage, not deter, people from offering or accepting this flexible kind of work. We do not want to see job opportunities diminish for those who wish only to work a relatively few hours each week. However, this would be the likely effect of the amendment before us.
Amendment No. 194, which seeks to extend the whole range of employment protection rights to those who work only eight hours a week, would be even less acceptable. The Committee must not be misled into thinking that part-time employees have no employment protection rights. The vast majority of employees—91 per cent.—either already qualify for protection from unfair dismissal and other employment protection rights or will do so after two years' service. That includes those working as little as two days a week.
Moreover, many employment protection rights apply universally, without any period of qualifying service. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that anyone dismissed because of their sex or race or for reasons connected with their trade union membership, for example, has immediate access to an industrial tribunal. Furthermore, we are adding to those immediate access categories in the Bill, in relation to pregnancy and health and safety functions, for which there will also be no qualifying period.
The Government have, in addition, tabled an important amendment, which we shall be discussing later this evening, to protect all employees, regardless of their length of service or hours of work, from being dismissed simply because they are reasonably exercising statutory employment rights. Another important government amendment will remove the qualifying period from the entitlement to an itemised pay statement for most employees working eight to 16 hours a week. Those are important protections with which we can all agree.
However, to go further is unjustifiable; it would inhibit job opportunities and damage the labour market. The line must be drawn, and we believe that the Labour Government of 1975 drew it in the right place. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: This is not my amendment, but I want to make two points.
I find extraordinary, the noble Viscount's argument that the Government are offering a big deal to part-time workers when they say that they are to be protected if they exercise their statutory rights. It is extraordinary that they should give people statutory rights and then graciously say that they protect them if they use them. That is a strange argument.
The other point that I should like to raise with the noble Viscount, which is one that I have wanted to raise for quite a long time in this connection, is to ask whether it has ever occurred to him that from the employer's point of view it may be much easier to take someone on for a 40-week period than to find someone for just a very few weeks? If I was looking for
558
a part-time job I would not be very interested in one which was guaranteed to last only for 11 weeks, or whatever the period will be, until the woman returns. If there is a period of nearly a year it is very much more of a job and it is very much more attractive to someone considering taking it. I have always thought that our period of maternity leave was about the worst from the point of view of employers: it is too long to manage without somebody but too short to make satisfactory alternative arrangements.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to add my support to the amendments. It is most important that the legislature should give a signal to women—as this amendment would—about the importance which the Government attach to part-time work. The amendment would do that.
I cannot understand the relevance of the two amendments which the noble Viscount is to move later, and for which we are extremely grateful. They both show that the Government have been in a listening mode, because they were suggested in Committee in another place and are now being implemented in this House. One hopes that that listening mode will be revived in this Chamber, particularly on this issue. I ask the noble Viscount to consider the matter, take it back and be a little more forthcoming at Report stage.
Viscount Ullswater: I have been asked to respond. In my remarks I sought to indicate how the Government are considering the welfare of part-time workers. However, I believe that the amendment goes too far.
The noble Baroness suggested that 40 weeks is the right period. She did not say that the woman who was absent on maternity leave could exercise her right to return at any time. We are not dealing merely with a fixed 40-week period. We may be dealing with two people working at the same job, and that is a cost to the employer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not accept the arguments advanced this evening by the Minister. He referred to the fact that way back in 1975 the then Labour Government took a certain position. We have moved on quite a bit since 1975. I do not care which government were in power then: it is a long time ago. There have been EC directives and a great many advances on the equality front since then. The rights of part-time workers were part of an EC directive which was considered, as I said earlier, by your Lordships' Select Committee in December 1990. We looked at the situation in some depth then. We dealt with a number of the arguments then advanced by the Minister. They are rather similar to the ones that we have heard today.
However, we then stated:
"Extending these benefits, as of right, to larger numbers of part-time workers will benefit many employees who are not at present given sufficient recognition for their work. In the United Kingdom, existing employment protection legislation fails to ensure the rights of large numbers of part-time employees, many of whom are women working in jobs with low status and low pay. The draft Directives are a step in the right direction towards creating equal opportunities for women".

559
We were told the same story about the cost involved. However, we said:
"The Committee recognises that some increase in cost could be involved. We remain unconvinced of the accuracy of some of the estimates supplied by both the Government and by companies".
I do not accept what we have heard today. It is true that the UK has a greater proportion of part-time workers than in many EC countries. But I do not believe that that is because we offer such marvellous protection to part-time workers. I am quite certain that one of the reasons is that child care is not readily available for poorer people in this country. Therefore many women go back to work because they have to, they need the money, and working eight hours is about the maximum they can undertake and look after their child at the same time.
I do not find what has been said today acceptable. I do not press the amendment. However, I do not feel inclined to let the matter go. We may come back again on the issue of part-time workers at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Dismissal rights]:
11 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 152A:
Page 43, line 35, after ("dismissal") insert (",where").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 152B.
These are minor technical amendments which make no substantive changes to the clauses. They simply make clear that "where" refers to both subparagraphs of Section 60(d). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 152B:
Page 43, line 36, leave out ("where,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 44, line 16, at end insert ("; and on a complaint of unfair dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or childbirth, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal did not occur because of pregnancy.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to put the burden of proof on the employer where the question arises whether the dismissal may be due to pregnancy. It is a matter that already applies to those with above two years' service. The purpose of the amendment would be to extend that protection to those with less than two years' service.
The Minister will almost undoubtedly reply that it is already against the law to dismiss people because of pregnancy. We recognise that. We do not argue that the Government seek to say anything else. We argue that there are considerable difficulties in enforcing that right. Employers very consistently conceal dismissals which are probably because of pregnancy under the guise of something else. It is the problem of enforcement to which we wish the Minister to address his mind.
A great many employers have an unreasonable objection to pregnancy. So much so that one sometimes wonders how they got here! Let us consider some of the cases. We have one report by a citizens advice bureau in Manchester. A woman had to go to hospital with a threatened miscarriage. As soon as she rang her employer to notify him of that, she was told that her work and her attitude had deteriorated. One's attitude might well deteriorate for a day or two in that situation. She was dismissed.
Another case was of someone who was off sick for three days and was then dismissed because of sickness. In cases like that, the employer is not under any obligation, with someone who has served less than two years, to demonstrate that the dismissal was not because of pregnancy.
Another case was reported by the citizens advice bureaux in its report: Not in Labour. A woman informed her employer that she was pregnant and was instantly dismissed because he said that employing her was against his religion. I do not know what religion that was, and I assure the Committee that it did not happen at Waco in Texas; it happened in Cardiff. Another case was of someone who was dismissed as soon as she told her employer she was pregnant on the ground that she suffered from body odour.
One begins to wonder, with some of these dismissals, whether they are simply an unreasonable reaction to the pregnancy. 'We have here, as we had in at least one other amendment tonight, a right which has been conferred by Parliament. We have a number of people who are in effect in contempt of Parliament in that they are trying to prevent people from exercising that right. So we are trying to tighten up the Bill to have a right which is already there made effective, because a right which is not capable of being made effective is one which we might as well not have at all.
The Minister may again make the point about the burden on business. It is something which needs to be thought about, but I wonder what the Minister would say to this formulation: employing people is a burden on business, but it is one that business is normally better with than without. If businesses employ people, some of those people are normally likely to be women. Some therefore are likely to go through the conditions which are normally individual to women. If they cannot remain in regular employment in these situations, then the firm will not be able to employ the best people for the job. That, I think, is not in the interests of business; it is not in the interests of the country; nor should I have thought that it was the wish of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: As the noble Earl said, this is just about the time of night when the Government shift from saying that one should impose things upon trade unions to saying that one should not impose things upon employers. Therefore, we must expect that that may well be what they will say in relation to the amendment, especially since, of course, the issue—but not this amendment—was put before the House in another place in Committee. Indeed, something very like the amendment which was put in Committee in another place is the next amendment, Amendment

561
No. 154. I wish to support Amendment No. 153 because it is a different formulation of essentially the same thing and therefore I shall not move Amendment No. 154.
As I see this amendment, it is basically an attempt to strengthen the presumption in favour of pregnancy as a reason for dismissal. They are trying to shift the onus of proof—that is one way of putting it. We are trying to strengthen the presumption towards the notion that if someone is dismissed when pregnant, the chances are that that is why she is dismissed. In any case, it is for the employer to demonstrate that that presumption is wrong and that the employee was dismissed for some other reason.
As the noble Earl said, there is a great deal of evidence of which I am sure the Government have been aware, from the EOC, the TUC, the Fawcett Society from all kinds of voluntary organisations, the CABs and so on, that the present criterion is not strong enough to fulfil the wishes in the EC directives and to fulfil in a sense the intentions of the present legislation.
The position is seen by those who are most involved as being markedly different, as the noble Earl said, whether one is inside or outside the two-year rule; whether one is going on inadmissible reasons outside the two-year rule as the Bill will now allow one to do on grounds of pregnancy, or whether one is in the position, as was the case before the Bill for people with a two-year continuity qualification, of having other reasons that they could bring in as to whether or not they were fairly or unfairly dismissed.
The situation appears to be that outside the two-year rule restricted to the inadmissible reason, if the employer can show that it was not pregnancy which motivated the dismissal but was any other reason that he wishes to adduce, there is no practical way in which the appellant or the tribunal can investigate the plausibility of that reason. Once the employer can show, on the balance of probability, that the reason was not pregnancy, but was something else—and any reason, even the most frivolous, can be given—the tribunal and the appellant do not have the same ability to go forward as has the woman, if we are not bounded by the two-year rule, and start to argue as to what the alternative reason is. It might, for example, be one of conduct, and whether, given all the circumstances, the conduct of the employee justified dismissal under the provisions of Section 57(3) of the 1978 employment protection Act. That cannot be done if one simply takes on inadmissible reasons outside the two-year rule.
It could be said that the same kind of criteria apply if one looks at other categories of inadmissible reasons outside the two-year rule. But we argue that there are particular reasons—as touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Russell —why one would expect an employer to go out of his or her way to avoid having to fall in with the consequences now of accepting a pregnancy in an employment situation.
First, if the employee tells the employer that she is pregnant and wishes to qualify in due course for the rights that she has for leaving and returning to the job,
562
that is a form of advance notice. The employer is given time to manufacture or find other reasons. He is given time to find fault with her work or with attendance. He is given time, should he so wish, to manufacture a situation in which he can sustain a position in which the dismissal is not on grounds of pregnancy. Other forms of dismissal are not quite like that.
Secondly, as I have said, the effect on the employer—especially on the small employer—of accepting pregnancy is significant. We know that the Government would not have accepted the provisions in the Bill had they not been forced to do so by the European Commission. They have some grounds to say that it is a serious discomfort and disadvantage for the small employer to accept what is now there in terms of the rights of the worker who is pregnant. Therefore there is every incentive to find some other reason.
For all those different reasons, we say that pregnancy in that sense is especially difficult to prove and especially difficult to avoid, and that therefore we need a very strong burden of proof, and something other than we now have in the legislation. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is very important that the burden of proof should be fulfilled in this way. It is extremely difficult for a woman to prove that that is the reason why she has been dismissed. Again and again, the sense of strong prejudice comes through in cases before a tribunal.
At the moment, people who come into the category of under two years' service bring the case as one of sexual discrimination. The Bill changes that. There is progress when a case can be brought on the ground of pregnancy. Yet there is a big difference if the applicant does not have to prove the case and the case has to be proved against the applicant - and pregnancy is a special case. That is something the Government should consider.
Viscount Ullswater: I cannot accept that an employer should be deemed guilty until proven innocent. It is always the case that industrial tribunal applicants must show that they have a complaint which the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear.
Individuals who have two years' service fall under the generalised protection against unfair dismissal. In such a case, any dismissal is potentially unfair and the individual does not have to show any particular reason. However, they do have to show that they have been dismissed (and have not, for example, simply resigned) before they can establish their case.
But the Government do not believe that all employees, regardless of their length of service, should have such general protection. The two-year qualifying period is necessary to ensure that the legislation does not create too heavy a burden on employers and make them reluctant to recruit. However, the Government recognise that there should be specific protection in certain kinds of case—such as the pregnancy and maternity dismissals covered in Clause 23—even where individuals do not have two years' employment. It is quite right that those seeking to rely on this special protection should show that their complaint

563
falls within its scope. The same is true for those complaining of dismissal on grounds of trade union membership, for example, or sex discrimination. This is in line with the time honoured principles of the burden of proof in UK law.
Perhaps I may make two points. If a pregnant woman believes that she has been dismissed in breach of her rights under this clause, she can put the facts before the tribunal. In order for the tribunal to examine her case the burden of proof simply means that she must point to evidence of some kind which links her dismissal to the fact of her pregnancy. As I am sure my noble friend Lady Garner of Parkes will know, tribunals have experience in industrial relations and are well suited to judging these matters. Obviously each case must depend on its facts, but if, for example, an employer dismisses a woman the day after she has told him she is pregnant, a tribunal might well judge that sufficient to raise a case to answer.
Secondly, it is well established practice that except in a really hopeless case tribunals will hear evidence from both sides before deciding. They do normally want to hear the employer's explanation. After that it boils down to what the tribunal believes happened.
None of that detracts from the point that in a case where there is absolutely no evidence that an employer has acted wrongly it is contrary to principle that he should have to prove his innocence.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may first come back on one point. It is the procedure that is affected by this measure. It makes a big difference who presents his case first. It is much better if the employer has to present his grounds for dismissal. It is not necessary for anyone to find him guilty. I can think of only one case during all the time that I have been involved in these matters in which only one side was heard Both sides are always heard and it makes a significant difference which side presents its case first to the tribunal.
Earl Russell: The noble Viscount has done a little too much with his argument. He was very concerned at the idea that this amendment involved having people thought guilty until proved innocent. But why then have the Government themselves already accepted precisely the requirement about the burden of proof for which we ask in respect of people with more than two years' service? Is that not condemning the law that the Government have already put on the statute book? Perhaps that is a little unwise of him.
There is a case for the law to be left as it is for people with more than two years' service. Equally, there is a case for it to apply to people with less than two years' service. The Minister defended the two-year distinction. I do not know whether he is aware of how many cases are brought for dismissal in the 23rd month, and very often in the last week of the 23rd month. They are concentrated together with a frequency which it is statistically improbable would be coincidental. That means that those who do not have this protection are in an extremely vulnerable position. I appreciate that employers have interests to
564
consider, of which I hope I am aware. But, as Burke put it, "Whatever now is established, once was innovation". Anybody who has served two years, once had not. If one cannot get through those first two years, one can never be in a position of enjoying stable employment rights. In a world where there is a great deal of turnover in the labour force, that can be rather difficult.
The noble Viscount may not be distressed if it has the effect of driving down wages. But that also would be unwise of him. We are all considerably concerned at the moment about the public sector borrowing requirement. If it drives down wages, it also drives down taxes and is depriving the Government of money.
The noble Viscount made one point which was worthwhile regarding the need to prove dismissal before one can benefit from the proposal. The amendment makes no attempt to make the law apply to those who have simply chosen to give up their jobs. But if one wants to benefit from any law giving protection against dismissal, simply to file one's case it is necessary to prove dismissal in order to come within the terms of the amendment. Though the point was fair, therefore, the anxiety in relation to the amendment was needless.
I do not think that I will advance matters by taking the issue any further tonight. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy,Lord McCarthy, moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 45, line 2, at end insert:
(" () In section 74 of that Act (calculation of compensatory award) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
(8) Where the tribunal finds that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal or, in a redundancy case, for selecting the employee for dismissal, was an inadmissible reason, the compensatory award may include compensation for injury to feelings whether or not the complainant has suffered loss in consequence of the dismissal.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) "inadmissible" in relation to a reason means it is one of those specified in section 60(a) to (e)." ").
The noble Lord said: The object of Amendment No. 156 is to provide a new basis for compensation in "inadmissible reason" cases; that is to say, pregnancy, sex discrimination and trade union membership and non-membership. It is not a total innovation because it is already the case with race discrimination. The structure in assessing the compensation award in those cases is that, first, there is a special criteria of readily quantifiable losses and so forth; secondly, there is another general criteria which includes intangible losses, including future losses and injury to feelings.
We are suggesting that that structure should be applied in some way to other instances of "inadmissible reason" cases that are covered by the amendment. We are not suggesting that the award, whatever it might be, should go over the maximum; that is, that there should be an extra award. We are merely saying that there should be another basis for making calculations for compensation. If the determination on the existing basis of calculation

565
leaves some sum over the present maximum, as it almost certainly will, then it is possible for the tribunals to ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that there is some other basis for calculating compensation in terms of injury to feelings.
In many ways it is analogous to race discrimination cases. It can easily be imagined, and one may think frequently occurs, that somebody may be dismissed and go to a tribunal. They may win the case and the tribunal may try to determine what the size of compensation should be. In terms of the readily quantifiable loss there may be almost no loss at all. The individual concerned may have moved to another job immediately afterwards, perhaps to an even better job. In terms of actual financial drain on their resources there is little to account and the compensation may amount to only a few hundred pounds. Nevertheless, it could have been a very traumatic experience. It might have taken a great deal of argument, conciliation and waiting for a tribunal. At the tribunal the individual might feel that all kinds of lies had been told about his or her work, conduct and so on, or that he or she had had to withstand threats, victimisation, indignity and stresses—presumably, the kinds of stress that the Government accept in the area of race.
What we are saying is that there is an analogy here and it should be reasonable to allow the tribunal to take it into account in respect of an admissible reason of a non-racial kind. We are not saying that it will result in a great amount of money or that necessarily in all cases the tribunal will say there is any money at all. It is merely a heading under which it should be allowed to consider what it wants to do. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The purpose of the compensatory award is to provide employees who have been unfairly dismissed with a just and equitable recompense for actual losses suffered as a result of the dismissal. Such losses would normally include loss of salary or benefits. This has been the case since the right not to be unfairly dismissed was first introduced by a Conservative government in 1971. Compensation for injury to feelings has never formed part of this award.
As the noble Lord has said, compensation for injury to feelings may form part of any compensation awarded under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976, whereas it may not in unfair dismissal cases. However, there is no reason in principle why unfair dismissal compensation should be calculated in the same way. There are a number of important differences between the awards under the discrimination legislation and in unfair dismissal cases. The amount of compensation in sex and race discrimination cases is assessed on the basis of general damages that would have been awarded in a county court or a sheriff court in Scotland. In unfair dismissal cases the compensatory award is an amount that the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances. Successful unfair dismissal applicants, unlike those successful in cases brought under the legislation on race and sex, will normally receive a basic award in addition to a compensatory award.
566
To include a sum for injury to feelings in the compensatory award cannot be justified. I believe it would simply add to the burdens on employers and thereby harm job prospects. For this concise reason I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We are used to the noble Lord giving us reasons and making distinctions but they do not add up to a case. That is what he is doing now. We are merely saying that there should be a heading under which the tribunal can assess these matters. We say that that makes it square with what is done in race because the two are analogous. It is no good pressing this tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.157 not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Right to employment particulars]:
[Amendment No.158 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 158A:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Entitlement to itemised pay statement
(". After section 146(4) of the 1978 Act (provisions disapplied in relation to employment below minimum number of hours weekly) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Subject to subsection (4B), subsection (4) shall have effect as respects section 8 subject to the following modifications, namely—

(a) the substitution of a reference to eight hours weekly for the reference to sixteen hours weekly, and

(b) the omission of the words " Subject to subsection (5), (6) and (7)".

(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply in relation to employment if, at the relevant date, the number of employees employed by the employer, added to the number employed by any associated employer, is less than twenty.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B) "relevant date" means the date on which any payment of wages or salary is made to an employee in respect of which he would, apart from subsection (4B), have the right to an itemised pay statement." ").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 163 and 193 have been grouped with this amendment. It gives me great pleasure to bring forward this new clause which I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee will welcome. The clause brings the right to an itemised pay statement to most employees who work eight or more hours a week, regardless of their length of service.
I think Members of the Committee will agree with me that most employees who work eight or more hours a week should have the right to know how their pay is made up. Providing them with itemised pay statements would, in addition, greatly simplify the process of resolving disputes over pay or deductions, thereby saving industrial tribunals time and money through fewer and more straightforward Wages Act complaints.
Employees should also be able to see that their employer is making the correct deductions in respect

567
of national insurance and tax. Without written proof of what their pay and deductions should be some employees may have no other means of knowing whether deductions have been made correctly —or indeed at all. It can also be hard for the employee in such situations to prove that he or she was not party to any fraud. Itemised pay statements would also help part-time employees on low incomes to provide proof of their earnings required in order to claim means-tested benefits: this can be difficult for those who are paid on an informal basis without written records. The Child Support Agency will, of course, require more people to provide proof of their earnings.
Employees working at least eight but fewer than 16 hours a week must at present have five years' continuous service with the same employer before they qualify for the right to an itemised pay statement. Changes proposed elsewhere in the Bill, however, entitle them to a written statement of terms and conditions without the necessity of first completing five years' service. This new clause would more closely align the two entitlements, thereby simplifying the legislation for employers.
Since this proposal was first raised in another place, a number of interested organisations have been consulted. Their response was overwhelmingly positive, and it appears that a considerable proportion of employers provide itemised pay statements for this group of employees already. Indeed, a number provide them for all employees, regardless of their hours of work.
All employers are already required to keep records of their employees' pay and the deductions made for tax purposes, and to provide itemised pay statements for all employees working more than 16 hours a week. In many cases employers already have computerised pay systems (or contract their pay arrangements out to computer bureaux) and as a result already provide a full itemised pay statement, even for staff working fewer than eight hours a week. Even for businesses using manual pay systems, the costs of providing itemised pay statements for staff working eight to 16 hours weekly would, in most cases, not be excessive and in many cases could probably be contained within existing administrative overheads. Booklets of proforma statements which can be simply filled in by hand are readily available.
I do not anticipate, therefore, that the cost of introducing itemised pay statements for this group of employees would be particularly significant. However, we are very conscious of the need to minimise legislative burdens on business, and we appreciate that the cost of complying with this requirement could be proportionately greater for small employers. This was confirmed by a number of the employers' organisations consulted, and in the interests of avoiding the imposition of unreasonable burdens on business which might inhibit job creation, we have decided that firms with fewer than 20 employees will be exempted from the new requirement. The proposed new clause will automatically entitle most employees working between eight and 16 hours a week, who previously have had to complete five years' continuous service in
568
order to qualify, to an itemised pay statement. That is an important advance. There is, however, a balance to be struck between giving employees additional rights and placing extra burdens on employers. To extend the right to an itemised pay statement to those working fewer than eight hours a week would fail to strike that balance. Before I move Amendment No. 158A, Members of the Committee may wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 163 and 193.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Government for this clause. I have already done so but I would like to do so again in the hope that they will be in the same listening mode in future as 'they have been in the past. This is a case where the Government listened to the argument, considered it, and implemented the amendment which I believe originated from the citizens advice bureaux. Here we have it in very good form and it is very welcome. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this clause forward.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is good that an itemised pay slip is being suggested. People still have great difficulty in getting them. There does not seem to be any real sanction against the person who has not provided one. When cases come before the tribunal one spends a great deal of time working out what should have been on the itemised pay statement. As I say, there is no sanction against the employer who fails to provide it.
Lord McCarthy: There is an amendment in the Marshalled List which should deal with that. I do not like to be the one who complains. It is undoubtedly an advance that the Government have introduced this clause. I believe that I am right in saying that the citizens advice bureaux did not want to see:
"(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply in relation to employment if, at the relevant date, the number of employees employed by the employer, added to the number employed by any associated employer, is less than twenty".
This is our old friend the small employer. The Government have never been able to show why, if one has a small labour force, it costs more to notify people than if one has a large labour force. What it costs depends on how many people there are in the labour force. It cannot be any more expensive for a small firm with 15 people to inform them per person of an entitlement to an itemised pay statement than for the Ford Motor Company to do so. It is all a question of how many people are employed.
If the Government want to investigate this matter and they want to carry out surveys, they will find out as they did before as regards unfair dismissal, that the overwhelming majority of employers surveyed do riot know what is being talked about. When they are asked whether they believe that it is a disincentive to have to do those things, they believe that they are talking about VAT. They never say that things like itemised pay or written reasons for dismissal have anything whatever to do with the number of people they employ. It has nothing whatever to do with job generation. Very good though this provision is and

569
great the advance, I would like to hear rather better arguments as to why we should accept "(4B) Subsection (4A)".
Earl Russell: I too would like to welcome this amendment very warmly. The noble Baroness may possibly be familiar with the phrase "A Dutch account". It is the kind of bill which says "For services rendered £5,000" without explaining what those services were. I am glad that we are now getting British and not Dutch pay statements. It is also worth pointing out that this amendment will make it much easier for the Government to collect national insurance. In dealing with the PSBR, maximising the yield of revenues to which the Government are already entitled is quite important.
I also have some regrets that the clause does not include people working less than eight hours a week. I am aware of the argument of the burden on business. If the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, puts that argument to me I will listen to him.
Lord Blease: This is another item which comes under Clause 46 as regards Northern Ireland. Consultations have taken place with the trade unions and with the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland. This item is ready to be submitted to the Government along these lines: they welcome the proposal to extend the right to receive an itemised pay statement to those working between eight and 16 hours a week. It is considered that the proposed amendment does not go far enough. They believe that the exclusion of those working fewer than eight hours per week, the vast majority of whom are females, does not accord with earlier decisions of the European Court of Justice relating to the rights of part-time workers and that it may, therefore, amount to unlawful indirect sex discrimination. The commission believes that the right to an itemised pay statement should be extended to all employees regardless of the number of hours worked.
That may seem a little ridiculous, but we have evidence that home helps (who perform an excellent service) who are organised by local authorities and others fall into such groups and work fewer than eight hours. For many reasons, they should have some record of the payments that are made to them. Part-time office cleaners who work under contract to agencies have been found to be similarly engaged for three mornings one week and three the next for something like two hours per morning. There is similar evidence too relating to clerical workers. These workers are predominantly female. Therefore, although it would be churlish to say other than that providing an itemised pay statement for those who work for more than eight hours is to be welcomed, that still leaves a fair number of people who should come within the ambit of provisions requiring them to receive an itemised pay statement.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord McCarthy and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I support the notion that there is no reason to have a cut-off point of eight
570
hours. I should, however, like to address the matter of the second cut-off point of 20 employees. It is not a bad principle that if a good move is being made—and I share the view of those who think that providing an itemised pay statement is very important to many employees, so this is an excellent amendment—that good move should not have an arbitrary cut-off point.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, the cut-off point is not as easy as simply saying, "Fewer than 20 employees in a firm", as I think that she put it. If we take the case of three associated companies and three associated employers (defined by reference to associated companies—that is, one in control of another or under common control), and if those three companies have 19 employees at the date when a particular worker comes to his "relevant date" for the payment of wages, as defined in paragraph (4c), he then has no right to the statement. But if a worker is taken on by one of the three companies the next day (perhaps by a subsidiary or something far removed from the parent company), and worker No. 2 reaches his "relevant date" on that day, it appears that he is entitled to a statement. If the Government wish to have an exception for associated companies with fewer than 20 employees, surely they can find a way of making it less arbitrary than that. I hesitated before saying that because the Government's approach to these matters is such that if one raises a point such as that, they usually come back with something more draconian rather than something more liberal.
Surely, however, it is ridiculous that two workers in the same position in a common group—it may be more than three employers; it may be many—are in such different positions with regard to this very important piece of information. I ask the Government to think again before Report. If they will not give way on the point about 20 employees, they should at least find a more sensible way of implementing the provision.
Lord Wise: I endorse the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy. I cannot understand why it is much more costly to provide an itemised pay statement for a smaller number of workers—even if there is only one employee—than for over 20. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government's amendment. I am sure that it is a step in the right direction.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I welcome the general support offered to the amendment for which I thank the Committee. I understand some of the fears that have been raised, and I shall try to answer them. Perhaps I may first answer my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. The tribunals can award the amount of the deductions which should have been notified on the itemised pay statement for up to 13 weeks, if the employer fails to provide one. I hope that that gives my noble friend some comfort.
The question of why small firms should be exempted has been asked. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he could see little difference in the cost of providing itemised pay slips for someone with

571
fewer than 20 employees and large firms. Within small firms every person has a workload. A tightrope has to be walked between excessive burdens and needs. We believe that small firms should be exempted from the requirement on the ground that the cost of implementing it would affect them disproportionately. Of course many small firms already provide itemised pay statements, and that is something that we encourage. However, it would not be appropriate to impose such costs on small firms which may well have difficulties with the administration necessary to provide itemised pay statements to people who work just a few hours a week. That would include many newsagents and small shops employing part-time staff to help out on Saturdays—for example, delivering newspapers—but who work more than eight hours a week. If some small employers see advantages in providing itemised pay statements to those of their employees who work between eight and 16 hours a week, I am delighted. They are of course free to provide such statements, but we do not wish to impose the burden upon them.
Women form a high proportion of the groups of workers about whom we are talking. I am worried that if the difficulties of employment—it is not just costs—were to increase or to become considerable, then their job prospects could well decline. So, as I say, we believe that it would he unreasonable and inappropriate to require employers to provide itemised pay statements to all staff working fewer than eight hours a week. After all, that is the equivalent of a day. It could be a disincentive to take on employees to work such hours. It would mean that itemised pay statements would have to be provided to groups of employees. It would be absurd to include employees such as newspaper boys or baby sitters.
However, and I hope that this will be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, where an itemised pay statement would be useful to someone working fewer than eight hours a week, there is nothing to prevent an employer agreeing voluntarily to provide one. The fact that under the proposed new clause employers will soon have to provide such statements for all employees working between eight and 16 hours a week, will, I am sure, lead some to provide them for staff working fewer than eight hours a week. We believe that it would be against the interests of such employees to make it a statutory requirement. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Blease: Before the Minister sits down, some employees working fewer than eight hours are drawing social security benefits or receiving some form of statutory payment. They require some evidence of the amount of money that they earn over a period. That is why they need a statement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Written reasons for dismissal
.Section 53(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall be amended to read as follows—
"(2) An employee shall not be entitled to a written statement under subsection (1) unless on the effective termination he has been or will have been, continuously employed for a period of six months." ").
The noble Lord said: I understand that it is the Committee's wish that we should make progress. To that end, although I regard the amendments as important, I propose not to move Amendments Nos. 159 to 164 tonight, but I reserve the right to raise them on Report.
Amendment No. 159 concerns a separate issue, as does Amendment No. 161. As regards Amendment No. 162, I thank the Government in advance for what we are about to receive in Amendment No. 186A. I know that the amendments also stand in the names of other Members of the Committee; I can speak only for myself but, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 159 to 164.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 164 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Provisions substituted for sections 1 to 6 of 1978 Act]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 69, line 30, at end insert:

("(iv) maternity leave and pay,

(v) parental leave and family leave,

(vi) paternity leave,

(vii) childcare provision, and

(viii) equality of opportunity,").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with a large number of other amendments. I shall deal with them briefly.
This concerns written particulars of the terms and conditions of employment of an employee. There are two issues which really arise. First, does the law demand a sufficient number of items in the terms and conditions to be included? Secondly, is there a way of making those items transparent to employer and employee, perhaps by reference to other documents, without creating an ocean of paper which, one suspects, both management and the labour force would not wish to see?
The amendments suggest items which might be included. I am aware that the EC directive is, as it were, the framework in which we now work, but I apprehend that there is no difficult about any of these items with regard to the directive because it allows any national system to include items which are more beneficial to the worker. The Committee will see, therefore, in Amendment No. 165, to which I am speaking in the absence of my noble friend Lady Lockwood, a number of family rights: maternity leave, parental leave, paternity leave and so on.
Secondly, the main duties and, in Amendment No. 167, a brief description of the work a re added to the possible items in the list. Thirdly, Amendment No. 168 deals with a matter of importance in my view; namely,

573
whether or not there is machinery in a works council or in some other way whereby the employer consults representatives of the employees. I am sure that the Government will not oppose the notion of workers knowing what machinery there is at their workplace for consultation. They are not concerned with negotiation or bargaining.
Lastly, Amendment No. 170 provides that there should be a:
"reference to any relevant statutory or other provision concerning …discrimination".
The word "discrimination" is deliberately used generally; it refers not merely to sexual discrimination but also to discrimination on racial and other grounds. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 167. This would allow employers to omit the job title from an employee's written statement if, instead, they include a brief description of the work which the employee is employed to do. I must say that the Government find the arguments in favour of this amendment acceptable. It would clearly allow employers a small degree of additional flexibility and would be fully in line with the requirements of the EC Proof of Employment Directive. I am therefore happy to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I am prepared to accept his amendment as tabled.
I cannot, however, accept any of the other amendments in this group, each of which seeks to make an addition to the list of matters of which an employer is required to give particulars in the written statement. It has never been the intention of the provisions in Sections 1 to 6 of the 1978 Act that the written statement should give details of every single aspect of an employee's terms and conditions—if I heard the noble Lord correctly, he understands that—still less of every other aspect of the employer's policies which may be relevant to the employee. Rather, the intention is that the statement should act as a useful record of the main or most important aspects of an employee's employment.
The Government are, in this Bill, making a number of additions to the list of matters which have to be covered In the statement. These additions are: details relating to the duration of temporary contracts; information on the work location; an indication of any collective agreements which directly affect the employee's terms and conditions; and certain further information for employees who are required to work abroad for a period of more than one month. We regard these as important and justified additions to the statement which is why we supported the relevant provisions of the European Community Proof of Employment Directive which they implement. In addition, we are limiting the extent to which employers are permitted to give employees the required information by way of reference documents. In future, particulars of many matters—including hours, pay, and holiday entitlement—will have to be set out explicitly in the written statement, whereas until now the employer has been able simply to refer the employee to any other document which he or she
574
has reasonable opportunities of reading in the course of his or her employment. This will significantly increase the amount of detailed information which has to be included in the statement.
As always, however, there is a balance to be struck between giving employees extra rights and burdening employers with additional obligations which would or could increase their costs and thereby ultimately damage job opportunities. The Government are satisfied that the Bill provisions strike the correct balance. Any further additions to the list of matters to be covered in the statement would undoubtedly increase the costs to employers of producing the information.
I should also point out that I appreciate that the noble Lord, in moving the other amendments, clearly believes they would be of benefit to employees but they may have quite the opposite effect. I have accepted Amendment No. 167 and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the other amendments we have been discussing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before we go any further, perhaps I had better remind the Committee of the rules of order. Amendment No. 165 has been proposed.
Lord McCarthy: I understood though that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was speaking to Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168. Therefore we can discuss those amendments. There seems to be a spontaneous desire on all sides to make progress. I therefore only wish to make one comment to the Minister. Is it not the case that there are three general areas here? Amendment No. 165 is about leave. Let us leave out Amendment No. 166 for a moment. Amendment No. 167 has been accepted. Hurrah! Amendment No. 168 is a little more controversial because it concerns works councils. Would it not be possible for the Government to think again about Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 and go just a little bit further, or perhaps we could come back on Report with a provision under either or both of those headings. In that case could not the noble Baroness be a little more friendly towards us on those two matters, leaving aside Amendment No. 168?
Lord Rochester: I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in that I very much hope that we may not just leave aside Amendment No. 168. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, in a commendable endeavour to make progress, was dismissing Amendment No. 168, if I understood the position correctly. There are many organisations where there is no union representation but there is some machinery which enables the employer to consult with employee representatives on matters connected with their employment. I am hopeful that the noble Baroness, on reflection, might agree that in such cases there is in principle just as much need, as in organisations where there are collective agreements with trade unions, for the employees concerned to be informed in writing of the relevant arrangements. If it is good for trade

575
unions it should also be good for other forms of consultative machinery. I hope, therefore, that that thought may not be dismissed altogether.
Midnight
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, felt that in the effort to make progress I had been rather casual about Amendment No. 168. That was not my intention. There is a tightrope in deciding between what is of benefit and which points should be included in the written statement and which should not. I agree that where employers have policies on some of the matters upon which the amendments touch it is important that the employees should be made aware of them. The difference is that we do not accept that the written statement should be specified in statute as being the obligatory vehicle for achieving that. I can assure the noble Lord that have not ignored the amendment.
Baroness Seear: If one is going to include paragraph (j), which reads:
"any collective agreements which directly affect .."
then the point of the amendment is that, where there is no collective agreement but there is a works council, that should equally be included. If one includes the one, then in our view one should include the other.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am afraid that I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that that is a matter of opinion on which we must differ.
Lord Rochester: In that case I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will reserve the right to return to the matter at Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is disappointing, and I feel that we should consider the matter again. However, my usual general disappointment is conditioned by the unprecedented event of the Government accepting an amendment in my name alone. In that respect this is a small gain. Some aspects of the matter should be considered again but, given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 69, line 33, at end insert ("or a brief description of the work for which the employee is employed,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention of move Amendment No. 169:
Page 70, line 5, at end insert:
"() information about redundancy selection procedures.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I intended only to probe briefly. I hope that the Government will kindly take note of that. If the Minister would write to me between now and Report stage it might save the need for an amendment at that stage.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 70, line 24, leave out from ("in") to end of line 25 and insert ("paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j) of subsection (3) of section 1, and").
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that we must deal with these matters very speedily, but Amendment No. 172 raises a matter of such importance that I feel that it must be put to the Government for their precise reply. It is of importance to employees and to trade union negotiators, but the people to whom I should have thought it was of most importance are management. Good management wants to see transparency, in the sense in which the EC aims a t transparency and in which our law has aimed at it since 1963, in giving written particulars which are meaningful to the worker.
Transparency and meaningful particulars are not necessarily created by having everything written out on a piece of paper for a particular worker. I am sorry that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, are not moved because I intended to discuss those amendments and to leave mine. My amendments raise this issue: is the principle of reference, in which our law has been so strong, now to be diluted? If that is so, then an ocean of paper may be the consequence in some workplaces. The principle of reference is not the enemy of transparency so long as the other documents to which reference is made, especially a collective agreement, are up-to-date and accessible at the place of work. To some extent it has been the crucial proviso in our law since 1963, and certainly since 1972 when a Conservative government amended the law.
I was disappointed to hear the noble Baroness suggest in her reply on the last amendments that that principle will now be diluted: that we shall now have more in documents and less in the principle of reference. I underline again that the principle of reference needs a collective agreement or other document accessible to the worker at the place of work, accessible to management, and up-to-date.
We now have that provision in the 1978 Act under Sections 1 to 4 and under Schedule 4. One cart therefore arrange for alterations in the terms of employment to be entered up in the accessible document and for people to know about them at their place of work via their particulars which indicate to which document they should refer.
I should have thought that for management the reference to documents in which changes are entered up was more important than anything else. Does a change in the hours of work have to be given to all 2,000 workers on a piece of paper, or can it be entered up in documents which are near them and available to be read? The directive is rather obscure on the matter. What do the Government believe are the conditions that the directive imposes?
As it stands, the Bill appears to demand a piece of paper to each worker regarding changes of employment terms except for a very small area relating to the terms and conditions. I refer to such items as holidays with pay and length of notice.

577
However, generally the principle of reference appears to be gradually eased out. I am absolutely astonished that management does not put greater pressure upon the Government to consider again the issue of reference. I do not believe that the directive demands that the Government close down the principle of reference to accessible documents to the extent that they have. Perhaps the Government will consider the issue again because they have changed their mind on whole passages of Schedule 4 in another place. There is room for another look. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: If I heard the noble Lord aright, this is in the nature of a probing amendment to establish the Government's position.
The Government's position is absolutely clear. Employees should in general be entitled to receive explicit individual notification of their main terms and conditions of employment, and of any changes to those terms and conditions. Subject to limited exceptions, it is no longer right, in our view, that employers should be able simply to refer employees to another document, such as a collective agreement which they may never have seen or even have been a party to. The exceptions are those items—pensions, sickness entitlement and certain details of disciplinary and grievance procedures—of which the particulars may often be lengthy or complicated; and also notice entitlement, for which we believe it is right that an employer should be entitled to refer the employee to his or her statutory entitlement, or to any collectively agreed provision where this is more favourable.
Amendments Nos. 172 and 180 would—contrary to the Government's approach—largely preserve the status quo. This would mean that, with four exceptions, the particulars referred to in the new Section 1(3) could still be given by reference and would not have to be included explicitly in an employee's written statement. Three of the exceptions—information about the duration of a temporary contract; information about the work location; and additional details to be given to an employee who is required to work abroad for a period of more than one month—are new items introduced by the Bill and have not hitherto been required to he given to the employee at all.
In short, the noble Lord's amendments would undo many of the improvements in employee's rights which are provided for in this part of the Bill. In addition, they may also place the UK in breach of the EC directive, which itself imposes limitations on the types of documents to which reference may be made in respect of certain particulars.
The noble Lord said that had my noble friend Lord Mottistone's amendments been moved, the issue would have been debated in those areas also. However, I hope that he will feel that it is not necessary to press the amendments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hope that Members of the Committee on all Benches will read Hansard carefully tomorrow. First, in answer to the noble Baroness's point at the end that my amendment is outside the directive, Article 5 of the directive allows
578
for a change in statutory provisions or collective agreements which are cited in the documents referred to in Article 3—that is the written particulars—and where appropriate, Article 4 which does not enter the present argument. I cannot see how my modest amendment in respect, at any rate, of the changes which come in the other amendment to which I was speaking—Amendment No. 180—could possibly be outside the directive. No doubt the Government will put some documents in the Library if they have evidence of that view being taken elsewhere.
The main point is that management must now give a piece of paper, with very few exceptions, to every worker every time a turn changes. If there is a workforce of 10,000 with the turn changing once a fortnight—not, I should have thought, an improbable analysis and prediction—there would be 10,000 pieces of paper. Why will the Government not allow reference to something else? The noble Baroness did not speak about something else; she spoke about one thing: the reference to collective agreements. I at least spoke about reference to collective agreements or other documents such as unilateral management documents. This is a very important point. The Government have imposed the limit in pursuit, quite honourably and understandably, of their Hayek-ian purpose of giving every single worker a piece of paper on which everything is recorded every week. I do not believe that will make for efficiency.
If the Government wish to say that it is an extra burden on business, I should have thought that it was obvious. If they want to say that it will drive business out of Britain, I should have thought that that was likely. But I do not understand why the Government's obstinate opposition to collective agreements has put them into this curious stance. This is a matter at which the House should look again on Report. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Baroness accept what the noble Lord has just said, that it might lead to 10,000 papers being issued every week? If so, she cannot really mean that it is necessary to do that. Either the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has got it wrong and there would not be 10,000 papers—which I must say I think is doubtful—or the Government have simply not appreciated the management consequences of what they are laying down.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is putting forward a proposal which is not our belief. However, we will look closely at Hansard on the matter.
Lord McCarthy: Might it not be the case that the reason why the Government do not mind is that there is no sanction? If the employer does not do it, it will not matter.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend raises a whole further point. One must have an effective sanction for the implementation of the directive. The Government might look at that matter,

579
which will come up later. I saw perhaps a glimmer of light, and therefore it is not wholly in sadness that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173 to 180 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 72, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or
(iii) the employer, being a company, changes its status by becoming a subsidiary of a new holding company within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, and, ").
The noble Lord said: Where an employee finds that the name of his company or employer changes, he must be told about it (although not much else). That has been so in our law for a long time. The amendment suggests that where the employer, being a company, becomes a subsidiary—that is, when the company changes its whole economic position even if it has the same name—the employee ought to be told about that. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Industrial tribunals devote a great deal of time to determining who is the relevant person in cases. It would be a great help if the employee knew who was his employer.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I fully agree with the noble Lord that a change of the type which he described will often he a matter of legitimate interest to the employees of the company and it would be good practice for the employer to keep him informed of it. The Government are firmly committed to the principle that employers should inform employees of matters of interest to them. But, where a change of the type described by the noble Lord is accompanied by changes in the terms and conditions in which an employee is required to be given particulars in his or her written statement, then the provision in the Bill already places the employer under an obligation to give the employee individual notification of those changes. The noble Lord's amendment would extend that obligation to cover a type of change which has nothing to do with the information in the written statement that there must be a limit to the statutory burdens which employers can reasonably expect to accept. We feel that this amendment would overstep that mark, and we hope that it will not be moved.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. There is very often a practical problem of discovering who exactly is the employer. That leads workers to ask: what is happening? To tell them, as the noble Baroness does, speaking for the Government, that they can be told if the company changes its name but that, should the company become a subsidiary of Hoover or Mitsubishi, that is something one ought to keep quiet about and not tell them anything seems rather extraordinary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 182:
580
Page 72, line 15, at end insert:
("References to collective agreements
(4A) Where a statement under section 1, 2 or 4, or a note under section 3, contains particulars of, or refers to, one or more collective agreements, the employer shall specify which provisions (if any) in any such collective agreement which it is his intention not to incorporate into the contract of employment as minimum terms and conditions of the employment.").
The noble Lord said: It is the principle of our law that the individual contract of employment governs the question whether the terms of a collective agreement are expressly or implicitly incorporated into it. That is not such a bad principle. But recent decisions in the High Court have raised another point: the question, for example, of whether, as in the case of Alexander v. Standard Telephones, a redundancy procedure was incorporated into individual employment contracts of workers at Standard Telephones.
It seemed at first that they did. The written particulars referred to the main conditions of the employment and referred to the redundancy procedure which had been collectively negotiated. I hope: that here the Government will move away from their prejudice against collective agreements. It is a matter of great importance for hundreds of thousands of workers.
It was put to the court by the employer that this might look as though it was incorporated but it was a procedure which in the judgment was:
"not apt for incorporation into individual employment contracts".
The amendment simply says that such an argument should not be left until the matter comes up in court. It affects tens of thousands of workers with uncertainty, although it is true that a more recent judgment went the other way. But there is a hairline on each side of the boundary.
Where there is a reference to the incorporation of a collective agreement, the employer should say which parts of it, if any, it is not his intention to agree for incorporation in the contract of employment as minimum terms and conditions. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The principal purpose of the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill, and indeed of those in the existing Sections 1 to 6 to the 1978 Act, is to ensure that, subject to the qualifying criteria, employees are entitled to receive a clear, helpful statement of their main terms and conditions of employment, and proper notification of any changes to those terms and conditions. It would not, in my view, be at all helpful for an employee to be presented with a statement containing a list of provisions which the employer does not intend to form part of the contract of employment.
Unlike the current provisions of the 1978 Act, the Bill requires that most of the main terms and conditions of employment—including particularly those relating to such key terms as pay, hours and holiday entitlement—must be detailed explicitly in the employee's written statement, rather than by reference to another document. This applies whether the matters in question have been determined on an individual basis or as part of a collective agreement.

581
For details of a few exceptional matters, the employer will still be permitted to refer the employee to the provisions of a collective agreement if that would be more convenient than giving the information explicitly. This is because the matters in question—pensions, sickness provision, notice entitlement and certain aspects of disciplinary and grievance procedures—may in general involve lengthy and complicated particulars, and in those cases it would be helpful neither to the employer nor to the employee if they had to be included explicitly in the statement. It will not however be sufficient for the employer in these cases simply to give the title of a collective agreement which covers a whole range of different issues. He will have to direct the employee's attention to the specific provisions of the agreement which set out the relevant particulars.
If there are any collective agreements which directly affect the employee's terms and conditions, it is only right that the employee should be entitled to be told what they are. That is what the Bill provides for in new Section 1(3) (j) of the 1978 Act. However, it would not in the Government's view be right to go further by requiring the employer to specify which particular provisions of those agreements are or are not intended to be incorporated into the employee's contract of employment, save of course to the extent that it is necessary to comply with the other requirements of the new Section 1, to which I have just referred.
The noble Lord will not be surprised that I cannot accept his amendment, which seeks to add to the length and complexity of the written statement.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Government appear to have got themselves into a frightful muddle. The present schedule to which the noble Baroness referred—namely, the new Section 1(3)(j)—states that the statement shall contain particulars of:
"any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employment".
I took that to mean especially matters that are not otherwise in the list A to L. The noble Baroness seemed to say that employers would be prohibited from referring to collective agreements except (I hope that I quote her correctly) on a few matters—pensions, sickness and so on —when suddenly the benefits of collective agreements seem to appear because they were rather complicated.
This has been unearthed from beneath the stones of the schedule and is of importance to every employee and member of management in the land—a remarkable situation. It will produce an ocean of paper. If the noble Baroness is right in saying that the employer must refer to specific parts of the collective agreement on the various matters—which I believe is what she said—it would not cause any difficulty to say at the same time whether or not in the intention of the employer and his understanding that was part of the individual contract. It is quite absurd to say that the employer must refer to specific parts for one purpose and then to deny that this crucial point should be left aside for, as some might say, the lawyers to deal with.
I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do so most reluctantly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 183 to 186 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 186A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
Dismissal on ground of assertion of statutory right
(".—(1) After section 60 of the 1978 Act (as substituted by section 23 of this Act), there shall be inserted—
"Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right.
60A.—(1) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the employee—

(a) brought proceedings against the employer to enforce a right of his which is a relevant statutory right; or

(b) alleged that the employer had infringed a right of his which is a relevant statutory right.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a dismissal of an employee by reason of any allegation made by him if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.
(3) It shall be sufficient for subsection (1) to apply that the employee, without specifying the right, made it reasonably clear to the employer what the right was that he was alleging had been infringed.
(4) The following statutory rights are relevant for the purposes of this section, namely—

(a) any right conferred by—

(i) this Act, or

(ii) the Wages Act 1986,

for which the remedy for its infringement is by way of a complaint or reference to an industrial tribunal;

(b) the right conferred by section 49 (minimum notice);

(c) the rights conferred by the following provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, namely, sections 68, 86, 146, 168, 169 and 170 (deductions from pay, union activities and time off)."

(2) In section 59 of the 1978 Act (dismissal on ground of redundancy), in subsection (2) (inserted by section 23(2) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall be inserted the words "or 60A(1)".
(3) In section 64 of the 1978 Act (qualifying period for right not to be unfairly dismissed), in subsection (4) (inserted by section 23(3) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall be inserted the words "or 60A(1)".").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 186A I should like to speak also to the related consequential Amendments Nos. 190A and 190B and also Amendment No. 271A. They fulfil a commitment which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave in Committee in another place. He said that the Government would bring forward a measure to give employees, regardless of their length of service or hours of work, protection against being unfairly dismissed for seeking to enforce their right to a written statement of main terms and conditions of employment. He also said that he would consider the extent to which similar protection might be extended to employees seeking to enforce other statutory employment rights.
We have now completed our consideration of that matter and have concluded that the new provision should in fact apply in respect of all statutory employment protection rights. That is what the government amendments are designed to achieve. The rights in question are all those which are conferred by

583
either the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 or the Wages Act 1986 and for which the remedy for infringement is by way of a complaint or a reference to an industrial tribunal—the right to a minimum period of notice and all the rights which an employee may exercise against an employer under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The protection will apply when the employee's dismissal was on the grounds that he had brought proceedings against the employer to enforce one of those rights, and also where it was on the grounds that he had simply alleged that the employer had infringed the right in question. It will not be necessary for the employee, in making such an allegation, actually to have made detailed reference to the statutory right to which it related. But he or she will need to have made reasonably clear to the employer what that right was. The employee will enjoy the new protection in all cases where his or her allegation of breach of statutory right was in good faith. Only where the allegation was both ill-founded and not made in good faith will the new protection not apply—an entirely reasonable exception.
Dismissal of an employee for seeking in good faith to enforce his or her statutory employment protection rights is wholly unjustifiable. I am sure that few employers would ever contemplate acting in such a manner. However, the Government's amendments making all such dismissals automatically unfair will provide comprehensive new protection against any misguided employer who may act in that way. I am sure that they will be widely welcomed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Employment protection in health and safety cases]:
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
12.30 a.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No.188:
Page 73, line 27, at end insert:
("() An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any order or instruction by the employer which requires him to act in a manner inconsistent with paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1).").
The noble Lord said: I submit that the Bill is defective in respect of the implementation of the directive and also leaves a gap which in any case is undesirable. Directive No. 89/391 provides that:
"The employer shall … save in exceptional cases for reasons duly substantiated, refrain from asking workers to resume work in a working situation where there is still a serious and imminent danger".
The Bill as it stands protects the workers from such action by the employer where it amounts to disciplinary action or dismissal. I appreciate that that is a summary of the schedule but perhaps it is common ground. But where the employer gives an instruction that requires the worker to act in a way that is inconsistent with that paragraph—and the amendment covers that and other aspects of the dangerous situation at the workplace—the Bill appears to have a small gap. It is the intent of this amendment and those associated with it in the grouping list to prod the
584
Government to have another look to see whether or not something like this should be included in a situation where the employee is instructed to go to a place of work and there is still imminent danger that by itself that instruction will be a detriment within the meaning of the structure that the Government have elaborated to implement the directive.
In the debates of 1989 the Government said that the common law was enough. Now they have seen that it is not enough, they have had to implement the directive with a lot of statutory law, and quite rightly so. It is splendid that the Government have done that. But the statutory law still has a gap which the common law will not fill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Whilst I have no quarrel with what I understand to be the underlying intention, I hope to convince the noble Lord that the amendments are unnecessary. The key amendment is Amendment No. 188 which seeks to ensure that if an employer instructs an employee to act in a mariner which is inconsistent with the provisions of new Section 22A(1), the employee will be protected from being subjected to any detriment if he refuses to follow that instruction. Amendment No. 189 is a consequential amendment which provides that in the event of a complaint to an industrial tribunal it will be for the employer to demonstrate the grounds on which any order or instruction has been given.
Whilst Amendment No. 188 is not inconsistent with the intentions of the new provisions, Section 22A already achieves the desired effect. The amendment tabled would have effect at the point at which an employer subjected an employee to a detriment for refusing to follow an instruction to act in a way which was inconsistent with the provisions of Section 22A(1). But if the employer subjected an employee to a detriment for this reason, the employee would enjoy the protection of the right conferred by this new section. It may be helpful if I give an example. Let us suppose that an employer instructed an employee not to leave his workplace when the employee reasonably believed that there was serious or imminent danger. Nonetheless, the employee leaves the workplace. As a result, the employer subjects that individual to a detriment, perhaps by withdrawing, customary overtime from that employee and not others. The employee may make a complaint because the detrimental treatment arises in circumstances specified by the new section. Further, we have provided at new Section 22B(2) that it is for the employer to show the ground on which any act or failure to act was done. No amendment is needed to secure this result. I hope that in the light of this assurance the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I follow the noble Lord's argument and share a lot of it, but he did not point to the precise part of Section 22A that protected the employee from detriment arising from the instruction itself and breached any part of the obligations of the employer in this respect. I was disappointed that he referred only to the paragraph which said that the employer must establish the reason. That is correct, but he did not show me where

585
every type of instruction from the employer would be covered. If he has references to such matters perhaps it will further the matter if I ask him to write to me about it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 190A and 190B:
Page 75, line 45, leave out ("or").
Page 75, line 49, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compensation for unfair dismissal when reinstatement or re-engagement ordered]:
[Amendment No.192A not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 192B:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Application of 1978 Act to service in armed forces
(".—(1) In section 138 of the 1978 Act (application of Act to Crown employment) for subsection (3) (service in the armed forces excepted) there shall be substituted—
"(3) This section applies to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown but only in accordance with section 138A and it applies also to employment by any association established for the purposes of Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980."
(2) After section 138, there shall be inserted—
"Application of Act to armed forces.
138A.—(1) The provisions of this Act which apply, by virtue of section 138, to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown are—
Part I;
in Part II, sections 19 to 22 and 31A;
Part III;
in Part IV, section 53;
Part V, except sections 57A and 80;
Part VIII; and
this Part.
(2) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, —

(a) amend subsection (1) above by making additions to, or omissions from, the provisions for the time being specified in that subsection, by an Order under this subsection; and

(b) make any provision apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the Order.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, modifications made under subsection (2) above may include provision precluding the making of a complaint or reference to any industrial tribunal unless the person aggrieved has availed himself of the service procedures for the redress of complaints applicable to him.
(4) Where modifications include the provision authorised by subsection (3) above the Order in Council shall also include provision designed to secure that the service procedures for the redress of complaints result in a determination, or what is to be treated under the Order as a determination, in sufficient time to enable a complaint or reference to be made to an industrial tribunal.
(5) No provision shall be made by virtue of subsection (3) above which has the effect of substituting, for any
586
period specified as the normal period for a complaint or reference on any matter to an industrial tribunal, a period longer than six months.
(6) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—

"the normal period for a complaint or reference", in relation to any matter within the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal, means the period specified in the relevant enactment as the period within which the complaint or reference must be made, disregarding any provision permitting an extension of that period at the discretion of the tribunal; and

"the service procedures for the redress of complaints" means the procedures, excluding those which relate to the making of a report on a complaint to Her Majesty, referred to in sections 180 and 181 of the Army Act 1955, sections 180 and 181 of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 130 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957." ").

The noble Viscount said: I am sure that Members of the Committee will join me in welcoming this amendment which seeks to apply certain individual employment rights to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.
At present, those rights which apply to persons in Crown employment by virtue of Section 138(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 do not, under Section 138(3) of that Act, apply to service in the Armed Forces. This clause reverses that position. It applies to the Armed Forces certain provisions of the 1978 Act—generally those which already apply to Crown servants, or will do so under other provisions of the Bill. This is subject to the provision that an Order in Council may be made adapting the provisions more suitably to meet the needs of the services.
The Armed Forces are in a special position with regard to their employment, as I am sure we can all recognise. This is why they have not up to now been covered by employment protection rights that have applied to other employees. However, we believe there is no necessity to deny the Armed Forces all access to industrial tribunals, as has been the case in the past.
The powers in the new clause will enable certain modifications to be made in applying these rights to the Armed Forces to take account of their special circumstances. In particular, it will be necessary to ensure that internal complaint procedures have been exhausted so that the industrial tribunal system is not called into play unnecessarily. These matters will be considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in formulating the terms of the new order.
It gives me great pleasure to bring forward this amendment. It is an importance provision for the Armed Forces, and I ask for the Committee's support in accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We are pleased to see the new clause where it is. We cannot see anything wrong with it at the moment but we shall take it away and look at it very carefully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Right to declaration of invalidity of discriminatory terms and rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 203A not moved.]
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before one o' clock.

  FOOD AND BEVERAGES SERVED AT UK EMBASSIES
  FOOD AND BEVERAGES SERVED AT UK EMBASSIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: REPRESENTATION IN BRUSSELS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: REPRESENTATION IN BRUSSELS
  CAMEROON: AID
  CAMEROON: AID
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES
  SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS
  SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS
  TRAFFIC WARDENS, ETC: DUTIES
  TRAFFIC WARDENS, ETC: DUTIES
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS FORMERLY WITH BRITISH FORCES: IMMIGRATION RIGHTS
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS FORMERLY WITH BRITISH FORCES: IMMIGRATION RIGHTS
  AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTROL
  AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTROL
  ROAD PRICING
  ROAD PRICING
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CONSULTANCY FIRMS
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CONSULTANCY FIRMS
  TAX YIELDS
  TAX YIELDS
  VAT THRESHOLD
  VAT THRESHOLD
  BANKS: CENTRAL CONTROL AND SUPPORT
  BANKS: CENTRAL CONTROL AND SUPPORT
  CITY MERCHANT BANK
  CITY MERCHANT BANK
  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS
  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS
  POLLUTION CONTROL: REVISED CHARGES
  POLLUTION CONTROL: REVISED CHARGES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: REVISED CHARGES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: REVISED CHARGES