Sitting of 6 May 1993

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

    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 May.

    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 13 May.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Unemployment
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect on tax revenues of changes in the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom over the last year.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): There are no reliable estimates of these effects. Estimates would require assumptions about, for example, the reasons for the change in unemployment and its wider economic effects—in particular, its effects on incomes and spending. So many uncertainties are involved that the final estimate would be neither accurate nor informative.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that reliable estimates can be made? It is estimated that the cost this year will be £11·5 billion, which is £2·4 billion more than last year. Is not that an enormous price to pay for the Chancellor's mistakes? Would it not be better if the Government spent that kind of money on stimulating manufacturing investment, instead of perpetuating misery on the unemployed?
    Mr. Portillo: No. I cannot, for the reasons that I gave, accept that there are such reliable estimates. The variation that would be achieved would critically depend on the reason unemployment was falling. If it was because average earnings were lower or had been held in check or because exports were higher, each would produce different results. As to manufacturing industry, the hon. Gentleman should note that manufacturing productivity is currently at an all-time high and that unit wage costs have been falling in this country while they have been rising in others. Manufacturing exports have never been higher than they are today, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to defeat unemployment is to keep inflation down, to give clear-cut encouragement to firms to get on and create wealth—not to encumber employers with red tape and extra nonsense from Brussels, such as the social chapter?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. I believe that there could be no recovery if we had not succeeded bravely and consistently in bringing down inflation. That was the prerequisite. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the role of deregulation. It must be our continuing policy that the rest of Europe can have the social chapter and we shall have the jobs.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Is not the best response to falling tax revenues from high unemployment measures substantially to cut unemployment, not to raise value added tax? In a Market Access survey published today, 75 per cent. of Conservative Members say that they now favour even more increases in VAT—60 per cent. favour VAT increases on newspapers and 27 per cent. favour VAT increases on rail and bus fares. Will the Chief Secretary give a categorical assurance that he and his Government will not increase VAT on food, transport, newspapers arid children's clothes—yes or no?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman continues to be extremely confused and to believe that one can in some way bring down unemployment to bring about recovery. The opposite is true. One brings about recovery, and that will lead to lower unemployment. That is why we have consistently followed policies that have enabled the recovery to take place.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took special care in his Budget to make sure that the increase in the tax burden did not fall on those areas that affected incentives. As to further extensions of VAT, the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what my right hon. Friend and I have been saying—that is not in our minds.

    Savings
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest figures on the ratio of savings to gross domestic product.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The latest figures show that the personal sector saving ratio was 11·4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1992. Last year, personal saving was at its second highest level in the post-war period.
    Mr. Bruce: In 1988, when I last asked that question, personal sector savings were in the region of £17 billion. Since then, they have risen three times in 1992 to more than £50 billion. It appears that while it has been raining in the recession, it has been raining pennies into people's savings accounts. Will my hon. Friend say what that means for the future of the recovery, given that people have been saving so strongly in the past few years?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of the high level of savings. We expect savings to remain high as economic recovery picks up. This is mainly because the full effects of cuts in mortgage interest rates, worth £160 per month on the average mortgage, are feeding through in the form of a significant rise in real disposable income.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) ought to have asked about the indebtedness of the nation—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. He ought to have asked about the indebtedness of the nation rather than about savings ratios. It is the indebtedness of the nation that is stopping the recovery that the Chancellor wants. If the Minister agrees with that, what proposals does he have to reduce indebtedness in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Nelson: It is true that the private sector is saving, but the public sector is borrowing heavily. As a result, total saving as a percentage of gross domestic product is low by historical standards. However, Government borrowing is currently high because of the recession. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelt out in the Budget a determined programme to tackle the deficit without hindering the recovery, and that is the right approach.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very encouraging—notwithstanding the high level of savings—that retail spending is recovering and that the retail
    270
    sector generally is doing better? Does not that show that the improvement in the economy is advancing on all fronts?
    Mr. Nelson: It does, indeed. We are seeing not only a pick-up in retail sales of record levels but a continued high propensity to save. Both are being delivered through higher disposable incomes arising from the much lower interest rates that people are paying. This is brought out clearly in the fact that last month some 1·2 million households with annual review mortgages saw their interest payments cut by more than £60 a month. This has very important and beneficial implications for the level of spending and for savings.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What would further increases in indirect taxation do for private sector savings? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not increase the rate or broaden the scope of value added tax?
    Mr. Nelson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has just said on that subject. As far as the Budget proposals are concerned—
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister is being evasive.
    Mr. Nelson: There has been no evasion; the position has been made absolutely clear. As to the future, the Budget proposals set out increases in the rate of VAT, which apply not this year but next year. The reason for that is to ensure that we tackle the deficit about which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked.

    Economic Indicators
    Mr. Trend: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the economic indicators published since the Budget for car registrations, industrial production and retail sales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Figures published since the Budget have shown further increases in car registrations, industrial production and retail sales. These, and a number of other indicators, are clear signs of a resumption of growth.
    Mr. Trend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely encouraging that the upturn in economic activity is so broadly based? Is it not evident that this improvement has been under way for some time now in the face of unremitting gloom from the Opposition Front Bench?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is astonishing that that fact gets no recognition from the Opposition. Retail sales have been on a rising trend for about a year; car registrations have risen each month for the past six months and in the first quarter of this year were up 11 per cent. on last year; and manufacturing production in the first three months of this year was 1·5 per cent. up on a year ago.
    This poses extraordinary difficulties for the Opposition, as is revealed in this morning's edition of that well-known Tory newspaper Tribune. It has an article by the Labour party's noble and candid spokesman in the House of Lords, who asks:
    "How should Labour … react to the news that unemployment has fallen for two successive months?"
    The article goes on to say:

    271
    "It is much easier to be negative when the economy is in trouble, but what does one say when the economy starts bouncing back?"
    That is the dilemma of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) does not appear to want to acknowledge that newspaper, to which he himself contributed an article in the same edition. As he raised the question of VAT—and as he normally intervenes in my answers—perhaps he would care to comment on this statement by the Labour party spokesman in the House of Lords:
    "I would remove zero rating for VAT on all items.
    That is the proposition put forward by the Labour party spokesman in the House of Lords. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will now intervene.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given that the Labour party is opposed to the extension of VAT to food, children's clothes and transport, will the Chancellor give exactly the same assurance? Can he tell us that there will be no extension of VAT to children's clothes, fuel, food and transport? Will he give an answer—yes or no?
    Mr. Lamont: The whole country and the House will have observed that the Labour party seems to have one policy in the House of Commons and another policy in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent economic indicators are very good news for the economy and that we must not throw this opportunity away, either by letting inflation rip or by having an uncompetitive exchange rate?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we should see that the recovery is sustainable and is sustained. The policies that we are following will ensure exactly that. The prospects for sustained recovery are good. First, inflation is at the lowest level for 25 years. Secondly, the rate of increase in earnings is at the lowest level for 25 years. At the same time, productivity in manufacturing industry is increasing sharply. Those are all the reasons why the recovery ought to be sustainable.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East—who, of course, could not give an answer—told us that the autumn statement, which, he said, was heralded by almost everybody in November, is now seen to have failed. Since he said that, the number of car registrations has risen in each of the last six months. Manufacturing output rose in January and February by the biggest margin for more than two years. Retail sales have risen to record levels. What the hon. Gentleman says is, as it always is, complete nonsense.
    Mr. Beith: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets too carried away by these encouraging and welcome figures, will he reflect on the fact, which is confirmed in the Red Book, that even if we achieve growth of more than 2·5 per cent. and sustain it, we shall still in three years' time have a public sector borrowing requirement of £35 billion? Will he also bear in mind that if he wants to claim any credit for the improvement in figures that he has announced, he will have to accept full responsibility for the desperate depths to which the recession went?
    Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the public sector borrowing requirement as something to which we must devote attention. Firm control of public spending is necessary. That is not
    272
    something, alas, for which we get support from the Labour party. Although I notice that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been very happy to make political capital out of the extension of VAT to fuel and power, that is precisely what they proposed in their own policy document.

    Base Rates
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries in the EC have lower base rates than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lamont: None. The United Kingdom has the lowest short-term market interest rates in the European Community.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the substantial interest rate reductions in Britain since 1990, annual corporate cash flow has increased by £11 billion? Does that not provide British industry with an immense opportunity to attack markets, both at home and abroad, with renewed confidence and from a stronger financial base?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He would of course, highlight the fact that half the interest rate cuts, which amount to some £11 billion, occurred before September. That is having a major impact on recovery now. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. In addition to the relaxation in monetary policy, there have been a number of other specific measures: what we did in the Budget last year, in halving the car tax, and then in the autumn statement last year, by removing the car tax altogether. That undoubtedly, in the opinion of the those involved in the motor industry, has been a major stimulus and encouragement to this industry, which is at the heart of British manufacturing. In addition, the measures that we have taken to encourage the housing market—in the last Budget, by raising the threshold on stamp duty, and in the autumn statement, by putting in a very large sum of public money to take empties off the housing market—have contributed to the recovery that we now see.
    Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the improvement in retail sales, is he not aware that that in itself will not lead to any recovery? We have a £17·5 billion balance of payments deficit to come. The only recovery will come from exports and investment and it is to those that he should turn.
    Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that our eyes ought to be on the long term and that the House ought to be dealing with making Britain more competitive and ensuring that our public finances are in sound order. I would stress what the right hon. Gentleman did not—the need to bring down the public sector borrowing requirement, which is a high priority for us. Manufacturing investment, to which I think that the right hon. Gentleman referred, increased in the last three quarters of last year. There has been a large increase in our exports to non-European Community countries, which are up 12 per cent. on one year ago. There is every indication that British industry is highly competitive and that, given the right framework, sustained recovery and the right policies, it can compete and will beat the competition.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of our large budget deficit, there will inevitably be upward pressure on interest rates unless that deficit is reduced, as the Government will have to sell more and more Government stock to finance it? Does he therefore agree that it is vital that public expenditure is reduced in the November Budget so that interest rates can be kept low and the recovery continued?
    Mr. Lamont: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there is a connection between the total borrowing requirement and interest rates, both at the short and the long end. It is important for us to have public expenditure under control and for the PSBR to be on a declining path. I notice that the Labour party seems to agree with that sentiment and seems to wish to get on the attack over it, but we have not heard one suggestion from the shadow Chancellor to rectify that aspect of policy.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Chancellor accept that now interest rates are down to a tolerable level, perhaps the most important thing for manufacturing industry and the jobs dependent on it is to maintain the stability of interest rates, so that there can be a foreseeable interest rate level for the investment cycle? When considering future interest rates, will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind pensioners who have a relatively small amount of money saved and are dependent on interest for the money on which to live?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman refers to interest rates being at a tolerable or acceptable level; they are at the lowest level for 15 years and are the lowest in the European Community and mortgage rates are at their lowest for 20 years. He also referred to savers and I entirely agree. During the last Question Time in which I answered questions about interest rates, I said that I thought that the postbag on interest rates was running 50:50 in favour of higher rates. In all honesty, it is now running at 8:1 in favour of higher rates.

    House Prices
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of recent indicators concerning the level of house prices.
    Mr. Nelson: On the Halifax measure, house prices have risen for two months in succession. House builders and estate agents are notably more optimistic and have consistently been reporting increased activity. Those signs are very encouraging and clearly point to the level of activity rising further during the year.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increasing activity in the housing market is further evidence of a rise in general economic confidence? Is not it clear that changes to stamp duty in the Budget and the buying-up of empty properties announced in the autumn statement last year have had a beneficial effect?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been increasing signs of confidence in the housing market and in the economy generally. The buying-up of about 23,000 empty properties and doubling stamp duty to £60,000 have helped sentiment, but the biggest boost to confidence in the housing market has come from the significant reduction in interest rates, which has brought
    274
    mortgage rates to at or below 8 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that is the lowest level for 25 years.
    Mr. Soley: Are we to assume from the Government's Budget changes that they are continuing to phase out mortgage income tax relief? If so, may I ask them not to do what the President of the Board of Trade advised a few years ago, which was to abolish it entirely except for first-time buyers, and instead to consider some of the more sensible proposals such as giving a subsidy to low-income home owners without artificially inflating the housing market, which would also allow renting to become an economic activity again, for landlords and tenants?
    Mr. Nelson: The Government have taken measures to assist and promote the rented sector, such as the deregulation of rents, the renting a room schemes and others. However, as for mortgage interest relief generally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the position for next year clear in his Budget statement. Every year in the Budget statement, the rate of mortgage relief is set for the following year. This is not the right time to make a Budget statement for the next financial year.

    Company Profitability
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the CBI to discuss company profitability; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequent contacts with. the CBI.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing companies in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom in their return to sustained profitability is the difficulty in getting working capital from banks? When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor next meets the CBI, will he be able to say that the Treasury plans an issue of two to three-year gilts especially designed for banks to buy, as foreshadowed in the Budget? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be the best way to ease liquidity in the banking system, thereby helping companies to get the working capital that they so desperately need?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said about funding in the Budget statement. Indeed, I would have anxieties about the pressure that such short-term gilts might have on inflation. The key to liquidity, about which my hon. Friend is worried, is the maintenance of low inflation and the restoration of profitability, which depend on the recovery. I think that she will be encouraged by the forecasts for company profitability.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Given that company profitability was regenerated only when Britain was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, why are the Government now indulging in nonsense about interest rates not coming down further and trying to talk up the pound again? Do they not realise that the only answer to the problems of a country that is in horrendous deficit and whose manufacturing base has shrunk below the levels of

    275
    viability is competitiveness, competitiveness, competitiveness—competitiveness and competitiveness, now and for ever? Why not put Group 4 in charge of the pound?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman was in some danger of repeating himself during that question. I agree that competitiveness is very important, which is why the fact that unit wage costs have fallen in Britain while they have continued to rise in Japan and Germany is extremely encouraging. The hon. Gentleman should note that the encouraging performance of exports and retail sales began during the first half of last year. He should not put his faith in devaluation, which has never been the way out of problems for this country. He should consider the improvements in our competitiveness, which have been achieved in the last year by company managers getting control of productivity and quality and ensuring that they keep down wage and other costs.
    Ms Harman: Given the importance of levels of investment on profitability, the fact that the Red Book forecast that business investment is to fall by half a per cent. this year and the fact that CBI industrial trends show that manufacturing firms are cutting investment, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present level of investment? If not, what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady often repeats statistics, and I have had the privilege of hearing her make that point many times. However, she has not read the figures carefully. If she excludes investment in the North sea—investment which, because it is lumpy, rises and falls—she will find that investment has been rising. Even at the very lowest level predicted for the first half of 1994, business investment will be 14 per cent. of gross domestic product. That is historically a very high figure and is higher than that achieved for any year between 1970 and 1986. The hon. Lady will recall that her party was in power for some time during that period.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the level of industrial production in the last 12 months; and what was the equivalent change in Italy, France, Germany and Japan.
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the level of industrial production in the last 12 months; and what was the equivalent change in Italy, France, Germany and Japan.
    Mr. Lamont: Comparing the latest three months with the same period a year ago, industrial production has risen by 1¼ per cent. in the United Kingdom but fallen by 8¼ per cent. in Germany, 5 per cent. in Japan, 4½ per cent. in Italy and 3¾ per cent. in France.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that we, and our manufacturing industry in particular, are doing much better than our competitors in Europe? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ford Transit plant in Southampton, which employs many of my constituents, has shown a sharp increase in production and in quality, and a 20 per cent. increase in productivity, over the past two years? The plant is now
    276
    producing vans significantly more cheaply than the equivalent plant in Belgium. Does not that suggest that the prospects for manufacturing industry in this country are better than they have been for many years?
    Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He gives a powerful example, about which I shall want to read more. My hon. Friend is right about the statistics. My reply to his question did not cite all the figures for the United Kingdom. From peak to trough of the recession, industrial production fell by 7½ per cent. in the United Kingdom. The recession in Germany continues, and so far industrial production there has fallen by 12·3 per cent. In Japan it has fallen by 11½ per cent. so far and in Sweden, where recession also continues, it has fallen by 18½ per cent. so far.
    The same examples and parallels can be drawn for retail sales. From peak to trough, they fell by 4 per cent. in this country, whereas so far in Germany they have fallen by 8·8 per cent. and in Japan by 6·5 per cent. In Sweden retail sales have fallen by more than 27 per cent. so far.
    Opposition Members like to think that the recession that came to this country was unique to the United Kingdom. The facts demonstrate dramatically that the truth is very different.
    Ms Short: Does not the Chancellor understand that if there is recession across the world, that is dangerous for Britain and he should not glory in it? Europe is in difficulty, Japan is turning down and there is every sign that the American economy might be beginning to clip again. The Chancellor is pushing up the value of the pound, but it was the devaluation of the pound alone that brought up the British economy. We might lose our recovery, so the right hon. Gentleman should not crow about conditions in other parts of the world but should seek to achieve international co-operation to improve employment in the world economy.
    Mr. Lamont: I am in no way crowing. I simply mention facts that I have never heard mentioned by any Opposition Member. The hon. Lady talked about international co-operation, and I entirely agree with her. We strive for international co-operation in the European Community and in G7. The hon. Lady mentioned the exchange rate, but the pound is floating; we have no exchange rate target. But I observe with some amusement that when the pound goes down that is thought to be a good thing, and is described as "floating", but when the pound goes up, that is thought to happen under the influence of the Government.

    Business Surveys
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the results of business surveys taken since the Budget.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The unanimous message of recent business surveys is that confidence has strengthened and industry is moving out of recession.
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that that is more good news for the Martyn Lewis school of broadcasters. I hope that note is taken of that. Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the latest quarterly economic survey by the Norfolk and Waveney

    277
    chamber of commerce, which shows a dramatic improvement in confidence, in orders and in deliveries on the home front and, perhaps even more important, an improvement in export performance?
    The survey also shows that there is recognition of the need to continue to keep inflation down and to provide stability, and also an appreciation of the measures that the Government introduced in the Budget and in the autumn statement to help the construction industry and, most important, to help exporters. That is good news. Should we not broadcast it?
    Sir John Cope: Yes, it is good news for everybody, although I realise that some Opposition Members have difficulty in recognising it. I have not yet had an opportunity to see the survey about Norfolk to which my hon. Friend referred. Nevertheless, it sounds as though the report sends out the same message as that sent out by all the other surveys that I have seen recently.
    Ms Eagle: Given the fact that it was the accidental almost 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound that triggered the recovery that we are seeing at the moment, what are the implications, in the Minister's opinion, of the gradual rise of the pound over the past few weeks?
    Sir John Cope: The hon. Lady is quite wrong in the first part of her assertion. If she looks at the figures, she will find that the improvement started before the events to which she drew attention. It is there for all to see and many of the figures have already been referred to this afternoon.
    With regard to the exchange rate, the hon. Lady will know that we do not forecast and have no target in that respect. However, of course it is important and we watch it closely.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that business surveys show that small and medium-sized manufacturing companies are concerned about the shortage of risk capital for those unquoted companies? Does he further agree that there would be a dramatic effect in our competitive position vis-a-vis our fellow Europeans if this country were to consider the radical measure of abolishing capital taxation, thus making our country a haven for the inward location of capital, which is very scarce around the world, and perhaps learn from the lessons of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore? That would give us a serious and important competitive edge.
    Sir John Cope: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of small and medium-sized firms. The small firms part of the CBI survey, to which attention was drawn recently, shows that they are expecting to employ more people in the next few months. That is confirmed very strongly by surveys carried out by the Institute of Directors and by 3i. Chamber of commerce and Dun and Bradstreet surveys are also positive. All that emphasises the importance of small firms.
    As for my hon. Friend's taxation proposals, all I would say is that we have recently presented a Budget and the Finance Bill which contain a series of taxation proposals. Those are the proposals which we are pursuing for the time being.
    Mr. Darling: Have those business surveys included the subject of boardroom pay? Some boardroom members appear to have been to the Martyn Lewis school of salaries. Will the Government take the opportunity to
    278
    condemn some executives who have been taking exorbitant pay levels, such as the reputed £10 million paid to a Royal Bank of Scotland executive, when those executives and Ministers have been calling on the less-well-off to take small or no pay increases? What are the Government proposing to do to ensure that everyone is treated in the same way and that the people who already have a great deal do not continue to line their pockets at the expense of others?
    Sir John Cope: I am not going to comment on individual salaries or amounts of remuneration. However, the hon. Gentleman and the House know that the Government and Ministers set an example in that respect this year which I would like to see followed much more fully by leaders in industry and commerce—as indeed it has been by Members of this House.

    Retail Sales
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the current trend in retail sales and their impact upon the economy.
    Sir John Cope: Retail sales in the latest three months were 3·25 per cent. higher than a year ago, and have now been on an upward trend for a year.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while that is extremely good news for the British economy and very bad news for the Labour party, it is important that British industry now takes the opportunity to expand its export trade, backed by a stable pound?
    Sir John Cope: I entirely agree about the importance of exports. Clearly retail sales figures show the opportunities at home, but a good home market is the foundation for exports and that also should be pursued.
    Mr. Bennett: Given that the Government are now claiming that the recession is over, when will they apologise to all the victims of it? What specific help can they give my constituents, particularly engineers who lost their jobs in their late 50s and still see no prospect of ever getting another job, people who have had their homes repossessed and see no chance of ever being able to buy another home, and young couples who are stuck in high-rise flats with small children and with little or no prospect of getting a home away from those flats?
    Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear this afternoon, as well as on previous occasions, that the depth of the recession here has not been nearly as bad as in other countries. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman expects me or any other Conservative Member to apologise for the performance in other countries as well as in Britain. Of course, a recession is very difficult for a lot of people and that is why it is important that we are now moving out of it. All the figures that we have been discussing this afternoon are positive and encouraging for all of us.

    Stamp Duty
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the Manufacturing and Construction Industry Alliance, the Building Employers Confederation and the Housebuilders Federation about stamp duty.
    Mr. Nelson: We have received representations only from the Housebuilders Federation. It welcomed the doubling of the stamp duty threshold.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that stamp duty is an archaic tax which suffocates the housing market? Will he respond positively to the representations from the Construction Industry Employers Council and the Manufacturing and Construction Industry Alliance by restricting the tax payable to a percentage of the amount by which a property's value exceeds £60,000; or, better still, will he announce that the tax will be abolished altogether?
    Mr. Nelson: I should like to be able to announce that. I know that stamp duty is not a much loved tax, but it will bring in this year on land and buildings £570 million, and on shares it will bring in more than £1 billion next year, so it is a very significant source of income. As for making a tax-exempt band as opposed to a threshold, the cost of doing that would be very significant; it would amount to £270 million. We have already gone a long way. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a significant, welcome and important increase in the stamp duty threshold.
    Mr. Gunnell: Could the Economic Secretary tell me the percentage drop in the number of transactions involving stamp duty as a result of the Budget changes? Is he using that as an argument to close the Leeds stamp duty office? Is he aware that there is great concern in the Leeds financial community about the closure of that office? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in closing the office, he is going against the trend of other financial institutions, all of which regard Leeds as a growing and strengthening centre for financial services?
    Mr. Nelson: As for the number of transactions, that has been picking up recently. I acknowledge immediately the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that he has represented the interests of that office in his constituency on this matter. He will know that I have written to him. Some regional stamp duty offices have been changed largely because of advances in technology as well as the need to save costs. Although a relatively small number of people are involved, I acknowledge the importance of that local service to many businesses.
    I am sorry that I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman a more favourable reply today than I have done in my letters, but I am always prepared to hear his representations.

    Profit-related Pay
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the latest available number of live profit-related pay schemes; and what the numbers were a year ago.
    Mr. Portillo: There were 4,615 active profit-related pay schemes at the end of March 1993—getting on for double the number a year ago. The number of active schemes has more than trebled since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the tax relief in his 1991 Budget.
    Mr. Taylor: The figures that were given by my right hon. Friend are extremely good news for workers in those
    280
    companies. Also, given the extension of employee shareholding organised by the Government, does that not show that we can extend co-operation and consultation with workers and enable them to share in the benefits of their companies much more effectively on the basis of participation in profits than the collectivist-imposed solutions favoured by the Labour party and by the social protocol? Does it not prove that we put up and that they should shut up?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are now 1·2 million employees participating in profit-related pay schemes. There are 2·9 million employees participating in all-employee share schemes. Both those schemes are highly commendable. They have attracted the approval and support of the Trades Union Congress. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that such schemes is the way to get employees involved. It means that all employees have a vested interest in the success and profitability of companies. That must be the right way to handle it.
    Mr. Battle: Can the Minister explain why the Government are spending British taxpayers' money on advertisements placed in the German press to tell Europe that Britain now has the lowest wages in the whole of Europe? Is that something of which the Government want to be proud?
    Mr. Portillo: We are enormously proud that the United Kingdom has become a haven for inward investment. We are the envy of Europe. We are attracting 40 per cent. of Japanese investment into the European Community and about the same proportion of investment from the United States. Is the hon. Gentleman so xenophobic that he wishes to turn away that investment?

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.
    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. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quantity of advertising spend is a sensitive barometer of the state of the economy? Is he aware that the amount of advertising for retail sales is up 4 per cent. on the first quarter this year and the amount of advertising on television is up 7 per cent. on the first quarter of this year? Does he think that that is an excellent advertisement for not only the Conservative party but its economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct about advertising being an indicator of activity in the economy. It has been increasing. I was not precisely aware of the figures that my hon. Friend has set out but I have no doubt—[Interruption.] I must have missed them in the welter of other encouraging economic news that I have seen.
    Mr. John Smith: Yesterday the Prime Minister boasted to the Newspaper Society about the number of manifesto

    281
    pledges he claimed to have carried out during the year. Why was there no reference whatever to taxation in that speech?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in no position to talk to anyone about taxation. I recall that it was his talking about taxation that played a significant part in the fact that we are sitting here and he is sitting there.
    Mr. John Smith: The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister studiously avoided answering the question. Is not the real reason why he forgot to mention taxation that he wants the voters in the elections today to forget that his Government's VAT and national insurance increases will cost the typical family in the United Kingdom another £8·50 every week?
    The Prime Minister: How interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should say that because I have in front of me a quote that I shall read:
    "I favour the higher band income tax and the removal of the ceiling on national insurance contributions that Labour's 1992 Shadow budget proposed. Failing that, I would remove zero rating for VAT on all items."
    That is the noble Lord Desai, an Opposition spokesman on economic matters in the House of Lords.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister knows well—because Lord Desai has written to him—that the noble Lord was on the Back Benches when he said what he said—[Interruption.] He also knows——
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not the case that—let the Prime Minister understand that he cannot run away from this—in the general election he made clear and specific promises not to increase VAT and national insurance contributions? Surely the last thing that he wants people to remember today is that his promises and Tory promises are worthless.
    The Prime Minister: Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has lost touch with his own party. The quote that I used, far from being elderly, is in Tribune today.
    Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend find time to examine the growth of bureaucracy which is seriously impeding the work of the police and the criminal justice system? Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the simplest case these days requires a trail of paperwork and that the more serious cases are such that the expensive time of detectives is now more likely to be spent on paperwork than on the investigation and detection of crime?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, like me, wants to see police officers solving crime, not pushing paper. That is why he is setting out proposals to see how much paperwork can be cut. The more we can free our police from that work, the better they can do the work that I and every other hon. Member of this House would like to see them carrying out.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: In view of Asil Nadir's breach of bail, should not the Prime Minister come clean about Nadir's contribution of £1·5 million to Tory party funds?
    Madam Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House that, while that matter may be of some interest, there is no Government responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is."] Order. There can be no Government responsibility for finance given to a political party.
    The Prime Minister: Well, Madam Speaker, you are of course entirely right about that. I notice that the hon. Lady does not mention the remarkable sums that the Labour party received from the late Robert Maxwell. I cannot, of course, comment on the details of Mr. Nadir's case, which is currently before the courts.
    Mr. Waller: Because the Bosnian Serbs possibly doubt the resolve of the United Nations to act forcefully against the atrocities that we have seen in recent weeks and months perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the relatively defenceless Bosnian Muslims, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that we and our allies will not abnegate our responsibilities to take any action that may be deemed necessary to bring those atrocities to an end?
    The Prime Minister: Our highest priorities have to be to secure implementation of the settlement plan, to deter further Serbian offences and to sustain humanitarian relief. In one important aspect, things have changed in recent days. President Milosevic of Serbia has committed himself to the Athens agreement. Whatever views may emerge from the self-appointed Bosnian Serb assembly, the international community expects President Milosevic to make good that commitment. He should do so, in our judgment, by closing Serbia's borders with Bosnia, cutting the supply of weapons and other goods and exerting all other possible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. The Serbian people must realise that they will come under mounting pressure from throughout the international community until there is a peaceful settlement. That is the essence of the common approach that we have agreed with our allies.
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Worthington: Could the Prime Minister devote some time to the appalling situation in Sudan, from which the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and I have recently returned? There is mass starvation, the interruption of food supplies, the harassment of the Christian churches and the prevention of the international aid agencies from doing their work. Will the Prime Minister take up the matter with the Security Council to bring an end to the appalling 10-year civil war and allow uninterrupted work by the Christian churches and the international aid agencies, which are doing valuable work there?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I fully share his concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the distressing situation in Sudan. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we took a lead in the United Nations General Assembly last December when it adopted a resolution condemning the Sudanese Government's human rights

    283
    record. Also, of course, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. We are looking at the moment to the negotiations under Nigerian auspices. We hope that they will succeed in ending the civil war. I certainly would not rule out a future role for the Security Council. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend could perhaps let me have a more detailed report of what they saw in Sudan. I would welcome that as I should like to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend receiving letters, as I am, from pensioners and others receiving benefit who are concerned in case that benefit should be paid exclusively into banks and building societies? Will he confirm that benefit will continue to be available from post offices and sub-post offices, thus giving the customers a choice, in line with Conservative policy?
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which concern is raised from time to time. We have made no proposals to make those changes. If we had any firm proposals to make those changes we would bring them before the House.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time during a busy and probably worrying day for him to reflect that when he and I were leaving school student grants were adequate and most discretionary awards were paid for higher degrees? Does he not think that the present situation, where higher degrees are not awarded grants by local authorities, is a deterrent to less-well-off students and the nation will lose their skills? Is it just that he is unconcerned because he got where he is with three O-levels?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in most of the things he says. His essential mistake about the future is that he entirely overlooks the vast increase in the numbers of young people going into higher education. Virtually one in three young people now goes on to further education. Those arc wholly different circumstances from when the hon. Gentleman and I left school.
    Mr. Congdon: Is it not good news that British Telecom is to reduce the cost of connection charges by £40? Does this not show the benefits of privatisation combined with a tough regulatory regime?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly does and it certainly would not have been so efficient without privatisation. Privatisation has brought better service and lower charges for gas, electricity and telecommunications and that is why we continue to support it, unlike the Opposition who have supported no new idea of any sort for years.
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Parry: The Prime Minister will be aware of the meeting last night in the Grand Committee Room where Mr. Nelson Mandela met Members of all parties and both
    284
    Houses. The meeting was well attended and Mr. Mandela got a standing ovation on both entering and leaving the room. What help can the Government give to South African in the forthcoming general election, particularly in investment from Britain?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I separately met Mr. Mandela during his visit to the United Kingdom. We had the opportunity of discussing a whole range of issues: the difficulties with violence, the progress with the talks and the prospects for transition to a peaceful, multiracial democracy in South Africa. We discussed the range of ways in which we could help, both personally and publicly.
    One area that would be of immense help when the transitional Government is formed would be the immediate removal of sanctions and that is now of great importance to Mr. Mandela, as he probably mentioned last evening. The underlying concern that exists there is extremely serious. South Africa has nil economic growth, 7 million people unemployed, a 3 per cent. annual growth in the birth rate and badly needs international investment and the removal of sanctions. The sooner that can be agreed by all parties in this House, the better it will be for South Africa.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend hesitate a little before deciding to abolish the May day bank holiday? Ideological considerations apart, is it not a fact that more people enjoy having an early summer day's break than would enjoy a break at the beginning of winter? Is it not further the case that the May day bank holiday gives a welcome and much-needed kick-start to the leisure industry which a holiday at the end of October could never begin to do?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's advice on that important matter. When we have an announcement to make, we will bring it to the House.
    Mr. Shore: The Prime Minister will recall that yesterday the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was debated and that in the course of the debate an amendment was passed, as a result of which the House has unanimously agreed to strike out the protocol that the Government had previously negotiated for an opt-out from the social chapter.
    Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether his respect for the views of the House of Commons is sufficient for him not now to pursue his previous goal of completing the ratification of the treaty? If he is not prepared to give that guarantee to the House, will he at least now let the people of this country have a chance to vote on their future, when the House of Commons is unable to influence the Government even by a majority vote?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the implications of being a parliamentary democracy. We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums. The sole effect of the amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to remove the social protocol from being incorporated into United Kingdom law, but the opt-out remains part of the treaty. So let me repeat very clearly that we will ratify the treaty which I signed at Maastricht: no change, no social chapter, no back-door socialism.

Bosnia
3.31 pm
Mr. George Robertson (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Bosnia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs cannot be here today to make a statement on Bosnia. In his absence in Hungary, and in the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Hogg), I will reply.
The policy of the Government remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in last Thursday's debate and in giving evidence yesterday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is a twin-track policy. One track is our effort to secure agreement on the Vance-Owen peace plan and its implementation. The other track is intensification of the pressure on the Serbs should they remain intransigent.
A new and unwelcome development is the refusal of the Bosnian Serb assembly to ratify Dr. Karadzic's signature of the peace plan negotiated by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. Their decision is irresponsible and will damage the cause of peace in Bosnia. It will also damage the interests of the Serbs.
Despite this, we continue to consider the Vance-Owen plan the best chance for a lasting peace in Bosnia. We call on all those with influence and, in particular, President Milosevic to redouble efforts to persuade the Bosnian Serbs that the only way forward to a better future is acceptance of this plan and full co-operation in its implementation.
We must continue to make it clear that the international community is prepared to intensify its pressure. Sanctions are already seriously damaging Serbia and will be made even more effective in the Adriatic, on the Danube, across the land borders and in relation to financial movements.
The Government have made it clear that we do not rule out other options. We shall continue consultations with our partners and allies on such measures.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister of State. The House understands the absence of the Foreign Secretary.
Is the Minister aware that the whole House will agree with him and with the widespread international condemnation of the decision early this morning by the self-appointed, self-styled Bosnian Serb assembly to repudiate its leader's signature on the Vance-Owen peace plan at the weekend? The Minister will also know that we agree that there will be unanimous rejection of the absurd delaying tactics—of holding a referendum on that decision.
Will the Government make it clear in the Security Council—I believe that it may soon be in session—that policy must now be firm and resolute in pursuit of the Vance-Owen peace plan, but that it must also he measured and not precipitate? In particular, will he recall that it was the clear threat of military force—in our view, by means of
286
air attack—combined with the sort of severe sanctions that should have been in place a year ago which led to the agreement last weekend; and that these threats must be kept in place?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the decision early this morning was taken in the face of the direct advice of President Milosevic and other Bosnian Serb allies, and that the Security Council must immediately examine how this situation—of a serious split between Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs—can be used for the future? Will he therefore agree that President Milosevic, who has been for so long a supplier of arms, finance and moral and political support to the Bosnian Serbs, must now make it clear that they have no alternative but to sign the Vance-Owen peace plan—or else he must join Russia and the rest of the world community in ensuring that their isolation is complete?
Does the Minister's statement that other options have not been ruled out mean that the British Government may not veto the lifting of the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia? Secondly, will he explain the statement by his fellow Minister of State on the BBC's "World at One" from Brussels about the new situation requiring an intensification of the blockade? Has not that already been done; should it not already have been done?
Thirdly, will the Minister ensure that the Security Council urgently examines ways in which the civilians in besieged Muslim towns can, through agreement and negotiation, be given whatever protection is possible? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take this message from the House, both to the European Community and to the UN Security Council: that those who stand in the way of peace in this afflicted part of the world will never ever be forgiven?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he asked his question, and for his broad support for the Government's position. I agree that we should not regard the vote taken by the so-called Bosnian assembly, for a referendum, as in any way definitive; and that we should continue, as he has suggested, to exert all the pressure we can on Mr. Milosevic, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, to join us in bringing this pressure to bear—for instance, by closing Serbia's borders with Bosnia, by cutting off the supply of weapons and other goods and by exerting every possible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs.
The intensification of the blockade is indeed taking place. As the House knows, that requires a large measure of international co-operation. For instance, the Western European Union's decision to provide assistance for strengthening the blockade on the Danube is now being implemented, and the Government are increasing the number of people whom we are sending out to help support the blockade—in the form of customs officers, for instance.
Finally. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the whole House wants to send the Bosnian Serbs the message that the international community is united against the actions that they have taken, that they will receive no benefit from any conquests that they think they have made, and that the peaceful answer to this question must in the end take the form of a settlement negotiated around the table of the sort that Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance are seeking to produce.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a grave and dangerous moment, and that there must be no question of further major commitments of troops to the area unless and until a viable peace plan looks as though it will be agreed, or has been agreed, and the guns begin to fall silent?

Does he also accept, as I think he will, that the robust line taken by the western allies and the international community in recent days has had a direct deterrent effect on some of the participants in the bloodshed, particularly Mr. Milosevic, who sounds as though he is getting distinctly nervous, and that that deterrent effect must be kept in place by making it clear that we are prepared to consider the options that have been examined by the NATO planners, the Americans and ourselves, including the use of force, to coerce the people into understanding that, if they carry on with the bloodshed, they will receive worse even than they give?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with both points that my right hon. Friend has made. His statement about no further commitment of troops is the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government, and we intend to stick to that policy. He is absolutely right in what he says about the pressure that the international community has already exerted on the Bosnian Serbs. That pressure should be sustained. I agree that the military options he is talking about must remain on the table: they will do so.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the sad decision of the Bosnian Serbs must not lead us to break off dialogue with them, but that that decision makes it necessary for us to consider direct intervention to protect the Muslim enclaves which are besieged? In particular, does he agree that, in Srebrenica, the agreements about water supply given to General Morillon have been declared null and void? Does he agree also that, at Tuzla, where 700,000 are without means of feeding themselves, it must be imperative to reopen the airport?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot comment on the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has made, because I am not at present advised on them. Certainly we need to continue consultations with the United Nations. We very much welcome the decision of the High Commissioner for Refugees to set up safe areas in Zepa and Gorazde by agreement with the parties. I understand that they want an international presence and not military enforcement, and that they continue to focus their efforts on delivering aid to those towns.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is a private notice question? I am looking for direct questions to the Minister on the comments that he made—not long statements, but direct questions.
Mr. David Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the American authorities that our troops, not theirs, are at risk daily in Bosnia, and that lifting the arms embargo will mean the immediate withdrawal of those troops?
Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had close consultations with the United States Secretary of State
288
over the weekend. I believe that all those matters were discussed. I think that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, the French Government, on these matters is well understood by all our allies, including the United States.
Mr. Bruce George: If eventually the Vance-Owen agreement is signed, it will require the insertion of a large number of troops, 75,000 or so, and they will need to be there very quickly. If there are fewer, the operation will become unviable. What contingency plans have been undertaken? How many troops have we promised? If the Russians, the French and the Americans have promised, will we make a commitment, because much planning has to be done? Once the agreement is signed, the time for planning is over and the time to send troops to enforce the agreement has come.
Mr. Garel-Jones: As the House would expect, we have been and are making contingency plans but, of course, those will be relevant only if a real peace agreement is signed. As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), we do not intend to commit British troops against the uncertain background which currently exists, and which might be exacerbated if wrong measures were taken.
Mr. Paul Channon: In view of the serious situation, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever may happen to the Vance-Owen agreement, his prime objective in the coming weeks and days will he to make sure that British troops who are already there arc protected, in so far as that is possible? My right hon. Friend has said that no more troops will be sent unless the Government are satisfied that their safety is assured.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The protection and well-being of our troops are the highest priorities for this Administration.
Dr. John Reid: Only four days ago, along with three other hon. Members, I witnessed scenes so horrific that I trust that I shall never have to see them again. At Bosanskibrod, in the north of Bosnia-Herzegovina, we stood at the edge of a mass grave as the bodies of civilians, some of them aged 75 and female, were exhumed. They were probably all Serbs and probably all massacred by Croats.
Will the Minister bear that in mind as an illustration of the fact that atrocities are being committed by all sides? Will he also bear in mind the fact that, even as those bodies were being exhumed, that area was being handed back to the Croat military? That underlines the difficulties of implementing the plan, even if the Serbs agree.
Will the Government maintain the even-handed approach that they have sensibly deployed over the past few months, and resist any pressure from sections of the media to turn this into a holy war against the Serbs or the Serb nation, because that would result in an even greater holocaust than anything that we have seen so far?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conveying to us the horror that he and, I am sure, all of us would have felt at that manifestation of what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. It makes the point that all of us—even the Government, who are pursuing, as

289
we see it, the right policy, albeit that is a difficult furrow to follow—must understand that hon. Members who seek to advance alternative policies on us do so with the utmost sincerity.
Because of the horror of what is happening, it is inevitable that hon. Members in all parts of the House will seek ways to bring a peaceful and just settlement to that unhappy part of the world. I take that to be not just the will of the House but the will of the international community.
Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend spoke about tightening sanctions. Will he take full account of the special position of the neighbours of the former Yugoslavia, in particular Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania? Will he ask the Secretary of State to pass on our appreciation to those neighbours, because the cost of sanctions to those countries has been far in excess of anything that the rest of us can understand? Will he also urge those countries to use their good offices to press on the former Yugoslavia the fact that the closure of the Serbian border may be the best way forward?
Mr. Garel-Jones: The co-operation of neighbouring countries—my hon. Friend mentioned Bulgaria—is absolutely essential to the success of our policy. I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister assure us that the options which he mentioned, and which the Government will always keep open, will exclude the further committal of troops—unless, as the Minister has already said, it is to implement a peace plan? Will he exclude air strikes from those options, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would place our troops at risk not only from what is euphemistically called "friendly fire", if experience is anything to go by, but from retaliation? I am sure he accepts that the safety of our troops must be foremost.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept the latter part of his question. We have expressed in the House—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when the matter was last debated—our reservations about air strikes, but, as we seek to sustain the pressure, the House will accept that we would not want to rule out any option.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that it is our troops and the French troops who are at the sharp end? Will he take every opportunity to discourage those, both in the House and outside, who are constantly calling for more direct action for air strikes, which would inevitably bring down retribution on our troops? They would be the ones who would suffer, and many of those who are now talking loudly and clearly about what "we" will do really mean what "you" will do.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and, as the House will be aware, were we to pursue that policy, there would have to be a serious doubt as to whether we could continue with the humanitarian efforts that we have been successfully engaged in for the past year. He is also right to say that the effort by the European Community has, on the ground, substantially meant a
290
troop commitment by the United Kingdom and the French republic. Naturally enough, both of us have as our prime concern the protection and safety of our troops.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is it not unacceptable that Bosnian Serbs are still mounting attacks on the civilian population of Zepa and elsewhere? Will the Minister make it clear that the other options that he is holding in reserve, for example air strikes, are directed not just at the Serbian regime in Belgrade but at the Bosnian Serbs? Will he also make it clear that, if they continue to defy the will of the international community, those options could be taken into play to force the Bosnian Serbs to accept the will of the United Nations?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot add much to what I have already said. We do not discard any option, but it would not be helpful at this stage if I were to speculate in the way that the hon. Gentleman invites me to do.
Sir Edward Heath: I recognise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend understandably finds himself, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, I would be grateful if he would elucidate the answers that he has been giving, which, on occasion, seem to be contradictory.
He has said several times that all options remain open. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have constantly assured the House and the country that we shall not put in forces for any war purpose. They will be there only for humanitarian reasons or, in the event of a complete agreement about a peace treaty, to supervise, but not for warlike purposes.
Therefore, will my right hon. Friend make it plain, when he says that all options remain open, that that is not an option? Will he also make it plain that, if the Americans decide to bomb, we shall withdraw our humanitarian forces, because otherwise the fear that is already widely held—that we are being dragged, step by step, further into a bloody civil war—will remain?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity, if I have not been clear enough about it, to reiterate that the one option that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have ruled out is the commitment of combat British troops to war on the ground in Yugoslavia. That option is entirely ruled out, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have made that clear on a number of occasions.
As to the option of selective bombing, we again have expressed our reservations about that and not least among those reservations is that it would almost certainly bring the humanitarian effort to an end and place our troops on the ground in grave danger.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Having seen, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. North (Dr. Reid), the results of the massacre by Croats of Serbs and Muslims at Bosanskibrod in region 2 of the Vance-Owen plan, I plead with the Government not to regard that plan as sacrosanct. Not only in the region that we were unfortunate enough to see last Sunday but in region 10, which has been allocated to the Croats and the Muslims, bitter fighting is already taking place between the two. Is it not time for us to put equal pressure

291
on Croatia which, after all, was responsible for the aggression in Krajina on 22 January and is supporting the regime that committed atrocities around Vitez?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I believe that the Vance-Owen plan is the best option that we have at the moment, and it is the one around which the international community has rallied. The hon. Gentleman referred to atrocities committed by Croatians. I do not believe that any ethnic group in Yugoslavia is free of guilt in those matters, but most right hon. and hon. Members are clear where the main burden of guilt lies.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the Bosnian Serbs will continue to procrastinate until they have won all the territory they want to gain, and that only at that stage will the assembly or any other body actually sign the Vance-Owen peace plan?
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in his place on the Front Bench, may I also ask the Minister whether he is concerned for the morale of British service personnel in Bosnia—particularly the Cheshire Regiment, many of whose families live in my constituency? They are deeply concerned that, in their humanitarian role in Bosnia, they are unable to do anything about the rape, killing, pillage and destruction that they see before their very eyes every day. They are powerless to stop the killing.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member's point about the Bosnian Serbs seeking to gain advance by conquest is one that they will no doubt have in mind. The international community is absolutely determined that no territory gained by a conquest of that kind shall be accepted by the international community. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech, those so-called conquests by the Bosnian Serbs will prove to be empty conquests—I have no doubt about that.
292
As to the performance and morale of our own troops in the Cheshire Regiment, on the wireless this morning, Colonel Stewart said that morale was very high. That is not surprising, because, even though the Cheshires have to perform a frustrating and delicate task, they have the satisfaction of knowing that the substantial humanitarian aid that they have delivered over the past six months has certainly saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Since political pressure is likely to be far more effective than a more adventurous approach, perhaps the Minister would care to act on two suggestions. First, he should persuade his political associates not to embark on premature and whole-hearted approval of Croatia at this time, since that would send entirely the wrong signal to Belgrade. Secondly, he should persuade his colleagues in Western European Union to make public the evidence that they have possessed for months of the extensive breaches of sanctions. It is now obvious that political pressure would be best served if that evidence were made public and subject to open debate in Europe.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that political pressure is the route down which we must go. The sanctions regime has in some instances not proved to be wholly satisfactory. We have taken a number of measures to tighten sanctions, which are having a substantial effect now. From our experience, most of us believe that a sanctions policy that is as tight and strict as we can make it can be one important ingredient in the.armoury at our disposal in bringing pressure on Belgrade.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Business of the House
3.59 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 10 MAY—Progress in Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, first day.

Motions relating to the National Health Service Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 11 MAY—Progress in Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, second day.

Motion relating to the Sea Fish Licensing (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order.

WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Progress in Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, third day. The House will be relieved to know that I have no plans as yet for a 24th day.

THURSDAY 13 MAY—Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill.

Proceedings on the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill.

FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 17 MAY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.

Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 12 May at 10.30 am, European Standing Committee A will meet to consider an EC document relating to the fisheries agreement with Argentina. and European Standing Committee B to consider the Commission green paper on Community action regarding the media.
[Monday 10 May:

National Health Service Orders:

National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1993 (SI No. 574);

National Health Service (District Health Authorities) Order 1993 (SI No. 572);

National Health Service (Determination of Regions) Order 1993 (SI No. 571).

Wednesday 12 May:

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document:

4769/93 Fisheries agreement with Argentina

Relevant Report orate European Legislation Committee:

HC 79-xxiv (1992–93).

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document:

4213/93 Concentration in the media

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 79-xxi (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. The Opposition undertake to facilitate the
294
passage of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, because we understand the urgency of the position and support the Government's aims in this respect.
May I remind the Leader of the House of the length of time that has elapsed since we had an Opposition supply day? We have made repeated requests for a debate on the public expenditure programme. We hear almost daily of the Chief Secretary's desire to cut a programme that we have not had a chance to debate. If we had a chance to assess the shape of the programme, it would also give us an opportunity to focus on the waste and mismanagement over which the Government are presiding.
That was further revealed in evidence about the Wessex health authority which was given to the Public Accounts Committee only the other day. It is now suggested that over £60 million was wasted. This was drawn to the attention of three successive Secretaries of State—indeed, I believe the Lord President himself gave some parliamentary answers on the matter—but they did not act, although the Department's auditors were warning about the situation that was developing. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the present Secretary of State to make a statement about this, and also what is happening with regard to small pharmacies, which are increasingly under threat as a result of Government proposals?
May I remind the Leader of the House that—although he did not exactly give an undertaking—he did suggest that there might be some time after Easter for a debate in Government time on the White Paper on stock-taking with regard to the legislative arrangements for Scotland. He has given some indication that he will look at it; I hope that he will look at it again.
Mr. Newton: On the right hon. Lady's request for an Opposition supply day, she knows that I am sympathetic and will look for an opportunity to meet her wishes as soon as possible. It was also an Opposition wish that we should spend quite an extensive amount of time on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and the announcement that I have just made meets that request. I do not think that I can be so forthcoming about her request for a debate about what amounts to speculation about public expenditure. Some reference to that may well he in order—subject to your ruling, Madam Speaker—during the debates on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but the proper time to debate such matters is when there are some definite proposals. As to the stock-taking point, I will consider what the right hon. Lady has said, but I cannot give any immediate commitment.
Let me say—on behalf of the whole House, I am sure—that I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends for the attitude that they have adopted over the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill. The spirit in which she made those remarks is much appreciated by the Government and, I am sure, by others.
Mr. Barry Porter: May I add my voice to the request of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for a statement on or clarification of the Government's policy towards small pharmacies? The policy, as I understand it at the moment, is just a touch puzzling. Clarification would be helpful. I am in favour of small pharmacies.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will also take note of them. I shall draw his request to her attention.
Mr. David Alton: In the light of the debate that is to be held on 14 May on a private Member's Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), to reform the Shops Act 1950, and in the light of the concessions that the hon. Gentleman made in Committee, can the Leader of the House say whether he has yet had a chance to consider the nature of those concessions and whether he will now provide time to enable that Bill to proceed? Has he seen the early-day motion that has been signed by 248 Members in all parts of this House?
[That this House notes the recent rulings of the European Court and the House of Lords upholding the Shops Act 1950; now demands that major national retailers set an example by closing their stores on Sundays in observance of the rule of law and in recognition of the sovereignty of Parliament; and urges the Government to support the honourable Member for Ogmore's Shops (Amendment) Bill which received a majority of 173 at Second Reading on 22nd January and which was amended in Committee to make it a compromise solution so that it both meets the reasonable needs of consumers, including DIYs, garden centres as defined by the Horticultural Trades Association and convenience stores up to 3,000 square feet in size, and substantially maintains the special character of Sunday.]
The motion urges the Government to provide time to enable this legislation to go forward. Will the Leader of the House lay a motion before the House, if necessary, to test the opinion of the House on deregulation so that, once that is disposed of, this Bill can become the Government's own Bill and can be promoted without any further delay and this crazy situation, in which the law is being broken by the day, can be rectified at last?
Mr. Newton: I have of course noted the early-day motion, but I have no plans for action along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Government's position over a long period regarding the provision of Government time for private Members' Bills is well known. I do not anticipate any change. Equally, the Government's position on the whole issue, and their intentions, is well known; it has been clearly and repeatedly stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Government intend to bring before Parliament their own Bill, providing a choice for the House on the main options for the reform of Sunday trading.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the laws that cover the licensing of people to hold guns so that I may raise the case of a constituent who was allowed to hold a gun under licence, despite the opposition of his wife, who repeatedly wrote to the authorities saying that she was very frightened? She was shot dead by her husband last week. He then shot himself in front of their nine-year-old child, to the devastation of the family and the community. Is there not something wrong with these laws and should not something be done? Certainly this House ought to discuss the matter.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that everyone who has heard what my hon. Friend has just said will join him in his
296
concern about that particular case and its tragic consequences. I cannot, nevertheless, promise a debate. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, within whose area those licensing matters come, will be here to answer questions on Thursday 13 May.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can we have a ministerial statement to the House next week on the bureaucratic disaster of the Benefits Agency, about which the Social Security Select Committee reported yesterday? Is it not disgraceful that, in so many cases, payment of benefits was delayed until long after the disabled applicants had died? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people are describing what has happened as one of the worst cases of maladministration in living memory?
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman—above all, perhaps—will be aware not only of the Select Committee's report but of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is studying that report in detail and will be replying to it. it would not at this stage be proper for me to anticipate his reply to a Select Committee report.
Sir James Kilfedder: I am deeply disturbed about the cuts imposed by the Eastern health and social services board for health service provision in my constituency of North Down, particularly the hospital cuts. Can the Leader of the House provide time urgently to debate this vital issue, which is of such concern to my constituents?
Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately undertake to provide time for a debate, but I can of course—and do—undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement early next week about Mr. Nadir—certainly if he does not return to this country? Is it not absolutely essential, in the interests of justice, to counter the view that is held by many people outside this place, that a person in much humbler circumstances would not have been able to flee the country and justice, and then boast about it immediately after he had done so? A statement by the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary is absolutely essential.
Mr. Newton: There seems to be a good deal of unanimity in the House this afternoon. I think that everyone would deplore what happened and support my right hon. Friends in doing everything that they can to achieve Mr. Nadir's return to this country. That said, I cannot promise the statement that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I can happily say that, on two successive days next week, those people to whom his question was most clearly directed will be here to answer questions—the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday and the Home Secretary on Thursday.
Mr. Richard Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the crossrail project, which will have a considerable effect on a number of

297
constituencies, including my own. Can he give any idea of when he feels that the measure may be presented to the House in the shape of a Second Reading?
Mr. Newton: I hope that that will not be delayed too much longer, but I cannot give an immediate undertaking, let alone a date. My hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter I well understand, will be aware that consultants were asked to re-examine the crossrail proposals to ensure that the project can be taken forward as a joint venture with the private sector. They have just completed their re-examination, and my right hon. Friends are considering their conclusions.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on my early-day motion 1947, which has already been signed by more than 100 people?
[That this House recalls the pledges made by the President of the Board of Trade on the consultative processes in the 10 pits, and equally remembers the pious utterances of concern expressed by British Coal; and therefore calls upon the former to condemn, and the latter to cease, the practice of blackmailing miners into voting for closures by placing artificial and very short time limits for the receipt of enhanced benefits, as exemplified in the Grimethorpe closure.]
In particular, can he ensure that the President of the Board of Trade speaks from the Government Dispatch Box to assure us that he stands by his clear and unequivocal promises to the House that enhanced redundancy payments would be maintained until the end of the normal consultation period, and that, before the closure of any pit, it would at least be offered for sale to private enterprise? It is proposed that Grimethorpe pit should close on Monday, so the matter requires some urgency.
Mr. Newton: While I cannot promise the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks, I can as ever undertake to ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of what he has said. British Coal's assurances still stand—its redundancy terms will be calculated on earnings before the October closure announcement or up to the date of redundancy, whichever is greater.
Mr. John Greenway: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement that the House will have the opportunity next week to progress the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, and welcome the support given to the measure by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
Is it intended that all stages should be passed next week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage commerce and industry to avail themselves of that important facility is for the House to give the measure a speedy passage? Having visited Bishopsgate today for a second time, and seen the devastation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take the opportunity to send the good wishes and congratulations of the House to the police and contractors who are working to restore normality to the area?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is an unequivocal yes. On the first part, in announcing the business as "proceedings on" the
298
Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, my phrasing was intended to indicate the hope that we would be able to complete all the stages.
Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
Mr. Newton: Once again, I am happy that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is nodding in a highly responsible and helpful fashion.
Mr. George Foulkes: As always.
Mr. Newton: Or as she mostly is, but I am happy to see that that is her hope, too.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House press the Attorney-General to make a statement next week about the criteria that the courts observe when granting bail? Does he agree that many people suspect that there are two laws: one for the rish and powerful with friends in high places, who are often facing serious charges and are granted bail which enables them to skip the country with ease; and another for poorer people without such influence, who are often facing minor charges and are banged up on remand for months and invariably acquitted when they at long last reach the courts? Is that not an intolerable situation, and do not the courts need clear guidance on the criteria that they should observe?
Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House replies. may I again make a plea to hon. Members to be brisk with their questions? I attempt to call all hon. Members but I cannot do so if some make long statements and comments instead of asking direct questions.
Mr. Newton: I must make it clear that I know of absolutely no basis for some of the suggestions and implications in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, he will know that there is concern about bail affecting people of all types and in all conditions reflected in the support from all parties, which has been expressed in the Chamber several times in recent weeks, for the Bail (Amendment) Bill, sponsored by one of my hon. Friends.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Cran.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Christopher Gill, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gill: I am sure that it was the sun in your eyes, Madam Speaker.
Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1950, which I and a number of hon. Friends have signed and which refers to a bilateral treaty between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation which will be ratified within the next few days?
[That this House asserts that ratification of the bilateral Treaty with the Russian Federation, laid before this House on 1st April, which requires that relations between the two countries be governed in particular by their commitments under CSCE documents, would be inconsistent with ratification of the Maastricht Treaty which requires Britain's external relations to be governed by the Common Foreign and Security Policy.]
Will my right hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to debate these matters and, in particular, to establish the relevance of that bilateral treaty, and the

299
other bilateral treaties which Russia has signed with other European countries, to NATO and other institutions of the western European community?
Mr. Newton: I have noted my hon. Friend's early-day motion. The note that I have is to respond by saying that there is no inconsistency—if that is what my hon. Friend is getting at, which seems possible—between the United Kingdom's obligations under the bilateral treaty with the Russian Federation and its obligations under title V of the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate early next week on the Serious Fraud Office so that we can discuss its failure to hold Asil Nadir even though I understand that it was notified of his imminent departure? May we at the same time have a debate on the Government introducing legislation to require political parties to publish their accounts, and thereby remove some of the sleaze around the Tory party?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time. I should be more willing to respond to the hon. Gentleman's latter point if we were hearing rather more about the late Mr. Robert Maxwell, and if there were perhaps some contribution from the Labour party to the pensioners' funds.
As for the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will be aware that the circumstances in which Mr. Nadir left the United Kingdom are currently under investigation, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to predict or speculate on the outcome.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to give a clear explanation next week of why British Rail is being allowed to increase its fares for Regional Railways, with no notification to passengers and in advance of privatisation, thus driving more people off the railways?
Mr. Newton: The House is likely to have considerable further opportunities to debate railway transport matters in, I hope, the not too distant future. I would not wish to excite the hon. Lady's hopes of a statement of precisely the type she seeks, but I shall bring her request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dispute in Hampshire social services about the qualifications of foster parents because two lesbians have been allowed to adopt a child? May we have a debate on this very serious matter, which does not seem to be getting the necessary exposure in the House but which is becoming increasingly prevalent?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the law relating to adoption is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who, I am sure, is aware of the matter that he has raised. However, I shall bring his question to her attention.
Ms Estelle Morris: The Prime Minister's comments this afternoon about Government policy on paying pensions through banks and building societies seemed to contradict answers previously given in the House by the President of the Board of Trade. In view of many pensioners' fears about possible closures of
300
sub-post offices, and of the apparent confusion in Government policy, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on that important matter?
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made some fairly clear-cut remarks on that matter only an hour or so ago, I cannot see a basis on which I could sensibly ask for a further statement next week.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Leader of the House will be aware that elsewhere in the country people are voting in county council elections today. Yet the 7 million people in London have been denied that right—denied the opportunity to vote for an authority in London. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for us to debate the democratic rights of Londoners, so that we can discuss the possibility of a strategic authority for London, which would give Londoners the democratic right available to everyone else in the country—the right to vote for their own authority?
Mr. Newton: Having voted in Essex at about 10 seconds past 8 o'clock this morning, I fully appreciate such democratic opportunities. However, I do not detect any massive agitation in London for the opportunity to vote for the Greater London council again.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House will know of the concern felt about the oil tax changes that we shall debate next week, with 10,000 or more jobs at risk. Although a Committee of the whole House will debate clause 183 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, relevant amendments to other clauses may follow on from amendments made to that clause. Can the Leader of the House guarantee that, if such an amendment is passed, the Government will accept the consequential amendments in Committee?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to become involved in some rather detailed procedural issues concerning debates that may take place next week. I shall be rather cautious about doing so. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the intention is that the main clause dealing with the petroleum revenue tax should be debated in the House on Tuesday. I have no doubt that, were consequential amendments to arise, the Government would take the appropriate action, or recommend such action to the House.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to his reply concerning the Shops (Amendment) Bill and early-day motion 1929, which carries 250 signatures of right hon. and hon. Members, will the Leader of the House consider whether the Attorney-General could make a statement next week about those who continually break the law, although the Law Lords have already made a definite decision to uphold the Shops Act 1950? When will the Government ensure that that law is enforced in this country, as they try to enforce the laws on other matters?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the law on that matter rests with local authorities. I shall, of course, bring his request to the attention of the Attorney-General, but I am afraid that I cannot add to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
Mr. John McFall: The Leader of the House may be aware that controversy has burst out again concerning the unique Scottish verdict of "not proven", used in criminal trials. The controversy has contemporary significance in connection with the tragic case of the murder of a young girl in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
So far, the Government have refused to act until the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in England and Wales reports, but that is an extraordinary pretext when used by those who glory in the independence of Scots criminal law. In order to maintain that independence and integrity, will the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Scotland ensure that we have a debate soon on the "not proven" verdict?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman in the expectation of a debate on that matter, but no doubt he will find various ways of pursuing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Alistair Darling: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? In the light of the facts that the Serious Fraud Office has now admitted that it was tipped off on Saturday night that Mr. Nadir might leave the country, and that the police say that they took appropriate action—many of us think that the action cannot have been entirely appropriate, as Mr. Nadir is not here any longer—does not the Leader of the House think it important for the appropriate Minister to make a full statement about why the authorities, having been put on their guard that there might be a problem, were apparently unable to prevent that man from leaving the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring that question and the earlier question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I am not going to go beyond what I said earlier. These matters are under investigation, and I do not think that it would be right for me to speculate about the outcome or to draw immediate conclusions.
Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate on the salaries of Members of Parliament and of Ministers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the words of the Maastricht treaty mean what they say, over the next five of six years there will be a gradual transfer of powers from this House to Brussels and, morally, there should be a commensurate reduction in the salaries of Members of Parliament accordingly? If my right hon. Friend thinks that I am wholly wrong in the analysis, is he prepared to bet the level of an MP's wages that I am wrong?
Mr. Newton: I think that the only response that I can make to that is that I am glad that my hon. Friend appears to have exempted Ministers from his proposals.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I am not prepared to call the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) who has already been called in business questions. As for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I understand that he sent apologies to the Chair in respect of the fact that he was outside the Chamber working when the statement was made. I cannot accept that, because, if I did, I would have to accept such a reason from hundreds of hon. Members who went into the Library to work and then returned to the Chamber wanting to ask a question. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is a very experienced parliamentarian and that he entirely understands my reasoning and will accept it.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    REINSURANCE (ACTS OF TERRORISM)
    Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Neil Hamilton, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament or into the Consolidated Fund of sums referable to reinsurance liabilities entered into by the Secretary of State in respect of loss or damage to property resulting from or consequential upon acts of terrorism and losses consequential on such loss or damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
4.26 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): It is a privilege to open this debate on the Royal Navy, a subject on which this House has not had the opportunity to hold a full day's debate for nearly two years. During this period, the global security environment in which the Royal Navy has long played such an important and successful role has undergone momentous changes. So momentous indeed that as many of the old cold war certainties fade away only to be replaced by new and more imponderable challenges, some of us in the business of naval forward planning these days occasionally yearn for the stark simplicity and clarity of Lord Nelson's famous signal at the battle of Trafalgar: "England expects that every man will do his duty."
Of course, in one sense the duty of the Royal Navy is crystal clear. It is to play its part in the three defence roles which were set out in the foreword to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992" by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Those three roles were: first, to ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom and our dependent territories, even when there is no major external threat; secondly, to insure against any major external threat to the United Kingdom and our allies; and, thirdly, to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability.
It goes without saying that the Navy's contribution to these tasks will be of pivotal importance for the naval assets of our island nation and have the mobility, reach, flexibility and sustainability to react to the unexpected and to offer maritime security and deterrence to our vital interests and dependencies across a globe which is two thirds ocean.
Therefore, today's debate is an opportunity to put, as it were, some naval flesh on the bare strategic bones of the three defence roles that I have just outlined, by telling the House how the Royal Navy fulfils its current commitment and operations and by giving some insight into our thinking on how the Navy will fulfil its changing tasks in the future. I will also at a later stage in my speech cover equipment, personnel, and force restructuring matters.
The last debate on the Royal Navy in the House took place on 27 June 1991. My hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement opened his speech by paying tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary for the part which they played in securing the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It is good to record that their fine contribution has now been formally recognised by the award, earlier this year, of the battle honour "Gulf 91" to 15 of Her Majesty's ships, six Royal Navy air squadrons and 10 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. But the Royal Navy has not rested on those laurels. Since that previous debate it has been continuously engaged around the world.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This morning gave notice to the office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that I would like to ask about the role of the Navy
304
in cleaning up the ecological problems of the Gulf. Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement say a word on what the Navy is doing? The problems are continuing.
Mr. Aitken: We were grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice. As the hon. Gentleman gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he will cover the point in his reply to the debate.
The Gulf is one of the most important areas in which the Royal Navy regularly operates. The Armilla patrol, which is now in its 13th year, continues to provide reassurance to British shipping and to operate in support of the United Nations sanctions on maritime trade with Iraq. Although Saddam's naval forces are quiescent for the time being, Iran has decided to raise the stakes of sea power among the Gulf littoral states by becoming the area's first submarine navy. Iran's neighbours in the region are watching Iran's naval build-up with increasing concern—a build-up which has been symbolised by the purchase and, more recently, the deployment of a Russian built hunter-killer submarine of the Kilo class.
Having visited the Gulf five times in the past six months and going on board Her Majesty's ships on two occasions during those visits, I have been left in no doubt by our friends in the area how much they appreciate the Royal Navy's important contribution to the stability of the area. That contribution is particularly well measured by those with long memories, for Britain has had a continuous naval presence in the Gulf for well over half a century. Although gone are the days when there used to be a common Arabic saying that when two fish are fighting in the Gulf the British are behind it, our more discreet presence today still has a valuable impact.
It is symbolised by the steady vigilance of the Armilla patrol and enhanced by special ship visits. Perhaps the most notable of those was the visit in March of HMS Triumph to Abu Dhabi. That was the first ever visit by one of our nuclear submarines to a Gulf port, and I believe that its presence left a clear and important message of reassurance to our friends in the region.
Referring to the security of our dependent territories, throughout past years naval forces have been deployed in support of garrisons in the Falklands, Belize and Hong Kong. The Royal Navy carries out joint operations with the authorities of those countries and of the United States and our dependent territories to combat the menace of narcotics smuggling, particularly in the Caribbean. The West Indies guard ship plays its part in those operations, and during the hurricane season it is well equipped to provide humanitarian relief. Last year, HMS Cardiff, assisted by HMS Campbeltown and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Orangeleaf, provided valuable assistance to the island of Eleuthera in the wake of hurricane Andrew.
Ships of the Royal Navy are regular visitors to many of our dependent territories, from Hong Kong to St. Helena, and the new ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, is just completing her second successful deployment to Antarctica in support of our interest in that region.
Those regular deployments form part of a wider pattern of deployments and visits aimed at developing the Royal Navy's operational capabilities, exercising with friendly navies and supporting our foreign policy and defence sales objectives. In 1992–93, Royal Navy ships showed the flag in 90 countries. Of particular note was the deployment of Task Group Orient 92, which consisted of four warships and two RFA vessels, led by the carrier HMS Invincible to

305
the far east for seven months. That was the first such far eastern deployment since 1988. We regard it as having been highly successful because of the tangible benefits arising, as they do, from joint naval exercises, growing export sales interest and general political goodwill, and all that in a region of growing political and economic importance.
I should also mention the visit of HMS Battleaxe to the Russian Baltic fleet base of Baltiysk. In its way, that visit was symbolic of the new spirit of naval co-operation that prevails between Britain and Russia in the post-cold war era, because Battleaxe was the first warship of the Royal Navy to participate in such joint manoeuvres with a cruiser of the Russian navy. More recently, we have seen Russian ships working alongside coalition naval forces in the Gulf helping to enforce UN sanctions on trade with Iraq. That has been very welcome as a gesture of international solidarity against Saddam and as an unprecedented opportunity for western navies to forge closer links with their former adversary. The Royal Navy has been at the forefront of those efforts and will continue to play a leading role in the important work of building on the new friendship between east and west in a practical way. In support of NATO, the United Kingdom continues to be a major contributor of maritime forces. We provide ships on a continuing basis in the Atlantic and the English channel. Since its formation last year, we have done the same for the standing naval force in the Mediterranean, which goes by the indigestible acronym STANAVFORMED. That force is currently engaged in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions and the arms embargo in the Adriatic—an example of how NATO's revised maritime force structure is adapting to new tasks.
As well as contributing to STANAVFORMED, the Royal Navy is involved, both afloat and ashore, in support of operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. A carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal is deployed in the Adriatic at present with an air group of Sea Harriers, recently enhanced with a laser-guided bomb capability, and Sea King helicopters as well as artillery. HMS Ark Royal is there to provide additional protection for United Kingdom forces ashore and, if necessary, to assist with the withdrawal or reinforcement of United Nations forces. That presence powerfully demonstrates the flexibility and utility of one of our capital ships with the air power that she is able to deploy if necessary to provide assurance and deterrence to friend and foe.
Mr. Dalyell: As the author of an excellent book on President Nixon, which I enjoyed greatly, the Minister is in a better position than most to be frank with the House about the Anglo-American relationship. Is HMS Ark Royal in any way related to or under American command in these circumstances?
Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving my book that commercial plug in the middle of our Navy debate. I am sure that my booksellers and publisher will be grateful. Reading about the life of President Nixon has perhaps endowed the hon. Gentleman with a certain degree of conspiracy theory about the Anglo-American relationship which does not exist, if he reaches the end of
306
the book. As far as the episode to which I am referring is concerned, there is no United States control of HMS Ark Royal—lit would be wrong to suggest that there was.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On the obverse side of what the Ministry has been saying, in the press release issued by the Ministry of Defence this afternoon there is reference to the task group comprising HMS Ark Royal, HMS Broadsword and what I take to be the Dutch frigate De Ruyter, which, on the face of it, appears to be under the command of the overall British commander of the task group. Is that an example of the sort of co-operation between European maritime nations that we should be in favour of and hope might be more frequent in the future?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good and timely point. There is good co-operation between European navies, especially in the matter of enforcing and increasing the pressure on Yugoslavia. It is going on in the Adriatic and the Danube. For some years, we have had a close relationship with the Royal Netherlands Navy through joint marine exercises. That is a natural extension and co-operation of how we work together. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to the good relationship.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of the Netherlands and its marines, does he agree that the deployment of the task group to the Adriatic, and especially the deployment of HMS Ark Royal in a role for which she is not wholly designed, in addition to the normal naval air role—the deployment of soldiers—exemplifies the need for a purpose-built amphibious helicopter carrier and that it should be procured at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Aitken: I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. Although HMS Ark Royal has done good service in providing the possibility of that amphibious capability, it is not purpose-built for that task. That is one of the considerations we took into account when we announced that the landing platform helicopter carrier was firmly in the defence programme. I shall say a few words of encouragement on the subject of the landing platform helicopter carrier later.
I should also mention as part of the record of our role in the Adriatic that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's Resource and Sir Percivale are also in the area. They are in Split to provide accommodation and shore support for British forces ashore. There are also four Sea King helicopters of 845 naval air squadron based in Split. Although their primary role is to assist with casualty evacuation of UN forces, they also took part in the airlift of sick and wounded civilians from Srebrenica, and they stand ready to carry out such humanitarian tasks again if needed.
One other United Nations operation in which the Royal Navy is involved which I should mention is in Cambodia. Seventy Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel are deployed there on peace-keeping duties as part of the United Nations transitional authority. They are involved in the patrolling of the Cambodian coast and the Mekong river system. This is the first time that the UN has included a maritime element in its peace-keeping operations.
Moving closer to home, Royal Marine commandos continue to take regular tours to Northern Ireland, while

307
the Royal Navy conducts patrols in Northern Ireland waters in support of the security forces. The fishery protection squadron patrols the United Kingdom's fishery limits and, following a review last year, Ministers agreed that that task should remain with the Royal Navy at least for the current year. The squadron acquitted itself well during the recent period of tension in the fishing grounds of Guernsey and will continue to ensure that fisheries regulations are fully and properly enforced.
In addition, the squadron is well placed to respond to a range of operational and humanitarian contingencies in United Kingdom waters. Some of the operations are in support of our law enforcement agencies. For example, last November HMS Shetland assisted customs officers in making a record seizure of 20 tonnes of cannabis worth about £60 million.
Lastly in this summary of our commitments, I should like to emphasise how well the Royal Navy has served our nation by continuing to underpin our national security by maintaining continuous deterrent patrols by our Polaris submarine for the past 25 years. In that period, the former Soviet Union has moved a long way from those dangerous years when Mr. Khruschev hammered with his shoe on the rostrum of the United Nations shouting the threat, "We will bury you". We were certainly glad then that we had such a sure shield against a possible nuclear attack.
Although that particular threat has mercifully receded, we should not forget that the world remains a dangerous and unstable place in many ways. It is imperative that we continue to safeguard the security of our realm against all possible external threats. It is vital that in Trident we maintain a deterrent which will be the ultimate safeguard of our nation's freedom well into the next century.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has paid tribute to the Polaris regime and its deterrent effect. Would it not be far more logical to tell the House exactly what the Government intend to do in terms of developing the Trident programme? If Polaris is to be a deterrent, surely it is essential that people know what it is capable of. Would it not be a good time to break the tradition of secrecy about nuclear weapons and tell the House of Commons what is going on?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has a naive attitude both to the importance of deterrence and the surprise element in it and to the importance of not letting any potential adversary or enemy know exactly what Trident might or might not be able to do.
Within obvious constraints, we disclose a great deal of information to the House through the Select Committee. We have answered questions with considerable frankness about our studies of a sub-strategic role for Trident. Although we obviously keep matters such as warhead numbers and targeting secret, we are reasonably candid in our parliamentary democracy with the House and with the country.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is no use having nuclear submarines if they are locked into port because the approaches to their ports are strewn with mines? Will he say a word about the attitude of the Ministry of Defence to new orders for Sandown minehunters? Some years ago the Ministry of Defence invited tenders for seven new Sandown class minehunters. The invitations for tender
308
were withdrawn in 1991. I gather that the minehunters will be required in 1994. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say when invitations for tender will he required once more.
Mr. Aitken: Yes, I shall do so. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will answer his question when I come to our forward equipment programme.
I wish to say a further word about Trident. The Trident programme continues to make excellent progress. It remains on schedule to enter service from the mid-1990s and it is well within budget. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in January this year, the currently estimated cost for procuring Trident is some £10·7 billion, which represents a total real cost saving of £2·8 billion against the original estimate. We were gratified that in its 1992 report on Trident, the Defence Select Committee commented on
"the gratifying and unusual spectacle of a major defence programme coming in far below estimate."
Construction of all four Trident submarines is progressing well.
Mr. Bennett: The Minister tells us that Trident is coming in below cost. But as he has never admitted what was in the original specifications, how can we tell that it is below cost?
Mr. Aitken: I said that it was below estimate, which is different from below cost, as most numerate hon. Members will understand. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a staunch opponent of all nuclear programmes and weapons, he should, at least on the basis of value for money for the taxpayer, be pleased that we have brought Trident in well below estimate.
Mr. Bennett: But the specifications have been cut.
Mr. Aitken: There is no question of the specifications being cut. Trident remains a formidable and decisive nuclear weapons system.
I am also pleased to tell the House that the construction of all four Trident submarines is progressing well. The first of class, Vanguard, successfully completed exhaustive and rigorous contractor sea trials earlier this year, and is planned to be accepted by the Royal Navy later this year. I had the honour earlier this year of laying the keel of SSBN 08, the fourth Trident submarine. I hope that that ceremony and the order that preceded it firmly underlined the Government's commitment to a four-boat Trident force. For only with a fourth boat can we be absolutely sure that over the lifetime of the force there will be at least one boat on patrol at sea at all times.
Mr. George Foulkes: There were some reports in the press about cracks in Vanguard during its trials. Can the Minister state categorically that that was not the case?
Mr. Aitken: The Vanguard sea trials were excellent in all respects except one minor matter of a sonar buoy which was lost due to a break of the towing equipment. We were completely satisfied with the inherent structure of Vanguard and its performance in the contractor sea trials, subject only to minor teething troubles which were of no major importance and are normal in contractor sea trials.
The Polaris submarine has served Britain well, providing continuous patrols for the past 25 years. We

309
confidently expect that the Trident submarine will, with similar patrols, safeguard our national security for the next quarter of a century or more.
The commitments and operations that I have outlined make an impressive record of achievement. But there are other areas of activity in which the end of the cold war era has lightened the burden on our naval forces. The House will not expect me to go into details about the substantial anti-submarine warfare operations and preparations in which the Royal Navy regularly engaged during the times when we thought that we might conceivably one day have to do battle with the Soviet navy in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean or even the western approaches.
Mercifully those days are past. But as we cheerfully bring down the curtain on the old cold war era we must also accept, perhaps with a touch of sadness, that we now can do with a smaller Royal Navy to safeguard our vital security interests and to perform our foreseeable defence tasks.
Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend has given a good exposition of the role and the requirements of the Royal Navy. One thing is puzzling me. I declare an interest. It is an emotional one rather than a financial one. I have a son who serves in the Royal Navy. That gives me the advantage that at least he keeps me up to date with what his friends think of our present policy—which I will not go into.
It is inevitable that one must take into account that resources will be concentrated on the Army and especially the infantry in view of what is happening in ex-Yugoslavia. Is my hon. Friend willing to say that, whatever happens in that direction, the Royal Navy will not suffer? I do not ask that for an emotional reason. The Royal Navy clearly has a role to fulfil. It is probably as stretched as it can be at present.
Mr. Aitken: I am certainly glad to confirm that the Royal Navy will not suffer in the sense that it will remain an absolutely pivotal component of our defence forces and I will give further details of that. Because of the very nature of the changing risks and the security environment, we will really need the capability that the Royal Navy provides superbly of mobility, reach and sustainability—the very qualities that I have tried to summarise in my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend and his son will be right in having confidence that we shall have such a navy in years to come.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I should like to probe that issue a little further. My hon. Friend is dealing with specific aspects of the Navy's activities such as Trident and other parts of the procurement programme. The country and serving naval personnel seek a clear update on policy since "Options for Change" which will give us a broader picture and understanding of what size navy is required. I do not believe that such an update has been adequately given at a strategic level.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and we are responding to it, not least by holding this debate and listening to the voices of the House.
As I shall say later in my speech, we intend to publish, in the form of the White Paper on the Statement on the Defence Estimates for 1993, a full account of where all the
310
services stand and where we think they will stand in terms of the equipment programme and the numbers, with more information than ever before. When my hon. Friend hears our plans, he will be satisfied that his question will be fully answered when that crucial and important document is published.
Mr. Peter Griffiths (Porstmouth, North): In following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), will my hon. Friend assure us, without in any way seeking to forecast what will be included in the White Paper, that there is no suggestion that the reductions in manpower and ships will go beyond those forecast in "Options for Change"? That is the extreme. Can we have an assurance that we are not talking about going beyond it?
Mr. Aitken: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, he will hear clearly what our plans are and how they are linked, as they must be, to our commitments and operational tasks. That is precisely what "Options for Change" was all about. Some element of downsizing was forecast and we have been sticking to those forecasts. If there are any amendments to them, the place for those amendments to be published is the defence estimates.
Dr. John Reid: The Minister is making play of the fact that we will have a White Paperr on the defence estimates for 1993. What happened to the debate on the defence estimates for 1992–93? Surely we should have had that debate before discussing the issues we are now debating.
Mr. Aitken: Those are matters for the usual channels and for the Leader of the House. No Minister can announce suddenly from the Dispatch Box that there will be a debate on a request from an Opposition spokesman. The hon. Gentleman is far too old a hand in Parliament not to know that. I shall make sure that his request is passed on to the usual channels.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I am sorry to labour the point raised by two of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend the Minister spoke rather ominously about something called the downsizing of the Royal Navy. Can we be absolutely clear on that? Will the Minister give an unequivocal undertaking at the Dispatch Box that there are no plans at present to go below the levels of manpower, vessels or funding envisaged in "Options for Change"? That was bad enough; if we are to go below it, it will be a matter of the greatest concern.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is asking for assurances which are too sweeping for any Minister to give. We have already announced some of the funding changes that have been made, such as public expenditure survey rounds and so on. On the key issue of numbers, in which I know he has a vital interest, I shall give some figures in my speech—if I am allowed to get on with it—but the definitive document with the maximum transparency within the limits of national security will be the White Paper to be published in July on the whole sweep of defence, including the Royal Navy. We thought that it was just as well to listen to voices in the House before making any such announcement.
Mr. Churchill: It will be the last day of term.
Mr. Aitken: No, it will not be the last day of term
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I appreciate my hon. Friend the Minister giving way as I know he wants to get on, but I should like to ask him a specific question that will not require him to give sweeping generalisations.
When the Army complained that they would be unable to expand operations in Bosnia, it was announced that two or three regiments would be saved. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no reduction in the Royal Navy budget to fund the saving of those regiments?
Mr. Aitken: The defence budget is a totality. We are not in the business of sacrificing one project to pay for another. It is not the adductory technique that my hon. Friend seems to envisage. We look at the totality of the defence budget and at our commitments and we either go to the Treasury or fit our commitments to our resources. There is no question of there being sacrificial lambs in the Navy of anywhere else in order to save regiments.
I am trying to turn to force restructuring, a matter on which I am being pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The plans were initially set out in the White Paper, "Britain's Defence for the 1990s" and were elaborated in last year's White Paper. I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition ever read those careful blueprints for our future defence strategy.
I shall place one modest bet about the speech shortly to be made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) from the Opposition Front Bench. My bet is this: with the predictable if unsteady reliability of a Scotsman singing Auld Lang Syne on new year's eve, he will once again call on Her Majesty's Government to carry out a defence review.
Dr. David Clark: Absolutely right.
Mr. Aitken: I thought that I had got it right. This tired old siren song is the Labour party's all-purpose excuse for not having a defence policy of its own and we reject it.
A defence review means the reduction and reordering of our defence commitments and forces to match an externally imposed financial target. That is not what we are about; we are not engaged in a Denis Healey-style defence review with its Treasury driven imperatives to cut, cut and cut again.
Mr. John McWilliam: I cannot see how the Minister can claim that "Options for Change" and its effect on the Royal Navy are not Treasury led. That certainly is the view of the Defence Select Committee and has been reinforced since then.
Mr. Aitken: The Select Committee does not have an absolute monopoly on accuracy and wisdom. We have frequently given the answer that it is a commitment—driven White Paper. To this day, we fit our forces to our commitments and operational roles. I know that various critics of the Government love to stick on the label Treasury driven. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I have said it time and again—that that is simply not a fully accurate picture.
I have done my best to spell out some of the changes in the security environment. If the major adversary of the country and our allies, the Soviet Union, has changed direction and become an ally, it is quite natural that there should be an alteration in our commitments and resources. That simple point does not seem to have been taken on board by all our critics.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Would the Minister like to tell the House, if he is so emphatic that it is not in any way the case that the present Government's policy is driven by the Treasury, why there was the announcement shortly before Easter that naval numbers were to be reduced yet again, from 55,000 to 50,000, when a White Paper is due in three months' time? What prompted that announcement, other than the Treasury?
Mr. Aitken: As I am about to tell the House, the announcement that the hon. Gentleman greeted with shock and surprise, as though it were something new, triggered by the Treasury, was always foreseen in the various "Options for Change" projections. I will now come, if I may, to the subject of redundancies because I know that there is understandable sensitivity on this.
In "Options for Change" we have re-examined our force posture in the light of the momentous change in the strategic environment which took place as a result of the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. This process was policy-driven, not resource-driven. What we are now doing, in the context of our annual re-costing of the defence programme, is developing a more extensive analysis and presentation of how the force structure and forward programme relate to our existing policy objectives, tasks and commitments throughout the world. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to report the results in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993", which will be published in July. When we publish SDE 93, I think and hope that it will be clear for the Navy, as for our other services, that while the resource constraints of the public purse, to which there has been so much reference, provide a healthy discipline to our plans for future force levels, nevertheless it remains the case that our commitments, and the operational environment of those commitments, drive the decision on our force levels and on our equipment programme.
It follows from what I have just said that as we restructure the Royal Navy we take all the relevant factors into account. We continue to keep naval manpower levels under review to ensure that numbers are sufficient to meet our requirements but also to ensure that we do not maintain them at artificially high levels. The post-"Options" Navy was planned to reduce to about 55,000 by the middle of the 1990s, and this remains our intention. However, we are moving to a fleet of younger, more efficient and less manpower-intensive ships. For example, a type 23 frigate needs approximately only two thirds of the crew of a type 22. As force levels reduce, we will be seeking a commensurate reduction in support infrastructure. By this I mean the more efficient and economical use of manpower, including civilianisation and contractorisation of support area functions. These, and market testing, will also contribute to a lower uniformed manpower requirement, which will inevitably decline.

We recognise that, in the difficult task of reducing manpower, we have a duty to act sensitively and fairly to the men and women of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary who have so well served their Queen and country. We have taken great care to ensure that, wherever possible, all steps short of redundancy, including the maximum use of manning regulators, have been used to effect the necessary manpower reductions. But the situation has been made more difficult by the fact that fewer people have been leaving the Navy during the past two years than would normally be the case—perhaps

313
because of the recessionary environment. Indeed, application rates to leave the Navy are at a ten-year low. Some redundancies are therefore, sadly, unavoidable.
We made clear as long ago as 1991 that there would need to be a redundancy programme in the Navy arising out of "Options for Change", probably extending over three years. A total of 1,672 officers and ratings were made redundant in the first two phases of the programme. It is with great regret that we have recently had to announce the third phase of redundancies, involving up to 2,300 officers and ratings. The House should note, however, that in the first two phases of the Navy's redundancy programme we were able to achieve almost 90 per cent. of the necessary redundancies through voluntary applicants, and we are determined to meet as many as possible of the third phase of redundancies in the same way.
Such decisions are never easy, and we are doing our utmost to help those affected. I will not detain the House with details of what we believe are the reasonably generous redundancy and resettlement packages which we provide. As I have said, we greatly regret the necessity of any such redundancies, and our objective is to give the maximum help and assistance to all officers and ratings who are making the transition from service to civilian life.
Before moving on to equipment issues, I would like to say a few words about the royal dockyards which, I know, are a subject of considerable interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 9 February, we believe that all nuclear refit work should be concentrated at one dockyard, while we plan to continue with two dockyards, for reasons of competition, in non-nuclear refitting. My right hon. and learned Friend also said that much work remained to be done before further decisions could be taken, and that work is well under way. I should like to make it clear that no further decisions have been taken. We understand the desire in the local communities and the workforces for an end to the uncertainty, and we will make further announcements as soon as we can.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister able to be a little more precise about that? He has in the past been a little more precise about when he expects a decision might be taken. As he appreciates, it is a matter of some concern for the communities of both Devonport and Rosyth, and it would be helpful if he could give a clearer indication of when he expects the decision to be made and announced.
Mr. Aitken: I can be no more precise than to say that it will be within the next few weeks. One of the problems is that the two royal dockyard management companies themselves frequently keep sending, sometimes in unsolicited form, new information which must be analysed by our experts and by Ministry of Defence staff. That is one of the reasons why these delays have occurred and why it has taken longer than we ourselves would have wished. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to agree that it is better to take more time over a decision and get it right than to rush into one or give people the chance to say that their case has not been fully analysed or heard.
As to equipment, I have already said that good progress is being made with our plans to maintain a four-boat strategic nuclear deterrent under the Trident programme.
314
In addition to the strategic deterrent, over the coming decade our fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, currently standing at 13 boats, will consist largely of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines which are being modernised with the latest sensors and command systems. We are currently considering options for the design of a new class of SSN, to succeed the Swiftsure class, which is based on the Trafalgar class and is planned to enter service around the turn of the century. The SSN force which will result will be well-armed, capable of deploying at high speed, and able to match the increasingly sophisticated submarine forces which are now being developed and sold world-wide.
The major diminution of the submarine threat from the former Soviet Union, which I mentioned earlier, has made it appropriate for us to examine the requirement for the Upholder. The primary role of the Upholder class conventionally-powered submarines was to patrol the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap against Soviet submarines, releasing SSNs for wider-ranging operations. The Upholders were ideal for this task and their relative lack of endurance and speed were not a disadvantage in the circumstance then envisaged for their operations. Our judgment on the future of the Upholders will be based on an assessment of the most likely future submarine operating patterns. No decisions have been taken as we are still evaluating the position in the way that I have just outlined.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my hon. Friend tell the House if, in the whole history of the Royal Navy, any class of ship has been disposed of before it has entered service?
Mr. Aitken: I have not said that the Upholders will not remain in the fleet. We are considering all our options. I am afraid that I am not a sufficiently good naval historian to give my hon. Friend an immediate answer. I simply do not know if he is right or not. But he must not jump to conclusions from the outline of our current thinking that I have explained.
Our destroyer and frigate force, which is currently at a level of 40 warships, is now the youngest since the first world war with an average age of just 10 years. Six of the new type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates have now been accepted into service and a further seven are currently being built at Jarrow and Swan Hunter. We plan to order more type 23 frigates, though we have not yet decided on the size and timing of these future orders. I am pleased to announce that we placed last week a contract for a further five type 23 command systems and associated on-board spares at a value of approximately £30 million. This equipment will process high volumes of combat data and will provide the Royal Navy with what we believe are the finest such systems in the world.
Our type 23 frigates will, with the Merlin EH 101 helicopters, form a formidable anti-submarine warfare combination. We currently have 44 of these helicopters on order and good progress is being made on this contract. Together with our three aircraft carriers, two of which will be operational at any one time, we will continue to have the ability to make a significant contribution to NATO or other coalition warfare operations.

Our naval air assets on those carriers will also be significantly enhanced by the mid-life update of our Sea Harrier fighters with the state of the art Blue Vixen radar

315
and the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile known as AMRAAM. These enhancements, which are due to enter service next year, will enable the Harriers to engage multiple targets beyond visual range as well as having a look-down shoot-down capability.
Another new class of ship to enter service 'with the Royal Navy over the past two years has been the Sandown class single role minehunter. We now have four of these capable vessels in service, with a further one being built by Vosper Thornycroft. We plan to order further vessels of this class, and expect to be in a position to issue invitations to tender for the next batch shortly.
Mr. Colvin: When the new invitations go out to tender, will bids be permitted to include foreign hulls, as happened before? It seems to me monstrously unfair to British companies such as Vosper Thornycroft that foreign hulls should be included, often made by continental firms which are nationalised and subsidised by the relevant Governments; thus they present unfair competition to British companies. What other ship in the Royal Navy has its hull made overseas?
Mr. Aitken: We have an open procurement policy. About 91 per cent. of our prime contracts are won by British firms. It is often up to these prime contractors to arrive at their best judgment of what will meet our specifications and our value-for-money criteria. We do not interfere with their judgment; if they want to include a combination of foreign elements in their bids, we do not rule that out. Indeed, it would be excessively protectionist to do so.
Mr. Churchill: Although I do not ask my hon. Friend to be protectionist, does he agree that British firms have a right to be protected in the procurement process from unfair competition launched by firms which are nationalised and which benefit from subsidy in other countries? It would be monstrous if British firms went under because the Ministry of Defence accepted contracts from subsidised firms abroad.
Mr. Aitken: That is a fair point. When we consider bids we insist on fairness. If we decide that there has been unfair competition and massive foreign Government subsidy, or anything of that kind, we carefully take it into account, and it plays a key role in our decision making.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am sorry to take up more of my hon. Friend's time, but he mentioned 40 ships; and irrespective of comments about British manufacturers and shipbuilders, I should like to hear my hon. Friend categorically confirm that he has no plans to reduce that total of 40 ships simply because we cannot manufacture them cheaply enough in Britain for the Royal Navy to procure them.
Mr. Aitken: If my hon. Friend's point is the familiar one, to do with what "about 40 ships" means—whether it means between 35 and 45—this has been all around the houses in the Select Committee. We shall try to shed some light on it in the forthcoming White Paper.
In the context of future warship building, I should like briefly to refer to the Anglo-French frigate project. known as project Horizon, which Italy has now joined. We are now into an 18-month period of exploration, with France and Italy, of the prospects for collaboration on an anti-air warfare frigate to replace our type 42 destroyers around
316
the turn of the century. This is a good example of international co-operation on the design and build of a ship, and it has many potential benefits, such as military interoperability, cost savings and the pooling of technical knowledge and capability. A provisional joint project office was set up here in London last November, and we anticipate that the memorandum of understanding for the full project management office will be signed soon.
Lastly, I turn to the subject of amphibious forces. We believe that this will be an important capability for the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy to excel in as we approach the new security environment of the 21st century. That is why we recently reaffirmed our commitment to provide the Royal Marines with modern and capable amphibious shipping by confirming that the new landing platform helicopter carrier remains firmly in our programme. Best and final offers for the LPH were received from Swan Hunter and VSEL on 22 April, and they are being evaluated against our normal technical and value-for-money criteria. This process is now close to completion, and we hope to be able to announce the results in the fairly near future.
Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend will be aware of my great desire that this order should go to Barrow, with the hull being built on the Clyde. The prospects of unemployment in Barrow as the submarine programme runs down are horrific, but the yard possesses great skills and the most modern naval shipbuilding technologies.
My hon. Friend has already said that the order will be placed on technical merit and value for money. Will he give the House an absolute undertaking that no other issue besides technical merit and value for money will be allowed to influence the order? Can he also be more specific about when the awarding of the contract will be announced?
Mr. Aitken: I can certainly confirm that we will make our decisions in accordance with our usual value-for-money and technical criteria. Of course we take some wider considerations into account, but the whole emphasis is on technical and value-for-money considerations.
I cannot go any further than I have already about the timing of the announcement. Since last I wrote to my right hon. Friend, saying that the announcement would be made much later in the year, we have been able to accelerate it to some extent, and I hope now to be able to make an announcement in the reasonably near future.
Mr. Ian Davidson: In the Minister's first answer he said that financial and technical criteria would be those that counted; then, in his second, he said that other factors would be taken into account. Are there any circumstances in which these other factors could allow an order that was not the best in technical and financial terms to win the contract? This subject causes a great deal of concern not only in Barrow but in Govan, where it is hoped that the Kvaerner hull will be built for the new landing platform helicopter carrier.
Mr. Aitken: These exchanges have shown that hon. Members representing their constituents' interests have one abiding wish: that the Government will be seen to be scrupulously fair when awarding a major contract of this type. Fairness is our paramount consideration, and we will

317
make our announcement at the right time, as soon as we can. I feel confident that the House will regard us as having played fairly with all parties.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend consider value for money in the context of the use of helicopter platforms on Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and other container ships used so effectively during the Falklands war? Will he ensure that we have enough marine helicopters—and enough to be used by the Army and the RAF too in marine environments—and sufficient platform flexibility to give the Navy teeth? So often those teeth are provided by the helicopters. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that he does not go for too many gold-plated solutions; rather, he should go for flexible solutions that ensure that we have a large number of helicopters to deploy when necessary.
Mr. Aitken: I share my hon. Friend's view that helicopters are crucial to future warfare. He is right about avoiding gold-plated solutions; we have tried to do that in in our amphibious programme. The LPH specifications are not gold-plated by warship standards of the past. Relatively speaking, they are not an over-expensive solution to the problem.
The new LPH will be the cornerstone of the Royal Navy's amphibious capability. Its main role will be to enable an amphibious landing force of up to 800 men to deploy ashore, by means of its embarked helicopters, in a single assault wave. Together with the replacements for our assault ships and the upgraded landing ships, this will provide the Royal Marines with the capable specialised shipping necessary to fulfil their role well into the next century.
Also on that subject I should mention that we are continuing to make progress towards replacing our two assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The project definition phase for the replacement of those ships is continuing and the timing of an order will depend on the successful outcome of that process. On current plans the new ships will enter service around the end of the century. In addition to new ships, we also plan to upgrade our three older landing ships logistic with ship life extension programmes and we expect to be in a position to invite tenders for the first of these later this year.
I have detained the House perhaps almost too long, but on a quiet afternoon it may be right since this is the first Navy debate for two years to cover, as it were, the full horizon of Navy matters. Before I conclude, I apologise to the House for not being able to stay for the final speeches and the later part of this debate. I have to fulfil a long-standing engagement to appear on BBC "Question Time," and I thank the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friends for their forbearance and understanding of my later absence.
These are difficult and testing times for the Royal Navy as it adjusts to the much-changed but still dangerous strategic environment. Outside Russia and the United States of America, the Royal Navy is one of the largest and most capable, perhaps the most capable, navies in the world, with a fleet currently standing at three aircraft carriers, 40 destroyers and frigates, 13 nuclear submarines and four conventional submarines, supported by nine
318
counter-measure vessels and some 20 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Indeed, we spend some £6 billion a year on ensuring that our capability remains razor-sharp.
We are not, and could not in this environment, be complacent. The world has changed and is changing still. That is why we are taking time to decide in detail the way in which the Navy itself should change to reflect those circumstances. As I have emphasised, we intend to publish our detailed plans in this year's White Paper. We will, of course, take into account the opinions expressed in the House in the debate.
The Navy that results from that process may not be as large as in former days—the lines at the Spithead reviews may be shorter—but we remain committed to our Royal Navy fleet being capable, modern, well-equipped and ready for the challenges that the future may bring. Above all, we can take great pride in the professionalism, loyalty and excellence of the men and and women who serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I think that there is respect and affection for the Royal Navy in the hearts of all the British people. For a medium-sized European power we are still a nation of supreme naval excellence. It might be a little over the top for a Minister of the Crown to begin each day, as Lord Curzon used to do, by singing "Rule Britannia" in his bath. Nevertheless, I hope I have convinced the House that the Royal Navy can still rule some waves with honour and distinction.
5.21 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition also welcome the debate on the Royal Navy which, as the Minister conceded, is not before time. I should also like to associate the Opposition with the Minister's final remarks about the professionalism and loyalty of those who serve in the Royal Navy. There is no doubt about that in any part of the House and it is right that tributes should be paid.
We would also welcome a debate on the estimates, which is even longer overdue than a debate on the Royal Navy. That would enable us to take the wider look that is needed at our defence requirements and how best to meet them.
The Minister offered a bet. I did not take him up on it because he was right. We have been pressing for some time for a proper defence review, as have many other people—commentators, academics and people in the services, as well as representatives of all Opposition parties. We had defence reviews in 1957, between 1966 and 1968, between 1974 and 1975 and in 1981. There was an average interval of about seven years between them. There has not been a proper defence review for 12 years. During that time we have had the Falklands war, the end of the cold war, the Gulf war and the conflict in the Balkans. All those changes mean that we require an open debate and a strategic review of what personnel and equipment are needed to cope with the new threats and realities and how our contribution can complement those of other NATO countries.
The Select Committee on Defence—not just the Opposition—has said that instead of a proper defence review we have had an ad hoc, Treasury-driven series of thick salami slices, cuts off the defence budget, with the Navy bearing the brunt, as was emphasised at the hearing of the Select Committee only yesterday. Decision making

319
in the Ministry of Defence has been a secret and secretive exercise. David Bolton, the director of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, said:
"Defence is now too important to be left to silent debate."
It may be the silent service, but we want an open debate. Even Professor Norman Stone, someone with whom I do not usually associate, has said:
"The secrecy has offended even the Government's allies."
That secrecy ill befits the Minister who opened the debate who, as a Back Bencher, had an exemplary record as a champion of open government. It is indicative of the powerful effect that the Ministry of Defence has on Ministers when they go there; the Secretary of State himself is another perfect example.
At Question Time, when Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers have asked fair, straightforward questions about tactical air-to-surface missiles, the Upholder class submarines and other important issues, Ministers have often been evasive and sometimes been obstructive. It has been left to the Select Committee—to their credit, members of the Select Committee are here today—to take an overview and to extract information from Ministers and officials, although my colleagues tell me that it has been like getting blood from a stone.
As my colleagues know, I am always an optimist—the eternal optimist—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): One needs to be, in the Labour party.
Mr. Foulkes: One needs to be when one is in the Labour party; the hon. Gentleman is right.
At the weekend, I came across what I thought was a dramatic announcement in a Ministry of Defence press release. Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I get all of them. It said:
"Archie Hamilton, MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, said today that the Ministry of Defence is to conduct a review".
Mr. Foulkes: At last—[interruption.] The Secretary of State is very perceptive. At last, there is to be a review, not of defence strategy or of our requirements for defence, but of all the Ministry's historic buildings. That will be very useful. Of course, the Minister of State will be seconded to the Department of National Heritage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will call him before the Select Committee on National Heritage and commend him, but that should not be the top priority of the MOD today.
I expect that most of the debate will be characterised by the widespread concern about the uncertain future faced by the Royal Navy, uncertainty which is the result of a lack of Government decisiveness and strategy. There is a feeling that the Royal Navy will lose out most in the continuing round of defence cuts, as the Select Committee found yesterday. We understand that the high-profile demands of United Nations operations, which we support, have placed greater strain on the Army and the Royal Air Force, but the Navy is important and vital. There is no such thing as a military operation with just one wing of the armed forces. The presence of the Ark Royal in the Adriatic is a clear reminder of that.
Lady Olga Maitland: How does the hon. Gentleman equate his anguishing about Navy force levels with the declared intention of his party at the
320
general election to reduce defence spending by £7 billion a year? That is the equivalent of maintaining the Navy, the Army or the Air Force.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. That point has been raised on several occasions. It was not in the manifesto. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to a decision of the party conference to which other Conservative Members have referred. It raises an important question of comparative defence cuts. I quote:
"Parallels can be found throughout the western world which show that substantial savings can be made on defence and they are appropriate at the present time."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 697–98.]
That is not my quotation; that was said by the Secretary of State in the House. We recognise that in the long term there must be a peace dividend, but we also accept that we have commitments to Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Hong Kong and Belize, as the Minister rightly said. We also make it clear that any cuts must be made after a complete defence review; we should not have the wild, random slashes that are being made by the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for raising that matter.
I was dealing with the presence of the Ark Royal in the Adriatic and, therefore, the importance of the Navy, which will play a key role in future international operations. It may use its amphibious capability or it may enforce sanctions or a blockade, which will be increasingly necessary in relation to Bosnia, or it may carry out drug patrols in the Caribbean, an operation that the Minister rightly identified.
The Navy's strategic role has already changed and there must be full discussion of the priorities of our naval forces in the post-cold war era. The Minister spoke about activity around the Kola peninsula in relation to the Upholder class. Is that activity still a priority or do we need to focus on bluer waters now that the Soviet threat has ended?
One of the many reasons for a defence review is to examine what sort of naval forces Britain, which currently has the fourth largest navy in the world, can afford to maintain. Bearing in mind our responsibilities, especially in NATO and the United Nations, we must also discover those capabilities that we cannot afford to lose. Those two need to be reconciled and only a comprehensive defence review can do that. However, there is no comprehensive information from the Government, just a series of leaked stories seemingly emanating from within the Ministry of Defence. In that context, it was a bit rich at a previous Question Time for the Minister to characterise the Opposition as plumbers chasing leaks, because those leaks seem to result from the disarray in his Ministry.
The Minister tended to dismiss a little lightly the size of the frigate and destroyer force. "Options for Change" suggested a force of about 40 ships, but the Minister said that there were exactly 40. Is it exactly 40? [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will tell us the figure in his reply. We are told to wait for the White Paper, which is rather like waiting for Godot. The evidence taken yesterday by the Select Committee and the comments by hon. Members suggest that there will be about 35 vessels. That means that the operational total may be as low as 30 because some vessels will be undergoing refits. The rumoured sale of the type 21 frigates and the recent announcement about the reduction in Navy manpower seem to support the Select Committee's prediction.

321
Some hon. Members, including Conservative Members, have spoken about the method used to announce reductions in Navy manpower, and I cannot let the matter pass without some comment. I have read on a number of occasions that the Navy is now into stealth technology, but so are Ministers in their methods of making announcements. A major announcement about reductions in Navy manpower was sneaked out in a written answer just before the Easter recess. Ministers knew that on the day following that answer, a Friday, there would be a rail strike and that not many people would be around. Ministers announced in a statement in the House that there had been a change of mind on Army manpower and that the number would be reduced by 3,000 fewer than they originally intended. However, the intention to slash Navy manpower by 5,000 was revealed in a written answer.
Mr. Wolfson: I intervene not to support the Opposition's defence policy but to record my extreme dissatisfaction and that of my constituents about the way in which that announcement was made.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a respected Member of the House. He is right. The Minister said that the White Paper would be issued in July and there was some jocularity about that being at the end of term. I hope that that trick will not be played on us again. As we have heard, the White Paper is crucial and it should not be left to the fag end of the Session when everyone is `bout to go on holiday.
The Government must clarify the size of the surface fleet. They say that that information will be contained in the White Paper and I hope that that document will set out the exact size. When speaking about the type 42 destroyers, the Minister rightly referred to the encouraging co-operation with France and Italy on the future frigate. We need to know exactly how many there will be. Press reports have suggested that there will be eight such vessels to replace the 12 type 42s, but we need to know the exact position.
The Minister rightly said that, in the changed climate of world security, amphibious capability is becoming even more crucial. International responses on peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention greatly benefit from the flexibility of amphibious forces. We welcome the decision to confirm the order for the landing platform helicopter vessel. The helicopter carrier is a vital part of the maintenance of an amphibious capability and it is necessary for the long-term future of the Royal Marines. As an hon. Member wickedly suggested a few days ago, without that carrier the marines might have to go by bus or train.
Thousands of shipbuilding jobs depend on the contract for that carrier. At this point in my speech, I intended to criticise the Minister, but I now have to say that I welcome the fact that a decision for the placing of that contract will be announced later this month. That is an encouraging step and will remove some of the uncertainty.
Mr. Davidson: The conference of the Scottish Conservative party is about to take place. As it is unlikely to have much good news for Scotland, does my hon.
322
Friend agree that the announcement about the order for the helicopter landing ship would be appropriate for that event?
Mr. Foulkes: I prefer all such announcements to be made in the House rather than at party conferences. In any case, the Scottish Conservative party conference will be preoccupied with the Scottish people's march for jobs and democracy which, when the marchers arrive there, will convey an important message to that conference.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is part of that march for jobs an expression of the hon. Gentleman's desire to sit on the Treasury Bench, a desire that never seems to materialise?
Mr. Foulkes: It has not materialised so far, but the hon. Gentleman does everything that he can to make it happen and I am grateful to him for that.
I should like to ask about other amphibious elements. The Minister spoke about the landing platform dock replacements which are just as important to the future of the amphibious capability as the LPH. The Minister said that Intrepid and Fearless can remain until the end of the century. That is an optimistic assessment. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify the time scale for those docks.
There is further confusion about submarines. Once again, the Minister was rather coy about the Upholder class submarines about which the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked him a telling question. As they say in the world of football transfers, as Graeme Souness knows to his cost, and tabloid gossip, the Upholder class has been heavily linked with Canada. That would be a significant sale because not only would a totally new class of submarine be sold before it entered service—which, I understand, would be the first time that that has ever happened, although the Minister was not sure about that—but it would involve vessels costing more than £800 million when training and infrastructure investments were included. If the submarines are to be sold or even if such a sale has been considered or discussed with Canada, the House should be told about it and the Government should come clean.
The overriding impression among Opposition Members, people and the media is that the sole reason for the sale is not that Upholders are no longer required for our strategic capability but that the Government badly need the money for other promised procurement projects. How many other new projects will be hived off to fund the continuing procurement requirement? To sell the Upholders is a major strategic decision which needs to be reported to the House. They should not simply be sold off, flogged off, to raise hard cash. I hope that the Minister of State will give us a straight answer about those submarines.
That brings me to the issue of defence sales.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of submarines, I have a question for him. Just before the last general election, Labour's policy on nuclear submarines was that it would review the need for the fourth Trident submarine. Would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity, now that we are already building the fourth Trident submarine, to say that Labour party policy now is to support the nuclear deterrent and have a four-boat fleet?
Mr. Foulkes: The fourth Trident has been completed and we accept that as a fait accompli. I shall deal in a little more detail in a few minutes with some of the wider aspects of our nuclear deterrent.
The Upholder class sale is a clear sign that the Royal Navy is not exempt from what a recent National Audit Office report described as a sell-off of British military equipment on
"a scale unprecedented since the period following the second world war"
in what seems in some cases to be a bargain basement sale. The Minister may be aware that the same report suggested that taxpayers' money had been lost by not getting the best prices in previous equipment sales and that the director of sales had not carried out adequate studies to achieve the best prices in the international market. The report stated:
"the directorate has insufficient information … to know whether they are covering their costs."
I should be interested to hear from the Minister of State for the Armed Services what the Government intend to do to remedy the inefficiencies highlighted in that report. In a recent sale at Rosyth, equipment worth many thousands of pounds—some of it new and some of it used—was sold to a private dealer for £1. That is not getting the best value for money out of a sale of assets that cost thousands of pounds. If the Minister cannot do so now, I hope that at some time he will respond to that report.
It appears from all the replies that we have had that the Government are persisting in setting the ceiling on the number of warheads carried by Trident submarines at 128 per boat, giving a possible overall total of 512, compared with the 192 warheads that would be carried if the numbers remained the same as we have on Polaris. Why are the Government insisting on that acceleration in the growth of our nuclear arsenal? The only conclusion to be drawn from their blanket statement that 512 will be the maximum is that that number of warheads will be deployed.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is shaking his head. I hope that he will deal with the point more explicitly than that.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: That is the maximum.
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, but that maximum would not be minimum deterrence. It would be an unnecessary escalation, and it goes against article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, to which we are a signatory. I ask the Minister to give a categoric statement that the warhead level will not be greater than 192.
I hope that I will be allowed to indulge myself and raise a matter in which I have been personally involved for a number of years——
Dr. Reid: Fishing nets.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is way ahead of me. I am concerned about fishing nets being snagged by submarines. That has resulted in several tragedies. Recently, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has been helpful in these matters.
Dr. Reid: Not at first.
Mr. Foulkes: No, not initially, but he has been helpful recently. I hope that he will tell me two things in his reply. First, will he give a report on the current situation with regard to the tests taking place on the transponders, commonly known as pingers, which are attached to boats
324
and nets to warn submarines of the presence of fishing vessels? I understand that trials are taking place. The fishing boat of a constituent of mine, Howard McCrindle, is being used in those trials. How are they progressing and what hopes does the Minister have for the deployment of those pingers?
Secondly, will the Minister reaffirm the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to Subfacts, a scheme which has been doing invaluable work in warning fishing boats about submarine movement? The Minister introduced it after representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It has been working extremely well. It is rather unfortunate that comments attributed to the chief coastguard have undermined the scheme and denied the use of coastguard facilities to broadcast the information. I am sure that no one, least of all the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, would want a repeat of the Antares tragedy. I hope, for that reason, that the scheme will be continued and expanded in other areas.
I was grateful for the fact that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement mentioned the royal dockyards. We look forward to the Government's decision on the Trident refit contract. Indeed, we have been looking forward to it for some time—only a little longer than we have been looking forward to the defence estimates debate. We have had the most absurd and damaging indecision on the issue. A decision was expected after the election, then by last autumn, then by the end of last year. Then by the end of last year we were reliably informed by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces then it would come by the end of January, then it was to be before Easter and now we are told to expect it this month.
Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. I trust that when he is making such comments he will bear in mind that many of his colleagues and I went to see my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and convinced them to review the matter properly and fully. In considerable measure, that has been the reason for the Government's delay in making a decision, and for that I am grateful.
Mr. Foulkes: I would have hoped that the Ministry of Defence would undertake all that without the need for representations from the hon. Gentleman, or other hon. Members. One of the ironies of the announcement was that the Government proclaimed that both yards needed to be kept open to preserve competition. The privatised management competition led to a desperate bidding process for the Trident contract and ultimately resulted, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North will recall, in the Government's startling concession that the tenders
"may significantly understate the likely eventual cost of the work".
What strategic sense does such a ridiculous process make? The Opposition have consistently argued that both sites must be kept open and that the only effective way to do that is by guaranteeing a core programme of work. If we lose one of the yards, it will be not only a tragedy for the community concerned but result in a major strategic loss in capacity for the defence industry. That is why it needs to be looked at in a strategic, overall sense and not as competition, part of which has turned out to be a farce.
It would be wrong not to mention the merchant shipping and the shipbuilding industries. The decline in the British merchant fleet was underlined by the fact that only

325
a small number of its ships were chartered during the Gulf war; the rest had to come from overseas—a situation very different from that of the Falklands war. Leaving aside the investigation into an alleged fraud ring in the Ministry of Defence—that matter needs to be pursued—it is of real concern that the number of merchant ships is so low.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement assured us last June that the situation is not yet drastic. Perhaps he will act soon to ensure that it does not become drastic. There has been a similar decline in the shipbuilding industry. Defence cuts inevitably mean that thousands of jobs have and will be lost. Skilled professional people such as draughtsmen, electricians and engineers will go when such skills need to be preserved for the sake of our manufacturing industry. It is a shameful admission that the Government have no policy to assist diversification in the defence industry. The lack of Government direction is making things much worse than they should be. That aspect cannot be left to individual private enterprise and to the marketplace. We will continue to call for the establishment of a defence diversification industry, to ensure strategic planning.
At VSEL in Barrow, for example, 7,000 jobs, or half the work force, have already been lost in the brief period that has elapsed since "Options for Change". The effect on such a community, isolated as it is from other opportunities for employment, is devastating.
The stark fact is that, although the shipbuilding industry is still the main employer in some areas, total output is only one quarter that at the peak levels for the new shipbuilding giants in the far east. Our shipbuilding work force numbers 35,000—not the hundreds of thousands employed in the past. If the Government do not act soon to halt that decline, our shipbuilding industry will be in a very sorry state.
When analysing Government defence policy, we adopt the maxim that what the Government say is not what the defence forces get. On 4 February 1992, the then Secretary of State for Defence told the House:
"We believe that the world is passing through a period of considerable instability and therefore we do not propose further reductions in our defence forces."—[Official Report, 4 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 123.]
Since then, naval manpower has been cut by almost a further 10 per cent. It was envisaged that we would have a destroyer and frigate force of around 40—but now it seems possible, although we shall have to wait for the White Paper, that the number will be nearer 35 and the operational total down to 30. "Options for Change" planned a submarine force reduced from 29 to 16, but now the MOD is preparing for 12 at most.
Mr. Hargreaves: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I raised that issue with my hon. Friend the Minister. As a number is to go into this famous White Paper, for which we must all wait, will the hon. Gentleman give the number that the Opposition think appropriate?
Mr. Foulkes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been present since the beginning of the debate, but I made it clear earlier that the number would be discussed in the review—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence—my good friend—is laughing. We are saying that there needs to be a review of strategic needs and requirements, so that the manpower and equipment
326
necessary to deal with them can be determined. We are seeing instead salami cuts from the Treasury. If we have the LPH, will we have to sell off the Upholder class to pay for it?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman keeps calling on the Government to conduct a defence review, to reach conclusions. Is he saying that the Labour party has not conducted its own internal review of defence policy—that it has no views at all on the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force, the size of each of those services and any changes that should be made? If Labour does have views, why have we not been given the benefit of learning of them?
Mr. Foulkes: Of course we are looking at a review within our limited resources, but I pledge that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make available to us all the Ministry of Defence's resources, we will not only conduct a defence review but publish it.
Mr. Rifkind: But until then, Labour does not have any views.
Mr. Foulkes: Of course we have opinions and views, but we cannot propose specific numbers until we have discussed the matter. I made clear the need to review the Upholder class and certain requirements. There is an important debate under way about grey-water and blue-water deployment, and we want to take part. It should, however, be an open and straightforward discussion, not the kind of secret discussion that is currently under way.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, did he have in mind the remarks made in 1976 by Sir Ian Gilmour, as he then was, as shadow Minister of State for Defence? He told the House that it was unrealistic for Opposition parties to seek a detailed defence policy because they did not have access to the necessary information. He pointed out that when an Opposition party came into office, it had to discuss such matters with our allies, the defence industry and the services before it was possible to create a cohesive defence policy—in fact, a review.
Mr. Foulkes: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Member, and I hope that his help will not do his party any harm in today's local government elections in England.
Mr. Campbell: Not in Newbury, anyway.
Mr. Foulkes: The axe is poised over a wide range of other projects. I refer to the Tornado mid-life upgrade, the Challenger 1 upgrade and the replacement of Bloodhound. I hope that we will know more in the great White Paper that is to be published, but given the MOD's track record, I sometimes have my doubts—as we say in Scotland.
We welcome some cuts. The suggestion that the tactical air-to-surface missile—TASM—will be scrapped is something for which Labour has been arguing for a considerable time. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will confirm that that will happen. Nevertheless, we object to month-by-month uncertainty, the ad hoc nature of force reduction, the lack of any direction in defence policy and the unwillingness during a period of massive global upheaval to contemplate the full strategic analysis that our nation's security role and requirements demand. There is a lack of basic consistency and decisiveness in

327
Government policy. It is not crisis management but crisis mismanagement. The Royal Navy in particular is being run down and is suffering because there has been no strategic review.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman appears to be reaching the end of his speech, but earlier he promised to make clear Labour's policy on retaining the nuclear deterrent. Although he mentioned that he agreed with keeping four submarines, another part of Labour policy has been to negotiate away our nuclear deterrent, and we know that Labour party conferences tend to say that they do not want nuclear weapons at all. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that Labour is now in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent?
Mr. Foulkes: I made it clear that we accept four submarines as a fait accompli, but that we oppose any escalation in the number of warheads, which we want to keep at 192. I make it clear also that if other countries were to dispense with their nuclear weapons, we would not want to retain nuclear weapons. That seems manifestly sensible.
As I want to give other right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to contribute, I shall conclude. I resent the criticism that is sometimes made by Ministers—although only once tonight—that we are deficient in our resolve to defend our country. Labour Members represent the men and women who fought for this country in successive conflicts, who cook for those who fight, repair vehicles, fly planes and sail the ships. At a recent careers convention at Cumnock academy, young men and women again told me of their worthwhile ambitions to join the Royal Navy, Army or Air Force, and we want them to have the opportunity to do so.
Of course, we seek, above all, political solutions to conflicts or potential conflicts, wherever they may be—Northern Ireland, Belize, the Falklands, Bosnia or elsewhere. Political solutions will allow us to reduce the percentage of our gross national product that is spent on defence—and all other countries wish to do the same. Meanwhile, the Opposition yield to no one in our support for what is necessary to protect our democracy and our way of life.
5.58 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: I confess that I am always somewhat reluctant to participate in debates on subjects of which many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House clearly have greater knowledge than me. I cannot claim to be a so-called defence expert. On the other hand, perhaps it is refreshing and helpful occasionally to hear the views of a lay person. It is in that context that I shall make a few remarks.
When preparing my comments, one word repeatedly came to mind—uncertainty. That recurring theme manifested itself, whether in respect of Britain's defence requirements and capabilities over the next 20 years or more, or in relation to decisions that have been made or will have to be made about the Royal Navy and their impact on the south-west region and the Plymouth travel-to-work area in particular—part of which includes my constituency.
We were all excited when the Berlin wall came down—it—symbolised the ending of the cold war-and subsequent events in the former Soviet Union and former communist states of eastern Europe also caught our
328
imagination. Yet few, if any, could have predicted the sequence of events that subsequently took place. Before that there was a certain predictability—I hesitate to use the word "cosiness"—but in practice both the western world and the east knew where they stood. Since the Berlin wall came down, that situation has been replaced by uncertainty and increasing instability, particularly in parts of Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Initially, we talked about the peace dividend—the Government produced "Options for Change"—but I must confess that I now find myself repeatedly asking where it will all lead. What are the United Kingdom's defence objectives and responsibilities for the early part of the 21st century? What strategy will we pursue and, following from this, what defence capability will we require, particularly in the context of this debate, as far as the Royal Navy is concerned? I sometimes wonder whether the Government, and the Ministry of Defence in particular, are clear in their own mind about their responsibilities and objectives.
We have had a series of decisions about requirements, capabilities, sizes and many other issues, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, taken collectively, they seem to me, as a layman, hardly to add up to a clearly defined defence strategy, especially—and reference has already been made to this—when Ministers decide to make announcements about further reductions in the Royal Navy's manpower requirements on the eve of the Easter recess. I was telephoned at 4.30 on Maundy Thursday and, as a Member of Parliament representing a defence constituency, was put in the embarrassing position of having to defend my own Government's decision-making process. Of course, that situation will apply to us all from time to time.
Manpower levels are of particular interest to me because HMS Raleigh is located in my constituency. HMS Raleigh is the shore base where all the non-officer intake into the Royal Navy, both male and female, undertake their initial training. Any announcement about Royal Navy manpower requirements will obviously have direct consequences for HMS Raleigh and the Torpoint community. I must emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and I do not exaggerate—the number of times in recent months that Royal Navy personnel and their families have approached me to seek clarification of the Ministry of Defence's intentions. That uncertainty—I come back to that word—is very worrying.
Devonport dockyard and the Royal Navy base are situated across the River Tamar from my constituency. We all know that Plymouth is a major garrison city; more than 2,000 of our United Kingdom marine force are based in Plymouth. I should add that more than 20 per cent. of the work force in the various Plymouth defence establishments are my constituents. There are also those who are employed directly in other activities or rely indirectly on defence-related enterprises.
Anxieties are steadily mounting—many have been aired this afternoon—about the delays that have occurred in essential decision-making processes concerning the future size, location and function of Royal Navy activities. There is uncertainty over the location of the United Kingdom Trident refit facility: that is obviously top of the list as far as the Plymouth travel-to-work area is concerned. There are uncertainties about the future size of our surface fleet and the location of its base. At present, 26 surface ships are Devonport-based and various categories of submarine are based at Plymouth.

329
I hope that, if nothing else comes out of this debate—and regardless of party membership—this point will be made to Ministers. Of course, we must make the right decisions, but delay causes further uncertainty and unease, and we should try to avoid that. One scenario that has been suggested lately is that, for example, by 1997 the Plymouth naval base—including the dockyard—could be significantly reduced, if not closed, if the Trident contract were awarded to Rosyth. The surface fleet, for example, could be moved to Portsmouth and all submarines could be based at Faslane. I am not suggesting that this is likely to occur, but the longer there are delays in making essential decisions, the more this kind of speculation will increase. I am not in any way deliberately playing up the anxiety; I merely say that that is being suggested. If it were to happen, it would have a devastating impact on the Plymouth travel-to-work area.
Uncertainty has been created locally by the delays, in particular those affecting Trident. Implicit in my remarks—and the Minister already knows my position on this—is my belief that it is essential not only for us to have a decision on the Trident refit facility soon, but for that facility to be located at Devonport. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) outlined the sequence of events; we are almost 12 months on from when we were initially led to believe that a decision was about to be made. We all know that slippages can occur for genuine reasons, but I think that we are beginning to exhaust our excuses on that point.
Ministers have also stated that this difficult and crucial decision will be taken on the basis of the defence needs of the United Kingdom and value for money. I believe that on both counts Devonport's case has been proved. Devonport has an advantage in respect of the initial capital outlay; furthermore, the dockyard offers an extensive co-located naval base for both surface ships and submarines, and offers significant unit cost savings for the future.
Of course, wider social and economic considerations arise from the decision, but it is a fact that the south-west region of the United Kingdom is the most heavily dependent on defence and defence-related industries. There are the employment considerations. We have already lost 6,200 jobs in Devonport in the past six years. The naval base and the dockyard put £520 million annually into the local economy. In addition, 600 local companies receive contracts annually from the dockyard. These arguments are relevant to any defence location, but they are particularly relevant to Plymouth because of its historic connection with defence and defence-related industries.
As for the political considerations, this is not the right time to raise them with Ministers. I rest my case on the belief that Devonport is Britain's most significant naval complex. Geographically, it is the best placed complex in the United Kingdom for access to deep water and rapid response. In addition, Devonport comes out best in terms of offering greater efficiency and lower unit operating costs. I look to Ministers to end our prolonged period of uncertainty as quickly as possible.
6.10 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was very interested in the reply given to me today by a Foreign Office Minister about the number of conflicts in the world. The Minister did not suggest how many conflicts the Foreign Office recognises. He simply suggested that the United Nations recognises that at least 25 wars or conflicts, in one form or another, are going on in the world today, and that the United Nations has a peacekeeping role, or is attempting a peacekeeping role, in 12 of those 25 wars or conflicts. Any debate about our defence requirements must take that fact into account. We should remember that the horrors of Bosnia, reported on television, are being repeated in many of those other wars. It is just that the TV cameras are not there. We ought to be as horrified about the horrors of those other wars as we are about Bosnia.
I was disappointed, therefore, that the Minister did not set our Royal Navy requirements in the context of what we are doing to try to reduce the number of conflicts in the world. He did not tell us how far we intend to co-operate with the United Nations in its peacekeeping roles, or whether the Royal Navy has a role to play in trying to prevent us from getting drawn into one of those conflicts, or saving us from some other conflict.
It is sad that the Government have not been prepared to carry out a proper defence review. As they have not been prepared to do that, the House of Commons procedures for debating defence matters are in a chaotic state. It would have been far better to have a proper defence review and, following it, a debate in the House.
Even though the Government were not prepared to do that, they cannot be excused for not having provided time for a two-day debate on the estimates. If they had provided such an opportunity, Members could have argued the case as to how far, if we are to meet in particular our United Nations role, we would have been better served by allocating resources to one part as opposed to another part of our defence capability. That debate should have taken place.
Instead, there have been a few of the debates that are supposed to take place each year on the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force—if you like, housekeeping debates. The Royal Air Force debate was not particularly satisfactory. For all sorts of very good reasons, most of the debate was devoted to Bosnia.
Mr. Wilkinson: And Iraq.
Mr. Bennett: Yes, Iraq as well.
It was not a satisfactory Royal Air Force debate. Other issues were brought into it. We now need a proper series of debates in the House of Commons, leading up to the defence estimates. We need a two-day debate on last year's estimates. Then we need the estimates and the statement upon them. After that, we ought to be provided with the opportunity for a debate before the summer recess so that all these issues can be thoroughly analysed in the House of Commons.
I was amused by the Minister's claim that the Government had been candid about nuclear issues. I accept that, on a few occasions, we have managed to prise just a little information out of Ministers, but it is extremely unsatisfactory that certain defence correspondents are

331
briefed by the military with information that is far more authoritative and clear than that which the Government are prepared to give to us.
Since 1945, neither end of the political spectrum has ever told the House of Commons the truth about Britain's nuclear role. However, they have had to leak some information in order to try to give credibility to the deterrent. The Government ought to adopt a totally new approach. There should be full disclosure to Parliament, so that hon. Members can understand to what extent our defence resources are still being skewed towards spending too much on our nuclear capability as opposed to our conventional capability.
The Minister told us today that the Trident programme expenditure came within the estimates, but we do not know whether that is true, because we have never been told how many missiles we shall get. Unless we are given that information, we cannot know whether, in order to stay within the expenditure target, the Trident system has steadily been whittled down. If the Minister wants to claim credit for good budgeting, he should at least be honest with the House of Commons and tell us whether we are getting what was originally envisaged, or something that has been substantially scaled down.
Instead of clear information to the House of Commons about what is happening to the Trident and tactical air-to-surface missile programmes during the past few months, there has been a series of Government leaks. It is possible to pick out a series of briefings that could not have been made up by defence correspondents. They were clearly offered either by Ministers, or senior civil servants, or people in the Ministry of Defence. Why cannot the House of Commons be told exactly what is happening to the Trident programme? Is TASM to be scrapped?
If this is the mother of Parliaments, we ought to be able to debate these issues. If they were debated in such secrecy that no foreign Government had a clue about what was going on, I might be able to understand the argument, but it does not happen like that. Since we want the deterrent to work, for all sorts of reasons—including the technical ability to observe what is going on—most major foreign Governments can find out exactly what is going on in this country. The only people who are denied that information are the British electorate, who might have a view as to whether they are getting good value for money. There ought to be openness about nuclear policy aims in a democratic country.
What is even more important is that we signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I understand that, between 10 and 14 May, there is to be a meeting in New York as a preliminary to the 1995 review of the treaty. Most people feel that it is unsatisfactory. Some countries that signed it said that they would not develop nuclear weapons. Then they went ahead and developed them.
Our commitment to that treaty is not to increase our nuclear capability and to work towards reducing it. How can we take part in those preliminary discussions, in the hope of achieving a more effective non-proliferation treaty, if we are not prepared to tell the world what our intentions are about the warheads that will go on Trident? How will other countries be able to tell whether we are cheating on the treaty and committing ourselves to an expansion of our nuclear capability? How can we demand openness from other Governments if we do not provide it
332
ourselves? If we want to make progress on nonproliferation, there must be more openness about our own requirements.
I am not a great believer in deterrents, although the Government certainly are. The only way to deter people is to give some idea of one's capability. Originally, the idea was that Trident was the last resort to deter Russian—or, as it then was, Soviet—aggression, so I understand that we do not need to develop it much further.
However, we are now being told that, by slightly rearranging the warheads of the Trident programme, we may be able to use them against a minor or semi-power which wants to develop a nuclear capability. Surely, if one believes in a deterrent, it is much better to spell out what we are capable of and warn countries that we may be prepared to use ours. As long as there is uncertainty, there is little chance of any system acting as a deterrent. It would be better to place all the emphasis on non-proliferation rather than trying to develop a new role for deterrence.
More honesty is needed about our special relationship with the United States, which the Tory party likes to trot out. Basically, if we want to keep a nuclear weapons system, we are dependent on the United States for the Trident missiles. As long as we are dependent, we do not have an independent deterrent and cannot be wholly independent in foreign policy terms.
It is very easy for the Americans to lean on us and say that perhaps the missiles should cost a little more, which is extremely embarrassing for the Government. It is not said formally that, if we do not support the United States policy in Bosnia, it will increase the price of the missiles, but that is the informal aspect of our special relationship. It would be better to make it clear to what extent we are still dependent on the United States for Trident, how vulnerable we are to a change in its policy, and how it can help to determine our foreign policy.
A question mark hangs over our role in the United Nations Security Council. Are we a permanent member because we are a nuclear power? Do we have a veto because we are a nuclear power? The issue should be discussed openly because, in terms of our economic clout in the world, it is hard to justify our continuing in that role. In view of the changes taking place in the world, there should be far more openness about the role of nuclear deterrence in the Royal Navy and in defence policy in general.
Polaris is clearly coming to the end of its days. One of the submarines has already been taken out of service, as have other nuclear-powered submarines. The United States has also taken a substantial number of nuclear-powered submarines out of service, and we hear some pretty horrible tales about what is happening to nuclear-powered submarines in the Soviet Union.
It is very important that someone develops a strategy for the effective decommissioning and making safe of the old reactors and boats. I should have thought that jobs could be created. It is sad that we have so much expertise in shipbuilding for military and transport purposes but that we are not trying to use some of it to develop a decommissioning policy, which could be important for this country and also contribute substantially to making the world a much safer place.
In the next few months, I hope that the Government will concede that we need a properly costed defence review, so that we can have a more effective debate in the House about defence implications. I hope that, at long last, the

333
Government will show some honesty about the costs of their nuclear policy and how we can use it to try to make the world a safer place.
6.24 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome the debate, because, as has already been said, for the past two years the House has not had the opportunity to discuss Royal Navy affairs, and it is high time it did. The debate is timely, because the Select Committee on Defence is conducting an investigation into the Royal Navy. For the past two weeks, we have taken oral evidence, and we shall be reporting our conclusions to the House before the summer recess.
The Committee has completed its investigation into the Trident programme, and I can assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that we found nothing in the Trident programme to cause us serious concern in terms of its timing or its safety, which I know is a matter of particular concern to him. In due course, I hope that he will learn from our report that the undertakings and assurances given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement are accurate and that the Trident programme is progressing entirely as it should.
Mr. Bennett: Are we going to get as many missiles as originally envisaged?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not want to pre-empt our report, but I can say that the evidence given to us was that Trident can be equipped with that number of missiles, although it does not have to be, and that it would be possible to load it with fewer missiles; so perhaps the hopes expressed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will be fulfilled. I have no doubt that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will deal with that issue when he winds up.
The debate is timely also because today is the 50th anniversary of one of this country's great naval successes. Fifty years ago, convoy ONS5 was crossing the north Atlantic just out of Cape Farewell. It consisted of 40 elderly vessels escorted by the Royal Navy, and was attacked by a fleet of at least 30 U-boats. At first, things went very badly: 11 of the ships were sunk but only two U-boats. But, on the night of 5 May, the tide turned for the allies.
The British Navy managed to sink a further four U-boats, two U-boats collided and several were badly damaged. The morale of the U-boat fleet was so badly damaged that, three weeks later, Admiral Doenitz withdrew all the U-boats from the north Atlantic and, effectively, the battle of the north Atlantic was won. Therefore, it is extremely fitting that the House should today pay tribute to the men and women who served in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy and to the reserves for their great heroism during the second world war and on many occasions thereafter.
I also pay tribute to those who currently serve in the Royal Navy for their expertise, which is second to none. The Royal Navy is and will, I trust, always be an example to the rest of the world in showing how naval ships should be operated and how the morale of crews should be maintained. We have a magnificent Royal Navy in every
334
respect, and I was very reassured by the clear determination of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to maintain standards in the future.
However, nothing is perfect and, when the Treasury is cutting the amount of money available to the Ministry of Defence, there can be no doubt that increasing pressure is being put on the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force. The Minister of State said that the level of defence was not Treasury-led but was led by the military necessity of the time. With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is the entire truth.
Like all hon. Members, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues hold dear the security of this country, and they must be worried about the pressure being put on the Army, Navy and Air Force in the present climate.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon rightly acknowledged that there had to be a peace dividend—rightly, that is, when there is peace. But at the moment there is neither peace nor any sign of peace. In my view, any sign of a peace dividend—or at least, of a peace dividend that we could justifiably take-lies in the distant future. This must not be the time that we look for further cuts in our defence resource.
I hope that Treasury Ministers as well as the Defence Ministers here today will take note of the fact that the House is determined to ensure that the standards of the Royal Navy and of our other services are maintained, and that whatever resources are necessary for the security and safety of the people of this country are given to the Ministry of Defence. The Select Committee on Defence, on behalf of the House, is dedicated to ensuring that that happens.
I shall therefore examine one or two areas that give us cause for concern. The first is the size of the submarine fleet, which has been briefly touched upon already. There is a danger, which has emerged in evidence given to the Select Committee, that the SSKs will not come into service, and those already in service will be sold.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, no decision has been taken. He implored us not to leap to conclusions, but I am going to take a deep breath, and I am afraid that I am leaping to a conclusion: while no decision has yet been made, that decision is likely to be made. If that happens, we shall be left with a submarine fleet of only 12 boats. In my view—a view shared, I believe, by my colleagues on the Defence Select Committee—such a fleet would be wholly inadequate to ensure the future security of our merchant fleet and the safety of the sea lanes on which this country depends.
Mr. Bruce George: Would the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, care to draw a parallel with something that he said earlier? He told the House how in the second world war the Germans, who were not seen as a major naval power, put 30 U-boats into one operation, and still lost. If the Government go ahead and sell the Upholder class, we shall have only 12 submarines to cover a whole series of potential theatres of operation. Would the hon. Gentleman care to elaborate on the fact that 30 U-boats lost an engagement, whereas the entire Royal Navy fleet will consist of only 12 submarines if this stupid sale goes ahead?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In fairness to the Government, I must add that these days submarines are infinitely more expensive and complex than they were in the 1940s. It would therefore be unrealistic for us to expect the fleet to consist of as many submarines as both the German and the British fleets had then.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as technology advances, there is a tendency to use fewer and fewer platforms, and to rely upon the increasing ability of those platforms to deliver a hard punch. But however strong the armament of one platform may be, it still takes only one missile to sink one platform.
There is a balance, and the Government must bear that in mind. If we were ever to find ourselves in a major conflict again—it would take a foolish Government to forget all the lessons of history and to put that prospect aside—it would be essential to have enough platforms to secure us against whatever attack might be launched upon us.
Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend makes an eloquent case for submarines, drawing—as it is important to do—on the lessons of history. Does he agree that the proliferation of submarines in third-world countries is a potential threat for which we need to be ready?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. I am especially concerned about the Iranian Government's purchase of a Russian submarine; we understand that it is the first of several that the Iranians plan to buy. The Iranian Government are fundamentalist, and pose an undoubted threat to the civilised world. We must watch with substantial alarm the spread of that fundamentalism through the middle east and the strengthening of the military position of the current Iranian regime. That should give the House ample warning of the dangers that lie ahead if we allow our own defences to be let down.
As for the surface fleet, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement rightly said that the Select Committee had been quite vexed by the definition "about 40". We have discussed that definition at some length, and we are indeed quite vexed by it. I do not understand why a number cannot be adopted when we define the strength of our fleet, as we do when defining the strength and number of the regiments and battalions in the Army, or the number of aeroplanes in the Royal Air Force. Numbers of ships are not that different from numbers of tanks or aeroplanes; why does the Ministry always have to talk in terms of "about 40"?
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces says, and as the Select Committee has been told, "about 40" does not mean about 40 at all; it means between 35 and 45. Even that definition is somewhat economical with the facts. There is no question whatever of our being able to produce 45 frigates and destroyers. In four or five years' time we shall be extremely lucky if we have 35. I would lay a substantial bet with any hon. Member that, unless there is a great change of policy in the Ministry of Defence, we shall certainly not have 40.
Evidence was given to the Select Committee yesterday that we have 40 vessels at the moment, but that number is far from secure. We were also told that the type 21 frigates are all scheduled to be sold within the next two years or so. Again, the "two years or so" was a fairly vague time scale,
336
which we were unable to pin down more accurately. Apparently, we shall have built only the next two of the type 23 frigates within the next two years or so.
Therefore, all else being equal, I do not see how we could have more than 36 frigates and destroyers available to the Royal Navy by the end of 1995. That is right at the bottom of the scale of figures that could conceivably be said to be acceptable for a surface fleet of that type, to match what will then be the requirements of the Royal Navy.
That is much worse than it sounds, because at least half a dozen—"about" half a dozen, to coin a phrase—of those ships will be put into what is known as a state of "extended readiness". That is a glorious misnomer. Under that terminology, Ethelred should be rechristened Ethelred the Extended Readiness. There is nothing remotely ready about the ships described as being in a state of extended readiness. I cannot say precisely how long it would take to bring those ships into commission, but I believe that the war would be over long before they went back to sea
Mr. Archie Hamilton: With regard to assessing potential threats, does my hon. Friend accept that warning times are now much longer than they were in the past? In those much extended warning times, it might well be possible to prepare the ships for war.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is a fair point. In the past, when major wars have been in the offing, we have had extended warning times. We can fairly say that it was only the foolish who did not realise by mid-1938 that we should have to fight the Germans. The same could be said of the Napoleonic wars; it was clear by the early 1790s that there would be an extended sea war against France.
However, our present problem involves more than the necessity to have enough frigates and destroyers for wartime. The problem is that, if we add to the number of ships in a state of extended readiness the number of ships in refit or otherwise out of commission for one reason or another, the fleet would be reduced not to about 30 ships, as an Opposition Member said earlier, but to more like 15 ships that could put to sea at any given moment.
Given our peacetime, and peacekeeping, commitments even at the moment, I do not believe that we have enough frigates to fulfil our obligations. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has already described to the House the many duties that the Royal Navy is called upon to perform. The Royal Navy is responsible for the Armilla patrol. It is in the Adriatic and in STANAVFORMED. We have a guard ship in the West Indies. We should be able to do more—and I will return to this later—to combat piracy in the eastern oceans. That threat to world shipping is becoming increasingly dangerous.
To be candid with the House, I do not believe that 15 frigates are sufficient for us to be able to carry out a proper "emergency tour plot", to use an Army term, and to ensure that we can meet all those commitments over the next five or six years.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Many hon. Members will recall that the Royal Navy had to put to sea on active operations during the Falklands war at very short notice. Admiral Sir Henry Leach and others believe that, if the full provisions of Cmnd. 8288 had already been put into effect, the Royal Navy could not have sent the task force to sea to recover

337
the islands. We must also recognise that there will be a grave shortage of trained reserves, who are just as important as available hulls.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If such a requirement was placed on the Royal Navy again, I believe that it would not be able to meet it without taking ships from other important tasks. I am afraid that we will find ourselves in a position—which I admit we are not in at the moment—of having a Navy that is in danger of being overstretched as our armed forces and soldiers have been overstretched over the past year or two.
Those were the two main areas of the Select Committee's report that I wanted to draw to the attention of the House today. However, I have four comparatively minor detailed points that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the House for consideration.
First, it is extremely important that the fishery protection task is retained by the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy has minesweepers which are not fully deployed in peacetime. They are ideally suited for fishery protection. It would be a tragedy if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided not to continue to use the Royal Navy to protect our fishing vessels.
I see no reason why British fishermen fishing in British waters should find themselves and their livelihoods threatened by fishermen from other parts of our European Community and not be entitled to the full protection of the Government through the medium of the Royal Navy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the MOD is conscious of that and will do everything it can to persuade our colleagues in MAFF to continue to fund the operation to protect our fishermen.
Secondly, I should be grateful if Ministers could ensure that plans for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are properly developed and carried through. It appears to the Select Committee on Defence that, whenever we look at the figures, we find that we have one tanker fewer than when we last looked. The auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels which, I believe, were scheduled to have been with us by now are not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us when another AOR is due to be ordered.
Thirdly, we must consider hydrography. I believe that the hydrographic ship which is about to be commissioned is to be contracted out. It is extremely important that hydrographic skills are still available within the Royal Navy and that the charting, which is so important for the defences of our country and for all those who use the seas around us, is properly continued in future so that the skills we now have are not allowed to wither away.
Finally, and on a similar topic, Manadon, the Royal Navy engineering college, is believed to be under threat—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] My hon. Friends are reassuring me that it is under threat. I do not know, and I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, whether Manadon can properly be amalgamated with another Royal Navy college, and whether the education necessary can be provided in a different way. However, I must emphasise the importance of the engineering qualifications and skills and the continuation of the course currently conducted at Manadon.
338
I hope that my right hon. Friend will safeguard the role and expertise of Royal Navy engineering officers in respect of any plans he might have for Manadon. It is a matter of grave concern to current engineering officers and to those who have been engineering officers that the skills which they were able to obtain may not be available in the same way to their successors.
I want to return now to my point about piracy. I am very concerned about the amount of piracy in far eastern waters. The Royal Navy could have a role to play in helping to combat that piracy. I should be grateful if my colleagues could spare a ship to assist any policing efforts in that area. The seas around Hong Kong are dangerous. Substantial threats have been made against the lives of amateur sailors when they have ventured out of the immediate area around Hong Kong.
Far too many instances of the hijacking of ships and the murdering of crews have been reported in the past two years, and those incidents are increasing. It might be worth considering arming merchantmen, as we did during the war, as a possible way to see off the pirates and safeguard the security of trade and individuals in the area.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State quote my five-times great uncle at the beginning of the debate. I remind the House that Lord Nelson also said, "It is extraordinary how, whenever we fight the French we win, but during the peace, we always lose." The lesson that we must learn from that and from history is that, whenever there is a period of peace, we run down our defences too much.
It is not my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who concern me. I am more concerned about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the pressures that are placed on our defence budget. I ask Ministers to be sure that, if we have to spend more money on our Army and if we have to increase our military budget because of the events in Bosnia, we do not counter that additional expenditure by finding that money from the rest of the defence budget and thus threaten parts of the Navy or the Royal Air Force.
I hope that Ministers will go to the Treasury with, I trust, the full backing of the House and tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Despite the current economic difficulties and climate, we cannot cut our defences. We must have what we need, and we want you to give us enough money to make absolutely sure that we can provide the defences that this country currently needs."
6.47 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot claim such a distinguished ancestor as the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). However, I believe that Lord Nelson was most successful when he displayed a robust indifference to the requirements of the Admiralty, which I suppose is the theoretical antecedent of the Ministry of Defence. If the Royal Navy and those who lead it are as robust in their protection of its interests as Lord Nelson, perhaps we can be satisfied that the Royal Navy is in good hands.
As the Minister of State made clear at least by implication when he opened the debate, a single service debate of this kind has little meaning unless it is conducted against a background of the changing security environment. As interventions from both sides of the House have

339
made clear, there is a belief in the House that a debate of this kind lacks the meaning that it might have if it were conducted against a background of some idea of the overall defence strategy of the Government. In that regard, because we have not had a debate on a White Paper on the subject since 1991—before the last general election—and as it is not clear when we will debate the White Paper for 1993, many hon. Members feel that the debate might have been better informed had those other debates taken place.
We cannot consider the Royal Navy without having some regard to its current and future tasks and responsibilities. Some of them remain unchanged. The primary task of the defence of the United Kingdom—an island nation—is an unchanged responsibility of the Royal Navy. Other tasks that have previously occupied a substantial part of the debate on the Royal Navy—for example, the forward maritime strategy, the protection of supply across the Atlantic and NATO purposes—have become less acute against the background of the changing security environment. The responsibility for the nuclear deterrent, which rests with the Royal Navy, has become less onerous as the threat of nuclear confrontation has receded.
Those responsibilities have been replaced by others—notably, the contribution that we are expected to make to the activities conducted in the name of the United Nations. Our presence in the Adriatic, to which reference has already been made, seems to be a forerunner of similar tasks and responsibilities that we shall be asked to undertake. Those tasks and responsibilities involve different skills. It will be only right and proper that those whom we ask to fulfil those responsibilities have the opportunity to acquire the skills and maintain them at a high level by suitable and sufficient training.
Sir Richard Vincent did us a great service last week when he said that any military action can be contemplated only when there are clear political objectives. That is as true in relation to the possibility of military intervention in the Balkans as it is to the proper conduct and management of a service such as the Royal Navy. Until one is clear about the political objectives that the United Kingdom wishes to bring about, the allocation of the military means and, of course, the resources by which those military means are to be provided cannot be as well informed or as effective as it should be.
There is by no means satisfaction in the House that the Government have laid down sufficiently clearly the political objectives that they regard as being appropriate for the Royal Navy, nor the means by which such objectives may be achieved. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said tantalisingly, "If we wait until the publication of the White Paper, all the mysteries will be revealed". He was prodded to some extent about his authorship of a recent work on President Nixon. That conjured up the vision of the Minister sitting in a well-known bookshop in Charing Cross road autographing copies of the defence White Paper for 1993 and, by his table, a queue of expectant Members anxious to have not only the document but their personally autographed copies of it.
What is worth extracting from the exchanges between the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the House is that there is a feeling—it is almost certainly justified by the Minister's reference to the detail that we will find in the
340
White Paper when it is published—that this debate may be less significant than it might have been or, indeed, should have been if the 1993 White Paper had been in our hands.
I shall say a few words about the issue of nuclear deterrence, which has featured to some extent in the debate. Since nuclear weapons are weapons of such awesome potential, and since the Royal Navy has that responsibility, no debate about the Royal Navy should pass without some consideration being given to the issue of nuclear weapons. It appears to be generally accepted by all hon. Members that a four-boat submarine fleet is necessary. The electoral significance of four boats as against three has largely disappeared. Indeed, the argument for four is as true today as it was before the general election—that if a boat is disabled for any reason, it is difficult to maintain one boat permanently on station. Essentially, the fourth submarine provides insurance against unforeseen emergencies.
I firmly believe that nuclear deterrence must be constant if it is to be effective. There is no scope for part-time deterrence. I consider that a distinction must be drawn between the constant availability of a deterrent and the level of deterrence. As has been said, the Government's position still appears to be that up to 512 warheads may be deployed on the four boats.
Let us ask ourselves about the distinction between Trident and Polaris. The range of Polaris is 4,600 kilometres; the range of Trident is 9,700 kilometres—nearly double. Trident is more accurate than Polaris. Trident warheads are independently targetable; Polaris warheads are not. To put the matter generally, if the Government intend to deploy up to 512 warheads on four boats, that represents a massive increase in fire power. Liberal Democrat Members have consistently argued that there should be no more warheads on the Trident system than there are on the Polaris system, which it is to replace. If that were accepted in terms, there would still be a threefold increase in targeting capabilities.
I have always regarded the nuclear deterrent as being a form of insurance. Surely the level of insurance is variable according to the risk. It is worth remembering that the figure of 512 was conceived at the height of the cold war. It is worth considering that, if we were to press the Minister on the question whether we had an effective nuclear deterrent today, he would tell us that the Polaris system is an effective nuclear deterrent, albeit with 192 warheads. Since Trident represents such an enhancement in targeting capability, we are entitled to ask why it is necessary to have more warheads on Trident than Polaris and, indeed, why there should be more than 192 warheads.
Mr. Bill Walker: In the hon. and learned Gentleman's calculations, has he taken into account the fact that the insurance policy is for more than 20 years and that no one can say who will be in charge of the Kremlin five or 10 years from now? No one can say who will be in charge of the nuclear capability which was formerly possessed by the Soviet Union. Against that background, it is wise and prudent to ensure that one has a policy extension and cover for all likely eventualities when one is buying Trident today.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that, in a time of changed security atmosphere, it might be necessary to acquire more D5 Trident missiles—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that they will not

341
be available. I do not think that he understands that the only reason why we will be able to run them through is that we will be taking them to the United States to be maintained. Since the United States proposes to have an 18-boat fleet of Trident D5 missiles, it is reasonable to assume that we will be able to get more if necessary.
There is a more fundamental answer to the hon. Gentleman's question which he may have left out of his calculation—that is, that the nuclear doctrine of NATO is one of minimum deterrence. We have moved from mutually assured destruction, we have gone past flexible response, and we have gone past weapons of last resort to weapons of minimum deterrence. How is minimum deterrence defined? It is defined as the capacity to inflict upon one's adversary an unacceptable level of damage. If 192 warheads on the existing Polaris system are adequate to do that, the enhanced capability of 192 warheads on the Trident system seems more than adequate to inflict damage on any adversary which that adversary would be unable to accept.
The other fact or which the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has left out is that, on the occasion of Mr. Yeltsin's visit to London, the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), appeared on the nine o'clock news and said in answer to a question that there might well be circumstances in which one required fewer warheads than there were on the existing Polaris system. In those circumstances, we would have rather more persuasive power in the cause of non-proliferation if we as a military nuclear power did not increase our nuclear capacity far beyond what present circumstances dictate to be necessary.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. and learned Gentleman questioned the level of warheads. Has he taken it into account the fact that today there are increasingly sophisticated anti-ballistic missile systems and 20 years from now they will be even more sophisticated? Does not that warrant our having a sufficient level of warheads to make our deterrent credible?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Lady refers to the Moscow criterion. When Mr. Yeltsin came to London, people like me argued in the debate which surrounded that visit that we did not need to deploy more warheads on Trident than there were on the Polaris system that Trident was to replace. Conservative Members argued even while Mr. Yeltsin was in No. 10 Downing street that it was necessary for the protection of the people of the United Kingdom that we should retain a capacity which had the ability to obliterate Moscow. That is simply not a credible position.
It is not necessary to obliterate Moscow in order to inflict damage on Russia at a level which the Government of that country would regard as inappropriae to accept. We must have some element of transparency. Under the START 1 and START 2 treaties which were signed by the Soviet Union and the United States, those countries have to tell each other how many missiles and how many warheads they have. In addition, they have to allow people to inspect their facilities.
If the two greatest nuclear powers in the world are able to reach agreement on two occasions in two far-reaching treaties in such a transparent way, why cannot we be
342
similarly transparent about our nuclear capability? We should be transparent not least because it would give us persuasive power in dealing with the issue of nonproliferation. Many people feel that proliferation of nuclear weapons presents a far greater threat to the stability of the western world and the interests of the people of the United Kingdom than any other current military or political issue.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the life of Trident is estimated to be about 30 years. Can he guarantee that during that period the only effective anti-ballistic defences will be around Moscow?
Mr. Campbell: No, I cannot, because I cannot look into the future. But I am certainly willing to make assumptions based on existing political judgments. The logic of what the Minister says is that if the United States gives to Russia an enhanced anti-ballistic missile system, the people of the United Kingdom will have to acquire a nuclear capacity greater than the 512 warheads which will be on Trident. I cannot look into the future, but I find that proposition, and the notion that any Government would seek authority from the House for it, so ridiculous that it is not worth serious consideration.
Dr. Reid: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that simply to say that circumstances may change in 20 years and we have the capacity to have more than 192 missiles on Trident is no argument for not restricting ourselves to 192 missiles in the new context of today. Is it not a circular argument for the Government apparently to support the Americans in improving the anti-ballistic missile systems of the former Soviet Union, and of Russia in particular, but at the same time to argue that because those systems have improved the number of warheads on our deterrent must be increased?
Mr. Campbell: The objective of anti-ballistic missile systems is to bring a sense of security. It is a curious sense of security to say, "We will give you this capability but at the same time we shall acquire an enhanced capability so that we can beat the very defensive measure that we have given to you for your protection." Some effort at clear thinking is required on such issues, as it is required on the issue of the defence review.
Our old friend the defence review has appeared yet again in the debate. I am amused that the adjective "fundamental" is always attached to a defence review, as if any review should not be fundamental, but the words have become inextricably linked with each other. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not with us. One should have some rigour in one's approach to the defence review.
It is wrong to imagine that a defence review will be what one might call a soft option for change. If the purpose of calling for a review is to procrastinate on difficult decisions or to provide a cloak over policy differences, one lays oneself open to the charge of intellectual dishonesty. The defence review can be no substitute for difficult decisions. Indeed, if one carries it out properly, it will throw up a greater series of difficult decisions than the conduct of affairs of this nature on an ad hoc basis.
Therefore, those who advocate a defence review must have the intellectual rigour and political courage to carry through the decisions that the defence review reveals. I

343
continue to believe that Britain needs a fundamental—if I may fall into the trap of the cliche—defence review which is properly conceived and implemented.
We have moved from "about 50" to "about 40" frigates and destroyers. The hon. Member for Upminster is the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and he presides over our proceedings with genial firmness. As he said, when we took evidence yesterday it was made abundantly clear to the Committee that "about 40" certainly could not be thought in practical terms to mean 45. The expression "about 40" is meaningless. It is an ambiguous expression. Of course, it is deliberately so.
If the Government said that the figure was a minimum—let us say a fixed minimum of 35 or 36—the Government and civil servants would be open to much more serious criticism if that minimum figure was not maintained. "About 40" allows the Government the flexibility and leeway which means that any criticism of numbers can essentially be deflected. It is a kind of anti-ballistic missile system for officials and Ministers.
As the hon. Member for Upminster said, "about 40" looks to be 35 in reality for the foreseeable future. But, as he said, at any one time the figure could be much lower than that due to refitting or serious maintenance, not least as a result of the introduction of the rather curious and novel concept of what is now to be called "extended readiness". Logic would suggest that a reduction in numbers was justified by a reduction in tasks. I find little evidence of that in current. Ministry of Defence thinking.
It seems to me that today's discussion raises a number of important questions. Having concentrated on a role in the east Atlantic, what has now come to be described as the grey water role, are we expressly and deliberately moving away from that? Is force projection now a more dominant factor in the thinking of the Ministry of Defence with regard to the Navy than anti-submarine warfare?
As we are considering the development of an anti-air warfare frigate, does that not suggest the use of such a frigate for the protection of Royal Navy task forces which suggests something more of a blue water role than the roles we have recently fulfilled? One might put the question more starkly: is the Royal Navy moving back from a grey water role to a blue water one, and is that part of the thinking behind the decision to proceed with the LPH? If it is, what will be the consequences for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, because clearly a blue water role and the use of the LPH and Royal Navy task forces raise important issues of support which will also have to be dealt with? Those questions require answers in order better to inform the debate about the future of the Royal Navy.
Submarines are just as crucial and the hon. Member for Upminster dealt with them at some length. In 1990, we had about 29. Under "Options for Change", we were to have about 16. Now the Government are contemplating a reduction to about 12, and that reduction will necessarily contemplate the elimination of SSKs from the fleet. If that is even being considered, it can only be because those who have put it on the agenda as a measure to be considered believe that it has some validity. If it were of no merit or significance, it would not even be put on the agenda and, if it is on the agenda, it can only be because it is believed to have some substance. What is the basis of it being on the agenda? Is it a capability that we no longer require, or is it a question of expense?
It is customary on these occasions for hon. Members to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy, and
344
several hon. Members have done so already. I do so because it is well deserved, but there is another tribute that we could pay to those brave men and women. We could pay them the tribute of establishing in a clear and comprehensive agenda the tasks which we need them to perform and the resources that we are prepared to allocate to them for the fulfilment of those responsibilities.
7.12 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: In the two years since the last Royal Navy debate, we have seen the terrible events of Yugoslavia and added to the Royal Navy's challenges the need to send significant numbers of ships to the Adriatic. The Royal Navy responded to that new challenge by showing its capability, mobility, flexibility and endurance.
I was talking recently to the captain of the Ark Royal, who has just been relieved, and he was telling me about the high state of morale of the crew throughout their time at sea and the excellence of his team. The endurance of the Navy in difficult circumstances is something of which we can all be truly proud.
History has always shown that the control of the seas is essential, and Britain is well aware of that. It is fitting that we should be having this debate in the same month as the official anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic.
The House will not be surprised if I refer to the case for amphibiosity. Recently, the much-needed decision has been taken to go ahead with the order for the LPH. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is time that we decided on a name for it. We keep talking about the LPH, but it means little to those who are not well informed on naval matters. It is time that we brought out a name for it, such as the next Hermes or Albion. A ship of such importance deserves to be given a name very soon.
The LPH—the landing platform helicopter—is a major warship of 20,000 tonnes, the largest ship to be ordered for many years, and it was commissioned only after the most intense examination. I offer my thanks to colleagues on all sides of the House for the support they gave during that long-standing argument. I should like in particular to pay tribute to the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister, who showed the vision to realise the importance of that ship in the future requirements of the Royal Navy.
Amphibiosity has been proved in recent times. In the Falklands, we could not possibly have retaken the islands without that capability. In the Gulf war, United States amphibious shipping did not use it in that role, but it played an important part in distracting Iraqi defences and tied down some six divisions which otherwise would have been available for operations in the desert.
Amphibious vessels have a special capability; they can hover, poised for as long as necessary across the coast, and land on potentially hostile coasts at a time and place to suit military and political considerations. One can certainly envisage circumstances in which it would be necessary to evacuate offshore in a crisis.
Ships of that nature have great potential for use in a whole range of lower-intensity scenarios: disaster relief, humanitarian aid, civilian evacuation and military support to coastal states. The Americans illustrated that recently in Somalia.

345
Nothing has happened over recent years to diminish the importance of amphibious capability. Recent events in the Adriatic with the Ark Royal and the Argus pressed into use served to reinforce the need for it.
Up-to-date transportation for the Royal Marines is paramount. I am delighted that the orders for landing platform docks to replace the Fearless and the Intrepid are still going ahead. I was particularly pleased to hear in the Select Committee this week that there are to be two more major ships following the LPH. The landing ships are to be rebuilt and modernised for future life. There is no doubt that amphibiosity requires proper command and control, proper facilities for docking and a specialist force. One cannot make an ad hoc force into an amphibious force; it just does not work. It requires ships and crews that are constantly practised in the skilful operation of disembarking in amphibious operations.
I am delighted that the Royal Marines have a sure future; they are almost alone in the services in having strength that is not subject to any major review and providing Britain with a specialist role on the world scene.
I believe that the order for the LPH is a sign of Britain's determination to continue to play its part on the world's defence scene. The cost of the amphibious capability is small compared with the much larger cost of Britain's contribution to the allied rapid reaction which I personally welcome as I believe that it is in the interests of Britain and NATO. It is important that we have decided to retain and enhance our amphibious capability.
The House knows how important the elements of the amphibious package are to Swan Hunter and to Tyneside. I have made it clear on many occasions how important those orders are to the last of the United Kingdom's big shipbuilders at Swan Hunter. The Ark Royal, now in the Adriatic, was herself built at Swan Hunter. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the award of the contract will be made on the basis of technology and value for money, and I am quite confident that the excellent team on Tyneside will win that order.
It is interesting to reflect on the commitments of the frigate and destroyer forces. Some six ships are now permanently away in the south Atlantic, on the Armilla patrol in the Gulf, in the West Indies and on other permanent commitments. If we allow for the time for passage to distant parts, the back-up before they sail and leave for the crews when they return, we are talking about something like 12 ships permanently tied up in those six posts. If, on top of that, we allow for refits, for training, and for trials for the very long periods that are now needed to work up very complex new ships, we have a significant number of vessels tied to permanent duties.
In the case of the Adriatic, the Navy was able to respond, and that it could do so successfully proves our existing capability, but I have concern about the sustainability of an operation of that nature. For instance, Ark Royal will be coming back in the summer to this country. If the situation in the Adriatic continues as it is now, presumably Invincible will have to go out there to replace her. When Invincible's period of service is at an end, Ark Royal will have to return with her crew. To sustain a long operation in that area will demand many resources from the Royal Navy.
346
Looking to the future, it is the sustainability of a task force for any length of time, on top of the commitments that we already have, that concerns me.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is not my hon. Friend making an important argument for the necessity of retaining three CVSs? Were we to go down to two, as envisaged in Cmnd 8288, John Nott's review which had to be set aside because of the Falklands, it would be very difficult to keep one carrier on station. Furthermore, would there not be another potential difficulty, in that we have only two operational air groups? If we want to give adequate time for training and for leave, there may well be need to revert to three.
Mr. Trotter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his observations both about the ships and about the aircraft on them. Illustrious is coming back into service from refit next year, and it is fortunate that she is doing so; otherwise, the existing two would have to take six months about. In other words, their whole time would be tied up in that task.
The Navy is a technological service, and its capability depends on the number and age of its ships. Reference has already been made to crew size, and it is significant that the new ships have crews 30 to 40 per cent. smaller than those that they replace. That should be borne in mind when we are considering the total number of people in the Navy.
A balance must be kept in deciding how funds will be spent on ships and on men, and there are considerable advantages in having new ships, not just because they are much more capable but because they need fewer crew—a big cost saving—can be expected to be easier and cheaper to maintain and, one would hope, will take less time in refit. All those are strong arguments for building new ships.
The second balance to be maintained is between the vessels in the fleet and their cost and the support structure and the cost of the bases ashore. This question must be faced. I refer particularly to refits. One understands very well the historical reasons for existing over-capacity in the royal dockyards, but if there were true competition between those dockyards and the rest of the shipbuilding and repair industry in the United Kingdom, I am sure that we would get better value for money. The result of unnecessarily high spending in the dockyards must be less money available for operating ships or for buying new ones—in short, a smaller Navy than we could get for the same amount of money.
That money unnecessarily spent in the dockyards means less strength and capability for the Navy. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at the possibility of more work going out to capable yards like those on the Tyne and in other parts of the country. Recent figures show that only 14 per cent. of the money spent on refits at present has gone out to competition.
There was an interesting experiment in 1985, when a submarine went to a yard on the Humber for a refit and a Leander class frigate was refitted on the Tyne. Both exercises were regarded as successful, and it was hoped that they would be preliminary to further, similar refits in the future going out to competition. That has not happened, and I hope that the matter will be reconsidered, because I believe that the Navy would benefit significantly from doing so.

347
I too end by paying tribute to the men and women of the fleet. We started with the quotation of Nelson's tremendous signal at Trafalgar. These days, one must refer to England expecting every man and every woman to do their duty. I was delighted to hear from the captain of the Ark Royal of the successful inclusion of women in his crew. There are 100 women now at sea on board Ark Royal, fitting successfully into the team.
The example of the Navy's response to the challenge of crisis in the Adriatic has shown how well it responds to the task we give it. Its men and women respond with great skill and professionalism. The country has never had a better team at sea on the ships of the Royal Navy, and we can justly be proud of them.
7.24 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Two Opposition Members have already referred to the fact that we have had no defence White Paper debate. I believe that it is the first time since 1970 that a defence White Paper has not been debated in the calendar year of its publication. We may even be in the bizarre position of having a debate on the 1992 White Paper after the publication of the much trailed 1993 White Paper. There should be more regular debate, and there should be taking part in all these debates, either introducing or winding up, a Treasury Minister. Let us be honest: the Treasury determines defence policy.
In my extensive study of the North American Indian, I found a character, a Sioux, with the delightful name of White Men Run Him. I suspect that that principle of naming ought to be referred to our Defence Ministers. So let us be honest and bring into this debate those who call the shots.
The Treasury would like to cut defence expenditure, and it has done. It is not very good at running the economy, and history shows that it is not very good at determining defence policy either. I would have thought that the Ministry of Defence should not leap on the fact that the Treasury has given it orders to cut defence expenditure, to cut commitments, to cut our forces and to cut the number of platforms that we possess. It is rather naughtily trying to provide a sophisticated justification for what it is doing, but it is sounding a little hollow these days.
The cold war is over, but when we look at history we see repeated cycles of conflict and peace. The Minister has said that he cannot look into the future, and no more can the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I should have thought that the world was sufficiently unstable and had quite enough hot spots. Jane's Defence Weekly identified 72 hot spots round the world. An unclassified Sandhurst briefing a couple of weeks ago announced 35 situations of conflict, or potential conflict, in the former Soviet Union alone. Then its author acknowledged that there had been a small error in subsuming under north Caucasus and south Caucasus two crises, whereas there are probably as many crises within the Caucasus as there are in the rest of the former Soviet Union.
When we talk about proliferation, about conflicts over scarce resources or about the growth of fundamentalism, we must remember that Boutros-Ghali has said that by the end of the century there could well be 400 states in membership of the United Nations, many of which will have been created as a result of physical violence, war and
348
civil war. So when the Government defence team tells me that there is no longer a threat in the north Atlantic so we no longer need the Upholder class submarine, I would point to the threats elsewhere.
For example, the Mediterranean seems to be the new arc of crisis. Some think that there should be a new major NATO commander based on Naples rather than having a commander, allied forces, southern Europe as a subordinate of SACEUR, such is the growing importance of the Mediterranean, including the sea itself, the littoral states, the middle east, the Gulf, the Black sea, the Balkans and the Maghreb. There are problems of terrorism and of proliferation and again a conflict over resources. All this demands reconsideration. Surely "Options for Change" was misconceived at the time and is rather more misconceived now.
I believe that we are in a rather difficult period. I hope that the Russian military will no longer be a threat to anyone, including the Russian population; but we can never be certain. I hope that it will never again become a military threat, but it could. I was in the Royal United Services Institute library recently and came across the following marvellous quotation:
"The Russian army is experiencing a period of considerable financial retrenchment. Reasoning from past experience this fit of economy is unlikely to prove to be permanent."
It comes from the RUSI journal of 1882. So we have been here before, and we should be cautious about the future.
That is not to say that we can maintain armed forces at their levels of the height of the cold war, but let us not delude ourselves that we are moving into a tranquil era in international relations: we are not. I hope that the Government recognise that.
Peering into the future, we need only look at the deteriorating crisis in the Balkans. We have a number of options. One is to pull out: there are people who argue that we should call a plague on all their houses—they are all liars and crooks, so let us get out and leave them to it. Others argue, more or less, for the status quo. Then there are the military options—limited air strikes or punitive air strikes, safe havens and protected areas. Another option is to raise the stakes and begin a full military intervention. Another is to rely more on the embargo. These are all bad options, and we are moving inexorably closer to one or more of them.
The alternative—to do nothing—is likely to be even more catastrophic. Those of us with an interest in history remember the arguments of the 1930s—that if we shut our eyes perhaps the crisis will go away. It certainly did not and will not.
There is so much flammable material in the Balkans that it is reaching the point of natural combustion. My research assistant has identified 13 separate routes into a general Balkans war, and we have not finished our research yet. Just doing nothing and hoping that the problem will go away will not make it do so—there would be a Balkans war involving at least two NATO powers. That would be the price of indecision, so inaction is not really a viable alternative.
Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman has told us about the instability of the world and the creation of smaller nations. Does he agree that the sort of war with which we may have to deal and the kind of peacekeeping that we may be called upon to perform will require, in addition to

349
the Trident deterrent, strong and flexible conventional forces of all sorts? That is why many of us are anxious that such forces be maintained for Britain.
Mr. George: Absolutely. Flexibility is the key. We will have little flexibility if we have fewer platforms, for instance. I fear that one of the reasons why the British Government are being rather less than robust is that they realise that their flexibility is diminishing, to such an extent that their only option is to do little. That is not the correct way to proceed.
I remember how Mrs. Thatcher went to see George Bush in the early stages of the Gulf conflict, apparently to offer some backbone. Now, Warren Christopher is searching Europe in vain for some of that backbone among his European allies. Ultimately, perhaps, a bit of backbone will be found, to the advantage of all concerned.
Given the Bosnian Serb rejection at this stage of the Vance-Owen agreement, we must do a number of things. We must not take any military action until a referendum has been held. We know that it is a time-wasting device, but we must wait. In the meantime, there is much that we must do. First, we must tighten the economic screw. There is clear evidence that sanctions—they have been seriously applied for only a couple of months—are hurting. The work force in the former Yugoslavia, or Serbia, numbers about 400,000. Those workers are not very efficiently deployed, but on their shoulders they must carry all the unemployed, those who are technically employed but have no work to do, the elderly and the disabled. They must also carry the enormous weight of the Serbian military and the non-productive economy of the Bosnian Serbs. Their diminishing numbers cannot indefinitely carry all these burdens.
Sanctions must be even more rigorously applied, therefore. Monitors, EC or UN, must be placed on the border between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to find out whether Milosevic's enthusiasm for settlement is genuine. We need to know whether we will apply sanctions or at least not send in troops, materials and food to his erstwhile allies. This might save him from future embarrassment.
There must be continuous planning either for Vance-Owen implementation or for some form of military intervention——
Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not straying rather far from the coast?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Hon. Members are permitted to speak fairly generally in debates of this nature, but the hon. Gentleman is certainly straying rather far. This debate is on the Navy, not Bosnia.
Mr. George: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness; I shall listen carefully to his speech. Even he must be aware of the fact that WEU naval forces are operating in the Atlantic, that STANAVFORMED—standing naval force—is operating in the Mediterranean and that naval forces are operating out of Split—a number of colleagues have been to see them. If there is to be a NATO force, it is likely to be under the control of the allied commander in Naples. I do not believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are a defence specialist——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the difference between a debate on the Navy and a debate on Bosnia.
Mr. George: I am obliged to accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do so under a degree of protest. A naval war is quite likely as well.
A number of criteria must be observed by our naval, air and armed forces if the crisis deteriorates. These forces must be authorised by the United Nations. Secondly they must be NATO-led, and a naval commander will probably be involved. We must decide which forces are to be deployed, too. I fear that it will be difficut to put in as many as 75,000 troops—although the Americans are apparently committed, the Russians have said that they will chip in and the French are quite keen. So far, however, we have not heard a figure from our Government.
The problems to be resolved include the scope of the operation, the rules of engagement and the United Nations mandate. This last is important for establishing the relationship between NATO and other participating NATO countries. We must decide who pays and what the military tasks to be performed are. When the forces are to be deployed is also a major decision.
I come now to more specifically NATO matters, which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will find much more to his liking. The Royal Navy, as the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee has said, stands at "about 40" ships. We all know that it is actually 38 and falling to 35, which in turn is dangerously close to "about 30". We are talking about naval matters. I did not want to bring partisan, political points into the debate, but I must remind the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood about 1978, the last full year of the supposedly discredited Labour Government. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement referred critically to Denis Healey and his defence cutting. The cutting which Denis Healey did when at Defence or the Treasury still managed to leave a fleet of frigates and destroyers of about 66, which seems to me to be "about 70", whereas we are moving to "about 30".
I shall have more to say about naval matters. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood for gently prodding me in that direction. When it comes to submarines, that discredited Labour Government in 1964–70 and in 1974–79 had 27 submarines plus four Polaris submarines. We are getting down to 16, plus Polaris/Trident. If the Government proceed with the sale of the century and provide Indonesia or whoever with a submarine fleet, we will be down to 12 compared with 27.
Some hon. Members may mutter that the Navy was older and decrepit in those days. I can assure them that it was not. In defence, one gets what one pays for. In 1974–79, in a period of detente because the cold war began only after the Conservative Government came into office—it was not their responsibility—defence expenditure averaged 4·9 per cent. of GDP. The Government are driving it down to 4 per cent. There is no way in which we can have defence forces to meet the many contingencies that arise if we are operating on 4 per cent. of GDP.
The threat has gone, we are told. Hardly; the threat is there but it is taking a different form. We must consider the evolving threat from countries which are acquiring navies and buying submarines from anyone who will sell them. Iran is a case in point. To hunt one Iranian submarine would require quite a lot of our submarines.
Recently I watched a television programme in which high technology was deployed to find 40 sunken American

351
and Japanese warships around Guadalcanal. It failed to find them all. If high technology had difficulty in finding 40 frigates and destroyers around one island, our 12 hunter-killer submarines will have an enormous task in finding our potential adversaries. So the Government have got their "Options for Change" policy wrong and the time has come to reverse it.
In peace time the tasks and commitments are increasing while the resources available are decreasing substantially. To keep two ships in the Armilla patrol requires six to eight ships. To keep one off the Falklands and one on West Indian guard requires, I. believe, three or four ships. If we are to have so many ships in extended readiness, the number available might be 25 rather than 35. I hope that we are not getting out of the naval business.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence has referred to the future of the Royal Navy engineering college at Manadon. I cannot see how naval engineering can be merged with other elements of service engineering. I suspect that there are common elements, but much is so distinct that if one deployed naval engineers, army engineers and air force engineers in the same institution, that would cause a considerable problem. Has the Ministry thought of that?
If the Ministry is intent on closing Manadon, there is a fine university in Plymouth which may cast its eye upon the wonderful site where Manadon is located. I have no authority to say this, but might the university of Plymouth, with a fine tradition of marine engineering, subsume, upon the campus which it could acquire with its resources, some of the functions and responsibilities of Manadon? I hope that thought has been given to that.
I could say far more if time were available, but I hope that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood is pleased that he dragged me into this direction. We are living in dangerous times. Within a month, whether we like it or not, we could find ourselves in a conflict. No one can predict what the future holds. The history of military intelligence is one of continuous failure. Earlier in this debate it was said that perhaps everyone knew what would happen before the second world war. They did not. Mr. Chamberlain did not know until months or weeks before the war started. The Falklands war took everyone by surprise, as did the Gulf war. So for it to be said at the Dispatch Box that the warning times are much longer is flying in the face of reason and history.
A country fights the next war with the men and material which it has. Our first inquiry of the Select Committee on Defence was about ammunition storage in west Germany. We would have fought a war with the ammunition they had within 50 yards of them. The prospects of getting ammunition out of the ammunition storage sites was remote, let alone reconstituting the military. It is not possible to build a Harrier in a month, as happened with a Spitfire. Therefore, to assume that all is sweetness and light and that we are entering upon a period of world harmony is dangerous nonsense.
I should not like to be a Minister responsible for perpetrating the myth that we are in a period of peace. Sooner rather than later our armed forces will be engaged in a conflict. They need to be well equipped and well trained. I fear that the British may not be able to participate in future conflicts if the national interest is threatened because of the cuts which have been announced and the "Options for Change" plans which may be implemented. That I oppose.
7.46 pm
Mr. David Martin: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He showed great courage in carrying a lonely beacon for common sense during the lean and loony years of Labour party defence policy in the '80s. I respected thoroughly the way he did that.
I welcome the debate. Most of the issues which need to be aired, affecting the Royal Navy, those who serve in it and those who serve it, closely concern the people of Portsmouth as much now as for centuries past. We have had quite a few quotations. I will contribute another. For the people of Portsmouth and for me, the words of Charles II are as relevant now as when he uttered them:
"It is upon the Navy under the good providence of God that the safety, honour, and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend."
When he said that, Porstsmouth dockyard was already 200 years old. Its task now is as recognisible as it was then: in time of peace and war to be a first-class home base for ships and to provide reliable services, including repair and maintenance.
The fleet maintenance and repair organisation has suffered the loss of refit work, and some redundancies are resulting. That is a painful process, particularly for the individuals concerned and their families. However, a work force of almost 2,000 will continue to provide the best service available to the Royal Navy. What they need more than anything else is a period of stability. They also need to be managed imaginatively to be able to accept work in the dockyard, whether commissioned by the public sector or the private sector. The facilities of the dockyard need to be used to the maximum not only because to let them stand idle would be foolish, but because of the employment provided in an area suffering more than most from the recession and from cuts in orders of defence equipment and the highly competitive international market.
The Minister of Defence should continue to provide the best opportunities and help to British-based business when they are in competition with overseas firms for Ministry of Defence contracts paid for from British taxpayers' money. Due consideration should be given to the maintenance of the skills that we need to retain because who knows when they might prove vital. I would rather see skilled jobs in Portsmouth than in Cherbourg, in Havant, Waterlooville, Fareham and Gosport than in the equivalent places throughout the world.
When I hear Labour and Liberal party spokesmen—there is no Liberal Democrat representative in the Chamber—criticising the Government for defence cuts and their employment implications, I think of their policies and the greater cuts proposed at their party conferences. Reference has been made to Labour's policies, but I should like to draw attention to the 1990 policy document of the Liberal Democrats. It was called "Reshaping Europe" and proposed cutting our defence expenditure by half. However much the Liberal Democrat spokesman may wriggle and play at being the tough guy, that document has never been changed or cancelled by any subsequent conference. The influential party activists would not have it, but still the Liberal Democrats engage in criticism of the Government's defence policy.
I should now like to deal with naval personnel and surface ships. I wholly agree with those who say that men, ships and commitments must match. The Army's regimental system makes it difficult to reduce manpower

353
but, as has been shown recently, it is much easier in the Navy. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the recent further reductions, or downsizings, as they have been described, which will reduce the total to 50,000 by the end of this decade, are a direct result of the recent reprieve of some regiments.
Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps my hon. Friend might like to reflect on that. I assure him that the figure of 50,000 is an internal working estimate of what may happen. It has as much to do with better use of existing manpower, the fact that a new frigate will require fewer sailors than an older vessel and that some jobs will be civilianised as with implications of resources. My hon. Friend must not assume that the reduction is a policy decision or the result of a manpower requirement. It is an internal assumption, and the best that we can make at the moment about the future needs of the Royal Navy. It has no status other than that and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. Martin: I welcome that intervention and hope that it will help the morale of those serving in the Royal Navy, especially those in my constituency.
I am pleased that it is planned to keep the strength of the Royal Marines at 7,000 with equipment to match. I was also pleased at the news about the helicopter ship. The Royal Marines and the Royal Navy are models for the model forces that are required in today's world. The hon. Member for Walsall, South spoke about that. Operational flexibility, rapid movement, a high degree of mobility, an amphibious capability and the quick and effective projection of air and sea power are all on offer for a combination of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines played a vital role in northern Iraq, and the Royal Navy is playing a similar role in the Adriatic, backing our humanitarian effort in the former Yugoslavia. Her Majesty's ships Ark Royal, Cardiff, Broadsword, Argus and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels Olwen and Fort Grange are some of the ships that are currently involved. There is as much need now as there ever was to keep the right number of ships and men available for the tasks that are and will be increasingly required of them in future.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. My constituents understand the need and what is more they rightly insist, as I do, on the necessity to keep our defences as powerful and effective as British interests require. That is principally to protect the security of this country and that of our few dependent territories.
Traditionally, because we have learnt the stern lessons of history, we must have sufficient forces to contribute to world peace, recognising as we always have, and I hope we always will, that other people's wars can all too easily affect our direct interests and become our wars—as happened most recently in the Gulf—hence our involvement in NATO, and our active role in humanitarian peacekeeping missions as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
My constituents do not want us to be tempted to overreach ourselves, to be pushed into playing military parts that are out of proportion to those of our allies in the civilised world. At all times we must carefully define the British vital interest before we commit British lives, the
354
lives of Portsmouth people, to costly attempts to impose peace on inveterately hostile tribes in parts of the world that are experiencing new disorders, let alone a continuation of the old ones.
The evil empire, as the former President Reagan once called it, kept the cork on many bottles containing evil genies. Once more they have been released and their terrible deeds have a harrowing effect on us all, as we learn daily from television, radio and the newspapers. However, we must not let the human and political desire to "do something" override military reality, taking us well beyond a contribution to peacekeeping or the provision of humanitarian aid which we all recognise is necessary.
Preventing conflict where we can is one thing but its quenching by main force is quite another. I have found no significant support in my constituency for adding to the problems that we face in Northern Ireland and elsewhere by undertaking new, long-term commitments unless they are seen as essential in the interests of our security, in protecting vital British interests or in carrying out obligations that we have inherited or in which we plainly have to be involved.
Two matters are of special constituency relevance. The first of them was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and it is about fishery protection. I agree with what he said. Recent incidents involving France have shown the continuing importance of Royal Navy protection. I do not wish to see that changed because it has widespread support in my constituency. Secondly, I welcome the Royal Marine headquarters at HMS Excellent on Whale island. It continues the long-standing connection which looked as if it might be broken when they left Eastleigh barracks. I am sure that all hon. Members who are present will have visited the Royal Marines museum there. If they have not done so, they should visit it as soon as possible.
I also welcome the sensible relocation of the Second Sea Lord manpower to Portsmouth and combining with the Commander in Chief, Naval Home Command. That cuts the flag ranks to one officer for both functions. We shall continue to welcome such developments for a more efficient Royal Navy, especially if they involve relocation to Portsmouth. In return for my continuing support for Government policies on the Royal Navy I should like a continuation of the Government's support for Portsmouth's role as the premier naval port in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke about Lord Curzon singing Rule Britannia in his bath. To a debate on the Royal Navy the words are as relevant now as they were then. They are:
"When Britain first at heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main,
This was the charter of the land
And guardian angels sung this strain—
Rule Britannia, rule the waves,
Britons never will be slaves."
That song would surely be welcome at bath time at No. 11.
7.59 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Of course, the hardware that underpins that song was built on Tyneside. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) said, on behalf of his constituents in Portsmouth, that he welcomes the Government's decision to proceed with a landing platform helicopter vessel. I do as well. He

355
made a speech on behalf of his constituents, who have a long and honourable association with the Royal Navy, and it will come as no surprise to anyone who is a regular attender at these debates that I shall say a few words on behalf of the great shipbuilding community of Tyneside.
In opening the debate, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement quoted from Lord Nelson. A more appropriate quotation might have been, "I see no ships." When I first started taking part in debates on the Royal Navy, we spoke about the 50-ship surface fleet. Then we spoke about 50 ships, which we found out meant 45, and now we talk of 40 or about 40 ships. The numbers are declining rapidly. The annual debate has followed the decline in the size and fortunes of the Royal Navy, a decline that I dislike.
A more sensible way for us to arrange the debate might be to have a day each to debate the Army, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the strategic deterrent. There can be no doubt that the concentration on the strategic deterrent—the Trident programme—has dominated conventional naval defence and overshadowed debates such as this.
I must at once declare a pretty obvious vested interest. My constituents build the hardware for the Royal Navy. They build conventional warships. That is the main business of Swan Hunter shipbuilders in east Newcastle and Wallsend. Over the past 20 years, Swan Hunter has provided about 80 per cent. of the fleet auxiliaries for the Royal Navy. The decision on the landing platform helicopter vessel is crucial to the survival of shipbuilding on Tyneside. If the carrier is not ordered, and ordered on time, Swan Hunter will close and that will be the end of shipbuilding on Tyneside. Thus, the decision is of enormous importance to my constituents.
I welcome the fight that has been put up by Conservative Members for the landing platform helicopter carrier, the decison to procure the vessel, and even more, the decision to bring the decision on procurement forward so that there may be an announcement in the next few weeks. The main shipyard on Tyneside, Swan Hunter, was privatised via a management buy-out. It has no great reserves or resources behind it. The directors have run the company, which has provided good-quality vessels for the Royal Navy, entirely without backing from any major defence contractor. They have provided ships on time, to price and, above all, of outstanding quality—a quality that has been acknowledged by the customer and from the Dispatch Box. I hope that, in the next few weeks, the Minister will say that we will have the opportunity to continue to provide warships on Tyneside, and in particular the helicopter carrier, for the Royal Navy.
The way in which defence procurement, particularly naval procurement, is carried out now means that conditions in the marketplace are different from those that pertained in 1986 when Swan Hunter was privatised. To meet even domestic requirements, it is essential now to have large, established financial backers. It is even more necessary to be able to bond the bids that are put in for work, even defence work, overseas. Whether Swan Hunter will continue as it is or will form an alliance, or more than an alliance, with some other, much larger, defence contractor is a question that will be addressed once the announcement about the landing platform helicopter carrier has been made.
I am certain that there is a strong and secure future for shipbuilding on Tyneside. That future is based on the skills
356
of the work force, on the quality of the product that Tyneside produces for its principal customer, the Royal Navy. If anything underpins the industry on Tyneside, it is the quality of work produced.
I welcome what has been said about the amphibious programme. The landing platform helicopter vessel is the most important single part of that programme, but it logically follows that it should be complemented by the landing platform dock decision and the landing platform ship logistics decision. The announcement that we can expect a further procurement decision later this year on those aspects will be widely welcomed in the industry.
I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will address two other issues at the end of the debate. First, I should like a statement about the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. AOR1, or HMS De Lorean, as it is known in the industry, was a scandal. AOR2, which is being built on Tyneside, will probably come into service first and certainly will have been built far more happily than AOR1. It is difficult for the Minister to announce further type 23 frigates without saying anything about the auxiliaries to accompany them.
If type 23s are to be grouped around auxiliary oil replenishment vessels, we should be considering an AOR3. An announcement should be made about that, or we should be considering a substitute form of provision—perhaps a merchant vessel substitute. The extra type 23 frigates that are being ordered will have to be replenished in some way. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us what the Royal Navy's plans are for that and how he intends to proceed on that issue.
The second question concerns not just ships taken up from trade—merchant vessels that are required to assist our fleet in times of conflict—but the crews that are required to accompany them. With the decline in the British merchant fleet has come the decline in the number of British people who are able to serve as seamen. There is even a decline in the number who are able to serve as officers. The Government said in the last Navy debate that the whole issue of ships taken up from trade and of some form of Treasury subsidy to preserve a strategic reserve of seamen and merchant officers would be examined. That has been quietly dropped, but Britain's merchant fleet continues to deteriorate. There are defence implications in that and they should be addressed.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the quality and dedication of the people, of both sexes, who serve us in the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. As I represent a constituency that has a long and proud tradition of serving the Royal Navy and providing its hardware and its crews, I should like to echo what has been said about it.
8.8 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson: I begin by echoing the last sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about the work and bravery of the men and women of the Royal Navy. I shall touch on one aspect which has not been mentioned so far. I refer to the Royal Navy's representational role in different parts of the world. I had first-hand experience of that last October when I attended a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in the Bahamas, which had been ravaged by a hurricane. It just so happened that three of our ships were there at the

357
time, and their crews did tremendous work clearing up after that disastrous storm. They were widely praised by not only the Government and other politicians but the people of the Bahamas. Britain can be proud of the role that our service men and women played on that occasion. I was pleased to meet them aboard HMS Cardiff, and that they included serving members from my native Somerset, who had taken part in that operation.
The point has been made many times in this debate that this is the era of flexible response. We have been told of 25 possible flashpoints around the world and of a further 35 potential future troublespots in the former Soviet Union. Events in the Gulf, Somalia and Bosnia and many other peacekeeping operations serve to emphasise the importance of the flexible response policy spelt out in "Options for Change".
I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the sentiments expressed by Sir Richard Vincent—that before embarking on any operation, it is essential to define one's objectives. John Stuart Mill wrote:
"Our diplomacy stands for nothing when we have not a fleet to back it."
I am in accord with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East because I, too, welcome the decision to build the LPH vessel and welcome the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who said that it was firmly in the Government's programme. I am also glad that it seems likely that the tendering process will be completed earlier than expected.
The House might wonder why a Member of Parliament who represents a totally landlocked constituency should want to take part in this debate. In fact, my landlocked constituency is at the heart of the flexible response, in that it includes the Royal Navy air station at Yeovilton, with its 2,800 military and naval personnel and 500 civilians. That station plays an important role. It houses two front-line naval air squadrons, 800 and 801; the Sea Harrier training squadron, 899; two front-line Sea King helicopter squadrons, 845 and 846; and one training squadron, 707. In addition, the station hosts the Royal Marines and their three brigade air squadrons.
All that adds up to efficient use of a major air station, which conducted no fewer than 86,000 air movements last year. If I know a lot about that, it is because my own home used to lie in the station's flight path, so I am well aware of those air movements.
Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend counted them in and counted them out.
Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is right.
The announcement on 26 February that the specialist offices providing support for helicopters used by the armed forces would be brought together at Yeovilton is widely welcomed by that community and by the station itself, which is playing a crucial part. The men and women there were reassured by that decision, which demonstrates that their futures remain at the top of the agenda of the armed forces and of Ministers.
My links with the armed services do not end there. Many of my constituents work for the Westland group. I pay tribute to the quality and excellence that are pursued by that company. The latest example is its development of the EF1101 helicopter. The order placed in September 1991
358
for 44 EH101 Merlin helicopters at a cost of £1·5 billion was welcomed not just in Somerset but throughout the south-west region, which has suffered many severe shocks and setbacks over the past couple of years. Yeovilton and Westland show that, despite difficulties, the defence industries are central to the region.
Westland also supports 40 Sea King helicopters dedicated to the Royal Navy's amphibious operations. Eventually, those aircraft will need replacing, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will heed my words when I say that we hope that, when the time comes to seek a replacement for the existing helicopter, a utility variant of the EH 101 will in due course be on offer. I was pleased to receive a letter dated 7 April from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which stated:
"I am pleased with the way in which our Merlin programme is shaping up, and I am naturally well aware of the attractions of the EH101 utility variant, which I expect to be a strong contender for meeting our support helicopter requirements."
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a little commercial for the Fleet Air Arm museum in Yeovilton. That remarkable facility pays its own way and I recommend that anyone who comes to our neck of the woods, particularly if he or she has small children, should visit that museum. It has been considerably revamped over the past two years and offers an excellent and fascinating, and not just historical, afternoon or day. It is always remembered by those who visit it.
It is important to the Royal Navy and to our other services that the Government can respond properly to the considerable demands being placed on them in many parts of the globe. I believe that we are in a position to do so, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recall that the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), pointed out in the debate on "Options for Change" that not only was reorganisation of the armed services necessary but it would not be forgotten that equipment quality was vital. I hope that that will be remembered, because with a smaller Army and in a more dangerous world, it is essential that our armed services are given the most modern and up-to-date equipment to undertake the considerable tasks that we demand of them 24 hours a day.
8.18 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to raise just three issues, of which I have given notice to the Minister's office. First, does the Ministry of Defence feel that it has any responsibility in tracing the tankers and other ships, particularly the other ships, that clean out their tanks, especially in the North sea but also in the pure, clean seas around Rockall? The beaches not only of my constituency but of the Secretary of State's city of Edinburgh are still absolutely dirty. That is not because of any lack of regulations but because the regulations cannot be enforced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spent part of his life as an Edinburgh councillor and will know exactly the problem of which I speak. It remains a problem and spoils the beaches on the south bank of the Forth. I hope that the Royal Navy has some responsibility to undertake the difficult job of trying to find which ships are being dirty. In our book, no punishment would be too harsh for the

359
skippers who do that. Part of the answer is that there should be facilities in every port for the prompt cleaning out of tanks.
My second question concerns whaling. We have all had a long letter of 27 April from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which says:
"the 45th meeting of the IWC is to take place in Kyoto, Japan from 10–14 May. I believe that this is likely to be one of the most critical in the Commission's long history."
All my colleagues agree with the Minister's letter, on both the humane killing of whales and the Antarctic whale sanctuary. The Minister said:
"I have already expressed my interest in the French proposal for an Antarctic sanctuary for whales, south of 40 deg. south which was presented to the last IWC meeting."
I support the Ministry in that proposal, but if any of those ideas are introduced, someone, somewhere, somehow will have to enforce them.
A week ago, a remarkable programme showed how Greenpeace was doing its best. I do not go along with everything that Greenpeace argues or stands for, but on this matter it has been extremely active. The truth is, however, that a slow Greenpeace ship is no match for the highly efficient Japanese and Norwegian ships.
I do not normally stand here and attack individuals—still less do I attack Prime Ministers, and still less do I attack socialist Prime Ministers—but I should like to express my sense of shock at what I can only think of as the hypocrisy of Gro Harlem Brundtland. She lectures us all on being green—she says that she is the greenest Prime Minister on the face of the planet—yet, when it comes down to political interests in the Lofoten islands and elsewhere, what does she do but hold out for whaling? I do not know any other word for it but "hypocrisy". That is not only my feeling; I understand that it is the feeling of the members of the Socialist International.
Others wish to speak, so I will confine myself to a third question. I have repeatedly initiated Adjournment and Friday debates on the ecology of the Gulf, and I still do not think that everything has been cleared up that should have been. There are the Benthic problems, the problems of the bottom-dwelling fish and the problems of the various sea grasses which are very important.
I cannot expect the Royal Navy to take care of those problems; nevertheless, we still have a presence there and there is still the problem of clearing up the aftermath of the Gulf war. As the Minister knows, I was passionately against the Gulf war, but this is not the time to go into that. All right, there has been a Gulf war; what is the Royal Navy contributing to the clearing up of the Gulf?
I feel very strongly that, when others wish to speak, those of us who are lucky enough to be called should keep our remarks as short as possible. I will leave it at those three questions.
8.23 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for, as always, speaking briefly and to the point, and—again, as always—raising matters that are not constantly mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my speech will draw attention to other issues that are not often mentioned in the Chamber.
Let me join many other speakers in paying tribute to the enormous amount of work that my constituents in Portland and Weymouth do for the Navy. As all hon. Members probably know, my constituency must be the
360
worst affected by the "Options for Change" cuts, and the workers concerned are possibly under the greatest threat. Indeed, they already know their future. It is very sad for me to be almost writing their obituary now; but I assure the House that the spirit of Portland, Weymouth and south Dorset is to fight, and to demonstrate what we can do for the Royal Navy and the other armed forces.
It will be a sad time next year when the ships assemble for the 50th anniversary of D-day. Weymouth, and Portland harbour in particular, was used for the armada that was set up for D-day, and was the centre of our efforts to free the rest of Europe from the Nazi tyranny.
I have always been proud to claim that Portland has four major functions; unfortunately, it has already been announced that three of them are to move. I shall not dwell on that for long, because the arguments have been rehearsed many times. I pay tribute to Ministers—including the Prime Minister—for extending every courtesy, and allowing me every facility, to make the points that I have made. I am sorry that I have not yet been able to persuade them of the quality of my argument, but I always like to think that others find it disturbing that the MOD constantly changes its mind. It has made up its mind to remove people from my constituency, but I believe that there is still time for it to decide not to do so.
Mr. Foulkes: We recently received a deputation of trade unionists from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They argued strongly that the alleged savings from moving the base from Portland would not be as great as the MOD had suggested. They have sent me a very convincing case. Does the hon. Gentleman support that case? Does he feel that those representations may provide an opportunity to return to th MOD and challenge some of its claims about so-called savings?
Mr. Bruce: I pay tribute to those who produced the report that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Let me also say what a conservative report it is—I am not referring to the political leanings of those involved. It does not over-egg the pudding, or over-emphasise the items that have not been properly costed in the case for closure. A committee is now looking very closely at the proposals for run-down and the move to Devonport, and at every costing.
We had die great advantage of the services of a former royal harbourmaster, who had recently left the Royal Navy. He went through the figures. They were not simply written on the back of an envelope by someone who was not fully aware; that former harbourmaster is probably more aware of the costs than anyone else in Portland, because he has done a full term there. However much the MOD may say, "The admirals have advised us", that certainly does not apply to the admiral who was sitting at the base, and his staff. Although Navy discipline does not allow them to express their views in public, I am convinced that they felt in their heart of hearts that this was the wrong thing to do.
I do not want to labour the point, but the MOD is t the possibility of £70 million over 10 years. I think that many people in the MOD thnk that the figure is £70 million a year. In fact, our case demonstrated that the programme would be £2 million more expensive over that 10-year period. I also believe that the Ministry's estimate of the cost of the move to Devonport is very conservative.

361
We are hearing about the run-down in the number of ships that are to be trained. A critical point is that MOD is asking the Navy to move to Devonport and make a 10 per cent. saving in the cost of sea training, when it will actually be training 20 to 25 per cent. fewer vessels. If the boot were on the other foot, and we were asked to demonstrate what we can do at Portland—the Devonport costings, of course, relate to the new tasks that are to be inherited in three years—we should be only too pleased to oblige. That is certainly one of the things that we shall be doing.
Portland is also to lose the sea systems controllerate. That proposal was made soon after I became a Member of Parliament, but it was kicked out. The time scale for moving the sea systems controllerate as a separate entity was 12 to 13 years. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who has since moved on to higher things, kicked it out because he believed that it was not cost effective and a silly waste of money.
The new proposal is that the sea systems controllerate should move into land and air systems. A much bigger and better deal has been made by the Ministry of Defence. People will be moved out of London. According to the MOD's figures, it will take 14 years to do that. The MOD, as we know, moves people round every 10 years, so after 10 years it will have to wait for another four years before it gets anything out of it. It is a foolish move.
The defence research agency has been offered £100 million from a stretched defence budget to restructure itself. If it is indeed given that sum of money to obtain new facilities, it has opted to go slightly outside Portland, though still within my constituency, to Winfrith. I know that it will set up a good research centre there, but I very much doubt whether that is a sensible use of MOD resources.
What is to stay in Portland for the time being is HMS Osprey, the Lynx operational air station. It carries out all the front line operational training of Lynx helicopter pilots and it provides first line maintenance. It is a heavily uniformed base, with 2,000 people working in the air station. We are keen that it should not be closed down when the change is made from Lynx to Merlin helicopters. We want Merlin to be used there. We fear that that will not happen. The Royal Navy sensibly decided to build an air station where it could train people and put them on to frigates and destroyers right next to where they do their operational sea training. Having split the two apart, though, I just wonder whether somebody will come up with a wonderful scheme to put this noisy but extremely pleasant air station in the middle of Plymouth. A couple of helicopters will do the early morning moves. I am sure that the people of Plymouth and Devonport will be glad to hear the sound of freedom right over their heads early in the morning.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish my hon. Friend every success in his efforts to keep the Portland base open. I believe that it should be kept open. Has he made representations to the MOD that Portland is the only naval base that could effectively be sealed off? Security, in my opinion, is a very important consideration in these increasingly uncertain times when the threat from terrorism is real and with us all the time.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that we have a secure area. We shall continue to have it. The cost of keeping the air station secure will be roughly the same as the cost of keeping the whole of the Royal Navy base secure. We found that the full cost of security for the naval and air station was knocked out of the costings for the move to Devonport. We pointed that out to the MOD, but I do not want to go in great detail into that matter.
I hope that the Merlin helicopters will be based at Portland. When it becomes obvious that operational helicopters should be based next to the sea and ships, we may find that more and more ships come back to the revitalised and privatised Portland naval base, which will provide all these services, as well as civilian services, to the rest of the country.
Portland must look for future opportunities and it will continue to fight its case regarding the foolishness of these facilities being moved away from Portland. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He has been extremely good about meeting people who have much to contribute to the debate. Most of the details are confidential. However, I can assure the House on my right hon. Friend's behalf that it takes only a phone call from me and the MOD deals with these matters from the outset. What I want to do is to gain all these additional jobs for Portland, as well as to retain the ones that are already there. We can demonstrate that we do things a great deal more efficiently.
Portland is to put in place a small ship repair yard. It is important that we should then be allowed to bid for MOD work. Our hourly rates are already lower than those of anybody else on the south coast. We believe that that will remain the case.
As for the cleaning of oil tanks, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, there are no United Kingdom facilities for recycling oil. Proposals will be put to my right hon. Friend regarding the provision of such facilities.
The main point that has been made in the debate is that this is a Treasury-led reduction. We are downsizing the armed forces. I do not know what downsizing is. It probably means that we are going to get 5 ft 8 guardsmen instead of 6 ft 2 guardsmen. If one picks up the estimates and the Red Books and looks at public expenditure, one finds that instead of defence expenditure over the next five years going down by 10, 20 or 25 per cent. it will not go down by a single per cent. It will be flat, at about £23 billion.
Our experience of defence estimates in recent years is that we have always overspent, because of contingencies. Therefore, all sorts of deals have to be done, whether it be with our allies in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, to try to balance the MOD budget. There will be no financial benefit from these difficult decisions.
One would imagine that we would be slashing defence facilities, that we would be selling off buildings left, right and centre, but that is not happening. I was interested to read in one edition of Focus about what is happening in practice. It says, "Green light for Innsworth". There will be a new office block there, on a green field site. Then we read that "DHSA forms up" at Yeovilton. That is good news for Yeovilton. However, it will have to go into temporary accommodation for a year or so before it has its

363
brand-new, ultra-modern office block. And what about the Royal Artillery? A 15-acre site has been designated for a new heritage centre.
I am glad to see that Admiralty Arch has been restored, because one of the things we do well at Portland is to provide Portland stone for such activities. When efforts are being made to save defence procurement money, one wonders why people are building on green field sites—for example, at Northavon. One finds that £300 million is to be spent there before the computer system is paid for, which I understand will cost another £300 million.
I have tried to find out why it is that the MOD is not tightening up. I found—in an obscure document, of course—the cost of the refurbishment of the main MOD building. It is too embarrassing to give the figures on the Floor of the House; hon. Members will have to look them up. However, I can tell the House that not only was the estimate phenomenal but that the actual cost was more than 100 per cent. higher than that horrendous estimate. How can anyone from head office tell people who are building new office blocks that they cannot do so because it will simply be pointed out what the Ministry of Defence is doing with its main buildings? One building at Portland is about to be closed down and everyone is leaving it, but a new telephone exchange is being installed. The building will be open only for another two years but it appears to be cost effective to install a new exchange.
It is clear why we are not achieving the reduction in the defence estimates that we should. I believe passionately that, in this day and age, we should be Treasury led. We should be looking to make savings of a couple of billion pounds over a few years and we should be working to that end. If we were approaching the question from that angle, we would probably make a better job of what we are doing. Time and time again, it becomes plain that cost-saving measures can take up to 10 years to produce the intended saving and that £100 million, £200 million or £500 million have to be spent before savings are made.
If we intend to reduce staffing levels, we should consider whether we need to make anyone redundant. The armed forces are one of the unique operations which people join for a reasonably short period and then leave. If we were to change the recruiting pattern, I am sure that in a few years we could reduce staff to the desired levels without causing great harm to people's careers. Natural wastage is not only more humane but it costs less.
We need to examine fundamentally our arms and weapons systems. If one asks a military expert what a changed threat means, he says first that one must retain everything and, secondly, that one must spend more money because the threat is different. We must bite the bullet, and I well understand the Government's difficulties in keeping intelligent, forceful and persuasive generals and admirals on their side.
The transfer of redundant facilities is extremely important. A current exhibition in London shows all the wonderful facilities that the Ministry of Defence has vacated in the past decade or so but which it has not sold. It is important that we consider all the armed forces, especially the Navy. As a cost-cutting exercise, we could suggest chopping five admirals off the top brass—that might have an electrifying effect and enable us to reduce the defence budget without the Royal Navy losing its teeth.
8.42 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will forgive me if I do not follow the thrust of his argument. While resisting the temptation to do so, I was thinking of the connection between his constituency and mine. We both have a common predecessor—my predecessor bar one in Greenwich was also briefly the hon. Member for South Dorset. It is a reminder, on this of all days, that even seats that are felt naturally to belong to one particular party do not always do so at by-elections.
I am especially pleased to participate in the debate, as I represent a constituency that has a very long and proud history of naval and maritime connections. In the past, the great bend of the River Thames by Greenwich and Deptford was the site of bustling naval dockyards. That era is long gone but, although ships are no longer built there or moored at Greenwich, the area still preserves its naval connections as the home of the Royal Naval college.
During the past year, I have had the privilege and good fortune to visit the college several times as a guest and as an occasional visiting lecturer. I was greatly impressed on every occasion by the professionalism, high calibre and commitment of the commander and staff, and I pay tribute to Commander Searle and his colleagues for their absolutely first-class work.
The Royal Naval college is a centre of excellence for the training of not only British naval personnel but staff from other services and from many navies overseas. The college is keen to develop that aspect of its work and to attract more students from a wide range of backgrounds from Britain and overseas. It is an institution of which all hon. Members can feel justifiably proud, and I hope that the Government will do all in their power to support and promote the college and encourage it to attract an ever wider range of students from all over the world.
Sadly, one clear impression that I have gained from my visits to the college and from other contacts with the Navy in the past year is the damage done by the uncertainty which surrounds the future of the Navy and which has already been highlighted in the debate. Since the publication of "Options for Change", the Navy has been in a period of uncertainty, not a period of uncertainty in which it could feel that things might get worse or better but one in which the number of ships and personnel have gradually been reduced in a one-way process.
When "Options for Change" was published, we were talking of approximately 66,000 men and women in the Royal Navy. The figure was expected to be reduced to 60,000, then to 55,000 and, just before Easter, the estimate was reduced to 50,000. Similarly, we have heard the rather sad story of the uncertainty about the numbers of surface ships, where again the trend is clearly downwards.
People whose whole life and career have been devoted to the Navy have put it to me forcefully that a reduction in itself is not entirely unacceptable. They are realists, and they know that Britain's role in the world is changing. They know that we no longer have the ability to maintain the size of the Navy that we had 50 years ago. They also know that international relations have changed in the past 50 years, and they accept that Britain will have a smaller Navy.
However, what they find especially debilitating is the continuing uncertainty of not knowing when the reduction will stop, not knowing what the shape and size of the Navy

365
is to be and not knowing whether they will have a job in the future or whether a redundancy notice will come their way. The uncertainty and the inability to plan ahead with confidence is the most damaging aspect. Hon. Members of all parties have recognised that the atmosphere of uncertainty is the worst possible position in which we should put the men and women on whose dedication, professionalism and commitment we depend to maintain the high calibre and quality of service provided by the Royal Navy.
Although I accept that the Government cannot end the uncertainty tonight, I add my voice to all those who have urged the Government to ensure that the promised White Paper is published at the earliest opportunity—certainly well before the summer recess—that it sets out a clear framework for the future and ends the ambiguity and uncertainty. At the very least, publication should save Ministers the embarrassment of having to continue to prevaricate or trying, unconvincingly, to deny that decisions, which appear to be inevitable, have already been taken.
Before the debate, I reread the record of our previous debate on the Navy which took place about two years ago. I was interested to note that the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), was waxing enthusiastic about the Upholder class submarine and went on record as saying that he was confident that the SSK would be a valuable asset for the Royal Navy in future. Sadly, we are now all beginning to fear that the SSK will prove a valuable asset to the Treasury, not to the Navy.
I should not like to conclude without saying a brief word about equipment. A few weeks ago, I had the good fortune to join HMS Argyll, one of the new type 23 frigates, on a voyage up the Thames to the Pool of London. That gave me a welcome opportunity to see one of the Navy's most modern warships, and I am grateful to the captain and crew for all their hospitality and their kindness and consideration in showing me round the ship.
However, I could not fail to notice the absence of one key piece of equipment. Even the eye of an untutored layman such as myself could not help noticing that the hangar was extraordinarily generous for the size of the Lynx helicopter that sat in it. Clearly, it was designed with a view to accommodating not the Lynx but the EH101. We must ask when those ships can expect to receive the greatly advanced capacity of the Merlin helicopters for which they were designed. I hope that the Minister can cast further light on that subject. I was pleased to hear confirmation that the order for the helicopters was progressing well, and I hope that we can be given some idea of the date on which the EH101 will come into operation.
The one clear message to come from today's debate is the need to bring to an end the uncertainty that has for so long hung unhelpfully over the future of the Royal Navy. The Opposition believe that that would be best achieved by a thorough defence review that would clarify the role of the Navy and the future size and shape of the service. We fear that the Government will not opt for that degree of review; nevertheless, we hope that the White Paper, when it is published, will help to bring an end to the damaging uncertainty that is making it so hard for the men and
366
women in the Navy, to whom we have all paid tribute this evening, to do the job that they want to do, the job that we all depend on them to do.
8.51 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: As a former naval officer and holder of the Reserve decoration, I have a great interest to declare in the Royal Navy and in the Reserve, for both of which I have a great affection. Generally speaking, I find that that affection is, understandably, shared by millions of our constituents. I entirely endorse all the compliments that have been paid by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to the Royal Navy and its personnel.
As a Member of the House, I have another interest to declare—an interest in the defence of this realm. Any Government, regardless of party, who ignore that imperative stand accused of dereliction of duty. For centuries, the Royal Navy has been the one sure sheild in the defence of this realm. The history of our nation is a history of men that go down to the sea in ships, a maritime history in which Britain's trade, influence, diplomacy and, ultimately, its defence against aggression have been sustained by a strong Navy. For centuries, the Royal Navy has been a symbol of Britain's self-assurance, a manifestation of its power and influence, and a statement of its political will.
What is that political will today? Is it right that we should give a higher priority to, for example, welfare, on which we spend one third of our national budget, than to defence, on which we spend only one tenth of our national budget? I do not agree with that order of priorities, but that is the background against which we hold the debate. The debate also takes place in the context of a Navy that has shrunk and is continuing to shrink; given the current political will, it will continue to shrink. Scaling down an operation is much more difficult than expanding one, and we are left with more admirals than ships, more dockyards than work and more than enough uncertainty.
In those circumstances, what should my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers do? First, I suggest that they examine the way in which ships are designed and built. Will they consider carefully whether it makes sense to continue with what could be called the committee approach to designing ships? Although I am pleased that we are to co-operate with our allies in future construction, I fear that such co-operation may lead to interminable delays, constant wrangling about what should go into the ships, and, at the end of the day—this fear has been expressed by other hon. Members—a cost that the nation cannot afford.
I also ask Ministers to examine the specifications we establish for our ships. We simply cannot account for every eventuality or cover every threat. As other hon. Members have said, we cannot go for gold-plated solutions. In the very month in which we celebrate victory in the battle of the Atlantic, I remind the House that it was with very basic hulls, driven by the simplest of machinery—the triple reciprocating steam engine—that we defeated the U-boat menace.
I do not see it as in any way inconsistent with Government policy to close down our in-house design facilities and to hand over to British industry the opportunity to design and build ships for the Royal Navy. Some of my colleagues may agree with me that our

367
priorities would be more sensibly ordered if we closed down various departments at Bath rather than the Royal Navy engineering college at Manadon. There are precedents, and at least one British shipyard is successful in designing and building warships, especially for export. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends in government that the very survival of British shipyards and shipbuilding may depend on our taking that route and putting out to commercial design and build the future construction of royal naval warships.
I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to ask himself what will be left of a Navy that has thrown away the invaluable skills and experience that we have accumulated in anti-submarine warfare, as will happen when we dispose of the silent-running conventional submarines. They are the only type of submarine that can operate on the continental shelf, and that, of course, is where these islands sit. When my right hon. Friend considers whether we should retain the Upholder class of submarine, will he bear in mind the fact that, as has been said by other hon. Members, we cannot cover a commitment by retaining only one ship of a class? We need to retain at least three, and ideally four.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what will be left of a Navy that has discarded many aspects of a hydrographic service that enjoys a worldwide reputation and generates income. The replacement of the ships involved, which is apparently a compelling need, should not present a problem. We have already solved the problem involving HMS Endurance, the vessel that operates in the south Atlantic, by means of a bare-boat charter. It has not been necessary for us to design and build our own ships, and it is perfectly feasible to solve the problem in that way.
What is going to happen to a Navy which has abandoned its traditional fishery protection role in respect of which the presence of the white ensign is significantly different from that of the red or blue ensigns? If we abandon seagoing Royal Navy personnel in the hydrographic service and in the fishery protection role, will we not throw away most valuable opportunities to give young officers experience of command and other training opportunities not just for officers, but also for ratings?
I want my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask himself what will happen to a Navy which has reduced the number of frigates and destroyers to a level at which it is impossible to match the nation's demands for ships as instruments of foreign policy or for ships in time of conflict. I remind the House that the reality of the post-world war two history of defence is that we prepared for wars which did not happen and we have fought wars that we did not expect. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister drew attention to the new and imponderable problems that lie ahead.
When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will give us some idea about the future of the Royal Naval Reserve. I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members when I say that a pronouncement on that aspect of naval matters is long overdue. Does a Royal Navy with a manpower of 50,000 personnel and a reserve of indeterminate number and undefined role—a very small regular service and even smaller reserve—reflect the priorities of the electorate who sent us here or match the aspirations of my right hon. Friend's colleagues in Cabinet for Britain to play a leading role in the councils of the world?
9 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I will restrict my remarks to the question of Trident. It has been said already that we have not debated the defence estimates yet. I suspect that one of the reasons for that is that the figures are not particularly genuine and that all sorts of deceptions and slush funds are involved. Nowhere is that more true than in respect of Trident.
I am sure that hon. Members have received, as I have, a briefing for this debate from the British American Security Information Council—or BASIC—which casts doubt on the cost of buying Trident missiles from the United States. The briefing states that the MOD's figures for the purchase of these missiles simply do not measure up. Even at the lowest unit price that the United States set in the history of the programme, the figure that the MOD gave to the Select Committee on Defence comes nowhere near that figure.
The briefing states that, in the financial year 1994, the estimated cost to the United States is about $49 million per missile. However, according to a memorandum from the MOD submitted to the Select Committee on Defence, the cost would be about $24 million per missile. That is half the actual unit cost.
If that is not the true cost, the Minister has some explaining to do. If that is not the truth, he should explain why the House and the country have been deceived. If that is the true cost, and it is half the cost stated in the United States programme, there is an old northern saying of which all hon. Members are aware: "You don't get owt for nowt."
The Minister must explain what the deal was. It has been said that Trident is truly independent as far as Britain is concerned. There must be doubts about that if the missiles are being obtained on the cheap—although on the expensive cheap of course in this context. The United States might be able to call the tune and, whenever the United States says, Trident might have to enter the disarmament negotiations and be cut. That would mean that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money would have been poured down the drain and wasted.
As has been said, the Royal Navy faces an uncertain future. It faces conventional cuts because of the Government's obsession with a nuclear role. The Royal Navy is wrongly shaped. The concentration and costs have related to the nuclear element. They are tied up with an anti-submarine warfare role in line with the United States maritime strategy so that we would rush into the North sea at their behest, and into the front line, in any conflict.
That nuclear aspect is out of date. The Royal Navy now needs a peacekeeping and sanctions enforcing role. As a result of the nuclear obsession, the Royal Navy is not resourced or equipped for that role. Trident is unsuitable. It is a post cold-war relic and doomsday weapon that is totally unsuitable in the modern world.
The Minister has been asked this question many times: what is the purpose of Trident? Who is it aimed at? In what scenario would it be used—because it is a massive weapon? Each warhead has the minimum of Hiroshima—200 kilotons. It has a massive use which is morally indefensible. Even in a sub-strategic role, whether it has only one war head on it, that would be equivalent to one Hiroshima, or perhaps even more. It simply cannot be used in the battlefield context. Trident is obsolete and

369
stops us from getting on with the other role that is essential for the Royal Navy—the conventional or the peacekeeping and sanctions enforcement role to which I referred.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to the proliferation implications, which are extremely serious. They include the increases in nuclear weapons by a nuclear weapons state. Under its original design, Polaris was to have 16 missiles with three warheads—that is 48 warheads per boat. If there are four boats, that is 192 warheads—192 Hiroshimas. Where is the justification for that?
Lady Olga Maitland rose——
Mr. Cohen: Time is short and I want to let other hon. Members speak, if possible.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute year book referred to Britain having only 96 Hiroshima warheads. However, with Trident we will have 128 warheads per boat—we will have 512 Hiroshima warheads on five boats. The paper produced by the House of Commons Library refers to the yield of those weapons being greater than that. The number of warheads has increased from 96 to 512.
The figure of 512 is an appalling proliferation, and it is unjustifiable. The Government will be told at nonproliferation treaty conferences that that is the case. The figures will be used by non-nuclear weapon states as an excuse for them to go nuclear. Instead of the Government using the political way to disarmament, they will simply be left with supporting military action in the future. That is a dangerous thought.
I shall refer to global protection against limited strikes because it is a new factor in the Trident debate. GPALS is the post-cold war version of the strategic defence initiatives—star wars. The United States is discussing such a limited defensive shield with Russia and, indeed, other countries. That is likely to involve the installation of early warning facilities at Fylingdales. It is an absurdity to have GPALS, in which the British are involved, yet the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon Trident will have to penetrate the combined United States-Russian defence, which partly relies on British information. It is nonsense. Even if we proceed with GPALS, which seems to be the approach, Trident does not fit in: it does not make sense.
I shall deal with the safety implications of Trident because they are serious. It is likely that Polaris will continue for many years to come. As hon. Members know, there are problems with the Trident programme—the first one will not come on stream until late 1994 at the earliest, and probably later than that. Therefore, Polaris is likely to continue for more than 10 years. Sir Ronald Oxburgh, the Government's chief scientific adviser, said that that could have serious safety implications for the submarine programme.
There is no disposal plan for nuclear submarines, yet the Government continue to commission new ones. There are transportation problems with nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarine cores. The Ministry of Defence was refused a licence for its flasks by the Ministry of Transport in 1991, although it had plenty of time in which to redesign them. However, it did not do so, which is a sign of its negligence. There are enormous problems of transportation. There are also problems of storage. There is a lack of
370
space in the dockyards and elsewhere to keep the used nuclear reactive cores. Yet the Government ignore all those problems.
Trident lacks important safety features. It uses volatile propellant and the warheads are placed around the third stage rocket motor. The latest safety equipment in the United States, such as insensitive high explosives, the enhanced nuclear detonation safety system and fire resistant pits, is not included in the United Kingdom's Trident system. That leads to anxiety about safety.
BASIC said in its briefing:
"A fire in the missile compartment of a submarine could result in the detonation of several nuclear warheads—at less than maximum yield—and include the reactor core, producing serious radioactive dispersal."
The Minister should answer that comment because that dispersal would be as great or perhaps greater than that from Chernobyl.
Trident is bad strategically. It is bad for the Royal Navy, bad for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, bad for Britain and bad for the world, and it should be scrapped.
9.11 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): So late in the debate I can only throw away such notes as I had prepared and speak from the heart, and speak briefly at that. I declare three interests. First, I am a parliamentary adviser to Thorn EMI, which provides defence equipment to the Royal Navy. Secondly, I have the privilege, with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), of being on the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Marines. That is a remarkable privilege. It is a fine scheme. I pay tribute to our former colleague, Sir Neil Thorne, who instituted it.
Thirdly, without wishing to be tediously repetitious, I must point out that week after week at business questions I have asked for a Navy day debate and a two-day debate on the defence estimates. Without, I hope, being churlish—because I am pleased that we are having this Navy day debate—I observe that, in parliamentary terms, today is the closest one can get to a dies non, in as much as a key by-election and county council elections are being held today so that attendance in the House is thinner than it normally would be. This is perhaps symptomatic in a parliamentary sense of the current importance attached to defence and naval matters. I can only express my regret that it is so. However, I should not be too unhappy because, with a thinner House, I am allowed as an erstwhile crab to be called on fish heads day.
Mr. Wolfson: On my hon. Friend's point that it is symptomatic of the priority given to defence that the Navy day debate has been held today, does he agree that it is increasingly important to bring back to the top of our agenda the defence of the country and spending on defence?
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is right on that, as he is on so many matters. He speaks trenchantly and with great authority. I am sure that he is right. I add my warning to the warning that he uttered: if the party to which he and I and our hon. Friends belong does not revert more clearly to its traditional attachment to the importance of national defence, we shall lose much of the trust that should rightfully be ours of those who care for the security of our country.

371
We are a naval nation by tradition. We are island people. Unless we have a balanced fleet, we cannot hope to secure our commercial and strategic interests, nor can we be worthy allies. In the sense of retaining a balanced fleet, let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we are in danger of something happening for the first time in our history—of being No. 2 in naval terms in Europe. The Government may have noticed that one of the first decisions taken by the newly appointed French Defence Minister, Mr. Leotard, was to call a halt to the cuts in defence spending and announce the go-ahead for a second nuclear carrier. That will mean that the French navy will have two proper CVSs with no fewer than 90 Rafale Ms embarked upon them, whereas we will have only three air groups, one being a training air group, which has a maximum of 36 Sea Harriers. That disparity is not acceptable to the British people.
We expect our nation to be at the forefront of naval matters in Europe. Our training is second to none and the quality of our vessels is very high, but I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench take to heart the wise observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who knows more about the naval construction industry than anyone in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is a former naval person and who spoke more authoritatively than I could. I endorse everything that they said.
9.15 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I welcome the clear statement that the LPH order will be placed in the near future. I am glad that the importance of amphibiosity has been recognised and I am happy to hear that technical and financial factors will be taken into account to determine where that order is placed. I hope that any decision that is taken can withstand subsequent scrutiny by either the National Audit Office or the Defence Select Committee, or, indeed, both. No doubt the Government have taken into account the recent critical reports on procurement of oiler ships in particular. I support the hid of VSEL and Kvaerner Govan and have no doubt that it will be successful in a fair and free competition.
I turn to the general issue of the Navy. We are being told that we have the fourth largest navy in the world, but we have to consider seriously whether we can afford that when we have an economy in the second division, fast heading towards relegation. We need a review not only on the desirability of many of our objectives but on their affordability; that is missing. There is a danger that we will end up identifying tasks which we believe to be desirable but which cannot be afforded without overstretching the limited resources we are prepared to make available.
Earlier, there was an interesting little dance around the issue of whether defence matters were determined by policy or by financial criteria. It essentially missed the point. They have to be taken together; there has to be iterative process to determine what we are prepared to spend on defence and in what direction. That is why the Labour party is right to call for a thorough defence review.
I want to touch briefly on one or two points relating to Trident submarines, although a great deal has been covered by my hon. Friends. I should like to draw
372
attention to the fact that it is easy to achieve an underspend on the estimates if one overestimates in the first place. That is not sufficient cause for satisfaction.
The Minister spoke well about extended readiness as a means by which a vessel could be kept in readiness to be brought into service when needed, but at minimum cost. Perhaps he will be prepared to consider applying something similar to the Trident submarine force, or at least part of it. Is it absolutely necessary to have complete commissioning of all four boats? Will it not be possible to make some saving as a result of partial commissioning of at least one of them? If it is an insurance policy, is it necessary to have them all completely activated from the beginning? I hope that the Minister will genuinely examine that suggestion as that approach would ensure that money could be freed up and, if possible, spent elsewhere.
I also wish to echo earlier remarks about avoiding proliferation. This is an enormous issue on which we in this country have the opportunity to give a lead. If we decide to be anything other than clear that we are not expanding the number of nuclear weapons, we give the wrong message to the rest of the world.
The Government are keen on market testing. I hope that they will show some restraint, particularly on fishery protection and related matters. The prospect of the French or the Icelandic navy winning a fishery protection contract for British vessels is entirely inappropriate. Allowing Group 4 access to quick-firing cannon might be a solution to the present difficulties in the prison service, but it would not be entirely appropriate for fishery protection.
We should take account of the points made earlier about piracy. Although there is an important role for the Navy, it must be seen in the context of the Government's policy towards the British shipping and shipbuilding industries. It would be inappropriate for us to provide naval ships to protect vessels which have been built, crewed and flagged abroad and which turn to this country simply for military protection. We must have a coherent and holistic vision of our maritime strategy.
I support the concept of an early defence review and hope that it will be supported by the Minister.
9.21 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the few minutes that are left before the Front-Bench speakers reply to the debate.
The tone of this debate on the Navy is very different from the tone of debates held in the early years after the Conservative victory in 1979. I remind the House and, in particular, Treasury colleagues—because many of my remarks are directed to them rather than to the Ministers now responsible for defence—that at that time the fact that we went through a recession with difficult spending problems did not prevent us from giving a high priority to defence spending, which was expanded in those years.
I voted for "Options for Change" under pressure, under duress, but I was assured by the then Secretary of State that "Options for Change" would be continuously reviewed in the light of developments. At the time, we all expected a real peace dividend. The Gulf war was unexpected, as was the conflict in the Balkans. Northern Ireland is no better than it was then and terrorist threats and action on the mainland are worse now. I suggest that

373
the basis on which "Options for Change" was put forward has altered and that those spending intentions need reconsideration.
My plea, therefore, is that we put defence spending higher up on our agenda, that we make it the first priority for this party in government and that we realise that any failure to maintain our defence capability does no service to our country or to our allies.
Specifically on the Navy, concern about the lack of clarity in our strategy is another aspect that has come out in the debate. That needs to be resolved. If the Government do not want a full defence review—I can understand the argument for that; it is a sort of catch-all that may not produce the right results—we expect to have in the White Paper a clear definition of the Navy's requirements and how we are to meet them. We expect, for naval personnel as well as for the House and the country at large, a clear picture of where the Government expect the Navy to be, together with precise clarification of the numbers of personnel and ships.
There has been a change. Some years ago, we had what was described as a blue water Navy that covered the world. Then the strategy narrowed, becoming more concerned with European defence within the NATO area. Now it has expanded again and the Navy has resumed a world role even though it is now much smaller. There is a serious danger of overstretch—I include surface vessels and submarines in that. I am not hung up about specific numbers. Manpower, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said today, is needed less for modern ships, but I am anxious that those who serve in the Navy should have a secure future and should know clearly what their career opportunities are.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that I have been here throughout the debate—I make no complaint about that—and I wanted to speak about Rosyth, an important Scottish matter——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not delivered a point of order for me, and he knows it. If he has one for me, I will listen to it.
Mr. Walker: Is it in order for me to apply, because of the circumstances, for an Adjournment debate on this specific and narrow matter, and particularly on nuclear safety?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is for the hon. Gentleman to decide.
9.26 pm
Dr. John Reid: As the local election polls have now closed, I want to go on record as being the first to offer my condolences to the Government for their awful performance tonight.
It is a pity that the timing of these debates sometimes means that we do not have many speakers, but that is usually compensated for by the fact that the quality of contributions is far higher than that in some other debates because of the expertise that hon. Members bring to bear on them.
374
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) mentioned one of the recurrent themes of the debate: the lack of clarity in the Government's intentions in respect of the Royal Navy's objectives and roles.
The Liberal spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), pointed out that it has been two years since our last general debate of this nature, so we have been somewhat lacking in opportunities to discuss the subject. As several speakers have said, next year's White Paper will be presented to us before we have debated last year's—and that has not happened for 20 years. He also spoke of the need for clear political objectives.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who brings a great deal of experience to these matters, made it plain that he, like us, does not believe it when the Government say that the cuts in the Navy and elsewhere are not Treasury-led. When a Conservative Member who chairs a body as august as the Defence Select Committee agrees about this, surely Ministers should pay attention.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) agreed with most hon. Members that the Government appear to lack a strategy. The Select Committee has pointed that out, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made several important points. As most sensible people have been saying for the past couple of years, he supports the case for a defence review; and he expressed the feeling held by all Opposition Members that the Government have been less than candid about nuclear issues.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) stressed, as did several others, the importance of an amphibious capability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), with his usual ingenuity, managed to give us an analysis of the position in Bosnia but related it to the importance of the Royal Navy in the performance of its task not only in the Adriatic but much wider. With some success, he contrasted the record of the Labour Government with the pitiful record of this Government on naval as well as other matters.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) called for a period of stability for our dockyards, a point to which I will return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was an able advocate for his constituents in general and for Swan Hunter in particular. Like several hon. Members, he stressed the need for the landing platform helicopter vessel and welcomed the Government's intimation that there may be more definite moves on that in the near future.
The hon. Member for landlocked Somerset and Frome (Mr. Robinson) spoke with considerable insight for a landlubber. I think he was unique in raising the representational role of the Royal Navy. Again, he stressed the role of the LPH.
As ever, the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) was honest enough perhaps to impede his promotion up the ladder of office when he referred to the fact that Portland will lose under Government plans. He finds it difficult to accept the decision because, as with so many other Government decisions, it was based on spurious figures, as he correctly pointed out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised an issue with which we are familiar and on

375
which he has expertise—the dangers of pollution, particularly from tankers. Rockall was mentioned specifically, but he also referred to the wider implications in the Gulf on which he has spoken before.
Mr. Dalyell: Tankers may not be the worst offenders; often it is ordinary ships.
Mr. Reid: I am grateful for the clarification. Time means that I have to simplify many of the issues raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) spoke of the uncertainties of the present. Whether we agree or disagree with Government decisions, the instability and uncertainty of their political approach are undermining morale in the Royal Navy and in the other services.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spoke from a position of considerable experience and valour, which has been suitably rewarded by decoration. He questioned the method of specification and design for ships, a matter not raised by anyone else. I hope that Ministers will pay attention to what he said.
The dangers of nuclear proliferation were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and, as ever, he gave his full support to the policy of the Opposition Front Bench on nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, I did not hear his speech, but I am sure that that accurately reflects the burden of his comments.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is a well-known expert on the RAF, cast his net wider and remarked upon the timing of these debates and the importance of re-establishing the tradition of commitment to real defence of his party. I suppose, in an oblique way, he supported what we have been saying for some time, that the Government can no longer claim to be the defenders of Britain. I am sorry that they have lost that tradition, but I am glad that it is admitted on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) also welcomed the LPH and stressed the need for amphibiosity. He too has been an advocate for his constituents on that.
I hope that I have covered most of the contributions. In defence debates we always enjoy a range of expertise which is missing from other debates. I look forward to the speech by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Perhaps we should now refer to him also as the keeper of the historic buildings of the Ministry of Defence. A new concept is always introduced in defence debates. My hon. Friends will recall the new concept which was introduced to the Army debate by the former Secretary of State for Defence—the concept of the cunning plan. A la Baldrick, he told us some time ago that the Government never intended to stick by the decisions in "Options for Change" and that all the changes were part of a cunning plan which he did not reveal to the House.
In the debate we had a new concept, as ever, from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who opened the debate—the concept of downsizing. There is now no such thing as a cut in the Ministry of Defence but a considerable amount of downsizing. We also had the concept of "about 40", with which I am familiar. When someone asks me my age, I say, "It is about 40." In that case, it is meant to conceal an upward rise.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is certainly not about 35 or 30.
Dr. Reid: I agree. In the case of the Royal Navy there is grave suspicion in all parts of the House that when the Minister says "about 40" it is meant to conceal a reduction to fewer than 40.
As several hon. Members have said, it is appropriate for us to discuss the future of the Royal Navy as we prepare to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. That titanic and heroic struggle in which many thousands of allied, merchant and Royal Navy seamen perished should stand as a testament to two enduring facts. The first of them is that Britain's security has always depended fundamentally on the defence of our maritime communications. Secondly, the Royal Navy strength has been its ability to adapt to new challenges. An example of that is that the fleet of small escort vessels that fought the convoy battles of May 1943 would have been unrecognisable to those who had witnessed the massive battle fleet encounter at Jutland only 27 years before. In the same way, the operation currently being undertaken in the Adriatic on behalf of the United Nations requires very different skills from those employed in the battle of the Atlantic.
The changing face of the Royal Navy over the past century shows that sea power is an evolving concept which obliges policy makers and military planners alike to remain alert to the implications of changes in the strategic environment rather than remain wedded to outdated assumptions. That lack of clarity is the base of most people's concerns about the Government's approach. As we seek to come to terms with the end of the cold war and plan for the future, that lesson is as important as ever, but, sadly, it is a lesson that the Government seem determined to ignore.
In the past two years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Government have singularly failed to outline a convincing vision of the Royal Navy's future role or Britain's future security requirements generally. The redefinition of Britain's defence role was outlined in the 1992 White Paper and amounts to little more than a statement of the obvious. It offers less insight into the missions that our armed forces will be asked to undertake than the definition that it seeks to replace. It cannot be regarded as strategy in any proper sense of the word.
The main consequence of that is that vital policy decisions are being made in a strategic vacuum without any criteria against which their merit can be judged, because we do not know the policy objectives that they are meant to meet. The end product is not a Royal Navy reshaped to meet the challenges of the future, because no vision of the future has been outlined. Instead, the Royal Navy is being asked to perform the same tasks as before but with fewer resources.
As with "Options for Change" generally, the Government's approach to the restructuring of the Royal Navy has been as inept as it has been craven. Difficult decisions have been avoided for as long as possible, some decisions have been taken and then reversed, policy changes have been surreptitiously leaked to the press before Parliament has been informed and Ministers have dithered at length. The most disgraceful example of that conduct was the way in which the announcement that a further 5,000 Royal Navy personnel are to be made redundant was timed to coincide with the beginning of the Easter recess. Conservative Members criticised the Minister for that. The result of that announcement will be

377
a lowering of morale and a growing sense of cynicism among service personnel who have become tired of the Government's prevarication on the issues.
The overall picture emerging from that chaos is one of desperate improvisation instead of coherent planning, a climate of insecurity which threatens to paralyse the entire decision-making process. How can we expect the Royal Navy to approach the task of restructuring itself with any sense of confidence in such an environment, and how many more redundancies can it expect to be announced? How many procurement projects can it expect to be axed? As hon. Members have said in relation to surface ships that will be available to the Royal Navy, there is nothing more specific than the vague figure of "about 40" frigates and destroyers.
The position of the submarine fleet is scarcely any clearer. Having been told that the Royal Navy would have a fleet of about 16 submarines, three quarters of which would be nuclear powered, we are now told that the Government are considering selling the four Upholder class conventional submarines before they even enter service, presumably leaving the Royal Navy with a fleet of around 12 submarines, none of which would be SSKs. Can the Government confirm that they are considering that option? If so, will the Minister tell us on what grounds? Do we no longer have any requirement for the unique, inshore capabilities offered by SSKs? If so, we would like to hear the argument now, instead of learning about it through the press.
The chaos over the decision whether to award the Trident refit contract to Rosyth or Devonport is typical of the Government's approach. The dithering of the Government has reached, even by the standards of the Ministry of Defence, absurd proportions. Having initially proceeded on the basis that Rosyth would continue to refit our ballistic missile submarines, the Government invested approximately £150 million in constructing purpose-built facilities to carry out the work, only to reopen the issue last year by asking both yards to submit new bids.
Since then, all that we have had is repeated delays, conflicting rumours and endless excuses. The long-term viability of both yards is at stake on that strategic issue. The Government must make a decision soon. For the Labour party, only a solution that guarantees the continued operation of both yards will be acceptable. Anything less would be a false economy, from the point of view both of maintaining effective competition for future refit contracts and of the strategic requirements of our naval infrastructure.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what are the automatic countermeasure procedures in connection with nuclear problems? At Rosyth there are no dwellings in the area, but there are dwellings at Devonport, and that makes a big difference when one is making judgments.
Dr. Reid: I accept that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has studied the issue and been a keen supporter of keeping both going, but he has done so with honesty, because there are benefits and advantages at both yards. To give the surface fleet to Devonport and the refit for the submarines
378
to Rosyth would offer the best possibility of maintaining both yards for the longest period. The important thing is that we have a decision on the matter soon.
The Government's morbid fear of the concept of a defence review is the cause of the continuing crisis in the defence budget. As has been said—I think by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East—a defence review is not an easy way out. Quite the opposite: a defence review will face all of us with challenges. A defence review, matching resources to commitments within an overall budget programme, will involve hard decisions. A Labour Government would embark on that process knowing that some of those decisions would be unpopular, but at least we would not take the craven way out of struggling from pillar to post, cutting here, slicing there and downsizing everywhere else to avoid those hard decisions. My God, we are asking our armed forces to risk their lives while Ministers will not even risk their political careers to carry out a defence review.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation in the Balkans and the spread of new risks demand such a review. The time is right to make progress on other issues of mutual interest, particulary in conventional naval arms control. The past omission of naval forces from the process of conventional arms control was an anomaly that should now be rectified. Exploratory talks on that issue would be a welcome start, and I believe that the Russians would be receptive to that idea.
For the Royal Navy to enhance its capabilities, it will require three things—a sufficient number of surface escort vessels, well-trained and well-equipped amphibious forces and the right logistics back-up. While I have already shown concern about the Government's' intentions with regard to the size of the surface fleet, I welcome the fact that progress has been made in modernising our amphibious forces with the decision to proceed with the acquisition of a helicopter carrier and two new commando assault ships.
However, I must raise two issues of concern. First, will the Minister assure us that the LPH will be equipped with enough modern helicopters for her to operate effectively? We are all aware of the chronic shortage of helicopters, which is affecting all three services, and I would welcome a sign from the Government that they intend to order a further batch of EH101s.
Secondly, may we be assured that the combat readiness and availability of the Royal Marines will not be affected by overstretch in the infantry? It seems inevitable, given that overstretch and the contraction in the number of infantry units, that the Royal Marines will be forced to take an increasing share of the burden in Northern Ireland. Unless the Government are able to satisfy us that the emergency tour plot interval is extended to an acceptable period of not less than 24 months, serious doubts about the effectiveness of our amphibious forces and their main role will remain.
As to Britain's maritime nuclear capability, we welcome the 1991 decision taken in conjunction with our allies to remove all tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy surface ships as a constructive contribution to the disarmament process, but that decision sits uncomfortably beside the impending deployment of Trident and the Government's refusal to give a categorical assurance that there will be no increase of strategic nuclear warheads on the new submarines.

379
Any increase in the number of warheads above the current Polaris capacity of 192 would be unacceptable. It would send entirely the wrong signal to the former Soviet republics and to those emerging nations considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It would also be a breach of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty to demonstrate restraint in our nuclear programme.
All the Government's reasons for supporting as many as 512 strategic warheads are entirely spurious. The United States and Russia have made significant progress in reducing the number of their strategic nuclear weapons, and we should he part of that process. I urge the Government to announce a freeze on the number of strategic warheads and to declare their intention to enter the disarmament process. My right hon. Friends and I look forward eventually to debating the 1992 defence White Paper and the 1993 White Paper, in which some apparent strategy may be revealed to us all.
9.46 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This interesting debate has included many good contributions from all parts of the House. I want fully to reply, and as so little time is left to me, it will be difficult to give way.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about the time scale for getting the assault ships in service. The project definition is under way and replacements will be in service by the end of the decade. We are confident that the existing ships can run on until that time.
There were many comments about the Upholder class submarines—the SSKs—and I must tell the House that no decision has been made. It is wrong for anyone to rush to a conclusion just because of leaks that they have read in the newspapers. We are still considering that matter—which will be addressed, together with the number of frigates and destroyers, when the White Paper is published in July.
The hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to the number of warheads on Trident. It is important to clear the picture on 512 warheads. That is a maximum, and I very much doubt that we will have that maximum number of warheads on Trident when it comes to be deployed.
No decision has been made about the number of warheads that will be used on Trident. In fact, it is not yet necessary to reach a decision. When that decision is reached, it will take into consideration the circumstances of the world in which we live at the time.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked what we are doing to make things safer for Clyde fishermen—we both have a great interest in that topic. Tests on the pingers to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been very encouraging. As he knows, we purchased some pingers and have been trialing them. There will be a full in-service trial with Clyde fishermen, and we shall work out the way ahead from there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the context of Subfacts, that no one wants a repeat of the Antares disaster. That was probably one of the most gruelling problems and greatest
380
tragedies with which I have had to deal during the five years that I have had this job. I certainly echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiments.
We are still discussing with the coastguard and with the Department of Transport how best Subfacts information can be broadcast in Scottish areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence are fully committed to the Subfacts scheme and they are doing everything they can to broadcast over all the waters that might be affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said that he is not a defence expert. That was rather modest of him, because he has taken a great interest in what has been happening in Plymouth, and has been a regular correspondent on behalf of his constituents. He pointed out that we now live in an uncertain world—a theme that has run through today's speeches. As he said, there was a certain predictability about the days of the cold war. The current uncertainty makes planning very difficult, and underlines the need for us to maintain our capabilities. We must be able to rebuild those capabilities within the longer warning times that we have talked about. Many of our defence capabilities cannot be rebuilt overnight, and it is important for us to be able to rebuild them if the international position becomes more difficult.
My hon. Friend made a passionate plea—which I entirely understand—for a decision on the Trident facility. He wants it to go to Devonport, because it would benefit his constituents. I can only say that we shall make a decision as soon as we can, but—as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—it is important for us to work out all the figures properly so that we reach the right. decision, rather than hurrying and reaching the wrong one. We have had a tremendous amount of new information from the different contractors at both Rosyth and Devonport, which we have had to consider very carefully.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the horrors of Bosnia, and made the point that such horrors are being repeated in many other parts of the world. He cited some 25 areas of conflict. That raises an interesting question: do we actually want to deploy our defence capabilities, and our remarkable service men, in 25 different areas? If that is to be our aim in the future, we should not be considering such minuscule numbers; we should be talking about 10 times our current service contingent, and an astronomical defence budget. When we consider the problems of the world and our own interests, it is important for us to recognise that we cannot support a much larger defence budget than we have at the present. There is a limit to the extent to which we wish to deploy our service men in dangerous areas throughout the world.
I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish then lapsed into his old bad habits, and came with an anti-nuclear tirade. He brought out the old chestnut that we have come to associate with the left wing of the Labour party—which, of course, has the great advantage of consistency in that it has been anti-nuclear throughout, rather than emulating the 180-degree turn performed by the Labour Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of our dependence on the United States for Trident. It is true that the United States is contracted to sell us those missiles, but I see no reason to believe that it will not abide by the deal. Indeed, as it will be extremely lucrative for the United States, it would be very surprising if that happened. Our dependence on the

381
United States will then itself depend on the servicing of the missiles, but we do not expect them to be serviced more often than every six to eight years. Our subsequent dependence on the United States will thus be very limited.
I am sure that others will echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) to those who served in the Royal and Merchant Navies in the battle for the Atlantic. My hon. Friend then said that he saw no sign of a peace dividend, even in the distant future. That raises a major problem that I am experiencing with the Select Committee on Defence, which considers that we should not amalgamate any regiments in the British Army, and that it would be outrageous to make any reductions in the number of ships, or in any other part of the Navy or the RAF.
We must try to put all this into context. Are we talking about an increase in the defence budget? If so, where is the money to come from? Will the health budget or the social security budget be reduced, or will the Government simply borrow more money?
I think it is about time that defence expenditure was mentioned. It is not enough merely to say how sad it is that we are losing our capabilities. No one wants to lose capabilities, but it is important that we have a defence budget with which we can live, and which reflects our ability to pay. If that is the basis on which we work—certainly, it is the basis on which I work—we must make difficult decisions about how to align our resources with our capabilities.
Mr. Wilkinson: Surely there is much merit in the argument so eloquently advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that the first priority of Her Majesty's Government must be to assure the nation's defence and that savings can be found from the social security budget, which has been spiralling virtually out of control, and from the more intelligent use of manpower—for instance, by the use of reserves.
Mr. Hamilton: We can all think of ways of trying to save money, but if we are not to make any savings at all we shall need considerably more money than we have now. I have difficulty with whoever it was who said that the situation had changed since "Options for Change." That is absolutely right. The announcement was made in July 1990. There have indeed been changes since then—changes for the better. In July 1990, the Soviet Union still existed. Since then it has disintegrated. The threat from Russia is less now than it was at that time. If one is talking about the security of the United Kingdom, the fact is that it is now more secure than it was in July 1990.
It could be argued, of course, that since 1990 the whole of Europe has become more unstable. That raises an interesting question—whether it should be only the United Kingdom that becomes involved in deploying troops to all these different places and the degree to which that burden should be shared by other European nations, whose absence, with the exception of France, from any involvement has been notable.
My hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) are concerned about fishery protection. They will both be glad to know that we have agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to continue fisheries protection into 1994.
382
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is also concerned about the future of hydrography. The Royal Navy continues to carry out those services and to maintain these skills. We are talking about chartering ships, but there will be Royal Navy crews on those ships. In those circumstances, the Royal Navy will continue to maintain those skills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster constantly talks about the Royal Navy being incapable of meeting its commitments. However, he had now dreamt up a new commitment: that the Royal Navy should be made responsible for putting down piracy in the Indian and Pacific oceans. If we go down that road, we shall need a navy that is very much bigger than the one that we have now. We shall do what we can to help anybody who is the victim of piracy, but the Royal Navy would have to be in the vicinity of the piracy. They would not sail past and do nothing. But to make the Royal Navy responsible for piracy would be a large commitment, which would make almost everything else that it does pale into insignificance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) wants to give the LPH a name. I was surprised to hear him say that, because my hon. Friend knows all about ships. He ought to know that the Royal Navy does not name a ship until it is launched. I was told the name of a ship when I laid its keel. That ship was the Vigilant, the third of the Trident submarines. My hon. Friend will have to wait until at least the keel is laid before he is told the name. However, my hon. Friend has got a point: that this wretched thing has already had a large number of names. It started life as an aviation support ship. Then, for some reason, we wanted to call it a landing platform for helicopters. My hon. Friend made a plea for "amphibiosity" and welcomed our commitment to replace the amphibious fleet.
My hon. Friend also referred to the fact that the CVSs, the aircraft carriers, will need to be replaced. It is too early in the day to talk in those terms. They have still got a good deal of life in them and should continue in service for some time yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South made a helpful speech. He pointed out that he did not want the skills of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation to be neglected. I accept that it is important to maintain those skills. He made a plea, which I totally support, that we must not let the desire to do something in the Balkans override the military realities there.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) paid tribute to the skill of the work force there and the quality of the ships built by Swan Hunter. I agree with what he said. We have no argument whatsoever about those skills.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the important issue of tankers and ships cleaning oil into the sea. That is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence but we would, of course, report any ship doing that to the authorities. The Royal Navy carries stocks of dispersants so that, if there were a major disaster, we would be able to help.
The killing of whales and the possibility of a sanctuary in the south Antarctic seas are not matters to which the Royal Navy can extend its responsibilities. The chances of a Royal Navy ship being in an area where whales are being killed are not very great—perhaps with the exception of

383
the Falklands—but, once again, the Navy would report any incident to the relevant authorities. However, it cannot be held solely responsible.
On the Gulf—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Royal Navy
  PETITION

    Scottish Ambulance Service (Alness)
    10 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to present a petition on behalf of more than 8,000 constituents in Ross, Cromarty and Skye who reside in and around the communities of Alness, Evanton and Invergordon.
    The petition
    Declares that there is strong opposition locally to the proposal by the Scottish Ambulance Association to transfer to Dingwall the ambulances presently stationed in Alness.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes note of the local concern being expressed and gives its support to the efforts being made locally to identify an alternative site for an ambulance depot in Alness.
    And the Petitioners remain, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

Cambodia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), because, unlike the Ministers who have responded when I have raised this issue on previous occasions, he has been to Cambodia and played an important part in the developments which have led to the election that we now anticipate.
My right hon. Friend will know that I was in Cambodia in early March. I was there with members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we considered all factors which were emerging and which had emerged. However, my concern is what is happening now and how the election process is proceeding since 9 April when the campaigning began.
First, is Britain satisfied that, under present conditions, the elections will be free and fair, or as near as possible? We are all aware of the violations committed by the PDK, or the Khmer Rouge, which has increasingly been attacking personnel of the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia and massacring the Vietnamese. They are called Vietnamese but, of course, we would regard them as Cambodians because they were born there and, in any other circumstances, would be regarded as citizens. However, they are being targeted specifically by the Khmer Rouge.
As I understand it, only yesterday 200 rounds were fired into a Chinese engineering unit. It appears that the intensity of the operation is increasing, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any information as to whether the Khmer Rouge is determined to try to disrupt the election. Since 9 April, I have heard from a colleague working in Cambodia. He said:
"The KR have increased their presence from 5 to 14 districts in this province … Their killing of the Japanese UN Volunteer and his interpreter (April 8th) is unnerving our staff. The elections depend on the work of these volunteers. If the KR decide to make them so afraid they cannot work, then there will be no election."
I understand that more than 40 of the 400 volunteers have already said that they do not want to continue.
Secondly, disruption is also being caused by other parties. When I was there, I was disappointed to learn that the State of Cambodia Government were doing their best to disrupt other parties, even though they had been able to open offices in many parts of the country. I had hoped that, since we left, under the influence of Hun Sen, who had been travelling round the region trying to calm his party officials, that had died down.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could tell us whether that is true, or whether the fear expressed by Professor Reginald Austin, the director of the electoral component of UNTAC, was well founded. Professor Austin feared that the Khmer Rouge were aiming at UNTAC and killing its personnel, and that the State of Cambodia Government were aiming at the Opposition and making it difficult both for them and for UNTAC to ensure an open election. That would motivate the Khmer Rouge to conclude that the electoral process was designed to allow a State of Cambodia victory.

385
I should like an update on how the Government, and our excellent ambassador in Phnom Penh, can report on the current situation as we approach the final lap of the election. I am especially concerned that we should know about the preparations for polling day and for the run-up to polling day, so as to ensure that there is no intimidation on the day. We need to know whether, when the election has been held, Her Majesty's Government and the whole UN operation will declare it to have been fair before the results are announced. There is considerable concern during these last few weeks before the election takes place on 24 May.
Secondly, I am concerned about aid. I know that my right hon. Friend went to the aid conference in Tokyo, at which a generous amount of money was pledged by many nations. Nevertheless, there have been concerns about the actual flows of aid in advance of the elections, and about whether the aid programmes, especially those targeted at health and education in rural areas, are getting through.
As my right hon. Friend will know, there is considerable concern, as there always has been, about the wide gap between Phnom Penh, which has benefited enormously from the United Nations presence, and the rural areas. There is concern, too, about the difficulties caused in the past by that gap. It is essential that the agreed aid programme is seen to benefit the widest possible range of the population, and especially that those who live far away from Phnom Penh are seen to receive a fair share.
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are satisfied that Britain's contribution is speedy enough? We saw much of the work that was being done, and especially welcomed the presence of the sister of one of our hon. Friends, who was seconded to one of the departments in Cambodia, and was dealing with health, education and the English language. I should be grateful to be given some idea of what the British aid programme is doing, especially in terms of preparations for the immediate post-electoral period in June, July and August. If all goes well, a newly elected Government will then be sitting down to work out a constitution, and it will be important that all the necessary help for them to achieve that end is already geared up and available.
The third issue is de-mining. As my right hon. Friend will know, that problem causes widespread external concern. I believe that Cambodia is the most mined country in the world; I understand that one in every 236 people there is already a victim of mines of one sort or another. We saw some of the work of the HALO trust and of other de-mining groups from this country. But there still does not seem to be a sufficient sense of urgency about clearing the mines. Do we have any figures by now, perhaps from the Cambodia mines action centre, to tell us how many mines have been lifted, how many people have been trained and what sort of time scale we can imagine for the areas that need to be cleared?
Considering the number of mines that have been laid in Cambodia, and the difficulties caused by the paddy fields and by rain moving mines around, I realise that it will be almost impossible ever to say that the country has been de-mined. None the less, it would be of considerable interest, especially to people outside the country, to hear how high a priority the British Government give to that exercise. Of course, that problem does not apply to
386
Cambodia alone; it has a wider connotation, but Cambodia is the area about which people are most concerned at the moment.
The fourth area relates to the post-election period. I am not anticipating what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will say, because we have not deliberated on the matter yet. However, from my long connection with the country, I believe that Britain should retain its influence and involvement in Phnom Penh after the election. Our contribution is widely regarded as very fair and balanced.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, English is critical for the new Government and the new structures. We should seriously consider maintaining our presence there and we should argue for a continued United Nations presence after August, although obviously reduced from its present level.
The traumatic and terrible history of Cambodia, the degrees of antipathy and hatred and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge mean that the country needs stability and a period to rearrange and readjust the society. There is a desperate need to create structures at local and national levels.
When we were in the country, it was clear that, although the UN had introduced a policing component, there was no legal system for the UN police to use if they arrested someone for any form of crime. We have now had to bring in judges from outside under UN control and defence lawyers to try those who have already been arrested for committing offences both from the state of Cambodia side and from the Khmer Rouge. That is an example of how desperate is the need to create what we would regard as basic structures for a country if it is going to succeed. When we consider the troubled history of that country, neither the international community nor Britain should walk away.
From our experience of driving from Battambang to Poipet and then on to Bangkok, it seemed that the new Government of Thailand were taking their relationship with the rest of the world much more seriously than before. We were encouraged to see that, at that time, they had closed the border and had stopped timber imports across the border with Khmer Rouge-controlled areas. Although they could do nothing about gemstones because they are too small, the new Government of Thailand seemed to want to co-operate with the international community on the vital issue of closing the border which must be achieved if we are to impose sanctions that might influence the future activities of the Khmer Rouge.
It is possible that some people over-exaggerate the threat of the Khmer Rouge. The activities of the Khmer Rouge since we left that country have certainly not made anyone feel more comfortable. As I understood it, when we were there, the Khmer Rouge controlled only 15 per cent. of the land territory. I am not sure what proportion of the population it controlled, but as 4·6 million people are already registered for the election, I suspect that the Khmer Rouge controlled only a relatively small number.
My final point relates to the concern that many of us have about the tremendous international exercise in Cambodia—the biggest exercise in which the UN has ever been involved. The long-drawn-out process enabled us to obtain the Paris agreement. There was then the defection of the Khmer Rouge as it dishonoured its signature to that agreement.

387
When we discussed the future with the Prince Sihanouk, he was very much concerned that there should be no partition of his country even though the dimensions, as I have already described, are not that great. It was his overwhelming concern that there should be no partition of Cambodia in the sense of a retained Khmer Rouge region.
He seemed much more prepared to consider the future involvement of the PDK in a Government that he would seek to lead, should he be elected president, than have that party—after disowning and turning its back on the electoral process and undermining the Paris agreement—then be rewarded with the offer of being party to a future Government. All Committee members felt that that was completely out of court and that we should not give it any encouragement whatever.
If all goes well and there is an election that can be judged a fair indication of what the people want, there will still be immense difficulty with the rump of the Khmer Rouge. We do not know whether the new Government will have military supplies to enable them to put an end to this long-drawn-out struggle and bring peace to a country that has had infinitely more than its share of suffering by comparison with any other country in the world today.
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for initiating this debate. In the House, he has an unequalled knowledge of Cambodia and an unsurpassed care for the future of its people. In his capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he was there recently—indeed, since I was there. He has raised a number of important issues, which I should like to cover one by one.
The Paris agreements on a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian conflict were signed on 23 October 1991. Since then, we have done much to implement them—but there is a long way to go. The United Nations operation in Cambodia has had its successes and failures, but it is encouraging that the international community is still firmly committed to the future of Cambodia and the goals set out in the Paris agreements. As one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, we have played an active role in trying to bring an end to the 12-year civil war in Cambodia.
The Paris agreements were a major achievement, offering the Cambodian people a new future in which they can be free from tyranny and the threat of genocide and from foreign occupation and interference. The agreements mandated the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, under the leadership of the United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Mr. Akashi, to monitor the ceasefire; oversee the human rights situation; supervise the disarmament and demobilisation of the factions' armed forces; repatriate more than 350,000 refugees from camps on the Thai-Cambodian border; supervise the work of existing administrative structures to create a "neutral political environment"; and hold free and fair elections to take place from 23 to 27 May 1993. As my hon. Friend said, UNTAC is the largest and most ambitious operation ever mounted by the United Nations. It comprises some 16,000 military, 4,000 civilians and 3,000 police personnel as well as almost 60,000 locally engaged staff.
388
The United Nations has covered much ground towards filling its mandate. Almost all the refugees who were formerly in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border have returned of their own free will to Cambodia—largely to the towns and villages from which they came. It has been a huge operation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and its organisation deserve the congratulations of everyone. According to the UNHCR's special representative for Cambodia, only one Cambodian died (luring the repatriation.
UNHCR recognises that there is still much work to be done to ensure the successful reintegration of those who have returned. As a consequence, in February, together with the World Food Programme and the United Nations Development Programme, it launched an appeal—to which we have contributed—for a further $53 million to cover reintegration assistance until early 1994.
At the ministerial meeting on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Cambodia in Tokyo in June 1992, to which my hon. Friend referred, the international community pledged $880 million for the reconstruction of Cambodia. It was always envisaged that this would be disbursed over a number of years. Up to February this year, some $94·3 million had been provided for aid projects in Cambodia.
Many have criticised the pace of the disbursement of aid. Part of the problem stems from continuing disagreements among the Cambodian factions, leading to the Supreme National Council's failure to sign an agreement with the World bank. We have urged all the parties to settle their differences quickly. The flow of aid is likely to increase substantially once a new Government are in place in Phnom Penh.
The United Kingdom has pledged some $30 million of humanitarian and development assistance since the signing of the Paris agreements in October 1991. Of that sum, more than $23 million has been committed, principally on the UNHCR repatriation programme, funding the grass-roots projects of voluntary agencies, a major malaria control programme through the World Health Organisation, an English language teacher-training project and various water supply projects at Battambang and in rural areas. We are working on projects to spend the balance and shall continue to work for Cambodia's reconstruction both before and after a new Government are installed.
We are very conscious of the fact, which my hon. Friend drew to the attention of the House, that one of the most pressing problems facing Cambodia is the presence of large numbers of mines. Since April 1992, UNTAC, with a British training team in the lead, has been training Cambodians to clear mines. As on 17 April 1993, three international training teams and 20 supervisory teams were operating in Cambodia; 2,184 Cambodian de-miners, 51 Cambodian supervisors and 21 Cambodian instructors had been trained. We have also provided money to the HALO Trust, a British non-governmental organisation, which is also involved in de-mining in Cambodia.
According to UNTAC figures at mid-April, Cambodians trained by UNTAC had destroyed or recovered 14,343 mines and munitions in Cambodia, 9,474 anti-personnel mines, 20 anti-tank mines and 4,869 pieces of unexploded ordinance. By comparison, nongovernmental organisations had cleared 2,171 mines and munitions. If there are any more up-to-date figures. I will give them to my hon. Friend.

389
The task ahead is immense. It was never envisaged that UNTAC itself would clear the mines. UNTAC's job was to train Cambodians to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to continue the task of determining long after UNTAC had left. The Cambodia mine action centre, established in November, is currently drawing up a programme of mine clearance lasting until 1997. The first stage of this programme, lasting until July 1993, is being implemented fully with funds supplied largely by UNTAC.
Cambodia's tragic history demands special measures to ensure that there can be no recurrence of the atrocities committed between 1975 and 1978. Strong provisions to safeguard human rights are a prominent feature of the Paris agreements. All the factions have now signed the major human rights instruments, and we intend to make sure that they live up to their undertakings. However, while we are committed to the principle of self-determination for the Cambodian people, we believe that it would be incomprehensible and unacceptable if those intimately associated with past atrocities, notably Pol Pot, Ieng Sari, Ta Mok and certain others, were to re-enter Cambodia's political life and attempt to return to power.
UNTAC has faced many problems since its deployment on 15 March 1992. It has not received the co-operation from the various Cambodian factions which it was entitled to expect. Ceasefire violations have continued. More seriously, the Khmer Rouge has denied UNTAC access to many areas of Cambodia under their control. As my hon. Friend said, it controls about 10 per cent. of the total, situated largely in the north and west of the country. The Khmer Rouge has refused to canton and demobilise its armed forces, as required under phase 2 of the ceasefire. It has withdrawn from the elections, and is believed to have been responsible for many of the attacks on ethnic Vietnamese in the past year, which have left more than 100 people dead.
We have repeatedly condemned both the actions and the attitude of the Khmer Rouge. We support fully UN Security Council resolution 792 which, inter alia, called for measures to be taken against those parties which failed to comply with the military provisions of the Paris agreements. We have also urged UNTAC to take measures to safeguard the lives of all Cambodian civilians, regardless of their ethnic origins.
There has been much criticism of the decision to include the Khmer Rouge in the peace process, but we must remember that the civil war in Cambodia could not have been brought to an end if the comprehensive political settlement had excluded any of the main parties to the dispute. To have done so would only have prolonged the war and condemned the Cambodian people to indefinite misery. All the other Cambodian parties accepted the necessity of including the Khmer Rouge in the settlement. Despite the Khmer Rouge's behaviour over the last few months, we continue to believe that this decision was right.
We, like the other Cambodian factions and all the signatories of the Paris agreement, continue to believe that the elections should go ahead as planned, even though the Khmer Rouge have excluded themselves. Although
390
UNTAC has been denied access to many areas under Khmer Rouge control, nearly 4·7 million Cambodians have registered to vote—an estimated 90 per cent. of those eligible, and a clear sign of the Cambodian people's desire to decide their future. The international community has called on all the parties to abide by their commitment under the Paris agreements to respect the results of the elections.
We are concerned, as is everybody, at the continuing attacks against UNTAC personnel in Cambodia. Over ten have now lost their lives, but not all the deaths can be attributed to the Khmer Rouge; and it is still unclear whether the Khmer Rouge have decided to attack UNTAC and the electoral process to attempt to disrupt and discredit the election. Unfortunately, there are likely to be further attacks and further deaths; but the international community will hold its nerve and complete the task it set itself more than 18 months ago.
We have also been concerned in recent months at the levels of intimidation of the other political parties by the State of Cambodia, and have encouraged UNTAC to take all necessary measures to guarantee a neutral political environment, including increased protection of party offices. That has had some effect, and the number of complaints about the state of Cambodia's behaviour by other political parties has dropped since the election campaign began on 6 April.
It is impossible at this stage to predict the outcome of the election. Provided UNTAC judges the result to be free and fair, we will recognise the result and encourage the new constituent assembly to agree a new constitution and to form a new Government within the three months laid down under the Paris agreements.
It is our firm belief that a new Government, representative of the wishes of the Cambodian people and with the recognition of the international community, offers the best hope for the future of Cambodia. We recognise, however, that the Khmer Rouge will continue to pose a threat to the stability of Cambodia. We have asked UNTAC to consider ways to ensure that the new Government can counter this, including assistance with the formation and training of a new Cambodian army.
Ultimately, it will be for the new Government to decide whether to seek international help. We believe that such assistance will best be handled on a bilateral basis after UNTAC's mandate expires. The United Nations will maintain a presence in Cambodia for the foreseeable future through its specialised agencies and programmes.
We recognised at the time of the signing of the Paris agreements that huge practical tasks awaited the United Nations in bringing lasting peace, stability and self-determination to the long-suffering people of Cambodia. The fact that today we are looking forward to the holding of free and fair elections in less than two weeks' time is testament to the ground that UNTAC has covered. The House and my hon. Friend, who has raised the matter, can rest assured that we and the international community remain committed to seeing that the Paris agreements are implemented as fully as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Road Schemes
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report into speeding up pre-construction procedures for road schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend is concerned to speed up the delivery of schemes in the national road programme. He will make a statement about his plans as soon as possible.

  Road Salt
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ban the use of sodium hexacyanoferrate in road salt.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The rock salt used on the Department's motorways and trunk roads complies with British standard 3247, which stipulates the use of an anti-caking agent. The anti-caking agent currently in use is sodium hexacyanoferrate and I have no plans to discontinue its use.

  Seacroft-Crossgates Bypass
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that any decision on the Leeds A6120 Seacroft/Crossgates bypass should be postponed until a decision has been taken on the transpennine strategy study.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The transpennine study addresses wide strategic problems on the road network across the Pennines, whereas any proposals to improve the A6I20 running through the communities of Seacroft and Crossgates would be designed to overcome existing traffic congestion and the bad accident record on the present road. It would be wrong therefore to tie the urgently needed improvements on the A6120 to the different and longer-term prospects for the transpennine routes.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what licences have been granted or issued for the transportation of radioactive materials to the THORP site since 1 January; and what applications are now under consideration by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  One package design approval has been issued: four others are under consideration.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public his secret emergency plans dealing with nuclear weapon transport accidents.
  172
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no such plans. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Traffic Review, Meriden
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a review of traffic through Meriden village since the closure of the Oak Lane junction with the A45; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are undertaking a review of all the options for permanent improvement of the Oak Lane junction with the A45. This will take account of the present interim scheme and of local views. I will write to my hon. Friend when the review is complete.

  Seat Belts (Buses)
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce compulsory seat belts for school buses and minibuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is presently no requirement to fit seat belts in the rear seats of minibuses and coaches except in the exposed forward facing seats in coaches first used after 1 October 1988. We are pressing the European Commission to put forward amendments to the relevant directives to require seat belts to be fitted to all seats in these vehicles. The present law on compulsory wearing of seat belts requires them to be used in rear, as well as front, seats of smaller minibuses with an unladen weight not exceeding 2540kg, where they are fitted voluntarily.

  "The Loading Gauge Issue"
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the Eurotunnel-sponsored report entitled "The Loading Gauge Issue" published in January; what reply he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I received Eurotunnel's report directly it was published. Eurotunnel is involved in continuing discussions being held between my Department, Her Majesty's railways inspectorate, independent consultants and British Rail on the feasibility and costs of upgrading some of BR's existing lines to a gauge suitable for piggyback transport.

  Plutonium Nitrate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the safety and reliability directorate of AEA Technology to update the 1984 report SRD-R-244, on the radiological consequences of the release into the sea of the contents of a plutonium nitrate package.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority is reviewing the report.

  MOD Vehicles (Licensing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle types have been licensed by his Department under the International Atomic Energy Agency safety series No. 6 regulations 1985, as amended in 1990, for use by the Ministry of Defence for each of the last 10 years.
  173
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such licences are required.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a list of those airlines, airport owner/operators, local authorities, pressure groups and other similar organisations and bodies that have submitted observations on his proposals for new night flight controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports;

  (2) how many representations he has received from members of the public on his proposals for new night flight controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of responses received in the relevant division to date is as follows:—

  17 Members of Parliament and MEPs (other than letters covering constituents' views);

  3 Airport consultative committees

  66 Local authorities, Parish and Town councils, and local authority organisations;

  41 Environmental and other local groups;

  2 Aviation and acoustical consultants

  61 Airlines;

  5 Airport and aviation bodies;

  17 Airline and airport users;

  1,823+ Responses from people living around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;

  83 Responses from people living elsewhere;

  2,762* Petitions and signatures lodged in bulk.

  + Relates to number of letters, not number of signatures.

  * Numbers subject to verification.

  Figures exclude correspondence related to proposed aircraft noise classifications. A list of the main respondents will be made available in due course.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a list of those Governments with whom discussions have been held on the new aircraft type classification proposed in his consultation paper on new night flight controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports; and how many of such Governments have indicated their support;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions with the United States Federal Aviation Authority on their willingness to accept the new aircraft type classification system proposed in his consultation paper on new night flight controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The classification system is based on the noise certification data which all modern aircraft are required to possess to operate between states that are signatories of the Chicago convention. As stated in the consultation paper, the use of such data is being discussed with several European countries with the hope of evolving a common approach. These discussions are being conducted through regular contacts at normal aviation fora. The outcome of our present consultation in relation to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted is not dependent on the outcome of these discussions.

  Safe Seas
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the European Commission on its proposal for setting up a committee on safe seas contained in the communication from Commissioners on "A Common Policy on Safe Seas"; and if he will make a statement.
  174
  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has warmly welcomed the Commission's communication "A Common Policy for Safe Seas", which closely mirrors the Government's views on the need for action to improve the level of maritime safety in Community waters. Along with other member states, we approve in principle the Commission's proposal for a committee on safe seas, and are currently considering what its terms of reference should be.

ENVIRONMENT

  Revocation Orders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total number of revocation orders issued by his Department following inappropriate planning decisions by local authorities in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This power has been used only once in the last 10 years. The last occasion was in 1991.

  Integrated Administration and Control Scheme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the Director General of Ordnance Survey to ensure(a) that all areas of United Kingdom farmland are mapped and (b) the establishment of an emergency Ordnance Survey telephone helpline to assist farmers experiencing mapping difficulties in completing their IACS forms.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ordnance Survey has surveyed and mapped all mountain and moorland areas of Great Britain at a scale of 1:10,000 and all other rural areas at a scale of 1:2,500. This mapping, which is based on the national grid and is available in a variety of forms, is maintained by Ordnance Survey, but is not commercially viable to revive the map of rural and remote areas as intensively as those of urban areas.

  Some 400 outlets have been set up by Ordnance Survey to help farmers obtain the necessary maps and information to complete their IACS forms; these include Ordnance Surveys superplan agents, Iand agents who have been granted extended copyright licences for the purpose, Ordnance Survey's own field offices, the Welsh Office and ADAS in Wales and the Scottish agricultural college in Scotland. In addition, staff at Ordnance Survey headquarters in Southampton are answering over 200 telephone inquiries from farmers each day using sophisticated helpline facilities.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how United Kingdom timeshare dwellings are to be treated for the purposes of council tax and business rates regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Timeshare accommodation is liable for non-domestic rates.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the status of timeshare dwellings to make them eligible for council tax and to remove them from business rates.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.
  175

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) of 28 April,Official Report, column 947, whether he will consider moving his Department to the Ark in Hammersmith.

  Mr. Howard
  I have asked Property Holdings, who are property managers for the Government estate, for advice on suitable accommodation. They are already fully aware of the availability of the Ark development and will take it into account.

  Tyne and Wear Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 April, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown),Official Report, column 319, how many of the jobs created by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation were relocations from other sites; how many of the jobs are being carried out by people living (a) within the urban development corporation area and (b) within two miles of the urban development corporation area; and what has been the total amount spent by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation since its inception.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information as requested relating to jobs created by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation is not available. The corporation does, however, in conjunction with the local training and enterprise councils, encourage employers to recruit people from the local community.

  The total amount spent by the corporation to 31 March 1993, including receipts, was £212·17 million.

  Chemical Industry
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the process definitions set out in the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 as they apply to the chemical industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met representatives of the Chemical Industries Association on 24 February to discuss the industry's concern that the process definitions set out in the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 do not adequately reflect the complexity of the chemical industry. The industry believes that problems of process definition will result in unreasonable uncertainty and excessive cost for the industry in applying for authorisations under integrated pollution control and will delay the authorisation process.

  At the meeting, I promised the industry that we would consider sympathetically the details of their concerns and take measures to overcome them. Since then, a small working party comprising representatives of the industry and of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been looking into this problem.

  Companies within this sector are due to be brought within integrated pollution control this year; the window for applications for authorisation of such process runs from I May to 31 July. In order to avoid the need for applications to be submitted before the detailed outcome of these considerations is known, I propose to extend the application window until 31 October. Amending regulations to that effect will be laid in the very near future.
  176
  I am satisfied that extending the application window in this way will not lead to any weakening in environmental protection, and believe that the operation of integrated pollution control can be improved by making limited changes to the definition of processes in the manufacture and use of organic chemicals falling under section 4.2 of chapter 4 of the regulations. These changes are not expected to affect other industrial sectors or processes subject to local authority air pollution control or to cut across possible changes that may arise from the wider consultation we are currently undertaking in relation to the 1991 regulations.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage of the total housing investment programme and resources allocated to estate action in each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]:Under the local authority capital finance system established in 1990–91, housing investment programme allocations represent an assessment of the relative need for housing capital expenditure, rather than a direct borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is conveyed by the single, all-service basic credit approval, augmented by allocations of supplementary credit approvals, where appropriate. In turn, local authorities finance their housing investment programmes from credit approvals and grant, from usable capital receipts, and from contributions from revenue budgets.

  The table shows the resources allocated to the estate action programme each year since 1986–87, in total and as a percentage of total local authority housing capital allocations.

  Estate action resources

  Estate action resources as a percentage of local authority housing capital allocations

  (£ million)

  1986–87

  45

  3

  1987–88

  75

  5

  1988–89

  140

  9

  1989–90

  190

  13

  1990–91

  190

  10

  1991–92

  268

  13

  1992–93

  347

  118

  1993–94

  356

  220

  1 estimated outturn

  2 plans

  Homelessness
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the choice provided by local authorities to homeless families when they are moved on from one unit of temporary accommodation to another type of temporary accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Seveso Directive
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26, April to the hon. and Learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile),
  177
  Official Report, column 322, if he will list the bodies and people who will receive copies of the consultation document on extending the scope of the Seveso directive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposed amending regulations to extend the scope of the Seveso directive will apply to only approximately 10 waste disposal installations in the United Kingdom. Consultation with the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors has already begun. Further consultation will take place through the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on dangerous substances, which includes representatives from the CBI, TUC and local authority associations such as the Association of District Councils and Association of County Councils. Other interested bodies will be alerted through a press release which will advise how copies of the consultation document can be obtained.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to make provisions for overseas domestic workers to be granted leave to remain while they pursue legal action, civil or criminal, against former employers;

  (2) what plans he has of giving overseas domestic workers an immigration status (a) independent of the household they work for and (b) as workers;

  (3) what plans he has to establish a review of the present laws regulating the admission of overseas domestic workers; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what plans there are to allow overseas domestic workers to change employers within the same category of employment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We introduced in May 1991 tighter criteria for the exceptional arrangements outside the immigration rules under which a domestic servant who has worked abroad for an employer who comes to the United Kingdom may be admitted to continue working for that employer. Although domestic workers are admitted to keep their jobs as part of the household of their employer, they have their own immigration status as employees and may apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom after four years in approved employment under the exceptional arrangements. There are no provisions under those arrangements for domestic workers to change employers outside the immigration rules before being granted indefinite leave to remain. Nor is there provision for any non-EC national to remain in the United Kingdom after his or her leave has expired in order to pursue legal action. However, each case involving a domestic worker who wishes to remain in the United Kingdom after having left the employer for whom he or she was admitted to work is carefully considered before any enforcement action is taken, and account is taken of any compassionate circumstances. We have no plans to carry out a further review of the arrangements for domestic workers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on how many overseas domestic workers have initiated legal challenges against their former employers since 24 July 1990 on 178
  grounds of (a) sexual offences, (b) offences of violence, (c) false imprisonment, (d) assault and battery, (e) intimidation, (f) breach of contract and (g) slavery; and how many such employers were found guilty.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received with regard to reforming the immigration status of overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received four lettters from right hon. and hon. Members and noble Lords about the exceptional arrangements outside the immigration rules for domestic workers from overseas. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have also received a number of letters from members of the public and organisations.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic workers have entered the United Kingdom since 1977; and if he will specify those entering under(a) code 4, (b) code 5N and (c) code 3 of the immigration regulations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in the period January to August 1992, some 8,600 entry clearances were issued to domestic workers by the main posts which issue entry clearances to such workers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the number of domestic workers deported since 1980; and how many were(a) overstayers or (b) unauthorised workers.

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

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reconviction rate for people released from prison on licence who were serving life sentences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Two per cent. of life licensees released between 1972 and 1988 were convicted of a "grave" offence—violent crime—within two years of discharge and 4 per cent. of those persons released between 1972 and 1985 were reconvicted within five years. The figures for a "standard list" offence—indictable plus certain summary offences—were 10 and 21 per cent respectively. This information was published in statistical bulletin 3/93, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy for financing and supporting crime prevention.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on 4 March, at columns 274–75, which

  179
  details Home Office support for crime prevention. In addition, other Departments' programmes, such as the Department of the Environment's city challenge and estates action, and the Department for Education's grants for education support and training scheme, include strong crime prevention elements. Overall Government spending on crime prevention was an estimated £167 million in 1991–92.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the working so far of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We remain committed to the Act's objective of improving public protection against attacks from fighting and other dogs. We continue to keep the Act's operation under review, and to consider suggestions for further improvement to its practical operations.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to ensure that the distinction between pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers is clear.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans to amend the Act. Periodic advice has been issued to the enforcement authorities and the courts on the identification of dogs, and we are considering suggestions for providing further help on this point.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about a national identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Some 27 individual letters have been received from Members of Parliament and others so far this year. None has persuaded me that the advantages of such a scheme outweigh the disadvantages.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department gives to assist neighbourhood watch schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are committed to encouraging the development of neighbourhood watch schemes. The number of schemes has grown rapidly in recent years and there are now nearly 115,000 schemes in operation in England and Wales covering more than 5 million households.

  We set up Crime Concern in 1988 to stimulate growth of schemes and develop a national structure for the neighbourhood watch movement. We have provided considerable financial backing to enable Crime Concern to carry forward this work.

  We have recently given funding towards the cost of producing a neighbourhood watch co-ordinator's handbook which is shortly to be published. A number of national conferences for scheme co-ordinators have been arranged by Crime Concern. Last year's conference took place at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham and was addressed by the Home Secretary.

  With financial support from the Home Office, Crime Concern is also undertaking a two year pilot project. the
  180
  "neighbourhood safety project", to introduce a neighbourhood watch-type scheme into two high crime residential areas in West Yorkshire.

  We are including a special neighbourhood watch insert in the Home Office magazine "Crime Prevention News" which is sent to all police crime prevention officers for distribution to neighbourhood watch co-ordinators.

  We encourage the police to support neighbourhood watch schemes, although it is ultimately a matter for each chief constable to decide how much of his resources he can allocate to these activities. I addressed the Derby neighbourhood watch co-ordinators' conference on 30 April and I was delighted to learn about the considerable support which Derbyshire police are providing to schemes throughout the force area.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 148, and his pursuant answer of 29 April column 506, what information he has on the number of mines lifted by the Cambodians trained or operating under UNTAC in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  According to the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia—UNTAC—figures at mid-April, Cambodians trained by UNTAC have destroyed or recovered 14,343 mines and munitions in Cambodia—9,474 anti-personnel mines, 20 anti-tank mines and 4,869 pieces of unexploded ordinance. By comparison, non-governmental organisations have cleared 2,171 mines and munitions.

  World Conflict
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretry of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current armed conflicts in the world, the estimated number of deaths in each and the actions taken by the United Kingdom Government to encourage peace in each conflict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Earlier this year the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros-Ghali, told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that the United Nations was currently seized of 25 conflicts around the world. Detailed information on all these conflicts is not centrally recorded and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, 12 of these conflicts are the object of a United Nations peacekeeping operation to which Britain as a permanent member of the Security Council makes its due contribution. They are: India/Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel/ Syria and Jerusalem, Cyprus, Cambodia, former Yugoslavia, Iran/Kuwait, El Salvador, Western Sahara, Angola, Somalia and Mozambique.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 April, to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle),Official Report, column 830, if he will set out the reasons why Her Majesty's Government regard it as a

  181
  disastrous mistake by the Ukranian Parliament to hold the view that the Ukraine should not relinquish the nuclear weapons held by Ukraine.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Under the Lisbon protocol to START I, Ukraine is committed to ratification of START I and early accession to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. Fulfilment of these commitments will influence the extent to which co-operation and partnership between Ukraine and the west can be developed. A decision to retain nuclear weapons would jeopardise the implementation of START I, and thus START II, and would risk weakening the NPT. We believe it is in the interests of global security, and that of Ukraine, that the START reductions should be carried out and the NPT strengthened.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedure he plans to adopt to review European Community legislation passed before December 1991 in relation into its compliance with the principles of subsidiarity laid down by the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We attach great importance to the rigorous implementation of subsidiarity, both in relation to existing and proposed Community legislation. The Edinburgh European Council asked the Commission to present the outcome of its review of existing EC legislation to the Brussels European Council in December. We are discussing with EC partners and with the Commission which items of legislation should be repealed or amended on subsidiarity grounds.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of(a) overseas domestic workers and (b) their employers he estimates received his Department's "Information for Domestic Servants Travelling to the United Kingdom"; and whether the leaflets are written in the mother tongues of the intended recipients.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All domestic workers are handed a copy of an information leaflet when interviewed at post for entry clearance, and all employers are given a leaflet together with an explanatory note. Records are not kept of the numbers of leaflets issued.

  Leaflets are available in English and Arabic. Arrangements are in hand for a translation to be made available in Tagalog—Filipino. Where an applicant does not understand English the contents of the leaflet are explained in their local language. The Home Office is currently producing copies in Spanish, Bengali, Urdu, Hindi and Tamil.

  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the extension of maritime jurisdiction around South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about the conservation of marine 182
  resources around South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands in the south Atlantic which is a British dependent territory. At present, the Crown's sovereignty and jurisdiction around South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands extend to the 12-mile limit of the territorial sea. For waters beyond this, we have hitherto relied solely on the work of the commission created by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—CCAMLR—a component of the Antarctic treaty system. This depends on flag state regulation and policing to apply conservation measures decided by consensus amongst the 22 members. We fully support CCAMLR and co-operate in the body's work. We have worked most energetically to strengthen the role of CCAMLR in its regulation of southern ocean fisheries. Although CCAMLR has provided timely and much-needed protection for commercially fished species, we are concerned that nevertheless fish stocks have been depleted.

  Moreover, infringements of CCAMLR regulations have grown. The need to reinforce conservation arrangements in the area for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible is clear. Accordingly, Ministers have decided to strengthen conservation and management of marine resources around South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands by the introduction of national measures. These measures are intended to supplement not replace the role of CCAMLR and are of course fully compatible with it.

  For this reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has instructed the commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands to issue a proclamation tomorrow to provide for the exercise of the Crown's sovereign rights to jurisdiction over a maritime zone and its natural resources, living and non-living, extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles around the territories.

  In addition, an ordinance will be made, in due course, by the commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands designed to monitor and protect the state of the fish stocks within the maritime zone. This action will reinforce existing measures under CCAMLR.

  Since their re-establishment in 1990, our relations with Argentina have progressed to their present excellent state and are now marked by a new openness and growing mutual confidence. This is a source of great satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government, who will continue to work to develop the relationship further. Against this background, it was natural for us to discuss our concerns over conservation fully with the Argentine Government with whom we have extensive exchanges on south Atlantic matters, particularly in relation to fisheries. We look forward to pursuing this dialogue.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister how many peers have been appointed to offices of profit under the Crown since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not available.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

EDUCATION

  Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of the advertisements his Department placed in the national press on 27 April promoting the national testing scheme; and what plans he has to publish further advertisements on testing in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the cost of the advertisements is commercial in confidence. Further advertising is planned in the national press until the end of the campaign in May which concludes with magazine advertisements.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unemployment
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor or the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost to the Exchequer of each unemployed person per year.

  Sir John Cope
  The Department of Social Security's annual report provides an estimate that, in the current year, a change in unemployment of 100,000 would result in a variation of £350 million in benefit expenditure—or an average of £3,500 per unemployed person.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Treasury in benefits paid and tax and national insurance payments forgone of the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Social Security estimates that in 1993–94 the total cost of benefits paid to unemployed people will be £9·29 billion based on an unemployment assumption for Great Britain of 2¾ million. An estimate of tax and national insurance payments forgone is not produced, as it depends on the particular tax liabilities and earnings when in employment of each individual who is currently unemployed.

  Recession
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to end the recession in Britain.

  .Mr. Nelson
  Across the economy there are clear signs of a resumption of growth, reflecting our success in bringing down inflation. The Government's economic policies are designed to ensure that inflation is kept low and thereby support the recovery.

  Industrial Production
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the latest trend in the level of industrial production.

  Mr. Portillo
  The recent trend in industrial production has been upwards: in the three months to February the index of production was1¼ per cent. up on a year earlier. And business surveys point to continuation of an upward trend.

  European Bank of Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to influence the policy of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development.

  Mr. Nelson
  In his statement to the EBRD's annual meeting in London, on 27 April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised the EBRD's duty to use taxpayers' resources as cost-effectively as possible. He stressed the need that the institution, which was established to promote efficiency and enterprise, should itself provide an example of sound financial management. Welcoming the changes agreed by the bank's board of directors to improve the control of its costs, my right hon. Friend argued for rapid and vigorous implementation of these. He also called for the bank to develop its key role in promoting effective mechanisms for assisting small and medium-sized enterprises in the countries of the former Communist bloc.

  Cohesion Fund
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total sum to be distributed from the EC's proposed cohesion fund between now and 1999; and what part of this sum is estimated to come to the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  The Edinburgh European Council agreed a figure of 15·15 billion ecu for the period; and that only Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece would be eligible.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the petroleum revenue tax changes announced in the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Representations, including important support for the reform, have been received from a number of companies and individuals on the petroleum revenue tax changes.

  Business Taxation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact his 1992 Budget changes to business taxation have had on employment levels.

  Sir John Cope
  The changes in business taxes in the 1992 Budget, together with those in the autumn statement and this year's March Budget have strengthened the prospects for sustainable growth of output and employment.

  Investment and Unemployment
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Budget measures for investment and unemployment levels.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ipswich on 1 April, at columns 371–72.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when mortgage rates were last at their current level.

  .Mr. Nelson
  Following the most recent cut in base rates, most mortgage lenders have announced mortgage rates below 8 per cent. They are now at their lowest level since April 1969.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when retail sales were last at their latest reported level.

  Mr. Nelson
  Retail sales in the first quarter of this year were at their highest level ever recorded.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to monitor the United Kingdom's balance of trade in the absence of official statistics.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statistics for the United Kingdom's trade with countries outside the EC have continued without interruption. Figures for our trade with all countries in the first quarter of 1993 will be published in the usual balance of payments released in June.

  Domestic Fuel
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to alleviate the effect on those on low incomes of charging VAT on domestic fuel.

  .Sir John Cope
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget speech, extra help will be given from April 1994 to poorer pensioners and others receiving income-related benefits. The precise amount and the way in which this will be targeted will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in the autumn.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on relations between Sudan and(a) the International Monetary Fund and (b) the World bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  The IMF is not providing any financial assistance to the Sudan which is in arrears to that institution. The World bank has provided one loan, for an emergency drought recovery project, since 1990; the bank has no current plans to make further loans.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what differences there are in taxation of the various functions, services and purchases between those of a general practioner fund-holding practice and those of a non-fund-holding practice.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As far as VAT is concerned, there is no difference. For their NHS activities, both are considered to be part of the VAT registration of the regional health authority, and are treated equally. The position for trading income is that the same general rules on the taxation of trading profits apply whether or not the income of a general practitioner practice includes amounts allocated under the funding initiative.

  Public Servants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, 292–94, if he will list the numbers and staff costs to the Exchequer of each central Government Department by civil service grade for 1979–80 and 1991–92; and what comparable information he has for local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available centrally about the staff costs to the Exchequer of each central Government Department by civil service grade or about the staff grading or staff costs of local authorities.

  Information on numbers of non-industrial staff in post in the major departments, broken down by selected occupational groups and grades, is given in the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" which is available from the Library. The 1991 and 1992 editions provide staffing information for 1 April 1991 and 1 April 1992 respectively. A breakdown by grade only is published in the 1979 and 1980 editions.

  EC Payments
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional payments were made from the Consolidated Fund to the EC as part of the United Kingdom's total payments to the EC due to the increased VAT incurred as a result of contracting out in each year since 1982.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters in regard to investment in global environmental protection were discussed at the most recent meeting of G7 Finance Ministers in Washington DC.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The meeting focused primarily on the economic situation in the G7 countries.

  VAT
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the level of the qualifying turnover for VAT since his Budget statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The few representations that have been received are divided between those who would like to see
  187
  the threshold raised significantly in order to exclude many more businesses from the tax and those who seek a much lower or nil threshold in order to minimise what they see as unfair competition for registered traders from those who are not registered.

  Family Tax Bills
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the average family's tax bill of the Budget changes in fuel costs, national insurance contributions, married couples' allowances and excise duties.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 22 April at columns 172–78

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of personal debt in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  Total financial liabilities of the personal sector were £486 billion in the third quarter 1992.

  Illegal Alcohol Imports
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) what quantity of illegally imported alcoholic beverages have been impounded or confiscated by Customs and Excise officials in the first quarter of 1993;

  (2) what estimate he has made, on a weekly basis, of the level of illegal importation of alcohol during the first quarter of 1993; and what his projection of the level was on 30 June 1992;

  (3) how many cases Customs and Excise detected in the first quarter of 1993 of people illegally selling alcohol bought elsewhere in the EC at lower excise duty rates and imported into the United Kingdom ostensibly for personal use;

  (4) what is his estimate of the percentage of abuse of the indicative level of alcohol and tobacco imports being detected by Customs and Excise officers; and what estimate he has made of the annual loss of revenue resulting from such abuse.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of detections of imported alcoholic drink illegally offered or intended for sale in the United Kingdom during the quarter ending 31 March are shown in the table.

  Beverage

  seizures

  Quantity litres

  Beer

  51

  47,064

  Wine

  15

  7,385

  Spirits

  18

  860

  Any estimates as to the extent of undetected illegal importations would be largely a matter of speculation, but the revenue involved in the detected cases amounts in total to £57,834.

  There is no longer any requirement for travellers to declare routinely details of tobacco and alcohol being brought into the United Kingdom from other EC member states for their personal use. Provided the goods are duty
  188
  paid in the EC country of departure and are intended for personal use, the indicative levels, which function only as a guide, may be legitimately exceeded.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is being given to ways of delaying the advent of stage 2 of EMU beyond 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  I am not aware of any such consideration. Article 109e of the Maastricht treaty states that the second stage for achieving economic and monetary union shall begin on 1 January 1994.

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to extend the Trinidad terms on world debt to countries not currently covered by them.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Paris Club of creditor countries has so far given debt relief on Trinidad terms to 15 of the world's poorest and most indebted countries, 12 of them in sub-Saharan Africa. They include Benin, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. Trinidad terms are not intended for better-off but for heavily indebted countries, although I recognise that for some heavily indebted, lower-middle income countries, concessional debt relief may be necessary. Therefore, I welcome the call made by the G7 at the Munich summit to consider the special situation of some heavily indebted lower-middle income countries on a case-by-case basis.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in the rates, rules and modus operandi of the ERM since the United Kingdom left the mechanism; and what studies European central bankers have made of its operation and its effects on the level of currency speculation between European currencies.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 16 September 1992, sterling and the lira were suspended from participation in the ERM and the peseta was devalued by 5 per cent. The peseta was devalued by 6 per cent. along with the escudo, on 23 November 1992, and the Irish punt was devalued by 10 per cent. on 1 February 1993.

  There have been no changes in ERM rules over this period.

  The European Council, meeting in Birmingham, endorsed the view of Economic and Finance Ministers that the recent financial turbulence calls for reflection and analysis in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. It invited Economic and Finance Ministers, assisted by the monetary committee, with the involvement of the Commission, to carry this work forward, with the central bank governors. This work is continuing.

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value to the United Kingdom of debt interest payments from developing countries in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 from(a) payments to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (b) payments to the Overseas Development Administration, (c) payments to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and (d) in total.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]:The following data related to receipts received by each of the agencies from developing countries in the last three financial years. The figures include debt interest paid by Poland, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  ECGD

  228·0

  338·0

  332·0

  ODA

  5·9

  7·9

  4·2

  CDC

  67·0

  65·9

  86·2

  Total

  300·9

  411·8

  422·4

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the value to the United Kingdom of debt interest payments from Zambia in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 from(a) payments to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (b) payments to the Overseas Development Administration, (c) payments to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and (d) in total;

  (2) what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by Zambia.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The details of individual debtors' positions are confidential to the country concerned. We cannot publish these figures without the consent of the authorities in the debtor countries. However, I can say that at the beginning of April the ODA wrote off £56 million of old aid debts with Zambia. This followed the International Monetary Fund's approval of Zambia's rights accumulation programme.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether negotiations have started for the second stage of Nicaragua's Trinidad terms debt agreement of 17 December 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Negotiations have not yet started for the second stage of Nicaragua's Trinidad terms debt agreement. Under that agreement, creditors agreed to consider a stock of debt reduction for Nicaragua after three or four years following a period of proven financial and economic responsibility. The Government are continuing to press the Paris Club to agree to earlier action on the stock of debt of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries.
  190
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The latest figure available for the current total official outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries is £9·67 billion.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 405, if he will give details of the 12 changes made to the premium bond prize fund rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: The details are as follows:

  Prize fund rate changes

  Per cent.

  1 August I960

  4·500

  1 September 1968

  4·625

  1 August 1971

  4·750

  1 July 1973

  4·875

  1 July 1974

  5·500

  1 November 1976

  5·625

  1 January 1979

  5·750

  1 July 1980

  7·000

  1 November 1984

  7·750

  1 August 1987

  7·000

  1 July 1988

  6·500

  1 March 1993

  5·000

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what inquiries he has made into reports of the unauthorised use of a tape recorder by Ministry of Defence police in Pateley Bridge magistrates court on 2 April; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand that an allegation of unauthorised use of a tape recorder at the court was made to the clerk to the justices and that he has asked the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate. It is not a matter in which it would be proper for me to intervene.

WALES

  County Structure Plans
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretry of State for Wales on what dates structure plans have been submitted by each of the eight Welsh counties since they came into existence, indicating which of these have been(a) accepted by the Welsh Office without amendment, (b) accepted subject to specific amendments and (c) rejected.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is set out in the table. All structure plans and alterations approved by the Secretary of State have been the subject of modifications prior to approval. No submitted structure plan has been rejected.
  191

  Structure Plans

  Plan

  Submitted

  Approved

  Clwyd

  16July 1979

  15July 1982

  Clwyd Alterations No.1

  29 January 1990

  31 October 1991

  Dyfed

  31 March 1980

  11 July 1983

  Dyfed Alterations No. 1

  15 June 1987

  12 October 1989

  Gwent

  17April 1978

  23 April 1981

  Gwent Alterations No. 1

  17 August1984

  17 September 1987

  Gwent Alterations No. 2: Shopping

  4 August 1989

  21 June1990

  Gwynedd (Separate Plans for Anglesey,

  29 March 1974

  —

  Caernarvonshire,

  28 March1974

  —

  Meirionydd and Dyffryn Conwy)

  6 December 1974

  29 July 77

  Gwynedd Replacement

  1 February 1991

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  22 February 1979

  11 March 1982

  Mid Glamorgan Alterations No. 1

  19 July 1985

  22 August 1989

  Powys

  22 October 1979

  26 January 1983

  Powys Alterations No. 1

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  16 December 1977

  14 January 1980

  South Glamorgan Alterations No. 1

  18 September 1985

  31 May 1989

  West Glamorgan

  9 January 1978

  11 September 1980

  West Glamorgan Alterations No. 1

  12 November 1984

  11 December 1986

  Plan

  Deposited

  Adopted

  Gwent Replacement 1

  10 February 1992

  —

  1 The Gwent Replacement Structure Plan was deposited following the implementation of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances he holds any form of public inquiry prior to making changes to a draft structure plan submitted to him by a county in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As a result of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, county councils are required, unless the Secretary of State decides otherwise, to hold examinations in public on selected matters arising from structure plans, to provide additional information to help them come to a decision. Previously, when necessary, examinations in public were held on structure plans submitted to the Secretary of State to provide him with additional information necessary for the consideration and approval of the plan.

  . Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether county councils in Wales, submitting structure plans for ratification by the Welsh Office, must draw these up in line with uniform national criteria.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Structure plans prepared under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 are approved normally by the county council concerned. However, there are requirements to consult the Secretary of State who has powers to direct that a plan be referred to him for approval.

  The form and content of structure plans is set out in regulations. In formulating the general policies in structure plans county councils are required to have regard to any regional or strategic planning guidance given by the Secretary of State to assist them in preparation of the plan, and current national policies.
  192
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration his Department gives to the varying social and cultural patterns in Wales when reviewing structure plans for the counties of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Regulations require planning authorities to have regard to social considerations in preparing their general policies and proposals in structure plans. Where appropriate the needs and interests of the Welsh language will be among those considerations. In considering structure plans before him for comment or approval, the Secretary of State takes account of these social considerations.

  Children's Hospice
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to fund a hospice for terminally ill children in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The distribution of Government funding and the provision of hospice facilities and other care for the terminally ill is a matter for health authorities, following local discussion and agreement.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken and proposes to take to improve the access, safety and environmental conditions of Welsh inland waterways.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the British Waterways Board.

  Palliative Care Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such meeting has yet been sought by the council, but I shall be happy to consider the request if it does so.

  Cancer (Drugs)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend the drug tariff to assist cancer sufferers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State for Health considers applications from companies to add products to part IX of the drug tariff so that they can be prescribed to patients under the NHS. Products are added to the tariff if they are considered to be safe, cost-effective and of acceptable quality and subject to the availability of resources within the family health services.

  Void Properties
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the number of void properties in each local authority area of Wales expressed as a percentage of total council stock for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Local authority vacant dwellings expressed as a percentage of local authority stock 1

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Aberconwy

  0·9

  0·6

  1·0

  Alyn and Deeside

  1·1

  0·6

  0·9

  Arfon

  0·6

  1·2

  1·1

  Blaenau Gwent

  1·2

  0·6

  1·0

  Brecknock

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Cardiff

  1·6

  1·0

  0·7

  Carmarthen

  0·1

  0·4

  0·3

  Ceredigion

  0·9

  1·3

  0·8

  Colwyn

  1·0

  1·4

  0·9

  Cynon Valley

  3·6

  2·5

  0·7

  Delyn

  1·0

  0·4

  0·6

  Dinefwr

  1·2

  0·6

  0·9

  Dwyfor

  0·4

  0·8

  1·2

  Glyndwr

  2·1

  1·7

  0·9

  Islwyn

  2·9

  2·6

  1·7

  Llanelli

  1·6

  1·6

  1·4

  Lliw Valley

  0·9

  0·9

  1·1

  Meirionnydd

  0·4

  0·8

  0·8

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1·6

  1·1

  0·7

  Monmouth

  1·6

  1·9

  1·3

  Montgomeryshire

  1·2

  1·5

  1·4

  Neath

  1·3

  1·4

  0·9

  Newport

  0·7

  0·6

  0·8

  Ogwr

  1·5

  0·8

  0·8

  Port Talbot

  5·2

  3·1

  3·0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  0·5

  2·Jan

  0·9

  Radnorshire

  0·8

  0·8

  1·1

  Rhondda

  1·8

  0·6

  1·0

  Rhuddlan

  1·1

  0·7

  0·7

  Rhymney Valley

  0·7

  0·9

  0·7

  South Pembrokeshire

  0·2

  0·6

  0·3

  Swansea

  0·8

  0·6

  0·6

  Taff-Ely

  1·8

  1·5

  0·9

  Torfaen

  1·3

  1·2

  0·8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0·7

  0·6

  0·7

  Wrexham Maelor

  1·5

  1·4

  1·4

  Ynys Mon

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  194
  1 At 1 April.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Ms Rhiannon Anderton
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to give his ruling in the case of the appeal against Clwyd county council on behalf of Ms Rhiannon Anderton of Mold, Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The appeal against the provision specified in Rhiannon Anderton's statement of special educational needs raises a number of complex issues on which my right hon. Friend needs full information from the parties involved before he can reach his decision. The appeal is being dealt with urgently and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what organisations for grants to support the Welsh language under the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, in the current financial year, were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful and which, in each category, were concerned with providing information on environmental protection and green issues.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The list of successful and unsuccessful applicants for grant to support the Welsh Language under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 in the current financial year is as follows:

  (a) Successful applicants

  National Eisteddfod

  Welsh Books Council

  Urdd Gobaith Cymru

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin (The National Association of Nursery schools)

  Menter Cwm Gwendraeth

  Nant Gwrtheyrn (National Language Centre)

  Papurau Bro (Welsh Language local newspapers) CYD (The Learners Society)

  Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme

  Merched Y Wawr

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Welsh Sunday Schools Council

  1 Wales Young Farmers

  Gwynedd Pre-school Playgroups Association

  Cymru a'r Byd (Wales International)

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  Childline

  RELATE

  Age Concern Wales

  1 Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

  PONT (Learners Group for Incomers)

  Dyfed Pre-school Playgroups Association

  The Carers Association

  Menter a Busnes

  Fifth International Conference on Minority Languages Menter Taf Elai

  North Wales Association for the Blind

  (b) Unsuccessful applicants

  1 GWELD (Information collation)

  1 Friends of the Earth

  South Pembrokeshire Partnership for Action with Rural Communications (SPARC)

  Wales Assembly of Women

  Antur Llŷn

  Gwerin Y Coed—Woodcraft Folk

  Wales Pre-school Playgroup's Association

  1 Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Creu Cof (Involvement with the Media)

  TAD (Fathers for Bilingual Education)

  Samaritans

  195

  Presbyterian Church in Wales Youth Service

  Disablement Welfare Trust

  Wales Council for the Blind

  The Ucheldre Centre

  National Asthma Campaign

  Dwyfor/Caernarfon Citizens Advice Bureau

  Kids Clubs Network

  Oxfam in Wales

  Open University

  1 Creating New Job Standards for a Better Environment (COSQEC)

  National Foster Care Association Dewi Rhys-Jones

  Welsh Womens Aid

  Llaingoch and District Horticultural Society

  Abbey Cwmhir Heritage Trust

  1 Gwarchodwyr Cefn Gwlad—Conservation Volunteers

  Division for Social Responsibility Board of Mission Wales Council for the Deaf

  1Snowdonia National Park Society

  1 Applicants who submitted bids regarding the provision of information on environmental protection and green issues.

  Skin Diseases
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people suffering serious(a) eczema, (b) psoriasis and (c) acne.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have met the 4 per cent. quota of disabled workers set out in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the table.

  Local authorities employing at least 3 per cent. registered disabled people 1

  Year

  Number

  1979

  15

  1980

  15

  1981

  14

  1982

  12

  1983

  11

  1984

  13

  1985

  9

  1986

  7

  1987

  8

  1988

  6

  1989

  3

  1990

  3

  1991

  4

  1992

  4

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 The information relates to 1 June each year and is taken from data published in the Employment Gazette in respect of individual employers in the public sector.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheltered workshops are currently being run in Wales by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are 10 sheltered workshops currently being run in Wales by local authorities. A further workshop is run by a voluntary body acting as an agent for a local authority.

  Provision of sheltered employment is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  A5
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the application to make the A5 between Chirk and Llandegai into a heritage route; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend's policy for the A5 is set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Present plans are contained in the 1993 supplement to that document.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what schemes have been proposed to improve the A5 from Chirk to Llandegai; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend's plans for major improvements are set out in the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Housing (Special Needs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a table listing all housing association and other applicants for housing grants or for housing-related grants in the fields of special needs in each of the last five years and in the current year, distinguishing each category of special need referred to, together with the amount applied for and the amount granted in each case in each year in each category.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not readily available.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many decisions by planning authorities in Wales have been revoked by him over the last two years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Republic (Students)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost to public funds for students from the Republic of Ireland now receiving their higher education in Northern Ireland in consequence of European Community agreements.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the estimated cost to public funds of tuition fees for students from EC countries, including the Republic of Ireland, holding mandatory or postgraduate awards in the 1992–93 academic year will be about £4·5 million.

  Training Centres
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the 1993–94 budget for each of the training centres in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 6 May 1993:

  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the 1993–94 budget for each of the Training Centres in Northern Ireland.

  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland) the Secretary of State has asked me to reply.

  The Training and Employment Agency operates a network of 12 Training Centres throughout Northern Ireland. At this stage in the training year, budgets have not yet been finalised for individual Training Centres as the main recruitment period follows the annual school leaving date in late June.

  However, the Public Expenditusre Survey allocation for the Training Centres network is:

  £ million

  Programme expenditure (training costs, training allowances and related expenditure)

  10·957

  Capital, including energy efficiency measures

  0·704

  In addition salaries travel subsistence and other administrative costs will be met from the Agency's Running Cost Budget.

  However the estimated net expenditure for each Training Centre including central services costs in 1992–93 was:

  £

  Alfred Street/Leander House

  625,200

  Ballymena/Ballymoney

  2,376,600

  Boucher Road, Belfast

  2,266,200

  Craigavon

  1,893,500

  Dundonald, Belfast

  2,140,000

  Enniskillen

  1,325,600

  Felden

  2,207,200

  Lisburn

  1,547,100

  Maydown, Londonderry

  1,568,200

  Newry/Downpatrick

  1,945,900

  Omagh/Strabane

  1,439,700

  Springtown, Londonderry

  2,164,700

  21,499,900

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will establish an independent staff commission to review and monitor the personnel procedures of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 29 April 1993]: Health and personal social services employing authorities are bound by legislation in relation to employment procedures. The management executive of the Department of Health and Social Services monitors their personnel policies, and has particular responsibility for the selection and appointment procedures which apply to all staff in the health and personal social services. It is considered unnecessary to set up such a commission.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total expenditure, including legal costs and compensation payments, incurred by each health and social services board in defending religion and sex discrimination cases over the past three years to 30 April.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 29 April 1993]: Although the total expenditure occurred could be provided only at disproportionate cost, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of legal costs and compensation payments when this information has been compiled.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of children, including their ages, who were presumed killed or mutilated by the Irish Republican Army since 1969.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: A comprehensive list of persons who have been killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, Republic of Ireland and mainland Europe, including name, date of death and a brief report of the incident, is currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course. To 31 March 1993, there have been 42 children aged under 14 years killed in Northern Ireland, by terrorists. Sixty-two per cent. of these attacks are believed to have been carried out by Republican terrorists. Information on children injured is not available.

  Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on the waiting list for occupational therapy in the Down and Lisburn unit of management, Newry and Mourne unit of management and Banbridge and Craigavon unit of management in 1983, 1986, 1989 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) occupational therapists and (b) physiotherapists were employed in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards; and, of

  199
  these, how many were employed in the Down and Lisburn unit of management, Newry and Mourne unit of management and Banbridge and Craigavon unit of management in each of the years ended 31 March since 1983.

  Occupational Therapists

  Eastern board

  Southern board

  Down and Lisburn unit

  Newry and Mourne unit

  Banbridge and Craigavon unit

  1983 NO

  184

  31

  23

  5

  15

  WTE

  160·7

  30·0

  21·0

  5·0

  14·5

  1984 NO

  182

  35

  23

  7

  15

  WTE

  161·7

  34·0

  21·2

  7·0

  14·5

  1985 NO

  181

  35

  23

  7

  16

  WTE

  161·2

  34·0

  22·1

  7·0

  15·5

  1986 NO

  188

  37

  24

  8

  15

  WTE

  169·1

  36·0

  22·4

  8·0

  14·5

  1987 NO

  192

  37

  21

  8

  15

  WTE

  172·5

  35·8

  20·1

  8·0

  14·3

  1988 NO

  200

  39

  24

  9

  15

  WTE

  178·9

  37·4

  23·3

  9·0

  13·9

  1989 NO

  210

  45

  29

  11

  16

  WTE

  187·5

  42·8

  25·3

  10·5

  15·3

  1990 NO

  190

  49

  26

  11

  19

  WTE

  170·1

  46·9

  22·5

  11·0

  17·8

  1991 NO

  198

  52

  29

  10

  22

  WTE

  175·5

  49·0

  25·1

  10·0

  19·8

  1992 NO

  206

  57

  31

  13

  20

  WTE

  188·6

  54·5

  26·3

  13·0

  18·6

  1993 NO

  208

  61

  32

  13

  23

  WTE

  188·6

  58·0

  27·4

  13·0

  21·5

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) physiotherapists and (b) occupational therapists are employed in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards; and how many of these are located in the Down and Lisburn unit of management, Newry and Mourne unit of management and Banbridge and Craigavon unit of management;

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The number of physiotherapists and occupational therapists employed in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards and located in Down and Lisburn, Newry and Mourne, and Banbridge and Craigavon units of management at 31 March was as follows:

  Physiotherapists

  Occupational therapists

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Eastern H&SS Board

  341

  274·8

  208

  188·6

  Southern H&SS Board

  86

  71·4

  61

  58·0

  Down and Lisburn Unit

  41

  35·1

  32

  27·4

  Newry and Mourne Unit

  24

  18·1

  13

  13·0

  Banbridge and Craigavon Unit

  36

  30·8

  23

  21·5

  Note

  WTE=Whole Time Equivalents

  Figures for Banbridge and Craigavon include both the community and hospitals units of management.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much will be spent or has been spent in each year from 1990–91 to 1995–96 on(a) stage 1
  200
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The number of occupational therapists and physiotherapists employed in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards, Down and Lisburn, Newry and Mourne, and Banbridge and Craigavon units of management in each of the years ended 31 March since 1983 was as follows:

  ESAs, (b)stage 2 ESAs, (c) stage 3 ESAs and (d) stage 4 ESAs, identifying how much of the total is allocated for the public access payments; what is the amount to be spent on (i) nitrate-sensitive areas, (ii) the moorland scheme, (iii) the habitat improvement scheme, (iv) set-aside management, identifying how much of the total will be for public access payments, and (v) organic farming in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Expenditure on payments to farmers in the two ESA areas designated in 1988 and 1989 was £200,000 in 1990–91, £393,000 in 1991–92 and £466,000 in 1992–93 and planned expenditure is £750,000 in 1993–94. Planned expenditure for revised and new ESAs designated in 1993 is £2 million in 1994–95 and £4·4 million in 1995–96. None of this funding is specifically allocated for public access.

  While there are no plans at present to introduce a nitrate-sensitive areas scheme in Northern Ireland, public consultation documents have been issued under the agri-environment regulation for a moorland scheme, a habitat improvement scheme and an organic scheme. Planned expenditure on payments to farmers under these proposed new measures in Northern Ireland is £252,000 in 1994–95 and £1·08 million in 1995–96. The precise allocation between the schemes will be decided in the light of the results of public consultation. As is the case for ESAs, no payments are specifically allocated for public access.

  Taxi Drivers (Terrorist Incidents)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all reported incidents since 1969, in date order, in which taxi or minicab drivers in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain were the victims of (i) loyalist and (ii) republican terrorists.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: The information is not available in respect of Nothern Ireland and is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in respect of Great Britain.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Independent Television Companies
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the Independent Television Commission to discuss the implications of the merger of Yorkshire Television and Tyne-Tees Television for the work of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I do not consider a meeting with the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to be necessary. The monitoring of licence conditions is the responsibility of the ITC and not the Government, and I understand that the ITC is discussing with Yorkshire Tyne-Tees Holdings how it proposes to fulfil its licence obligations.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many scheduled ancient monuments are currently at risk as a result of ploughing; and how many have been damaged since the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on I March,Official Report, column 14. It is not known how many scheduled monuments are at risk as a result of ploughing or how many may have been damaged through ploughing since 1979. English Heritage will shortly be embarking on a study to identify those monuments most at risk.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to propose to landowners practical and financial arrangements to prevent the destruction of scheduled ancient monuments through ploughing.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage already offers advice to landowners and, under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, often negotiates management agreements, which can involve financial payment, for the protection of sites. I will consider the case for further action in the light of the study which English Heritage is about to undertake of monuments at risk from ploughing.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what effect the introduction of policy planning guideline 16—PPG 16—has had on the 202
  protection and investigation of archaeological sites blighted by redevelopment proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 124, the outcome of a review of the effectiveness of PPG 16 one year after it was published. A copy of the report of the review was placed in the Library. It indicated that the advice given in PPG 16 has been adopted by every local planning authority in England, and that the archaeological significance of planning applications is now much more fully considered. I am satisfied that the guidance is proving valuable to all parties who may become involved with archaeology and the planning process.

  Lighting Costs
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current annual cost of lighting the exterior of(a) Buckingham palace, (b) St James's palace, (c) Clarence house and (d) other Government buildings in Whithall and Parliament square.

  Mr. Key
  The royal palaces and residences referred to are not floodlit. The lighting of the exterior of Government buildings in Whitehall and Parliament street is the responsibility of the individual Departments, but I understand that the cost is currently around £40,000 per year. The House authorities are responsible for the floodlighting of the Palace of Westminster and I understand that the cost is around £7,000 per year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the role the Agricultural and Food Research Council has with respect to horticulture; and what resources are deployed including manpower and finance by the council with respect to horticulture.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Agricultural and Food Research Council's programme includes basic and strategic research which underpins horticulture. The council's funding for horticultural research at Horticulture Research International and in universities is expected to be £4·5 million in 1993–94. A total of 561 staff at Horticulture Research International are currently AFRC employees. In addition, AFRC supports 17 research assistants on three-year horticulture-related projects in universities.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposals for the Commission's fourth framework research and development programme launched by Research Commissioner Ruberti on 22 April.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 4 May, at column 26.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is a requirement for each European Community-supported infrastructure project in the United Kingdom and in each other member state to have had an environmental assessment and an economic assessment; and what arrangements are made for the assessments to be available to members of the public.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no special provisions for the environmental impact assessment of European structural funds projects, but all such projects must conform with national and Community environmental legislation.

  Where a proposed development is of a type listed in directive 85/337/EEC and is likely to have significant environmental effects, environmental assessment will be required under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. For such projects the applicant must prepare and submit an environmental statement, setting out the likely effects of the project on the environment, with the application for planning permission. Notice must be publicised in a local newspaper and copies of the statement made available for inspection and placed on the planning register.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), on 16 April,Official Report, column 763, what is the breakdown by county of the amount of ECGD guarantees in default.

  Mr. Needham
  The total of £8,118·5 million in respect of gross paid claims, plus interest, under ECGD guarantees which have not been recovered or have been written off as at 31 March 1992 is made up of amounts on 130 different countries.

  The largest are:

  £ million

  Nigeria

  1,957·1

  Poland

  1,544·4

  Brazil

  903·6

  Iraq

  391·5

  Yugoslavia

  362·8

  Mexico

  292·4

  Egypt

  286·9

  Sudan

  277·1

  Zambia

  206·4

  Tanzania

  161·8

  Argentina

  130·9

  Morocco

  108·4

  Jordan

  102·5

  Gabon

  90·5

  Zaire

  87·0

  Congo

  86·9

  Mozambique

  83·7

  Iran

  82·2

  Peru

  81·4

  Guyana

  70·7

  Angola

  67·6

  Ecuador

  59·6

  Cuba

  58·6

  Philippines

  55·5

  Cameroon

  46·1

  Serbian Companies
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies based in Serbia currently operate from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department is aware of 36 companies in the United Kingdom that are "persons connected with Serbia or Montenegro" for the purposes of United Kingdom sanctions legislation.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government have taken to ensure that no Serbian company is trading in the United Kingdom in violation of UN sanctions.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom has implemented the following legislation in respect of UN sanctions. It applies to all United Kingdom companies.

  Orders

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1302 (5 June 1992)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1303 (5 June 1992)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions Order) (Dependent Territories) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1304 (5 June 1992)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Prohibition of Flights) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1305 (5 June 1992)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Prohibition of Flights) (Dependent Territories) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1308 (5 June 1992)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1272 (31 May 1992)

  The Export Goods (Control) (Serbia and Montenegro Sanctions) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1992 No. 1419 (12 June 1992)

  The Export Goods (Control) (Serbia and Montenegro Sanctions) (Revocation) Order 1992

  Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 1189 (26 April 1993)

  The Export Goods (Control) (Croatian and Bosnian Territories) Order 1993

  Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 1188 (I May 1993)

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1993

  Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 719 (10 March 1993)

  The Export of Goods (Control) (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (ECSC) Order 1993 (c)

  Statutory Instruments 1993 No. 1200 (30 April 1993)

  The Export of Goods (Control) (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (ECSC) (Revocation) Order 1993

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom policy position on the carbon tax put to the Joint Energy and Environment European Council meeting on 23 to 24 April; what proposals were put forward by the Ministers of other EC member states; in what respects agreement has not been reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West
  205
  (Mr. Bellingham) on 5, May Official Report, columns 109–10, reporting on the recent joint session of the Energy and Environment Councils.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations that have made representations to him over timeshare accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received many representations concerning timeshare accommodation. My Department sought representations from interested parties in connection with the Timeshare Act 1992 and the draft EC Commission directive on timeshare which is currently under discussion in Brussels.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the increase in radioactive dosage to the surrounding area involved in the application by Nuclear Electric to set up an incinerator to dispose of contaminated oil at Trawsfynydd power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  The environmental statement which accompanied the application stated that the increase in radioactive dosage to the most exposed member of the public would be in the region of 0·005 microSieverts per annum. This is equivalent to 0·0002 per cent. of natural background radiation.

  Wood Imports (Thailand)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of hard and softwood imports from Thailand for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom imports of hardwood from Thailand were worth £0·79 million in 1990, £0·16 million in 1991 and £0·32 million in 1992. The United Kingdom has not imported any softwood from Thailand in the last three years.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Post Office Counters Ltd. about the method of payment of pensions and benefits following privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  No decision has been made to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Post Office review is considering both public and private sector options. A statement will be made to the House in due course. In the meantime, I continue to have regular discussions with senior Post Office management on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration has been given to the retention of Post Office Counters in the public sector following privatisation of the rest of the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  With the exception of Parcelforce, no decision has been made on whether to privatise any part of the Post Office. Within the Post Office review, we are considering private and public sector options.

  Leather Goods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the penetration into the EC retail market of leather goods manufactured in China, India and elsewhere outside the EC.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for the EC retail market for leather goods are not available.

  Dividends
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the trend for companies to offer dividends in the form of advanced scrip issues of shares rather than cash; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has received one representation about enhanced scrip dividends. Where companies make arrangements giving shareholders the alternative of cash or additional shares, the Department's main concern is that the offer is open on equal terms to all shareholders. It is for company shareholders to consider the merits of the offer and to vote accordingly when the relevant resolution is put to the general meeting.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), on 28 April,Official Report, columns 415–16, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the EC's Internal Market Council held on 5 April.

  Mr. Needham
  No formal votes were taken at the Internal Market Council on 5 April.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), on 29 April,Official Report, column 492, when he expects to complete and publish the Government's proposals on assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I will announce the results of the present review as soon as practicable following the necessary clearance from the European Commission.

  Noise
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations the National Physical Laboratory has made into hum noise complaints relating to low frequency noise; and what results were published.

  Mr. Leigh
  The National Physical Laboratory has not carried out any investigations into hum noise complaints in recent years.

  I would refer the hon. Member to the Building Research Establishment, an agency of the Department of the Environment, where I understand some work of this kind is pursued.

  Land Rover Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tariff or other barriers are faced by exports of Land Rover products to the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The export of Land Rover products to the United States of America is subject to the import tariffs provided for in the United States harmonised tariff schedule.

  Vehicle Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received concerning barriers to trade faced by exports of four-wheel drive vehicles to the United States of America; and what action he has taken as a result of those representations.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: Representations have been received from British exporters about proposals to reclassify sports utility vehicles as trucks for US import tariff purposes. Her Majesty's Government have made known their concerns to both the previous and current US Administrations.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how sanctions against the former Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro are enforced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Several Departments are responsible for applying sanctions in the United Kingdom. They act rigorously against any suspected breach of UN sanctions in co-operation with HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the estimated value of total imports from former Yugoslavia in each year since 1990 and in 1993 to date;

  (2) how many goods bearing labels stating "Made in Yugoslavia" or "Designed and Produced in Yugoslavia" were sold in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990 to date.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: United Kingdom imports from Yugoslavia by (a) country of despatch, and (b) country of origin are given in the table.

  The country of dispatch is the last country in which the goods were bought or sold before coming to the United Kingdom while the country of origin is the last overseas country in which significant processing took place. The available statistics do not separately identify the country where the goods are made, designed or produced, or how they are labelled.

  United Kingdom imports from Yugoslavia 1

  £ thousands

  (a) Country of despatch

  (b) Country of origin

  1990

  189,435

  219,931

  1991

  147,877

  179,767

  1992

  123,797

  150,458

  19932

  16,561

  18,750

  1 The figures 1993 refer to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovnia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Macedonia

  208
  2 January to February.

  Sources:

  (a) Business Monitor MM20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether wooden butchers' blocks are included in the items which are covered by the complete United Nations embargo against Serbia and Montenegro.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Yes. The export of all goods to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—Serbia and Montenegro—from the United Kingdom is prohibited. The only exceptions are foodstuffs, medicines and humanitarian aid which are licenced on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sanctions are applied to British companies selling goods made in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Sanctions apply to goods made in the former republics of Yugoslavia—Serbia and Montenegro—which left the republics after the imposition of sanctions on 30 May 1992. Breach of sanctions legislation can lead to the prosecution of companies involved.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards imports of goods bearing labels "Made in Yugoslavia".

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: It is prohibited to import goods into the United Kingdom from the Republics of Yugoslavia—Serbia and Montenegro—and suspected breaches of sanctions legislation are investigated. However, goods which were imported into the United Kingdom from the former Yugoslavia before the imposition of sanctions on 30 May 1992 are not affected.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many import licences have been issued by his Department for import of goods from(a) the former Yugoslavia, (b) Serbia and (c) Montenegro since 31 May 1992; for what goods; for which companies; and at what total value.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Since 31 May 1992, the Department has issued 762 import licences for goods imported from the former Yugoslavia; 210 covered imports from Serbia and Montenego, mainly personal items of small value. Sanctions apply to all imports from Serbia and Montenegro and licences were issued only for goods exported before 31 May 1992 or where the United Nations gave approval. As regards the rest of the former Yugoslavia, no sanctions are in force; quantitative restrictions apply only to a limited number of goods and the licences issued were mainly for textile products—85 per cent. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of importers cannot be given. Licences are issued by reference to quantity rather than value.

  Regional Development Funding
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions he has had on his discussions with the European Commission about the
  209
  possibility of extending objective 1 status to other parts of the United Kingdom in addition to the current proposals for Merseyside and the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The European Commission's proposals for objective 1 regions are currently being considered by a Council working group. The United Kingdom continues to press the case for Devon and Cornwall, rural Wales and South Yorkshire to be added to the list of objective I regions when the decision is taken by the Council of Ministers.

  Electricity (Restrictive Trade Practices)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlay his decision to issue the Electricity (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Exemption) Order 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The Electricity (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Exemption) Order 1993 removes from the scope of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 certain contracts between coal producers, the electricity generators and the regional electricity companies made before 1 April 1993. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made the exemption order taking account of the importance the Government attached to securing the future of the British coal industry.

  Sour Gas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has carried out into the(a) toxicity and (b) inflammability of sour gas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive is currently involved in a number of research projects concerned with deleterious effects on sour gas. Research into the effects of sour gas flammability is also part of general studies on the effects of fire and explosions on offshore structures.

SCOTLAND

  Stobhill hospital
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his officials have had with Greater Glasgow health board concerning the application for trust status by Stobhill hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  One of the criteria against which all trust applications are considered is that of long-term viability. Discussions between my officials and Greater Glasgow health board on that aspect of the Stobhill application are on-going.

  Infertility
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to set a ceiling on the amount a health board may charge for infertility treatment.

  Mr. Stewart
  Services are either provided under the national health service, in which case no charge is made, or privately, in which case the charge is determined by the clinic concerned.
  210
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following his rejection of the National Medical Advisory Committee's recommendations that treatment for infertility at the Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow units should be centrally funded.

  Mr. Stewart
  Representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of constituents, from infertile couples and other individuals and from a body concerned with the interests of those with fertility problems.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many couples received assisted conception treatment in 1992 at each of the Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow units; what was the average cost at each; and what contribution was made by the local health board and the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the number of couples receiving treatment in 1992 will not be available from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for some time yet. However, details of the number of treatment cycles provided during 1991 should be available from the authority in July of this year.

  As the treatment at the Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee centres is offered on a private basis, information on average costs and the precise funding arrangements is not held centrally. However, the National Medical Advisory Committee report "Infertility Services in Scotland" shows that patients have been charged £1,450 per treatment cycle at Aberdeen and £1,250 at Edinburgh. At Dundee, patients were asked to consider offering a donation towards the costs of their treatment. No charge is made for treatment at the Glasgow centre which operates within the NHS.

  Cancer Screening
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral answer of 29 April,Official Report, columns 1153–54, if he will list those persons who will join Dr. Euphemia McGoogan in the inquiry into the inaccurate reporting of cervical smear tests by certain members of the staff of the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock; if he will outline the terms of reference of the inquiry; and when he expects to receive a report of the inquiry.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 4 May at column 35. Dr. McGoogan has indicated that the report should be available by early summer.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend cervical and breast cancer screening to teenage girls and women aged 65 years and over; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans to extend the age ranges for routine screening. Women are already offered screening for breast cancer at three-yearly intervals between the ages of 50 and 64 years. There is not yet evidence to show that screening younger women for breast cancer is of benefit.

  For cervical cancer, health boards have been asked to offer screening to women aged 20 to 60 at no more than

  211
  five-yearly intervals. In practice, health boards screen on a three-yearly cycle. Any younger women thought to be at risk or women over 60 who do not have a history of satisfactory tests may have a cervical smear under present arrangements.

  Cross-border Policing
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to cross-border policing issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am today issuing a paper prepared jointly by my Department and that of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which examines the issues affecting policing across the border between Scotland and England. At present, police officers may exercise their powers only in the country in which they are based. This presents problems when an officer has to cross the border between England and Scotland in the course of duty. The increasing sophistication and mobility of criminals has served to highlight the problem over recent years.

  A recent paper produced by the four border police forces of Dumfries and Galloway, Lothian and Borders, Cumbria and Northumbria helpfully focused the present difficulties. My right hon. and learned Friend and I therefore decided to consider whether there was scope for improving on the present situation. The consultation document seeks views on options to help resolve the difficulties.

  The document also touches on jurisdictional issues confronting courts in England and Scotland in relation to cross-border crime, but concludes that this complex subject must be treated separately.

  We have invited comments on the paper by 18 June and shall welcome views from everyone with an interest in these issues. I hope that interested parties will respond quickly so that we can identify the best way forward.

  Copies of the paper are available to hon. Members in the Library and, as usual, in the Vote Office.

  Borgie Estate
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the disposal of Borgie estate by his Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Borgie estate was gifted to the nation by the Duke of Sutherland in 1917 for the settlement on the land of returning service men from the 1914–18 war. To take account of changed circumstances, the purposes of the gift were extended in 1960 and the variation to the deed of gift stipulated that if, at any time in the future, the Secretary of State for Scotland should contemplate disposal of the land, he shall first offer it back to the Duke of Sutherland or his successors. Against this background the reconveyance of Borgie estate to Sutherland Estates took place on 28 April 1993, in accordance with Government policy on the disposal of surplus land.

  Lung Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current incidence of lung cancer and coronary heart disease in Glasgow.
  212
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: A total of 1,179 new cases of lung cancer were registered in respect of residents in the Greater Glasgow health board area in 1991; comparable data are not available for heart disease. Also in 1991, there were 1,043 deaths from lung cancer and 3,100 deaths from ischaemic heart disease in Greater Glasgow.

  Astronomical Appointments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when appointments will be made to the posts of Astronomer Royal for Scotland or Director of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Advice will be tendered in due course to Her Majesty the Queen on an appointment to the office of Astronomer Royal for Scotland. The Science and Engineering Research Council, for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible, recently made changes to the management structure of the astronomical observatories as a result of which the posts of director of the Royal observatory, Edinburgh and director of the Royal Greenwich observatory have been succeeded by an overall director of observatories. An appointment to this post was made on 15 March 1993.

  Tariff Rebate Subsidy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the terms of reference of the review of the tariff rebate subsidy scheme to the Scottish islands in which his department is involved; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether representations have been sought from Orkney islands council and Shetland islands council in respect of the review into the tariff rebate subsidy scheme for shipping services to the Scottish islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: My right hon. Friend is at present considering the need to review the existing arrangements under which he provides financial assistance for shipping services in the highlands and islands. Any such review would involve consultation with local interests, including the islands councils.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much will be spent or has been spent in each year from 1990–91 to 1995–98 on(a) stage 1 ESAs, (b) stage 2 ESAs, (c) stage 3 ESAs and (d) stage 4 ESAs, identifying how much of the total is allocated for the public access payments; what is the amount to be spent on (i) nitrate-sensitive areas, (ii) the moorland scheme, (iii) the habitat improvement scheme, (iv) set-aside management identifying how much of the total will be for public access payments and (v) organic farming in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: There is a single budget for ESAs in Scotland. Expenditure was approximately £1 million in 1990–91, £1·1 million in 1991–92 and £1·1 million in 1992–93. Planned expenditure is £5·3 million in 1993–94, £7·7 million in 1994–95 and £7·9

  213
  million in 1995–96. There is no nitrate-sensitive areas scheme. Consideration of the need for any agri-chemicals measures awaits the results of water quality surveys expected to be completed at the end of this year. My Department has issued for consultation proposals for schemes on heather moorland extensification, habitat creation, the management of set-aside land, and organic farming. Planned expenditure on these proposed measures is £3 million in 1994–95, and £5·8 million in 1995–96. The allocation between the schemes will be decided in the light of the consultation process.

  Forestry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of tax relief given for afforestation in 1987–88 and the value of grants paid to private woodland owners in 1991–92; and what was the amount of new planting in 1991–92 as a percentage of that undertaken in 1987–88.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: The exact value of the tax relief claimed for forestry operations, including afforestation and restocking, before forestry was removed from the scope of taxation in 1988–89, is not recorded, but it was estimated to be about £10 million in 1987–88. In addition, private woodland owners received grants of £9 million in the same year. The total Government support was, therefore, about £19 million, which is equivalent to £25 million at 1991–92 prices. Private woodland owners received grants of £17 million in 1991–92, representing about 70 per cent. of the total support in 1987–88.

  A total of 14,147 hectares of new planting was grant-aided in 1991–92, which was 59 per cent. of the area in 1987–88. The total area planted with grant-aid in 1991–92, including restocking, was 21,978 hectares, which was 77 per cent. of the area planted in 1987–88.

  Lanarkshire Development Agency (Consultants)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the consultants used by Lanarkshire development agency over the last two years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: While expenditure on consultancy studies above certain delegated authorities requires the approval, respectively, of Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office, the choice and use of consultants is essentially a matter for the local enterprise companies themselves; and the Scottish Office holds no central record of the use of consultants. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member should take this matter up direct with Lanarkshire development agency.

HEALTH

  Regional Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moneys have been paid to the Audit Commission by regional health authorities and her Department in the last five years; and if she will break down the figures by the categories of service provided.

  Mr. Sackville
  The statutory external audit function was transferred to the Audit Commission from the Department of Health with effect from 1 October 1990.
  214
  The Audit Commission levies charges directly to each health body. Audit costs for the part year 1990–91 were not analysed separately. For the financial year 1991–92, the total expenditure recorded in the financial statements of regional health authorities was £1,217,614. This figure does not include expenditure by other national health service bodies such as NHS trusts and district health authorities. No further information is available centrally of this expenditure by category of service provided.

  Payments were made by the Department for work associated with the paving legislation and for pensions of staff transferred to the Audit Commission.

  Patients
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the methods presently used to measure patient activity levels; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will now make it her policy to ensure that all hand-pieces used by general dental practitioners are autoclaved after being used on each patient;

  (2) if she will now make it her policy to ensure that all general dental practitioners use disposable gloves which are not re-used for successive patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has already issued guidance which covers both the autoclaving of hand pieces and the use of disposable gloves, the maintenance of clinical standards is primarily a matter for the dental profession. The latest advice from the Department is contained in "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers—Protection Against Infection with HIV and Hepatitis Viruses" of January 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists, who have not given notice to leave the dental list, have given written notice to each family health services authority to terminate or deregister some or all of their capitation arrangements for child patients in each week since 20 November; how many dentists have deregistered patients; and how many patients have been deregistered.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 April 1993]: The information provided weekly by family health services authorities since July 1992 shows that in the period up to 23 April 1993, 201 dentists have given written notification to deregister 1,421 child patients. The tables set out, by FHSA, for each week since 20 November 1992, the number of new dentists who have deregistered child patients and the total number of child patients deregistered by all dentists.

  Number of dentists deregistering child patients Week ending 27 November 1992 to week ending 23 April 1993

  FHSA

  27 November

  4 December

  11 December

  18 December

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Leeds

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  215

  FHSA

  27 November

  4 December

  11 December

  18 December

  Essex

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Lambeth, Soulhwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  3

  10

  8

  FHSA

  8 January

  15 January

  22 January

  29 January

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  10

  3

  FHSA

  5 February

  12 February

  19 February

  26 February

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Devon

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  4

  0

  216

  FHSA

  5 March

  12 March

  19 March

  26 March

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  1

  FHSA

  2 April

  9 April

  16 April

  23 April

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  Notes:

  Dentists who first de-registered patients between week ending 3 July 1992 and week ending 20 November 1992 are not included in this table, even if they de-registered patients between 21 November 1992 and 23 April 1993 since each dentist is only counted once on the first occasion he de-registered a patient. In the 68 FHSAs not included in this table, no dentist first de-registered a patient between 21 November 1992 and 23 April 1993.

  A small number of FHSAs have submitted revised figures. These amendments have been included in the cumulative totals but not in the weekly totals. The sum of the weekly totals does not therefore equal the cumulative total.

  Number of child patients deregistered Week ending 27 November 1992 to week ending 23 April 1993

  FHSA

  27 November

  4 December

  11 December

  18 December

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Humberside

  29

  0

  3

  2

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Norfolk

  14

  1

  0

  3

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  217

  FHSA

  27 November

  4 December

  11 December

  18 December

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  2

  1

  4

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  3

  7

  104

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  5

  4

  1

  2

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  2

  77

  16

  122

  23

  FHSA

  8 January

  15 January

  22 January

  29 January

  Cumbria

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Humberside

  7

  2

  0

  1

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Leeds

  8

  2

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  7

  0

  13

  0

  Suffolk

  3

  0

  7

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Kent

  0

  2

  2

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Lancashire

  4

  2

  5

  1

  Bolton

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  35

  22

  37

  13

  FHSA

  5 February

  12 February

  19 February

  26 February

  Cumbria

  8

  0

  1

  3

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Humberside

  1

  4

  2

  1

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  16

  2

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  3

  7

  0

  39

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  218

  FHSA

  5 February

  12 February

  19 February

  26 February

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Devon

  2

  0

  17

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  3

  2

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  29

  27

  43

  FHSA

  5 March

  12 March

  19 March

  26 March

  Cumbria

  2

  3

  0

  5

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  18

  5

  1

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Devon

  1

  5

  3

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Coventry

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  23

  6

  16

  FHSA

  2 April

  9 April

  16 April

  23 April

  Cumbria

  6

  2

  1

  0

  Durham

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  14

  2

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  219

  FHSA

  2 April

  9 April

  16 April

  23 April

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  6

  4

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  2

  3

  0

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27

  16

  5

  10

  Notes:

  (1) No patients have been deregistered in the 59 remaining FHSAs during this period.

  (2) A small number of FHSAs have submitted revised figures. These amendments have been included in the cumulative totals but not in the weekly totals. The sum of the weekly totals does not therefore equal the cumulative total

  Hospital Support Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts for contracted-out hospital support services have been affected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of dispensed drugs cost the national health service less than the current prescription charge; and what was the proportion in 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The prescription charge is not, and never has been, directly related either to the particular item prescribed or to the actual cost to the national health

  IVF data 1985–90

  Patients

  Cycles

  Transfers

  Pregnancies

  Live Births

  Preg rate/transfer

  Live birth/transfer

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1985

  3,717

  4,308

  3,032

  481

  364

  15·9

  12·0

  1986

  4,687

  7,043

  3,798

  754

  605

  19·9

  15·9

  11987

  7,488

  8,899

  5,592

  980

  760

  17·5

  13·6

  1988

  7,515

  10,489

  6,553

  1,354

  956

  20·7

  14·6

  1989

  8,790

  10,413

  7,363

  1,599

  1,157

  21·7

  15·7

  1990

  9,964

  11,583

  8,195

  2,004

  1,443

  24·4

  17·6

  1Excluding one large centre with incomplete data

  GIFT data 1987–90

  Patients

  Cycles

  Transfers

  Pregnancies

  Live births

  Preg. rate/cycle

  Preg. rate/transfer

  Live Birth rate/transfer

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1987

  2,288

  2,658

  —

  498

  —

  18·7

  —

  —

  1988

  2,840

  3,392

  2,899

  707

  —

  20·8

  24·4

  —

  1989

  2,581

  3,079

  2,584

  586

  361

  19

  22·7

  14·0

  1990

  2,332

  2,671

  2,179

  539

  358

  20·2

  24·7

  16·4

  Source: Statistical Analysis of the United Kingdom: IVF and GIFT Data 1985–90, Interim Licensing Authority, published June 1992.
  220
  service of dispensing it. It is an amount which successive Governments have thought it reasonable for those who can afford to do so to contribute towards the cost of NHS pharmaceutical services. In 1993–94, an estimated 50 per cent. of prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors will cost the NHS less than the prescription charge of £4·25. Data for 1979 are not available.

  Asthma
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the trend in the incidence of asthma in children.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available on trends for asthma occurrence in children in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is some evidence for a gradual increase in the incidence of asthma in children in England and Wales over recent years—weekly returns service of the Birmingham research unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1987–91. There is also some evidence that hospital admissions have increased over the last decade. Caution is required in assessing trend data from routine sources, because of changes over time in the data collection systems and in the likelihood of asthma being correctly diagnosed.

  In-vitro Fertilisation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-vitro fertilisation and gamete intrafallopian transfer treatments were carried out on the national health service and privately in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the total number of treatments given in the United Kingdom is shown in the tables. It cannot be broken down into categories requested.

  Infertility and Gynaecology Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) infertility units and (b) gynaecology units there were in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Age at adoption 1977–1991

  England and Wales

  Age

  All ages

  Under 1

  1–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–17

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1977

  12,748

  100

  2,945

  23

  3,002

  24

  4,185

  33

  2,192

  17

  424

  3

  1978

  12,121

  100

  2,816

  23

  2,593

  21

  3,996

  33

  2,225

  18

  491

  4

  1979

  10,870

  100

  2,649

  24

  2,183

  20

  3,572

  33

  2,013

  19

  453

  4

  1980

  10,609

  100

  2,599

  24

  2,090

  20

  3,414

  32

  2,041

  19

  465

  4

  1981

  9,284

  100

  2,365

  25

  1,910

  21

  2,784

  30

  1,823

  20

  402

  4

  1982

  10,240

  100

  2,177

  21

  2,162

  21

  3,197

  31

  2,151

  21

  553

  5

  1983

  9,029

  100

  1,962

  22

  2,094

  23

  2,651

  29

  1,832

  20

  490

  5

  1984

  18,648

  100

  1,836

  21

  1,935

  22

  2,605

  30

  1,728

  20

  526

  6

  1985

  27,615

  100

  1,605

  21

  1,645

  22

  2,261

  30

  1,625

  21

  454

  6

  1986

  37,892

  100

  1,572

  20

  1,748

  22

  2,349

  30

  1,652

  21

  495

  6

  1987

  47,201

  100

  1,333

  19

  1,694

  24

  2,164

  30

  1,462

  20

  495

  7

  1988

  57,390

  100

  1,235

  17

  1,975

  27

  2,231

  30

  1,415

  19

  453

  6

  1989

  67,044

  100

  1,115

  16

  1,875

  27

  2,244

  32

  1,331

  19

  458

  7

  1990

  76,533

  100

  969

  15

  1,871

  29

  2,099

  32

  1,197

  18

  392

  6

  1991

  7,171

  100

  895

  12

  2,071

  29

  2,409

  34

  1,381

  19

  415

  6

  1 Total includes 18 cases where age was not stated.

  2 Total includes 25 cases where age was not stated.

  3 Total includes 76 cases where age was not stated.

  4 Total includes 53 cases where age was not stated.

  5 Total includes 81 cases where age was not stated.

  6 Total includes 21 cases where age was not stated.

  7 Total includes 5 cases where age was greater than 17.

  Source: OPCS "Marriage and Divorce Statistics FM2".

  Pharmacists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the head of population per pharmacist for each European country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the average population per pharmacy for the countries of the EC. Hospital pharmacies are not included.

  Country

  Population per pharmacy

  Year

  Belgium

  1,738

  1987

  Denmark

  15,000

  1987

  Germany

  3,530

  1990

  Greece

  1,333

  1990

  Spain

  2,173

  1990

  France

  22,568

  1990

  Ireland

  3,120

  1990

  Italy

  23,752

  1989

  Luxembourg

  5,265

  1991

  Netherlands

  210,006

  1991

  Portugal

  4,000

  1991

  United Kingdom

  24,456

  1992

  Source:

  1 Commission of EC.

  2 Department of Health files.

  Adoptions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each age cohort were adopted in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is shown in the table drawn from "Marriage and Divorce Statistics Series FM2" published annually by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Infertility
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men, women and couples were treated for primary and secondary infertility in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many centres were licensed to provide artificial insemination by donor in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Centres which provide artificial insemination by donor have been licensed only since August 1991 when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority assumed its full powers under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. During the transitional period of one year from 1 August 1991, 85 such clinics were operating and applied to be licensed by the authority. Seventy-nine clinics in England are currently licensed by the authority.

  Ozone Levels
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has promoted into the impact of high concentration ozone levels on human health in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The advisory group on the medical aspects of air polluton episodes considered the evidence on
  223
  the medical effects of exposure to ground level ozone in its first report which was published in August 1991. Copies are available in the Library.

  The advisory group concluded that the ozone levels experienced in the United Kingdom, which are at their highest during hot weather, are unlikely to produce any permanent lung damage. The group made a number of recommendations for research, including basic research on the biochemical and cellular mechanisms involved in the effects of ozone on the lung; research on the effects of low concentrations of ozone upon man; and epidemiological studies on the possible relationship between exposure to air pollutants in general, and ozone in particular, on health. The Department has raised this with the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom.

  Mental Hospitals (Discharges)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish statistical details relating to the residence of persons who have been discharged from long-stay mental health beds and hospitals since 1986.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available in the form requested. Information is available on the pattern of destination of discharged patients in 1989–90 and is given in the Department of Health's "Government Response to the third report from the Health Committee Session 1990–91" para 45, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to promote sexual health initiatives with young people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", includes the challenging target to reduce the rate of conceptions amongst the under-16s by at least 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Measures which are effective in substantially reducing pregnancies in the under-16s can be expected to have a similar effect on unwanted pregnancies in the over-16s.

  A range of initiatives is underway both nationally and locally to support progress towards "The Health of the Nation" targets and objectives. Guidance to the national health service draws attention to the need for separate, less formal family planning services for young people, with staff experienced in dealing with the particular needs of this group and their problems. Progress in the NHS is being monitored. The family planning section of the HIV/AIDS and sexual health key area handbook, published by the Department in January 1993 and issued to all health authorities, focuses on the best ways of providing effective services, particularly for young people, and includes many examples of good practice. It also suggests that health authorities responsible for purchasing health care should consider commissioning at least two clinic sessions per week dedicated to young people. A copy is available in the Library.

  The White Paper makes clear that everyone—parents, health services, local authorities, the voluntary and
  224
  educational sectors and the Government—need to work together to achieve "The Health of the Nation" targets. We particularly welcome in this context my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's decision to issue last month for consultation a draft revised circular on sex education in schools.

  Grants have been awarded to enable voluntary organisations to carry forward projects related to the aims of "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. These organisations include the Family Planning Association and Brook Advisory Centres, which provide services directly to young people under 25. In addition to the provision of designated young people's health care services, there is a need for effective sexual health education programmes. With this in mind, a new three-year project grant has been awarded to the Sex Education Forum to facilitate the development of a centralised information network for all those involved in sex education.

  The Department will be looking further at ways in which the quality and range of family planning services may be developed and improved. This includes addressing issues such as training, the provision of better information for patients, and how best to meet the needs of young people.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sexual health targets are set by health authorities; and how these are decided.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper sets challenging targets for improvement in the key area of sexual health. National health service authorities are already acting to implement the recommendations in "First Steps for the NHS" and will be working with the National Health Service Management Executive to apply the national targets at regional and, where appropriate, district and family health service authority level.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in local authority care in each local authority in England during 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is not yet available about the numbers of children looked after at 31 March 1992 by individual local authorities. However, the Children Act Report 1992 contains estimated totals for England by legal status, including whether subject to a care order.

  The number of children who were in the care of each local authority in 1991 are given in "Children in Care of local authorities year ending 31 March 1991, England".

  Copies of the publications referred to are in the Library.

  Mental Health Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has funded to identify(a) contact with community mental teams, (b) residential accommodation and (c) unmet needs for long-stay patients in mental health hospitals, within each United Kingdom regional health authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  Responsibility for assessing the needs of mentally ill people rests with district health authorities and local authority social services departments. Department of
  225
  Health funded-research concerning community care for mentally ill people is included in "Community Care: Findings from Department of Health funded research 1988–1992", a copy of which is available in the Library. The national health service research and development programme supports several studies on services available to long-stay mentally ill patients, alternative accommodation and arrangements for discharge. This is being managed by the Yorkshire regional health authority, and the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, the chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current information available about surgical waiting lists in(a) Rochdale district health authority and (b) each of the regional health authorities in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional waiting list figures for each regional health authority at 31 December 1992 were published on 9 February 1993 in press release H93/547. Information on Rochdale health authority can be found in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England at 30 September 1992", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on achieving the commitments on waiting lists as laid out in the patients charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service has been extremely successful in meeting the waiting time commitments in the patient's charter. The latest provisional figures show that there are no patients waiting two years or more for in-patient or day case treatment in any region. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 4 May, at 31 March 1993 there were no patients waiting more than 18 months for a hip

  Actuals

  Projected

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  0·001

  —

  —

  0·002

  Horticultural Development Council

  0·011

  0·020

  0·015

  0·012

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  0·026

  0·051

  0·072

  n/a

  Horticulture Research International

  0·510

  4·370

  8·090

  12·270

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  1·380

  1·264

  1·264

  1·645

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  0·011

  0·019

  0·023

  0·026

  Potato Marketing Board

  0·316

  1·104

  1·767

  n/a

  Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

  1·600

  1·900

  2·100

  0·900

  Cash prices

  3·855

  8·728

  13·331

  14·855

  1992–93 prices

  4·260

  9·033

  13·331

  Note: n/a = not available.

  Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what definitions he uses of near-market, strategic and basic research with respect to the activities of each non-departmental public body currently in receipt of funds from his Ministry.

  Mr. Gummer
  All research and development funded by my Department is categorised according to the definitions
  226
  replacement or cataract operation and only eight patients waiting more than 18 months for a knee replacement operation.

  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to compensate tranquilliser addiction patients; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what services are available within the NHS for treatment and counselling for those affected by tranquilliser addiction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: We have no plans to compensate such patients. Health authorities, including family health services authorities, are responsible for ensuring that a range of services are available to meet the needs of people who wish to withdraw from tranquillisers. These are provided by both primary care teams and the secondary care sector, and include counselling, withdrawal therapy and the gradual replacement of tranquillisers by non-prescribing interventions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Capital Investment
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the planned capital investment in cash and real terms by(a) Government and (b) private sources in each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Ministry and engaged in research, for each year since 1978 and the proposed expenditure for the next three years beginning 1993.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information that is available on capital investment by the relevant bodies without incurring disproportionate cost is as follows. The data cannot be divided between Government and private sources.

  of the "Frascati Manual"—the measurement of scientific and technical activities—published by the OECD, Paris 1981. The manual identifies three types of research and development work—basic research, applied research and experimental development. Applied research may have either strategic or specified aims and be subdivided accordingly.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the cost to non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Ministry of
  227
  the 1992 devaluation of the pound sterling as this affects funding sourced from international subscriptions; and what changes have been made to research programme budgets in consequence.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have made no such estimates and I am not aware of any such costs.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Government-funded research stations relating to(a) agriculture, (b) horticulture and (c) food have either closed or been lost through amalgamation since 1978; and how many jobs in (i) research and scientific grades and (ii) other grades were shed as a consequence of each closure each year.

  Mr. Gummer
  The numbers of Government-funded research stations which have closed or amalgamated since 1978 are as follows:

  Stations relating to:

  Closed

  Amalgamated

  Agriculture

  10

  11

  Horticulture

  5

  8

  Food

  2

  1

  Statistics on job losses are not held centrally in the form requested, nor are they monitored site by site in every instance. Moreover, some losses will have arisen for other reasons and some staff will have been redeployed by parent organisations

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government's investment plans with respect to agriculture, horticulture and food research for each year until 1996.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's estimates of proposed expenditure on agriculture, horticulture and food research are £123·9 million in 1994–95 and £126·4 million in 1995–96.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was total Government expenditure and non-departmental external expenditure in agriculture, horticulture and food research for each year since 1978 in cash and real terms; and what proportion of the total funding requirement of non-departmental research bodies linked to his Ministry has been met from external non-governmental sources since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have given details of total Government expenditure on agriculture, horticulture and food research in response to another of the hon. Member's questions. Comprehensive information is not available on non-departmental external expenditure. The amount of funding met from external non-governmental sources as a proportion of the total research and development budget for the non-departmental research bodies linked to my Department is as follows.

  External non-governmental funding as a proportion (per cent.) of total R&D budget.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Horticultural Development Council

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  48·3

  55·3

  55·0

  228

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Horticulture Research International

  23·6

  22·6

  23·9

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  68·0

  36·2

  33·2

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew)

  0·7

  2·4

  5·1

  Potato Marketing Board

  90·0

  93·8

  97·1

  Comparable figures for years before 1990–91 are not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the policy underlying the current research programmes and how each programme ranks in terms of the priority he attaches to them.

  Mr. Gummer
  Research is undertaken to support the Ministry's aims which are to protect the public, to improve the economic performance of the agriculture, fishing and food industries, enhance the rural and marine environment, prevent flooding and coastal erosion and protect farmed animals and fish.

  The Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food advises Agriculture Ministers and the chairman of the Agriculture and Food Research Council on priorities for research and development and the allocation of research and development budgets. The board's recommendations guide the allocation of resources in the research and development programme.

  Research and development strategy documents for agriculture and food are published by the Ministry. These are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research establishments and projects which have received funding from either the Agriculture Research Council or Horticulture International in the last year; and if he will list the amounts involved.

  Mr. Gummer
  Horticulture Research International is not a funding body. The research establishments which received funding from the Agricultural and Food Research Council in the last year, together with the amounts involved, are as follows:

  £ million

  Institute for Animal Health

  12·58

  Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research

  14·01

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  8·34

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  12·35

  Horticulture Research International

  2·57

  Institute of Plant Science Research

  9·67

  Institute of Food Research

  12·73

  Silsoe Research Institute

  5·34

  In addition, the Agricultural and Food Research Council's research grant expenditure with universities and other academic institutes amounted to £23·71 million.

  Information on individual projects can be found in the AFRC handbook, copies of which are available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many personnel were employed in
  229
  (a)agriculture, (b)horticulture and (c)food research in (i) research and scientific grades and (ii) other grades, in each area in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  Staffing statistics are not kept on the basis requested and so the information is not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research programmes since 1990 which have been subject to a cut in funding by 5 or more per cent. and those programmes which have been cancelled, including those which were never brought on stream.

  Mr. Gummer
  The level of funding by my Department is kept under constant review both during each year and from year to year, in order to make the best possible use of available resources. Changes in the funding of individual research programmes are an inevitable consequence of this policy. Details of expenditure by my Department, both increases and decreases, for individual research programmes since 1991–92 are given in the table. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Research group

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million1

  (a) Horticulture, Plant Protection and Agricultural Resources Policy Group

  8·3

  9·7

  10·5

  (b) Arable Crops and Alcoholic Drinks Group

  3·8

  3·9

  4·5

  (c) Meat Group

  6·1

  6·3

  6·7

  (d) Pesticides, Veterinary Medicines and Emergencies Group

  22·2

  23·5

  21·6

  (e) Animal Health and Veterinary Group

  19·9

  20·8

  22·0

  (f) Chief Scientist's Group (Agriculture and Horticulture)

  5·8

  7·9

  7·8

  (g) Environmental Policy Group

  12·9

  13·1

  13·5

  (h) Food, Drink and Marketing Policy Group

  3·8

  4·5

  5·9

  (i) Food Safety Group

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  (j) Land Use Conservation and Rural Economy Group

  2·9

  3·7

  5·8

  (k) Food Science Group

  18·4

  18·3

  21·2

  (l) Aquatic Environment, Salmon whaling and inland fisheries, conservation of sea fish stock; fish farming and shellfish production

  8·3

  8·9

  9·1

  1 Estimate.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations in the(a) public and (b) private sectors to which the Government make funds available for research with respect to agriculture, horticulture and food.

  Mr. Gummer
  A record of the organisations to which the Government make funds available for agriculture, horticulture and food research is not kept centrally. My Department, however, contracts research mainly with the following categories of research organisations:

  Research Councils

  Other Government Departments

  Higher Education Institutions

  Private industries and companies

  Public companies and corporations

  Research Associations, Authorities, Boards and Commissions

  230

  Non-industrial Research Institutes

  MAFF Agencies, ie ADAS, Central Science Laboratory, Central Veterinary Laboratory

  MAFF's Food Science Laboratory

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total Government expenditure for agriculture, horticulture and food research for each year since 1978 in cash and real terms; and what funding is to be made available to the Agriculture and Food Research Council and Horticulture Research International for the five years beginning 1993.

  Mr. Gummer
  Government funding for research and development on agriculture, horticulture and food is mainly directed through the Agricultural and Food Research Council—AFRC—the Scottish Office Agriculture and Food Department and the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and my own Department. Expenditure on such research from these sources is given in the table, in cash and real terms:

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms1

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  191·8

  290·2

  1985–86

  190·3

  273·0

  1986–87

  192·7

  267·6

  1987–88

  190·9

  251·5

  1988–89

  203·2

  249·6

  1989–90

  210·6

  242·6

  1990–91

  239·7

  255·5

  1991–92

  247·8

  247·8

  1992–93

  273·7

  264·4

  1993–94

  288·2

  271·1

  1 using the GDP inflator (1991–92 = 100)

  A number of other Government bodies fund research into agriculture, horticulture and food but figures on their expenditure are not held centrally.

  The amount of funding made available to AFRC from the science budget of the Office of Science and Technology and from my Department amounts to £145 million in 1993–94. Funding available to Horticulture Research International amounts to £13·5 million in 1993–94. The allocation of funds in future years will be notified to the AFRC and HRI as soon as decisions have been reached.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was Government expenditure in nominal and real terms for each year since 1978 for research into(a) the relationship between farming and the environment, (b) organic farming, (c) whole crop utilisation and novel crops including alternative uses for arable crops, (d) raising the productive potential of the principal agricultural commodities, (e) food safety and (f) animal welfare.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information regarding Government expenditure is given in the table. Details of expenditure are available for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 only. The spend for 1993–94 has yet to be finalised. Prior to 1991–92 the data were not recorded in the required format and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.
  231

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cash

  Real terms1

  Cash

  Real terms1

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  (a) Farming and environment

  56·6

  56·5

  63·9

  61·7

  (b) Organic farming

  1·0

  1·0

  1·2

  1·1

  (c) Whole crop utilisation

  4·2

  4·2

  4·8

  4·6

  (d) Plant and animal breeding and genetics

  25·0

  25·0

  21·4

  20·7

  (e) Food safety

  11·5

  11·5

  14·5

  14·0

  (f) Animal welfare

  6·6

  6·6

  7·6

  7·3

  1 Using GDP deflator (1991–92= 100).

  Notes

  The data presented are of direct relevance to the topic areas identified. Other research work, not included here, also touches upon these areas and is of indirect relevance.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the total expenditure of his Ministry for each year since April 1991 and over the next three years is accounted for by research and development projects aimed at reducing the cost of the common agricultural policy to the consumer and to public funds.

  Mr. Gummer
  The question is not answerable in the terms in which it is posed. Reduction in the cost of the CAP is an objective which pervades a very wide range of MAFF's policies, many of which are supported by research and development programmes.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of his Ministry's research funds for each year since 1978 has been expanded on(a) pure and (b) applied projects.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I have indicated in response to another of the hon. Member's questions, my Department's research funds are classified by the definitions of the "Frascati Manual" and details are set out in the table.

  Year

  Basic research

  Applied strategic

  Research specific

  Experimental development

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  6·4

  20·7

  46·5

  45·8

  119·4

  1985–86

  4·5

  38·1

  43·1

  32·7

  118·4

  1986–87

  4·9

  34·9

  43·3

  35·2

  118·3

  1987–88

  5·5

  32·5

  42·1

  33·7

  113·8

  1988–89

  5·7

  41·5

  40·7

  26·3

  114·2

  1989–90

  6·3

  45·0

  48·6

  12·2

  112·1

  1990–91

  8·6

  47·9

  51·0

  11·6

  119·1

  1991–92

  10·6

  54·4

  54·9

  1·6

  121·5

  n/a =not available

  Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are currently employed in research work by the Central Science Laboratory; and what is his projection for the number to be employed when relocation is complete on a single site in York.
  232
  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Central Science Laboratory and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 6 May 1993:
  The Central Science Laboratory currently employs 266 staff engaged on research and development work.
  It was announced by the Minister on 31 March that the Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Torry will merge with the Central Science Laboratory to form an enlarged Agency which will come into operation on 1 April 1994. There are no plans at present, however, to relocate any of the Norwich or Torry staff to Yorkshire.
  My projection for the number of research staff to be employed in Yorkshire in the financial year 1997–98, when relocation will be complete, is 265.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the relationship between the Central Science Laboratory work and that of non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department; and if he will list the projects on which the Central Science Laboratory is currently engaged.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Central Science Laboratory and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 6 May 1993:
  The Central Science Laboratory is involved in collaborative research with the Agricultural and Food Research Council's Institute of Arable Crops Research.
  The projects on which the Central Science Laboratory is currently engaged are:

  Studies in resistance in crop pests,

  Effects of pesticides on beneficial insects,

  Barley yellow dwarf virus in Autumn and Winter, Seed weevil and pod midge.

  Postgraduate Students
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Ministry's postgraduate studentships in agriculture and food studies for the academic year beginning 1 October 1991 directly covered or related substantially to(a) the relationship between farming and the environment, (b) organic farming, (c) whole crop utilisation and novel crops

  233
  including alternative uses for arable crops, (d)raising the productive potential of the principal agricultural commodities, (e)food safety and (f)animal welfare.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of postgraduate research studentships awarded by my Department in these areas in the academic year beginning I October 1991 was as follows:

  Number

  (a) relationship between farming and the environment

  12

  (b) organic farming

  1

  (c) whole crop utilisation and novel crops including alternative uses for arable crops

  —

  (d) raising the production potential of the principal agricultural commodities

  23

  (e) food safety

  7

  (f) animal welfare

  6

  Horticulture Research Institute
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce legislation to merge the Horticulture Research Institute into a single organisational structure; and what is the Horticulture Research Institute's present organisational status within his Ministry.

  Mr. Gummer
  Horticulture Research International already operates as a single organisational structure. It integrates under single management the staff and facilities of the former Institute of Horticultural Research of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the former experimental horticulture stations of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. It is a next steps non-departmental public body sponsored by my Department and governed by a management statement. Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to establish Horticulture Research International as a statutory corporation and to transfer seconded staff to its direct employment.

  EC Agriculture Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of 28 April,Official Report, column 409, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Agriculture Council held on 26 and 27 April.

  Mr. Curry
  The following decisions were adopted unanimously:

  ending of the milk co-responsibility levy;

  extension of support prices for dried fodder and cauliflowers by one month;

  permission for Portugal to introduce a national aid for wine distillation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployed People (Travelling Expenses)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum daily travelling expenses that can be claimed by unemployed people who participate in job search seminars or in job review workshops when they travel by(a) public transport or (b)
  234
  private transport; what entitlement participants in both schemes have to travel expenses to enable them to attend the follow-up support sessions that are provided by the seminars and workshops; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter, from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 6 Mar 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about travel expenses for participants who attend job search seminars and Job Review Workshops. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Both programmes arc of short duration, normally lasting two full days with some additional follow up. They are designed to help short term unemployed people find work more quickly. The seminars and workshops are run by organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, under contract to the Employment Service. As I explained in my earlier reply of 14 April, people who attend arc paid their travelling expenses to the main sessions and to the follow up events. This is done by the programme providers who re-imburse participants the cost of travelling from their homes to the seminar or Workshop. The providers then recover this money from the Employment Service.
  Participants are expected to travel by the most cost effective mode of transport, normally standard class public transport. If participants prefer to use their own car or motorcycle they are paid a mileage allowance of 16p per mile provided this is cost effective, for example, where public transport is poor or there is good reason to use a vehicle. Otherwise if they choose to use their own transport they will receive the equivalent public transport cost.
  People with a disability problem which affects their mobility may claim travelling expenses at the mileage rate if they wish to use their own private vehicle. They may also be re-imbursed parking fees. Taxi fares will also be paid where a person's disability prevents them using either public transport or private vehicle.
  There is no upper limit laid down which states the maximum daily travelling allowance that can be claimed by participants. There is however a network of job search seminar and Job Review Workshop provision throughout the country and we would expect people to be offered places at a convenient location.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the total labour force, the numbers unemployed and the numbers self-employed and employed in manufacturing and service sectors by standard industrial classification of the employment source in(a) 1963, (b) 1974, (c) 1979 and (d) the most recent period for which information is available; and what were the percentage changes in each sector between each of those successive dates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have been in continuous employment in the same job for (i) six

  235
  months, (ii) one year, (iii) two years, (iv) three years, (v) four years and (vi) five years; and what is the breakdown of the figures between manufacturing industry and the retail trades.

  Great Britain, Autumn 1992 not seasonally adjusted.

  Thousands

  All in Employment

  Manufacturing industry

  Retail trade

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  6 months or more

  12,484

  9,885

  3,471

  1,307

  976

  1,438

  1 year or more

  11,737

  9,090

  3,288

  1,213

  895

  1,296

  2 years or more

  10,585

  7,793

  3,012

  1,070

  762

  1,052

  5 years or more

  7,431

  4,716

  2,118

  632

  467

  571

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the latest figures for employment of people with disabilities, as a proportion of the total work force, for(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector, and for employment classifications within these sectors; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the 1993–94 budget for each training and enterprise council in England.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Regional offices of the training, enterprise and education directorate are currently finalising contracts with training and enterprise councils for 1993–94 budgets and the information is not yet available.

  It has been decided that TEC level information should be released publicly only six months after the beginning of the contracting year. The information must remain commercially confidential while TECs are negotiating with their providers. The information requested on allocations for 1993–94 will therefore be publicly available on 1 October 1993.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she will publish the draft TEC operating agreement for 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A copy of the TEC operating agreement for 1993–94 is available in the Library.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to allow training and enterprise councils three-year plans for funding and planning and for arranging provision for training managers locally; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: Subject to the money being voted by Parliament, each training and enterprise council is guaranteed a minimum level of funding for the main adult programmes and their local initiative fund over three years. This should allow TECs to plan local provision with confidence.

  Training
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to extend training credit schemes to adults.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The use of training credits within adult training programmes is already being tested by a
  236
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information on length of time in current job based on the labour force survey is given in the table:

  number of training and enterprise councils. TECs were informed last November that they were free to deliver training for work through adult credit systems. The Government policy is to encourage TECs to consider adult credits in appropriate circumstances.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many sites have been exempted from regulation 3 of the Public Information for Radiation Emergency Regulations 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No sites are exempted from regulation 3 of the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulation 1992—PIRER. In fact, there are no powers to exempt employers from regulation 3 of PIRER except for that provided under regulation 5 which is vested in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and can be exercised only in the interest of national security.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list each incident in the United Kingdom since 1963 that would have qualified as a radiation emergency if regulation 2 of the Public Information for Radiation Emergency Regulations 1992 had been in force.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is thought that there have not been any incidents in the United Kingdom since 1963 that would have qualified as a radiation emergency under regulation 2 of the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992. However, it is not possible to provide the information required to verify this without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes have occurred in the past year in the way that unemployment figures are administratively processed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The basis of the monthly unemployment statistics produced by the Employment Department remains as it has been since October 1982: a count of the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits at Employment Service local offices on the day of the count.
  237

  Law Students
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether students taking bar finals and Law Society finals are eligible for the career development loans scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Career development loans—CDLs—can and are being used to fund individuals taking their bar and Law Society finals. The participating banks may issue suitable clients with CDLs which support up to 12 months of study, including 12 months of a longer course. In addition training and enterprise councils may sponsor applications for up to two years of study.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the percentage quota of disabled people employed by each local area authority in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Tables showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of individual employers in the public sector, including local authorities, are published annually in Employment Gazette. The figures are published with the agreement of the employers concerned. The latest available figures, which relate to 1 June 1992, are in the April 1993 Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local authorities in England and Wales have met the 3 per cent. quota of disabled workers set out in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 6 May 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the number of local authorities in England and Wales who have employed a three per cent. Quota of disabled people in each year since 1979. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information you requested is set out in the attached table.
  The information relates to 1 June each year and is taken from data published in the Employment Gazette in respect of individual employers in the public sector.
  However, the figures do not give a complete picture of the extent to which people with disabilities are employed by local authorities. Quota figures reflect only the employment of people with disabilities who chose to register under the 1944 legislation. Many eligible people with disabilities are not registered.
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  238

  England and Wales Number of local authorities employing at least 3 per cent, registered disabled people

  Year

  Number

  1979

  64

  1980

  63

  1981

  51

  1982

  44

  1983

  41

  1984

  43

  1985

  36

  1986

  33

  1987

  30

  1988

  31

  1989

  23

  1990

  22

  1991

  13

  1992

  15

  Health and Safety
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the complement of the inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of planned staffing to I April 1994 in the Health and Safety Executive are contained in the "Health and Safety Commission Plan of Work 1993–94 and beyond" due to be published shortly. This will indicate that the number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive is planned to rise from 1,532 at 1 April 1993 to 1,685 at 1 April 1994.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average duration of a low-flying sortie by a fast jet.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately 45 minutes.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of periods of covert monitoring of low-flying operations conducted by Royal Air Force police since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1987 the RAF police have carried out covert surveys at the following locations over the following periods.

  Date and location

  1987

  16–18 March—Banham Zoo

  7–9 April—Penrith, Morpeth and Amble

  14–15 April—Pickering and Jedburgh

  1 June—Peterborough

  7–8 July—Redmile

  21–24 July—Dumfries and Galloway

  21–24 July—Builth Wells

  4–6 August—Grindleford Bridge

  4–6 August—Alnwick

  5 August—Haltwhistle

  11–12 August—Leighton Hall, Carnforth

  13–14 August—Castle Farm, Devon

  19–20 August—Haxby

  15–17 September—Scarborough

  21–25 September—Ettrick

  14–18 March—Amble

  25–28 April—Quedgeley and Hardwicke

  239

  26–27 April—Braunston

  7 June—Farndon

  14–16 June—Crediton

  21–23 June—Kidwelly

  22 June—Tumble

  27–29 June—Stonehouse

  28–30 June—Keswick

  12 July—Hexham

  12 July—Holmc on Spalding Moor

  18–21 July—Builth Wells

  26–27 July—Machynlleth

  23–25 August—Morpeth

  6–8 September—Halesworth

  11–13 October—Melrose

  18–20 October—Milford Haven

  Late October/early November—Redburn

  15–17 November—Newark/Farndon

  6–9 February—Upper Chute, Hampshire

  25–27 April—Liskeard, Cornwall

  2–4 May—Gloucester

  8–11 May—Blencarn, Cumbria

  15–19 May—Wigtown, Dunfries and Galloway

  22–26 May—Haddington, Lothian

  26–30 June—Knaresborough, North Yorkshire (Skyguard deployment)

  24–27 July—Earl Shilton, Leicestershire

  24–27 July—Market Bosworth, Leicestershire

  31 July-4 August-Penrith, Cumbria (Skyguard deployment)

  26–27 September—Glan Conwy, Gwynedd

  3–5 October—Alnwick, Northumberland(Skyguard deployment)

  30 January-1 February—Machynlleth, Powys

  5–9 March—Wetheral, Cumbria

  25–28 March—Llanrhidian, West Glamorgan

  26–30 March—Hereford

  26–30 March—Alnwick area, Northumberland Kelso area, Borders (Skyguard deployment)

  15–17 May—Melrose, Borders

  22–24 May—Inverness and Dingwall, Highlands

  25–28 June—St. Mary's Loch, Borders

  10–13 July—Glastonbury/Shepton Mallet, Somerset (Skyguard deployment)

  17–20 September—Grange over Sands, Cumbria (Skyguard deployment)

  1–2 October—Richmond, North Yorkshire (Skyguard deployment)

  3–4 October—Leerning, North Yorkshire (Skyguard deployment)

  15–18 October—Cosford, Warwickshire

  13–15 November—Peterborough, Cambridgeshire (Skyguard deployment)

  23–25 April—Richmond/Barnard Castle, North Yorkshire (Skyguard deployment)

  14–16 May—Chatteris, Cambridgeshire

  4–6 June—Brough, Humberside

  Exercise name

  Exercise dates

  Exercise location

  1987

  Gryphon's Gunner

  6 March

  Lincolnshire

  Polar Dawn III

  7–8 March

  Norfolk

  Key Lift 87

  7–15 March

  North Yorkshire

  Quicksand

  15–22 March

  Many areas with centre on Northumberland

  Mallet Blow 87/1

  6–10 April

  Northern England/Borders

  Priory 87/1

  13–15 April

  Cumbria/Lincolnshire/North East England/ Eastern Scotland

  Ardent/Ground

  20 April to 10 May

  Salisbury Plain

  Grand Design

  25 April to 17 May

  Salisbury Plain

  Hammer 87/1

  19 May

  East Anglia/Northern England/Southern Scotland

  Central Enterprise 87

  1 June

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/North East England/ Scotland

  OSEX 14

  20–24 July

  South West Scotland

  240

  1–4 July—South Wales Powys (Skyguard deployment)

  16–18 July—Northumberland, Morpeth (Skyguard deployment)

  22–25 July—Builth Wells, Powys

  5–8 August—Hebden Bridge, North Yorkshire

  20–22 August—Auldgrith, Dumfries and Galloway

  9–12 September—Great Torrington, Devon

  23–26 September—Keswick/Kendal, Cumbria

  14–17 October—Hexham, Northumberland

  22–24 October—Cley/Stiffkey, Norfolk (Skyguard deployment)

  4–7 November—Cumbernauld, South Clyde

  18–21 November—Melrose, Borders

  21–23 January—Market Rasen, Lincolnshire

  10–13 February—East Fortune, Lothian (Skyguard deployment)

  9–12 March—Duns, Berwickshire (Skyguard deployment)

  10–12 March—Oakford, Devon

  6–9 April—Newton Stewart, Dumfries and Galloway

  7–9 April—Carmarthen, Dyfed (Skyguard deployment)

  28–30 April—Malton, North Yorkshire

  5–7 May—Carlisle, Cumbria

  18–21 May—Dumfries (Skyguard deployment)

  8–11 June—Forest of Dean, Gloucester and Hope Under Dinmore, Hereford and Worcester (Skyguard deployment)

  29 June 2 July—Beverley/Linley Hill Aerodrome, Humberside (Skyguard deployment)

  11–14 August—East Anstey, Tiverton, Devon

  21–24 September—King's Lynn, Norfolk

  21–24 September—Conan Bridge, Firth, Highlands (Skyguard deployment)

  6–7 October—Norwich, Norfolk

  3–5 November—Llanyyold, North Wales

  17–18 November—Market Deeping, Lincolnshire (Skyguard deployment)

  24–26 November—Morpeth, Northumberland

  22–26 February—Cockermouth, Cumbria (Skyguard deployment)

  22–25 February—Ingleton, North Yorkshire

  2–4 March—Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Avon

  15–18 March—Stafford

  29 March–1 April—Belford, Berwickshire

  26–30 April—Hereford (Skyguard deployment)

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, dates and locations of all low-flying exercises conducted in each year since 1987, where advance notice was given to hon. Members in affected constituences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In each year since 1987, notice of the following exercises has been given to hon. Members whose constituencies were likely to experience unusual low-flying activity:
  241

  Exercise name

  Exercise dates

  Exercise location

  Roaring Lion

  24–31 July

  Many areas with centre on Salisbury Plain

  Mallet Blow 87/2

  3–7 August

  Northern England/Borders

  Fast Buzzard

  18–25 September

  Many areas with centre on Salisbury Plain

  Hammer 87/2

  6 October

  Northern England/Southern Scotland

  Priory 87/2

  13–15 October

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/North East England/ Eastern Scotland

  Mallet Blow 87/3

  2–6 November

  Northern England/Borders

  Puple Warrior

  4–21 November

  South West Scotland

  1988

  Key Lift 88

  5–13 March

  North Yorkshire

  Mallet Blow 88/1

  14–18 March

  Northern England/Borders

  Red Lanyard

  9–12 April

  Many areas with centre on Salisbury Plain

  Elder Forest 88

  18–21 April

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/Northern England/ Eastern Scotland

  Hammer 88/1

  10 May

  Northern England/Southern Scotland

  OSEX 15

  16–20 May

  Wales

  Roaring Lion

  20–26 May

  Many areas centred on Northumberland

  Central Enterprise

  6 June

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/Northern England/ Eastern Scotland

  Fast Buzzard

  13–24 July

  Many areas centred on Salisbury Plain

  Mallet Blow 88/2

  25–29 July

  Northern England/Borders

  Green Lanyard

  1–8 October

  Many areas with centre on South West Wales

  Elder Joust 88

  4–6 October

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/North Eastern England/South Eastern Scotland

  Hammer 88/2

  11-October

  East Anglia/Northern England/Southern Scotland

  1989

  Red Lanyard

  17–23 February

  Many areas centred on Norfolk

  Mallet Blow 89/1

  3–7 April

  Northern England/Borders

  Salty Hammer 89

  9 May

  Northern England/Southern Scotland

  Equipment Trial

  25 April-19 May

  Northern England/Borders

  OSEX 16

  10–19 May

  Wales

  Blue Lanyard 89

  1–7 June

  Many areas centred on Norfolk

  Roaring Lion

  11–26 July

  Many areas centred on Salisbury Plain

  Mallet Blow 89/2

  31 July-4 August

  Northern England and Borders

  Elder Joust/Arc

  3–5 October

  Many areas of United Kingdom

  Northern Crusade

  11–19 October

  Many areas centred on Borders

  1990

  Red Lanyard 1/90

  21–28 March

  Many areas centred on Norfolk

  Mallet Blow 90/1

  26–30 March

  Northern England and Borders

  Elder Forest

  23–27 April

  Many areas of United Kingdom

  Stone Warrior

  12–24 May

  South West England centred on Salisbury Plain

  Eagles Eye

  14–25 May

  East Anglia

  Salty Hammer

  22 May

  Northern England and Southern Scotland

  OSEX 90

  2–13 July

  Wales

  Red Lanyard 2/90

  18–27 July

  Many areas centred on South West Scotland and Norfolk

  Mallet Blow 90/2

  30 July-3 August

  Northern England and Borders

  Border fox

  17–21 September

  Borders

  1991

  Lanyard 2

  4–12 March

  Wales

  Elder Joust

  22–25 April

  Northern England

  Joint Maritime Course

  30 May-8 June

  South West England

  Highland Cardinal

  24–28 June

  Wales

  OSEX

  1–5 July

  Wales

  Mallet Blow

  15–19 July

  Northumberland

  Elder Joust

  10–12 September

  Scottish Borders

  North Star

  10–12 September

  Scottish Borders

  1992

  Elder Forest

  9–13 March

  Northern England

  Teamwork

  9–13 March

  Northern England

  Highland Cardinal

  11–15 May

  Wales

  Salty Hammer

  12–13 May

  Northern England

  Pegasus Fury

  12–28 May

  Salisbury Plain

  OSEX

  18–22 May

  Wales

  Joint Maritime Course

  2–11 June

  Northern Scotland

  Lanyard 3

  8–21 July

  East Anglia

  Gryphon's Flight

  1–10 August

  Salisbury Plain

  Northern Banner

  7–11 September

  Northern England

  Winged Crusader

  1–14 October

  Scottish Borders

  Joint Maritime Course

  2–16 November

  Northern Scotland

  Salty Hammer

  4–5 November

  Northern England

  242 243

  Exercise name

  Exercise dates

  Exercise location

  1993

  Joint Maritime Course

  8–18 February

  Northern Scotland

  Lanyard 4

  17–25 February

  East Anglia

  Northern Banner

  22–26 February

  Northern England

  Exercise Mini Hammer

  3–4 March

  Northumberland

  Gryphon's Lift

  21–28 April

  East Anglia

  Lanyard 5

  12–21 May

  Northumberland

  1 Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom and Tornado.

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours in each year since 1987 for(a) Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft and (b) all British military fast jet aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Major accident rates per 10,000 flying hours—fast jets1

  Year

  RAF

  All Services

  1987

  0·99

  1·02

  1988

  0·86

  0·82

  1989

  0·59

  0·77

  1990

  0·72

  0·76

  1991

  0·83

  0·87

  1992

  0·26

  0·35

  Date

  Service

  Location

  Aircraft type lost/severely damaged

  1991

  8 January

  RAF

  Cyprus

  Phantom

  10 January

  Army

  Saudi Arabia

  Gazelle

  13 January

  RAF

  Oman

  Tornado GR1

  16 January

  Royal Navy

  Prcdannack, Cornwall

  Gazelle

  20 January

  RAF

  Saudi Arabia

  Tornado GR1

  13 February

  Army

  Northern Ireland

  Lynx

  19 February

  Army

  United States of America

  Scout

  24 February

  Army

  Saudi Arabia

  Lynx

  18 March

  RAF

  RAF Wyton, Cambridgeshire

  Canberra

  1 May

  RAF

  Tern Hill, Shropshire

  Gazelle

  10 May

  RAF

  Near Bremen, Germany

  Tornado GRI

  10 May

  Royal Navy

  Near Chepstow, Gwent

  Sea Harrier

  29 May

  RAF

  Near Gutersloh, Germany

  Harrier

  1 June

  Royal Navy

  Bangladesh

  Sea King

  3 June

  Army

  Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire

  Gazelle

  24 June

  RAF

  At sea, Straits of Dover

  Puma

  29 August

  RAF

  Carno, Powys

  Jaguar

  10 September

  Royal Navy

  West of Shetland Islands

  Sea King

  11 September

  RAF

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  Hurricane

  12 September

  RAF

  Bristol Channel

  Tornado GRI

  25 September

  RAF

  Near Driffield, Humberside

  Harrier

  30 September

  RAF

  RAF Gutersloh, Germany

  Harrier

  15 October

  RAF

  RAF Odiham, Hampshire

  Chinook

  30 October

  RAF

  Falkland Islands

  Phantom

  30 October

  Army

  Northern Ireland

  Gazelle

  14 November

  Army

  Northern Ireland

  Lynx

  1992

  15 February

  Royal Navy

  At sea, off North West Scotland

  Hunter

  12 May

  Army

  Germany

  Lynx

  12 May

  RAF

  Near Lossiemouth, Scotland

  Tucano

  14 May

  RAF

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  Harrier

  21 May

  RAF

  Belize

  Puma

  28 May

  Royal Navy

  At sea, near Crete

  Sea Harrier

  9 July

  RAF

  North Sea

  Buccaneer

  7 August

  RAF

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  Harrier

  22 September

  RAF

  Irish Sea

  Sea King

  30 September

  RAF

  RAF Chivenor, Devon

  Hawk

  16 October

  RAF

  Northern Ireland

  Bulldog

  26 November

  Army/RAF

  Northern Ireland

  Gazelle/Puma

  244
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of all air misses since 1989 in which a military aircraft breached an area notified under the civil aircraft notification procedure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only incident was:

  Date, Location and Aircraft Involved

  8 April 1992–16 nautical miles South West of Thurso—Tornado GRI/Jet Ranger.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location and type of each major accident involving British military aircraft in(a) 1991 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  245

  Date

  Service

  Location

  Aircraft type lost/severely damaged

  30 November

  Army

  Cyprus

  Gazelle

  15 December

  Army

  Germany

  Gazelle

  Note:1991 does not include the six aircraft lost on missions over Iraq during hostilities in the Gulf

  HMS Eaglet
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of HMS Eaglet and the Royal Naval Reserve in Liverpool.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 20 April,Official Report, columns 169–70, and to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) on 20 April, Official Report, column 54.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage increase in the cost of licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land in 1991–92; and when the cost of licences was previously increased.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Each licence issued by my Department is costed separately. The total amount received by my Department for these licences in 1991–92 was £729·85 which represent an increase of some 973 per cent. over the amount received in 1990–91. The charge for individual licences are reviewed at different times.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas designated as sites of special scientific interest where his Department has issued a licence to hunt.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has issued licences to hunt on the following areas which include sites of special scientific interest.

  Otterburn, Northumberland1

  Ash Brookwood Heaths, Surrey

  Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths, Berkshire/Surrey

  Thursley Hankley and Frensham, Surrey

  Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire

  Basingstoke Canal Eelmoor, Hampshire

  Colony Bog and Bagshot Heath, Surrey

  Conford Moor, Hampshire

  Woolmer Forest, Hampshire

  1 The Otterburn Training Area includes 10 sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Army personnel from the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, are permitted to hunt in duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, are permitted to take part in beagling in duty hours, which is a recognised Army sport.

  Costs
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the charges for personnel from non-mounted units to use Ministry of Defence horses and equipment were last reviewed; when they were last increased; and whether the charges reflect the full economic cost to his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The charges for personnel from non-mounted units for the use of Ministry of Defence horses and equipment were last reviewed in October 1992 following an increase in July 1991. The charges are set so as to recover the additional costs involved.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefings were given in the first three months of last year by senior officers to military bandsmen on the effect of a change of Government on the number of military bands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Operation Epsilon
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to the security implications of releasing transcripts of the Farm Hall tapes of conversations of German atomic scientists in the second world war recorded under Operation Epsilon, prior to their release.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The documents were originally "retained by Department" under section 3(4) of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 on the grounds of national security. They were reviewed in 1992, and it was judged all sensitivity had lapsed and that they could be released into the public domain.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Meteorological Office executive agency for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The agency has been set a range of quality and financial targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the provision of weather related services.

  The key quality targets set for the Meteorological Office during the period 1993–94 are to achieve 80 per cent. of all business area targets for customer satisfaction, forecast accuracy and timeliness; produce a charter standard for public services; provide timely and apt advice on meteorology and climate issues to Ministers and the general public; to progress the research programme and to satisfy customer requirements to schedule and agreed standards; and to initiate a rolling programme of reviews of scientific and technical standards throughout the agency.
  247
  The financial targets are to reduce net operating costs to £45,700,000—a 1 per cent. reduction on the 1992–93 budget; increase efficiency by 2.5 per cent. through improvements in quality of service, increased volume of service and reduced unit costs; achieve an 8 per cent. increase in uptake of meteorological services to £18,600,000, as measured by cash revenue generated from commercial services to the public, industry and commerce, excluding the Civil Aviation Authority and Department of the Environment; achieve a 19 per cent. increase to £6,700,000 in the gross contribution of commercial services invoiced revenue to offsetting core costs and overheads.

  It is also planned that the output costs of all key activities using the new financial and management information system will be made available in 1993–94.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Disablement Pensioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what savings he expects to make from the abolition of the lump-sum payments to war disablement pensioners with a noise-induced hearing loss assessed at less than 20 per cent;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of ex-service personnel with a noise-induced hearing loss of less than 20 per cent. who will no longer be eligible for support following changes to the war disablement pension scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The assumption underlying the policy decision was that, in 1993–94, some 10,000 people would not qualify under the new rules who would have qualified under the old, resulting in savings of £20 million which have been used to meet the estimated cost of removing completely rank differentials in war disablement pensions from 12 April 1993.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of existing war disablement pensioners will receive uprating of £5 per week; what number will receive the uprating of 84p per week; and what number will receive the intermediate upratings of their pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As a result of the abolition of rank differentials from 12 April 1993, an increase of up to £5 a week has been paid to war disablement pensioners depending on their previous rank and level of disablement; for example, a 100 per cent. disabled ex-private will have received an extra £5 a week, whilst a 40 per cent. disabled ex-sergeant will have received an extra £1·86. About 200,000 pensioners have benefited from this change, the most severely disabled lower ranks getting the most. These increases are additional to the general increase in war pensions of 3·6 per cent. under the normal uprating. Precise detail of the numbers in each of the many categories concerned is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The previously announced increase of 84p per week related to the war disablement pensions of non-commissioned officers only and was subsumed in the increases consequential upon the total abolition of rank differentials.

  Income Support
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the £5 earnings disregard for unemployed people who are receiving income support applies to the earnings of each individual member of a two-person household; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The £5 disregard applies individually to each member of a couple; where both partners undertake part-time employment, the total disregard available on their earnings is therefore £10.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants who were(a) unemployed people claiming income support and/or unemployment benefit, (b) lone parents, (c) people receiving a disability premium, (d) people receiving severe disablement allowance and (e) people receiving invalidity benefit declared part-time earnings; what are the average weekly earnings declared; and what proportion such claimants represent of claimants in the group at the latest available date and in comparable periods since 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the tables. Information is provided for 1989—the earliest year for which income support information is readily available—1990 and 1991, the latest years available.

  Income Support recipients with declared earnings

  Number of cases with declared earnings

  Percentage

  Average declared earnings £ per week

  May 1991

  (a) Unemployed1

  25,000

  2·0

  21·78

  (a) Unemployed2

  1,000

  1·1

  24·04

  (b) Lone parents

  78,000

  9·0

  27·53

  (c) Disabled

  4,000

  0·9

  14·14

  (d) Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,000

  0·6

  3·23

  (e) Invalidity Benefit

  1,000

  0·6

  14·84

  Total Income Support recipients

  117,000

  2·6

  25·29

  May 1990

  (a) Unemployed1

  26,000

  2·5

  22·16

  (a) Unemployed2

  1,000

  2·0

  28·18

  (b) Lone parents

  80,000

  10·1

  25·82

  (c) Disabled

  6,000

  1·7

  12·31

  (d) Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,000

  1·3

  33·19

  (e) Invalidity Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  Total Income Support recipients

  124,000

  3·0

  23·65

  May 1989

  (a) Unemployed1

  31,000

  2·8

  19·22

  (a) Unemployed2

  1,000

  1·4

  19·60

  (b) Lone parents

  82,000

  10·9

  24·71

  (c) Disabled

  6,000

  2·0

  5·77

  (d) Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,000

  1·0

  5·83

  (e) Invalidity Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  Total Income Support recipients

  130,000

  3·1

  21·73

  1 No Unemployment Benefit.

  2 With Unemployment Benefit.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1991, May 1990 and May 1989.

  Notes: All figures rounded to nearest thousand; percentages correct

  249
  to one decimal place; average earnings correct to nearest penny. "Lone parents" in the tables means people aged under 60 who are entitled to a lone parent premium and who do not receive a disability premium.

  "Disabled" in the tables means people aged under 60 who are entitled to the disability premium.

  There will be some overlap between groups (c), (d) and (e) in the tables.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the £15 earnings disregard for people who are receiving income support, either because they have a disability premium or are part of a long-term unemployed couple, applies to the earnings of each individual member of a two-person household; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Where a couple qualify for this disregard, the total amount of earnings that can be disregarded is £.15 for the couple.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of sickness benefit at the end of each month since April 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table, and is obtained from a 100 per cent. count of cases by benefit offices at the end of each month, rounded to the nearest thousand. The figures include cases registered sick that are not receiving sickness benefit but are receiving income support and national insurance credits.

  Date

  Sickness Benefit

  May 1991

  433,000

  June 1991

  421,000

  July 1991

  431,000

  August 1991

  430,000

  September1991

  438,000

  October 1991

  434,000

  November 1991

  445,000

  December 1991

  449,000

  January 1992

  461,000

  February 1992

  474,000

  March 1992

  479,000

  April 1992

  465,000

  May 1992

  472,000

  June 1992

  472,000

  July 1992

  487,000

  August 1992

  489,000

  September 1992

  496,000

  October 1992

  505,000

  November 1992

  513,000

  December 1992

  521,000

  January 1993

  525,000

  February 1993

  535,000

  March 1993

  538,000

  Note: These figures are derived from a physical count and may be subject to occasional revision.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to take to equalise the treatment of men and women in receipt of invalidity benefit following the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 30 March.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 26 April 1993, at columns 311–12.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the commission chaired by Professor Goode, currently looking into pension funds, is expected to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) on 30 March, at column 172.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the lost Maxwell pension funds has now been located; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that the liquidators of Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd., which managed Maxwell pension scheme funds, have located and secured assets presently worth some £300 million. The Department's Maxwell pensions unit are continuing to assist where practicable with the liquidators' work.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will meet representatives of organisations of Maxwell pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This month I have two meetings with hon. Members and representatives of Maxwell pensionsers. The Department's Maxwell pensions unit regularly meets the various Maxwell pensioners' action groups.

  Appeals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are presently outstanding at each Independent Tribunal Service office; and what additional resources have been provided to this service since April 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  The appeals outstanding at 31 March 1993 in each region of the Independent Tribunal Service and the disability tribunals central office are in the table. The budget for ITS for 1992–93 was £33·09 million. For 1993–94 the budget is £46·68 million. The additional resources of £13·59 million take account of increased caseloads for social security appeals tribunals, medical appeals tribunals, and disability appeals tribunals, and the establishment of child support appeal tribunals.

  ITS Office/Region

  SSAT

  MAT

  DAT

  North-East

  11,303

  3,578

  —

  Midlands

  7,088

  1,620

  —

  South-East

  11,594

  1,961

  —

  Wales and South-West

  4,504

  1,433

  —

  North-West

  8,276

  2,806

  —

  Scotland

  16,929

  932

  —

  DATCO

  —

  —

  2,301

  Total

  59,694

  12,330

  2,301

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current waiting time for(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) disability living allowance from application for appeal application to appeal hearings.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, for the quarter ending 30 June 1992,
  251
  the latest period for which figures are available, the average time taken from an appeal application to a final hearing was:

  Weeks

  (a) Attendance allowance

  26·7

  (b) Mobility allowance

  23·8

  (c) Disability living allowance

  17·9

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names and contact addresses for all Independent Tribunal Service regional chairmen.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:
  252
  South-east Region

  Mr. R. G. Smithson—Whittington House, 19–30 Alfred Place, London WCIE 7LW

  Wales and South-west

  Mr. C. B. Stevens—Oxford House, Hill Street, The Hayes, Cardiff CFI 2DR

  Midlands

  Mr. I. Harrison—Albion House, 3rd Floor, 5–13 Canal Street, Nottingham NG I 7EG

  North-east Region

  Mr. J. Tinnion—Third Floor, York House, York Place, Leeds LS1 2ED

  North-west Region

  Mr. R. Sim, 36 Dale Street, Liverpool L2 5UZ

  Scotland

  Mrs. L. T. Parker—Blythswood House, 200 West Regent Street, Glasgow G2 4SS

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 is working as intended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 only took practical effect on 4th April this year. It is therefore too early to say whether the Act is operating as intended.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the situation which has been reported to me, which relates to London, where groups of estate agents work together? Fourteen estate agents pooled particulars so that purchasers and vendors benefited from a much wider service, but now no estate agent is willing to take responsibility for any other estate agent in that group. Therefore, a purchaser or vendor has to approach each estate agent individually since there is now no centralised system in London, and the progress of sales is being inhibited as a result. Does my noble friend consider that, in view of the due diligence defence under the Act, estate agents are being over anxious?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is a matter of concern if estate agents do not trust each other. The aim of the Act is to ensure that a purchase of property—probably the most expensive purchase that people make—has the same cover as the Trade Descriptions Act provides for every other purchase. The market will only be slowed if people keep on looking at unsuitable property.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sure that none of us would dream of making any critical remarks about estate agents. Obviously one accepts the Answer of the noble Baroness as being more than full. However, given that the question will continue to be relevant, is her department monitoring the way the Act works or is she waiting for the public to write in with complaints? Is her department taking positive action?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the Office of Fair Trading has responsibility for assuring that estate agents behave in an ethical manner. However, as this is a new measure we are also keeping a close eye on the position.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that only estate agents have
798
responsibility under the Act? If a vendor says that he has recently rewired the house to what extent must the estate agent demand proof of that statement from the vendor, who has no liability for his description of the property?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Act covers estate agents and those solicitors who are involved in sales of property, but it does not cover private individuals. However, the Act provides a defence for an estate agent who can show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence. If, however, he suggested that the house had been rewired but there were still round-holed electrical sockets in the property he might well be subject to question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister has made some extraordinary replies. First she said that the Act had only been on the statute book for some four years and it is not working yet.
Noble Lords: Four weeks.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, four weeks! Then I can only say that if it has only been in operation for four weeks I do not know what all the fuss is about.

Hong Kong Detention Camps
3.5 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many illegal immigrants from Vietnam are still in detention camps in Hong Kong, and how many have returned to Vietnam in the past 12 months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, as of 1st April 1993, 23,203 illegal Vietnamese immigrants were in detention camps in Hong Kong. Another 17,755 asylum seekers were awaiting determination of their status. A total of 12,612 Vietnamese migrants returned home from Hong Kong during 1992. A further 1,646 have returned in 1993.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will the camps be clear by 1997? Further, in considering the numbers left in the camps, will he bear in mind that some have been classified as refugees and not simply as immigrants?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the rate of voluntary returns is maintained and the remaining refugees in the camps are resettled, we expect the camps to be empty within three years and certainly by 1997. I should stress that those who are classified as refugees are not being returned; they will be resettled somewhere else. It is only those who are not classified as refugees whom we are seeking to return.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that conditions in the detention camps in Hong Kong are about to deteriorate as a result of a change in policy towards employment? Opportunities for employment are to be cut drastically and adult education classes are also to be cut. I have just

799
returned from Hong Kong where I saw the appalling conditions in Whitehead detention camps. Does the Minister agree that the UK Government should exert pressure to ensure that those conditions do not deteriorate further as a result of the implementation of new and undesirable policies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the concerns of the noble Baroness. I was not aware of those particular problems. Wherever possible the UNHCR recommendations for camp conditions in respect of food, nutrition and water standards have been adopted and food is provided in accordance with dietary scales drawn up by Hong Kong dieticians and the UNHCR technical advisers. Having said that, I repeat that I note what the noble Baroness said and her personal knowledge having recently visited the camps. I shall certainly bring those points to the attention of my noble friend.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I acknowledge that this point may be slightly wide of the Question. Can my noble friend say how many illegal Vietnamese immigrants have arrived in Hong Kong in the past 12 months or whatever period he has at his finger tips? Of those returning to Vietnam, has there been any marked differentiation in intake between the north of Vietnam and the south of Vietnam?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's second question. As regards his first, the figures I have at the moment—and this is important in relation to the Question in terms of the success of our policies—are that in 1991 there was an outflow of some 20,000 people from Vietnam into Hong Kong. I understand that the figure in 1992 was a mere 12 and that at the beginning of this week the figure for 1993 was nought, although as of today I gather that it is three.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the vast majority of those returning are returning to north Vietnam.
Perhaps I may take up the point the noble Lord made about UNHCR. It is correct that the standards of nutrition are good in the camps. However, the regime in the camps is not simply dependent on the type of food that is being served up. It is dependent on many other factors. There are thousands of children in the camps. We should be pressing for adequate educational facilities for children and adults to be continued. We should not make conditions worse by leaving many people idle who would otherwise work.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness again for her intervention. I could have gone on longer about conditions in the camps, the education programmes run by the voluntary agencies, the baby clinics and so on. However, in view of the fact that it is Question Time, I tried to keep my answer short. Again, I stress to the noble Baroness that there are educational programmes, and we are aware of
800
those concerns. There are baby clinics to look after the health of the babies. All those matters are kept under consideration.

Science and Technology: White Paper
3.10 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish their White Paper on science policy.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on science and technology shortly. In preparing for it, the Minister of Public Service and Science has welcomed the helpful advice which he has received from many sources, not least your Lordships. This is being taken into account in formulating the White Paper's policies. However, I would be happy to report back to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster any further thoughts which noble Lords may have.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what does "shortly" mean? Is my noble friend aware that there are widespread hopes that the forthcoming White Paper will clear up the confusion which presently attends our support of science in this country? Is it possible that the delays are caused by the reluctance of other departments to give up any of their territory to the newcomer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the rather cynical undertones of what my noble friend says. There has been extensive consultation. It is important to get the matter right, as I am sure my noble friend agrees. However, I am also sure that with my noble friend's well known persistence in matters that concern him he will remonstrate with me before too long if "shortly" does not mean that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the President of the Royal Society has said that an important component of a new policy should be a significant shift from the funding of research assistance on short-term project grants to longer term fellowships awarded on an individual basis? Do the Government agree with that expert view? It could hardly come from a much higher source. Will the Minister also tell the House how many scientists in this country are on contracts of fewer than five years?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that view has been given to the department in preparation for the White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord will not expect me to go into what the White Paper will say on these matters. He must await the White Paper. I do not have the information on the specific question about how many scientists in the country are on contracts of fewer than five years. If he presses me to write to him on the matter, of course I shall do so.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am happy to absolve the Minister from that requirement.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether she considers that it is important to maintain independent sources of advice to Ministers in the area of science policy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the advice that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has received in the preparation of the report has been very independent indeed. I do not believe that anyone comes more independent than your Lordships.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish my noble friend to understand that I have no desire whatever to lay blame where I am sure that none is deserved. Will she please call the attention of some of her right honourable friends to these exchanges? I refer in particular to such departments as the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, the DTI and others who may well be the cause of the delay.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I used equal persistence in pressing my officials—they were asking me to state at the Dispatch Box that the report would be published shortly—to give me some indication that the department meant that. I am more than confident that shortly means that. I believe that my noble friend will be pleasantly surprised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in looking forward to the White Paper, will the noble Baroness give us any assurance about the future of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I cannot. The noble Earl seeks to persuade me to go into the detail of what the White Paper may state. The need for advice to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be addressed. We know that it is essential that he receives advice. The quality of the advice, and from where it should come, will be addressed in the White Paper.

BBC World Service
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make any cut in the budget made available for the BBC World Service.
Lord Henley: My Lords, under the provisions for the current three-year funding period for the World Service ending in March 1994, its budget increases in the present financial year from £166 million to £176 million. Future funding proposals reflect reductions in overall Foreign and Commonwealth Office budgets. The final decision will depend on the outcome of this year's public expenditure survey, as for other items of government spending.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it would be very unfortunate indeed if anyone were to use that Answer to disguise the fact that severe three-year cuts have been proposed to the BBC World Service? Will he further agree that the
802
BBC World Service is our finest ambassador across the world? It reaches over 120 million people, many of whom would not be contacted by embassies or consulates. To most of those people it is a lifeline to the truth. In some cases it is the only lifeline to the truth. In an age of censorship and propaganda, the need for this universally admired beacon of integrity and excellence is growing rather than diminishing. Any cut will damage the World Service, perhaps permanently. The Government should keep off.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I echo the noble Lord's words in praise of the World Service. I should like to give an assurance of the importance that we see of the role of the World Service and the importance it plays in our international relations. Again I should like to stress what the noble Lord said about the need and the importance of the objectivity of the World Service.
However, I must stress that there are no cuts that are being made from previously agreed amounts. No amounts have yet been agreed for the World Service after March 1994. But I have to say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is faced with very substantial budgetary restraints in the next few years. We have informed the World Service that it is quite likely to have to face a proportionate share of those after 1993–94.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this House has a proud record in defence of the external services of the BBC? The last time that the Government were so foolish as to try to reduce the funding of the external services this House rose up in its wrath on a Motion proposed by the late Lord Byers and the Government had to change their mind. Can we persuade the Government to change their mind before we reach that situation, bearing in mind that one of the people who supported us on that occasion was the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could stress also that the Government themselves have a proud record of support for the World Service. Funding has increased in real terms since the early 1980s by some 40 per cent. As I made quite clear in my original Answer, it has gone up by more or less double the rate of inflation for this current year. Over the three-year period that comes to an end next March the service will have expanded the hours broadcast per week from 780 hours to 860 hours.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, are the Government aware that not only is the BBC World Service the largest and most successful external affairs broadcasting system in the world, it is universally the most trusted for its impartiality and accuracy? It not only gives the bad news about our trade and business, it also gives the good news—unlike the BBC home service in this country. It is a mighty promoter of our exports. Those who wish to cut its funding must be off their rockers. The amount that we spend on the service should be increased, not reduced, in particular now that we are cutting most of our Armed Forces.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord in his remarks on the BBC home service. May I

803
repeat that, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I agree with the noble Lord in wishing to stress the need for the objectivity, in these troubled times, of a service like the BBC World Service? What I am trying to say is that we shall ensure that the BBC World Service is adequately funded to perform the role that we see it performing and performing that role adequately. But that does not mean, and never should mean, that there should be a total exemption for the BBC World Service from any of the general budgetary constraints that face the Government.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Zimbabwe, where I lived during the 1980s, masses of people turned to the BBC Overseas Service for trustworthy news? Is he further aware that in my American wife's home state of Iowa so highly is the BBC World Service respected that a local public radio station relays its flagship report "News Hour" every night? Will the Government bear those examples in mind when considering any cuts which I believe would be disastrous?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I think it shows the excellence of the service that the BBC World Service provides. Perhaps I may again repeat our record over the past 10 or so years: we have increased funding for the BBC World Service by some 40 per cent. in real terms.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not a fact that most of the increase to which the Minister has just referred was used on capital expenditure to improve the equipment and also audibility? Any further cut must now affect the range, quality and extent of programming. There is still time for the Foreign Office either to find the money itself in other ways or, even better, to press the Treasury hard not to make the cuts. May I receive some assurance that consultation is going on and that it is not all cut and dried? The effect of the additional cuts which are now being talked of will be absolutely catastrophic.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that a 40 per cent. increase over the past 10 years amounts to a cut. Nor do I think it is wrong to spend large sums of capital money on improving the audibility of the service. If the service is not audible, there is very little point in having a service at all.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over the past 10 years there has been a steady reduction in the percentage of funds taken by the BBC and its associated overseas services from the Foreign Office? I do not always agree, particularly with the salary increases, but there is one area where we get incredibly good value for money—that is, the overseas service. Why is it that, when the Treasury consider any economies, it thinks about two things: first, the Gurkhas and, secondly, the BBC World Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that my noble friend would accept that the Gurkhas are slightly beyond the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. Can I stress that we are not talking about cuts?
804
I have given the House precise details of the increases over the past 10 years. We are, as a result, providing a very good service indeed. What I am trying to make clear is that no branch of government, no body funded by the Government, can be totally exempt from the budgetary constraints that face the Government over the next few years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I made a recent visit to Thailand several people implored my noble kinsman and myself to bring to the notice of the Government how very important the BBC World Service is and how much better it is than the American service? Will he let those countries know that the BBC World Service will be continued to them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness said and will bring it to the attention of my noble friend and my right honourable friend. But we are not in the business of talking about cuts. I must again repeat that we have seen a dramatic growth in the budget of the World Service over the past few years.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I tell the Minister that the replies he has given are encouraging? However, at the same time does he acknowledge that it is recognised throughout our country that this remarkable service serves Great Britain, Europe, the British Commonwealth and the Americas? That is no mean achievement. If anything is to be done which involves the overseas service, will the Minister say that it will even seek to improve the service, to give us all an even better one than the remarkably excellent service that is provided at the moment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord. It is not often that he supports the Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble friend is still in need of assurance of the excellence of the service, is he aware that it is only necessary to go to China to be accosted in the streets by people speaking English, wishing to practise the language they have learnt from listening to the BBC World Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's remarks and shall certainly pass them on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I make it clear that when my noble friend Lady Birk spoke of the disposal of previous sums she was not complaining about that? She was pointing out that the money had been spent for a certain purpose and had not been found in order to improve the service. What she seeks now is an assurance from the noble Lord that money will be granted so that the service can be maintained and improved.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to say again that I think that spending money on audibility is improving the service. Audibility is really rather important.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the impression given to me is that if reductions are

805
required from the Foreign Office they will be spread equally among the Foreign Office services? Should there not be a value judgment? Certainly from what we have heard this afternoon the overseas broadcasting services should be encouraged, increased, and nurtured. Perhaps the reductions should fall on other services provided by the Foreign Office.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that will be a matter for my right honourable friend and for the Public Expenditure Survey. What I am trying to make clear is that obviously difficult decisions will have to be taken. We believe that the BBC World Service is very valuable and the views of this House will certainly be taken note of. But there can be no automatic exemption for the service as such; every part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have to take its fair share of any budget restraint that there should be.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is being a little inconsistent in his answers to the questions? He keeps telling us that we are not talking about cuts and then goes on to tell the House that no government service can be totally exempt from cuts. Moreover, he also said that the BBC World Service must bear a proportionate share of the cuts that the Foreign Office would have to make. Those were his very words. I am sure that when we check in Hansard, he will see that.
I agree with the Minister that audibility is a very high priority. In the light of our agreement on that, can he tell the House that there will be no cuts in the BBC World Service's capital programme so that it will continue its audibility around the world since in many regions, notably East Asia, it is still poor?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give no cast iron guarantee of the sort that the noble Baroness asks for. What I have been trying to make clear to the House is that there has been very real growth in the amount of money available to the BBC World Service over the past 10 years. What I was further trying to make clear is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is obviously faced with substantial budgetary restraints—I do not think I used the word "cuts"—over the next few years. The FCO has informed the BBC World Service that it will possibly have to bear a proportionate share of that restraint. But no cuts have been announced and the amounts after the current triennium, which ends next March, have not yet been agreed. Those are still to be negotiated between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC World Service.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has dealt with the Question. He is obviously concerned for the BBC World Service and I appreciate that. Will he take on board the fact that the phrase "no automatic exemption" really means cuts? Will he please convey to the Foreign Secretary the very strong views of this House? While he is at it, will he have a private word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that he cannot sell the country the emerging recovery and at the same time cut the BBC's World Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, one very often finds that everyone is in favour of restraint in government expenditure but not on the particular individual hobby horse of their own. I noted the particular concerns of the noble Lord. I also note the concerns of the House itself in relation to the BBC World Service. I repeat what I said earlier. There has been a substantial increase over the past few years in the growth of money available to the BBC World Service but there can be no guarantee that that increase will continue indefinitely.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister realise that by now a wise Minister would be changing his tune?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, we have heard noble Lords on all sides of the House express their anxiety that the service should not be in any way cut or damaged. At the same time the Minister keeps on saying the service must bear its fair share of cuts. I hope that in this case that remark will not be given due weight. The fact is that noble Lords on all sides of the House have asked for the service to be continued. Under those circumstances, why should the service have to bear its fair share of cuts? I believe those were the words the Minister used.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the concerns of the House in this particular matter but I think it is a myth to say that the BBC World Service has in any way been meanly treated or under-funded. I think it is quite right that I should stress and repeat, and repeat again, that there has been a dramatic increase in the funding available to the BBC World Service over the past 10 years. That increase amounts to some 40 per cent. That is a very large sum of money indeed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister speaks of increases in real terms, can he say whether those terms are real in relation to historic inflation or to Treasury forecasts of inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, increases over the past 10 years are in relation to the retail prices index.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the situation in Bosnia.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report 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 this adjournment the Third Reading of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 9 to 11,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 12 to 23,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 24 to 29,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 30 and 31,

Schedule 6,

Clause 32,

Schedule 7,

Clause 33,

Schedule 8,

Clause 34,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 38 and 39,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 40 to 53,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 54 to 58,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 59 to 63,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 64 to 106,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 107 to 109,

Clauses 121 and 122,

Clauses 129 to 133,

Clause 110,

Clause 134,

Clause 111,

Clause 135,

Clauses 112 to 116,

Clauses 136 to 138,

Clauses 117 to 120,

Clauses 123 to 128,

Clauses 139 to 143,

Clauses 145 and 146,

Clause 144,

Schedules 16 and 17,

Clause 147,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 148 to 155,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 156 to 173,

Schedules 20 and 21,

Clause 174.

—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 22 [Right to maternity leave and right to return to work]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 42:
Page 41, line 9, at beginning insert:
("( ) In the 1978 Act for section 31A(1) (Time off for ante natal care) there shall be substituted—
31A.—(1) An employee who is pregnant shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, have the right to such time off during her working hours as is necessary to enable her to keep an appointment for ante natal care.
(2) An employee shall not have the right conferred in this section unless, if requested to do so, she produces for her employer's inspection, evidence of the appointment from a registered medical practitioner, registered midwife or registered health visitor." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. With the leave of the House, I should say that we do not intend to move this amendment. Nor do we intend to move Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52 and 69, in the interests of the brevity of the proceedings.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 41, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. This group of amendments fulfils an undertaking I gave to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee to consider the concern he raised as regards the arrangements for a woman's return to work at the end of her maternity leave. The difficulty the noble Lord mentioned concerned the situation where a woman decided to take a shorter period of maternity leave than the statutory entitlement but failed to warn her employer of her return. In those circumstances the employer could be faced with paying wages both to the woman returning after maternity leave and to her temporary replacement for the period of notice to which the replacement was entitled.
In most cases women will wish to take their full entitlement to maternity leave and no such problem will arise. Employers will be in no doubt of the date of return and will be able to plan accordingly. Moreover, most women who decide to return early will want to be in touch with their employer so that he can make

809
any necessary arrangements to facilitate their return. However, I have every sympathy with the view that where an employee does not keep in touch with her employer but simply arrives back at work without warning, the employer should be protected from having to pay wages twice over for the woman returning and for her replacement.
The amendment we have brought forward protects employers from being placed in this unfortunate position. Where a woman seeks to come back to work before the end of her maternity leave period and without giving seven days notice, her employer can send her away again until the seven days have expired, or until the end of her 14-week leave period, if earlier. This should give the employer sufficient time to provide the temporary replacement with the notice to which he or she is entitled and will avoid the need for a double payment.
The other amendments in this group are mainly consequential and ensure that, as under the existing right to maternity absence, the employee is able to choose whichever of her contractual or statutory rights to maternity leave is more favourable to her in any respect. I hope noble Lords will agree that these amendments provide a fairer regime under which employers can operate. We do not expect the provisions to come into play very often but they will he valuable on those few occasions where an employer would otherwise have been put to unnecessary and unreasonable expense by the thoughtlessness of his employee. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments. As he rightly says, issues of this kind arose in Committee. I am, however, a little concerned because it seems to me that the amendments add to an already complicated list of conditions in regard to maternity leave. I can understand that under Amendment No. 47 the employee would he able to choose the most favourable of whatever conditions applied. We shall not oppose the amendments; nevertheless I hope the Government will bear in mind the fact that it is necessary to introduce as little complication in these matters as possible. It seems to me that the amendment now before the House adds further complication to a provision that is designed to cover a small minority of cases.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having gone as far as he has towards meeting the requirements that I put to him in Committee. As he explained, the amendment largely deals with a problem which was of great concern to employers. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is not altogether happy with the amendment. My noble friend the Minister was right to say the cases we are discussing will be the exception rather than the rule. Even now my noble friend has not gone quite as far as I would have wished in that he has not really dealt with the question of the leave not being terminated automatically when the woman returns to work. There may be a few days or perhaps a week until the 14-week period is up. There is a little uncertainty surrounding the matter. I leave
810
my noble friend with the thought that perhaps it needs tidying up in the way the amendments I tabled in Committee would have achieved to ensure there are no further misunderstandings as regards what entitlement is outstanding. Having given that background, I should like to finish by thanking my noble friend very much.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am pleased that I have gone as far as I can to help my noble friend. There are no loose ends. The maternity leave period must continue for the 14 weeks, although the employee may be back at work. We were talking about giving notice of coming back to work.
I say to the noble Baroness that we have to strike a balance between the needs of the employer and the rights of the individual. I believe that we have struck the correct balance.

Bosnia
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the latest situation in Bosnia. The Statement is as follows:
"I regret that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs cannot be here today to make a Statement on Bosnia. In his absence in Hungary, and in the absence of my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I will make a Statement on Bosnia.
"The policy of the Government remains as set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in last Thursday's debate and in giving evidence yesterday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is a twin track policy. One track is our effort to secure agreement on the Vance-Owen peace plan and its implementation. The other track is intensification of the pressure on the Serbs should they remain intransigent.
"A new and unwelcome development is the refusal today of the Bosnian Serb Assembly to ratify Dr. Karadzic's signature of the peace plan negotiated by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. Their decision is irresponsible and will damage the cause of peace in Bosnia. It will also damage the interests of the Serbs.
"Despite this, we continue to consider the Vance-Owen plan the best chance for a lasting peace in Bosnia. We call on all those with influence, and in particular President Milosevic, to redouble efforts to persuade the Bosnian Serbs that the only way forward to a better future is acceptance of this plan and full co-operation in its implementation.
"We must also continue to make it clear that the international community is prepared to intensify its pressure. Sanctions are already seriously damaging

811
Serbia and will be made even more effective in the Adriatic, on the Danube, across the land borders and in relation to financial movements.
"The Government have made clear that they do not rule out other options. We shall continue consultations with our partners and allies on such measures."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that Statement. Does she agree that there should be no immediate action against the Bosnian Serbs despite last night's deplorable decision to reject the Vance-Owen peace plan by the so-called Serb parliament in Bosnia? Does she also agree that military action should not take place, at least until Mr. Milosevic's position, which appears to have changed dramatically, becomes clearer?
Can the Minister indicate when the Government will next discuss the matter with President Clinton? Can she assure the House that the Government will call for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the latest situation?
While precipitate action must be avoided, does the Minister agree that the threat of military action must be maintained? Can she tell the House whether the UN will be putting pressure immediately on President Milosevic to secure an end to Serbia's supply of arms and equipment to the Bosnian Serbs?
Finally, can the Minister tell the House whether the UN is taking any steps to secure the creation of negotiated safe havens in Bosnia and whether the UN will deploy monitors along the Serb-Bosnian border to ensure that any pledges that may be made by Serbia to stop supplying arms and equipment to the Bosnian Serbs are honoured?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. The Statement referred to a "twin track policy". It appears that one of those tracks has run into the ground. We have to respond to that. I suggest that we respond by reaffirming and reinforcing the other track; namely, by increasing the pressure that we can impose by means of sanctions and other methods on the Bosnian Serbs; by urging Mr. Milosevic to close the borders between his part of Serbia and Bosnia; and, as I have suggested in the past, by making clear that Zepa and Gorazde are UN protected areas and the UN forces are prepared to enforce them as protected areas.
I believe that the time has come when safe havens have to be established for Bosnian Moslems. I very much hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that that is done. Is the noble Baroness able to give the House some assurance that the Government have that policy in mind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for their comments. First, let me say to the noble Baroness that it would be wrong to take
812
immediate, hasty action. Despite our deep regret at the Bosnian Serb Assembly's irresponsible rejection of the peace plan in Pale last night—that is a serious setback, particularly considering what went on in Athens over the weekend—I believe that we should not take precipitate action. We certainly do not accept the Bosnian Serb Assembly's word as final.
As for the next steps, I wholeheartedly agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we have to intensify the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to sign the peace plan. The only alternative would be further conflict and further great suffering.
It is interesting to note that President Milosevic was at the Bosnian Serb Assembly meeting throughout and spoke twice in support of the Vance-Owen peace plan. We call upon President Milosevic to use his influence on the Bosnian Serbs to make them accept that peace plan and co-operate fully in its implementation. That action is going on at the present time.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we should pressure Milosevic to cut off supplies of arms and non-humanitarian supplies to Bosnian Serbs. I can assure your Lordships that sanctions are already being intensified. We do not rule out stronger measures and further action will be considered.
In respect of action in New York, we are consulting with others today to agree on the next steps. We welcome the agreement to deploy Canadian United Nations troops in Srebrenica, but the question of further safe areas has yet to be fully addressed. I understand the pressure for that for Zepa and Gorazde but it would require an alteration of the UN mandate. Therefore, in co-operation with our partners, we must determine the position on the basis of the specific proposals that will emerge in New York. Certainly we understand that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wants international presence in Zepa and Gorazde but does not believe that it can be done by military enforcement, which would be something absolutely different. I believe that the very threat of military action is what forced President Milosevic to take the steps that he took in Pale. We have to hold that option open however unsavoury it most certainly is.
I can assure your Lordships that no stone will be left unturned. Certainly I believe that the pressure of increased sanctions and the additional numbers of monitors deployed to bring that into operation will be effective.
I was also asked by the noble Baroness about monitors on the Serb-Bosnian border. That is something which is being looked at but it will only be possible in the light of a signature. It is part of the implementation of the Vance-Owen peace plan because the Serb-Bosnian border is the worst possible area.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while we are in considerable agreement with the action being taken to deal with the immediate

813
problems, the immediate problems are at an early stage and are only a small part of the total problem? The total problem of what will ultimately he done in the settlement is the real issue that we must confront.
Does the noble Baroness agree—it would of course have to be arranged through the normal channels—that your Lordships' House is singularly well placed to hold a debate on the longer-term issues, in which we could hope that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whose contribution we must all greatly admire, could take part and lead us in the discussion of what ought to be done in the future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sympathise with what the noble Baroness says, that we should undertake consideration in this House. But that is a matter for the authorities. Perhaps I may underline and repeat what she said in paying tribute to the work which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has undertaken in, first, working out the Vance-Owen peace plan and then working to see that it was almost agreed, as it was hoped it would be after the Athens conference at the weekend. This House has a wonderful record of being able to delve into longer-term matters. It is the longer term not only of Bosnia Herzegovina, but of the whole of the Balkan region, which concerns us all in the longer term. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House has heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend a short question? In this terrifying turmoil, is she satisfied that there are in place—I do not ask for details—satisfactory contingency plans to safeguard our forces?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that there are adequate plans not only for our own forces but also for our own civilians in the area. We have worked these out in conjunction with the United Nations and the other troop contributors to the United Nations.
Lord Monson: My Lords, while the Bosnian-Serb leadership is stalling and playing for time, their extremely well-armed forces have initiated new attacks upon isolated, mainly Moslem, towns in eastern Bosnia, whose inhabitants face annihilation, as they are rapidly running out of ammunition. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a member state of the United Nations and is recognised by at least 65 countries, including every member state of the EC. Does the noble Baroness agree that at the end of the Edinburgh Summit last December a document was issued entitled, Conclusions of the Presidency? In that document, paragraph 16 Part D, it is declared unambiguously that the European Council accepts the right of countries to acquire the means to defend themselves. Can the noble Baroness say why the European Community has reneged on that declaration less than five months from the date of the Edinburgh Summit?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not have to hand the reference that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted. However, I believe that that
814
declaration was a declaration in respect of the defence of a nation against outside nations. I realise that the situation within the whole Balkan area is extremely complex. But one has not only Bosnian Serb fighters fighting Bosnian Moslem people but Bosnian Croat fighters fighting Bosnian Moslem people and at times the Bosnian Serbs fighting the Bosnian Croats within the area. Any introduction of further arms within that civil war situation was not what was referred to by my colleagues and other members of the European Community at the Edinburgh Summit.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that at this point in time it is essential to bring sanctions to the highest pitch of effectiveness? In an earlier reply the Minister said that further and stronger measures were under consideration by the Government. Can she tell the House what those are?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the tougher sanctions that were called for in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 820 are now in force. We have been working to ensure that they are rigorously enforced. There is a virtual blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. Whether that could be policed by people at the borders has been a question which has been considered but not yet decided.
We have tripled our contributions to the sanctions assistance monitors and we are encouraging everyone else to do likewise. We are also establishing Western European Union patrols on the Danube and tightening controls on the Serbian financial movements. I realise that none of that will bring Serbia, or indeed the Bosnian Serbs, to their senses at once. But it is certainly having a salutary effect on the Serbs, which is why President Molosovic spent the entire time at the Pale meeting of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, so called.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether help is reaching Bosnian Serbs from the Ukraine?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is right. However, I do not have evidence that I can give in support of that comment at the moment. I will see whether I can find it and let him have it in writing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Bosnian Serbs have good reason, in view of the past history of successful prevarication, to believe that they have further time to conquer more of their objectives? If we are not to supply arms to the people trying to defend themselves—with which I agree—then we must logically accept the position that we have to protect those people against the better-armed Serbs.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a strong feeling regarding the protection of the people in Bosnia. He will know from my visits that I could not want to do anything other than stop the fighting and protect the people.

815
He is absolutely right, as I have rejected in this House before today, that we should not allow the lifting of the ban on arms to any group in Bosnia. I hope that the pressure being put on the Bosnian Serbs by people locally—by that I mean the Serbs themselves—will prevail. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, it is a time to ensure that the pressure on the Serb nation is not let up, so that they can exert their own pressures and we do not have to go down the route of force. I would remind the House that, if force were used in defence of any persons, all humanitarian supplies would have to cease before that could happen.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is worth while remembering that it was the Emperor Valentian who allowed the Serbs into Bosnia. The first Roman legion was moved in 83 AD from Chester to Moesia because there was trouble in the Balkans. The problem has been going on for many years. Moslems are the descendants of the Bogomil heretics or aparatchiks of the Ottoman Empire.
Surely we must say to ourselves that we will do something about it—and the logic of that, as my noble friend said, is that we hope we do not have to use force because of sanctions. Sanctions are a substitute for force. Either we must say to ourselves—as said Bismarck—that the Balkans are not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier and consequently we shall keep well out of it, or we say, "Up with this we will not put", and we have got to do something about it. Both choices are horrendously nasty. We are in danger of going down the road of waffling on about sanctions. Everybody knows that they have never worked, be it against Mussolini or Rhodesia or wherever it may be. Rhodesia even expanded its economy under sanctions.
We are in danger of going down a waffle road. We have to make up our minds. Do we do something about it, which means the western world saying that we will put troops in and deal with it like the Punjab in 1848, or do we say that we will keep right out of it and let them sort themselves out because it is something too complicated, too nasty and too horrendous? After all, we do that in Somalia and other parts of the world, but there are television cameras in the Balkans.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one has only to realise how much life has actually changed within Serbia to have to contradict my noble friend Lord Onslow. Sanctions may not have worked in other parts of the world with which we are not concerned today but there is no doubt that they are really beginning to work in Serbia. So let us hope that that force is a force to persuade the Serbs to put the right pressure on the Bosnian Moslems as they certainly sought to do in Pale.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Bosnian Serbs.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend.
My noble friend went on to make a number of other comments. I would say to him that we certainly have
816
not waffled. We have sent through my own ODA convoys nearly 24,500 tonnes of goods; through the Royal Air Force, more than 6,700 tonnes of goods; and through other donors and through the air drop, many further thousands of tonnes of goods. We have done as much as any nation has to try to bring about peace without action by ourselves and by outside nations. If this does not work, we have not closed off any opportunities. But we shall continue to enforce those sanctions most thoroughly and hope that we do not have to resort to anything further.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the euphemism "military intervention" means killing people? Is she aware that Winston Churchill's dictum that "jaw, jaw is better than war, war" is not without support on this side of the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have used that very same dictum on many occasions but it may be that no one among the Bosnian Serbs is listening any longer, which makes it very difficult to go on just talking.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree in retrospect that perhaps it was a mistake, just at the time when negotiations were still going on about the signing of the Vance-Owen treaty, for Mr. Warren Christopher to come over to Europe threatening military action? I should have thought that was counter-productive. Will the noble Baroness also confirm the Government's view that air strikes would not be effective and might kill innocent civilians? Will she further confirm that the Government still do not believe that there should be intervention by the ground forces of this country or, for that matter, any other country since that would kill very many more people than are being killed at the present time or have been killed up to date? Finally, will she confirm that, irrespective of what the United States, the United Nations or anyone else says, this is still a civil war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to take the noble Lord's last point first, indeed it is a civil war, but it is a civil war of the most alarming proportions with a very grave danger of spilling over into other territory, which was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, some moments ago. I do not think that Mr. Warren Christopher came to this country or any other European Country uttering threats, as the noble Lord put it, but I do believe that there is a strong body of opinion in the United States, if not in Europe as a whole—it does exist in parts here—that the talking has gone on long enough. We understand full well from our past experience that air strikes have not in recent times been effective without people on the ground but we are not considering air strikes at this moment. We are seeking not only to tighten the noose of sanctions but also, through further discussion—even through President Milosevic's efforts—to bring about an end to this bloody conflict before it gets any worse.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that when people speak of civil war it is not, as the press try to make out, a civil war between different religious groups? Does she agree that the Bosnian cabinet contains a non-Moslem majority? There are nine Moslems, six Serbs and five Croats. Therefore, it is quite wrong to suggest that this is a war of Moslem versus Orthodox versus Catholic. It is far more complex than that.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is indeed right. It is extremely complex. But we have to realise that the self-appointed Bosnian Serb assembly separated themselves off only in April or May last year from the President Izetbegovic group because they claimed to represent part of Bosnia-Herzegovina not represented by a man who was a Moslem leader. But, indeed, the conflicts are not simply between religious groups. They are very often between inter-married families which have a total mixture of religious groups. That is one of the reasons why this is such a complex situation and why it is difficult to find a peaceful solution.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there are many people who do not bear positions of such responsibility as do my noble friend and her colleagues? Ministers may have to take horrendous decisions in this whole matter. Would she care to remind my noble friend Lord Onslow that the world has moved on since 86AD—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, 83AD.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon—and the world in which we lived in the Punjab in 1846.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, 1848.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it must be the wish of noble Lords on all sides of the House and people elsewhere that if it is possible to achieve any sense and logical thinking in that trouble torn country by relatively peaceful means, that is to be applauded. But if this is a situation "up with which we cannot put", and that is plainly obvious, and the ultimate has to be referred to and action taken thereon, my noble friend and her colleagues will be entitled to receive maximum support from all sides of both Houses of Parliament because we shall feel confident that whatever action is taken, even if it is the ultimate action, it will be because it is absolutely necessary and will not be taken lightly or hurriedly.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very supportive remarks. I think I made clear at the time of repeating a Statement last month in your Lordships' House how much time we have spent on detailed examination of all the peaceful ways to bring this situation to an end and that we have obviously looked at other options. Time has indeed moved on. I shall make no further comment on what was said by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I can tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that we will not leave a stone unturned in trying to find a peaceful way to resolve these matters. In a world
818
where weapons impose the most terrible inheritance for future generations, let alone those who suffer in this generation, we have to try and bring about peace and prevent war. That is what this is.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may come back very briefly. We must face the fact that if we decide to use air power we have to follow it up with troops on the ground. We have to face the option: are we prepared to use troops on the ground to impose peace? We do not have any other option. If we start bombing bridges the logical answer is "private so and so" from all our local areas. That is the answer. We have to face up to that and face it realistically.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if my noble friend reads my previous answers to questions on this subject he will find that I have covered all these matters in detail. I do not intend to dwell upon them now because we are taking the time of the House on a very important Bill. I simply say to the House that the Government will discuss very thoroughly any moves. We are not afraid to take action if that is the right thing to do, but we will not be pushed into action which in future times we might well regret.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
4.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 22.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 41, line 44, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("eighteen").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to improve the length of maternity leave allowed for in the Bill from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. It is true that this was discussed in Committee, but I make no apology for returning to it because the matter came up very late and it was not possible in the circumstances for it to be adequately discussed and certainly not voted upon. It is important enough to he raised again.
I accept, as the Minister said earlier, that the majority of women will be free to take some of their maternity leave after the birth and that even the minority whose leave is triggered by sickness will have, in most cases, a period of leave remaining after the birth. I accept also that the Bill does not prevent employers and employees negotiating a longer period of leave on a voluntary basis. Some employers may well be willing to do that. Indeed, as I said in Committee, some good employers believe that the provision of good maternity leave actually saves them money that they might otherwise have to spend on recruiting and retraining new employees. Nevertheless, if all employers were good ones, it would not be necessary to have minimum legislative provision in this or indeed in any other field. We have to legislate minimum standards which are reasonable to apply across the whole spectrum of employment.
The potential burden on employers has been given as the reason for not accepting the proposals contained in this amendment. The Equal Opportunities Commission, however, has done a lot of work on the subject and advises that, on balance, there will be no additional burden on employers arising from the provision of 18 weeks' maternity leave. On the other hand, it believes that there are good reasons to make provision for at least 18 weeks' leave for all women, including the need to reduce complexity.
Statutory maternity pay is payable currently for 18 weeks for women with six months' service. By matching minimum leave with minimum pay, complexity is reduced, with no increase in the cost of pay provision. Indeed, some employers have already told the EOC that they support the 18 weeks' leave proposal for that reason. According to surveys undertaken by the EOC, at present British women take a median of 20 weeks' leave for the birth of their first child and 18 weeks for subsequent births. Therefore, it is questionable whether many women will wish or will be able to exercise the right of return after only 14 weeks.
The EOC survey of contractual schemes provided by 100 employers in both public and private sectors shows that none of those employers makes provision for less than 18 weeks. The Minister will no doubt say, as he did in Committee, that the 14-week period is one which has been accepted by all EC member states. Yes, I agree, but it is of course a minimum requirement. Surely we should have some regard as to what is most likely to suit our own situation.
As we have shown, British employers who wish to retain female staff have found in practice that it is necessary to agree to a period longer than 14 weeks. The cost would appear to be minimal and the benefits to the mother and her child may be great. Therefore, I hope that this time round the Minister will be willing to accept the arguments which have been put forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I support my noble friend who has moved this important amendment. There are a number of reasons why the Government should be able to support it today. In the first place, the fact that we are now introducing another length of maternity leave into the system adds to what is already a very complicated situation. National Audit Office research into statutory sick pay and maternity pay indicated the difficulties employers already have in operating maternity pay.
An extension of the period from 14 weeks to 18 weeks would bring it into line with the period for which paid maternity leave is already available. That would give 18 weeks plus the 42 weeks which an employee is entitled to take, but without pay.
My noble friend referred to the good employers. I understand from the EOC that 18 weeks is the minimum period given by employers who provide contractual maternity leave. That is better than the statutory leave. Again, we would get a line-up on the 18 weeks' period.
820
In Committee the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to the increased costs which he said would be significant if we were to extend the 14 weeks to 18 weeks. Of course, it is in the early weeks of maternity leave that the greatest costs are borne. The employer has to decide whether or not to replace the woman on maternity leave. If he does, it is in that initial period that the major costs in advertising, employing and training are borne. If he decides not to replace the woman on maternity leave, which is the policy of many employers, then there is some cost at that stage. It is the cost in terms of productivity and lower efficiency because one person has been taken out.
That is the choice of the employer, and that cost would be borne in any case. I believe that the Minister has exaggerated the additional amount that would be borne by employers if the period were to be extended. We have to bear in mind that the absence of anyone from work involves cost, whether it is for sick leave, holidays or maternity leave. The cost to the country if women decided not to have babies would be even more than it is at present and would create a crisis. These days many women choose to follow a career and not to have a family. As legislators, we should try to facilitate the combination of a woman continuing with her career and having a family as well. The amendment would help in that respect. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
Baroness Seear: I want briefly to support the amendment. Most of the important points have been made. I wish, however, to make an additional point which has not been mentioned. It depends on when the woman decides to go on leave. If she goes early because she is not feeling well and is having difficulties, then the amount of leave that she has after the baby is born is correspondingly reduced. That can mean that the amount of time which she has for looking after the child in those early weeks is very short indeed. The extra four weeks cannot make very much difference to the employer.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, the real expenses are incurred in recruiting and training a person. The employer who has done that will get a better return on his money by replacing the mother for 18 weeks because by that time the replacement is beginning to be productive. He is getting a return on the money he has invested. This amendment involves a very small addition, but it could make a considerable amount of difference, not to an enormous, but to an important, number of women.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment has been debated at every stage of the Bill, so it will come as no surprise to the House that I am unable to accept it. I have, of course, listened carefully to the noble Baronesses who put their names to the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, knows that the Government's view is that a longer period of statutory maternity leave would impose too great a cost on employers. She has suggested that the costs would not be so great as we calculate, and that indeed employers

821
may reap savings from the greater simplicity which would arise if the leave period were aligned to that for statutory maternity pay.
We have prepared a compliance cost assessment in the usual way which covers not only the Bill's maternity leave provisions but also its maternity dismissal provisions. The assessment indicates that the costs to employers are likely to be in the range of £100 million to £250 million annually —not a small sum.
If any particular employer believes that it is the right thing to do, there is of course nothing to prevent him from making available to his employees a longer period of leave than is laid down by the statutory minimum. The Government welcome additional rights being provided on a contractual basis where employers consider that they can afford to provide them. But that is a different matter from requiring all employers to provide such enhanced rights whether or not their circumstances make this appropriate. It is the role of legislation to lay down necessary minimum provisions on which employers can build as they see fit.
Fourteen weeks has been set as the necessary EC minimum period of maternity leave by all member states, including the UK, under the provisions of the Pregnant Workers Directive. If employers as a whole were required to provide a longer period of maternity leave there would be a considerable danger that they would seek to escape such obligations by avoiding recruiting women of child-bearing age.
Noble Lords have also argued both in Committee and at this stage that 14 weeks' leave gives insufficient time after the baby's birth before the woman has to return to work. However, as I have pointed out before, under the provisions the woman can choose to begin her maternity leave period at any time up to the birth of her baby, unless she is unfit for work because of her condition. Even then she can choose to take sick leave unless she is within six weeks of the expected week of birth, which would still leave her with a reasonable length of time—some eight weeks or so—at home afterwards.
If a woman chooses to begin her leave 11 weeks before her baby is due that is entirely for her, but it is her choice and it would not be right to impose additional burdens on employers as a result.
The provisions do, of course, cater for the unusual case where a woman would otherwise run out of leave because she started her leave early and her baby was born very late. We have made it clear, in line with the requirements of the directive, that in no circumstances will the woman have to return to work less than two weeks after the week in which the baby is born.
I should add, of course, that most women will in any case be entitled to return to work after an absence of significantly longer than 14 weeks. Those with two years' service will have the right to return to their job up to 29 weeks after the birth of their baby. Over 60 per cent. of working women have sufficient service to qualify for this considerable period of absence.
At around 40 weeks, the UK has the longest period of maternity absence in Europe; and, at 18 weeks, one of the longest periods of paid maternity absence. In addition, all pregnant
822
employees in the UK have had the right to paid time off for antenatal care since 1980—a right which women in some other European countries will enjoy only as a result of the directive. The provisions in the Bill will further enhance our already substantial package of maternity rights. I believe that those arguments are conclusive and I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he say a word or two about the figures of £100 million and £150 million? From where does he get them? At the moment, the Government are not suggesting that the employer should pay women who are on maternity leave. We do not know what they are going to do about that. Where does that money come from?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the compliance cost assessment has been undertaken by the Government. Those amounts include paying for substitute labour and the recruitment costs for those who are placed—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, but whoever is paying the substitute is not paying the woman. It is not extra; it is instead of.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, costs are involved, such as those of recruiting other labour. It may be that the rate of pay for a short period is not the same as the rate of pay that may be given to the woman in post. Other costs may also be involved. As I said, the compliance cost assessment has come up with the figure—I gather that it is a fairly wide figure—of between £100 million and £250 million.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, is he referring to the total cost for the 14 weeks' maternity leave or to the cost if maternity leave were extended to 18 weeks? It seems to me that he is saying that the cost of between £100 million and £150 million—I believe that is what he said—includes the initial cost, whereas what we have been arguing from this side is that the extra four weeks at the end will work out at a proportionately lower rate than the initial early rates.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I made it quite clear that we have prepared a compliance cost assessment. That has been placed in the Library, so the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, can study it at will. What I said is that it covers not only the Bill's maternity leave provisions but also its maternity dismissal provisions. I was quite clear about that. I was not talking solely about the four weeks to which the noble Baroness was referring. What I am saying is that the provisions already cost employers between £100 million and £250 million.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not really surprised at the Minister's response because, as he said, we have discussed this before in Committee. However, I am disappointed that he has not had some fresh thoughts since we raised these issues earlier. I am not at all happy simply to leave the issue there. I feel that the figures that he has given us this afternoon are really rather dubious. We are saying that the extra

823
four weeks will not cost very much. My noble friend Lady Lockwood has dealt with that. Indeed, the EOC survey came up with the finding that the 100 or so employers whom it contacted welcomed the extra simplicity, as they see it, that would be involved in having the 18-week period, which is the same as the statutory maternity pay period. They thought that that would simplify matters. As we have heard, the situation is already complicated enough.
We do not accept the figures that the Minister has given us because we do not think that the extra four weeks, which is all that we are asking for in this amendment, will be all that costly. In any event, employers will already have had the expenditure involved in taking on somebody to stand in while the woman who is having the maternity leave is away. Therefore, we cannot really see that any extra cost is involved. On the other hand, as my noble friends have said, the benefits to the women concerned and to their babies are substantial.
It seems to me that the Minister is making an awful lot of what is really quite a modest request from the organisations that are concerned with maternity leave. The Maternity Alliance, the EOC and a number of other organisations that are very much concerned with the welfare of women and their children have all been pressing for this. I am very surprised that the Minister has not seen fit at this stage to say that he is prepared to accept the amendment. In those circumstances, it is my intention to test the feeling of the House.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addington, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Airedale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hampton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayter, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lockwood, B. [Teller.].

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Eatwell, L.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L.

Molloy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

824

Mulley, L.

Seear, B.

Nicol, B.

Shackleton, L.

Peston, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aberdare, L.

Abinger, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Aldington, L.

Harvington, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Annan, L.

Hemphill, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Holderness, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hood, V.

Atholl, D.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ilchester, E.

Birdwood, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

Kintore, E.

Boardman, L.

Knollys, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Leigh, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monson, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Cross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Downshire, M.

Rennell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Finsberg, L.

Romney, E.

Flather, B.

St. Davids, V.

Forester, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Slim, V.

Goschen, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

825

Strafford, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Strange, B.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sudeley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Westbury, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Wise, L.

Terrington, L.

Wynford, L.

Teviot, L.

Young, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 43, line 14, at end insert:
("Requirement to inform employer of return during maternity leave period.
.—(1) An employee who intends to return to work earlier than the end of her maternity leave period shall give to her employer not less than seven days notice of the date on which she intends to return.
(2) If an employee returns to work as mentioned in subsection (1) without notifying her employer of her intention to do so or without giving him the notice required by that subsection her employer shall be entitled to postpone her return to a date such as will secure, subject to subsection (3), that he has seven days notice of her return.
(3) An employer is not entitled under subsection (2) to postpone an employee's return to work to a date after the end of her maternity leave period.
(4) If an employee who has been notified under subsection (2) that she is not to return to work before the date specified by her employer does return to work before that date the employer shall be under no contractual obligation to pay her remuneration until the date specified by him as the date on which she may return.").
Page 43, line 38, at end insert:
("Contractual right to maternity leave.
.—(1) An employee who has the right to maternity leave under section 33 and a right to maternity leave under a contract of employment or otherwise may not exercise the two rights separately but may, in taking maternity leave, take advantage of whichever right is, in any particular respect, the more favourable.
(2) The provisions of sections 34 to 38 shall apply, subject to any modifications necessary to give effect to any more favourable contractual terms, to the exercise of the composite right described in subsection (1) as they apply to the exercise of the right under section 33.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 45. I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 43, line 38, at end insert:
("Paternity leave.
.—(1) 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—
826

(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: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for a right to paternity leave. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the noble Viscount rehearsed, as he saw it, the purposes of maternity leave; namely, to provide for and recover from childbirth and, in his words:
"to nurse and care for her baby in its early life".—(Official Report, 25/3/93; col. 550).
The first purpose clearly does not apply to fathers; but the second, as I see it, does.
We are in the middle of a fairly considerable change—it has perhaps been going for some 150 years and may be half way through—in the basic pattern of the relations of the sexes. It is probably the biggest change in our social history in 2,000 years. It needs a good deal of adjustment. It takes a good deal of working out; and, as I see it, the task of government is to make things easier for people to work it out for themselves and not to impose any particular pattern. It is in that situation possible that fathers may wish to be involved in caring for their children from their very earliest days. In fact, many do. When I visit couples among my junior colleagues, I am often as likely to find the baby in the father's arms as in the mother's.
When people decide which parent is to carry the weight of the early days of caring, the choice may depend upon the urgency of the jobs of the two partners. I recall the case of a woman who was in merchant banking who went into labour halfway through concluding a multi-million pound deal. She concluded the deal later that evening at her hospital bedside. In an occupation such as that, one may see why the father, who was equally successful but in a job with a rather less urgent time schedule, might have become involved, as he did, in the care of the child. In those circumstances, it might make a great deal of sense for the father to be able to take time off work to help to get the arrangements working smoothly.
There is no reason why the father should not have as much right as the mother to be involved in the early care of the child. When we discussed this issue in Committee, the Minister said that it was not an appropriate matter for legislation. I hope that he has now reconsidered that remark because it is one which will not receive a favourable reaction from the younger members of our population. Indeed, it might produce a certain amount of merriment. I hope that in abandoning it, the Government will enter the 20th century just in time to leave it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what the noble Earl said. We supported a similar amendment in Committee. We support the amendment this afternoon.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have quite a lot of sympathy with the amendment. I thoroughly enjoyed looking after my four children. I hope that in due course my son will enjoy looking after his children. But I cannot accept the amendment as drafted because of subsection 5(5). That states:
"For the purposes of this section a spouse includes a man and a woman who are not married to each other but who are living together as husband and wife".
One should not encourage people to live together as husband and wife if they are not prepared to take on that very special position, either as a husband or a wife, which in my view means that one is intending to be constant to the other. It is not right to encourage to live together people who are not prepared to get married.
What would be the position of a man and woman living together, with the woman giving birth to a child, while the man in fact had a wife elsewhere whom he is supposed to support? To my mind that would be impracticable. I feel that the amendment would be impracticable to operate. What is the position where a woman has a miscarriage? Does that count as a birth? Would similar leave be due? It is important for a husband to support a wife in the event of a miscarriage. In many ways it is more important than where a healthy child has been born, because there is a bereavement which needs to be overcome at the same time. For the reasons that I have stated, especially in connection with subsection 5(5), I cannot accept the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I fully agree with what my noble friend Lord Swinfen has said. I would add only that to put into an Act of Parliament a statement that where a couple are living together as man and mistress they should be referred to and considered as man and wife, is an outrageous idea which would disgrace the Bill into which it was inserted. For that reason alone, I should have thought that your Lordships should reject the amendment.
I have also to admit that I have no enthusiasm for the doctrine of paternity leave. One can put forward an argument for it; but one has to be careful about imposing additional burdens upon employers, especially in the present state of the economy. It would be unwise to add this provision. However, leaving that aside, for the reason that my noble friend so eloquently gave, I would regard this as a most improper—I use the word deliberately—proposal to insert into an Act of Parliament.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I do not share the views of either of the two previous speakers. I find this amendment to be an abomination. Parenthood is an extremely important condition, but it is also a completely voluntary condition. Most working people nowadays receive in excess of three weeks' holiday. If anyone is taking parenthood seriously, then once, twice, or even three times in a working lifetime, it
828
would not be outrageous to expect the father to take a few days of his annual holiday to assist his wife if she needed help.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, an important principle is involved here. It is whether we allow fathers to share the responsibility and delights of parenthood. In modern society it is important —the Government tell us this time and time again—for women to be integrated into the workforce. At a time when more and more women are employed and embarking upon careers, it is important that they can share the burdens and joys of the birth of the child with their husbands.
The concept is not new. Many of the best employers already provide some paternity leave for the men in their employment. Most of our Continental neighbours have facilities for paternity leave. It is that point that we need to address. I understand the point about subsection 5(5) that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; but under UK and European legislation we already have laws which prevent our discriminating upon grounds of marriage. I am not sure that if we were to accept paternity leave for married men, that we should not be infringing the law if we denied it to a single man who was living in a sound and stable relationship with the woman who was bearing his child. I am not sure that that would not conflict with the existing law.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it not correct that paternity has to do with being a father and not with being a husband?
Baroness Lockwood: The noble Baroness is right. If a man can be proved to be the father of a child, a woman has the right to seek subsistence for the child. The question is not whether one is married. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is entitled to his opinion on the matter from a moral point of view. However, we must look at the situation which now exists; and, as the noble Baroness said, we are talking about paternity leave.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, I do not consider that the measures proposed in the amendment are appropriate for legislation. During those discussions it was suggested that the arguments in support of statutory provisions on maternity leave could equally be applied to paternity leave. I do not believe that that is the case. At this stage it would not be right for me to go into the problems foreseen by my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, although I have some sympathy with the thoughts which lie behind them.
The statutory maternity provisions are designed to safeguard the mother's career while also giving her a period to prepare for and to recover from childbirth. They also give her the opportunity to nurse and to care for her baby in its early life. The same considerations simply do not apply to paternity leave. The proposed statutory requirements would add to employers' costs and would inevitably reduce job opportunities. That is why I firmly believe that such measures, whether they concern paternity or perhaps adoption leave, are best dealt with on a voluntary

829
basis by individual employers directly with the employees concerned. In that way the parties involved can take proper account of their own particular needs and circumstances. I took note of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about parental duties, and I entirely agreed with his sentiments.
In respect of paternity leave, there is growing evidence that the voluntary approach is working. Examples of voluntary arrangements have been well documented and are growing in use and popularity. A survey conducted in 1990 by the labour research department pointed to the rapid increase in paternity leave provision in the UK in recent years. Forty one per cent. of cases in the sample had introduced paternity leave for the first time since,the start of 1988.
As I said in Committee, the majority of companies in the UK approach such matters on a voluntary footing. That approach allows them the flexibility to tailor arrangements to the particular circumstances of each case and to take proper account of what can be afforded. The Government see their role as encouraging good practice among employers in this field. The imposition of one particular set of arrangements by law would undoubtedly jeopardise the wide range of voluntary child care arrangements already in place. By increasing costs and reducing employment, the measure would harm those whose welfare it is aimed to improve.
I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I can hardly say that I am encouraged by that reply. I was grateful for support in principle from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I listened with care to the point that he made about couples, but he is out of line with a good deal of legislation already on the statute book. When one looks at the Child Support Act or the income support general regulations, one sees that it is an accepted legal principle that we deal with couples who live together on a regular and consistent basis and in many practical ways in the same way as we deal with man and wife.
I respect the noble Lord's moral principle; but if he is dealing with practical legislation for society as a whole, he is arguing the case about 30 years too late. He reminded me of an 18th century Member in another place who spoke for three hours until the Chamber was almost empty. He began to read the Riot Act when Edmund Burke, of all people, rose and said, "Ah, my friend, you are too late. See you not the crowd has dispersed?". I believe that the noble Lord has made his point about 30 years too late. However, I agree with his comments about a miscarriage. That is a matter which we might with propriety address in another amendment on which I hope we shall be able to work together.
I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about business costs. I shall take that argument from the noble Lord because he made it in other circumstances in which we have worked together. I shall have more to say about business costs as the day goes on, but I shall say nothing further now.
The Minister wanted the practice on a voluntary basis; but we are concerned with freedom of choice.
830
That is a principle which in other circumstances is congenial to the Government. We want people to be able to choose whether they want to have a matrimonial pattern with the father involved in the care of the children. But they cannot make that choice unless they are able to take the leave.
I shall not press the amendment today. The time will come to press it, but that is some years ahead yet. The Minister is young and I hope in due course to see him voting with me in favour of the provision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Dismissal rights]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Written reasons for dismissal
.For Section 53 of the 1978 Act there shall be substituted—
"(2) An employee shall not he 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: My Lords, I shall move the amendment only briefly because it will be useful to have the Minister's reply in the Official Report. Officials of the Department of Employment have been extremely helpful to me and to members of the citizens' advice bureaux. It is largely as a result of their comments that I am able to keep my remarks brief.
The purport of the amendment is to reduce the qualifying period for an employee receiving written reasons for dismissal from two years to six months. There are manifest advantages in the employee and the employer receiving written reasons. The reasons for an employee having a certificate in his hand are obvious and I need not elaborate on that. However, often there is a saving of time, cost and trouble to the employer if the certificate is given because the employer is not then badgered to provide one, for good reason. It would be a once-and-for-all transaction undertaken when the employee's occupation came to an end.
When claiming social security benefit, as the dismissed employee would, time would be saved at the employment office. Therefore, in the experience of the CAB the reduction to six months of the qualifying period enabling the employee to receive written reasons for dismissal would help a great deal on the ground. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we support the amendment. It is an attempt to return to the previous position, which was changed by the Government's Acts of 1982 and 1989. No justifiable explanation was given as to why the situation was changed. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, explained why it would be useful for the employer to give such reasons but it would also be useful to the employee. Indeed, most personnel managers would say that the giving of reasons for dismissal is elementary, good personnel practice. It forces the employer to think precisely why the dismissal is taking place. Sometimes, when the

831
employer is forced to give a reason, he decides that he does not wish to dismiss the person after all because he cannot formulate a precise legal and justifiable reason.
It is also useful for the worker when he goes for another job because he knows why he has been dismissed. He can say, "It was not for stealing or for this or for that; it was for something else". That helps the employee when he goes to the job centre because he is able to say what the dismissal was about and what aspects of his conduct were said to be unsatisfactory. It is elementary, good industrial relations. All good employers follow that practice and there is no reason why the others should not be forced to do so after an employee has been employed for six months.
5 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I had some doubts as to whether I could support the amendment because it is so modest. It is important to remind ourselves that the section of the Act concerned requires an employer to give notice of the reasons for dismissal only at the request of the employee. There is no remedy for failure at all. The only remedy is for unreasonable refusal. Therefore, we begin with what is called in the literature a very occasional obligation in that respect.
I suspect that if any noble Lord were dismissed, no matter how many weeks or months he had been employed, he would regard it as rather unreasonable not to be given some reason for dismissal. On that basis, the noble Lord's amendment is very modest. Of course, it may be a step along the way. As my noble friend said, when the extension was introduced by the Government the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"It is to make a further contribution to our general policy of reducing burdens on business, in particular by simplifying legislative requirements for small firms".—[Official Report, 16/10/89; col. 768.]
He went on to say that that would be a factor in creating new job opportunities. It may be that it is early days but it has not had much effect. If the Minister cannot show us that it has had effect, then he is advised to accept the amendment.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I cannot join in this strange consensus. I could have understood the logic of Amendment No. 51 had Amendment No. 50 been moved because the two flow together. However, it is unacceptable to say that the right to claim unfair dismissal after six months should not be provided but then to require written reasons for dismissal after a period of six months' employment.
There are many reasons why employers will wish to dismiss employees. They do not wish to put on paper some of those reasons. It may be chemistry. Anyone who has dealt with individuals over a period of years knows that sometimes chemistry does not fit. In exactly the same way, people are now much more cautious, because of the immense urge to go to litigation, about giving a reference. Although you may wish to say what is true, on many occasions you think
832
twice about it and decide that although it may be true, it is probably better to hedge your bets and say something less precise.
That would certainly put an additional burden on employers. Would it be of benefit to an employee? I am not sure. However, I am certain that if you wish to make a useful contribution to industrial relations, it is better to leave the two matters together. If a two-year period for a claim of unfair dismissal is correct, then it should also be correct that the reasons are given after a period of two years rather than six months.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Written notice must be given to employees employed for at least two years. It seems unfair that that should not apply also to employees who have been employed for a shorter term; namely, six months or more.
I cannot see that that imposes a greater burden on employers. I should have thought that it is better to give a written statement at the time of dismissal rather than to enter into lengthy protracted correspondence with the employment service which must determine whether or not a dismissal was fair. This is a fair and reasoned amendment and I hope that my noble friend will look favourably upon it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the views of noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for indicating that consultations between our officials, the CAB and the noble Lord proved of value to all parties. That is important, and I know that our officials have listened carefully to matters brought before them.
The right to receive written reasons for dismissal depends upon the same qualifying period of service as the right to complain of unfair dismissal. That is as it should be, as my noble friend Lord Finsberg confirmed. The main purpose of the statement will generally be to help the employee decide whether he or she has grounds for making an unfair dismissal complaint. That is why we brought the two qualifying periods into line in 1989. That is why we wish to keep them in line.
To require employers to provide written reasons for dismissal to employees who do not qualify to complain of unfair dismissal would create an additional burden for employers. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out, the Government's long-term strategy has been and is to reduce regulation on employers to encourage enterprise and job creation. Amendment No. 51 would run counter to that strategy. The more restraints the Government place on employers, the greater will be the disincentive to the creation of new employment opportunities. We believe that the creation of those opportunities is crucial to the growth of the economy. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, before Third Reading will she consult with her

833
friends at the Department of Social Security as regards how this amendment might save work in dealing with appeals against voluntary unemployment penalties?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, consultation between departments is continuous and ongoing, but I shall certainly ensure that it has been so in this case.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank all of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. I am disappointed with the reply. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, that I would happily have cast the amendment in a form which he would desire but I did not think that there was a hope in hell or heaven that it would be accepted. I hoped that this more modest amendment would be accepted. Knowing as I do how much the Government place value on reducing regulation and so on, nevertheless I thought that this amendment might escape the net. I am sorry that it has not done so.
The amount of money involved would be extremely small but the gain would be great, not only to the employer and employee. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said, I believe that the employer would gain. Certainly, the employment offices would gain. I am sad that the Government have not been able to accept this amendment, but I must take note of what the Minister said. I shall not press the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Provisions substituted for sections 1 to 6 of 1978 Act.]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 75, line 7, after ("give") insert ("to the employee").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 53 I should also like to address Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 59, 65 and 70, as well as Amendment No. 68 which is a minor one designed simply to ensure that new Section 4 has the intended effect. I hope that the latter need not detain us.
The purpose of the main group of amendments is to allow employers some leeway to give the written statement of particulars in the form of instalments, provided, of course, that they are all given to the employee within the two months' deadline which the Bill establishes. At present, the Bill provides that the written statement must be given in the form of a single document. We have decided, on reflection, that that is an unduly onerous requirement which could cause administrative difficulties for some employers—and we have indeed received a number of representations which lend weight to that view. It could also, in many cases, work to an employee's disadvantage as it would mean that the employer had to wait until all the information had been collected together before any single part of it could be given.
Having said that, the Government believe it is only right that certain fundamental details should still be given in one document, for ease of reference. It is indeed a requirement of the EC Proof of Employment Directive that certain details should be included or referred to in one document. That is why Amendment
834
No. 65 provides that specified particulars must be given together in a "principal statement". The particulars in question are: the identities of the parties; the dates when the employment and period of continuous employment began; the amount and frequency of pay; hours of work; holiday entitlement; job title or brief job description; and work location.
All those particulars, with the exception of holiday entitlement, are required by the EC directive to be included, or in some cases referred to, in a single document. The Government are also committed to implementing the proposal, first put forward in the White Paper People, Jobs and Opportunities, that employees should receive explicit details of pay, hours and holiday entitlement. We consider it appropriate that all those fundamental matters, including holidays, should be covered in the principal statement.
In summary, this group of government amendments introduces additional flexibility which I hope will be welcomed by all noble Lords. The amendments do not in any way affect the amount or the type of information which must be given to an employee in the written statement; they merely provide for the statement to be set out in what may, in some cases, be a more convenient form. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for moving the amendment which is substantially the same as the one I moved in Committee. I had retabled it for debate now, but I withdrew it when I saw that my noble friend's amendment was almost exactly the same. As he explained, he has required slightly more than the European Community law requires in relation to holiday entitlement and the date upon which continuous employment begins. I shall not press those small points now. All I wish to do in relation to the amendment is to express my grateful thanks to my noble friend. I hope that that is a sign of further help in the future.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, lest it be thought that there is agreement in every part of your Lordships' House on Report in the matter, I should point out that this is the first time that we have debated the issue. It should be said that there are some difficulties for those who are employees rather than for the employers who have made the representations and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made clear, have had them accepted. We do not know all the arguments; indeed, they have been put forward very briefly. But there are arguments in relation to an employee who in receiving his or her written particulars does not receive, as is widely believed, a written contract: he or she receives the best evidence of the contract of employment. Their place as evidence of the terms of contract of employment has grown more and not less important with the growth of such statutory rights as are still in force. For example, in redundancy matters the calculation of the normal week and normal pay will refer to the pay, et cetera, under the contract.

835
It may be thought that the whole edifice, such as it is, of statutory rights is based upon the common law contract of employment of which those particulars are best evidence. Therefore, if they are given as instalments we have no point of time at which that best evidence of the contract of employment is to be consulted by a court. If they come in driblets 1 should like to know the answer to the following two questions. First, if certain matters of the contract are covered by the first instalments but nothing is done until near the end of two months and a dispute breaks out, or if there is an adjudication about a particular further matter in the contract of employment which is held to be of particular meaning and the employer then issues his final instalment covering the same matter but containing a particular written with a different meaning, what is the evidence of the contract of employment? The Government must have given thought to those issues. I hope that the noble Viscount will reply, in general, as regards the relationship between the contract of employment, and proof thereof, and the later instalments which may not wholly accord, at least with the view of the employee, as to what those terms were to be.
Secondly, I note that the major matters of the employment must be stated in what is called the "principal statement". I appreciate that that was necessary because of the directive. However, the Government have not gone further than is allowed under the directive in favour of the worker. Indeed, I should point out to the Minister that it is because it is in favour of the worker that the Government are allowed, so to speak, to exceed the directive's minimum floor, not in favour of the employer. I do not say that the amendments do the latter.
However, why did the Government not make it a requirement that the principal statement should be issued first? What happens if a few of the minor matters of the contract of employment are put forward on paper by the employer and then, only late in the two-months' period—after, perhaps, the employment has been acted upon and the agreement is thought to be of a certain kind by both parties—the employer changes his mind and says, "Here is your principal statement with pay, hours and place of work", and so on?
Those problems have been introduced anew by this new idea to have written statements of particulars in instalments. I have referred to only two of the major problems. I ask the Government now to answer my questions. It is possible that on Third Reading we shall have to return to the matter to consider even further problems which are not quite so important but which, nevertheless, are of very practical importance.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I agree with everything said by my noble friend. I should like to begin very gently by complaining about the way in which the Government put forward these extraordinarily complicated changes in their own Bill at the very last moment. I cannot see why we have to have a very major change in a basic document, such as particulars in the contract of employment, introduced at Report stage in this House.
836
We all know—and I am not complaining—that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has been putting the case all the while the Bill has been before this Chamber. We all know that the CBI, and perhaps other employer organisations, are in favour of it. However, so far as I know it has not been the subject of consultation. The trade unions have not been asked what they think about it. I do not even know whether the Institute of Personnel Management has been asked what it thinks. But it is a major change in the content of the employment particulars.
In particular, if that change is taken in connection with what is being done to the employment particulars as a result of European directives, we really are moving into a very uncertain area. The consequence of the schedule as it was first presented to us, and as it was presented to the other place, is that the employment particulars will now have to be much more detailed; indeed, they are much longer and much more precise. There are now many more particulars. Moreover, as my noble friend said and as I understand the amendment—if I am wrong I hope that the Minister will tell me—they can be dribbled out in dribs and drabs over a two-month period.
It seems to be the case that the principal statement will have to be issued. Whether it has to be issued before the dribbles I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that and whether there is any limit on the number of dribbles. After all, a large number of issues can be included in the employment particulars. It is not helpful for the average worker to have a statement this week and another statement next week, and information about collective agreements last month and information about the rate of remuneration next month.
If the Government want to introduce a measure of this kind, of this diversity and complexity and with this degree of change we should have more time to consider it. I agree that when we have had time to consider it we may very well wish to come back to the matter at Third Reading.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I feel that from these Benches I must support what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has just said about the way in which these amendments have been introduced at Report stage in this House without consultation. That is to be deplored. I must confess that I had not appreciated the complex issues which arise from the amendments, but I felt that I must comment on the disregard for adequate consultation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it just goes to show that one cannot please people by trying to accept a great many recommendations. We believed that they would assist with the dispersal of the written particulars. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has given the best reason for delaying the giving of particulars until the last minute, which was a problem we wished to overcome. Of course, the particulars have to be correct when they are given to the employee and they have to be correct at a date not more than seven days before they are given. Obviously, subsequent instalments would deal with different matters, but if there was a change in a matter which

837
had already been dealt with in an instalment, there would be a requirement for a changed statement under paragraph 4 of this schedule. The principal statement need not come first if the employer is able to give one of the other statements at an earlier stage. It would he of no benefit to employees if they had to wait for the full two months for any statement at all.
The noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rochester, complained that at Report stage we were introducing major changes. Of course, we take careful note of the representations which are made to us. I do not believe that the changes are as major as the noble Lords make out. I believe that it is of assistance to both employers and employees to have accurate and timely evidence of the written particulars of the employment. I ask the House to accept the amendments on that basis.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may point out that Amendment No. 70 seems to refer in paragraph (c) to changes which occur after the end of the two-month period. The noble Viscount spoke of a need to give further particulars of changes within the two-month period. I find it difficult to reconcile that with his amendment, or even to find it in any subsection (4) of the many sections introduced by the schedule.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that if there was a change in a matter which had already been given in an instalment, there would be a requirement for a changed statement under Section 4. I still believe that that is the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 75, line 7, leave out from ("statement") to end of line 8 and insert ("which may, subject to subsection (3) of section 2, be given in instalments before the end of that period.").
Page 75, line 16, after ("statement") insert ("or instalment of the statement containing them").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 75, line 32, leave out ("determine") and insert ("terminate").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope that this drafting amendment need not detain us. It merely inserts the word "terminate" in new Section 1(3)(e) in place of the word "determine" in order to provide consistency of terminology in the legislation for the action of terminating a contract. It has no substantive effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 75, line 43, at end insert:
("(jj) any arrangements through which the employer—

(i) provides employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees;

(ii) consults employees or their representatives on a regular basis so that the views of employees can be taken into account in making decisions which are likely to affect their interests.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stems from one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in Committee in which he sought to add
838
to the particulars which the employer is obliged to include in the written statement to the employee information about the works council or other machinery, if any, by which the employer consults employees on matters connected with their employment and the affairs of the business. That would have supplemented particulars concerning collective agreements directly affecting the terms and conditions of the employment which under Section 1(3) (j) must be included in the statement.
In Committee, I said that there were many organisations where there was no union representation but where some machinery existed which enabled the employer to consult with employee representatives on matters connected with their employment. I argued that in principle there was just as much need in those instances as there was in organisations where there were collective agreements with trade unions for the employees concerned to be informed in writing of the relevant arrangements. If the principle is good for trade unions, it should also he good for other forms of consultative machinery. I might have added that there are many organisations in which there are both collective agreements and consultative machinery such as works councils.
In reply the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that there was a tightrope in deciding between what was of benefit and which points should be included in the written statement and which should not. She argued that there were many matters where employers had policies of which the employees should he made aware but she could not accept that this particular one should be included in the statement.
I have since been able to discuss the matter, and the background to Amendment No. 89, which I shall he moving later, with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I am most grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to do so. At first sight the phrasing of Amendment No. 57 may seem a little surprising. It is taken, in fact, from the Government's own wording in Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982 which is now incorporated in the Companies Act. It forms part of the statement which companies have since then been obliged to include in their annual directors' reports concerning the action they have taken during the financial year to develop employee involvement. I was instrumental in getting that section included in the statute and ever since I have been looking for opportunities to further the same cause in legislation in ways which might prove acceptable to the Government.
Following the 1982 Act the Institute of Personnel Management and the Industrial Participation Association (now the Involvement and Participation Association) produced a code and action guide aimed at helping companies to develop employee involvement in practical ways. I think that I am right in saying that both organisations asked the Government to give statutory effect to the code but the Government were unwilling to do so. It seems to me that this Bill presents the Government with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate in statute the

839
support they have often expressed for the concept of employee involvement by agreeing to include Amendment No. 57 in Schedule 4.
I realise that paragraph 1 of the schedule consists partly of items called for by the European Community Directive, Proof of Employment Relationship, and partly of other items going beyond the requirement of that directive and arising out of responses to the Government's White Paper entitled People, Jobs and Opportunity. I recognise too that for the most part those items are of general application. However, the inclusion of the word "any" in Schedule 4(1) (3) (j) is a sufficient indication that in many organisations there are no collective agreements. Therefore the fact that not all organisations have other arrangements for consulting and providing employees or their representatives with information is not a valid reason for excluding reference to such arrangements in the section. Moreover, given the way in which, for better or worse, in recent years collective bargaining in industrial and other organisations has been replaced by other ways of dealing with individual employees, inclusion of Amendment No. 57 in the Bill would recognise that fact.
I have stated why the amendment is framed as it is. However, I am not wedded to its wording. If the Government believe that the principle underlying the amendment could be framed in a different and possibly shorter way at Third Reading, that would be entirely acceptable. However, I hope that the principle will be accepted by the Minister and by the House. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we wish to support the amendment. However, I am a little confused because I had understood that Amendment No. 57 was grouped with Amendments Nos. 58 and 67. Does the noble Lord shake his head? Are the amendments being taken together?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I believe that the amendments are grouped together. I personally am not responsible for either of the other two amendments. No one has spoken in support of them.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 57. We certainly like Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 67. I agree with what the noble Lord said on Amendment No. 57. As he rightly said, Amendment No. 57 carries through Government legislation, whereas Amendments Nos. 58 and 67 make additions. In effect it is stated, "You have already legislated to say that companies should put those factors in their annual report. Surely, if companies include such matters in their annual report, the workers ought to be informed of them. Obviously providing information about consultation machinery is appropriate in employment particulars. For that reason, we support the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I confess to sharing the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, because I, too, believed that we were
840
speaking to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 67. I shall content myself to reply to Amendment No. 57. It is an important matter to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He stated that he has consulted with my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the issue. He seeks to add to the list of matters on which an employer is required to give particulars in an employee's written statement and main terms and conditions.
That is not acceptable to the Government. As I made clear when we debated similar amendments in Committee, the provision in Sections 1 to 6 of the 1978 Act have never been designed to cover every single aspect of an employee's terms and conditions. Rather, their purpose is to ensure that employees receive a useful written statement of the main or most important aspects of their employment.
Perhaps in my support I may refer to a statement of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. He stated in Committee that transparency and meaningful particulars are not necessarily created by having everything written out on a piece of paper for a particular worker.
The Government themselves are already providing in the Bill for a number of additions to the list of particulars which have to be included. Those are details concerning the duration of temporary contracts; information on the work location; a description of any collective agreements which directly affect the employee's terms and conditions; and certain further details for employees required to work abroad for a period of more than one month. We are also adding a brief description of the work for which the employee is employed, as an alternative to the title of the job. That is of course as a result of an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which we were happy to accept in Committee. In addition, we are providing that details of the most fundamental terms and conditions must be given explicitly in the statement, whereas previously employers have been able to give them by reference.
However, any further additions would undoubtedly increase the costs to employers of producing the information; and this would, in our view, be unacceptable. One must draw the line somewhere, and we believe that the Bill has got it right.
Furthermore, there are obvious advantages to employees in having a relatively brief, clear statement of their main or most important terms and conditions of employment. To add significantly to the list of matters which have to be covered in the statement, as the noble Lord seeks to do in the amendments, would create the real risk of them being snowed under with information, not all of which would be of equal importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised the issue of works councils and other consultative machinery. In the United Kingdom, the involvement of employees in the enterprises for which they work is a purely voluntary matter to be determined by agreement between the parties concerned. We believe that such an approach is most appropriate as it enables organisations to adopt flexible arrangements best suited to their own needs and those of their employees. In that way, companies will develop suitable

841
mechanisms for informing and consulting their employees in matters of interest to them. We do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to introduce any element of compulsion and inflexibility into what is a very successful voluntary system.
I appreciate too that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, tabled a similar amendment to the amendment that he now proposes in what became the Employment Act 1982. The amendment which was accepted by the Government required directors of larger companies to include in the report accompanying their annual accounts a statement describing action taken during the accounting year on employee involvement. That provision now resides within the Companies Act 1985. While the Government remain totally supportive of the Companies Act legislation, and would certainly accept that it is good practice for companies to include in their annual return such information, there are important differences between that legislation and the proposed amendment before us today.
First, while I believe that an indication in directors' reports of employee involvement arrangements is appropriate, I do not accept that the written statement is the right place to include details of information and consultation procedures. As I have said before, an over-abundance of elaboration and detail will not necessarily help the employees and may confuse the coverage of their main terms and conditions of employment.
Secondly, unlike the Companies Act requirement, it is not a single annual event but would be required to be included in all employees' written statements, thereby adding to business costs and making administrative arrangements cumbersome. Thirdly, the Companies Act requirement only impinges on larger companies which have adequate resources to deal with such matters. The proposed amendment would affect very much smaller companies which would carry heavy burdens.
Finally, the intention of the amendment to the 1982 Act was to bring into existence a mechanism which most companies did not at that time operate. That is not the case in the amendment before us today.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on employee involvement. Of course, the Government firmly support effective employee involvement and has sought to encourage good practice in this area in a variety of ways. For example, the current campaign run jointly with the CBI seeks to demonstrate the importance of such involvement to key aspects of business performance and has proved most successful. Only last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a joint. Treasury and Employment Department publication entitled Sharing in Success, which seeks further to promote employee financial participation.
But it remains the Government's view that employee involvement arrangements should be a voluntary matter to be determined by employers in the light of their own business needs and the needs of their employees. The strength of the voluntary approach is the flexibility it allows for employers to develop and implement arrangements which take account of local
842
conditions and practice. Under the voluntary framework in this country, UK companies have developed a wide range of successful employee involvement schemes which are suited to their own circumstances. We believe this is the right approach and we hope very much that the best practice will spread. The written statement of terms and conditions is evidence of some of the employee's rights and obligations under the relationship which he or she has, as an individual, with his or her employer.
The purpose of Amendment No. 57, by contrast, is to require information to be provided on the arrangements which the employer has made with the workforce as a whole for the giving of information. The written statement is not the right place for this. I hope that in a somewhat lengthy answer I have been able to give reasons which will make it possible for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she be prepared to examine her argument and consider whether a similar form of words to those in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would be acceptable? By my count, she insisted seven times that the Government's stand was upon voluntary procedures and voluntary arrangements. The amendment which the noble Lord moved refers to arrangements through which the employer already systematically provides employees with information and already consults employees. The choice is the employer's under this formula, or if it is not clear enough perhaps it could be made clearer. Does her argument deal with that or would she reconsider it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, by leave of the House, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I continue the argument which he raised in Committee that we must avoid oceans of paper. It is clearly a matter of judgment as to what is included. As I said, I am unpersuaded that any of the matters covered by the amendment should be made a special case.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, for their expressions of support for the amendment. I am disappointed with the noble Baroness's reply, I had hoped that as a result of my discussion with the department there might have been a more positive response, given the explanation I endeavoured to give to the noble Viscount on the reasons underlying the amendment. I feel that all the more strongly, given that, as I said in my earlier remarks, the wording coincides precisely with part of Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I was surprised at the suggestion which seemed to be made by the noble Baroness that in moving the amendment I was in some way seeking to oblige employers to introduce consultative machinery and was thus not conforming with the voluntary principle. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made plain, there is nothing in the amendment to suggest that any

843
element of compulsion was intended. What is stated there would apply only to arrangements which are already in existence on a voluntary basis.
I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by my pursuing the matter further now, but I should like to examine more closely what the noble Baroness said in reply. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 76, line 14, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 76, line 19, after ("of") insert ("a collective agreement or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 62, 66 and 71. They address an important problem for employers which arises from the existing provisions of the Bill; namely, the limited facility for the use of centrally held reference documents for notifying employees of particular terms and conditions of employment. Their purpose is not dealt with by the Government's Amendment No. 65 and the consequential amendments which I have already welcomed.
As currently drafted, the provisions of Schedule 4 only permit the employer to refer to other documents or particulars of terms and conditions relating to sickness and pensions, any disciplinary rules applicable to the employee, the later stages of disciplinary appeals procedures and grievance procedures, and particulars on notice rights.
Although the terms of the proof of contract directive preclude the use of reference documents in notifying certain particulars of employment, the Government have gone further than the directive requires by failing to permit reference to master documents for particulars of items which are not even required to be notified under the terms of the directive itself, as in the case with the initial stages of disciplinary appeals and grievance procedures and the contracting out arrangements for occupational pension schemes.
While I fully support the principle that all employees should receive written notification of their main terms and conditions of employment when they are employed for a significant number of hours each week, it is clear that the Government's proposal to restrict the use of reference documents will seriously affect flexibility and create an unacceptable administrative burden for businesses.
In connection with flexibility, I notice that my noble friend Lady Denton said how important flexibility was and how the Government welcomed it,
844
so I think that what I propose to your Lordships encourages the flexibility that the Government would clearly like anyhow.
I also suggest that flexibility is of assistance to the employees and that the employees will benefit from not having too much paper put before them. My noble friend Lady Denton talked about oceans of paper, so we are all speaking along the same lines. What one wishes to do is to make it possible to have flexibility for the employers while at the same time not unnecessarily overburdening employees with the detailed particulars of their own terms and conditions and to use, where available, the reference documents that are relevant to everyone's situation.
Employers are not aware that current arrangements, under which collective agreements or other documents are held readily available for reference, create any complaints either from employers or employees, or create any discontent. What matters most is that employees are provided with information and that the wide variety of existing practices—and that is a key factor—means that employers should have the maximum amount of flexibility.
Even if the Government's approach in seeking to notify pay, hours and holidays individually is considered correct, there seems to be no basis why, for example, disciplinary rules can be notified by reference but not disciplinary appeal procedures, and similarly why pension rules can be notified by reference but not details of whether a scheme is contracted in or out of the National Insurance scheme. That is what Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 66 and 71 are designed to address, by reintroducing the flexibility which is permitted by the terms of the directive. These amendments together will provide, to the extent permitted by the directive, some much-needed flexibility for employers to comply with the new requirement and will help to ease the administrative burden. They are relatively simple and innocuous and I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to support their inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, 1 listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in moving the amendment. We on this side of the House have no strong objection to it. In fact I rather welcome the reference to a collective agreement. In my experience many collective agreements in industry are extremely comprehensive documents. I should have thought that pointing employees in the direction of a collective agreement which had been entered into on their behalf was an appropriate way of dealing with this situation. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to respond favourably to what has been said.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I, too, wish to offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on these amendments. I was pleased to note the terms of Amendment No. 66—I think I am right in saying that that amendment is also being spoken to—relating to disciplinary procedures. I believe that to be a most

845
important element in management and deserves the comprehensive treatment which is provided for it in Amendment No. 66.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish to support the thrust of this amendment but I do so in order to put a particular question to the Minister. If all or part of the Government's response is to say they cannot do what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants them to do by reason of the directive, will they please set out for us precisely where the borderline of the directive falls? There are problems with the directive. It may be that the Government find the debate easier to conduct without reference to the directive or provisions within it. If that is not so, it would be helpful if the Government would say where they think the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, transgresses the directive, if it does.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of these amendments, all of which relate to the use of reference documents. I hope it will be helpful if I begin by explaining the Government's policy on this issue. At present the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides that none of the particulars specified in the existing Section 1(3) need be given explicitly in an employee's written statement if, instead, the employer gives them by reference. Reference may be made to any other document which the employee has reasonable opportunities of reading in the course of his or her employment, or which is made reasonably accessible to him or her in some other way.
In the Government's view this position is no longer justifiable, particularly in today's labour market when individual employer/employee relationships are becoming ever more important. That is why the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill reverse the current position so that in general the particulars in the new Section 1(3), which include certain additional items, must be given explicitly in the written statement and cannot be given by reference to another document. Even so. there are some important exceptions as regards details of pensions, sickness provisions and notice entitlement and also certain details of disciplinary and grievance matters which are dealt with in the new Section 3. We believe that employers should continue to be able to give these details by reference, if that would be more convenient, as they may often be quite lengthy or complicated. In the case of notice entitlement, the employer may quite legitimately wish to refer the employee to the statutory provisions governing this matter.
I now turn to the specific amendments before us. Amendment No. 60 seeks to make clear that in the limited exceptional circumstances where the Bill allows reference, this can be to a collective agreement as well as to any other document. I am happy to assure my noble friend that the term "document" as used in the Bill already encompasses collective agreements, and that his amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 allow employers to make use of reference documents in providing certain details of the special pay and other entitlements of
846
employees who are required to work abroad for a period of one month or more. As such they are contrary to the Government's policy as I have just described it. Our policy is that, following the coming into force of these provisions of the Bill, particulars relating to pay entitlement should always be given explicitly in the employee's written statement. This could he considered especially important in the case of employees who are required to work abroad as clearly they are unlikely to be in a position to refer to staff handbooks, collective agreements and other such documents while they are out of the country.
Amendment No. 66, concerning the provision of details relating to disciplinary and grievance matters and a statement as to whether or not a contracting-out certificate is in force for the employment in question, is unacceptable to the Government. We can see no justification for the change which my noble friend seeks to make. I can assure my noble friend that the Bill places no more onerous an obligation on employers in this respect than do the existing provisions which do not appear to have caused employers any difficulty up until now. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that any employer would regard it as more onerous to have to include explicitly in the written statements, rather than by reference to another document, the name or position of a person to whom application should be made about a disciplinary or grievance decision, the manner of making such applications, or a simple statement of whether or not a contracting-out certificate was in force. If that is what my noble friend is suggesting, I believe he is greatly overstating his case.
Amendment No. 71 is again contrary to the Government's policy that employees should in general be entitled to receive explicit details of any changes to the matters covered by the written statement. The Bill, as drafted, provides that explicit details must be given of any change to a matter which must itself be covered explicitly in the employee's written statement. Similarly, it allows reference documents to be used for providing details of any change to a matter which may itself be given by reference. That seems entirely logical and reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked whether we were in any way constrained by the application of the proof of employment directive. The directive does, of course, contain certain provisions relating to reference documents, but as will be clear from what I have said, the Government have other reasons for opposing the amendments proposed by my noble friend. I have, of course, considered the amendments carefully but, for the reasons given in Committee and on this occasion in regard to the requirements of Schedule 4, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his fairly full description of his views on the various amendments I have tabled. I thank noble Lords opposite for their support for these amendments. I feel there is still room for this Bill to be improved in this area in a way that the Government at the moment do not accept. I have a feeling that between now and Third Reading we might be able to

847
achieve my purpose of flexibility. My noble friend did not refer to the matter of flexibility or of making things easier for employers and of easing the burden both for employers and employees. There is still room for that to be improved without, so to speak, quarrelling with the principles which my noble friend enunciated at the beginning of his speech.
I shall work on this matter, together with the CBI, and find whether we can come up with something to which everybody can agree at Third Reading. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 76, line 29, at end insert ("provided that the provisions of the law or of an official summary thereof or of the collective agreement, as the case may be, are reasonably accessible at the place of work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72, which is a parallel amendment at another place in the Bill. I shall not go over again the ground that we have just debated. On the other hand, it is germane to the issue about which the Minister quoted a phrase of mine; namely, the problem of an ocean of paper. I believe that many managers now see that as a possible difficulty with the proposals put forward to implement the directive.
The noble Viscount confirmed that the reason why reference to, or incorporation of, collective agreements and collective arrangements had been leaned against, as it were, by the Government's proposals, was that the Government preferred individual arrangements. The White Paper is straightforward about it. But, as any personnel manager or trade union official knows, if one tries to make all the arrangements individual in a rather large or even medium sized workforce, when one is required to give particulars one risks getting an ocean of paper and not merely in the first instance.
If the Government are serious—their proposals and their amendments to the Bill seem to suggest that they are—about having individual notification of changes in employment terms, it is an ocean that rolls in every week on a new tide. The reality of life is not employment terms that remain the same but employment terms that frequently change—say, from month to month—in certain small respects. In large matters one can understand the demand for individual notification, but not otherwise.
The procedure of reference or incorporation whereby written particulars say in effect. as so many millions of them do, that terms on this or these matters are to be found in the collective agreement, the unilateral employers' works rules or some other document has operated within a framework of the law which remains the same as that laid down by the admirable Conservative Administration of 1963 that introduced the notion of written particulars. Some noble Lords sitting behind the Minister must look
848
back to that time as a golden age. It was certainly a bold step to take. It worked because sensible use was made of the principle of reference.
The three functions of the written particulars, if the matter was operated properly, were therefore fulfilled. There was what is now called in Community-speak "due transparency" of the terms. From the employee's point of view there was the reasonable protection, although some thought 13 weeks too long to wait—it is admirable that now the particulars should be given within two months—of seeing the evidence of the terms of the contract.
Lastly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, there has been reasonable flexibility. In many places of work the flexibility and protection function has been based upon the principle which has grounded the legislation up to now; namely, where reference to another document is allowed, that document must be reasonably accessible to the worker at the place of work, or it must be reasonably open for him or her to read—and have an opportunity to read—during the employment. Reasonable accessibility at the place of work and sensible agreed use of reference to another document—especially sensible reference which says that the changes will be entered in that other document which is accessible to the employee—has saved the scheme from an ocean of paper.
Everything that the Government have said today and much in the Bill and in their amendments work the other way. These amendments do not make a full challenge on that point but my remarks have been occasioned by the debates that we have had today. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I should leave here today very worried. If employers have to give notice to each individual every time something is changed, there will be big problems.
However, if sensible use is made—there is still some use made in Schedule 4 that the Government put forward—of the reference procedure, a further problem arises. It arises because of the language of both the directive and the Bill. In both documents there is reference to the ability to refer to another document—to a law or a collective agreement. But it is not made clear whether that reference can simply be a reference to the fact that there is such an agreement and, perhaps, the place where it might be found.
My amendments suggest that where it is right and allowable to accept the doctrine of reference—I believe that it will continue to be practised almost irrespective of the schedule—then, when a law or collective agreement is referred to, it must be reasonably accessible at the place of work, according to the principle laid down in 1963. That principle has been a bipartisan element in the operation of this area of the law since that time.
It may be that the Government feel that the particular words of my proviso are not acceptable. However, since we are having so many new principles put to us in regard to the written particulars and since there is such difficulty about the issue of reference to other documents, I ask them to consider carefully the principle that where a collective agreement or a law (the directive allows for a law) is referred to, the worker must at least have a reasonable chance of

849
seeing what that document contains. Otherwise the particulars as to his rights are meaningless. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is interesting to see why, if it is the case, the Government resist returning to the phrase about reasonable accessibility. If there are to be references to other documents, it seems to me obvious that they should need to be reasonably accessible.
The problem for the Government—it was shown clearly when the Minister replied to the previous set of amendments—is that they now fear an ocean of paper. The simple way to avoid that ocean is to use reference documents. But the most obvious document to use is a collective agreement and the Government do not like collective agreements. Even if they use other documents, those documents should be reasonably accessible. For that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I always listen very carefully to the arguments of noble Lords on the other Benches. With regard to the reference to collective agreements, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has a point. If employers make reference to collective agreements, as they may still do for particulars of pensions, sickness entitlement or certain details relating to disciplinary and grievance matters, they must ensure that the employees concerned have reasonable opportunities to read those agreements in the course of their employment or make the documents reasonably accessible in some other way.
I can think of no good reason why a different situation should apply when employers make such reference for particulars of notice entitlement. Therefore, I am happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that if he is prepared to withdraw his amendments, the Government will return at Third Reading with their own amendments to meet the point on collective agreements.
However, I must stress that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendments as they stand. They go too far in one respect. Where an employee's notice entitlement is no more than the statutory minimum, it is entirely reasonable that in the written statement the employer should be able simply to refer to the relevant provision, which is in fact Section 49 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
I can assure the noble Lord that we do not consider that it would be sufficient for the employer simply to state that the employee could rely on his or her statutory rights. In order to fulfil the relevant requirement of the Bill, the employer would have to make a specific reference to Section 49. However, to go further than that by placing the employer under a statutory obligation to make the actual text of the legislation, or a summary of it, reasonably accessible for the employee's inspection, would unjustifiably increase the cost of producing the information.
The employment department has produced an excellent booklet on the statutory notice provisions, which is available completely free of charge from all local employment offices and job centres and also from ACAS, which, as always, is happy to advise on
850
any industrial relations issue. In that aspect of his amendment, I believe that the noble Lord seeks unreasonably to increase the burdens on business. However, I hope that he will take some comfort from my undertaking with regard to collective agreements and will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall resist any temptation to argue about the second half of what she said, especially since, when I thought about it, in view of the booklet being produced by the Department of Employment, it may increase unemployment in the department. I am therefore happy to accede to her argument and thank her for the first half of her answer on collective agreements. We look forward to seeing the Government's amendments on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 76, line 30, leave out from ("1(2)") to end of line 31 and insert ("and the following provisions of subsection (3)—

(a) paragraphs (a) to (c),

(b) head (i) of paragraph (d),

(c) paragraph (f), and

(d) paragraph (h),

shall be included in a single document (in this Part referred to as the "principal statement")").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 65 with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 76, line 41, after ("rules") insert ("and procedures")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I can speak briefly to Amendment No. 67. It was to have been moved with Amendment No. 58 which, inadvertently, I failed to move. If the Minister will kindly indulge me by responding to Amendment No. 58 as well as to Amendment No. 67, I shall be grateful.
Both amendments relate to Schedule 4 and seek to insert minor amendments. Amendment No. 58 sought to ensure that information about redundancy selection procedures was included in the statement. Amendment No. 67 seeks to add "and procedures" after the word "rules" in the section on discipline. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer both amendments, even though we have passed Amendment No. 58, so that what the Government have to say is on the record.
I believe that in the present situation and for the foreseeable future it is only reasonable that information about redundancy selection procedures should be included in the statement. I shall be glad to hear whether the Government will agree to add the words "and procedures" after the word "rules" in the statement on discipline. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am glad that we have come back to Amendment No. 58 while debating Amendment No. 67. There are a number of quick points which can be made. In relation to Amendment No. 58—
"information about redundancy selection procedures"—
I hope that when the Government reply they will take on board the fact that redundancy selection procedures are extremely diverse. Once upon a time, when the world was young, it was "first in, last out". Now it is anything but that. Employers have subtle and flexible redundancy procedures. Sometimes they are based on decisions on relative performance; sometimes on labour market skills; sometimes on the employer's attitude towards the age structure of the labour force, and sometimes the workers would say it is "blue-eyed" boys and girls.
These days it is not a simple redundancy selection procedure based on first in, last out. Therefore it is good management industrial relations practice that the employer should be compelled to give the worker some information about the redundancy selection procedures that he uses. The same thing could be said in regard to Amendment No. 67. A disciplinary procedure which is just a set of rules given to the worker tells him nothing. The worker must know the process by which the discipline is carried out, otherwise he cannot know whether or not he is likely to receive natural justice. Both amendments are reasonable and constitute good management practice. We are prepared to support them.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I would have thought that there was some merit in Amendment No. 67, mainly because the side notes in the Bill talk of disciplinary procedures. That seems to me to be a perfectly harmless amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 58, they were far from golden days when one was forced to have a last in, first out procedure. It meant that on many occasions one had to part with better people or keep people who were not as good. It was an unpleasant rule of thumb and I am delighted that it was got rid of.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should point out that I am speaking to Amendment No. 67; but, in order to be helpful, I will briefly cover Amendment No. 58. In speaking to Amendment No. 57, I covered extensively the need to walk this difficult tightrope of balancing paperwork between what simply provides information and what confuses by its excess.
While we believe that employers should apply fair and objective procedures in the event that they need to select employees for redundancy, we are talking of the information which must be given to an employee in his or her initial statement of main terms and conditions of employment to be provided by the employer within two months of when the employee started work. In drawing a line between those matters which it is reasonable for an employer to be required to cover in every statement, and those which it is not sensible to make the subject of a statutory requirement, information on redundancy procedure falls the wrong
852
side of the dividing line. As my noble friend Lord Finsberg pointed out, the needs of the company to survive for the benefit of all workers are involved in the issue and often the reasons why redundancies prove necessary—the economic facts—can be variable. Therefore we would not wish to accept the amendment.
In relation to Amendment No. 67, I am happy to assure the House that the Bill as drafted already requires employers to give certain details of disciplinary procedures as, indeed, does the current legislation in the 1978 Act. It is provided for in the new Section 3(1). I hope that the noble Lord will find it acceptable that we believe the amendment to be unnecessary.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to extend her remarks to Amendment No. 58 as well as to Amendment No. 67 which is before the House. But I am disappointed that she cannot offer any hope. I realise that it is a fine line. I am sorry that she has come down on the wrong side of it. I must regret that, especially in view of the support I received on both amendments from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Nevertheless, I do not think it is a matter that I should take to a Division. I am sorry about Amendment No. 67, which has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for which I was very grateful and which I found unexpected. As it clearly is not necessary, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 77, line 26, at end insert ("or, where no such statement is given, after the end of the period within which a statement under section 1 is required to be given").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 77, line 35, at end insert:
("() In a case where the statement under section I is given in instalments, subsection (1) applies—

(a) in relation to—

(i) matters particulars of which are required to be (whether they are or not) included in the instalment comprising the principal statement, and

(ii) other matters particulars of which are included or referred to in that instalment;

(b) in relation to matters particulars of which are included or referred to in any other instalment; and

(c) in relation to any change occurring after the end of the two-month period within which a statement under section 1 is required to be given in matters particulars of which were required to be included in the statement given under section 1 but which were not included in any instalment;

as it applies in relation to matters particulars of which are required to be included or referred to in a statement under section 1 not given in instalments.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 72A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

853
("Rights of part-time workers
.—(1) Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (normal working weeks) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3, for "sixteen" there shall be substituted "eight".
(3) In paragraph 4, for "sixteen" there shall be substituted "eight".
(4) In paragraph 5, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be omitted.
(5) In paragraph 6, sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the same employment protection to those people working between eight and 16 hours as is enjoyed by those working 16 hours-plus. Currently, protection is given only to workers employed for between eight and 16 hours if they have worked for five years or more with the same employer. The Government are keen to advocate flexibility in the labour market. I believe that they are right to do so. It suits many employers to do so and it certainly suits many employees, particularly women. Currently, some 25 per cent. of the workforce work part-time; 90 per cent. of them are women. The point at issue is whether these workers should be treated differently from full-time workers.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, the body with statutory responsibility for promoting equality between the sexes, has been consistently of the opinion that they should be treated equally. Moreover, the commission and many other bodies take the view that it is indirect discrimination against women to treat part-time workers differently from full-time workers. Recently a letter was sent to the Secretary of State for Employment from a group of women's organisations asking the Secretary of State to amend employment law along the lines of this amendment. It was not a group of "way out" organisations but a group of long-standing ones which are held in high esteem by the community at large; namely, the Fawcett Society, the National Alliance of Women, the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Townswomen's Guilds and the UK Federation of Business and Professional Women. That is a fairly representative body. If one adds the TUC, it can be seen that there is widespread support for the amendment, and support among those who represent part-time workers.
In December 1990 your Lordships' European Communities Committee, looking at the directive from Europe on part-time and temporary employment, came to a similar conclusion. I know the Government claim that it would be a disadvantage to women to extend these benefits to part-time employers. It was said by the then Minister, who met your Lordships' Select Committee, that it would deter employers from employing women. There is no evidence to substantiate that proposition. Part-time work is offered because it suits the work pattern of some employers. It enables industry to be more efficient by extending the number of hours during which plant and machinery is used, meeting peaks in productivity and providing services for the public at a time when the services are needed.
Evidence from the Government's own survey in 1988 came out in support of that view. The Department of Employment study by Wood and Smith in 1988 on whether or not employers employ people as part-time or temporary workers because they have fewer rights under employment legislation found that less than 1 per cent. of the employers gave that as a reason for employing part-time workers. The overwhelming reason given by employers for using part-time staff was that it gave them greater flexibility in their operations. The amendment would meet the views of those employers.
The Government have also claimed that to extend protection to these part-time employees would be too costly. The memorandum accompanying the letter to the Secretary of State from the women's organisations showed just how exaggerated that claim is. Your Lordships' Select Committee, while recognising that some costs were likely to be involved, was unconvinced of the accuracy of the Government's statistics on this point and considered that the general economic conditions of the country would have a far greater effect on the employment of part-time workers.
The arguments for the amendment on grounds of efficiency are formidable. The arguments on grounds of equality for women are overwhelming. Women's work patterns clearly indicate the need for a choice to take part-time work while their children are young. This keeps them in touch with changes in employment techniques. It helps smooth the passage back into full-time employment and it ensures that their skills and talents are not entirely lost to employment during their time of family formation. These women are an essential and important part of the workforce. They are not a marginalised sector of it, to he treated as cheap labour. I suggest that the Government could recognise the importance of these workers by accepting the amendment before us. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has covered most of the important arguments in favour of the amendment—the efficiency argument, the quality argument, the discrimination argument and the fact that there is no real evidence that it will have any deleterious effect on employment. I want to put forward one or two other arguments. First, it should be stressed how wide these rights are. We are talking about all those rights that are dependent on continuity of employment. Workers employed for under 16 hours now cannot qualify to be considered as people who have continuity of employment. They have no right to written terms, no right to guaranteed pay, no right to time off for public duties, no right to redundancy pay, no maternity rights and no unfair dismissal rights unless they are employed for five years. That is the situation we arc seeking to remedy—a very wide span of civil work rights which we believe can be moved forward by the amendment.
An argument not mentioned by the noble Baroness is that not only is 25 per cent. of the workforce part-time now but the part-time section of the workforce is rising six times as fast as the rise in the full-time workforce. The workforce is becoming a

855
part-time workforce. These people are not abnormal and atypical; they are becoming increasingly typical. Therefore, unless we do something to bring them into the framework of workers' rights, the rights which we do have will become less representative and a smaller and smaller section of the labour force will qualify for those rights. That is a very important point for the House to remember.
It is undoubtedly the case that those are specially vulnerable groups. The relative power position of those people is weak. They are very difficult to organise in trade unions and they are very dependent on such statutory rights that exist, except that those rights are denied them because they do not work 16 hours a week. For all those reasons, we suggest that this is a very worthwhile amendment and we commend it to the House.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have been impressed by the increasing volume of evidence that companies are converting full-time jobs into part-time posts as a means of cutting employment costs rather than providing new opportunities for the unemployed. There is nothing to stop employers recruiting part-time employees and then asking them to work overtime in a way which means that they are in effect full-time employees working without the benefits which normally accompany full-time employment.
I believe I am right in saying that opting out of the social chapter will give licence to the United Kingdom to be the only European Community country where that exploitation—I do not believe that is too strong a word—is possible. Amendment No. 72A seeks to end that anomaly, and I am glad to support it.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, beguiling and very interesting. I began to think that it was worthy of support. However, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, totally destroyed that and showed that basically he was inside what now appears to be a Trojan horse because the enormous flow of things which followed from what he said brought back to me the industrial relations which I had to deal with 20 to 30 years ago. Therefore, I do not believe that this amendment is a good idea. The noble Lord has scuppered the very helpful and moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in moving the amendment.
As regards the points made the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I believe that we are much more concerned to make certain that companies can stay alive employing people. If companies were forced to have the social chapter, which he seems to like so much, many more jobs would be lost and I do not want to see that happen.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if people do not get a living wage from their employer they tend to become dependent on the benefits system. I understand why the Government are concerned to reduce the social security budget. Accepting this amendment might be one way to set about it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and noble Lords. However, they have not changed my view that the amendment before us would represent an unacceptable additional burden on employers which would reduce job opportunities for everyone, and in particular for those working part-time. We discussed this important issue in Committee, and I explained then the Government's position.
The Government welcome the great expansion of part-time working over the past decade or so. It is a sign of increased labour market flexibility, which is good for the economy and good for employees. Noble Lords opposite sometimes give the impression that they see part-time working as a bad thing which the Government should step in to eliminate. The European Commission has a tendency to display the same view. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has a much more balanced view about this particular aspect.
I remind noble Lords and the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people working part-time do so through choice, and, if they were obliged to work full-time, would give up work altogether. I cannot believe that this is what any of us would wish to see.
Equally, I should remind the House that there is no question of part-time workers being unprotected under the legislation. Fifty-seven per cent. of all employees who work part-time in fact work 16 or more hours a week and enjoy exactly the same employment protection rights as full-time employees. Another 9 per cent. of part-timers already qualify for rights because they have worked for their employer for five years. Furthermore, many important rights extend to all employees, regardless of their hours of work, and we have introduced such additional protection in this Bill.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Finsberg that the list which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, read out, was indeed a long one. I have to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that the Government are certainly willing to extend part-time workers' rights where such measures will not create unreasonable burdens for employers and have a detrimental effect on part-time work opportunities. I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords of the provisions in the Bill which extend important new rights to all employees regardless of their hours of work or length of service. Those include rights relating to maternity leave and dismissal on grounds of pregnancy; health and safety matters; a number of trade union matters; and protection against being dismissed for trying to exercise statutory employment rights.
We have to create a balance of opportunities and protection. I believe that the Government have got the balance right. We have to take a very carefully considered view about the protection which legislation should provide to employees and the commensurate burden which employers should be required to bear. We have drawn the line at the point we consider right.
I do not say that that line is immovable. Indeed, as I have pointed out, we are moving it substantially in this Bill. But to accept the proposal that everyone who

857
works as little as one day a week should enjoy the full range of rights and protections which apply to full-time employees would be to place unacceptable and inappropriate burdens on business. The effect would be to reduce employment opportunities for part-time workers, placing them at a disadvantage in the labour market rather than improving their lot. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Viscount was kind enough to list for us a number of new rights in this Bill which do not depend on continuity of employment. Can he tell us what is the difference between those rights and those that I listed which are dependent on continuity of employment? What is it that shows that it is perfectly reasonable to make one lot available for everyone and the other not available for everyone?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the.leave of the House perhaps I may respond. After reading out the list, I then gave the answer to the noble Lord. Perhaps he should examine Hansard. I said that we have taken a very carefully considered view about the protection which legislation should provide to employees and the commensurate burden which employers should be required to bear.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I find the Government's view very difficult to understand. The Minister welcomed the expansion of part-time employment. He says that he wants to see that continue. If it does continue we can move into a situation where more and more people in the workforce will not have the protection which they have today. He told us that 50 per cent. of the workforce works 16 hours or more and therefore have protection and that 9 per cent. have worked for an employer for five years or more and therefore also have protection, which gives us 59 per cent. of the quarter of the workforce which works part-time. What about the other 41 per cent.? They are not covered by all the employment protection which other employees enjoy. It means that we are marginalising them and making them a separate part of the workforce. As I said, many of those workers are working part-time for a temporary period in their careers. They are working part-time while their children are young and I do not see why we should penalise them for doing that.
I feel that if we are to have a flexible workforce it must suit not only employers but employees also, and that we must protect them. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister's views, and I should like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.72A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Airedale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

858

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Malialieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Healey, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Goschen, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Greenway, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Astor, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hemphill, L.

Atholl, D.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Blake, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Blyth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Bolton, L.

Kitchener. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Leigh, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Dormer, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Downshire, M.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elphinstone, L.

St. Davids. V.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Finsberg, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strafford, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swansea, L.

859

Swinfen, L.

Ullswater. V.

Tebbit, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Teviot, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Torrington, V.

Wynford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Clause 28 [Dismissal on ground of assertion of statutory right]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 46, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert:
("(2) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the employee has the right or not and whether it has been infringed or not, but, for that subsection to apply, the claim to the right and that it has been infringed must be made in good faith.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, noble Lords on all sides have welcomed Clause 28; which the Government introduced in Committee. The clause gives valuable protection to individuals who might otherwise fear to ask their employer to comply with a statutory employment protection provision —for example, by providing written particulars of the individual's employment—in case the employer should retaliate by dismissing them. Such a reaction would be inexcusable.
These two amendments ensure that the provisions will work as we intend, and that individuals do not lose protection because of technicalities. The new subsection (2) also provides that the individual will in no circumstances get the benefit of the protection from dismissal where his claim was not made in good faith.
The first amendment makes three changes. The first is to ensure that an employee who seeks to exercise a right in good faith is not deprived of protection if he is dismissed for doing so simply because, perhaps because of a technicality or because of some obscure point of law which took considerable time and effort to untangle, he turns out not to have been entitled under the right he sought to claim. The second change is to make clear that, where a complaint is made in bad faith, the protection does not apply. Thirdly, it is possible that the previous subsection (2) may, because of its drafting, have applied only to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and the amendment clarifies that the subsection applies to paragraph (a) as well.
Together, these amendments mean that there will be no need for the industrial tribunal to reach a firm decision about whether the individual is in fact entitled to the right, or if entitled has had his right infringed, before it can decide the issue about the dismissal.
Amendment No. 74—the amendment to subsection (3) of new Section 60A—ensures that the individual does not lose the protection of the section because, as is often the case, he has specified inexactly on his industrial tribunal application what right he is claiming. It clarifies that the subsection applies to (a) as well as (b) of subsection (1), so that, provided the application form is reasonably clear, that will be sufficient. This was always the intention and this redraft will ensure that it is fulfilled.
As your Lordships will realise, one of the rights in respect of which this clause gives protection is Section 146 of the 1992 Act, which deals with action short of dismissal on the grounds of trade union membership and activities.
In that connection, I would like to take this opportunity to advise your Lordships of an amendment which the Government will be tabling for debate on Third Reading. As your Lordships may be aware, the Court of Appeal reached a judgment last Friday which held an employer to be in breach of the law now contained in Section 146 where he had offered financial inducements to his employees to move away from collective negotiation to personal contracts.
It was never the Government's intention, when the current law on action short of dismissal was introduced, that it should be interpreted in this way or that it should interfere with an employer's freedom to seek to make such a change. The number of cases recently has shown that the existing law is giving rise to difficulties and confusion in the tribunals. The Court of Appeal rulings have confirmed that the present position is unsatisfactory. We therefore propose to introduce an amendment before Third Reading which will clarify the effect of the law in this area. There will of course be an opportunity for your Lordships to debate this matter fully at Third Reading if necessary. However, I thought that it would be helpful to give notice of the Government's intentions at the earliest opportunity.
Returning to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, I hope that noble Lords will welcome the improvements that they make. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation of Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, to which we certainly do not intend this evening to offer any objection from this side of the House. I thank him also for giving us early warning, so to speak, of the amendment that it is intended to put down for Third Reading arising from the recent Court of Appeal decision. We shall of course have to consider that when we see the text of the amendment, but in the meantime perhaps the noble Viscount will make arrangements for the Court of Appeal decision to be placed in the House so that we may have the opportunity of reading it before we see the text of the Third Reading amendment. However, as regards Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, which are all that are before your Lordships this evening, we on this side of the House certainly do not intend to offer any objection to what has been said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to welcome Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 and to thank the noble Viscount for them. On the further amendment of which he has given notice, I thank him for that notice. It would be a notable courtesy if he would send us copies of the amendment as soon as it is tabled and, if possible, table it some days ahead of Third Reading.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, although I welcome Amendment No. 73, the Minister has told your Lordships of a serious step that the Government

861
are about to take. Having had—I think I am right—five days to consider two major Court of Appeal judgments, they have decided to reverse the law from what it has been since 1975. The Court of Appeal held in both cases that the action of an employer who offered sweeteners, or what some would call bribes, to people with personalised contracts to encourage them to leave the union on a de-recognition of the trade unions infringed the rights of those employees as trade union members in respect of their membership and, as I understand the judgments, in one respect also, of their activities.
I have these questions to add to those which my noble friend and the noble Earl on the Liberal Benches have asked. First, is it clear to the Government that neither of these Court of Appeal decisions is being taken to the House of Lords, your Lordships' Appellate Committee? If they are or if intention is still unknown on that matter, will the Government not stay their hand until we see what the House of Lords says, as it is a declaration by the Court of Appeal which has triggered the Government into taking this intemperate step of today's announcement? With great respect to the noble Viscount, I think that is what it is.
Secondly, did the noble Viscount's announcement relate to the judgments in both the Palmer and Wilson cases? Will he put in the Library a further statement as to the relationship of the Government's coming step to both of these Court of Appeal judgments? It is quite extraordinary for a government to react so quickly to a Court of Appeal interpretation in two cases of some complexity and technicality, though it is one which does not surprise anyone who has studied this area of the law since 1975.
Finally, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said quite rightly that the Government must surely give us long notice of the contents of the amendment. If we have to go to Third Reading to discuss these difficult issues on a few days' notice, the change in the law will not be appreciated by anyone and it is highly likely that we will get the thing wrong from everyone's point of view. Will the noble Viscount, who has obviously given the matter intense thought since the judgments of 30th April, give us at least a week's notice of the discussion of the text that he will have placed in the Library or that he will have tabled as an amendment to the Bill on Third Reading?
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may first dispose of Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. I am grateful for the welcome that they have received from noble Lords opposite. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the amendment which will be tabled has not yet been prepared, as the full transcript of the Court of Appeal's ruling is not yet available. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I shall take every opportunity to lodge that transcript in the Library as soon as it is available. I am assured that there will be ample opportunity to discuss and debate the amendment on Third Reading.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, it is not yet clear whether the case will come to this House for further judgment, as the Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal. However, it is clear that the
862
law on action short of dismissal is not achieving its intended purpose—I take issue with the noble Lord on his interpretation—and is being used to prevent employers from making perfectly legitimate decisions about how they wish to negotiate with their work force. It was also the view of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which reached a decision contrary to that now given by the Court of Appeal, that it may be necessary to clarify the law in this case. I would have thought that your Lordships would welcome the fact that the Government intend to clarify an area of law which has been thrown into confusion by the Court of Appeal's decision, but in which the tribunals and the courts themselves have suggested that they need clearer guidance.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount—how shall I put this so that it is easy for him to answer?—whether, if there is obscurity which must be clarified, the Government have ever turned their mind to this point since 1979? Has it lurked there as a difficulty, unspotted? Why the haste and the rush?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government have been keeping this matter under review. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions were in line with the Government's clear intentions at the time the current legislation was enacted. Until last week's Court of Appeal judgment it was by no means clear that any amendment was necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 46, line 30, leave out from ("right") to end of line 31 and insert ("claimed to have been infringed was.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Amendments of transfer of undertakings regulations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 50, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) In Regulation 5 (effect of relevant transfer on contracts of employment, etc)—

(a) in paragraph (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Except where objection is made under paragraph (4A) below,";

(b) in paragraph (2) after the words "paragraph (1) above" there shall be inserted the words "but subject to paragraph (4A) below,";

(c) after paragraph (4), there shall be inserted—

"(4A) Paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not operate to transfer his contract of employment and the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it if the employee informs the transferor or the transferee that he objects to becoming employed by the transferee.
(4B) Where an employee so objects the transfer of the undertaking or part in which he is employed shall operate so as to terminate his contract of employment with the transferor but he shall not be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed by the transferor."; and
(d) in paragraph (5), for the words "Paragraph (1) above is" there shall be substituted the words "Paragraphs (1) and (4A) above are".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment, like Amendment No. 75 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is concerned with the

863
situation where an employee does not wish to transfer to a new employer when the undertaking in which he works is transferred. Like the noble Lord's amendment, it takes as its starting point the recent European Court of Justice judgment in what is generally known as the Katsikas case.
In its judgment, the court made it clear that the Acquired Rights Directive does not prevent an employee from opposing the automatic transfer of his employment contract to the new employer. The court went on to say, however, that the directive:
"does not require the Member States to provide for the maintenance of the contract of employment or the employment relationship with the transferor where the employee decides of his own accord not to continue the contract of employment or the employment relationship with the transferee. It is for the Member States to decide how the contract of employment or the employment relationship should be dealt with in that situation."
Noble Lords may be aware that there has been speculation in recent weeks about the implications of the Katsikas case in the UK. I have seen it suggested that under existing UK law the contract of an individual who refused to transfer to the new employer would remain in force with the old employer, whether the old employer wished that to be the case or not. If the old employer declined to maintain the contract of employment it has been suggested that he would be found to have dismissed the employee, who would be entitled to a redundancy payment or, possibly, compensation for unfair dismissal.
The Government do not share that view. The advice I have received is that an individual who refused to have his contract of employment transferred to the new employer in that way would have no continuing rights against the old employer. He would, in effect, have resigned from his employment.
It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, may share the Government's view, because his Amendment No. 75 seeks to introduce an explicit right for individuals who refuse to transfer to continue their employment with the old employer. It is, however, apparent that the Katsikas judgment has given some scope for uncertainty about the position of individuals who make use of their right to object to the transfer of their employment contracts.
In the Government's view, Amendment No. 74A does not change the existing law but merely puts the position beyond doubt. It makes it clear that an individual has the right to inform either the old employer or the new employer that he objects to the transfer of his employment contract. It also makes it clear that when such an objection is made the individual's contract terminates. He will not have been dismissed or made redundant—his contract will merely have come to an end.
The Government believe that this amendment will have a useful role in putting the position beyond doubt and thus preventing further speculation and uncertainty. It is wholly in line with the judgment of the European Court and I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No. 74A. However I am most unhappy about its wording, especially that of paragraph (4B). It seems to me that that paragraph provides for all employment rights to be extinguished. I do not believe that there is any basis for that. Amendment No. 75 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, which I prefer to Amendment No. 74A, covers the same ground but does not extinguish the rights that the employee might otherwise be entitled to receive.
If the Government persist with Amendment No. 74A and it is included in the text of the Bill we shall be looking at this issue again on Third Reading, having taken some further advice. I give the Minister notice, as he gave us notice of an amendment that he intends to move on Third Reading, that we shall be probably tabling an amendment also at that stage to remove paragraph (4B).
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister kindly referred to my amendment, which I shall not be moving as it is grouped with his. I should like to speak to it and to the amendment that he has moved. It may be somewhat unfortunate that this matter is to be discussed now. It is a matter which affects millions of employees. It affects the transfer of undertakings regulations. The Government are sensitive in the area of transfer of undertakings, given their belief that the Community directive and the regulations passed in this country in 1981 did not apply to competitive tendering. Of course, to a great extent they are shown to be applicable in most of such cases and so one can understand the Government's sensitivity.
Secondly, I submit with respect that it is not a matter merely to be clarified, as the Minister suggested. The Katsikas case decided by the European Court of Justice on 16th December 1992, but unhappily known about some time later as is the case with these judgments, clearly corrected a misapprehension which almost everyone—I admit that it was mine as well—had about this area of the law. We believed that if a transfer of undertakings took place then the transfer to the transferee included all the contracts of employment relating to the workers employed by the transferor.
We have been proved to have been wrong, because one has to add to that a proviso that now, in view of the Katsikas case, where the employee objects, his personal contract cannot be transferred. The Minister quoted from the Katsikas judgment, but I must cite it further. He will be aware that I do not object to his truncated citation in view of the time but, nevertheless, the court said:
"If the Directive … allows an employee to remain in employment with a new employer on the same conditions as those agreed with the transferor it cannot be interpreted as obliging the employee to continue his employment relationship with the transferee.
Such an obligation would undermine the fundamental rights of the employee who must be free to chose his employer and cannot be obliged to work for an employer".
The judgment then continued that the directive's provisions:

865
"do not prevent an employee from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or of his employment relationship".
Then, lastly, the passage that the Minister quoted:
"In such cases, it is for the Member States to determine the fate of the contract of employment or of the employment relationship".
That is the structure of the judgment.
Of course I accept that it is therefore for the national law —that means this Bill—to determine what are the rights of an employee who says, "Yes, you are transferring the undertaking, but I do not want to go to the new employer". This is a serious matter, for the employee may have serious grounds for not wishing to be in the employment of the transferee employer. Without elaborating, your Lordships may imagine that this is a protection for the employee to which the European Court refers as one of his fundamental rights.
It is true that the national law can then say what is to be the fate of the employee who objects. The difference between the Government solution and mine—give or take a bit of drafting which I would have to put right—is that the Government explode the nuclear device of employment law as soon as the worker objects. As soon as he says, "I won't go", the Government say, "You're out. You have no rights. You have no contract. You are finished". My solution says, "You can object, and you remain with the transferor who, of course, can give you notice". No one is saying that the transferor has to employ the employee for longer than he had to employ him before.
It is the transferor who triggers the transaction, because he has decided to transfer the undertaking. He has an employee to whom he has to give, before that, notice to terminate the contract. After he triggers it, under my solution he must give to the employee who objects the same notice as before. The Government may have one reasonable objection to that provision. It is that my amendment does not confine itself to that right. It might be sensible to say that the employee cannot claim for redundancy or he cannot have a number of other statutory rights. I do not know.
I plead with the Government to allow money in lieu of notice. It is the few weeks' money which the transferor was obliged to give before the transaction which he himself initiated. Surely it is right to allow the transferor's employee, who does not want to be moved to an employer to whom he has good reason to object, to have his notice and his money in lieu of notice. I believe that that is what the European Court of Justice referred to when referring to his fundamental right not to be moved and, of course, having no further rights in his initial employment than he had before. The suggestion that he can stay for ever with the transferor is wrong. Were it allowed to change the wording of my amendment, one could easily make that clear.
I hope that the Government will think about that matter. My noble friends on the Front Bench suggest that we return to the matter on Third Reading. That stage will be quite an event because the Government have introduced so many new measures on Report that the rules will have to be applied with some
866
sensitivity to everyone's interests. I ask the Minister to look at the difference between Amendments Nos. 74A and 75.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I recognise the difference between the two amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is seeking to have the law provide that where an employee objects to having his contract of employment transferred to the new employer that contract remains in force with the original employer. The Government cannot agree to that. The transfer regulations protect individuals by giving them automatic rights in relation to the new employer. If an individual voluntarily relinquishes those rights it hardly seems reasonable to argue that he should instead be given rights in relation to the old employer. His job still exists with the new employer.
Of course, if a substantive change is made in an individual's working conditions to his detriment he will retain the right contained in Regulation 5(5) to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The fact is, as I have indicated, that the directive specifically does not require the Government to create a situation whereby an employer is obliged to continue a contract of employment with an employee who does not wish to transfer to the new employer. The Government do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate for it to do so and that is what Amendment No. 74A achieves.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill
7.13 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I wish to utter one or two words of gratitude to my noble and learned friends the Minister of State and the Lord Advocate. They have supplied immense guidance and help as I have taken the Bill through your Lordships' House. I hasten to tell the House that it is not only in celebration of your Lordships passing the Bill that tonight in this House I am carrying a permitted item of apparel for the first time in 30 years.
I wish also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for the constructive help they have given during the Bill's passage through this House. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill began its career in another place at the behest of my honourable friend the Member for Ayr. However, I wish to convey my thanks and those of the Government and all who have been involved with the Bill to the honourable Member for Dumbarton. He carried out a great deal of work and research and gave support in particular as regards the penalty for carrying weapons at night or in places

867
where an offence could be committed. The Bill attempts to remedy an evil which has blighted some parts of Scotland at some times in the year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the Government on bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House. Two Members of your Lordships' House are suitably armed and excluded, although the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is hiding down his stocking whatever dirk he may have. No doubt he will produce it—indeed, it is a formidable weapon.
The effect of the Bill will be seen in due course. The use of knives in causing fatal injuries to young people in particular had to be examined in regard to Scotland and must be examined in regard to England and Wales. As I said on Second Reading, the use of weapons is not peculiar to Scotland but happens throughout the country.
The operation of the Bill, with its powers of stop and search, must be carefully monitored and, if necessary, controlled by legislation. The police castigated the Bill at their annual conference last week. I cannot remember the exact phrase: it was argued that the Bill was a useless piece of legislation. That is an inappropriate comment for police officers to make.
I trust that the police will operate within the spirit of the Act and will not use it as a licence for the random searching of people, in particular young people going to discos and so forth and stopping them for no reason. That merely sets up an anti-social attitude in young people.
Although we do not have the same powers as those given to the English under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will give guidance to the police in Scotland indicating that records should be kept of all cases where young people are stopped and searched. The records must set out why they were stopped and the result so that in due course an analysis can be made of how the Bill is working.
We on this side of the House pointed out at Second Reading that if the Bill closes a gap in the 1953 Act that is to the benefit of the community. But it must not be abused by the authorities, in particular the police. We shall keep a close eye on what happens when the Bill becomes law. It has the support of this side of the House.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the Bill is a sensible measure so long as those of Scots descent can wear traditional garb and traditional accoutrements such as I am wearing tonight. The provisions must be applied for sensible purposes. Tonight the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I are off to help to raise money for Scottish charities. Such activities, rather than causing aggro down the local disco, are sensible. It is only right that the police should have the powers to sort out people of evil intent. That must be done and the police must be given the proper powers.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. I congratulate him on the efficient and courteous manner in which he has done so. I looked at the provisions of the Bill, and in particular Clause 1(5) (c), and appreciated the desirability of the exception which is permitted for the carrying of a sharp instrument as part of any national costume. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend have checked that a comparable provision exists south of the Border before they venture beyond the precincts of your Lordships' House.
We owe my noble friend Lord Lye11 a debt of gratitude for agreeing to take the Bill through the House. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for supporting the Bill and for allowing it to proceed both quickly and unhindered. He will appreciate that there is a real anxiety in Scotland that the power and the offence should be available to the police. The noble Lord expressed reservations about the Bill at previous stages and again this evening but I am glad that he has restricted himself to expressing those worries and indicating what he believes the police should do as regards the new offence which is available to be applied.
I believe that once enacted—and I trust that that will be very shortly—the provisions of the Bill will enable the authorities to tackle knife-related crime more effectively than in the past. I was pleased to note that in Strathclyde knife-related crime has fallen by over 25 per cent. in the first three months of the year. The Strathclyde police force, which has executed Operation Blade with great skill, must take much of the credit for that. I believe that the Bill will enable the Strathclyde and other police forces and the courts to crack down even more effectively on indiscriminate knife carrying and to drive that menace from the streets of Scotland.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said about some comments by police officers in Scotland. Frankly, I do not believe that they had seen a full draft of the Bill and did not appreciate what it contained. Now that the Bill has completed its passage through this House, they will be in a position to see it in its final form. Once they have seen it, I trust that they will appreciate that this will be a powerful weapon in their armoury for fighting crime in Scotland. With my repeated thanks I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 p.m. to 8.10 P.m.]

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 32.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 75A
Page 50, line 20, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 26 and insert ("cease to have effect").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we tabled the above amendment in Committee but did not move it because of the lateness of the hour. However, its objective is to ensure that, in mergers or takeovers, occupational pension rights are preserved. As I understand the regulations at present, those rights are not preserved. Indeed, when a similar amendment was moved in Committee in another place, the Government's response was that it would be unreasonable to expect the company or person acquiring a business to accept full responsibility for pension provision as well. However, since that time, it is possible that the Government have had second thoughts on the matter. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I seek clarification from the Minister.
I have in my possession a copy of a letter from the office of the Attorney-General to the Department of Employment which reads:
"You will recall that I advised the Standing Committee on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill in January 1990 that there was a legal requirement under our own domestic legislation, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, that in the case of a person transferred under TUPE, the transferor and the transferee must so arrange things that the pension rights enjoyed by staff after the transfer were broadly comparable with those enjoyed before.
This reflected advice given by the Law Officers in 1983. In my view, therefore, the guidance being given to contractors by Departments that contractors should provide comparable pension rights should stand. The Lord Advocate has seen this letter in draft and has indicated that he agrees with it".
It seems that conflicting advice has been given. I hope that the Minister will say this evening that the advice contained in the letter from the Attorney-General is of general application and that those acquiring businesses through takeovers and mergers would have similar obligations in relation to pension provision as that suggested in his letter. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with Regulation 7 of the transfer of undertakings regulations. The EC Acquired Rights directive, which the regulations implement in the UK, specifically excludes from that basic principle,
"employees' rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the statutory social security schemes in member states".
The transfer regulations follow the directive by excluding pension entitlements from the employment rights which transfer. That is the purpose of Regulation 7.
Amendment No. 75A tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, seeks to remove Regulation 7 altogether. That would make the regulations go further than the directive requires. The result would be that, when a transfer of an undertaking took place, the new employer would be required by law to take over and continue whatever occupational pension arrangements the old employer had put in place.
I cannot think that noble Lords opposite really believe that that is a reasonable obligation to place on the new employer when a transfer takes place. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine situations in which it would not he possible for the new employer to do so, because
870
the pension scheme was operated exclusively by the old employer. Employers involved in a transfer will no doubt wish to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made, and negotiated with the employees. But that is not the same as what the amendment would require—a binding legal requirement to continue the same pension scheme. That is not a realistic requirement, as was recognised when the directive was agreed in 1977.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said about the letter from the Attorney-General. However, I do not believe that letter indicates the position as put forward in her amendment. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment. If not, I can only recommend that your Lordships' House rejects it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he clarify the situation in regard to the advice that I just quoted from the Attorney-General's office? As I read it, it involves providing comparable pension rights in the event of a takeover or a merger. What the Minister said indicates to me that perhaps the same pension scheme would not be taken over. However, does that rule out comparable pension rights as set out in the Attorney-General's letter? That is the reason behind my tabling the amendment. I am seeking clarification on the matter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would not dissent from the advice offered by the Attorney-General. However, we are dealing with an amendment to the Bill which would have the effect of imposing a binding legal requirement to continue the same pension scheme. By the word "same", I have in mind an identical pension scheme. I do not think that we are far away from each other on the issue. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As I understand it, he said that he did not dissent from the advice in the Attorney-General's letter. That makes it clear that comparable pension provision should be provided. I am most grateful to have that fact on record. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 50, line 36, at end insert ("and at the end there shall be added "save that in a case where the tribunal considers that the employee should be awarded a further sum having regard to

(i) the extent of the loss which he has suffered, and

(ii) the need for an effective and deterrent remedy for default characterised by that failure of the employer to comply,

(iii) it may award a special sum not exceeding a further four weeks' pay." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to return to a matter which was discussed in Committee but which, with respect, we thought was not fully dealt with. It arises on the question of the ultimate remedy for a breach in the TUPE regulations which has long been thought to be

871
unsatisfactory. The compensation which can be awarded would, under the terms of the amendment, be extended not by a further sum of compensation but by what is called "a further sum" which could be awarded in the circumstances described.
My hesitancy in my opening remarks arises from the fact that I notice from the Marshalled List that the last two lines of the amendment should be indented as a separate paragraph.
However, as regards the extent of the loss to the claimant and the need for an effective and deterrent remedy for default of the obligations (which of course stem from the Community directive) a special sum may be awarded which does not exceed,
"a further four weeks' pay".
I should like to take this opportunity to read to the House the basis for that argument—namely, the need to have an effective and deterrent remedy—which is found in a passage from the case of Von Colson in the European Court of Justice in 1984 where the court said:
"It should be pointed out to the national court that although [the] Directive … for the purpose of imposing a sanction for the breach of the prohibition of discrimination, leaves Member States free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving its objective, it nevertheless requires that if a Member State chooses to penalise breaches of that prohibition by the award of compensation, then in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must … be adequate in relation to the damage sustained and must therefore amount to more than purely nominal compensation such as, for example, the reimbursement … of the expenses".
I have quoted the full passage because in Committee there was some misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself about just what the court said. I have therefore taken advantage of this occasion to set it out in full. There is a requirement of an effective and deterrent remedy which, in our submission, the Bill as it stands in dealing with the regulations does not fulfil. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I do not wish to add much to what my noble friend said except to say that we on the Front Bench support what he said. We believe in the award of compensation with a deterrent effect. Clearly that is very much to the advantage and protection of the employee in circumstances where the employee may feel the need for such protection. I therefore hope that the amendment will commend itself to your Lordships.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for drawing attention to the alteration to be made to the amendment. That was helpful.
Subsection (6) (b) of the clause increases from two weeks' pay to four weeks' pay the maximum amount of compensation which a tribunal can award to an employee where an employer has failed to inform or consult a trade union about a proposed transfer of an undertaking. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, tabled an amendment in Committee to increase the maximum amount of compensation to 10 weeks' pay.
872
Amendment No. 76 also seeks to increase the maximum amount of compensation by a more indirect route.
As I understand it, the amendment would give tribunals the power to award up to an additional four weeks' pay on top of the normal maximum, which the clause increases to four weeks' pay. Tribunals would have discretion to make such "special" awards in cases where an employee was judged to have suffered particular loss, or where it was apparent that the normal maximum was not "an effective and deterrent remedy".
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, clearly believes that industrial tribunals should be able to decide on the level of compensation which is appropriate in particular cases. The Government share that belief, as is apparent from the wording of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. Paragraph 4 of Regulation 11 already allows tribunals to require employers to pay "appropriate compensation", and that phrase is defined in paragraph 11 as meaning:
"such sum not exceeding two weeks' pay for the employee in question as the tribunal considers just and equitable having regard to the seriousness of the failure of the employer to comply with his duty".
As I have already explained, the clause increases the maximum from two to four weeks' pay.
As those words of paragraph 11 of Regulation 11 clearly indicate, tribunals already have absolute discretion in deciding how much compensation is appropriate in particular cases, subject to the maximum. The extra flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is seeking to add to the regulations by means of Amendment No. 76 is therefore wholly unnecessary.
I believe that it will be apparent to your Lordships that the noble Lord is seeking to increase the maximum level of compensation above that recommended by the Government in the clause. The Government have accepted that the current maximum of two weeks might be too restrictive. We have taken note of the Commission's arguments and increased the size of the maximum possible compensation from two to four weeks' pay. The Government believe that that is a reasonable limit which at the same time provides an effective deterrent.
The Government cannot therefore accept that the noble Lord's amendment is either necessary or appropriate, and I hope that he will not press it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for what he said, if not for the result. The Government must realise that they are at some risk in this area of penalties and compensation. There is a demand in the court in Luxembourg that there must be an adequate deterrent remedy. Four weeks' pay is not likely to seem to the individual to be enough.
In case the noble Viscount should ever think of the matter before Third Reading, perhaps he might consider that the employer would say to a skilled worker: "We are very sorry but we forgot to consult with your representatives when we sold off part of the business, being assured by the Attorney-General that it was not a transfer of undertaking although we now

873
find that it is. We sold the firm to Associated British Ports"—or Associated Newspapers, or one of those companies to whose aid the Government come when they break the law. "It is all very unfortunate. We see that you do not want to work for them because they will deal with you in a 19th century manner and you will not like that at all. We are terribly sorry. Here is four weeks' pay"—or perhaps a little less—"to save you the cost of going to the tribunal since you cannot get legal aid and you are not within the province of either the Commission's CROTUM or COPUIA".
That is not adequate compensation. It is certainly not a deterrent to the employer in certain situations. If there are hundreds of such workers it might be a deterrent, but it cannot be said to be a deterrent. The court in Luxembourg will not judge the matter on the basis of hundreds of workers, but one or a small group. It is not a deterrent.
I shall not press the amendment; but I ask the Government to consider in their own interests their system of remedy in comparison with that which is obligatory by way of Community directive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Transfers
.In Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (computation of period of employment), after paragraph 12 there shall be inserted—
"13.—(l) Where—

(a) a trade, business or undertaking is transferred from one person to another;

(b) at the time of the transfer, a payment calculated in respect of the period of service with the transferor is paid to the employee on the basis that he is redundant (this payment not being a payment referred to under sub-paragraphs (2) (a) (i) and (2) (b) (i) of paragraph 12 but being at least equivalent to such a payment); and

(c) the contract of employment under which the employee was employed is transferred from the transferor to the transferee in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (the 1981 Regulations),

then in determining, for the purposes of Section 81(1) or Schedule 4, the period for which he has been continuously employed, the continuity of the period of employment shall be treated as having been broken as at the date on which the transfer took effect.
(2) In this paragraph, references to "transferor" and "transferee" shall be construed in accordance with the 1981 Regulations." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed in Committee. I have tabled it again partly because some of the discussion at that stage was not conclusive and I should like to try again, and also because the Minister undertook to give further consideration as to whether a similar amendment might be introduced to clarify the legislation in this area. He did not claim that it did, but the Government amendment, Amendment No. 74A, did not clarify the position.
As I said in Committee, the problem centres on the uncertainty surrounding whether a particular transaction amounts to a transfer of an undertaking. It hinges on the fact that in some situations it may be entirely unclear to the transferor employer and the transferee
874
whether the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations apply. In consequence, a transferor employer may mistakenly conclude that they do not and may make what he believes are redundancy payments to the employees when in law there is no obligation for him to do so. That may have serious implications for the transferee employer who, having engaged those employees, subsequently discovers some years later on making them redundant that the transaction amounted to a relevant transfer and he is liable for a redundancy payment based on the employees' entire period of service with both employers.
When I raised the point in Committee, my noble friend the Minister indicated that where an employee is dismissed on grounds of redundancy, he is entitled to a redundancy payment and that any subsequent transfer of the undertaking would not affect that position. That may well be so; but the situation I envisage is not one where there has been any dismissal by the employer. Your Lordships will recall that the example I gave in Committee involved a situation in which the transferor employer has not dismissed the employees as such but, while negotiations for the transfer are taking place, has merely advised the employees that the potential transferee employer may wish to offer them jobs. Should that happen and the transferor, perhaps in response to a request by the employees themselves who are now in the transferee's employ, then subsequently make what he believes are redundancy payments, those will have arisen without there having been any dismissal. In that situation, the law is unclear as to whether in any subsequent redundancy by the transferee employer the payment made by the transferor would be taken into account.
My noble friend also made a statement in Committee that the situation I envisaged would not happen in practice and that a statutory redundancy payment, as defined in the 1978 Act, does not cease to be such because it subsequently emerges that the regulations applied and, since a statutory redundancy payment breaks continuity, no double payment would be made even if the regulations apply. I have no dispute with the accuracy of the latter statement but with respect to my noble friend it misses the point. Although it is clear from paragraph 12 of Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act and case law that a statutory redundancy payment will break continuity, my point is that in the example I gave it is not clear that the payments made by the employer will be treated by tribunals as statutory payments.
On the point that the situation would not happen in practice, I also have to disagree. Given the uncertainty over whether the contracting-out of services—and that includes the Government's own market testing programme and compulsory competitive tendering—will amount to a transfer of an undertaking in any given situation, that may well become a significant issue if the existing legislation is found wanting. My amendment merely seeks to clarify the position to ensure that the employee is not doubly compensated for the same period of service.
Before I conclude, I should like to acknowledge the comments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to which he referred in moving

875
Amendment No. 76, concerning the effect that the Katsikas v. Konstantinidies case may have on my amendment. As I understand it, that case has decided that in some circumstances employees may be able to object to their automatic transfer to a new employer. It may well be that some modification may be needed. I make no comment about that. However, I am advised that the Katsikas ruling has no bearing on the substance of Amendment No. 77. Where employees' contracts are in fact transferred, previous redundancy payments made by the transferor employee should be taken into account in calculating future entitlement. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as my noble friend indicated, this amendment is the same as his Amendment No. 214 in Committee. Noble Lords who were present during those proceedings will recall that I made it clear that the Government do not share his view of the legal position. Legal advice received by the Government was that the situation which he envisages would not occur in practice. It would not do so because a statutory payment made to an employee who has been dismissed as redundant (as defined in the 1978 Act) does not cease to be such just because it emerges subsequently that the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations applied, and because a statutory redundancy payment breaks continuity, so that no double payment would be made even if the regulations applied. The dismissal would still have taken place and the payment would still count.
Perhaps I might also make the point that a prudent employer will make clear when he makes a payment whether or not it is a redundancy payment. He may choose to reward or encourage the employees by making payments which are not redundancy payments, but if he intends that they should be treated as redundancy payments he must ensure that the employees concerned are told that they are being dismissed as redundant.
Nevertheless, I promised my noble friend in Committee that I would give further consideration to whether it would be advantageous to put the legal position beyond doubt. Since then, the department's legal advisers have considered the question in depth and have discussed it with Parliamentary Counsel. The result of those careful considerations is that the Government are convinced that an amendment along the lines proposed by my noble friend would not be advantageous. On the contrary, the advice given to the Government remains that clarification is not necessary, because the position is already established, and that there could be a risk that an attempt at clarification might have the effect of altering the law in ways not intended.
The Government have therefore reached the conclusion that there is no need to make an amendment of the sort which my noble friend seeks. The Government cannot, therefore, accept the amendment and I hope my noble friend will not press it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for taking the trouble, as he said he would, to have the matter considered carefully by his legal advisers. I have an awful feeling that my legal advisers do not necessarily agree with his legal advisers. However, as matters stand at present, the issue can rest. The argument is not only to ensure that employees and employers are protected from unforeseen events, it is to try to get the law right so that it makes sense to the public at large. It is in the Government's interest that that should be so. All the clever legal chaps have had a look at the provision from the Government's point of view. Sometimes they are wrong; they might be wrong this time. However, I shall come back at Third Reading if I wish to ensure that the Government have got it right. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Redundancy consultation procedures]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 50, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"and where no such trade union is recognised by him—

(i) he shall so consult with independent representatives of the employees, including representatives elected or otherwise designated by them for this purpose, and

(ii) any difference or dispute concerning the independence of such representatives shall be determined by application to the Certification Officer who shall determine the issue on the principles in sections 5 to 8 of this Act, from which an appeal shall lie as if section 9 applied to his decision" ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the amendment because I can offer him a piece of legal advice on the difficult matter that he and the Minister have discussed. It is clear that the noble Lord should mount an interlocutory motion in the High Court tomorrow in a case which involves his point, take it to the Court of Appeal within the week, and the Government will act like the wind.
Amendment No. 78 is a genuine attempt—some noble Lords may think that rare in my case but I often do it unnoticed —to find a compromise to a difficult problem. On reading it now I have doubts as to whether the amendment is right and proper. That indicates that it is a compromise.
The amendment concerns the issue of the consultation which an employer is obliged to make when he proposes redundancies. We say, and the Commission says, that the directive requires that consultation. We know that the Government disagree with that. It is not an attempt to re-open that ground; the matter will go to the court in Luxembourg. The Government state that it is a matter of choice.
However, it is not an attempt to attack the Government on our own law and the spirit of the directive. But last October there was surely some proof that there is latent in our law and our practice the desire to have consultation with representatives of

877
the workforce on important matters. It was shown that public law too can come to the aid of that desire with the remedy of declaration.
The amendment does not seek to cover old ground, on which our law states that if there is a recognised trade union there must be consultation. It seeks to cover the ground where no independent trade union is recognised and to provide at least a residual obligation to consult independent representatives of the employees who would be elected or otherwise designated. I have used the word "independent" for the simple reason that I do not believe that anyone would consider it worthwhile, or indeed would wish, to have consultation with mere creatures of the management. Management itself would gain nothing except perhaps hostility from the workforce. Therefore one needs independent representatives.
The traditional demand is for a single channel to be organised in recognised trade unions, and so on. I have gone outside the traditional demand for a single channel because I believe, and my noble friends agree, that an important principle is at stake with regard to consultation. There should be a residual obligation to consult. After all, if redundancies are to be made it is not asking a lot that there should be consultation as to the manner, the number, the selection and so on. That happens all over Western Europe.
I have added a first stab at the way in which independence might be judged. I appreciate that if the noble Viscount were ever to accept the principle of the amendment he would wish to word it rather differently. However, I sought to put the provision within a small compass by saying that the same test that is applied to trade unions with regard to independence should apply to representatives elected in that way. They should not be under the financial or other domination or control of the employer.
However, the first part of the amendment is the important part. I should have thought that it established a middle position of opinion on the matter. It does not demand a recognised trade union, but some consultation with representatives who could put points to the employer which otherwise might go unnoticed and without remedy. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment aimed at ensuring that Clause 33, as it now is, should not be brought into force until Sections 188 to 192 of the 1992 Act had been altered in such a way as to extend the application of those sections to employee representatives generally. I am sure that the noble Viscount will recall that. On that occasion, I argued that consultation with representatives of independent trade unions recognised by the employer, as provided for in Section 188, made it possible for the consultation procedure to be completely inapplicable, as the European Commission had observed, where no trade union was recognised by the employer. -1 said that, if the Government acknowledged the need—as they did in bringing forward Clause 33—for recognised trade unions to be consulted about collective redundancies, they could not very well fail to treat in the same way employees who did not choose to be represented by a trade union.
878
As I understand it, the amendment takes up the same theme. Indeed, in one respect it is an improvement on my earlier amendment, in that it states explicitly, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has just said, that, for the purpose of consulting about collective redundancies, employee representatives should be independent, like the works councils which I had in mind earlier. and not so-called house unions or bodies of that kind, lacking in independence from the employer.
I am rather glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, entered reservations about paragraph (ii). I myself am a little uncertain as to its validity. So I was glad that he talked of the principle involved in the amendment rather than placing any great emphasis on the detail of paragraph (ii). With those considerations in mind, I am glad to support the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, most of the arguments for the amendment have been made. Obviously, we support it. The central point I wish to pose to the Government is: what is the rationale of their position? Their position seems to be that consultation over redundancies—and over many things—under the Bill is the monopoly of the organised worker. What is the rationale of that? Of course, it is a view which the trade union movement used to hold. It is by no means certain that it holds it now: not all the movement holds it; it is divided. But that was a trade union view, hardly a government view. The idea that such rights are the monopoly of trade unions was rooted partly in the belief that only trade unions can represent workers or represent them efficiently and effectively, and partly in the idea that, if one makes that the centre of one's policy, one is inducing workers to join trade unions. What is being said is, "We are not going to provide you with an alternative channel. You've got a trade union channel; that is the proper channel".
However, all that is a strange argument to come from the Government. Throughout most of the Bill, the Government are legislating to reduce trade union influence and power. Only just before the dinner break, the Government said that in that particular area people must be individualised: there must be nothing to do with collective bargaining; they were leaning as far away from collective bargaining as they could. That is part of the Government's philosophy. Yet in this single area, the Government say that the benefits of consultation are to be the monopoly of recognised unions and workers who happen to have recognition. What is the rationale of that? I am at a loss to understand it.
It could be that they say, "We will put so many disadvantages in the path of employers that, if we give those rights to trade unions only, it will accelerate the process of de-recognition." That may be the way that they see it, because the employers will say, "All the rights belong to trade unionists so we'd better not have any trade unionists". If that is the case, then let the Government say so. Otherwise it is a mystery why consultation cannot be provided for people who are not trade unionists in the way that is laid out in the amendment.

879
Of course, the Government may make all kinds of practical objections to aspects of the amendment. I am sure my noble friend does not mind at all. Let the Government take away the principle and, if they will not do that, then let them tell us why they want this to be the monopoly of organised workers.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I used to work in the electricity supply industry, where we had a consultative machinery. It was set up as a result of a clause inserted into the Act by the then Labour Government. The clause ensured that there was consultative machinery within the industry, but it was not controlled by the trade unions because people could stand for the advisory machinery, whether or not they were trade union members. Everyone, irrespective of membership of a trade union, was able to vote.
Here we have the odd and strange situation of a Labour Government saying, "We must set up machinery which will be available to all and not just to the trade unions", and a Tory Government coming along and saying, "Such machinery must be restricted to trade unionists". The world has gone stark staring bonkers when we have a situation like that. It behoves the government spokesman to tell the House why they have turned turtle and stood on their heads at the same time.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall keep my gymnastics rather more quiet! Amendment No. 78 is concerned with the question of employee representation for the purposes of the statutory consultation requirements in relation to collective redundancies contained in the 1992 consolidation Act. This is an issue which also arises in relation to the acquired rights directive and is one which received considerable attention in Committee. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has moved away from the approach he advocated then—mechanisms whereby trade unions should be deemed to have been recognised by employers for consultation purposes—and that he now favours an approach which is in some respects more like that advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, told us about in Committee. I must say that that is a great indication of his professed reasonableness.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has, however, returned to his theme from Committee—that the UK is in breach of the EC collective redundancies directive because there is no statutory right to employee representation for the purposes of the law on redundancy consultation. As I explained in Committee, the directive defines the employee representatives who must be consulted as those,
"provided for by the laws or practices of the member states".
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, argued that the Government rely on the practice of there not being any practice. In Committee (at col. 734 of Hansard for 30th March 1993) he stated that:
880
"What the Government have set out to do … is to convince the court that if it is said that there is no practice and no law it means that they do not have to do anything and can simply dispose of the directive."
That is very far from being a fair description of the Government's position. It must surely be evident to your Lordships' House that the normal practice in this country is for employee representatives to be representatives of trade unions which employers have recognised for collective bargaining.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that there is nothing in this measure which prevents good employers from consulting their workforces about redundancies, but what we are dealing with here is the implementation of the collective redundancy directive which, as I have said, recognises the different national practices. That is what we have put into law.
The Government believe, therefore, that the amendment is unacceptable in principle. But even if that were not the case, it is very hard to see how it could work in practice. The amendment would require that, where there was no recognised trade union, an employer who was proposing to make a single employee redundant would have to consult with,
"independent representatives of the employees".
Such representatives might, the amendment suggests, have been elected or otherwise designated as such by the workforce—but the amendment provides no clue as to how an employer would be able to judge who should, or should not, be considered to be an employee representative in the absence of such an election or designation.
The amendment contains detailed — and, in the Government's view, wholly inappropriate—machinery for settling disputes as to whether employee representatives are "independent" or not. It seems to suggest that if an employer who has not recognised a trade union needs to make redundancies, he must consult some other people, but it may not be clear who they are until well after the redundancy situation arises. I believe, this would be quite unworkable.
The effect of the amendment could only be to create delays and confusion which would make it more difficult for employers to satisfy all the statutory consultation procedures when making employees redundant. The amendment is unacceptable in principle and unworkable in practice. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall read it with interest in Hansard to see whether my impression is correct that most of the Minister's brief constituted an answer to my arguments expounded in Committee to a very different amendment from the one I moved today. Indeed the Minister himself said I had moved my position, which indeed I have. I made it quite clear that I was trying to find some area of consensus. The Minister referred to the arguments which I understand the Government are rehearsing in the Luxembourg court; that is, that the section in the directive which allows representatives to be selected according to national law and practice allows one to carry out no selection at all. That is the nub of the Government's

881
position. I said in moving the amendment that I did not agree with the Government' stance but I was not rehearsing that area.
It occurred to me as I heard the Minister forcefully making his case again at the Dispatch Box that it is as if the directive states, "you can all have an emperor and clothe him how you like". The Government refuse to notice that their emperor has no clothes at all and does not match the directive. If the intention were not to have representatives, that would be clearly stated in the directive. However, the Minister has tempted me to enter that discussion and I have yielded to his temptation.
What I have said today is that there is another position which would not be my first choice but which is better than no consultation at all. What I do not understand is that the Government understand there is merit in conducting consultation before undertaking steps such as redundancies—they say this should be done voluntarily—but then they allow any employer who does not wish to consult not to be put under any pressure whatever. We shall have to read Hansard. The Minister knows I never criticise him personally. Indeed I was reflecting that this is not his argument. Rather it is a collective argument as the Government have a collective position on this matter. It is the only collective matter they approve of; that is, their own position. We may find, having read Hansard, that the argument is largely directed to a previous amendment. The Minister shakes his head to indicate I am wrong. If I am wrong, I shall accept that. We are entitled at any rate to investigate the position before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 51, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at present the law allows for payments made by an employer under a contract of employment, or for breach of that contract, to be credited to the employer in his discharge of obligations to pay a protective award due to his failure to consult over redundancies. The Bill seeks to alter this position by no longer allowing that "set-off or, as the law more aptly puts it the "avoidance of double payments". My amendment seeks to preserve the current law. I say without shame that this is the same amendment as I moved in Committee, because, having studied carefully what was said then, I am still unable to see why the Government feel a change to the law is necessary.
First, let me address the current law and practice and then turn to the points raised in Committee. There are circumstances in which it may not be possible to go through the consultation process with all the exactitude one would wish. That is no secret, and that is why the law offers protection. In such a case a tribunal may order the employer concerned to pay a protective award to employees who were dismissed before the consultation process was complete. The question is, what is the nature of that award?
When this provision which my amendment addresses—now Section 190 of the 1992 Act—was
882
first brought into our law in the 1975 Employment Protection Act, there was much interesting debate in Parliament. There was certainly a feeling on the Conservative Benches in the other place, for example, that,
"The object of the exercise is not to rap employers on the knuckles. It is not meant to be a punitive provision."—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/75; col. 1454.]
That statement was made by my honourable friend, Mr. Leon Brittan, as he then was. The then Labour Government also commented,
"Payments under the contract of employment should fairly go to discharging [any amount for which the employer is liable under a protective award] since they are related to a payment in a period when the person or persons covered by the award are covered by their contract of employment"
I regret to say I do not know where that appeared in Hansard.
These statements made the position clear in 1975 and indeed that is largely how the position is still viewed now: payments under a protective award primarily compensate employees for actual loss, rather than punish the employers; and credit should be given for other payments already made by the employer. It is difficult therefore to see why the Government are now seeking to remove an established piece of law which works well in practice. Certainly it does not appear necessary because of European Community obligations; and that brings me to address what noble Lords said of this Bill in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater explained that the European Commission had informed the Government of its view that our current law was incompatible with the collective redundancies directive. He also said,
"The Government agree that the purpose of the penalty is not just to provide compensation for actual damage suffered by employees, but to create a sanction against employers who fail to consult."
That is a punitive measure. He continued:
"As the law stands it may well be that there is no penalty for failing to consult if the employer has paid the wages due to the employees".—[Official Report, 30/3/93; col. 738.]
That is an interesting change in opinions on the part of the Government on this side of the House from 1975. The Government now believe that the law should be punitive. The Government had their opinion swayed drastically by the European Commission. That led me to consider how that could be. I know we had an interesting dip in Committee into the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case of Von Colson v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1986] 2CMLR430. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm whether that case has a bearing on the Government's decision that they must now accede to the European Commission's wishes.
If my noble friend believes that to be the case, I must tell him that I am advised he is mistaken in law in that view. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his persistence. He was given an answer in chapter and verse the last time and in fact he quoted that chapter and verse. We are not dealing with what happened in 1975. We are dealing with a European directive—the amendment

883
seeks to set it aside—and with punitive sanctions. I hope that the Minister will say the same to him tonight as he said previously.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall disappoint. This amendment is identical in effect to one which my noble friend Lord Mottistone tabled at Committee stage. It is concerned, as my noble friend has explained, with the situation where an employer fails to consult with an appropriate recognised trade union about proposed redundancies. It seeks to prevent the Government removing the provision which allows compensation for an employer's failure to consult to be offset against other compensation in lieu of notice of dismissal or under a protective award.
I cannot agree with the interpretation of the Von Colson case by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. In paragraph 28 of its judgment, the European Court of Justice stated that,
"if a Member State chooses to penalise breaches of that prohibition by the award of compensation, then in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must in any event be adequate in relation to the damage sustained".
The Government do not consider that if this amendment were accepted there would be the necessary deterrent effect on employers who failed to satisfy the legal duty to consult.
My noble friend has also suggested that, without the offset provisions, an employer would be better off delaying payment in lieu of notice until a tribunal had assessed compensation for failure to consult, because a civil court would then, in any subsequent proceedings to recover pay in lieu of notice, offset the amount awarded against damages awarded. I believe that what my noble friend has in mind is an action for wrongful dismissal. Again, however, I am afraid I have to say that I do not share his conclusions.
I am advised that it is very unlikely that any payments to the employee for failure to comply with the statutory consultation provisions would be taken into account by the court in assessing damages for wrongful dismissal. This is because case law already establishes that protective awards are in a special category. They are not intended to compensate for financial loss, but, rather, for loss of consultation which the employees have experienced. The intended deterrent effect of the awards is further emphasised by the removal of the offset provision by the Bill.
The Government's position is therefore as I explained it to your Lordships' House in Committee. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and say that my position has not changed. The purpose of the penalty is not just to provide compensation for actual damage suffered, but to ensure a deterrent effect on employers who fail to consult. As the law stands at present, it may well be that there is no penalty for failing to consult if the employer has paid the wages due to the employees. The Government are, however, obliged to ensure that such a sanction is provided under Community law.
884
I hope that, in the light of that further explanation, my noble friend Lord Mottistone will agree that it would not be appropriate for him to press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation. It is interesting that nearly 20 years ago there was a greater understanding by the then government of the employer's need not to be punished. We have now come full circle and the Government from this side of the House take the view that employers ought to be punished if they do not do what they are told to do. That is an interesting reflection on how life has moved on. Perhaps we can get it to go back again if we try hard enough. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Repeal of Part II of Wages Act 1986]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 79A:
Leave out Clause 34 and insert the following new clause:
("Order to abolish wage councils
.—The Secretary of State may not lay an order to abolish a wages council or vary its scope by laying an order until an associated estimate of the earnings effects and employment effects and with a description of the sex balance in the industry and with the results of the survey of employer and employee opinion and an estimate of the costs of social security benefits and the effects on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement and an alternative means of collective consideration of pay determination is established.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a commencement amendment. I should like to make clear before anyone suggests otherwise that it does not affect the abolition of wages councils on which the House voted in Committee and the clause was carried. This amendment is concerned simply with the date at which that agreed decision comes into effect. The motto of the amendment is "Look before you leap", which is a motto that used to commend itself to large parts of the Conservative Party. The amendment proposes that before the clause comes into effect we should have before us a considerable amount of information which at present we do not have. In fact it calls for a report, asking for a good deal of information which should have been available before the Bill had its Second Reading in another place.
The amendment first asks for a report on the earnings and employment effects of abolition. In Committee, the noble Viscount said that it is now clear beyond doubt that wages councils are a barrier to employment. But he did not say beyond whose doubt. It is certainly not beyond my doubt and that of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Low Pay Unit. Those are not negligible bodies. I do not think it likely that all of them would be wrong together, all in the same way and all at the same time. I am not aware of any equivalent list of bodies which are on the Government's side.
Be that as it may, this amendment simply asks for certain information. We have not been given very much yet. I become increasingly suspicious of those who tell me that they know but cannot tell me how they know. I listened with great interest in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who spoke of the small amount of evidence which has been made

885
available on this subject. I hope that he will develop those points further tonight. I should like to know before we go any further.
Secondly, the amendment asks for a report on the sex balance in the affected industries. My information is that four out of five employees in trades covered by wages councils are women. A very high proportion of them work part-time, for reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she spoke on Amendment No. 72. I agree with everything she said. I do not feel the need to repeat it.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has examined the gender gap between men and women in different industries. It has come to the conclusion that the gender gap is narrower in the trades covered by wages councils than it is in others. That looks to me like prima facie evidence—I put it no higher because I am asking for information—that wages councils tend toward achieving equality between the sexes in fact.
I will listen with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, says when moving Amendment No. 80A regarding the effect of European law on the problem. The noble Baroness, in her amendment, mentioned Article 119. It is important that one of the reasons why European law is so strong on issues of sexual discrimination is that it arises directly from an article of the Treaty of Rome. But I hope that the noble Baroness will also mention Articles 117 and 118 of the Treaty of Rome. Taken together with Article 119 they are capable of creating a pincer movement on the case. I hope also that she will mention the doctrine of direct effect of European law as stated in the Defrenne case and others that bear directly on the subject.
In the light of the possibility of European proceedings, I will ask the noble Viscount and other government Ministers to be extremely cautious in stating the argument we have heard from them before that we need not worry too much about low wages because we are dealing with second earnings. That is an argument which may have potentially discriminatory effects and could be powerfully quoted in evidence against them in proceedings under another jurisdiction. They should take care.
The amendment also asks for a report on the effects on social security benefits, for clearly low wages are going to lead to increased expenditure on benefits—notably on family credit and on housing benefit. I do not need to labour that point because the Minister, in Committee, in effect admitted it and justified it. He argued that it was cheaper for the Government to have people in employment than to support them entirely on benefit. We on these Benches would concede that there may be cases where that argument is valid; we do not rule it out in principle altogether. But I do not see how the Government can combine it with their stated devotion to the principles of a free and undistorted market. How can one say that one believes in a free and undistorted market and at the same time allow wages to fall because the state is, in effect, subsidising them? I do not follow the logic of that.
I should say also that though we on these Benches would not rule out that argument in principle—that it
886
is sometimes in the national interest to allow wages to be subsidised by state expenditure—we would wish to be extremely cautious both in the objectives for which we undertake it and in the amount of financial commitment we undertake under it. It could become extremely expensive. In fact, what the noble Viscount is proposing—subsidising low wages out of poor relief—has been done before; it is known as the "Speenhamland" system. The noble Viscount might remember the 18th century verse:
"The little inn at Speenhamland
That lies beneath the hill,
Is rightly called the Pelican
From its enormous bill".
The noble Viscount may also wish to develop the argument of business costs. Earlier today I told the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I would take that argument from him because he has been consistent in his concern for it in his costs. I will be more ready to take it from the Government when they have abolished the uniform business rate and repealed the statutory sick pay Act; when they no longer argue that businesses should pay for the infrastructure in the form of roads, or for research which has previously been paid for out of university budgets, or for entertainment, or for other things which are not normally regarded as part of business purposes. When the Government have done those things I will think that they are serious about business costs, which I agree urgently need reducing. But there is one thing which I believe to be a proper business cost; that is, the true cost of employing labour, for that is actually part of the cost of their operations.
The amendment also calls for a report on the public sector borrowing requirement effects of abolition, and that is perhaps the most serious part of the amendment. It has not been taken on board how much the worsening public sector borrowing requirement is not due to an increase in expenditure but to a loss of revenue. The Government were not ready for that. As they said in an Answer to a Question on 4th June last, they keep no figures on loss of revenue because of either rising unemployment or falling wages. They were not expecting it; they were caught short. If they do not accept the amendment they are going to be caught short again by the public sector borrowing requirement effect of abolishing wages councils.
It is a regular problem of Right-wing governments that, in trying to force wages down by competition, they do not allow for the extent to which they diminish their own revenues and therefore the extent to which they have to run up large public sector borrowing requirements and have to raise interest rates in order to borrow the amount of money they need. They let themselves in for a lot of unnecessary trouble.
Finally, the amendment asks for a new collective method of pay determination. After what we have been told about the amendment we are to expect at Third Reading, we have something of a question in our minds—how far are the Government committed to collective methods of pay determination? We on these Benches believe in a free market but we do not think one has a free market while one party has all the power and the other has none at all. I am reminded of

887
the classic Victorian description of classical economics: "Freedom forever, said the elephant, as he trampled among the chickens". When we speak of a free market, that is not what we mean. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. Your Lordships will be aware that another amendment, Amendment No. 80, which stands in my name and that of my noble friends, covers pretty much the same ground. Both amendments seek to have a review before the decision to abolish wages councils is put into effect.
I make no apology for returning on Report to the whole issue of wages councils. We said in Committee that we would be doing so and I think it is important enough for us to have another debate about it. The Government's case for the abolition of wages councils appears to rest on the following: first, that they were all right in 1909 but not in 1990s Britain, where, we are told, the sweatshops they were introduced to combat no longer exist. It is claimed by the Government that low pay is not a cause of poverty. Frankly, that strikes me as ridiculous.
Some while ago, Channel 4 screened a powerful programme, based on the experiences of a young woman reporter who spent some time looking for and living on low wages in wages council industries. She had an appalling tale to tell of existence on the low wages available to her in some of these places. In one place she worked for £1.50 an hour when the wages council rate was £3.06. When she confronted her boss and asked for the proper rate, it was made clear to her that if she did not like what was paid she could go. She worked at a variety of jobs throughout Lancashire and frequently had difficulty in securing the wages council rate. She had to work very hard for these sweatshop rates. So it is clear that sweatshops do still exist and there are plenty of employers who take advantage of the fact that, even now, there are insufficient inspectors, or staff too intimidated to insist on their rights. This, therefore, is not an argument for abolition but for strengthening protection and ensuring better enforcement provisions.
Then the Government claim that the abolition of wages councils will create new jobs. It has to be said that no evidence for that has been produced. Indeed, when there were more wages councils than there are now, and with greater powers and wider coverage, including young people, there was distinctly less unemployment. All the evidence suggests that wages would fall substantially if wages councils were abolished. An analysis undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research suggests that even if wage rates fell by only 30p an hour, up to 10,000 jobs could be lost through the loss of purchasing power in the economy, a point made very strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The justification for removing young people from wages council cover was that youth unemployment would fall and job opportunities would increase. However, the opposite has turned out to be the case.
888
Nearly one in five young workers aged 18 to 19 is unemployed; at 19.4 per cent., the rate is nearly double that for the rest of the population.
Then it has been argued by the Minister that wages council workers are not poor because they are mainly part-time workers—second earners in their households. As we said in Committee, that is a quite extraordinary argument, as is the argument that there are targeted social security benefits which prop up low pay. I should have thought that we had departed from such concepts a long time ago. The argument used against equal pay for women was that they were not main wage earners within the family. I am glad to say that such arguments were discredited with the introduction of equal pay legislation, when there was an acceptance of the fact that people should be paid for the work they do. Moreover, as to the social security argument—we have often advanced this—since when has it been the view that taxpayers should subsidise exploiting sweatshop employers?
Then there is the argument that wages councils are bureaucratic. The system is a simple one: it involves the setting of a legal minimum rate of pay annually. All the employer has to do is to comply. The wages councils' inspectorate deals with 260,000 employers in over 400,000 establishments employing around 2.5 million people. In 1991 wages council inspectors checked over 33,000 establishments and found illegal wage rates at almost 6,000 of them. There were arrears totalling £1.5 million. These sums were owed to people who are among the poorest and most vulnerable. As I said earlier, these are not arguments for abolition; they are arguments for strengthening the protection that still exists.
The young woman who appeared in the Channel 4 programme knew her rights and knew how to set about getting them. But there are many others who do not. She says in an article which she has written for the Low Pay Unit:
"I don't expect the situation to improve".
I hope that she is wrong about that. She said:
"But at least for the majority it [the wages council system] works and offers employees some form of protection. The government argues that abolition will create jobs. At what cost? Two employees—or maybe three—for the price of one?"
It is clear that there is a great deal of opposition to what the Government propose to do. At least let there be an adequate review involving both Houses of Parliament. That is what our amendment seeks to do and also the amendment moved by the noble Earl. Lord Russell. I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Lockwood. She is dealing with the European aspect, which is important.
The Government may deny it, but if wages councils are abolished we shall be isolated within the EC where minimum standards to safeguard the vulnerable are the rule rather than the exception. Before we take this step let us at least have a full and thoroughgoing review as suggested in these amendments. I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I support both the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that of my noble friend Lady Turner. My

889
Amendment No. 80A is in effect an addition to the list of conditions which my noble friend has set down in her amendment. My conditions seek to require compatibility of United Kingdom with European law.
I raised this matter on clause stand part in Committee. The Minister has been kind enough to write to me subsequently. In both his response in Committee and in his letter he refers to an opinion that the Equal Opportunities Commission had sought from senior leading counsel on whether or not abolition of the wages councils would conflict with European law. The very fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission sought an opinion is a serious indication of their doubt about the matter.
I asked the Minister if it would be possible for him to make the opinion available because I thought that it would have been helpful to us in the debate this evening. He responded by saying that the opinion was not in the department's possession in the sense that it belonged to the commission. The commission did not want its contents made known at the present time.
I understand the reasons for the commission's attitude. The commission itself has not yet met since the opinion was received and therefore it has not been able to determine what subsequent action it would like to take. It is a pity because it would have informed our debate this evening. However, I remind your Lordships that the commission said in a press release on 16th November last year:
"If wages councils are abolished without alternative measures such as strengthening the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap, already wider than in most other EC countries will increase, making it even more difficult for women to achieve economic independence and to provide for their future in old age"
That statement has to be taken in the context of the legal framework of European law, which is Articles 119 and 5 of the Treaty of Rome and the equal pay directive. I recognise the two amendments which the noble Earl mentioned, but unfortunately I do not have them with me this evening so I shall not comment on them.
Article 119 of the treaty requires member states to ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. Article 5 of the treaty requires member states to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the treaty obligations and provides that member states shall abstain—I repeat the words "shall abstain"—from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the treaty. Clearly, the Equal Opportunities Commission feels that this is a measure that could jeopardise the attainment of the objective of equal pay. The equal pay directive leaves member states free to choose which measures are used to ensure the implementation of the principle of equal pay, but those measures must be effective.
The 1970 Equal Pay Act in the United Kingdom envisaged two routes to equal pay: the collective route or the collective approach, and the individual approach whereby individual members could take up their own case if they felt that they were not achieving equal pay. In his letter to me the Minister seems to have misunderstood what I was saying in Committee.
890
I was not advocating that the individual route to equal pay should be abandoned. Of course not. That is a fundamental part of the route to equal pay. I was suggesting that the individual route is not sensible in all cases, the coal board case, which I mentioned in Committee, was one of them.
In bringing forward the equal pay legislation in 1970, the government of the day, with all-party support, made clear that one of the measures to eliminate discriminatory rates was the new requirements that were being placed on the wages councils. Wages councils have their imperfections—we all accept that—but, nevertheless, the system appears to have had some effect. In 1992 the female:male earnings ratio for wages council industries was higher than the ratio for all industries. That was particularly marked in the lower decile of weekly earnings.
Judging by the evidence from other sectors which have no wages council protection, the abolition of the wages councils is likely to have a disproportionate impact on women and so is likely to be indirectly discriminatory in its effects. European Community law looks to proportionality to justify such action—that is, that the gains must outweigh the discriminatory effect. I do not think that in this case anyone would claim that the gains outweighed the discriminatory effect. The dearth of evidence which the Government have put forward to support the effects of the abolition of the wages councils has been consistently criticised throughout the passage of the Bill, but no real response has been received from the Government.
If one of the important measures which ensures the application of the principle of equal pay is removed without anything being put in its place, it is likely to contravene Articles 119 and 5 of the treaty and Article 6 of the equal pay directive. I understand that the TUC has instituted a formal complaint against the Government and has asked the European Commission to take proceedings if the wages councils are abolished. So too has the European Parliament. I would remind the Government that they have been wrong in the past about their interpretation of whether the Equal Pay Act complies with European legislation. It was because the Commission was taking action against the Government that we had the amendment in 1983–84 to introduce the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. The idea of considering the compatibility of our legislation, or our intended legislation, with European legislation is therefore important. On this matter I urge the Government, to use the noble Earl's expression, to look before they leap.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I should like to add my support to this amendment and in particular emphasise the importance of the concept that no wages council should be abolished until an acceptable alternative has been found. I speak from personal experience as both my principal jobs, nurseryman and river-keeper, have been covered by the agricultural wages committee. I rang both my past and present employers this morning to sound them out. They

891
stated that they found the agricultural wages committee guidelines extremely helpful and emphasised that they were especially valuable because they came from an independent body outside the industry.
I believe that the Government are treating the 2.5 million people involved very shabbily indeed. The least that they can do is to consult quickly and, having done so, publish the findings. It may well be that some wages councils are redundant, but, where a need is proved, they should be kept.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, this amendment is intended to bring some rational thought and analysis into the Government's decision-making process as applied to wages councils. In our discussions on this clause so far—on 1st and 30th March—one vital ingredient of decision-making has been missing from the Government's case; namely, evidence. Many noble Lords have questioned the Government repeatedly as to the estimated employment effects of this measure, the expected impact on wages, the consequent impact on a range of social security benefits, the expected impact on tax revenues, and so on. Not a single question has been answered. I have not received any correspondence from the Department of Employment answering the questions that I put on 1st March, more than two months ago. Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount: is his letter in the post?
There can be but three interpretations of the Government's persistent failure to provide any evidence for the beneficial effects that they believe will stem from the abolition of wages councils. The first reason for the lack of evidence may be that they do not have any. That this could be the case was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, by the noble Viscount when on 30th March he confessed to your Lordships that one of his key arguments—the assertion that two-thirds of workers in wages councils' industries were paid above the minimum—was based on studies that were anything up to 10 years out of date.
Secondly, it might of course be that the Government do have the evidence, but that they do not want to discuss it because it contradicts their case. If that were so, it would be disgraceful. I do not wish to suggest that it is so. The final explanation for the Government's unwillingness to consider any evidence may be that they simply do not care what the evidence says: they will go ahead anyway. That is perhaps suggested by the well-known case of Bottomley's list. As your Lordships will be aware, that is the list of studies which Mr. Peter Bottomley persuaded the Department of Employment to deposit in the Library of the other place. Most, as your Lordships will recall, contradicted the Government's argument that the abolition of wages councils would increase employment. For all that, the Government did not seem to care in the least. They seem to regard all evidence as irrelevant.
That is a disreputable way to proceed, not just because the working lives and livelihoods of 10 per cent. of the British labour force and their families are at stake; not just because that 10 per cent. contains some of the most vulnerable people in our society; but
892
because the combination of the abolition of wages councils and the consequent social security provision will have a major impact upon the public purse.
I estimate that impact to be in the region of £400 million in a full year. The Government have not contradicted my figure. I must therefore assume that they accept it. If not, will the Minister tell us what is the Government's estimate? I am willing to give way now if he would like to tell us. Well, perhaps I can help him and remind him that on 30th March on that point he referred me to his argument in Hansard. He said:
"If the price of labour is raised by statute, the number of jobs goes down. But that does not mean that it is possible to make reliable numerical estimates. A great many factors influence the level of employment and wages in the labour market. It is idle to pretend that there is a magic formula which will isolate one single factor".—[Official Report, 30/3/93; col. 779.]
With all due respect, that is absolute nonsense. Officials in the Department of Employment who may be economists will have advised the Minister that that is nonsense. Any decent economist could make a stab at solving that problem and provide an estimate which would stand up to consideration.
I now remain at a total loss as to why, at a time when public expenditure is under severe pressure, the Government should be prepared to throw away £400 million, subsidising some of the most backward employers using some of the most outdated production processes in this country.
The amendment merely requires that the Government treat that important issue with the seriousness that it deserves. That is all we are asking for. Given that the cost of obtaining the information will be minuscule compared to the Exchequer costs of abolition, is it not reasonable to ask the Government to think again; to conduct the research; and to find the information which the Minister admitted that he did not have, and so to deal with the lives of millions of our fellow citizens in a coherent, serious and decent manner?
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long. After the admirably cogent speeches we have heard, there is little to say. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because it offers a favourable compromise, or modification, of what they propose in Clause 24, for which, after all, they have an extremely weak case.
For one thing, the Government have no mandate for this proposal. When I pointed out in the previous debate that the abolition of wages councils was not mentioned during the last election, my noble friend the Minister said that it had been mentioned often, both before the election campaign and after the election campaign. That was the point that I was seeking to make; the issue was not mentioned during the campaign at all. I should like to know why that was so. It could have been mere forgetfulness but I doubt that.
Secondly, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, there is no evidence to support the idea that wages councils destroy employment. The Government have singularly failed to produce any such evidence. All they have relied upon is 19th century dogma, if one is being

893
charitable, and 19th century cant, if one is being uncharitable. I am prepared to be charitable and say 19th century dogma. But that is not enough when the Government are doing something so drastic and so serious as to take away protection from 2.5 million people, many of whom are extremely badly off.
If the dogma were remotely right one would expect virtually every employer concerned to be in favour of abolition but we know that that is not the case. In 1909 when Winston Churchill introduced wages councils a number of good employers strongly objected to being dragged down and damaged by bad and unscrupulous employers who did not pay sufficient wages. Not only is that bad socially but it increases inefficiency in industry. It often appears that the Government are anxious to make this country the Mexico of Europe, relying on cheap labour to do unskilled jobs. That is no good for our future economic prosperity.
Finally, the main reason is that it is unacceptable socially to damage the economic prospects of those who are least well off. It is particularly offensive when in many industries those in management are paying themselves vast amounts of money. It is offensive that such action should be combined with hitting the least well off. The Government should bear in mind that there is such as thing as fairness and they should also bear in mind what that means. I hope that they will support the amendment.
Lord Blease: My Lords, Clause 34 is one of the elements in the highly concentrated multipurpose Clause 51, which refers to Northern Ireland issues. During the Committee stage on 30th March I mentioned the lack of adequate consultation by the Government in respect of wages councils legislation and provisions in Northern Ireland. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, disputed the remarks I made about consultation. I have since had an opportunity to check with some of the members of the existing nine wages councils in Northern Ireland. Those to whom I spoke agreed that there were consultations in 1988. However since then there has been nothing which could be called consultation. Those people drew attention to the fact that when the consultations were taken there was almost unanimous opposition by employers, workers and independent representatives on the wages councils to the proposed abolition of the nine wages councils in Northern Ireland.
Mention has been made of the evidence which may be required in a review but nothing has given rise to any change in the situation since 1988. There is no evidence that wages councils in Northern Ireland have led to a loss of employment or jobs or that they have prevented employment development in Northern Ireland. There is every reason for effective consultation with each of the respective wages councils before a decision is taken to abolish them. Indeed, I believe that it is a negation of the principle enshrined in the wages councils legislation for almost 80 years; that is the element of consultation. Therefore, I support the proposal that consultation should take place in a review of the wages councils machinery.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, why is speed necessary? What is the urgency as regards the clause in which the Government incorporate the abolition of the wages councils? As the noble Earl who moved the amendment said quite rightly, the amendment does not overturn the clause, which was accepted in Committee, but it suggests that time should be allowed for the Government to undertake the inquiries which the amendment embodies so that the nation as a whole can see, if that is the result of the inquiries, that the abolition of the wages councils is justified. No evidence has been produced so far to justify the clause. As the noble Earl quite rightly said, we want to know what is the true cost of employing labour. We shall not know that until those inquiries have taken place.
If there is no hurry—and we have heard no justification for the hurry—surely there is every reasonable justification for taking on board the inquiries which this amendment proposes. When a law has existed as the law of the land since 1909, surely a government should not come to parliament with a shotgun and overturn that law without evidence of the need to overturn it. I find that shocking and distasteful in the 18th century sense of being unpleasant to the taste. It is not in conformity with good parliamentary practice. If the Government were prepared to accept an amendment of this nature—and I do not suggest that this amendment is ideal but it embodies all the procedures which should be undergone before such a radical change is made—I should applaud them. If a change is made after a due period of a year or so after the investigations have taken place, at least the Government could defend themselves. At present they have no cover; they are naked. I find that distasteful also.
I endorse most strongly the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Unfortunately, we have a very poor reputation for transgressing European law. I should have thought that the Government would take every conceivable opportunity to avoid transgressing European law. And yet, counsel's opinion before the Equal Opportunities Commission is that the Government's actions may well transgress European law. Once again we shall be red faced in shame before our European neighbours. That is highly undesirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, costed the operation. I wish to demonstrate with one small example how the abolition of the wages councils can affect those 2.5 million people who are at the bottom of the heap in employment terms. I give hard evidence. Wages councils were abolished for those under the age of 21. I have an example from one person who is under the age of 21. It comes from a citizens' advice bureau in Berkshire. It has a client who is a hairdresser and who is paid £30 a week for a 50-hour week with no mealbreaks. The bureau comments that her pay is less than income support. There we have it in a nutshell.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, this series of discussions started when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the policy had been decided and that he was not trying

895
to go back on the whole issue but was merely trying to obtain reports. But of course it very soon widened. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made it very clear that she wanted not merely to see wages councils retained but their powers greatly extended. Having served on a wages council many years ago and then served on an employers' organisation that had to bear the results of those councils, I must say that I believe that they are not in the interests of general employment in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked why there was such speed in the matter. Frankly, I ask: why has it taken so long to reach this stage? Many of us in another place in the last Parliament deeply regretted that the Government did not then proceed with the abolition of wages councils. I have never believed that those councils are a protection. One of the things that so often happened with them was that they had tripartite representation—that is, employers, unions and independents. The independents were mainly from universities and were not engaged in the business of commerce. They did not realise that, by giving their support to the proposals on the employees' side, it made it virtually impossible for many employers to remain in business. I cannot see that there is any advantage in calling for a report which will produce some sort of figures which may or may not justify the abolition or the retention of wages councils.
Certainly when anyone adduces in favour of retaining wages councils—for example, the Low Pay Unit—that at once sends me running for cover. Organisations like the Low Pay Unit or the London Food Commission are basically self-appointed bodies. Frankly, they do not fall in the same category as the important ones mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. For example, the citizens advice bureaux. I listen much more to them. However, in the end, they do not represent the general views as regards what is happening in the country. I hope that my noble friend will not accept this series of amendments. I do not believe that they are helpful in any way.
Lord Blease: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify a point. He expressed views and opinions and was not prepared to accept evidence presented by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. However, can he present any evidence to the House for the retention of wages councils? He did not speak of anything of an evidential nature; he merely gave opinions and views of his own.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, 95 per cent. of me had sat down, but the other 5 per cent. of me had not. I was saying that I did not go along with organisations like the Low Pay Unit. With the greatest respect, it is not a matter for individual Members of your Lordships' House who do not have the facilities to obtain the detailed evidence. It is a job for government, I am satisfied that it is our responsibility—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Finsberg: Dear me, my Lords; I did not think that "hear hears" were normal behaviour in your Lordships' House. I thought that I had got rid of all
896
that when I came here. I believe that it is correct for individual Members of this House to assess a general situation and make an informed judgment. That is what I have tried to do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Viscount responds, I should like him to reply to what his noble friend just said and produce the evidence that the abolition of wages councils will do all that is claimed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, a range of issues has been raised. I shall endeavour to deal with as many as possible. I am afraid that I did not hear any new arguments. First I shall say a few words about the amendments themselves. They would not improve Clause 34 but negate its purpose entirely.
The amendments are damaging and unnecessary. They would require that before any individual council could be abolished there would be an extensive review. That series of reviews of individual councils would delay abolition. Amendment No. 80 says nothing about the action to be taken in the light of those reviews, other than publication of reports and that they may be laid before both Houses of Parliament. But under Section 13 of the Wages Act 1986 the Secretary of State already has power to abolish or vary the scope of operation of any wages council at any time. The amendments modify those powers so that abolition under the 1986 Act would become more difficult and long drawn out.
It would have been quite possible for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have abolished the wages councils using the powers invested in her by Section 13 of the Wages Act. The Government did not adopt that course. My right honourable friend thought it right to bring the abolition of the councils clearly and openly to Parliament in this Bill. She thought it right that the issue should be fully debated and Parliament's will made clear. Clause 34 has perhaps received more attention than any other in this Bill. It has been accepted decisively in your Lordships' Committee and secured a clear majority in another place. A series of amendments aimed at delaying or frustrating abolition has been rejected firmly.
It is time to recognise that the councils have ceased to serve any useful purpose. The wages councils can only impose pointless bureaucracy or destroy jobs. The details referred to in the amendments are entirely lacking in substance. They rely on bogus statistical comparisons. They obscure the real basis for the Labour Party's policy. Labour opposes abolition to damp down the clamour from trade union leaders, who see the councils as perpetuating union power and influence.
There can be no doubt that statutory wage fixing damages employment. I am surprised that some noble Lords opposite still appear to believe otherwise, but the point is inescapable. If the price of labour is increased the demand for it will fall. This basic relationship between price and demand is central to economics. They may not be teaching that at Cambridge any more. Noble Lords opposite have had every opportunity to say that they would reintroduce

897
wages councils should they form a government. By their silence on this matter we now know where they stand.
Of course, the Labour Party tries to maintain that its replacement policy of a national minimum wage would not destroy jobs. The reality is that study after study has shown quite clearly that jobs would go on a massive scale. Indeed, if wage differentials were half restored over one million jobs could be destroyed by Labour's policy.
Wages councils are subject to the same economic laws. That does not mean that there is any reliable method of calculating the specific number of jobs which might be generated as a result of abolishing the councils. Your Lordships may recall that there were discussions on exactly that point in Committee. It is quite pointless to require a report on an employment effect which cannot be estimated.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Can he explain that last point because I do not understand it. Why is it not possible to estimate the employment effect? How can he sustain that argument when study after study and article after article in the professional journals of the economics profession do exactly that for a wide variety of problems? It is certainly possible to do that. How can the Minister possibly contend that it is not possible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I contend particularly that Labour's national minimum wage would destroy jobs. That is easily done. There are many studies to which I could draw the noble Lord's attention. As I said, there is no reliable method of calculating the specific number of jobs which might be generated.
There are many factors affecting the economy and no reliable estimate can be made. A number of noble Lords opposite assume that abolition of the councils will be accompanied by a widespread fall in wages. We have been over this ground before but it is important to put it clearly on record. Past experience gives no support to that contention. The last Labour Government abolished 11 councils covering some 600,000 workers. There is no evidence of any reduction in average wages as a result. The Wages Act 1986 removed young people aged 21 and under from wages council regulation.
10 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, since the noble Viscount cannot calculate the number of jobs that will be lost or gained by his own policy, why is he so precise in telling us how many jobs would be lost by our policy? He stated that our policy would lose a million jobs; we are not even in government yet. But he cannot calculate his own policy.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked how many jobs would be gained. I stated that there was no reliable method of calculating such an employment gain. I can cite the noble Lord plenty of studies for Labour's national minimum wage policy and indicate how many jobs
898
would be lost on that basis, if the noble Lord wishes. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research indicates that even the first stages would cost 166,000 jobs.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Viscount must—
Viscount Ullswater: This is Report stage. Stephen Bazen indicates up to 880,000 job losses. Patrick Minford, from the University of Liverpool, refers to up to 1,400,000 job losses.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Ullswater: Noble Lords say, "Ah", and so on. What they mean is that they do not like economists who tell them facts that they do not appreciate. There is no evidence of any reduction in average wages as a result of the abolition of the wages councils abolished by the last Labour Government. As I said, the Wages Act 1986 removed young people aged 21 and under from wages council regulation. Their wages continued to rise.
I totally reject the assertion that abolition of the councils will have an adverse effect on women's pay. On the contrary, abolition will help women. It will free up the labour market. It will improve the climate for jobs. About 70 per cent. of the workers covered by the councils are women, many of them working part-time. There is no good evidence that abolition will cause their wages to fall. Pay differentials between men and women in full-time work in wages council industries are similar to those for full-time workers in all industries. Women's right to equal pay is dealt with under the Equal Pay Act, which was amended by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations in 1983 to allow for equal pay for work of equal value, and the Sex Discrimination Act. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that it is that legislation which protects women at work, not the wages councils.
Wages councils have never been seen as playing a role in equal pay. Up to 1975 the councils fixed lower rates for women. The Equal Pay Act put an end to that. Historically, wages councils did not encourage equal pay. They gave statutory backing to discrimination against women. We are confident that abolition will not infringe the Treaty of Rome or the equal pay directive.
Noble Lords opposite wish wages councils to be retained because they say there are no other organisations to represent the interests of workers in the industries covered. That is manifestly not the case. The trade unions USDAW and GMB represent workers on the main wages councils. Of course, only a minority of wages council workers have joined one of those or any other trade union. That is the choice which individual workers are fully entitled to make. But the result of that choice is what trade unions and the Labour Party will not accept.
That is the real reason why the Opposition are shackled to the wages councils system. It enables the GMB and USDAW to purport to represent large groups of workers whom they cannot attract as members. It gives them power to negotiate for those who have decided not to join. The real wages council

899
issue is not about women or any of the other contentious points raised by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. It is about trade union power.
I thank my noble friend Lord Finsberg for declaring his interest and his experience from it. There is no evidence that average wages will fall, but every reason to believe that the jobs market will improve. I entirely reject the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that abolition of the councils will result in a net cost to the Exchequer. The favourable effects on profits and jobs will increase receipts and reduce expenditure on benefits linked to unemployment. Public finances will benefit from those additional sources. It is entirely unrealistic to attempt to calculate a figure.
We have carried out two full consultation exercises on the future of the wages councils and one in Northern Ireland. We have made it absolutely clear for a number of years that the councils could have no permanent place in our system. I take issue with my noble friend who seems to say that just because we did not make it a major plank in our election campaign we did not mean it, either before the election or after it. Some 85 per cent. of representations from employers and employer bodies support abolition.
There can no longer be any doubt that the wages councils have outlived their usefulness. Clause 34 abolishes them once and for all. Amendments Nos. 79A, 80 and 80A are not designed to modify or improve the abolition. They are an attempt to perpetuate the whole system. I ask the House to reject them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the support I have received from every quarter of the House. If I may mention one speech above others, I was particularly grateful to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, and I am grateful to have a breach between our families healed after about 340 years.
I cannot say I was quite so grateful for the Minister's reply, though I thank him for the trouble he put into it. He, above all, invoked delay. I thought he would. I wonder why the Government are in such a desperate hurry. It sounds as though they were not sure that they would be in office for long. I must ask the Minister whether he knows something that I do not.
I am also taken aback by the Minister choosing an amendment like this for an onslaught on Labour policy. The amendment was supported from every quarter of the House. If I may borrow that wonderful phrase of Donne's,
"the round earth's [four] imagined corners",
it might well mean the supporters of the amendment. If the Minister wishes to debate Labour policy, let him put down a motion on a Conservative day, on a Wednesday, and we shall debate it with pleasure. It has nothing to do with this amendment.
The Minister again repeated, even after the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, his argument that it is simple that if the price of labour goes up, demand must go down. That would be true if there were no other variant. But that is not the case, for if the amount of money that is paid to labour goes
900
up, its spending will go up and that will in turn generate other employment. That is the factor which the Minister left out of his equation.
I was astonished too that the Minister was quite unable to estimate the effect of his policy. If I were to come before the House and move an amendment on that basis I dread to think what the Minister would say to me about it. I recommend to him the good old traditional maxim: "When in doubt, do now't".
On the effect of this abolition on European law the Minister says, "We are confident". They are always in trouble when they say that. However, I shall remind the Minister that the Government are not the final judge of whether the measure is contrary to European law. That will be judged in another place and I shall be very interested to see the result.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, was one solitary dissident and I listened to him with pleasure and interest. He asked what was the use of having a report. As he spoke, I remembered the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on Part I of the Football Spectators Bill, calling for a report before that measure was brought into effect. The Minister said to him very much the same: what is the use of having a report? As a result, I regret to say, of tragic circumstances, we got one from Lord Justice Taylor. That Bill is still on the statute book but it has not been brought into effect. There is some use in calling for a report. I commend the amendment to the House.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 49.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol. B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Stafford, E.

Henderson office Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Goschen, V.

Barber, L.

Hacking, L.

Belstead, L.

Hemphill, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V.

Cranborne, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Finsberg, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

901

St. Davids, V.

Tebbit, L.

Shannon, E.

Teviot, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stewartby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Strathclyde, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller]

Wynford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.17 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 80A not moved.]
Clause 37 [Extension of power to confer on industrial tribunals jurisdiction in respect of contracts of employment etc.]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 26.
The noble Lord said: The Bill introduces a maximum level for claims made for pay in lieu of notice. This amendment would delete that maximum level. How the maximum level is introduced for claims made for pay in lieu of notice is that the Government intends to place jurisdiction for such cases before industrial tribunals. That is where there are maximum levels for such claims. I am quite sure that that is a welcome move.
However, it means that such claims, instead of being awarded their actual loss to the employee, which happens at the moment before the county courts, will have substituted a maximum level. That does not seem to be entirely reasonable. The citizens advice bureaux have quite rightly welcomed the move to industrial tribunals but are clearly jibbing at the idea of having those maximum levels instead of the actual loss to the employee awarded.
That was one of the items on which I and the citizens advice bureaux representatives had talks with officials at the Department of Employment, who were extremely helpful. They said, in shorthand, not to worry because there is an option for the employee to go to the county court instead of to the industrial tribunal and obtain the actual loss instead of the maximum loss per claim.
I was clearly reassured by what we heard from the officials. However, I move the amendment merely because I would like to have on the record the Government's view of the change and what the machinery is for the employee to make sure that he obtains the actual loss awarded instead of a maximum loss per claim. For that reason, I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we have considered carefully the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, both today and in Committee as well as in representation with my officials, but we remain unconvinced of the merits of the amendment. The making of an order under Section 131, as amended by the Bill, will not deprive the civil courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving breaches of employment contracts. They will have concurrent jurisdiction with the industrial tribunals as subsection (6) of Section 131, which is unchanged by Clause 37, makes plain. That means that any individual who wishes to claim damages in excess of
902
whatever limit may be established in relation to tribunal awards will continue to be able to do so through the civil courts. An order made under Section 131 will make available a new forum for such complaints without barring people from using the existing one.
Industrial tribunals are intended to be relatively informal fora for the resolution of employment disputes. There is no need for either party to be legally represented and the Government would certainly not wish to encourage the regrettable trend towards such representation. In our view it is wholly reasonable that employers against whom tribunal cases are taken and who may have no legal representation should not stand to lose unlimited amounts of money in awards made against them. That is why there are already upper limits on the awards which tribunals can make in almost all other cases falling within their jurisdiction.
Legal aid is not, of course, available for representation at tribunals, nor will it be made so. It is, however, available to those who qualify where perhaps larger sums are at stake in the civil courts. The Government have always intended that an upper limit should apply, at least initially, in awards made under Section 131. The wording in the Bill, which this amendment seeks to delete, merely clarifies that such a limit can be set out under the order-making power. The resolution of contractual disputes as such will be essentially new territory for the industrial tribunals and we consider it prudent to have the power to set an upper limit until we have had the chance to assess how this new, somewhat experimental, jurisdiction is working out in practice.
In the light of my comments I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I certainly will not press the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. The concurrent jurisdiction clearly gives rise to questions. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness whether, if an employee is dissatisfied by a maximum level which is awarded at at tribunal, he or she can appeal to the county court.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, with leave, these are separate issues. The great thing is that the person going to the industrial tribunal will know before he goes what the maximum limit is.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position to be able to tell me whether or not an employee can appeal from a maximum award to the county court for the actual loss? If she cannot answer now, will she perhaps write to me?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that would be helpful to the noble Lord. These are two separate forms of jurisdiction. I was saying in my answer that they are concurrent and one does not exclude the other.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, so I gather that there is no opportunity to appeal from the industrial tribunal. With that information, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Agreements not to take proceedings before industrial tribunal
(".—(1) In section 140 of the 1978 Act (restrictions on contracting out)—
(a) in subsection (2) (exceptions), after the paragraph (fa) inserted by paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 to this Act, there shall be inserted—
"(fb) to any agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing any proceedings specified in section 133(1) (except (c)) or 134(1) before an industrial tribunal if the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied in relation to the agreement.";
(b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—
"(3) The conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are that—

(a) the agreement must be in writing;

(b) the agreement must relate to the particular complaint;

(c) the employee must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an industrial tribunal;

(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the employee in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

(e) the agreement must identify the adviser; and

(f) the agreement must state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied.

(4) In subsection (3)—
"independent", in relation to legal advice to the employee, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting in the matter for the employer or an associated employer; and
"qualified lawyer" means—

(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate."

(2) Schedule (Compromise contracts) to this Act shall have effect for making corresponding amendments in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Wages Act 1986 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to bring forward Amendment No. 82, together with which it may be helpful to deal with Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome these new provisions.
The amendments will offer a speedy means of assisting termination settlements between parties to a dispute which safeguard the interests of the individual. They relate to agreements reached privately between the parties which settle a particular dispute that has arisen between them. Where the agreement includes a term precluding the individual's right to bring (or to
904
continue with) proceedings before an industrial tribunal in respect of that dispute, that term will be enforceable provided the conditions set out in the amendments are satisfied.
I can reassure any noble Lord who might have anxieties on this point that it would not be possible for an individual to contract out of his right to bring a tribunal claim in advance of any dispute, by promising not to bring a tribunal case in relation to any possible future breach—by the employer, for example. We are proposing that the procedures should only be available in the context of an agreement which settles a particular complaint that has already arisen between the parties to that complaint. They will not allow an individual to compromise his right to present, or to continue with, a claim to a tribunal in respect of any matter other than the particular complaint which is the subject of the agreement.
At present, under the 1978 Act, any term in an agreement which precludes an employee's right to bring proceedings before an industrial tribunal is generally void and cannot prevent the employee from bringing a subsequent tribunal case. The most significant exception is where an ACAS conciliation officer has taken action under Sections 133 or 134 of the 1978 Act to assist the settlement. Similar provisions are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act, the Wages Act and the 1992 Consolidation Acts, which Amendment No. 95 amends in a similar way.
ACAS takes the view, supported by legal advice, that it has no statutory role to become involved where the parties to a dispute have already reached an agreement between themselves, since there is no dispute outstanding. Conciliation officers therefore have no role to play in validating agreements reached privately between the parties. Following representations from a number of employer associations, we have consulted interested parties on the proposal set out in these amendments, and the response has revealed that there would indeed be widespread support for such a change.
Clearly, any amendment which allows individuals to compromise their right to bring a claim to an industrial tribunal must be very carefully drawn. First, we propose to restrict the ability to compromise in this way to cases where the individual has received independent advice from a solicitor who holds a practising certificate, or a barrister —or, in Scotland, an advocate—who is in practice as such or is employed to give legal advice. The second safeguard provided by the new clause is that the advice must be covered by professional negligence insurance against the risk of a claim by the individual in respect of loss arising from the advice given. This will ensure that individuals who agree in these circumstances not to continue with or institute tribunal proceedings are adequately protected against being given negligent advice.
The clause also requires that the individual must have received independent legal advice on the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an

905
industrial tribunal. The agreement must be in writing, identify the adviser and state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements are satisfied.
The amendments also extend the order-making powers in Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act to provide powers to make regulations to ensure where an employee is reinstated or re-engaged in consequence of an agreement reached under the new provisions, there will be no break in his period of continuous employment.
Schedule 13 already provides for continuity to be preserved in certain cases. These cases include re-employment in consequence of the presentation of a complaint of unfair dismissal under the 1978 Act, and re-employment in consequence of an agreement reached with the help of an ACAS conciliation officer in connection with such a complaint.
The amendment provides that the order-making power will extend to re-employment resulting from compromise agreements reached under the new provisions in the 1978 Act, or the Sex Discrimination or Race Relations Acts. It also extends the order-making power to cover re-employment in consequence of the presentation of a complaint of dismissal under the Sex Discrimination or Race Relations Acts, and re-employment after conciliation by an ACAS officer in relation to such a claim.
No one can be compelled to enter into agreements of this type, but where they choose to do so, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the safeguards which the amendments require will offer a substantial degree of protection to individuals. They will also make available to employers a reasonably simple and speedy means of securing such agreements while at the same time avoiding unnecessary additions to the already heavy caseloads of the industrial tribunals. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner Baroness Turner moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, Amendment No. 82A:
After Clause 37, in subsection (4), line 4, after ("associated employer") insert ("and to whom the employee has not been referred by the employer").
The noble Baroness said: We are not very happy about the proposal contained in Amendment No. 82 because we still have a fear, despite all the safeguards to which the noble Viscount has referred, that individuals could be pressurised or misled into waiving their statutory rights. It is quite true that the amendment seems to be fairly tightly drawn and that, as the noble Viscount said, agreements would only be valid where the employee receives independent written legal advice.
However, it seems to me that employers will be keen to use this new provision and could well encourage employees to seek legal advice. They might even be prepared to pay for such advice. Even if that is not done, the employer might suggest the names of lawyers to the employee and encourage him or her to seek advice at no cost. That would call into question the independence of the advice. It is for that reason that our amendment seeks to deal with that issue.
We want to insert:
906
"In subsection (4), line 4, after ("associated employer") insert ("and to whom the employee has not been referred by the employer").
We believe that that is a way in which the intentions of the amendment can be achieved since we certainly accept that the Government intend that the advice should be truly independent, and that the individual should not be put under any pressure at all to give up a statutory right. I have consulted with the TUC about this and they share this worry. They feel that if we can have an amendment on the lines suggested, it might deal with the whole question of the appearance of independence as well as the actuality of it so far as concerns the legal advice.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look favourably on the amendment which we have tabled to his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, from the employers' point of view the Government's amendment is very welcome. It opens an additional avenue for resolving disputes and as such it is a useful initiative. In particular, it is to be hoped that this amendment will help to reduce the increased litigation which seems to have arisen in recent years. It would be helpful if my noble friend, when he winds up this little debate, has a comment to make on whether he agrees that might be the case.
The only point about it is in relation to what we discussed in Committee as regards an amendment of mine which was seeking to change the 1990 rules in which ACAS is not prepared to formalise agreements reached between employers and employees. That is not handled by this. From what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, I had hoped that he would tackle the problem then. Indeed, he went further than that. In part of his introductory speech, I thought that I heard him say that ACAS particularly takes the view that it will not get involved in matters which have already been agreed between an employer and an employee. It is perhaps therefore not worth pursuing the matter this evening - it is getting a bit late - and I propose not to move Amendment No. 90 when we reach it. In the meantime, I say again to my noble friend that this is a definite movement forward and that it is welcomed by employers. I hope that the House will agree to it when we come to take a decision on it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I, too, should like to give a general welcome from these Benches to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I hope that he will give sympathetic consideration to the further amendment to his amendment which has been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, these amendments address a very important, practical, yet sensitive area of employment law. Already with the protections of Section 140 of the 1978 Act, last year ACAS saw 35 per cent. of claims compromised with conciliation officers. This will affect not merely all 72,000 employees who registered claims with ACAS; it will fan out into the delicate nexus of management-employee trade union relations. All systems of modern

907
labour law regard this as a sensitive area because it is easy for management to lean upon an individual employee to give up his or her claim. That is why the Government have tried to build in protections beyond those which Section 140 has so far provided and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, reaching into new areas of compromise of claims. I should like to ask whether those protections are adequate, although I share the ambition that the burden on industrial tribunals should, if possible, be relieved somewhat.
I shall take three points, although there are many. First, the Minister stressed that this applied only to a particular complaint. It might be that the Government should look a little more carefully at what is meant by that phrase and make it clearer in the clause.
Secondly - and this is the linchpin of the new policy which the Government are putting forward in the proposed new clause and in all the schedules that go with it - we have the basic protection of a lawyer who is insured (we are all in favour of that, especially the lawyer) and who is independent. That seems an admirable target to aim at, but it is not clear that it has been reached because the definition of "independent" is that in relation to legal advice to the employee, "independent" means that the advice is
"given by a lawyer who is not acting in the matter for the employer or an associated employer".
One can immediately think of situations which are not within that definition. A lawyer could be acting for the employer on other associated matters. One would have thought that he, too, should be ruled out. It is a very loose definition and I ask the Minister to look at it again before Third Reading. It is a pity that this matter was not introduced earlier since it is so fundamental.
My third point takes us back to a debate that we had earlier this evening and to an announcement that was made then. If an employee is a member of a trade union, he or she is highly likely to ask that the matter be discussed not merely with an independent lawyer but also with local union advisers, and may ask and insist that that be done on work premises.
There is another point. One wonders whether the advice, whatever it is to be, should not be available to the employee at some suitable place and time. However, let us suppose that the employee demands this and that the employer then penalises the employee for his or her insistence. We cannot possibly know the impact of the clause on that situation because we do not know what are to be the clauses which the Government will introduce on Third Reading on precisely that issue - action short of dismissal in regard to trade union membership and activities. Those matters are now within the ambit of debate on the Bill, but are totally unknown to us. It may even be that the final draft of the proposals is unknown to the Minister. This is an increasingly serious position. It suggests that there may be a need to go back and look at some of those matters in context when we see the Government's proposals, and that to introduce them on Third Reading is a somewhat strange procedure.
It will, I think, be said that I have brought in the question of trade union membership. I have brought
908
it in for a simple reason; namely, that the presence of the trade union, if required, is the linchpin of the definition of protection and proper protection in some of the Continental systems of labour law. Perhaps we should consider it, but, if we considered it, we would not know what it meant in terms of the protection of the employee until we saw the new clauses.
I therefore hope that the Minister will look carefully at the question of independence and the definition of independence of the lawyer concerned. He must also consider where and when the employee has the right to obtain that advice and, in respect of a trade union member, whether he can take the advice at the workplace, within working hours or not, if the request is made.
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will help me when he replies. He will be aware that Amendment No. 82 is incorporated in Clause 51, which deals with Northern Ireland affairs, and there appears as Amendment No. 113. He will be aware also that this proposal was introduced late in the consultation period and that considerable correspondence passed between departments in Northern Ireland and Great Britain dealing with aspects of this matter in relation to Northern Ireland. There are different procedural arrangements through the Labour Relations Agency and conciliation officers. Certain safeguards were promised during the, consultation period. I am not aware that the people concerned are protected and I should appreciate the Minister's help now, rather than having to raise the matter at three o'clock in the morning, given the way we are proceeding at present. I shall now read from a Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, paper which states:
"Of greater concern would be the possibility that the proposed change might lead to employees being pressurised, either into seeking representation by solicitors, or waiving their statutory rights. If the definition of legal representation was confined to solicitors, we can see no reason why they should indirectly be given any special status in the operation of the legislation. ….. Equally important, the amendment might lead to Conciliation Officers finding their independence compromised if, in the course of a proposed settlement, employers demand that individual applicants waive their rights as part of that settlement. The Conciliation Officer in these circumstances might be asked by the applicants or the legal representatives for advice. The role of the Conciliation Officer would then effectively change from conciliation to arbitration, thus impairing the long-term independence of the Agency's conciliation work".
The Minister will know this and it is on record that the Labour Relations Agency conciliation service has a success rate of about 80 per cent. Indeed, not one complaint has had to go to a labour court. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether there are any safeguards here as regards the Northern Ireland situation.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, demonstrated that she and noble Lords opposite were clearly worried that we had not drawn the definition of "independent lawyer" tightly enough, their approach being that anyone whom the employer suggests to the employee should be ruled out, presumably in case they were biased in the employer's favour. While I have sympathy with the motives, I do

909
not believe that such a provision is in any way necessary. Indeed, it might be unhelpful to the employee. Clearly, the lawyer cannot act for both parties to a dispute at the same time. The government amendments make that clear.
Furthermore, solicitors and barristers are professional people working within a code of professional ethics. They should not of course take on cases which would breach their professional rules. Employees are not compelled to take their employer's advice about whom to consult. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that if they are not satisfied with the advice they receive, they do not have to take it. It is a voluntary process. It is believed to be a sensible one which would avoid the necessity of going before an industrial tribunal. Employees are free to consult no one and to take their case to an industrial tribunal if they wish.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that the procedure is voluntary. If an employee feels that he is not receiving the right advice, it is not a question of going from conciliation to arbitration. If he feels that the settlement that the employer is offering him is not the one that he wants and he feels that he can obtain a better one from an industrial tribunal, there is nothing to stop him from applying to one. The provision relates to when the two sides can agree.
However, an employee who is hoping to settle his complaint amicably with his employer and avoid a tribunal hearing and who has had no previous contact with lawyers might well ask his employer where he might find someone suitable. There can be no good reason to provide that, merely because he has done so, a term in a compromise agreement that he should refrain from seeking tribunal proceedings will be void. I hope that the noble Baroness will not seek to press the amendment. I believe that we have tackled the issue of independence adequately.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note that the Minister has said that our amendment to his amendment is unnecessary. It would not do any harm and it would send out the right signals to trade unions and others concerned with labour relations that the advice should be truly independent and that the individual should be under no pressure from any quarter to give up a statutory right. The employee is not in an equal position when he talks to his employer. He can often be easily intimidated. For that reason it was felt that it would be a good idea to spell out in the legislation that the advice should be seen to be independent, because the employee would not be referred to a lawyer by the employer but would seek his own independent advice.
I do not intend to press the amendment at this hour of the night. Having heard what the Minister has said about independence, and so forth, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 82A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, by leave withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): My Lords, Amendment No. 82. The Question is that the amendment be agreed to?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lord, I appreciate the guarded welcome given to the amendment by noble Lords. I understand that they may not be entirely satisfied with the terms of the amendment. I repeat to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that ACAS has been given clear advice that it has no statutory remit to become involved in such agreements, and it has formulated its policy accordingly. In cases where agreement has already been reached, it is, by definition, impossible for conciliation officers to seek to promote an agreement. The practice of validating or rubber stamping such agreements became a considerable drain on ACAS resources until it ceased after the legal advice was given in 1990. In 1989, the year before the service was withdrawn, ACAS dealt with well over 17,000 such cases representing 36 per cent. of the total number of cases received.
We believe that this is a useful way of freeing up the industrial tribunal process. The industrial tribunals will not be burdened with those cases.
On Question, Amendment No. 82 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: industrial tribunals]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No 83:
Page 54, line 38, leave out ("(4A)") and insert ("(5A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 to 87. They are minor drafting amendments none of which affect the meaning of the clauses. Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86 renumber the new paragraphs inserted in the 1978 Act while Amendments Nos. 84 and 87 maintain consistency with the amendments proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 54, line 43, at end insert:
("(aa) for cases involving allegations of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, or that an individual has been diagnosed as HIV positive or with AIDS, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall be so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by or making the allegation; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we welcomed the Government's amendments designed to protect privacy in cases where sexual harassment was alleged and that the protection should extend to the person making the allegation and others concerned in the allegation. On reflection, however, we believe that there are other cases where it might be appropriate to make similar provision. Therefore, the amendment which we have tabled tonight involves cases of discrimination involving sexual orientation—I wait to hear what the Minister has to say in respect of his Amendment No. 84A and those which follow because it appears that the Government have moved towards our thinking —and persons diagnosed as HIV positive or with AIDS. We believe that such persons also need this protection.
I recall that when several years ago the House considered a previous employment Bill I tabled an amendment designed to give protection against

911
discrimination in employment to persons diagnosed as HIV positive or with AIDS. I was advised by the then Minister that that was regarded as unnecessary. The Government believed—and indeed had issued guidance to the effect—that in almost all cases of discrimination on such grounds redress existed through the IT system because such discrimination was unfair.
There have been relatively few cases yet the Terence Higgins Trust has received more queries and complaints about employment discrimination than about any other matter. It seems likely that the fear of publicity deters people who might otherwise take cases to industrial tribunals. Of course, some celebrities have been willing to identify themselves as HIV positive or with AIDS but their very celebrity can give some kind of protection and they are not usually worsened financially as a result of the publicity. Not so the ordinary citizen. If, therefore, protection against unfair discrimination is to be made a reality such people must have privacy protection. I feel sure that otherwise they will continue to be unwilling to make use of such remedies as exist. I hope that tonight the Minister has been persuaded of the reasonableness and the justice of the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clauses 38 and 39 deal with tribunal cases where evidence is likely to be given which includes intimate personal details relating to the sex or sexuality of one or more of the parties or witnesses. What noble Lords opposite are proposing, however, extends into areas which the clauses were never designed to cover. They suggest that the powers given to industrial tribunals under new subsection 4A(a) should be extended to cover cases where two kinds of allegations were to be made; either of discrimination on grounds of an individual's sexual orientation—which new subsection 4A(b) is already intended to cover—or that an individual had been diagnosed as HIV positive or as having AIDS, which in the absence of any allegation of sexual misconduct are not relevant matters for the purposes of these clauses.
The powers conferred by new sub-paragraph 4A(a) will allow tribunals to remove permanently from decisions and other public documents any information which would identify any person making or affected by any relevant allegations. It is restricted to cases which involve allegations of indecent assault or other, more serious, sexual offences. That is a very small category of tribunal cases, and it is right that it should remain so.
Powers to remove names in those limited circumstances are largely necessary to ensure that industrial tribunals can comply with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which forbids publication of the identity of a victim of an alleged sexual offence. Recording decisions without including the names of the individuals involved represents a significant departure from the principle of open justice, and in the interests of that important principle it would not be right to extend this provision further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has suggested that the provisions should be extended so that
912
reporting restrictions might apply in cases involving sexual orientation or AIDS. The clause was not designed to cover allegations of discrimination relating to AIDS or HIV and without any element of sexual misconduct. To do so would go far beyond the intentions of the new powers and would have wide implications. The public consultation which preceded the government amendments introducing the clauses in Committee did not cover this proposal. It would not be appropriate to extend the clauses in this way at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill.
However, it was always the intention, as I made clear in Committee, that the definition of "sexual misconduct" used in Clause 38 should include adverse conduct related to the sexuality of the person at whom the conduct is directed. This definition determines the type of case where an industrial tribunal may make a restricted reporting order. For example, an industrial tribunal hearing a case where an employee was dismissed on grounds of his sexual orientation should have power to make a restricted reporting order, if it felt that would be appropriate.
It has been suggested that the wording used in Clause 38 is perhaps not quite as clear on this point as it could have been, and I am therefore pleased to introduce this small amendment, and a similar amendment to Clause 39, to clarify the point beyond any possible doubt. I hope that given that explanation and the Government's clarification the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, at this late hour I shall withdraw the amendment but I must express disappointment at the Minister's reaction to the proposition contained in Amendments Nos. 83A and 86A. My information is that people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive or as having AIDS suffer a fair amount of harassment and often discrimination in employment. One reason that they often fail to make use of the available redress by taking the case to an industrial tribunal is that they are afraid of the publicity that will arise if they do so.
The Minister says that the proposal has been introduced at a rather late stage and I accept that. However, I hope that the Government will undertake some further consultation in this area because there is a real case to be made. Even if it cannot be attached to this Bill I hope that at some time in the future, when a suitable vehicle arises, it will be possible to accord to people in that category the same kind of privacy protection which is intended in the Bill as it now stands. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:
Page 55, line 7, after ("by") insert (", or as the person making,").
Page 55, line 16, after ("sex") insert ("or sexual orientation").
Page 55, line 27, leave out ("(4A)") and insert ("(5A)").
Page 55, line 46, leave out ("(4A) above") and insert ("(5A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: Employment Appeal Tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 86A not moved.]
11 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 87 and and 87A:
Page 57, line 28, after ("by") insert (", or as the person making,").
Page 57, line 37, after ("sex") insert ("or sexual orientation").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Restriction of vexatious proceedings
(". After section 136 of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted—
"Restriction of vexatious proceedings.
136A.—(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate under this section, the Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground—

(a) instituted vexatious proceedings, whether in an industrial tribunal or before the Appeal Tribunal, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or

(b) made vexatious applications in any proceedings, whether in an industrial tribunal or before the Appeal Tribunal,

the Appeal Tribunal may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make a restriction of proceedings order.
(2) A "restriction of proceedings order" is an order that—

(a) no proceedings shall without the leave of the Appeal Tribunal be instituted in any industrial tribunal or before the Appeal Tribunal by the person against whom the order is made;

(b) any proceedings instituted by him in any industrial tribunal or before the Appeal Tribunal before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Appeal Tribunal; and

(c) no application (other than one for leave under this section) shall be made by him in any proceedings in any industrial tribunal or in the Appeal Tribunal without the leave of the Appeal Tribunal.

(3) A restriction of proceedings order may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.
(4) Leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, any proceedings in an industrial tribunal or before the Appeal Tribunal by a person who is the subject of a restricted proceedings order shall not be given unless the Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of the process of the tribunal in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.
(5) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal refusing leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, proceedings by a person who is the subject of a restriction of proceedings order.
(6) A copy of a restriction of proceedings order shall be published in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Gazette." ").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 88, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 98 and 115. It gives me great pleasure to bring forward the amendments. I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome them.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes described to us so vividly in Committee, some industrial tribunals experience serious difficulties with the occasional individual who habitually and persistently instigates vexatious tribunal proceedings without any reasonable grounds. Fortunately, such people are few and far between. They can, however, create an enormous amount of unnecessary work and inconvenience, both for the tribunals and for employers who have to waste time and money defending themselves against meritless accusations.
Tribunals do, of course, have powers to hold a pre-hearing assessment to warn parties that costs may be awarded if they continue with their cases and lose. Unfortunately, that has not proved a sufficient deterrent. One individual is known to have brought over 100 vexatious applications, and another somewhere between 60 and 70. The risk of having to pay costs does not appear to have deterred them one iota.
We are, therefore, now proposing that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be given powers to make a "restricted proceedings order" which would prevent a litigant judged to be vexatious from continuing with any outstanding complaints or instituting further proceedings at an industrial tribunal, or before the EAT anywhere in Great Britain. Once the order had been made that litigant would only be able to pursue a case if the EAT gave its prior consent.
The new powers that the Government propose for the EAT are similar to the current provisions in Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which cover England and Wales—similar provision is made for Scotland in the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898—and lay down procedures for dealing with vexatious litigants before the courts generally. The powers given to the EAT will, however, address the specific problem of vexatious litigants before the industrial tribunals and the EAT itself in a manner appropriate to those tribunals. In particular, in making an order, the EAT, whether in London or in Edinburgh, will be able to take into account the litigant's conduct before tribunals in either jurisdiction. Equally, once an order is made it will apply throughout Great Britain.
We anticipate that such orders would be made in only a very small number of cases, where the EAT had satisfied itself that there was no doubt about the vexatious nature of the claims brought by the litigant. The order could be made by the EAT only on application from the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate.
I hope noble Lords will agree that those powers are very carefully framed to ensure that they are only used where absolutely necessary and where there is no doubt about the intentions of the applicant. However,

915
the powers should allow tribunals to deal effectively with the serious problem of vexatious litigants who have, although few in number, caused so much inconvenience and wasted effort in the past. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as he rightly said, the Minister did undertake in Committee to consider the matter as a result of the amendment moved by his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I expressed some doubts then because it did not seem to me that there was much evidence of there being large numbers of people involved. However, I do understand that the one or two who, apparently, exist can cause a great deal of trouble and waste much time and public money.
We certainly do not intend to speak in opposition to Amendment No. 88 this evening. However, there is a point that I should like to raise with the Minister. In 1989, the Government introduced powers to impose a £150 charge on applicants to industrial tribunals. That could be imposed by a chairman sitting alone if he or she became convinced that there was no case or if the individual refused to accept a settlement proposing conciliation. Although those powers exist, I understand that they have not yet been put into effect. I am pleased about that because I recall that when they were introduced they occasioned a great deal of hostile comment.
However, it seems to me that if the Government have the procedures outlined in Amendment No. 88 in legislation they probably do not need the powers to impose the £150 charge. Given a choice, I would prefer the procedure set out in Amendment No. 88. If we have Amendment No. 88, which is specifically designed to deal with vexatious litigants, could the Government decide not to proceed with the £150 charge? That might be a good idea in the circumstances. Perhaps the Minister would care to address that point in his reply.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I too should like to welcome Amendment No. 88, although I question whether it goes far enough and deals with the problem in the right way. Having said that, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on raising the matter at Committee stage. The real problem of vexatious litigants in industrial tribunals is clearly one which she has endured, as I have. One has spent endless hours listening to the ramblings and rantings of such people with the scant comfort that one is being paid for one's pains. Indeed, having heard tonight from the Government Front Bench that legal representation in tribunals is a regrettable trend, one suspects that one should not be there at all.
Vexatious litigants in tribunals, as elsewhere, cause worry and expense to those against whom they bring proceedings. They also waste the valuable time and resources of the already overloaded tribunal system, to the detriment of those who have good, arguable claims. Tribunals seem particularly afflicted by vexatious litigants; and, despite what has been said
916
from both Front Benches, from my perspective such people do not seem to be as few and far between as has been suggested.
Tribunals seem afflicted in that way for a number of reasons. Those must include the absence of any legal aid to filter out hopeless claims and, as has effectively been conceded by the Government, the inadequacy of the various pre-hearing procedures and of the cost deterrents which are already in place. It has also to be recognised that vexatious litigants are often impervious to such sanctions.
The legal need for the amendment arises because of the ambiguous status of industrial tribunals. If they were clearly understood to be courts the existing mechanisms under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act, to which the noble Viscount referred, would apply, as would the Contempt of Court Act, and no doubt their Scottish counterparts. I suggest that it would have been preferable, and simpler, merely to have provided that for the avoidance of doubt tribunals were covered by the existing machinery.
The amendment means that someone who is declared vexatious in ordinary civil litigation under the existing procedures is not prevented from starting a hopeless tribunal claim. Likewise, someone who is declared vexatious under the proposed new clause is not thereby restrained in any way from starting hopeless civil litigation in the courts. Moreover, the new clause does not even allow the fact that someone has been declared vexatious in the civil courts to be relied on when the proposed new machinery is operated in the EAT. That may mean that in some cases—and it may be in only a few extreme cases—two separate orders will have to be obtained.
It seems to me that now that industrial tribunals are to have an extended jurisdiction, including contractual disputes, it is unnecessary to have two separate procedures and that some thought could have been given to extending the existing arrangements under the Supreme Court Act and its Scottish equivalent to cover the situation more neatly. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment does not go far enough. I realise that the provision has been introduced at a relatively late stage of the Bill and therefore may be the product of insufficient consultation. I may be completely wrong about that; there may be good reasons for not having made the provision in the way that I suggest. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate the Government's thinking.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the amendment forward; I am most grateful to him. There has been considerable consultation on the matter. I therefore believe that it has been thought out more carefully than the noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave credit for.
The difference between the courts and tribunals may be deliberate rather than accidental. The prospect of someone being declared vexatious in both the courts and tribunals would be extremely rare; we expect few cases. The tribunal proceedings may not be fully understood by the courts and vice versa. Therefore, it is good to have separate procedures. It is

917
certainly right that the employment appeal tribunal should be the body to hear the case. It has the full understanding of the employment situation.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I do not believe that at present it is proving necessary to have provision for the £150 charge. However, I hope that the Government will retain the power while seeing how matters proceed. There is a big difference between a person from whom one might ask for £150 and the person for whom one might go to the lengths of proceedings for a vexatious litigant. There is an interim stage at which a £150 deposit might be a wise deterrent. As I understand it, no date has been set for the introduction of such provision at present. I hope that the issue will be deferred while we see how the system works and decide whether the £150 charge needs to come into operation. We debated whether such a provision should be put in previous legislation; eventually it was. It would be a mistake to throw such a provision out without having tried it.
I ask the Minister to accept my thanks for the amendment that he has brought forward today.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may pose a question to the Minister. We must congratulate the noble Baroness on the success which her proper campaign has achieved. Those of us who have achieved amendments of only one word or two lines are amazed at the victory of someone who has persuaded the Government to accept a whole clause.
My question follows what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. Reference was made to a vexatious litigant in the tribunals not being thereby vexatious in the civil courts unless so declared. Will that situation be so rare? The answer might depend on the response to the question that the Minister is taking away; he will tell us more at Third Reading. The question is this. How far is the new civil jurisdiction of the tribunal for breach of contract exclusive of the jurisdiction of the county court in the same cause or matter? I was not sure of the noble Baroness's answer to that question. If there is coterminous jurisdiction—it is not mutually exclusive—then someone who loses and becomes vexatious in the tribunals may well go to the county court to try his or her luck. If the vexatious litigant carried his character to another court in the same cause, it might be sensible to consider, with due protections, whether an automatic bar should be made in the other courts if there were a combination of jurisdictions.
I hope that at Third Reading the Minister will tell us the precise meaning of that part of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course, I should like to pay tribute first to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who is perhaps the author of the amendment. She has been persistent, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, but quite rightly so.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Meston, who asked me about Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act, any amendment to Section 42 of that Act would require consideration of the
918
position of other tribunals and courts, which is beyond the scope of the Bill. In addition, Section 42, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, does not apply in Scotland where the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898 applies instead. What is important is that we are intending to provide these additional powers to the EAT to deal specifically with proceedings before the EAT and industrial tribunals throughout Great Britain.
The noble Lords also said, "Well, maybe it was because we did not have any consultation and we brought it in rather at the last minute and this was our best attempt". I have to say that this is an area of legal policy and the relevant Whitehall departments have been involved in the drafting of the amendments. The Department of Employment has in any case been considering the matter for some time and has had considerable correspondence on the subject with the relevant government departments and the industrial tribunals.
The presidents of the industrial tribunals in England and Wales and in Scotland, the president of the employment appeal tribunal, the chairman of the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland and the Council on Tribunals have all been kept in touch with developments. So the noble Lord must accept from me that we have been consulting widely on those kinds of propositions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded us about the situation in the 1989 Act which gave new powers for a pre-hearing review that could require a deposit of up to £150 to continue with a case it considered hopeless. The deposit would be returned, however, unless costs were eventually awarded. As my noble friend quite rightly pointed out, the powers have not yet been implemented, but the intention is to do so when the rules are amended following the passage of the Bill.
However, while in our opinion they may deter someone from bringing a single groundless case, they are very unlikely to have any impact on a determined, vexatious litigant who will already be spending considerable sums on litigation. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, although she entered a caveat, has given this a form of welcome. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Functions of ACAS]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 58, line 6, at end insert ("and encouraging the involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has to do with the duties of ACAS. There are certain points of similarity between it and Amendment No. 57 on which I received a dusty answer from the Government. I hope that the House will forgive me, however, if I deal with the same subject once more.
The amendment stems from one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in Committee. It proposed that in place of the words in subsection (1) of what is now Clause 40,
"in particular, by exercising its functions in relation to the settlement of trade disputes under sections 210 and 212",

919
there should be inserted:
"to encourage, in accordance with Article 118B of the Treaty of Rome as amended, the promotion of consultation and negotiation within the social dialogue between management and labour".
If the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will allow me to say so, I would not have framed the amendment in quite the way he did, but I nevertheless said that I sympathised with it. I went on to say that in its 1991 report ACAS stated that in response to the Citizen's Charter it had prepared what it called the ACAS commitment. That committed the service to the way it carried out its statutory duty, among other things, in improving industrial relations and fostering employee involvement.
Under the heading "Resolution of Disputes" it stated:
"Before providing assistance ACAS always first encourages parties to make full use of any agreed procedures they may have for negotiation and the settlement of disputes".
That sentence accords closely with the statutory duty set out in Section 210(3) of the 1992 Act.
However, under a further heading, "Advice and Assistance on Industrial Relations and Employment Issues", ACAS said that among other things it was committed to:
"encouraging the involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems as a prime means of promoting constructive employment relationships".
That is a significant additional undertaking which does not yet feature among ACAS's statutory duties. It may therefore fairly be said that the encouragement of negotiations by ACAS already has a place in statute, but the promotion of employee involvement does not. In those circumstances I suggested in Committee that, in removing from ACAS's statutory duties the encouragement of collective bargaining, the Government should replace that duty with one to promote employee involvement in accordance with what ACAS was already doing.
In reply, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, simply told me that ACAS already had the powers to consult where necessary and he did not believe it needed any further powers. That was not the point I was trying to make. I believe the noble Viscount now understands that from a discussion he was kind enough to have with me before Report stage. Of course I recognise that ACAS already has the power to consult where necessary. What I was seeking was statutory backing for ACAS's existing commitment, in advising others, to encourage the involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems. In Committee I said that I might bring forward on Report an amendment on those lines and that is what I have now done in tabling Amendment No. 89.
I appreciate that, in framing Clause 40 as they have, the Government have sought to give ACAS wide general powers and in particular the power to give advice. The Government have sought to leave the service free to determine for itself how that advice should be given. I have every sympathy with that approach. However, I also feel that the clause would be improved if within it some such words as are suggested in Amendment No. 89 were included.
Clause 40(1) already includes the words "in particular" in stating that it should be part of the general duty of ACAS,
"to promote improvement of industrial relations … by exercising its functions in relation to the settlement of trade disputes".
I suggest that in its advisory function a duty to encourage the involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems is equally if not more important. The emphasis that ACAS itself places on this function is evident from a paragraph in its 1992 report which has just been published and which states:
"In 651 or as many as 83 per cent. of the completed larger exercises operational staff were able to encourage managements and employee representatives to consider their problems in existing or specially created joint working parties or other machinery of employee involvement".
I cannot think that in the light of that statement ACAS would be anything but happy to accept the substance of Amendment No. 89 as part of its statutory remit. But I do not suggest that legislative endorsement should be given to that function without consultation. I hope therefore that between now and Third Reading of the Bill the noble Viscount will agree to approach ACAS to see whether I am right in thinking that what is proposed in the amendment would be acceptable to the service. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we naturally support this amendment. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is trying to do is to give ACAS some positive functions—not just an advisory function but a positive, almost reformist function. Understandably enough from their point of view, the Government have changed the definitions of the functions of ACAS so that it is no longer concerned with the general duty to promote improvements in industrial relations by encouraging the extension, development and reform of collective bargaining. In other words, ACAS is no longer concerned with joint regulation per se and improvement of joint regulation. Rather, it is concerned with mitigating the consequences of that joint regulation by the settlement of trade disputes.
The amendment suggests that ACAS should be given some other positive function in the light of the decision of the Government that it should not be encouraging the spread and development of collective bargaining. The encouragement of involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems seems to be the most gentle, non-controversial but nevertheless important, function that ACAS might have. It is not negotiation; it is not even participation; it is not that funny modern word "empowerment". The amendment just speaks of involvement.
As the noble Lord said, ACAS itself has stated that it does that and wants to become more involved in that area. It therefore seems to me quite right, proper and reasonable that the Government should accept an amendment of this kind.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, over many years the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has been promoting the case for employee involvement. His commendable commitment to that cause has been unflagging. It is not therefore entirely unexpected that he should seek to insert a reference to that important subject in the Bill.

921
When our legislative proposals are enacted, ACAS's overall aim will be neatly defined as promoting the improvement of industrial relations. That simple remit has the great advantage of permitting ACAS to decide for itself what it considers will be conducive to improved industrial relations in the light of the particular circumstances involved. If encouraging employee involvement is appropriate—as it will be on many occasions—ACAS will be free to recommend as much.
There is therefore no need to insert this additional wording in the terms of reference for ACAS. We should leave it in ACAS's capable hands to identify the appropriate response. In so doing, we also avoid the potential problem of signalling to ACAS that it should always favour this approach in each and every case, irrespective of the circumstances involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the ACAS commitment. That is a statement of ACAS's own policy and undertakings towards its customers. As such, it serves a very useful function. But it would be unwise to use the commitment as a source document for legislative purposes. If it did, we should be considering a long string of amendments, for the commitment contains various statements about ACAS's policies, only some of which are explicitly mentioned in legislation.
Employee involvement is a valuable concept. ACAS recognises that fact in its working practices. In most cases, ACAS approaches the resolution of disputes or problems by involving all the parties concerned. In 1992, 65 per cent. of ACAS's in-depth advisory projects in companies were conducted through joint working groups of management and employees.
We on this side of the House believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that ACAS already takes every opportunity to advocate the merits of employee involvement, wherever appropriate. Our legislative proposals will enable ACAS to continue in the same vein. I hope that what I have said will have reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for his support. I am disappointed but not altogether surprised by the response of the noble Viscount. I am sorry that the Government seem to be unwilling to include within the scope of the clause some such words as I suggested. But at this time of night it would be pointless for me to pursue the matter further. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Clause 41 [Fees for exercise offunctions by ACAS]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 58, line 31, leave out ("consulting ACAS") and insert ("giving ACAS the opportunity to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate over a period of one year and to propose to him alternative arrangements").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to another aspect of the proposals on ACAS. I hear, ringing in my ears, the Minister's declaration to the last amendment, "Leave it in ACAS's competent hands". That is the motto of Amendment No. 91. Leaving it in ACAS's competent hands is exactly what the Government will not do when it comes to giving directions to ACAS that it must charge, and charge in the way the Minister requires.
It may be thought odd that my amendment leaves out the words "consulting ACAS", but it does so because of the way in which ACAS itself responded to the problem and saw how the Minister responded. In the recently published 1992 annual report, ACAS made it clear that the council wrote to the Secretary of State unanimously opposing the reserve power by which ACAS could be directed to charge for its collective conciliation, arbitration and advisory activities. The Minister seems to have taken no heed of that. It is well known that on some matters unanimous decisions of the ACAS council are not easy to obtain; historical precedents are many. But here it was quite clear.
The ACAS report goes on:
"The Council is clear that the freedom from Ministerial direction which was given to the Service on its creation in 1975 has been the essential foundation of its independence and proven impartiality"
I repeat, the "essential foundation of its independence and proven impartiality".
"between employers and employees. A reserve power could well be regarded as a continuing threat to seek to influence or govern the ways in which, under the Council's direction, the Service exercises any, or all, of its statutory powers".
It concludes by saying:
"The Council's concerns were not eased by being told that the Secretary of State had no current plans to exercise such a power".
Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight whether or not Ministers have any plan to exercise those new powers. The points in the passage on page 29 of the ACAS annual report are quite clear and need an answer. Does the Minister accept that,
"the essential foundation of its independence and proven impartiality",
is at stake? If he does not accept that that is at risk, what arguments does he address which will counter the proven impartiality and experience of the ACAS council, its chairman and the previous members of the body?
It is more regulation of collective labour relations which accompanies deregulation of individual labour relations and weakens employment protection for individual employees. And it is extraordinary that the Government are insistent on more and more regulation (even of the agency which is the jewel in the crown of voluntary collective labour relations whose history has been one of major success) in pursuit of ideology, of raising money wherever they can and of clipping the wings of the collective activities of ACAS, against the judgment which I read to your Lordships.
I suggest that the only way to deal with the matter is to allow ACAS to make counter proposals to the Minister; to give a reasonable time, perhaps a year. One would have thought that the Government would be able to see some sense in that. If not, they should withdraw the whole clause. That would be better. We

923
will have much to discuss on Third Reading. Let us hope that they withdraw the whole matter. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is important that we should seek to explain, discuss or raise the reasons why an organisation like ACAS would be fearful of making charges. It is quite permissible in my opinion, though not necessarily a good thing, that ACAS should charge for its publications. At the moment it does not charge. It has often been put that there is a great demand for ACAS publications—they are quite invaluable—which cannot always be met because it can only produce as many publications as its budget allows.
Some of its excellent publications on job evaluation, appraisal and so on would be capable of making quite a good income for ACAS. There may be an argument for charging for publications; there may even be an argument for charging for certain services, such as courses. There are problems about that because some of the very people that ACAS wants to come on those courses would not be able to afford the fees or would not pay for the courses. They have to be induced and encouraged to come. But paying for courses and paying for publications does not infringe the heart of the ACAS function. It is not intrinsically a bad thing to do. But to pay for conciliation, to pay for arbitration, to pay for mediation raises very considerable problems.
In industrial relations there are a few—a very few—examples of paid arbitration or paid mediation. Both sides put in an equal amount of money and the conciliator, mediator or arbitrator usually an arbitrator—performs a standing function. That is very unusual. It is done not for disputes of interest but for disputes of right where the organisations involved have had these arbitrators at work for years. They know them and accept this as a way of doing it and pay because they want a particular person. But the whole of the ACAS system is based on free access.
If one were to say that someone had to pay, and the employer paid, it would destroy the objectivity. It would certainly destroy the reputation. If one said—ACAS might be driven to say it in order to maintain its impartiality—that ACAS would charge, if the Government let it, a nominal sum and would insist that both sides paid an equal sum, all that would happen is that fewer people would go to conciliation, mediation or arbitration, and the expansion and development of the ACAS function would be reduced.
The amounts involved must be trifling. The important work that the organisation does is vital and irreplaceable. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, it is madness to try to raise money is this way. This is a modest amendment. I hope that the Government will see their way through to accepting it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, let me stress several points of importance to begin with. First, the subsection provides the Secretary of State with a reserve power only. It is our expectation that this reserve power will be used rarely. There are no current plans to use the reserve power. Its function is to
924
protect the taxpayers' interests on occasions—infrequent occasions—where savings could be made to the public purse by charging for appropriate activities where ACAS has failed to do so. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has accepted the concept that ACAS could charge for a number of its services.
Secondly, the Government respect ACAS's independence. It is a precious asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said, which must be protected. Without this independent status, its work as a conciliator would be imperilled. Clause 41 in fact acts to enhance this independence by permitting ACAS for the first time to offset the cost to the taxpayer by charging for certain services where circumstances allow.
The requirement to consult ACAS in subsection (2) was introduced in recognition of this independent status. It was drawn up at ACAS's suggestion. It would be remiss for the Secretary of State to insist on charging without asking ACAS's advice.
The noble Lord's amendment allows, and I expect the intention is to encourage, ACAS to consult more widely over a period of one year, before taking a final view on a charging proposal. Where does this place ACAS? It becomes merely a co-ordinator of other people's views. Its effect would be to introduce cumbersome consultative procedures which could delay things for over a year. The noble Lord is truly taking a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Or perhaps he is hoping that the nut will just disappear while all this activity is going on over such a protracted period.
Noble Lords should remember that, at ACAS's own suggestion, subsection (2) already requires the Secretary of State for Employment to consult ACAS, and that ACAS is itself a broad church. Representatives from all sides of industry and commerce are represented on its council. In consulting with ACAS, the Secretary of State would in fact be consulting with a wide cross-section of the parties affected. If ACAS thinks its knowledge is incomplete, it can always take soundings beyond its council's membership. There is no need to enshrine this capacity expressly in the legislation because it is already implied.
ACAS undoubtedly performs a valuable function. It performs it well. Noble Lords can be assured that government will always act with great care to preserve this hard-won reputation. Encouraging widespread consultations on charging issues is unnecessary since the ACAS council is already well placed to comment on any proposal to charge from the Secretary of State. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, it is tempting to take a different line to that which the Minister suggests. We are told that this is a reserve power to be used only rarely. We would like to know when and under what type of circumstances. One is entitled to have that explained. We are told that it is to protect the taxpayer. As my noble friend suggested, it is hardly likely to raise great revenue. The question which is raised on this side of the House is: at what cost to ACAS and the job which it does?

925
The Minister said that ACAS's independence is respected. It may be by him but it is certainly not by his clause. I felt that I did not have to spell out the reasons why essential functions of ACAS on conciliation, advice and arbitration, were threatened because ACAS has said so itself. What the Minister has not told us is why ACAS is wrong. He simply said that he respects its independence but he is going along with something which ACAS says is threatening to that independence. Perhaps my amendment is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The clause is more like a sledgehammer to crack ACAS's nut in the hands of someone with a blindfold and who does not know when he is going to use the power.
It is a serious thing to do in terms of help to those involved in collective labour relations, employers as much as unions and employees. If the case is no better than that which the noble Viscount has explained to the House, I seriously suggest that the Government should look again at the clause to consider whether they wish to continue with it at Third Reading. To come up against something as central as this with an argument of the kind which we have heard, and so late in the Bill, complicates the business of this Report stage and Third Reading. It also does not do justice in any way to the realities of day-to-day labour relations.
As we come to this stage of the night the Minister looks more pleased. He knows what I am going to say. To reach a matter such as this concerning ACAS so late at night and to have to withdraw such an amendment, is a defect in our legislative system. There have been other amendments tonight equally poised in the darkness. They have had to be withdrawn in a House which could hardly be described as excited and crowded. It is a defect in the system which we use. It is absurd that we should go on in this way. I know not whether we should start at 10 in the morning, but something of that kind obviously has to be considered.
Perhaps I may make a final point to the Minister. I have moved an amendment to a provision which ACAS tells us is a direct threat to the heart of the organisation and I have no option but to withdraw it because of the time of night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 59, line 6, at end insert ("(computing that cost in the same way as under subsection (5) above)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to remedy a minor ambiguity in the clause as currently drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.45 p.m.
Clause 42 [Careers services]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 59, line 36, leave out ("ceasing") and insert ("who have not attained the age of 21 years and have ceased").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come now to a number of important amendments on the careers service, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend has just said about the time of night. The amendments on this subject were dealt with in Committee by my noble friend Lady David and in her sad and regrettable absence this evening I am dealing
926
with them. In doing so, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence because I inadvertently agreed that Amendments Nos. 92A and 92B should be grouped, but they deal with quite separate matters and I should like to take them separately.
Amendment No. 92A has the purpose of ensuring that there is a duty to provide a careers service covering young people under 21 who are not in full-time education. New subsection (8) of the Bill creates a duty to provide careers services to young people in schools or further education colleges and to help them find a further placement in employment training or education on leaving school or college. A very important part of the work of the careers service is with young people who have left full-time education but have failed to find permanent full-time employment or who have lost one job and need to find another. Some of those young people may even be on youth training where the particular scheme does not involve college attendance.
Subsection (9) gives "powers" rather than specifying a "duty" to provide services more widely than in subsection (8), but there is also a power to charge for those services. It would be highly desirable for the statutory entitlement to a free service to be extended to young people in the first few years after leaving school or college. That would also recognise the reality of where much of the more difficult work lies at present. The amendment seeks to do no more than that, and I hope that it will have a sympathetic response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness. However, I am concerned that, inadvertently, it will prevent careers guidance to young people with special educational needs who, because of those special educational needs, continue full-time schooling beyond the age of 21. I believe that the noble Baroness would not have intended to cut out such guidance and I wonder whether she could look at this again, possibly before a later stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should not have thought that the amendment would do that but I, too, should like to support it. Its age grouping (of those up to the age of 21) is very important. It behoves the Government to give those young people every possible assistance to find employment.
We understand that a great deal of crime is committed by those between the ages of 16 and 25. Indeed, many of us think that the incidence of such crime is enhanced by the fact that those young people do not have any work to do. Therefore, I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to give every possible assistance to that age group. It will not cost a great deal of money, but it may bring many benefits to the Government, both financial and social. I sincerely hope that the Government will give careful consideration to accepting the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, before I reply to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, perhaps I too may say that we on this side of the House shall miss the contributions of the noble

927
Baroness, Lady David, on the careers service which she values so much and we express sympathy at her sad news. Perhaps I may also say that I believe the noble Baroness would not be much pleased with us at the hour at which this matter comes before the House again.
I understand the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, which have been endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I do not think that the noble Baroness seeks to establish an arbitrary division between those leaving education who are 21 or over and those who are under that age. It would be strange to have a duty to provide careers guidance services to those aged 21 who are in further education and then not continue that duty to help them when they have left. The noble Baroness appears to agree that it is necessary to draw a line around those for whom there is a statutory duty. The difference between us is that the noble Baroness wants to draw a neat, clear, fixed line which we think is not possible or desirable.
Careers services should so far as possible be responsive to and reflect individual needs and circumstances. Some people's careers guidance needs can easily be met in a brief interview while others need help over a considerable period of time. The duty on the Secretary of State should reflect that and we fully recognise the worries that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raises. Determining exactly who does and does not fall within the group to whom there is a duty is also an issue in the current arrangements. We deal with it now through the Secretary of State's guidance. We can do so in future.
The arrangement also allows young people to choose between the job centre and the careers office. I appreciate that the issue is given sharper focus because of the power to charge and I understand the attraction of this amendment for the noble Baroness. She no doubt sees it as a guarantee that those under 21 cannot be charged, but it would of course leave everyone over 21 ceasing to undergo education open to charging.
I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness that we have the common ground of recognising the client's individual needs, and I hope that she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stoddart for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that my reading of the Bill and the amendment does not have the effect that he suggests and I certainly would not want it to have such an effect.
I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment. I understand from what she has said that there is a great deal of sympathy and a certain amount of common ground, but there is a special case, to be made for the young people who have just come out of school or college and who are in those very early, formative years of trying to find work and a career. I shall look carefully at what she has said; but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 60, line 27, at end insert:
("(5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that staff appointed to provide the relevant services referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall—

(a) hold the Diploma in Careers Guidance or a recognised equivalent, and

(b) have the appropriate competencies in accordance with agreed national standards approved by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 92B makes it obligatory that staff employed by every contractor to perform careers guidance functions shall have the Diploma in Careers Guidance or a recognised equivalent. A similar amendment was dealt with in Committee. It is obviously important that staff employed to advise young people and to help them make a choice about their future careers should be properly qualified so that parents, young people and employers have confidence in the service. In Committee, in reply to a similar amendment, the Minister said:
"When making arrangements the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that whoever she contracts with has sufficient expertise to provide the service that she has a duty to secure. That includes sufficient professional competence in the field of careers guidance".—[Official Report, 30/3/93; col. 853.]
The Minister suggested that a requirement for all staff to be qualified in the way set out in the amendment would rule out the small number of existing experienced staff who do not hold a formal qualification. The amendment does not seek to be restrictive in that way. It recognises that the existing diploma in careers guidance provides the foundation upon which future professional qualifications can build. It recognises also the work of the lead body for advice, guidance and counselling, meeting under the auspices of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The national council is seeking to establish NVQs for careers guidance staff. Therefore, the competence which any current member of staff may have acquired through experience, rather than formal qualifications, will be capable of being validated and recognised in future.
The amendment seeks to ensure that each and every new careers service contractor shall be required by law to employ careers advisers whose training, skills and professional qualifications and competency are to the level of the existing diploma in careers guidance, or a recognised equivalent, both of which would be acceptable to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Enabling individuals to choose between options, routes and providers is a highly specialised and competent task.
The Government lay down regulations for other professional services; for example, teaching. The service of careers guidance is just as important to the individual and the economy as other professional services. It is not acceptable to leave it to Secretaries of State to include comments about,
"first class guidance shall be provided",
in specifications for tenders for future careers service contracts. We need to require all Secretaries of State, of whichever government, through the lifetime of this revised legislation, by regulation, to employ only skilled, trained and competent staff, to a level which has been specified. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, I support the amendment to which she has put her name. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, offered no convincing explanation as to how the Secretary of State would be able, from the centre, to provide for careers guidance that was sufficiently accountable and more responsive to local needs than that given under the present arrangements.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Seear asked specifically what criteria would be used in judging the merits of people competing to provide the best service and what would be the qualifications of those making the judgments. In reply the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, acknowledged the need to establish new careers service standards and audit arrangements, but there is nothing in the Bill to satisfy us about such matters.
In my view, it is particularly important that provision should be made on the face of the Bill as to the qualifications of those appointed to provide the relevant services and the standards to which they should conform. I therefore strongly support Amendment No. 92B. In order to save time, perhaps I may add that I subscribe to the other amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will be moving.
Midnight
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It is absolutely essential that those providing career guidance are properly trained and qualified, in particular when dealing with people who have disabilities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. It is not necessary for me to repeat her argument, particularly as I moved a similar amendment in Committee. The fact is that we are to have a fundamental change in the running of the careers guidance service. It appears that we shall have a competitive system. We need to be sure that the standards which have been built up by the local authorities in conjunction with others over a long period of time are maintained. Without the amendment there is no guarantee in the Bill that those standards will be maintained. During a long period of time many people have built up the service to its present pre-eminent situation. It would be a sadness indeed if, simply and solely to save a little money, we allowed those standards to fall. We need not lower standards of provision but at least as good and improving standards. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept a good and reasonable amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I listened carefully to all the contributions in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. There does not appear to be a great deal of difference between us. It is the Government's policy to ensure that we maintain a highly-skilled, competent and well performing careers service. The basis of the legislation is to ensure that it moves to provide
930
uniformity to the highest possible standard and to reduce some of the unevenness which unfortunately exists.
Under the amendment anyone who did not hold the Diploma in Careers Guidance or a recognised equivalent would be prevented from providing services. This would include, for example, people who are currently able to join careers services as careers officers and study part-time to obtain the diploma; or, indeed, those who have Part 1 of the diploma working as a probationer careers officer to obtain Part 2 and the full award of the diploma. It may also cover all the clerical and administrative staff who are also a vital part of providing services. While we understand the philosophy behind the amendment, we believe that it would be extremely restrictive.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that when making the arrangements the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that whoever she contracts with has sufficient expertise to provide the service that she has a duty to secure. That includes sufficient professional competence in the field of careers guidance.
Any Secretary of State would be failing in his duty if he made arrangements for the provision of careers services other than with people competent to provide them.
The Diploma in Careers Guidance is the qualification recognised and part funded by the Secretary of State as being suitable for careers officers, and recommended in the Secretary of State's guidance. Through that recognition, it is the Secretary of State who sets the national standard for careers service training, not the local government management board, the local authorities or the Institute of Careers Guidance. The Secretary of State has that responsibility now and will have it in the future.
It is not a requirement of the current legislation that careers officers should hold a particular qualification: instead, it is left to the Secretary of State's guidance of a general character. And that is how we propose to handle it in future. This provides for arrangements which can reflect changing circumstances.
In proposing the second part of this amendment, the noble Baroness appears to want the Secretary of State to set up a certification or licensing procedure for staff. As the noble Baroness said, there is a lead body for advice, guidance and counselling, which is meeting under the auspices of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to establish NVQs for careers guidance staff. When that process is complete, the NVQ framework should provide the necessary statements of competency and standards that will be required for work in careers services. Current careers service practitioners are fully represented on this lead body.
The national standards that providers will have to achieve will be set out in the Secretary of State's guidance to future providers. In short, she will be expected to act reasonably and responsibly in determining who is competent, whether or not such an amendment as is before us is contained in the legislation.

931
Also, providers will have to demonstrate their competence through the proposals they will make, which will be judged against the criteria that the Secretary of State will establish.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, questioned the nature of the criteria. The criteria against which bids from potential providers will be judged will be set out in a prospectus. The prospectus will be published and widely disseminated in good time for implementation. I anticipate that, in inviting bids, the prospectus would require bidders to satisfy several criteria. For example they would be expected to demonstrate that they have arrangements for the provision of a responsive, high quality service, provided impartially and free of charge at the point of delivery to young people, and one which gives particular attention to the requirements of those with disabilities; that they fully understand the outcomes and services to be provided, which the Secretary of State will define following wide consultation; that they understand the specific needs of the client groups in the defined area; that they have proposed an organisational structure and management arrangements which are appropriate to deliver the specified outcomes and services; that they can deliver the full range of outcomes and services to the required standards, and that value for money will be achieved; that they will be able to meet the needs of key local stakeholders; that they have a financially viable organisation and, importantly, can ensure a smooth transition from the existing to the new arrangements; that they have all the resources and skills required to deliver the required outcomes and services; that they have proposed arrangements which are realistic, practical and achievable; and that they have effective quality assurance arrangements which conform to the framework which the Secretary of State will define.
That is not an exhaustive, nor final list of criteria but an indication of what it is likely will be proposed. I hope that it will give your Lordships an indication of our determination to ensure that the standard continues to be high and that we shall build on the present foundations.
The Secretary of State is currently responsible for setting the standards for the careers service and she is also responsible for determining which qualifications are acceptable for this very important work.
The Secretary of State sets those standards now and will continue to do so; but I think that we should not try to make it a rigid requirement in the legislation.
If what is meant by an equivalent qualification is an equivalent careers guidance qualification, then we would prevent well-qualified and experienced people in, for example, the area of disability, or with business experience, or with access to specific industry knowledge relevant for young people, or with qualifications in recruitment and training, from being employed to provide the relevant services. We would be preventing careers services from employing the diversity of people from which they, their clients and customers can benefit.
A duty on the Secretary of State to secure vocational guidance in employment services for young
932
people will require the setting of rigorous standards for providers. I repeat, any Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that those with whom they have an arrangement to provide services are capable of providing that service. That must include having competent, properly trained staff. I believe that Amendment No. 92B is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for going into such detail about how the Secretary of State will establish standards for future careers guidance staff. She said that there is not a great deal of difference between us. I agree with that view. However, there is one major difference; namely, that we would like such a provision established on the face of the Bill. By involving the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and accepting NVQs as an equivalent qualification, I should have thought that that would have been in line with Government thinking on the matter. I understood that that was to build up NVQs and to ensure that translating experience and different qualifications into them would be acceptable.
However, having said that, I am most grateful for the support that I have received from all sides of the House. I shall read carefully the Minister's response. I hope that she, too, will look with care at what was said by those in favour of the amendment. We may perhaps be able to reach a compromise on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 92C:
Page 60, leave out line 47.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment now before the House is linked with Amendment No. 93A. It has two purposes: first, to ensure that there is clear definition of "acceptable contractors" and that that must exclude "just anyone" which is more or less the term that has been used; and, secondly, that local education authorities should be involved in some way in all contracts. I should point out that that does not produce a strait-jacket, but simply maintains local accountability within a wide set of parameters.
As the Bill stands at present the term,
"persons of any other description"
could refer to absolutely anyone. That is surely unacceptable in legislation. There must be a clearer definition in the Bill of acceptable contractors; otherwise the Government are, I suggest, being negligent and abdicating their duty to provide a national framework of services for their citizens. As I said, we are not seeking to provide a strait-jacket. We recognise that there could be value in variety of provision, provided that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure local acceptability and accountability of the chosen provider.
In dealing with this subject in Committee the noble Baroness said that the aim is to ensure that the high standards achieved by the best are available everywhere and are improved upon. We want to see

933
what is regarded as the best improved upon. The best providers at the moment are the local authorities. We need to learn lessons from them and to build on what they have achieved.
Amendment No. 93A has the purpose of securing the establishment of a broadly based partnership, irrespective of the contractor, throughout the country so that local acceptability and local accountability of the new careers service exist by design. There are two points: local acceptability and the establishment of broadly based partnerships to oversee the arrangements for the careers service.
In order that the new careers service is able to operate effectively it must be acceptable to local stakeholders. These include TECs, LEAs, employers, schools, colleges and parents as well as the various individual clients—those in need of careers information, guidance and placements. Careers guidance does not exist in a vacuum. Effective careers guidance is a process which depends upon the complementary role of those I have just mentioned.
On the subject of accountability, it is important that the new owners or contractors of the careers service are accountable to those major stakeholders as well as to the individual consumers. The new contractors, therefore, should involve representatives of the business, education and local communities. Those representatives would include a whole range of organisations. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that I would hope that by including the education authorities and the local education service their experience could be brought to bear on the subject of the problems of the disabled and they could speak for those with a disability.
The Institute of Careers Guidance argues that the new careers service must be impartial and client centred. It must be unbiased and without pressure from opportunity planners and providers. It must take full account of factors affecting the labour market. It must be equally accessible to all clients. It must promote equality of opportunity. Finally, it must be delivered by skilled careers guidance staff who follow a nationally agreed code of practice. That would involve the principles of acceptability and of local accountability. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, these are very important amendments. Again, I support them and the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. The Government may wonder why on earth we are moving these amendments. During discussion of the previous amendment the noble Baroness said how much the Government wanted the careers service to remain a good service and wanted to develop and extend it. However, no reasons have been given as to why they wish to alter the present arrangements. It has been my experience that local authorities run the service in a perfectly reasonable manner. If they were not running it in a perfectly reasonable manner, why did the Government not intervene? The suspicion is that the Bill is only the thin edge of the wedge. We know that the present Government are privatisation mad. They believe that everything public should be made private. We know
934
that they do not have much liking for local authorities and that they wish to remove virtually every service from those local authorities and make them mere providers. They do not really believe in local democracy because they are taking every service they can away from local, properly elected, representatives.
Therefore many of us are suspicious about what the Government are doing under the Bill. We see it as a first stage of removing completely the careers service and anything to do with it from local authorities. That is why we are worried about this specific provision. That is why the amendments have been moved today. The Government will have to put forward some convincing arguments and persuade us that they genuinely believe that the local authorities can work in partnership with the other providers, whoever they may be.
Finally, despite what the noble Baroness said on the last amendment, I believe that the Government are out to save money. By reducing the amount of money spent on this service they will inevitably injure the service. That would be sad indeed. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will deal with that specific item. I hope that she will give us the assurance that the careers service will not be starved of finance as a result of the Government bringing in new providers who will have had no experience. Such providers will be like Group 4: it had no experience, almost killed prisoners in its charge, let them run away, and so on. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to convince us of the Government's good will rather than their avid desire to save money at all costs and at anybody's expense.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to make a speech in support of the amendments. Our Front Bench supports the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Lockwood and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We share the view that the Government have a great deal of explaining to do as to why they seek to make changes in a set-up which has worked well to date and which has the support of a notable range of distinguished persons and organisations. I therefore agree with everything that has been said in support of the amendments.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fully understand the genuine concern over who will be allowed to provide careers guidance services, though I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would be suspicious of almost anything which came from this side of the House. I beg the House's forgiveness if I give a reply which is rather lengthier than we would expect at this hour of the night, but I think it is important that I try to reassure your Lordships. What we seek to achieve is to secure the future of careers services through new management arrangements that will enable them to reflect the changing needs and circumstances of the local community. I know that there is a strong feeling within careers services that they cannot stand still.
I believe that this amendment would place a stranglehold on change and continue to allow current providers a monopoly. It would restrict opportunities.

935
That might be more readily understood if the Bill prevented local education and education authorities from providing careers services, but it does not do that. Instead, it will foster genuine competition in which the authorities will be free to play their part. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that we have gone to considerable lengths in the legislation to enable local education authorities to have an equal opportunity to provide services.
Let me reassure your Lordships that when making the arrangements the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that whomever she contracts with has the resources and skills that will be required to provide the services that she has a duty to secure. That will include competent, well-trained staff both to deliver careers guidance and to manage the service overall.
We believe that the local education authorities are not uniquely placed to provide careers services. Imposing a duty on them is therefore not a guarantee of the best arrangements. We want to get away from a preconceived management model as hitherto. We are working to put in place a model that will provide services to the satisfaction of clients, employers, education and training providers and will command the widest possible local support, with the management arrangements following from that rather than the other way around.
We understand that careers services must have access to the full range of education, training and employment providers. While local education authorities may be suitable, we believe that they are not the only potential providers able to gain the confidence of these stakeholders.
For example, independent schools have the Independent Schools Careers Organisation. Training and enterprise councils are providing funds which support other guidance agencies outside local education authorities, and other private providers of careers guidance have been established for some time. Many colleges are developing more substantial arrangements.
When the Government consulted over the future arrangements there was considerable interest in local education authorities and TECs joining together over the management of the service. Therefore, the legislation provides for joint ventures.
We also believe there is scope for careers services which can stand alone, but not stand apart from the stakeholders in education training and employment. The legislation therefore provides for that.
The legislation provides for a variety of organisations to run services and thus encourages arrangements which reflect the education and employer interest in each area in ways appropriate to those areas. That is very much locally focused.
The incentives in the existing system are based on the notion of local accountability achieved through a local authority. However, perhaps because of its size, the service has not always attracted as much local authority interest as it warrants and therefore this incentive has been weak. The incentive in the future
936
will be competitive bidding, working to contract and the freedom to operate in more commercial, and therefore more innovative and flexible ways.
We want the organisations providing services to enjoy some element of commercial freedom to provide new kinds of services beyond the current and proposed services provided under the statutory duty. We want them to have the management flexibilities and incentives that at present are difficult to achieve within the current local authority arrangements. For example, the ability to sub-contract and to enjoy greater control over budgets at the operational level, so as to be able to respond to changing local circumstances more immediately.
The legislation provides an ideal opportunity to take a fresh look at careers guidance practice and promote best practice through the issue of revised guidance. Above all, the model is not centralist in that it gives considerable scope for locally-derived arrangements which encourage freedom of operation and innovation, but within a contractual framework which sets targets, determines results to be expected and funds accordingly. The current framework does not do this adequately. There is no clear correlation between funding, size of service, and quality of provision.
The Secretary of State would be failing in her duty if she made arrangements for the provision of careers services other than with organisations fully capable of providing them. The most appropriate way of ensuring this will be through the selection procedure which she will use.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked—the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has also mentioned this—who would be ruled out under the heading of "persons of any other description". The legislation rightly places no restriction on the kinds of organisation with whom the Secretary of State can make arrangements for the provision of careers services. She will be looking for local solutions which meet local needs. She will also be looking for innovation and imagination as well as effective use of resources. What this means is that potentially bids could come from LEAs, from LEA derived organisations, from organisations in the private sector including Training and Enterprise Councils, or from combinations of these acting in partnership. One of the main purposes behind the legislation is to create management structures which will enable employers to have a closer involvement in the operation of services.
We welcome therefore the interest that is being shown by Training and Enterprise Councils and indeed other bodies with strong employer representation in the future of careers services. The legislation provides for this interest to be expressed through a direct involvement in the running of careers services. In particular, there is scope in the legislation for careers services to be provided as joint ventures between LEAs and bodies such as TECs. This is one way of achieving the kind of employer involvement in careers services and encouraging the kind of wider partnership between education and industry that we think is so desirable. However, any organisation

937
which wishes to bid will need to demonstrate its capacity to deliver the full range of services to the standards defined by the Secretary of State.
I have already outlined the criteria against which bids will be judged and which will be set out in the prospectus. I hope I have clearly demonstrated the requirements which bidders will be expected to meet.
The Secretary of State will be required to secure the provision of services which satisfies the duty placed on her. She will have to specify services and set standards, and while she will be looking for innovative local solutions, she must be satisfied that standards are met everywhere. She will want providers to have sufficient local flexibility in proposing their arrangements to ensure that the services meet local needs and at the same time she must be assured that national standards are met. To achieve this she will have to be satisfied that the proposed providers of careers services will meet the needs of key stakeholders in the local community, to give her confidence that the services she has a duty to secure will be provided.
Any future careers service provider will, as now, have to have close working links with all the key stakeholders in its area. That will include schools, colleges, employers, training providers, appropriate groups in the community with an interest in the welfare of young people, and indeed, where the provider is not connected with the local education authority, the local education authority itself. Any future provider will have to show that it has, or can be reasonably expected to establish, such links.
Careers services are meant to serve their local communities, but they can only do that properly if they have access to education, employment and training opportunities beyond that community. That means that over functions such as the circulation of vacancy opportunities and information on clients there needs to be co-operation and co-ordination between careers services and the providers of opportunities.
That is particularly the case in the large conurbations and especially in London. At present careers services co-operate in that way and special arrangements exist in London. The London Central Careers Unit, managed by the City of London Corporation, provides a comprehensive vacancy distribution system covering the whole of London and co-ordinates the careers service interface with central London employers.
When implementing the legislation the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that the co-operation and co-ordination between careers services necessary for the proper fulfilment of the duty on her forms part of the arrangements that she makes.
In addition, such arrangements will seek to ensure that employers and training providers are properly involved and consulted over the development of systems for the co-ordination of careers guidance and employment services. That will require particular attention in the large conurbations and, as I said, especially in London.
On the subject of local acceptability, can we claim now that the current arrangements have local acceptability? What does local acceptability mean?
938
Because they are acceptable to the local education authority does not mean that they have 100 per cent. local acceptability. Would the current arrangements pass the local acceptability test? That is exactly what we are about to find out. The way to ensure that arrangements are locally acceptable is to offer local people a choice and to offer local stakeholders more of a say in the new arrangements. We believe that by allowing flexibility in local arrangements we have a better chance of discovering what is acceptable and appropriate locally than we do now.
I also do not believe that we need to enshrine in legislation the need to establish a local body to oversee the arrangements. Any careers service will have to have ways of ensuring that it is in touch with local interests and that it is consulting with and listening to local stakeholders. Indeed, one way of doing that is to have local bodies of the type proposed.
Some local authorities find it useful to have such organisations, while others do not. Such bodies are not the only way for careers service provision to be informed by local opinion. There is diversity of practice over local consultation on a wide range of education, training and employment matters.
We should expect to see careers services of the future playing an active part in such consultation arrangements. But we do not wish to enshrine in legislation a particular way of doing that which would require each careers service to establish an administrative body in each area.
We believe that such arrangements should form part of the proposals that we receive and that they should emerge from the kind of consultations that any potential future provider will undoubtedly have to have. We genuinely want local arrangements that reflect local circumstances. I fear that this amendment will make that harder to achieve.
The Secretary of State already has a substantial responsibility for careers services. That will continue in future. In many respects it is not a new responsibility for the Secretary of State.
The proposed arrangements have been welcomed by the CBI and the TECs, and the essential intentions are welcomed by many careers service managers. We are building on and evolving from existing arrangements, not destroying them.
In closing, perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on the question of funding. I can best repeat the assurances given by my honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin when speaking on this matter in another place. He confirmed both that there were no plans to change the forecast level of government expenditure on careers services and that they would be provided with sufficient funds to fulfil the statutory duty of the Secretary of State. It is not a deliberate cost-cutting exercise, though I would stress that this Government believe strongly that we should always obtain value for money.
I regret the length of time my reply has taken. However, I hope that I have been able to give some assurances. I cannot accept the amendments, which merely seek to reinforce the status quo. I hope that they will not be pressed.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has not reassured me. For a great part of her long response I felt that she had not seriously looked at the amendments that I proposed. They are in no way restrictive. I stated openly that there is a richness in variety of provision and that a variety of organisations needed to be involved. We heard the same comments from the Minister today as we heard on the previous occasion. Is the present system accountable and acceptable now? I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, hit that nail on the head in Committee when she said that a local service provided by local government was accountable; it could not be more accountable because the local authority could be turned out in an election. I shall not pursue that now.
I am extremely disappointed in the response from the Minister. The phrase,
"persons of any other description",
certainly needs to be more clearly defined. The Secretary of State should specify in advance the criteria of being a fit person to contract to operate the new careers service. However, at this late hour I feel that I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert ("; and in doing so the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 93 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. I welcome the opportunity to bring forward the amendments, which take account of the very real anxieties expressed in Committee and the discussions I have since had with my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). In doing so I hope that I shall be able to allay those anxieties.
There is no specific duty in the current legislation to ensure that the requirements of those with disabilities are met. The Secretary of State sets guidance standards and issues advice on that and other areas. The careers service provisions for those with disabilities and other special needs are checked by the careers service inspectorate. It has sometimes been necessary to remind local education authorities of their duty towards those with disabilities.
I indicated in Committee that the proposed way of handling this important area is broadly as now. However, we have listened extremely carefully to what has been said and we want people to have confidence in what is proposed. In particular, we want those with disabilities and those who represent their interests to be reassured. We therefore decided to give careful consideration to an amendment. We recognise that there is value in placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State which would signal that the Secretary of State should keep the requirements of those with disabilities in the forefront of her mind.
To achieve this we propose these amendments, which are along the lines of Amendment No. 242 in Committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord
940
Swinfen. The effect of the amendments will be that the Secretary of State will have an explicit duty to ensure that those with disabilities receive the service they require.
In proposing these amendments it is important to recognise that it has been the practice of careers services to employ staff who specialise in catering for those with disabilities, or to arrange access to specialised expertise. This is current best practice and we think it should continue. We will reinforce this by including requirements to this effect in the guidance the Secretary of State will issue. Our intention is to build on best practice and to bring all up to the standards of the best.
It is also worth reiterating the assurance given in Committee that we intend to include details in the guidance of a general character on how careers services will meet the guidance and employment service needs of those with disabilities, and we shall be consulting widely when drawing up this guidance. Consultations have already started. There have been preliminary discussions at official level with interested groups. These have been constructive discussions and all of these organisations have welcomed the opportunity to be involved. There will be a formal consultation, probably in mid-June, when a draft of the "guidance" will be circulated. Comments will be invited from a wide range of organisations, including those with an interest in the needs of those with disabilities and learning difficulties.
The Secretary of State's guidance will be enforced through contract and control over funding. We believe this gives greater control over standards and is the most effective way of ensuring that careers services meet the guidance and employment service needs of those with disabilities.
When speaking to Amendment No. 258 in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made the point that charges to clients should not be so prohibitively high that careers services will be inaccessible to those in most need. I reiterate what I said in Committee that we recognise this issue and have great anxiety about it. There is no power to charge the statutory client group in schools, colleges and those who have left and are seeking to establish themselves in the next step in their career. For some young people, particularly those with disabilities, this may take some considerable time. The central point is that the group to whom there is a duty now, is the group to whom there will also be a duty in the future. Let me emphasise, too, that all current services and programmes for those with disabilities continue.
However, there may be charging for those outside of education. Charging would be for new kinds of guidance services currently only available in commercial guidance agencies and a few local authority careers services. There is no evidence that the current private providers of careers guidance charge more for their services to disabled people. It is not in the nature of the service that we envisage that extra charges would be appropriate.
The Secretary of State can also monitor charging policies to ensure that those with disabilities and learning difficulties are not being charged more for

941
services. Such monitoring will follow from the duty on her to have regard to the requirements of disabled persons. This remains the Government's position on charging, and I hope that your Lordships can accept this in light of the proposed government amendment on the disability issue.
We have not included a specific definition of disability. We believe that a definition, along the lines of Amendment No. 243 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in Committee, would be unnecessarily constricting in this context, and would not be in line with the nature of the government amendment.
The proposed legislation, which this amendment reinforces with respect to those with disabilities, seeks to ensure that the service provided will be focused on individuals and their requirements, rather than making particular types of provision for particular groups which might be appropriate in the case of education or training provision or indeed when seeking to establish the quota as in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. We consider that by not accepting the definition of disability included in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others, people with learning difficulties are included.
I commend Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 to your Lordships and ask that they be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness a question arising out of her reference to a "statutory client group". That is a new expression. Is that the same as the core?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I said that we do not propose to change the service that is delivered free to the group which receives it now.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the amendments brought forward by my noble friend as a result of the amendments which I and others moved at Committee stage. I also thank her and her officials for the long and constructive meeting which we had last week. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) will agree with me that it was a very useful meeting.
I welcome the fact that there will be consultations with interested organisations on the guidance. I am sure that we shall all be very interested to see what transpires at the end. I appreciate that there will be no definition of what a disabled person is because I agree that by defining one can narrow down. I for one would like to make certain that the description of a disabled person is as wide as possible because we are learning about different disabilities and their causes, not on a daily basis but certainly as the years go by, and about the ways of dealing with them.
I also welcome the fact that there will be no additional charging. When my noble friend winds up on this amendment will she confirm that there will be no time limit on the amount of time which will be given in guidance to those with disabilities, because that can be a hidden method of charging? Very often a disabled person, particularly someone who is blind or with hearing or mental difficulties, takes much
942
longer to be given the correct guidance. It takes much longer also for the persons giving the guidance to make certain that they understand what the needs are. It is a two-way process and not just on behalf of the disabled person. It requires time spent by the guider as well.
My noble friend did not mention specialist knowledge in dealing with disabilities. She may have done but if she did I missed it in her introduction. I do not want every group which gives guidance necessarily to have every particular specialist; but will there be specialists available, capable of dealing with all the different needs which are very much more diverse among disabled people than they are among able-bodied people, and obtainable at no additional cost? Specialist services, like those in any other realm of life, can be expensive.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too welcome these amendments so clearly introduced by the Minister. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for the very positive meeting which we had and for bringing forward these amendments. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on the calm, courteous, but persistent way in which he has pursued this matter. A great deal of thanks is due to him for these amendments.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that people with learning difficulties will be included. I hope that in the guidance it will specifically state that various other groups of people with disabilities will be included. We have specific learning difficulties including dyslexia and moderate and severe learning difficulties which are often referred to as learning disabilities. The list also includes those with mental health difficulties; those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, which I believe is quite an important client group; those with physical disabilities; those with visual impairments; those with medical conditions such as epilepsy and asthma; and those who are deaf or have partial hearing.
I should like to dwell on those with moderate learning difficulties. Those people are significantly slower in learning than the majority of people of their age. It is nothing to do with dyslexia or having English as a second language. SKILL - the National Association for Students with Disabilities, of which I have the honour to be president—says that this is a group that very much needs help and which benefits greatly from it. But such students can often fall through the net. If so, they encounter real problems in life and get into a downward spiral. When referring to people with learning difficulties, we are not talking only about those with severe learning difficulties. It is important that that is set out in the guidance.
I should also like to say a word about charging. I welcome what the Minister said. It is important, however, that the extra time needed by some disabled people who are seeking careers advice is not overlooked but is taken into account when the contract is issued. Again, we are talking particularly about those with moderate learning difficulties. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance about the definition. I warmly welcome the amendments.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Swinfen for their remarks. I hope that I can reassure them on the matters which they have raised. There is no fixed time limit in providing the service to people with disabilities; the aim is to meet the needs of the client.
As I said in introducing the amendment, it is important to recognise that it has been the practice of careers services to employ staff who specialise in catering for those with disabilities or to arrange access to specialised expertise. That is current best practice and we think that it should continue. We shall reinforce that by including requirements to that effect in the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue.
The noble Baroness listed some of the areas of concern. These were spelt out to me in a letter from SKILL. As I said, we did not include a definition of disability because we believed that it would be restrictive. As the noble Lord said, there is change in this area, but the list of disabilities provided by SKILL would, I believe, be covered in most people's current idea of what "disability" means. That certainly includes people with moderate learning difficulties. We would not, however, include such a list in the Secretary of State's guidance which is of a general character. We shall be agreeing with providers the special arrangements that they will be making for those with disabilities and in doing so we shall seek to ensure that the providers of careers services have a comprehensive and up-to-date appreciation of the nature of disability and of the requirements of those who are disabled.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93A not moved.]
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 61, line 12, at end insert ("; and in doing so the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 61, leave out lines 27 to 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved an identical amendment in Committee and I have studied carefully what the noble Baroness said then. I have also read carefully the letter which she was kind enough to send to me on 28th April and, I believe, to other noble Lords also. In that letter she further clarified the Government's position.
However, it is clear—I think that I have made it clear tonight—that a fundamental disagreement remains between us. I wish to see a properly funded public service run by local authorities, perhaps in partnership with TECs, but basically free to all, whereas the Government view is that anything but the basic service should be charged for. The Government clearly wish to privatise the service and make it self-financing through charges. That will entail a completely new approach to the careers service.
In paragraph 2 of her letter to me the noble Baroness said that she hopes it is now accepted and
944
understood that the legislation does not contain the power to charge for services provided to people covered by Section 8. I should like to be able to accept that entirely, but in paragraph 4 of her letter she goes on to say that it is the Government's policy to encourage people to take responsibility for and invest in their own future and that the Government believe that they should contribute to the cost. That is most confusing and gives the impression that the legislation is setting up the structure for charges to be made in the future.
Also in her letter the noble Baroness refers to Skill Choice which will provide £25 million in two years—that is, 1993–95—to part-fund the cost of individuals receiving careers guidance. However, again there is a reference to individuals and/or their employers being expected to make a contribution towards the cost. There is also a reference towards helping a market—back to that market word again—in providers to develop. In my view that sounds like a recipe for chaos and there certainly seems to be a danger that cost considerations will take precedence over quality of service.
I listened at great length to what the noble Baroness said about the Government's intentions for the service and I hope that my fears will prove to be unfounded, but we shall have to read her words carefully.
Finally, although the noble Baroness says in paragraph 7 of her letter to me that the power to make charges is not a requirement to do so, she must realise that, since apparently no extra money is promised for the service and that at present most LEAs spend more than the Government's standard spending assessment, they will virtually have to make charges if they are to discharge their duties to provide guidance services to young persons. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Stoddart thinks that the letter he received clarifies the position because it does not clarify it for me. I come back to the point that we support his amendment partly because, in the absence of any idea as to whom the Government think they will charge, we have to ask that there shall be no charges.
A great deal of emphasis is placed on the fact that the Government say they will not charge people covered by Section 8. I have looked at the new Section 8 on page 59 0.nd I cannot see what categories of people it covers. It tells us where they will be trained and about the Secretary of State's powers, but it does not tell us who these people are. Neither did the old Section 8 in the 1973 Act tell us who those people are. It referred to those at university, those not at university and anyone else. So we do not know from either the old Section 8 or the new Section 8 who the dickens these people are.
This evening we have heard a new phrase, "the statutory client group". I tried to get the noble Baroness to tell me whether the "statutory client group" was different from the core group. She did not tell me. We have now the statutory client group, the core group and the group covered by Section 8, except that neither the old nor the new Section 8 tells us who they are.

945
In the letter that the noble Baroness sent to my noble friend we are told a little. We are told that the people covered by Section 8 are predominantly young people. It says "predominantly", so there could be some old people. But presumably it does not include all the old people. Never mind. They are predominantly young people in schools and colleges, either full-time or part-time, and those having left—this is the vague bit—who are in the process of becoming established on the first rung of their careers. What is the first rung? If they reach the second rung they could be charged, could they? The letter explains that that could of course include people with disabilities, but not all people with disabilities, presumably. That does not explain the matter sufficiently.
In Committee, we asked the noble Baroness a series of questions. We asked whether the provision covered the unemployed. She said, "No". (co1.861.) so it did not cover the unemployed. They are within the core group or the statutory group. We asked whether it included people with learning difficulties. She said:
"The core client group will include young people who have ceased to undergo education and who, because of their disability, are experiencing an extended transition to settled employment".—[Official Report, 30/3/93; col. 861.]
How extended is "extended"? How long is the transition? We still do not know. We are still not told who are the people in the core group, the statutory client group, or any other group, who can and cannot be charged. In the absence of a definition which tells us who they are, we have to be against charges.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Bill defines clients for whom the Secretary of State has a duty to provide a service as persons undergoing and ceasing to undergo the relevant education, which in turn is defined as education involving full-time attendance at any education institution in Great Britain, other than in the higher education sector, and education which is commonly undergone by people to fit them for employment involving part-time attendance at any education institution in Great Britain other than in the higher education sector.
Those clients form what I would refer to as the statutory client or core group, and it is for that group that the Secretary of State has a duty to secure relevant services. Details of that are in fact contained in Section 8 of the legislation. The service to clients under the Secretary of State's duty in Section 8, since there is no power to charge, must be free. I am assured that a power to charge for services covered by Section 8 could be achieved only through future legislation. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, seemed to suggest, a means of changing the funding arrangement.
In Committee the noble Lord suggested that it may be better to define the group for whom charges can be made. I do not agree with him, but if it helps to clarify the matter let me do so. People who can be charged for services are people who are not in schools or attending colleges full or part-time or who have recently left. I have already said that young people in the labour market who need extended help on leaving school and college will not be charged. In essence, those who can be charged are adults outside of education.
946
The Government believe that adults should be encouraged to invest in their own career development and this includes investing in careers guidance. We believe that that is a decision that adults can take for themselves. We wish to see greater provision of those services and we shall be encouraging careers services to develop in this way.
People cannot, of course, be forced to pay for advice. They will pay for it only if there is a benefit. Careers guidance can benefit individuals and their employers by increasing job satisfaction, productivity and financial reward.
If the amendment is accepted it does not mean that we will then develop these new guidance services for adults free of charge. We have said that there is no plan to change the future level of central government expenditure on careers services. Thus if we were to provide careers guidance services free of charge to adults, that would mean reducing the service to young people. I am sure that the noble Lord did not envisage that as the aim of his amendment. While I recognise his anxieties, I hope that he will acknowledge that his amendment would be damaging in the development of the service and that he will withdraw it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not agree that my amendment will be damaging to the service. If I had thought that, I certainly should not have moved it. I believe that the proposed legislation will be damaging to the service. We must study closely in Hansard what the Minister said. I do not know that she completely answered the questions which were asked by my noble friend about exactly what the statutory group is. It appears to be made up of people in education, part time or full time. I hope that is right. However, the Minister did not make clear whether the service will be available free of charge to young unemployed people. Will it apply to them? If the young unemployed people must pay, how will the Bill help them? Are not they the people who need the help?
Those are real anxieties and I do not believe that the Minister has answered them. I appreciate that it is late at night but I believe that the Minister must look again at what she said and what we said. There are some serious anxieties that the service will be restrictive under the new arrangements and may well disadvantage groups which ought to be advantaged. With those words, I suppose that at this time of night I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 94B:
Page 61, line 44, at end insert (", and
( ) to ensure that written summaries of careers guidance with agreed plans of action, in relation to relevant services provided under sub-section 2 of this section, shall be provided to all individuals receiving individual careers guidance from the provider of such services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide an entitlement for individuals to have a written and agreed summary of careers guidance, irrespective of who provides the careers service. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that she supported the thinking

947
behind such an amendment. That was most encouraging; but, sadly, she did not agree that it was a matter that needed to be a statutory responsibility.
I disagree with that. I remind the Minister that we are not legislating only for this Government; we are legislating for future governments. The key entitlement for every individual receiving careers guidance under the new careers services must be that it entitles them wisely to choose their route and their options. That means that young people should be able to discuss some form of written summary guidance and agreed action with significant persons—that is, with parents, teachers, lecturers, employers and training providers.
It is nonsense to expect young people to remember all that has taken place through an intensive process of careers guidance. We do not expect Members of Parliament to recall what was said from debate to debate; indeed, it is sometimes difficult to recall what was said in a particular debate. Therefore, we cannot expect young people to remember all that has taken place. We are asking for an agreed summary in writing to be the entitlement for all individuals.
Looking at the details of other clauses of the Bill, there are many matters of operational practice which are covered by specific aspects of the Bill. The same is necessary here, particularly if, as I hope, we are seeking to establish a world-class careers service.
The CBI in its document Routes for Success spells out the critical importance of independent careers guidance leading to an up-to-date action plan based upon individual guidance. The Audit Commission report Unfinished Business calls upon the careers service to remain the champion of students, enabling them to choose options and routes based upon high quality information and individual guidance.
We do not specify what the summary should look like, its presentation nor, indeed, its contents other than that it needs to be an agreed statement of next steps. That is the principal purpose of a careers service. It is nonsense to have legislation, as we have now before us, setting up a careers service without specifying a requirement of all providers to produce something for all individuals which relates to the principal purpose of the careers service. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that this matter needs to be a statutory responsibility within the legislation. The legislation aims to provide the overall framework within which the service will operate. Such a level of detail as proposed by the amendment is better covered in the guidance of a general character which will be issued setting out the nature of the services to be provided and the standards to be achieved.
That is a matter which is technically difficult to handle within the legislation. The trigger for the summary of guidance and action plan is meant to be whenever individuals received individual careers guidance. But when is that? Careers guidance practitioners tell us that careers guidance for young people is a process which extends over several years, involving a wide range of interactions. Is the young
948
person to receive a summary of guidance and action plan every time he sees a careers adviser? The amendment provides no answer to that.
We believe that the provision of written summaries of guidance and careers action plans is an example of good practice. The Secretary of State has already invested a considerable amount of development funding to encourage that practice. We can expect that practice to continue. However, the appropriate place for advice about such matters is the Secretary of State's guidance of a general character. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me and will withdraw the amendment.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister but I rather expected that response. I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94C not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 94D:
Page 62, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may produce guidelines for local education authorities, education authorities or persons with whom he has made arrangements for the provision of services in connection with the transfer of staff involved in the delivery of such services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has the simple purpose of trying to safeguard the position of staff currently employed in the careers service. It is obvious to all that legislation such as this to transfer responsibility for the careers service is extremely unsettling and worrying for the careers service staff. At any time after the enactment of the Bill, competitive tenders may be invited for the service. The process may be repeated at frequent intervals, as the legislation makes no provision about the length of time of contracts. There will be the worry that competitive tendering will be used to drive down salary costs and worsen conditions of service—a service which, in any event, is not very highly paid.
As there is a relatively limited pool of trained careers officers, the professional staff may have some reasonable prospect of re-employment. At least, I would hope that that is so; but, after hearing some of the Minister's statements this evening, I am not quite sure. However, I am sure that the present careers officers are certainly hoping that some of the contracts will take advantage of the use of the qualified staff. But the position of employment assistants and clerical staff will be even worse than that of the professional staff.
The lack of security in both the long and short term is not helpful to staff morale or to the recruitment of any new staff of quality. Therefore, it is important, both for the quality of the service in the future and, I suggest, as an aspect of civilised treatment of staff, that the Secretary of State should clarify the arrangements for the transfer of staff that will apply whenever a new contract for the careers service is made.
Similarly, for those who might wish to bid to run the service, there is also an important consideration.

949
Crucially, they too will need to know whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply. It will not be good enough to leave that to be discovered through legal action after the event, as happened in the case of the Home Office exercise to put education in prisons out to tender, mentioned by my noble friend earlier. The Secretary of State should therefore give the appropriate undertaking about the treatment of staff and their conditions of service and, I suggest, should also issue guidelines which make it clear that such undertakings are to be honoured. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the circumstances under which the current staff of the service may become employed by the new provider of careers services will vary. They will depend largely on who the new providers are to be.
The Government's approach to establishing the new arrangements for careers services will be to emphasise the requirement for services in terms of the outcomes to be provided rather than the more detailed organisational arrangements or methods used for providing them. That is consistent with our approach used under the market testing programme. It would be inconsistent with government policy under the programme to require future providers of services to adopt particular conditions of service or use particular employees to do the work. We will, though, ensure all current and potential providers of careers services are, so far as possible, kept informed about the process for implementing the legislation so that they can keep staff informed and make plans that cover staffing matters. The prospectus that will be issued inviting bids will also require information on the staffing arrangements that providers plan to make.
Staff currently employed by careers services represent by far the largest source of expert and experienced staff that will be required by new providers. We expect, therefore, the majority to experience a smooth transition to the new arrangements. I would argue that there is no need for the amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I shall read the Minister's response carefully. But, as I said originally, I think that it must be absolutely clear that there will be concern among present employees in the careers service. We should do all that we possibly can to reassure them about their future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 94E:
Page 62, line 38, at end insert:
("(13) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on how the duties and powers conferred upon him under this section have been discharged in the preceding year, shall outline his proposals for the coming year, including details of any payments which he has made or proposes to make in the coming year, and in order to do so he shall—

(a) make arrangements for the inspection of services provided in accordance with this section, and

(b) appoint persons with knowledge and experience in the fields of education, industry, commerce, careers
950
guidance and the local community to a National Council to advise him on matters relevant to the arrangements or directions under this section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment and, again, it relates to a subject which was discussed at Committee stage. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is independent inspection of the performance of the careers service contractors through an advisory national council and that the Secretary of State shall receive independent and well-informed advice concerning her, or his, duties, powers and arrangements.
The amendment moved in Committee took a different form. This amendment seeks to encapsulate the establishment of the national council, requiring the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on how his duties and powers have been carried out and are intended to be carried out, together with a requirement that any payments are clearly explained to Parliament. Without the establishment of a national council and a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how he has discharged and will be discharging his duties and powers, we shall not be guaranteed quality of service within a national framework.
The idea of the national council and the requirement for an annual report was debated very late at night in the Committee stage and some misconceptions on the part of the Minister were apparent. I had hoped that we might debate the subject earlier than on the previous occasion, instead of which we are now discussing it early in the morning. Nevertheless, I shall try to correct some of the misconceptions.
First, the amendment does not seek to call for an annual report on the work of the careers service. We need an annual report which relates to the wide-ranging duties and powers under the enabling legislation. That would need to incorporate matters relating to the guidance of a general character which the Secretary of State will issue to contractors. It needs to deal with the level of funding made available for contracts, key elements which were included in contract specifications, the number of contracts awarded, the geographic location covered, lessons learnt from inspections and so on. I suggest that that is what Parliament requires and should demand.
For that purpose the Secretary of State will clearly need advice and guidance from a knowledgeable and authoritative independent body on all matters relating to the duties and powers of the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, appeared to indicate that there was some confusion about the functions of the proposed national council. The amendment states that the national council has a specific function in relation to:
"matters relevant to the arrangements or directions under this section".
That is not a strait-jacket for Ministers in terms of specifying one function for the national council which cannot change through time. Rather, it is enabling legislation, as is Clause 42. The difference is that it requires the Secretary of State to establish a national council; and it enables the Secretary of State to utilise the national council from time to time for maximum

951
benefit so long as its principal activities relate to advising him on matters relevant to his duties and powers.
There is no difference of opinion among the host of supporters for such a council. All see its functions as advisory. In Committee, the noble Baroness suggested that there was a difference and that the letter signed by Sir Christopher Ball, Sir Bryan Nicholson and Tony Watts in The Times did not call for a statutory national council. They were not calling for a regulatory national council; they were calling for an advisory national council to be on the statute book. I understand that a letter has gone from Sir Christopher Ball to the Secretary of State in which he specifically asked to discuss with the Secretary of State the possibility of amending the legislation to put such a council on the statute book, but with advisory powers. Therefore, I hope that that matter is now clear.
I believe that the Secretary of State has agreed to meet Sir Christopher with representatives of the Institute of Careers Guidance. That is gratifying. I hope that there will be a successful outcome.
I turn to the question of payments. In an annual report, Parliament surely must require all future Secretaries of State to publish details of any payments which they make in relation to powers under Section 10(4). Unless satisfactory answers are provided on the financing of the careers service we cannot have a proper national accountable service.
In Committee, the noble Baroness referred to the Secretary of State regularly meeting representatives of interested bodies such as the Institute of Careers Guidance, the National Association of Careers and Guidance Teachers, and so on. While that is to be welcomed, much of the consultation takes place on an individual basis with each group. The same is true of the consultations the noble Baroness and her officials have with other groups such as the Secondary Heads Association and the CBI. What she does not do is to bring them all together in a national forum where constructive shared discussion and debate can productively lead to better solutions than by meeting the individual groups one at a time. That is one of the reasons why we need a national council.
I hope that I have said enough on the principles underlying the amendment at least to evoke some sympathy from the Minister in view of the Secretary of State's pending meeting.
1.30 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we moved Amendment No. 94C because we wish to support Amendment No. 94E. The original Amendment No. 94C called for the establishment of a national council but in a slightly different way. I support my noble friend Lady Lockwood. It is common ground with the Government that a careers guidance service of the highest quality is required. The difference of view between us is about the method by which this could best be achieved. We believe that a national council would provide a national framework for quality
952
throughout the country and would provide authoritative independent advice to Secretaries of State on the development and delivery of quality careers guidance.
The national council should not include those directly concerned with contracting, but would consist of senior industrialists, educationists and other community interests, including those with expertise and with the knowledge to help clients with learning difficulties and disabilities.
The Government have already accepted the argument that special attention should be paid to the requirements of the disabled, and the national council would be one means by which such special needs could be safeguarded. Therefore, I hope that even at this late stage in the Bill, the Minister will feel persuaded of the reasonableness of and justification for the establishment of a national council, as suggested in the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support the amendment. During the Committee stage I moved an amendment simply calling for a report to Parliament on the work of the careers advisory service during the preceding year. If the Government were moved to accept the amendment or give it serious and sympathetic consideration, it would assuage many of the fears that we have expressed this evening about the future of the service. If we felt that there was a national council which was supervising the service itself and the progress and quality of the service, perhaps we would become less suspicious of the Government's real purpose in the Bill. So I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able at least to say that she will consider the amendment seriously, even if she cannot go so far, at this time in the morning, as to accept it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the possibility of ensuring that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is less suspicious is a tempting prospect. The Government fully understand the arguments which have been put forward by the supporters of the statutory national council. We also want to. see a better and more effective careers service, but we do not agree that a national council is the best way of achieving that. I know that the CBI is not calling for a statutory body, and I agree with it.
The careers service inspectorate includes staff with direct and recent experience of work in careers guidance and work in careers services. This includes the current chief inspector in England, so the Secretary of State does not lack advice from specialists. The Department of Employment also uses the careers service consultative group to inform best policy and practice with respect to careers services. The group includes heads of careers services, directors of education, the local authority associations, inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education, representatives of training and enterprise councils, which therefore bring in the business view which was mentioned, the Institute of Careers Guidance and other government departments. The Government, in their aim to provide the best careers service, would not wish to ignore any future sources of advice.

953
The Department of Employment has already begun to consult the careers service consultative group on how the legislation, if passed, might be implemented and it has supplemented that with many informal bilateral meetings with organisations represented on it and others, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
That has focused so far on the broad framework for implementation, but Ministers want to use the CSCG and members agree that it is the appropriate body through which the department should fulfil the undertaking given by my honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin in Committee in another place, to consult on the "guidance of a general character" which the Secretary of State will produce. This has proved to be a valuable forum for considering careers service matters. It will continue to operate with such modifications to its membership or role as are needed to reflect the new arrangements. That will obviously take into account the nature of any new providers. The Secretary of State and other Ministers meet regularly with all the relevant organisations and I should stress these include the National Advisory Committee for the Employment of People with Disabilities.
As I also said in Committee, the Secretary of State for Employment presents to Parliament jointly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury an annual report which sets out objectives and expenditure plans for the next three years. This covers the department's work with respect to the careers service and it will continue to do so. The report also gives an account of the department's performance in meeting its objectives. This will allow people to measure the success of the growth of the new careers service. In addition, it has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State to provide annual reports on the work of careers services. These reports can be found in the Libraries of both Houses and I can assure your Lordships that such reports will continue to be published. There are ample opportunities through the usual channels for Members of both Houses to inquire about the work of careers services. I cannot see that anything of value will be added by imposing duties on the Secretary of State, as requested by this amendment, and I hope that it will be withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am rather surprised at the response from the noble Baroness. I thought it might have been more sympathetic, particularly in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is meeting the three people I mentioned on, I believe, 17th May. It cannot be very encouraging for them to attend a meeting when we have had what appears to be a definitive statement from the Minister.
While the current careers service consultative group is, I am sure, a valuable group, its functions relate to a structure which is now being changed. I should have thought that as we are to have a new structure for the careers service we would also need a new structure for the consultative process. All we can do is to hope that the pending meeting with the Secretary of State proves to be more successful than the debates in your Lordships' House. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Careers services: ancillary services]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 94F:
Page 63, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 94G standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner. The purpose of my amendment is to remove the two-year restriction on the supply of goods and services by local authorities. Clause 43 recognises that where a contract to provide the career service is placed elsewhere than with the local authority there may well be services which the career service would want the local authority to provide for it. However, restricting such arrangements to two years in subsection (5) makes this only a short-term expedient. It matches similar provisions in the Education Bill which would limit to two years the power of a local education authority to provide goods or services to a grant-maintained school. I suggest that the restriction is misplaced and based on the dogmatic view that the private sector should and will develop to provide the necessary services.
On the schools side, it has been opposed by grant-maintained schools themselves as well as LEAs as an unnecessary and undesirable restriction on schools in choosing the source of their goods and services. No scope is left for meeting the problem that may arise if a suitable private sector provider has not emerged by the end of the two-year period. Since careers services are not to be designated public bodies under the 1990 local authorities goods and services Act neither will limited trading at the margins be possible under that two-year period.
There are some important questions that the Government need to answer. Is it seriously being argued that if the contract for the careers service is given to a local authority owned company rather than to the local authority itself, that company would be unable after two years to purchase support services from the local authority? Would that restriction extend to premises which the careers service rents from the local authority and which the local authority has held for careers service purposes?
In the case of an LEA/TEC partnership, will one set of rules apply if the LEA signs the main contract and another if only the TEC signs the contract? Is it accepted that a local authority may do business with a careers service provider in its area where the business derives from functions retained by the local authority? Is it accepted that there will be some risk to local taxpayers' money where a local authority is awarded a contract for the careers service or is directed to provide it? Or is it the intention that the Secretary of State will cover any deficit to ensure that council tax payers in those areas can sleep as easily as those in areas where the careers service contract goes elsewhere?
All those are very important questions which arise under this clause. It is important that the Government should provide adequate answers to them before proceeding with the clause. I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said when speaking on this matter in Committee, as the law stands many future providers of careers services would not be able to be provided with services from a local authority, even for a temporary period. We consider, as do many of your Lordships, that many new providers will find those services valuable in getting started.
Clause 43 gives local education authorities a power to provide services to future providers of careers services. The only restriction that we put on this power is that it should be for a transitional period of two years. I hope to reassure the noble Baroness that the commencement of legislation is not the start of the time limit. It starts from the point at which the new careers service begins to operate in that local education authority's area. So it cannot run out before a provider has been found, which she suggested was a fear. I hope that that reassures her.
We believe that two years from that point of the start of the service will give time for careers services and private providers of such goods and services to become established. We want providers to be able to use local authorities' administrative personnel and computer services for a transitional period to help them become established. That does not apply to premises. Negotiations on premises will come outside that area. But I must stress that we cannot give local education authorities a licence to trade indefinitely with careers service providers. Local authorities exist, and must continue to exist, primarily to perform their statutory functions. That is what the council tax payers are funding; they are not funding authorities to trade.
The noble Baroness raised many points. If I may, I will look at them in Hansard and write to her on the specifics. However, I can say that we believe that there will only be a need for the facility at the start of the implementation process and that removal of the two-year limit is not appropriate.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the response by the Minister is extremely worrying. The provision is worrying in relation to the education service, but the two-year limit is even more inappropriate in the case of the careers service. However, I shall wait until she has read Hansard and looked at my questions before deciding what to do at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94G and 94H not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 94J:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of "employee"
.—(1) Section 153(1) of the 1978 Act shall be amended in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) The words "'employee' means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment" and the words "employment, except for the purposes of sections 111 to 115, means employment under a contract of employment" shall be omitted and replaced by the following words
956
"'employee' means an individual who has entered into or works under (or where the employment has ceased, worked under)—

(a) a contract of employment; or

(b) any other contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by that individual, whether such a contract is express or implied and, if express, whether it is oral or in writing;"

"'employment' except for the purposes of sections 111 to 115, means employment under one of the contracts referred to in the definition of 'employee' above".).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 94J is an attempt to widen the key definition of "employee". In fact it widens the definition of both "employee" and "employment". The aim is to bring in a wide range of employees who are excluded from the protection of the 1978 EPA, and therefore from protection from unfair dismissal, entitlement to notice, statement of terms or redundancy rights, maternity rights and so forth.
As we have been saying in previous amendments, it is time that the conventional definition of "employment" and "employees" was widened to bring them into line with the effective definition of "employees" in other Acts; for example, sex discrimination, race discrimination, the Equal Pay Act and the Wages Act. Indeed, we take the definition of an "employee", for the purposes of the Bill, from the Wages Act.
The present definition is an individual who has entered into or who works under a contract of employment. A contract of employment is therefore defined; it is a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, whether oral or in writing. But it does not cover a contract "for" service. In fact, an increasing number of people in the labour force are employed in a contract "for" services rather than a contract "of' service. Indeed, the tendency is for more and more people in the economy to be defined as self-employed; as having a contract for service and therefore being excluded from the definition of employment which would enable them to enjoy a whole range of statutory rights.
A series of debates of a complex kind has developed in the legal process in order to decide precisely what the boundary line is between a contract "for" service and a contract "of' service; what the degree of control is; what the obligation to provide work is; whether the worker involved pays tax or national insurance and so forth. The result of the restrictive definition, as it has developed, is that the fastest growing section of the labour force is excluded from basic employment rights. What we are saying in our amendment is that such people should, on the basis of definitions which the Government themselves use, be included —for example, in the Wages Act. We have put that definition into our amendment to extend the area of protection. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment would considerably extend the coverage of the 1978 Act provisions, so that they applied to a large category of people who were self-employed. That would be quite inappropriate and would constitute an unjustifiable and considerable burden on employers.

957
The employment protection rights in the 1978 Act are rights which employees have against their employer. They have a contract of service with their employer, and the employer has duties towards his employees. They acquire rights, some of which require a period of continuous service with the employer before they qualify. The self-employed worker, however, will often have chosen that status because he considers that he benefits—for example, from the different tax and national insurance regime. He cannot expect to have it both ways.
I recognise, of course, that it may be argued that in some cases it is not easy to decide whether an individual is an employee or self-employed. However, industrial tribunals are well able to look at all the circumstances of the employment and decide where the line is drawn in any particular case.
I also recognise that the definition before us in the amendment would exclude self-employed people who were running their own businesses, themselves employing workers or sub-contracting the job in question. The Wages Act 1986 uses a similar definition for the right not to suffer unfair deductions from pay. However, that is a different matter. Individuals are entitled to be paid for the work they do, whatever kind of a contract they do it under, but I do not see why they should be entitled to unfair dismissal protection, which is a very different matter.
I must remind noble Lords opposite that there was a time when they wholeheartedly agreed with what I am saying. These provisions were introduced by the Labour Government, and that was considered right at the time. I hope that noble Lords will reconsider, and withdraw their amendments.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, of course they were introduced by a Labour Government. All the good things in this world have been introduced by Labour Governments. But time marches on. We are saying that the definition of employment which was introduced by a Labour Government and was a perfectly reasonable definition then is not a reasonable one now. The Government accept it by implication, for it is not the definition they used in sex discrimination legislation, it is not the definition they used in equal pay legislation and it is not the definition they used—we have chosen this one because it is their own—in the Wages Act 1986. They used, as the noble Viscount admits, basically the definition that we are using in this amendment. So the fact that the Labour Government had a different definition in 1976 is not the point.
The Minister said that the self-employed had chosen their position. I do not believe that he lives in such a protected world that he does not know that employers now have a very real incentive to make workers become self-employed. Employers tell, them that they are self-employed. There was a great growth in the numbers of self-employed because the self-employed have no rights. That is what happens in a recession. There has been a growth in the numbers of self-employed because it suits employers to declare their workers self-employed and say that that is the
958
basis on which they are going to employ them—for example, as labour only sub-contractors in the construction industry.
Workers do not necessarily choose to be self-employed. We are saying that, if we had the same rights for the self-employed as we have for the employed, the employer would be more able to make a rational decision, as would the worker, as to what his category should be. But now there is a premium. There is an incentive for the employer to categorise people as self-employed.
I do not believe that the noble Viscount has answered our questions. However, it is late at night. We have made our point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94K not moved.]
2 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 95:
Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
COMPROMISE CONTRACTS
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c.65)
1. In section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (validity etc of contracts)—
(a) in subsection (4), after paragraph (a), there shall he inserted—
"(aa) to a contract settling a complaint to which section 63(1) of this Act or section 2 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 applies if the conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are satisfied in relation to the contract;"; and
(b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are that—

(a) the contract must be in writing;

(b) the contract must relate to the particular complaint;

(c) the complainant must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed contract and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his complaint before an industrial tribunal;

(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the complainant in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

(e) the contract must identify the adviser; and

(f) the contract must state that the conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are satisfied.

(4B) In subsection (4A)—
"independent", in relation to legal advice to the complainant, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting for the other party or for a person who is connected with that other party; and
"qualified lawyer" means—

(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B) any two persons are to be treated as "connected" if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control."
Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
2. In section 72 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (validity, etc of contracts)—
(a) in subsection (4), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) to a contract settling a complaint to which section 54(1) applies if the conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are satisfied in relation to the contract;"; and
(b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are that—

(a) the contract must be in writing;

(b) the contract must relate to the particular complaint;

(c) the complainant must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed contract and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his complaint before an industrial tribunal;

(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the complainant in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

(e) the contract must identify the adviser; and

(f) the contract must state that the conditions regulating compromise contracts under this Act are satisfied.

(4B) In subsection (4A)—
"independent", in relation to legal advice to the complainant, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting for the other party or for a person who is connected with that other party; and
"qualified lawyer" means—

(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate.

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B) any two persons are to be treated as "connected" if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control."
Wages Act 1986 (c.48)
3. In section 6 of the Wages Act 1986 (remedies for Part I contraventions and restriction on contracting out)—
(a) in subsection (3) after the words "apply to" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end of the words so constituted paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words "; or
(b) an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint if the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Part of this Act are satisfied in relations to the agreement"; and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) The conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Part of this Act are that—

(a) the agreement must be in writing;

(b) the agreement must relate to the particular complaint;

960

(c) the worker must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his complaint before an industrial tribunal;

(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the worker in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

(e) the agreement must identify the adviser; and

(f) the agreement must state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Part of this Act are satisfied.

(5) In subsection (4)—
"independent", in relation to legal advice to the worker, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting in the matter for the employer or for a person who is connected with the employer; and
"qualified lawyer" means—

(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) any two persons are to be treated as "connected" if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control."
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)
4. In section 288 of the 1992 Act (restrictions on contracting out)—
(a) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing any proceedings, other than excepted proceedings, specified in section 290 before an industrial tribunal if the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied in relation to the agreement.
(2B) The conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are that—

(a) the agreement must be in writing;

(b) the agreement must relate to the particular complaint;

(c) the complainant must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an industrial tribunal;

(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the complainant in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

(e) the agreement must identify the adviser; and

(f) the agreement must state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied.

(2C) The proceedings excepted from subsection (2A) are proceedings on a complaint of non-compliance with section 188."; and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) In subsection (2B)—
"independent", in relation to legal advice to the complainant means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting for the other party or for a person who is connected with that other party; and
"qualified lawyer means—

961

(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) any two persons are to be treated as "connected" if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Miscellaneous amendments]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 91, line 7, at end insert:
("Power to provide for continuity of employment following reinstatement or re-engagement
.In Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (computation of period of employment), in paragraph 20 (re-instatement or re-engagement of dismissed employee)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2) (a), for the words "complaint under section 67" there shall be substituted the words "relevant complaint of dismissal";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) (c), for the words "section 134(3)" there shall be substituted the words "his relevant conciliation powers or";

(c) after sub-paragraph (2) (c), there shall be inserted—

"(d) of the making of a relevant compromise contract.";

and

(d) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—

"(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—
"relevant complaint of dismissal" means a complaint under section 67 of this Act, a complaint under section 63 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 arising out of a dismissal or a complaint under section 54 of the Race Relations Act 1976 arising out of a dismissal;
"relevant conciliation powers" means section 134(3) of this Act, section 64(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or section 55(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976; and
"relevant compromise contract" means an agreement or contract authorised by section 140(2) (fa) or (fb) of this Act, section 77(4) (aa) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or section 72(4) (aa) of the Race Relations Act 1976.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 91, line 47, at end insert:
(". In section 166(1) of the 1992 Act (consequences of failure to comply with order of reinstatement or re-engagement), for "(5) (a)" there shall be substituted "(5)".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment which makes a correction to Section 166 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 98, line 19, at end insert:
(". In paragraph 18(aa) of Schedule 11 to the 1978 Act (power for Employment Appeal Tribunal rules to regulate
962
certain applications), for the words from "an application" to the end there shall be substituted the words "any application to the Appeal Tribunal may be made;".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 101, line 14, at end insert ("in").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this again is a minor technical correction to the provisions, which I am sure will prove uncontroversial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 103, line 3, after ("(1)") insert ("—
(i) in paragraph (c) after the word "members" there shall be inserted the words "or secure confidentiality"; and
(ii)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a clarifying amendment following from our introduction of new Clause 6 at the Report stage of this Bill in another place. It ensures that the reference to Section 26 in Section 109 reflects the changes made to Section 26 as a consequence of Clause 6 inserting Section 24A in the 1992 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104:
Page 109, line 27, leave out ("and").
Page 109, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) after the entry relating to "dismiss and dismissal" there shall be inserted—
"the duty of confidentiality" section 24A(3)", and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these two amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 110, line 6, after ("force") insert ("under which deductions were made in his case before that day").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a clarifying amendment which I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 107, 108 and 109:
Page 113, line 4, column 3, after ("18,") insert ("in subsection (1), the words "council or" ").
Page 113, line 5, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 113, line 6, column 3, at end insert (", and in subsection (5), the words "council or" ").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these are purely consequential amendments flowing from Clause 34 of the current Bill. They remove references to councils in Section 18 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Such references will not apply when Clause 34 is enacted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 110:

963
Page 115, line 32, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 154, the words "and 64A".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this again is a minor drafting amendment which repeals an additional reference to that section which is found in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Schedule 9 has the effect of repealing Section MA of the 1978 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Northern Ireland]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 66, line 27, at end insert: ("( ) section 26,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these are technical amendments to Clause 51 which deals with the application of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is the Minister moving these en bloc?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall put the question on Amendments Nos 111 to 114 en bloc. The Question is, That these amendments be agreed to.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am disappointed. Six major amendments have been tabled since Committee stage and I felt sure that the Minister would seek to qualify at least some of them in the Northern Ireland context, especially Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. Even this Report stage has underscored the importance of the Bill to the Government, and to management and employees throughout the United Kingdom. The controversial and critical aspects of the legislation are reflected in the size of the Bill - 116 pages. The number of amendments that have been tabled, the length of the speeches and the time that has been allowed for debate are surely an indication that this is an extremely important piece of legislation.
The amendments to Clause 51 specifically deal with vital trade union and employment factors in Northern Ireland—factors which will bring wide and sweeping changes to industrial relations in the Province. There are three distinct subsections to Clause 51 which I believe require some explanation, but the Government have not given it and I believe that that should be placed on the record of the House.
An explanation was clearly and ably given by the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, in a press release from the Northern Ireland Office on 6th November. I do not apologise for quoting from it because I believe that, in the interests of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to place it on the record of the House. The statement reads:
"The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rightl Bill … includes an enablement whereby certain provisions may be extended to Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure. The provisions to be extended to Northern Ireland deal with EC obligations (relating to proof of an employment relationship, procedures for handling redundancies and protection against dismissal of health and safety workers), employment rights
964
(relating to pregnant workers, sex discrimination and industrial tribunals procedures) and the abolition of Wages Councils. It is my intention to introduce such an Order as soon as possible following Royal Assent".
That is, as soon as the Bill has passed through both Houses.
The Secretary of State added:
"The application to Northern Ireland of provisions equivalent to the remainder of the Bill and the provisions of the Employment Act 1990 will be considered in due course following discussions with local bodies".
That relates to the second subsection of Clause 51.
The Secretary of State went on to say:
"The negative resolution procedure will be used to ensure that the Northern Ireland legislation can be put in place on the same time scale as that in the rest of the United Kingdom".
I readily accept that, and I think that many in Northern Ireland would agree to it.
The Secretary of State added:
"The key features of the remaining provisions of the Bill and the trade union reform provisions contained in the Employment Act 1990 are set out below. Their application to Northern Ireland will be considered in due course following discussions with both sides of local industry".
I continue the quotation by referring to matters which will be in the affirmative resolution order:
"Ending of the pre-entry closed shop (ie refusal of access to employment on grounds of non-union membership to be unlawful); outlawing of secondary action (ie action by workers who have no dispute with their own employer); unions to be responsible for calls by any of their officials, including shop stewards, to take industrial action; postal voting and independent scrutiny to be required in relation to industrial action ballots; seven days' notice of industrial action to be given to employers; Citizen's rights to take proceedings to prevent unlawful industrial action affecting the delivery of goods or services (this is a Citizen's Charter commitment); right of workers to join a union of their choice; workers to give written consent before union subscriptions can be deducted from wages; and powers of Certification Officer to investigate financial affairs of a union to be strengthened".
I have quoted that document at length because it is important in the Northern Ireland context, particularly given the controversial nature of the procedural arrangements through the negative and affirmative Order in Council. The matter requires some explanation and was ably presented by the Northern Ireland Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on 27th April in this House when he said:
"While the Government recognise that this procedure is not ideal, in the circumstances of direct rule it is the only practical way to deal with the majority of Northern Ireland legislation".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 2251.
Even at this late stage the matter of negative and affirmative Order in Council procedure in Northern Ireland should at least be mentioned. Perhaps a simple reply by the noble Earl would be acceptable to the many people who attempt to understand why those procedures have to be adopted.
Since the Bill was presented in another place there have been difficulties about communication and consultation at various levels. One point regarding Clause 51 may indicate some of the drafting and consultative problems that have arisen. When the Bill was tabled in this House there was a list of 10 clauses for a negative Order in Council procedure. An explanation was given as to why those 10 clauses

965
should be presented. We now have an additional six which I do not believe meet the criteria that were originally stated.
I shall conclude by saying that, sorry to say, there are many problems in Northern Ireland. Industrial relations is one of the more positive aspects of life in the Province. Past and present Northern Ireland Office Ministers and many others with experience and knowledge of industrial relations have paid tribute to the high standard of workshop practice and the collective bargaining and industrial relations in Northern Ireland. It is not my view that workers in management or employees are any better or more skilled or better motivated than their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. The good relations that have been praised by Ministers and others arise from the practical, realistic and decent human relationships and the immediacy of the communications network in Northern Ireland when dealing with industrial relations matters. I am disappointed that the Minister, realising the problems in Northern Ireland and with a view to continuing good relations practice through legislation, did not give qualification to it. Perhaps I may ask him, although I do not expect a reply tonight, whether on Third Reading he will come forward and give some qualification to the points that I have raised.
2.15 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, if I have offended him. I saw him sitting patiently in his place. I commend him for his patience and persistence in putting his case that Northern Ireland should be better understood. As it was after two o'clock in the morning I thought that I would move the amendments formally. I knew that that would give the noble Lord an opportunity to comment on them. I would then have the opportunity to address some of his fears. Nothing that the noble Lord quoted from Sir Patrick Mayhew's press notice is contradicted by the Bill in its present form or by Amendments Nos. 111 to 114.
The amendments will enable the new employment rights provisions that have been added to the Bill since
966
its introduction to be replicated in Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure.
There are no good reasons why Northern Ireland workers should not benefit from those important new rights on the same timescale as their counterparts in Great Britain, and the use of this procedure will enable the Northern Ireland legislation to be put in place on a similar timescale to that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Under the Northern Ireland Act 1973 this matter is "transferred" and is therefore intended to be available for legislation by any future devolved administration. Successive governments have taken the view that during direct rule legislation on transferred matters for Northern Ireland should generally be effected by separate Order in Council, with the force of primary legislation. That is what will happen in this case. I should point out that industrial relations legislation for Northern Ireland is normally made by a separate order in council.
I hope that with those few words I have been able to allay some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding at this late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
Page 66, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) sections 28, 29 and 30,").
Page 66, line 32, leave out ("and 37, and") and insert:
("37, (Agreements not to take proceedings before industrial tribunal) and Schedule (compromise contracts),").
Page 66, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) section 38, and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In The Title:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 115:
Line 5, leave out from second ("and") to ("the") in line 6.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past two o'clock.

  SOUTH GEORGIA AND THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS: MARITIME ZONE
  SOUTH GEORGIA AND THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS: MARITIME ZONE
  BENZO(A)PYRENE
  BENZO(A)PYRENE
  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL
  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL
  SCHIZOPHRENIA: HOSPITAL EPISODE STATISTICS
  SCHIZOPHRENIA: HOSPITAL EPISODE STATISTICS
  CAP REFORM: ADDITIONAL STAFF NEEDS
  CAP REFORM: ADDITIONAL STAFF NEEDS
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME FORMS
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME FORMS
  CATTLE IDENTIFICATION
  CATTLE IDENTIFICATION
  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE: INTERPRETATION OF LAW
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE: INTERPRETATION OF LAW
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  SHEEP DIPS: TRAINING FOR USERS
  SHEEP DIPS: TRAINING FOR USERS
  REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA HELD IN DETENTION
  REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA HELD IN DETENTION
  PLUTONIUM: TRANSPORT BY AIR
  PLUTONIUM: TRANSPORT BY AIR
  CYCLING IN PEDESTRIAN AREAS
  CYCLING IN PEDESTRIAN AREAS
  CYCLE FACILITIES, HYDE PARK CORNER
  CYCLE FACILITIES, HYDE PARK CORNER
  CYCLE NETWORK: PRIORITY
  CYCLE NETWORK: PRIORITY
  TRAFFIC "RAT RUNS"
  TRAFFIC "RAT RUNS"
  METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE: KEY TARGETS
  METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE: KEY TARGETS