Sitting of 24 May 1993

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

    Lane Rental
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the amount of time saved by motorists since lane rental was introduced.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Lane rental contracts have, on average, been completed 30 per cent. faster than conventional contracts since their introduction in 1984, and we estimate that that has saved more than £120 million in delay and other costs.
    Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend and I are probably more at one on lane rental than we will be on line rental later today. Coming as I do from cone county in Kent, I ask my hon. Friend to reassure the House that when he decides on major works on the A20/M20 and A2/M2— which are parallel roads—he will make certain that the works are staggered and that interconnecting roads between those two major highways are not subject to road works at the same time.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sorry if there is any congestion in Kent, but it is partly caused by our determination to get those roads finished in time for the opening of the channel tunnel. Lane rental has a considerable amount to offer. A maintenance contract that used to last one month will be reduced by 10 days by lane rental, which makes a huge contribution to cutting congestion and reducing frustration among local people.

    London Commuter Services
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the level of services to the commuters of London and the south-east; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): In the four years to the autumn of 1993, British Rail record a drop of 20 per cent. in London commuter passengers. British Rail has therefore been obliged to reduce services. Reductions in the new timetable amount to about 3 per cent. overall, which is half the recent rate of fall in demand. As demand recovers, services will be increased.
    Mrs. Prentice: How can the Minister justify the 8 per cent. fare increase in January on Network SouthEast—the highest in the country—when last week peak-hour trains through Lewisham and north Kent were cut by 42 and the Sunday service was halved? Will he tell the House how that will enhance passenger comfort and persuade more people to travel by train?
    Mr. Freeman: Fewer passengers are using Network South East compared to four years ago. The recession has caused a reduction in London commuting. As we recover from the recession, demand will increase and additional services will be provided. British Rail, like any other great industrial enterprise, must tailor its services to demand. As to fare increases, I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that British Rail has for two years been differentiating between lines. Where there is a better service, there are more than average fare increases, but where it is acknowledged that the service is relatively poor, fare increases are relatively low.
    Mr. Sims: Many people living in outer-London constituencies rely on train services for social and leisure activities, as well as for getting to and from work. Although one accepts that the frequency of services must be matched to demand, does not my hon. Friend think that it is extraordinary that British Rail is reducing Sunday services to one train an hour? Is that not itself likely to lead to a greater fall in demand?
    Mr. Freeman: As I said, British Rail must react to the fall in demand by cutting services, because that is the nature of a cash-limited nationalised industry. I hope that, with the gradual introduction of franchised passenger services, operators will take more commercial risks. I agree with my hon. Friend that one can easily fall into a downward spiral of service as services are cut and demand falls. I hope that we will be in a virtuous upward spiral with private sector operation.
    Mr. Harvey: How soon do the Government envisage privatising commuter services in the south-east? We heard originally that most of the privatisation would take place during the lifetime of this Parliament; later, that it might take 15 years; and, on another occasion, that the floodgates were being held back until next year. Now we hear that another 18 areas are to be identified today. Has the Department of Transport listened to the Prime Minister's advice, that lessons should be learnt from the local election results? If so, what lessons has the Department learnt about the speed of this legislation?
    Mr. Freeman: Our policy has not changed. We said in our election manifesto that the intention was to have a significant number of franchises in place at the end of this Parliament. I can confirm that the intention is to let the first franchise in the second half of next year. Thereafter, we shall proceed gradually. It is an evolutionary process; it is not a process that involves a great number of franchises being let at the same time. We shall learn by the process. It will take a number of years, and certainly beyond this Parliament. But our policy has not changed. All that has happened today is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has spelt out what the long-term plan is for franchising all of Great Britain's rail services.
    Mr. Ottaway: I remind my hon. Friend that not all commuters travel by rail; many of my constituents travel into London by road. I remind him also of the complete lack of good main roads between Croydon and the centre of London and that this is the only sector where there is no good main road into or out of London.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me and the House of the need to improve road services in London. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has already laid out the Government's policy on red routes. Both my hon. Friend and I have emphasised the importance of traffic priority measures to help public transport, such as buses, move more easily in the capital. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the recommendation to Network SouthEast is standing room for 16 in a carriage and that at present the number is about 160? By cutting services, the Minister would at least reduce the amount of time that people spend standing on our trains. When he talks about services, he has to take into account that people are travelling in congested, dangerous conditions on Network SouthEast trains.
    Mr. Freeman: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that Network SouthEast runs an unsafe service. British Rail rightly places great reliance on safety. This year alone, British Rail will spend about £250 million on improving the safety of rail operations. When public sector franchisees run services, safety standards will be as high, if not higher.

    Traffic Flow Management
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efforts are being made to introduce new technology into the management of traffic flows; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): My Department already makes use of new technology for three purposes: assisting traffic management, enhancing road safety and providing information for road users. Closed circuit television and variable message signs are now well established on the busiest motorways, such as the M25. Cameras are also being used on trunk roads in London to detect drivers speeding and violating red light signals.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I certainly welcome the use of new technology to improve traffic flows and reduce accidents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the red light signal cameras that have been installed have helped to reduce accidents considerably in Greater London, particularly serious accidents, and that the Government will continue to use technology to improve traffic flow and reduce the number of serious accidents on our roads? Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the numbers of road deaths and serious road injuries in this country are among the lowest in the whole of Europe?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right on the last point, but we want to do better. I agree that speed cameras and cameras at traffic signals can contribute
    556
    considerably towards improving road safety. Since they were introduced, speed detection cameras have reduced fatal and serious casualties on roads by 50 per cent. Cameras at red light signals have reduced accidents by 60 per cent. The cameras also assist with traffic flow, the point of my hon. Friend's question, because if accidents are reduced, traffic flow is improved.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that some traffic jams will not be solved by technology, however interesting the case may be? I refer him to a problem on the England-Wales border, where a new River Dee crossing is required, which will cost many millions of pounds. Can he assure me that that scheme will go ahead and will not be subject to the public expenditure review? Does he know that the communities of Queensferry, Shotton, Connah's Quay and Kelsterton are suffering a tremendous environmental blight? They need the scheme urgently. Can the Secretary of State give us a promise about that scheme?
    Mr. MacGregor: That point is a long way from new technology to assist traffic flow. I cannot comment on that scheme, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a specific question I shall do so. I note his support for our record road building programme to improve traffic flow generally. I hope that he will continue to support all that we are doing in that regard, including lobbying some of his colleagues who sometimes object to it, because there is no doubt that our record road building programme is greatly assisting our economic competitiveness by reducing congestion.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to install cameras on the M25 to detect speeding? If there are plans to put cameras on that and other motorways, will there be advance warning signs so that drivers are more aware that they may be exceeding the speed limit?
    Mr. MacGregor: The knowledge that such cameras are around in itself discourages speeding, but I take note of what my hon. Friend says about warning signs. At the moment, the main technology on the M25 is designed to improve information for drivers. We are also experimenting with quite an expensive new scheme which will be introduced in due course to try to stop bunching and starting and stopping. I have no doubt that we shall also install cameras to assist in other ways.

    Oxleas Wood
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the advantages of saving Oxleas wood from destruction by means of a deep bore tunnel under the wood to connect with the east London river crossing.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): When making their decision to proceed with the scheme, the Secretaries so State for Transport and for the Environment took full account of all the evidence presented at the public inquiry. That included the independent inspector's conclusion that a bored tunnel under Oxleas wood could not he justified.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the Government scheme, which would involve the destruction of this unique and precious piece of ancient woodland, has

    557
    been universally condemned, and that even the British Road Federation is now calling for an alternative route to save Oxleas wood? When will the Government come to their senses and call a halt to this act of environmental vandalism?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to remind the House that such hyperbole is so wildly wide of the mark that it makes no rational contribution to the debate. The reality is that 89 per cent. of Oxleas wood will be unaffected by the scheme. Perhaps the House should be more aware of that—11 per cent. of the wood will be taken, but 89 per cent. will not. Perhaps that puts the issue into proper perspecitive.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the inspectors recommended that the road should be covered if it went through Oxleas wood but that, since the inspectors' reports, the British Road Federation has said that if the bridge which would help Newham and perhaps Thamesmead were built, the road through Oxleas wood would not be needed and that, in line with the Government's east Thames corridor proposals, the road should go towards the M25 and Dartford—[Interruption.]—rather than coming down into Shrewsbury ward in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and into my constituency?
    Mr. Norris: I have seen the BRF's scheme. My hon. Friend will have noted from the reaction that his mention of it has caused that it solves some problems but creates others. It is an interesting proposition which I shall, of course, ensure is fully explored, but we should not underestimate the fact that after the longest public inquiry on record—lasting 15 months—the inspectors concluded that the bored tunnel could not be justified and that, in the interests of what the scheme delivers, the environmental disadvantage was capable of being set against the greater strategic advantages of the new road.
    Ms Walley: Why will not the Minister and the Secretary of State listen to what the people are saying about the £1 billion road programme and the way in which it appears to be immune from proper environmental impact assessment? Will he tell the House why he is not prepared to give us the right to know about the scheme, why is he not prepared immediately to make public the European Commission's full reasoned opinion on Oxleas wood and what action he is prepared to take to safeguard this site of special scientific interest from the bulldozer?
    Mr. Norris: If the hon. Lady knew a little more about the matter, she would appreciate that the EC's reasoned opinion has nothing to do with the merits of the scheme. I am astonished that she is not aware that the EC's reasoned opinion is based on the merits of the transitional provisions of the appropritate directive. It is, incidentally, on a basis with which the Government have consistently disagreed. I see no reason, therefore, why what the EC has said should have had any impact on the route.
    On publication, the hon. Lady will know that such communications between the Commission and the Governments of member states are always treated as confidential by both parties—[Interruption.] I stress that they are treated as confidential by both parties—not just by the Government, but by the Commission.

    Heathrow Express
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction of the Heathrow express to commence.
    Mr. MacGregor: I understand that it is the intention of the joint venture partners—BAA and British Rail—to begin construction towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the period of dilatoriness up to getting agreement for the project is now finally over and that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that construction proceeds speedily? The project now has enhanced importance in view of the welcome decision to proceed with crossrail.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to play some part in bringing the discussions to a conclusion, quite speedily towards the end. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting on with the project. It is necessary for the technical details of the joint venture to be finalised between the parties and for some further detailed design work to be undertaken before construction proper can commence. We hope that that will be towards the end of this year and, if there are no unforeseen difficulties, the railway could be open to passengers by late 1997. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the successful conclusion of the discussions and the joint venture and I hope that it leads to many more.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister will know that the issue is of considerable importance to all those who travel from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen to London Heathrow and who then have that disgraceful journey from Heathrow to the centre of London. Between now and 1997, will the Minister's officials speak to officials of London Transport to speed up the service between the centre of London and Heathrow? Some trains could, for example, stop at Hammersmith and then continue uninterruptedly to Heathrow terminal 4.
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall put that point to London Transport. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the joint venture is now going ahead. Given that the question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), the hon. Gentleman might also point out to some of his constituents and others from Scotland who come to London that there is also a good service from Stansted airport direct to London.
    Mr. Dicks: Bearing in mind that the Heathrow express has a major impact on my constituents, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, with the coming of crossrail, people are not allowed to pop into Heathrow on their journeys, west or east, just to fill up the gaps left by the Heathrow express?
    Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that people are likely to do that.

    Jubilee Line Extension
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a start will be made on construction of the Jubilee line extension.
    Mr. Norris: Negotiations are continuing on the precise terms of the funding agreement between London Underground and the parties concerned with the financing of Canary wharf. I am hopeful that they will soon be successfully concluded.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Whether it is the dead hand of the Treasury or the dithering of the Prime Minister, does the Minister agree that the time to invest in our infrastructure is before we come out of recession? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 85 per cent. of the contracts for the building of the Jubilee line are ready to go, with the prospect of between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs being created? Will he further press the Cabinet for extension of the Jubilee line to Woolwich? Will he confirm that a rail crossing of the River Thames at Woolwich could be built at a quarter of the cost of building the east London river crossing?
    Mr. Norris: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have, of course, made it plain that we are prepared to commence construction of the line as soon as the private sector contribution is in place. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Woolwich crossing, he will be aware that that was extensively investigated by London Transport and the conclusion was that it should not proceed at this stage.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the river crossing, he will be aware that the road crossing—the east London river crossing—is of major strategic importance to London, particularly the east of London, and that it will, in due course, play a very important role in enhancing infrastructure in east London.
    Mr. Channon: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that this is a matter of very great urgency, not only for the obvious reasons that have been outlined on many occasions in the House, but because it is impossible to proceed with phase 2 of the parliamentary building programme—as the overwhelming majority of hon. Members want to do—until we know one way or the other when the Jubilee line extension is likely to take place. Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind, as it is very important and urgent?
    Mr. Norris: I, too, understand what my right hon. Friend has said. Any delay to the start of the project is regrettable. However, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the position that the Government have adopted has remained as it was originally. When the private sector is able to put its contribution in place, construction of the scheme can begin. It clearly cannot begin before that date.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the position on the Jubilee line is absolutely unacceptable? It is 14 months since the Bill received Royal Assent; we have had promises that construction of the line was about to be announced and completed; the money has been standing by for a year; we have had rumours one week that documentation for the scheme was about to be signed and the next week that it was not; two weeks ago, the managing director of London Underground told the Transport Select Committee that the documents between London Underground and the private sector had now been agreed; and every day that passes businesses are blighted and go under. People want an underground line and they want the Government to put their hands on and
    560
    not take them off. The people concerned should bang their heads together and get the line agreed. Is that going to happen or not? For heaven's sake, tell us the truth.
    Mr. Norris: I deeply resent that last suggestion. It is quite obvious that all the way through our message has been very straightforward. The Government are prepared to contribute around £1·5 billion to the project on the basis that the private sector comes forward with its own contribution of £400 million in cash. I regret the delay as much as the hon. Gentleman. He and I have debated the issue many times. We are making progress and that progress will continue. When the process is complete—and it is impossible for me or the managing director of London Underground or anyone else to set a date at this stage—we will begin construction of the line.
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Jubilee line extension project will make a massive contribution to employment prospects in the centre of London. Will he confirm that he will do all he can to ensure that the project starts at the earliest opportunity? Will he also confirm that the east London crossing will remain in east London and not be shipped off to Dartford, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)?
    Mr. Norris: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his autumn statement that the Government are committed to their contribution towards building the Jubilee line. That substantial contribution is well in excess of £1·5 billion. As to my hon. Friend's point about the route of the east London river crossing, he will appreciate that its whole strategic importance is predicated on the assumption that it links the A406 with the A2 where it currently does.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the Minister recalls that his Department has issued more press statements on the Jubilee line extension going ahead than I have had hot dinners—and I have had one or two of those? Once again, it looks as though the Government have changed the rules. We now learn that the contracts and understandings that have been negotiated with the private sector have been changed in terms of Government requirements. Have there been any changes in Government requirements since last November with regard to deals with the private sector?
    Will the Minister make it quite clear that he is not being pressurised by the Treasury into scrapping the Jubilee line extension altogether? That is what the newspapers and various people in the private sector are saying. Is not the Minister fully aware that unless the Jubilee line extension goes ahead, a large number of question marks will hang over the development in docklands, the City airport, Canary wharf and the whole of the east Thames corridor initiative?
    Mr. Norris: I shall not swap tallies of hot dinners with the hon. Gentleman because I recognise that I might lose. I am delighted to confirm that there has been no change whatever in the Government's position. Nor is there any ground between the Department of Transport and any other Department of Government. The Government's position has been clear throughout and I will restate it for the avoidance of doubt. It is that the Government remain committed to putting money into the project once the private sector contribution is concluded and assured. I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the

    561
    impact of the Jubilee line extension, particularly on those areas south of the Thames which stand to benefit substantially when the extension is built. I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at so that the line can go ahead. But it must depend on the private sector contribution.
    Sir Michael Neubert: If that is so, could I confirm from the Government Benches the intense frustration of Londoners that, six months after the announcement of the Government's commitment to the project, one of the principal purposes of the project, the creation of jobs and a recovery in the capital, is being frustrated by continued prevarication by the bankers? Is there nothing more that my hon. Friend can do to persuade them to get their act together?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend mentioned the responsibilities of some of the creditors of Olympia and York. The complexity of arriving at an agreement with the creditors of Olympia and York, which I understand was the largest property company in the world when it went into administration, was underestimated. That has necessarily meant that the process of arriving at a new arrangement has been extremely complex and hazardous. I should like to put it on the record that the Government believe that all the parties to negotiations have acted throughout in good faith. Important and difficult negotiations have taken place. I regret the delay in the creation of jobs and opportunities, but I am convinced, as I know is my hon. Friend, that it is right to press the developers, who will gain materially from the development in return for their contribution.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the continuation of concessionary fare schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: I have received several representations about the continuation of concessionary fare schemes. Such schemes are a matter for the local authorities concerned, not for the Government.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister recognise that that was an unsatisfactory response? Concessionary fare schemes and bus passes are a vital lifeline for many pensioners: for many they are the difference between existing and living. Why will not the Minister make a straightforward statement that the Government are committed to the continuation of these enormously important schemes and that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the schemes remain? Why will not the Minister give pensioners some assurance and give them a straightforward answer? Yes or no—will he protect the schemes?
    Mr. Freeman: Concessionary fare schemes specifically for buses, but also for other forms of local public transport, are the responsibility of local government, not central Government. Local authorities, including passenger transport authorities, have the responsibility for ranking their schemes in priority. It is a matter for local government.
    Mr. Forman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, during the fairly long period in which concessionary fare schemes
    562
    have operated, especially in the Greater London area, most local authorities have acted responsibly and have seen fit to maintain the schemes?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that local authorities in Greater London currently provide about £120 million a year for concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities in London are to be congratulated on continuing to support such schemes. It must be for other local authorities to fix their own priorities and continue such schemes as they see fit.
    Mr. Snape: Instead of hiding behind the local authority smokescreen, why does not the Minister acknowledge that it was the irrational and arbitary decision of the late Lord Ridley to prevent local authorities from acting as precepting authorities which has brought about the present financial problems and the direct threat to concessionary fares? For once, cannot Ministers tell the truth and admit their responsibilities?
    Mr. Freeman: The advantage of the levying system in comparison with the old precepting system is that passenger transport authorities have to reach agreement with local district councils about the political priorities. That seems to be essentially democratic and I believe that the system should continue.
    Mr. Dickens: Would not it be extraordinary if those who win the franchises for the various railway networks did not continue the concessionary railcard scheme? Is not it a way of attracting more passengers? Indeed, the new franchisees may even come up with better ideas. Am I right in saying that the Railways Bill makes the provision of railcards for disabled people an obligation?
    Mr. Freeman: Railcards are different from local authority concessionary fare schemes. I agree with my hon. Friend that British Rail introduced the cards not as a result of pressure from Government or individual Ministers, or parliamentary legislation, but for good commercial reasons. There is no reason to believe that franchisees will not wish to continue to provide the same service.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that his own Government, in the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985, took statutory powers to force local authorities to impose a concessionary scheme for London pensioners? Why does he draw a distinction between the two schemes?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will know that local authorities have always arrived at voluntary agreements. The Act contains a reserve power, but authorities have reached voluntary agreements every year since they have had responsibility for these matters and I believe that they will continue to do so.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits to bus users outside London of deregulation.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change has taken place in bus mileage outside London since deregulation.
    Mr. Freeman: The deregulation of bus services outside London has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in bus mileage, with many new services to areas not previously served by buses. Operator costs have been reduced by more than a third.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the real success of deregulation in providing more buses, will my hon. Friend confirm that Londoners can expect to receive similar benefits when it is introduced here? When will we have an opportunity to experience those benefits?
    Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Deregulation will permit new operators to provide additional services at different times of the week and in different parts of Greater London. That is the experience of deregulation outside London.
    Ms Walley: It is not.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady has her eyes closed. In many parts of the country, new buses are providing new services for passengers.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that in Surrey, as in other areas, some of the services that are now provided are much more responsive to the needs of local people? That is extremely welcome and if deregulation enables it to continue in London, it will be welcomed by Londoners as well. There is no doubt, however, that it is essential for the Government to ensure that the rules and regulations enable bus services to continue: they are much in demand.
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in due course and to set up a central agency in London to continue to subsidise socially necessary services. Outside London, the position is different: subsidies are provided by local authorities.
    Mr. Redmond: The Minister is talking a load of rubbish. He knows that deregulation does not work. It has meant higher fares, clapped-out buses and, in most cases, no buses at all in both rural and urban areas. Will the Minister accept that deregulation has not worked? Will he go up to South Yorkshire and ask old-age pensioners about it?
    Mr. Freeman: We have issued a consultation document to all local authorities—and, I hope, to all local bus companies—asking them to comment on how the 1985 arrangements are working. If improvements are necessary to ensure that services are provided flexibly by the private sector, we shall consider introducing legislation.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the Minister knows—as does everyone else with an interest in these matters—of the 30 per cent. reduction in the number of passengers in urban areas outside London and the 30 per cent. increase in fares. If the Tories regard that as a success story, they are welcome to it.
    I am sure that the Minister's colleagues are anxious for parallels to be made with rail privatisation today. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many private operators run schemes offering discounted through-ticketing for journeys covering more than one operator's area?
    Mr. Freeman: Almost without exception, in areas outside London, local authorities have sponsored and the
    564
    private sector now participates in, multi-modal travel-cards. That is true of Manchester, where representatives of the Manchester Metro are discussing with local authorities the introduction of a local travelcard. The hon. Gentleman was right about the reduction in patronage, but that has been happening since the second world war. There has been a gradual decline in the use of buses because people prefer the flexibility of using a car. We must face the challenge to halt and reverse that trend—Conservative policies will meet that challenge.

    Roads (Pre-construction Procedures)
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to speed up the pre-construction procedures for roads.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am committed to the faster delivery of road schemes and shall soon introduce a package of proposals to speed up statutory and administrative procedures for preparing road schemes.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is an urgent need to speed up those procedures? Does he envisage reaching a stage where either amending or primary legislation will be necessary? Will he do everything possible to speed up the construction of his Department's proposed Stockport north-south bypass?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has been answering parliamentary questions on my hon. Friend's latter point, which I have noted. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of speeding up the procedure. On average there is an interval of about thirteen and a half years between a scheme's entering a programme and finally being opened and 12 of those thirteen and a half years are spent discussing the route and giving all interested parties the right to argue their case. I do not wish to affect the rights of interested parties to do so, but I wonder whether the process needs to take an average of 12 years. Some proposals that I introduce may require primary legislation, but I am anxious to do as much as possible without such legislation.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Bail Abscondees
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Attorney-General what is the role of his Department in respect of securing the return of persons on hail who have absconded overseas.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Provided that the absconder is in a country with which the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty, the prosecution authority prepares an application for extradition, where appropriate, which is then conveyed to the relevant Government.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware of the widespread embarrassment and incredulity felt at the sight of the Lord Chancellor creeping across the border into north Cyprus to beg for the return to British justice of Asil Nadir, a major financier of the Tory party'? Does the Minister feel that it might be more appropriate for the Government's Law Officers to spend their time investigating matters and acting within their remit—for example, investigating the

    565
    possibility of illegal donations to the Tory party and ensuring that a watch is kept on small Dorset airfields so that other dubious financiers thinking of jumping ship at a difficult time for the country are unable to flee British justice?
    The Attorney-General: The principal absconder in this case seems to be the hon. Gentleman, who has absconded a long way from the question.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the case of Asil Nadir, the Serious Fraud Office frequently objected to bail, but the judges decided to grant it against those objections? Will he also confirm that no donations were made to the Conservative party by the late Robert Maxwell?
    The Attorney-General: On the portion of the question relevant to me, I can confirm that the Serious Fraud Office initially opposed bail. Thereafter, questions of bail were a matter for the court.
    Mr. Fraser: Members of both Front Benches must want Asil Nadir back to stand his trial. Was it on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice as Attorney-General or on the advice of the famous advisers in the Foreign Office that the Lord Chancellor—the head of the judicial service —went as a sort of Mediterranean bounty hunter to Rauf Denktash to try to secure the return of Asil Nadir, which seems a bizarre mission for a judge? Is not the right course of action to make it clear to the administration in northern Cyprus that it does nothing to help its authority or credibility if it allows northern Cyprus to be a refuge for bail bandits?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I cannot accept most of the premises on which the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was based. But I certainly agree that it is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House that those who are accused and are to stand trial in the United Kingdom should appear at their trial so that justice may be done.
    Mr. Stephen: Is it right that the United Kindom refused to extradite a wanted person to northern Cyprus on the ground that there is no extradition treaty between the two countries? Is not the right way to proceed to enter into an extradition treaty with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus so that the whole matter may be put on a proper legal basis?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend forgets that we do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

    Mr. Alan Clark's Memoirs
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the contents of Mr. Alan Clark's memoirs in connection with the disclosure of information covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989.
    The Attorney-General: None. Former Ministers are required to submit their memoirs to the Secretary of the Cabinet before publication. Matters of national security are considered in accordance with the principles set out in the Radcliffe report of 1976, Command 6386.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the content of Alan Clark's contribution, may I ask a question of which I have given
    566
    notice? Are Law Officers and Foreign Office legal advisers sure that our country has not contravened the 1989 convention on the rights of the child—which relates to what happens to children as a result of armed conflict—in the light of the fact that thousands of babies are literally dying weekly in Iraq as a result of sanctions?
    The Attorney-General: I have seen a report of the hon. Gentleman's recent visit to Iraq. I am satisfied that the United Kingdom is complying with all its international obligations in this respect.
    Mr. Rowe: Official secrets apart, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that he will use his best endeavours with those Cabinet Ministers and former Prime Ministers who are in the business of compiling their memoirs to make them at least as vivid, prejudiced and entertaining as the memoirs which have been referred to hitherto?
    The Attorney-General: An invitation like that causes me to think that my hon. Friend must be preparing something special.

    Prosecutions
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the proportion of prosecutions which are brought to court.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Of the 1,433,858 cases finalised in the magistrates courts in 1992–93, excluding cases received for advice only and non-criminal proceedings, 70·5 per cent. proceeded to a trial or plea, 13·5 per cent. were discontinued, 8·2 per cent. were disposed of for other reasons, including failure to trace the defendant, and a further 7·8 per cent. were committed to the Crown court.
    Of the Crown court cases, 88·1 per cent. proceeded to trial or plea, 8·1 per cent. were terminated and a further 3·8 per cent. were disposed of for other reasons.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable disquiet among the public and the police about the determination of the Crown Prosecution Service strongly to prosecute cases?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Crown Prosecution Service was set up by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as an independent prosecution service. It was given a new power under section 23 of the Act to discontinue proceedings and it does so without fear or favour. There is absolutely no reason or point in bringing to trial cases that will foreseeably fail. It is not in the interests of the victim, the defendant, the public and certainly not the police.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware of a Crown court decision taken last week by Judge Kilroy who sentenced a wolf-whistler to two weeks' imprisonment? The wolf-whistler, who whistled at one of my constituents—who was quite happy with the situation—is appealing against the judge's decision of 14 days' imprisonment for whistling in court. What will the Attorney-General do about that?
    The Solicitor-General: That is not a matter for any of the Law Officers. It does not fall within their responsibilities.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on equal opportunity policy in the Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is an equal opportunities employer and recruits and promotes staff on merit regardless of race, gender or disability.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is enlightening that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is female? Could he tell us more about the flexible practices that the CPS exercises to encourage and facilitate the employment of female staff?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. The Crown Prosecution Service is led by an energetic, dedicated and articulate Director of Public Prosecutions who was selected in open competition and was awarded her post on merit. There are many initiatives to make a post more attractive to women. Over 60 per cent. of people in the Crown Prosecution Service are women. About 40 per cent. of its lawyers, including 33 per cent. of principal Crown prosecutors, are women.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Sudan
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources his Department is able to deploy to relieve famine and starvation in the Sudan.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): On 18 March, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made a further pledge of £4 million to support the work of non-governmental organisations and international agencies in Sudan.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the appalling suffering in Sudan demands firm and concerted international action? What are the Government doing to help to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Sudanese Government to respect the rule of law and the rights of all their citizens and to allow free and unfettered access by the international aid organisations to bring aid to those in need?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 6 May, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, fully share the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the suffering in Sudan. We have taken a leading role in measures adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. We have warned the Sudanese Government in strong terms against further interference with the free passage of international aid. Only last week Dr. Garang, the SPLA leader, who was in London, was given a similar warning about those problems by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    South Africa
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources Her Majesty's Government have made available for preparation and training for the introduction of democracy in South Africa following the end of apartheid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The objective of our aid programme is to help prepare black South Africans for a democratic and non-racial South Africa. We expect to increase aid to support the process.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will have had discussions with Nelson Mandela when he was in this country recently. Obviously, the date and the timetable for the election are likely to be announced soon. Will the Government respond rapidly to ensure that the black people who will form the majority Government in South Africa in the near future are given every possible assistance with their responsibilities after that election?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been declared that by 4 June the date should be set for elections that must take place before 4 June next year. If there are requests from the transitional executive council for assistance with election work they will he favourably considered by my right hon. and noble Friend when the elections take place. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that we provide substantial assistance for the education of young South Africans. Some 1,000 scholarships a year are provided through funds from our bilateral programme, which assists towards the future of South Africa.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that as funds in the Exchequer are tight, it is wrong to divert money from our overseas budget for humanitarian aid simply to help train people in this area? Surely our priorities must be carefully considered when money is so tight.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Priorities must always be carefully considered. I take my hon. Friend's point. Our aid in this area is, however, expected to rise to reflect support for the evolving political, economic and social reform process.
    Sir David Steel: While paying tribute to the work done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in promoting multi-party democracy, does the Minister agree that, in its first year of operation, it has tended to bias its expenditure—perhaps necessarily—toward eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union? Will the Minister give an assurance that Government funds will now be directed to Africa in general and South Africa in particular?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are many demands on the aid programme and the Westminster Foundation is a necessary ingredient of the aid programme. I have no doubt that the problems of South Africa and Africa generally will not be neglected.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale. Ettrick and Launderdale (Sir D. Steel) about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, having benefited from visiting South Africa under its auspices? There is much appreciation in South Africa for what this country and the European Community aid office is doing. Is it possible to

    569
    help refocus the South African Broadcasting Corporation? At present, it is not trusted and, as it will be the principal means of getting information to the people before the elections, it requires a degree of respect, which can only come with help from the World Service and the BBC in general.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's point is carefully considered.
    Mr. Meacher: Do the junior Minister and the Government recognise the huge reconstruction programme that will be necessary in South Africa, once the elections have been held, for housing, education, health and employment services for the black majority? Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee—which he did not give in answer to a previous question—that any aid and development moneys now focused on South Africa and sub-Saharan Africa will not be transferred to Russia or eastern Europe, where average per capita incomes are 10 times higher? Will he press for the early establishment of the transitional executive council and make it his policy that there will be no further offers of loans, tariff concessions, debt rescheduling, or any similar aid, until the transitional executive council is in place? Above all, will the Minister make it clear that the Government have learnt from the bitter lessons of Angola and Mozambique that transition to full democracy for the first time cannot be achieved on the cheap?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am surprised by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question. lie knows that the African National Congress has asked for the lifting of trade and financial sanctions upon formation of the transitional executive council. To suggest that, somehow, we should delay any further—which is the hint behind the hon. Gentleman's question—is quite absurd. When that happens we will be pressing for precisely that. We are planning new programmes at the moment in areas such as rural development, health and small business development. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are opening a new development office in Pretoria on 7 June to manage aid to South Africa and some of the neighbouring countries. Surely that is a positive step in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Meacher: How much?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot say how much and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I counsel my hon. Friend to be sure that he does not rob Peter to pay Paul, particularly given our strong commitment to humanitarian aid and disaster relief? I wonder why we should commit funds so heavily to the introduction of democracy in South Africa when we must bear in mind the fact that the whole of Latin America., with the notable exception of Cuba, returned to democracy without great financial aid from this country.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not made any commitment at all; we are having a debate in which pressure is being exerted that we should.
    I take my hon. Friend's point. I have made no commitments—I do not intend to—and this matter will be discussed in the light of questions today and other debates.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he plans to make to the declaration by the World Health Organisation of tuberculosis as a global health emergency.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We share the concern expressed by the World Health Organisation about the increasing incidence and severity of TB. We are considering with the WHO and other Governments the resources that should be made available and how they might be used most effectively to help reduce the spread of this disease.
    Mr. Corbett: May I encourage the Minister to make best speed with those considerations, given that about one third of the world's population is now infected with TB and that TB currently kills more people than heart disease and AIDS put together.
    Is he aware that the World bank has estimated that the cure available for TB is one of the most cost-effective available? Does he accept that, unless the disease is also tackled in Britain and other industrialised countries—there is evidence of its coming back—there cannot be a cure in those countries where it is rampant: Latin America, Asia and Africa?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's alarm at the regrowth of the disease. I can accept the figure that he used—3 million deaths occur as a result of that dreadful disease each year. The United Kingdom is one of the largest sources of World Health Organisation extrabudgetary support. We contributed £11 million in 1992. We are anxious to see a better lead from the WHO in that regard, as the problem is of such great importance to the health of the world.

Bosnia
3.30 pm
Mr. George Robertson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest United Nations plan for Bosnia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, Russia and Spain, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, met in Washington on 22 May and issued a statement containing a joint programme of action on the former Yugoslavia.
They agreed to continue working urgently to halt the conflict—starting with further action in the United Nations Security Council on safe areas, monitoring of the Bosnian border with Serbia-Montenegro and the establishment of a war crimes tribunal—and to continue efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement building on the Vance-Owen process and intensified international efforts.
They reaffirmed their view that sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro should be rigorously enforced until the conditions set out by the United Nations for their review are met, including the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb troops from territories occupied by force, including the withdrawal of Bosnia-Serb troops from territories occupied by force.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, such a radical and fundamental new policy shift on Bosnia should have merited a full Government statement and not just a reply to a private notice question.
I shall set out what we welcome in what was said in Washington on Saturday. First, it is right to make it clear that aggression against Macedonia will lead to grave consequences. Would that threat not have had a little more force if we could get round to using the name of the country that the Macedonians have chosen—"Macedonia" itself?
Secondly, we welcome the recognition that there should be a greater international presence in Kosovo to protect human rights in that province of former Yugoslavia. Thirdly, it is of course right that the flames of violence should not be further fanned by lifting the arms embargo on the region, and it is good that the effort to deliver humanitarian supplies will continue.
Having said that, can I ask the Minister precisely what is the plan? Is it a plan at all, or will it not simply be seen as a cleverly constructed and diplomatically phrased climbdown in the face of the Bosnian Serb rejection of their leader's signature on the Vance-Owen plan three weeks ago in Athens?
What has happened to that plan in the light of this new policy shift? Is this the end of that plan, which was so carefully and painstakingly put together by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance for a multi-ethnic Bosnia-Herzogovina? Was Lord Owen consulted about what went on in Washington? What is his view about the new plan that has been unveiled by the five countries?
Will the Minister tell us about the new proposed safe areas? For whom are they to be safe? It appears that civilians in those areas will be disarmed and any air cover supplied or offered by the United States will be restricted to the UN troops in the areas. Of course, any protection
572
of the poor persecuted civilians in that area is welcome, but is not the proposal just a recipe for creating five or more new permanent refugee camps?
Why are we continuing to be so pathetically weak about continuing Croation aggression? Given the continuing actions of some Bosnian-Croat forces in Bosnia, surely the same ultimatums on sanctions that have been given to Belgrade should now immediately be aimed at Zagreb.
What is meant by "sealing the borders of Bosnia", when all it seems to amount to is what the communiqué says:
"We are watching to see if the border closure is effective"?
How does that stand, especially in the light of Mr. Milosevic's apparent statement that there will be a veto on all foreign observers and monitors on the border?
What about the section of the communiqué entitled, "Further measures", which speaks of keeping
"open options for new and tougher measures."
What precisely is meant by that? What are those measures and how can that be seen as a potent threat when the measures so far used, including sanctions, have been pursued with such a spectacular lack of success?
The Foreign Secretary said yesterday on the BBC:
"The Bosnian Serbs need to realise that they are not going to be able to retain what they have grabbed by force."
I ask the Minister, quite simply, how? How will that be done? Can he tell us? Can anybody tell us how that will be achieved?
Finally, what can the Minister tell the House this afternoon, and how can he reassure an increasingly puzzled and suspicious world community, who, in the light of the new policy, may well now conclude that the standing of the United Nations has been gravely undermined and that the legitimate rights of the Government of Bosnia and the people they seek to represent have been abandoned?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given me ample opportunity to amplify the Government's position, and I am grateful to him for that. On the question of Macedonia, he will bear in mind the fact that we fought for its admission into the United Nations. Some outstanding matters need to be settled, if possible, between Greece and Macedonia, and discussions are going ahead under the chairmanship of Lord Owen to promote that.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supported the Government's attitude towards not relaxing the arms embargo. I believe that that is right.
The hon. Gentleman asked a whole range of questions, to which I shall try to reply. However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that those on his Front Bench and those on this one agree on one thing—that it would be wrong to deploy United Kingdom or any other ground troops in a combat role. Certain consequences flow from that, and they are set out in the Washington agreement.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the plan. I shall try to summarise the main elements of it—first, to continue with the humanitarian mission, which is well known to the House; secondly, to keep the sanctions in place until there has been a withdrawal from occupied territories; thirdly, the positioning of monitors on the border of Bosnia and Serbia; fourthly, the creation of safe areas—I shall say more about that in a moment; and fifthly, the setting up of a war crimes tribunal.
On the question of safe areas, we have made it plain that, if UNPROFOR troops in the safe areas are attacked, air assets will be deployed to support them. On the point about Lord Owen, he has been kept closely informed of developments, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. My

573
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in frequent contact with him. Lord Owen will express his views at a time that he thinks appropriate.
On Croatia, the hon. Gentleman has a good point. We are deeply concerned by the policy adopted by the Croatian Government, and the hon. Gentleman will see that there is an express reference in the declaration to the fact that sanctions could be deployed against Croatia if policies of military expansion were continued.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Bosnia that we voted to admit to the United Nations and whose legitimate Government we still recognise has lost about 250,000 people slain in the past year, 2·5 million displaced and countless thousands raped, and their homes pillaged? What comfort can his statement offer to those people? What signal about the powerful nature of the world order does it send out? Has not the west been tried and found wanting in the first test of the post-cold war era?
Can my right hon. and learned Friend do anything to reassure me that this is not a case of aggression rewarded? Can he do anything to reassure me that those who still sorely need protection will be afforded it?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is the greatest tragedy, the greatest crime, that Europe has seen since the end of the second world war. He has fairly asked me whether I can bring comfort. The answer is, I cannot —I wish that I could. What is going on in Bosnia is, in its principal characteristics, a civil war; and we did not think it right—nor did any other country of which I am aware —to deploy ground troops in a combat rule because this was and is a civil war. Civil wars cannot be resolved by the application of external force.
As to the future, we do not accept that the land seized by the Bosnian Serbs will remain theirs. That is why we intend to keep the sanctions on until there is a withdrawal from territories occupied—[Interruption.] Labour Members shout, "What about the Croats?" Them too. I have already made it plain that we think that the policies of the Croatian Government are deeply disturbing, and we have made it plain in the declaration that, if those policies arc persisted with, sanctions could be deployed against them too.
Sir David Steel: Does the Minister of State recognise why we view his statement about the belated creation of safe areas with total dismay? Does he riot recall that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) came back from Bosnia last August and argued for the creation of safe havens, they were told that that was quite impossible?
Now more territory has been grabbed from the Muslim communities, as graphically described by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and aggression by the Serbs is going to be rewarded under the agreement now being made—so the Minister will understand the anger in this quarter of the House.
Is it intended to create a United Nations protectorate of all Muslim areas? Is it intended that the United Nations on the ground will negotiate with the Serbs and Croats to achieve just and defensible borders in the future?
Mr. Hogg: The policy of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has always called for a much more intense level of military activity than that which is now contemplated. The difficulty with the right hon. Gentleman's plan has always been that it has effectively called for the deployment of ground troops in a combat role. That is why it has not been possible to accept it. There has been no substantial support in this place or in any other country I can think of for the sort of policy that the right hon. Gentleman was advancing.
We certainly do not accept that aggression should be rewarded. We shall do our utmost in the ways that I have described already to get the Bosnian Serbs to roll back their occupation.
There are no plans for United Nations protected areas at the moment, but we will build on the Vance-Owen process, with the objective of providing security for the Bosnian Muslims and the rolling back of the Bosnian Serbs.
Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that further action would depend heavily on sanctions. I am sure he is aware that anyone who has consulted with the former Yugoslavia's neighbours in the past few weeks is fully aware of substantial concern over slippage and evasion. What are the chances of tightening the screw? Can my right hon. and learned Friend say a word or two more about the war crimes tribunal, and about the possible appointment of a human rights commissioner?
Mr. Hogg: I am confident that the Security Council will establish a war crimes tribunal, but one must make the point—unpalatable though I know it is—that one can only try people if one has them within the relevant jurisdiction.
Sanctions have been a great deal more effective than has commonly been allowed. The Serbian economy has been devastated by sanctions. It is true that they have not been as completely watertight as we would wish. In particular, at the turn of the year, consignments of oil got through. Since then, we have been most effective at tightening up the sanctions in the Adriatic, by toughening the rules of engagement; on the land frontiers, by positioning sanction advisory missions and securing agreement from adjoining states; and on the Danube itself, where there has been no substantial breach of the sanctions regime.
Mr. Max Madden: Is not the message of the agreement to aggressors and ethnic cleansers around the world, "Do your worst—you have nothing to fear from the United Nations and the international community, except bluster, dither and delay"? Does not the agreement represent a massive betrayal of the people of Bosnia—Muslim, Serb and Croat—who have seen their independent state literally go up in smoke? Does it not represent a massive defeat for the United Nations and the international community, and dash any hopes of establishing a new world order on this wretched globe of ours?
Mr. Hogg: No one can deny that we have seen both tragedy and a crime. It gives no one in this place any pleasure to know what the Serbs have done. That said, we must ask ourselves what we are prepared to do in the context of a civil war. Unless we—all nations—are prepared to deploy ground troops in a combat role, perhaps we should not embark on too much bluster.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government are absolutely right to resist the military ambitions of some American and other television armchair warriors? Will he give an assurance that there is no question in future of British troops being further embroiled in a mad adventure which will not resolve a civil war but from which it might take years to extract our forces?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. We will not deploy United Kingdom ground troops in a combat role. We have no plans at the moment to increase the number of United Kingdom troops in former Yugoslavia; nor have we any present plans to change the existing mandate.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While I recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to pursue in greater detail many aspects of the Washington agreement, I want to ask specifically about the war crimes tribunal. Given that between 20,000 and 30,000 women have been raped, often systematically in rape camps established for that purpose, will the British Government ensure that the details that have emerged from the United Nations, Helsinki Watch and Amnesty International will guarantee that rape becomes a war crime and that there will be no amnesty for the perpetrators of that crime as part of any deal in reaching a negotiated peace settlement?
Mr. Hogg: Rape probably already comes within the definition of a war crime. It certainly is a crime. The problem, of course, is that we must have the people to try. We are supporting the establishment of the tribunal, but the tribunal will be able to try people only if it has jurisdiction over those people. It is extraordinarily difficult to solve that practical difficulty.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the change that has been enshrined in the Washington agreement is a very substantial one? It was only a few weeks ago, was it not, that the Prime Minister of Greater Serbia, Milosevic, was able to put substantial pressure on the Bosnian Serbs.
What in the new agreement will lead to any restraint being placed on the Bosnian Serbs? Why, for example, will they still retain the right to determine who should be the United Nations monitors and where they should go? What is it that has been positively gained for those who live in the Bosnian Muslim communities over what has been offered, and apparently grabbed, by the Bosnian Serbs?
Mr. Hogg: I shall make three replies to my hon. Friend. First, we have clear unity of purpose. That is very important. It is through our collective strength that we have any chance at all of reversing aggression. Secondly, we have the concept of safe areas and the agreement to use air action to defend UNPROFOR troops should they be attacked within those safe areas. Thirdly, there is the stated principle, to which we shall adhere, that we shall not accept the annexation by force of the ground now occupied by the Bosnian Serbs, and that the sanctions will remain in place until there is a withdrawal from territory thus taken.
Mr. David Winnick: Has the Minister any idea at all of the strong, understandable and angry sense of betrayal that is felt by the Government of Bosnia
576
and the people they represent? Does the Minister not understand that this is not a victory in any way for dealing with aggression? It is a victory for appeasement, it is a victory for excuses, it is a victory for allowing the aggressor to get away with it.
Despite all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's talk today about war criminals being punished, and the rest of it, the sad truth is that this is a decisive defeat, not only for the people who live in Bosnia, unfortunately, but for the international community and for the United Nations. All of us should be very ashamed of what has occurred.
Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed, I understand the sense of pain and despair that is felt by the Bosnian Muslims. All of us in this place share much of that. What we have seen is a very brutal crime, and we have been unable to reverse it in the way we would have hoped to do. But the plain truth is —we come back to it every time—that in its essential characteristics this was a civil war. It is virtually impossible, by the application of external force, to put an end to a civil war.
The hon. Gentleman says, impliedly, that we should have done a great deal more than we did. I do not accept that criticism, but that is his point. We cannot use United Kingdom ground troops, for example, in a combat role unless the country is solidly behind such a venture. The truth is that it is not, and there is not such an opinion in this House either.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. and learned Friend said that sanctions will continue to be applied against Serbia for so long as the Serbs hold territory that is not rightfully theirs. Does that mean that Royal Air Force aircraft will continue to be deployed in theatre to maintain the air exclusion zone over Bosnia for so long as the sanctions endure?
My right hon. and learned Friend also spoke in a notably unspecific way about air action and air assets and United Kingdom ground troops. Does that mean that, if United Nations troops are attacked in the safe areas, Royal Air Force aircraft will be used in action against ground targets—in other words, in a combat role?
Mr. Hogg: On my hon. Friend's first point about how long the RAF will remain engaged, the RAF is there at the moment, along with other air forces, to enforce the no-fly zone. So long as there is a no-fly zone in place and there is the risk of breaches which might cause serious combat, it will be necessary to maintain some air enforcement.
On the question of enforcement against targets which are attacking UNPROFOR troops, my hon. Friend will know that the Government have already said of the Canadians in Srebrenica that we would rally to their support if the company were attacked by the Serbs. We are making it plain that air forces will be used to defend UNPROFOR troops should they be attacked in the safe areas designated in the resolution.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I take us back to where we were 12 months ago when the horror began? Why, after 12 months, are heavy munitions still firing on major centres of population in the former Yugoslavia? Why has that heavy equipment not been taken out?
Mr. Hogg: We come back to the point that I have stressed many times. We are talking about a civil war, and the question that the hon. Gentleman, along with everyone

577
else, must contemplate is the extent to which British military assets, or any other country's military asets, people, troops and airmen, should be used to prevent fighting in a civil war. There is no will in the House for that.
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that, in view of the fact that no NATO country was prepared to put combat forces on the ground in this deeply tragic situation, this seems to be much the most realistic plan so far, and the first that seems to offer some hope of ending the killing, and that it therefore cannot be regarded as wholly contemptible?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We all know what the Vance-Owen "plan" is or was, but what, if anything, does the Vance-Owen "process" mean, especially when it is not specifically endorsed by the two men whose names it bears?
Mr. Hogg: That is a fair question. The Vance-Owen plan had within it a range of specific agreed elements, agreed at least by most of the parties, although not by the Bosnian Serbs. The Vance-Owen process has a mechanism for negotiating. I agree that it is not the same thing, but that is the difference.
Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not yet clear that, if the international community makes it plain time and time again that, whatever happens, it will do nothing to stop the Serbs, the Serbs will go on doing exactly what they will? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that is not a civil war? Is he further aware that it is absolutely clear that the Serbs will break their word again and again?
In that context, is it riot wholly inadequate merely to monitor what is happening on the border between Serbia and Bosnia, and is it not clear that effective action should be taken to ensure that the embargo on the flow of arms and resources across the border is enforced, not ineffectively monitored?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has identified a problem that is inherent in democracies. People rightly ask of Governments what their policies are. If I were to flannel or deceive the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) would be the first to blame me. Indeed, I would be not only blamed but thoroughly criticised. In open societies—in democracies—it is jolly difficult to pursue policies other than those that one declares—or, to put it differently, one must declare what one proposes to do.
As to whether this is a civil war, it is primarily a civil war. I do not dispute for one moment that Serbia plays a prominent part in supplying fuel, arms, money and men, but it is nevertheless in its essential characteristics a civil war.
My right hon. Friend said that the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs themselves were likely to break their word. I should have thought that there was an extremely high probability of that. That is why, when one is considering the cost in terms of human lives of trying to make peace by force, one must come to the conclusion that it would take about half a million men.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why cannot United Nations policy be seriously built on so that
578
the safe havens become proper safe havens, in which the population is defended, and so that the safe havens can be extended to other areas to defend people, irrespective of their ethnic background? The borders with Croatia, as well as the borders with Serbia, should be not only monitored but controlled. Should we not look to the establishment of a United Nations transitional authority?
Mr. Hogg: I agree that the policies of the Croatian Government are a matter of considerable concern, first because they have supported the Bosnian Croats, and secondly because we are anxious to see a renewal of the UNPROFOR 1 mandate in Krajina. Some of the remarks made by President Tudjman are not very assuring on that point.
On safe areas, the resolution will define a number of towns in Bosnia in respect of which we shall introduce UNPROFOR troops. As the hon. Gentleman knows, air forces will be employed to defend those troops should they be attacked.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the open-ended need for help and support for the United Nations operations in Bosnia, the British Government's operation has cost between £70 million and £100 million? What other substantial contributions in cash terms have been made by the 150-odd other members of the United Nations?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, if I were to give a detailed answer, I might take a longish time. My hon. Friend is saying—I entirely agree—that the British have made the most considerable troop contribution in Bosnia. We have delivered more than 36,000 tonnes of supplies, and the RAF has delivered more than 7,000 tonnes of supplies. It is universally agreed that the British service men, both the troops and the RAF, are by far the most efficient of any forces operating within Bosnia.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would that the Foreign Secretary were here so that I could tell him to his face that he should be ashamed of himself for having put his name, and Britain's name, to this absolutely atrocious Washington agreement which totally abandons the Bosnian Muslims. What minute prospect is there of the Bosnian Serbs being forced to abandon their conquests?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman on many previous occasions. I shall tell him that the hon. Gentleman has said what he has said previously.
Mr. Julian Brazier: As somebody who witnessed some horrible scenes in another civil war only three years ago, may I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that, even if the will existed in the House and in the country to send a large ground force to Bosnia for an indeterminate period, experience from other similar cival wars, whether in Palestine or now in Nagorno-Karabakh, suggests that the most likely outcome would be a complete and bloody failure?
The best way forward and the best hope for the Bosnians in the long run is for us all to recognise that there is no putting Bosnia back together again against the wishes of the Serbs and the Croat Bosnians who form a majority of the population. We need an ethnic partition, as has happened in Cyprus.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has deployed clearly, and in my view rightly, the arguments against deploying ground troops in a civil war. On the second part of his question, we now need to build on what has been agreed within the Vance-Owen peace plan, and to use that process to try to carry forward a chance of a settlement.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Minister agree with me that there is always a risk that the conflict will spread again to Krajina and to Kosovo and Macedonia and that that risk would become an absolute certainty should there be massive intervention by the west in Bosnia-Herzegovina, because it would give succour to all the extreme forces, including extreme forces among the Albanians in Kosovo? Those who think that there is a simplistic way out of the problem in Bosnia should think before they speak. Were the detention centres discussed? How are the detainees to be released?
Mr. Hogg: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to see some of the things that he has described. I agree with the broad premise that there is a serious risk of the fighting flowing into the adjoining countries, particularly Macedonia and Albania. The risk in Kosovo is very great indeed. That is one of the reasons why there is now a Nordic battalion in Macedonia and why there are CSCE observers in Kosovo. I would like to see the numbers of the latter increased. It would be better by far if we were able to get the United Nations presence into Kosovo. However, that would depend on the acquiescence of Serbia.
Mr. Peter Hardy: For month after month, the Government have rightly supported the policy of sanctions. However, for month after month, the Government have also gone along with the European view that breaches of sanctions shall remain entirely confidential. Do the Government really believe that the policy of sanctions as opposed to war can ever prevail if that sort of attitude is maintained? May we ask whether that information can now be released as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Hogg: The policy of sanctions has been a great deal more effective than the hon. Gentleman allows. As I said earlier in response to this private notice question, the policy of sanctions has caused very considerable damage —as it was intended to—to the Serbian economy, and that will continue until there is a withdrawal from the territory that has been occupied.
With regard to the question of confidentiality, I am not absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. There is one serious problem: quite often, we receive information about sanction breaches from very confidential channels. It would be extremely difficult to release that information without impugning the source. That is the problem. If there are other problems which the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not addressed in my reply, I am happy to talk to him about that.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Is it not the case that, when the fine diplomatic words are put to one side, the new piece of paper adds up to a policy of appeasement? Surely the Minister should understand that, just as appeasement did not work 50 years ago, Europe's policy of appeasement today will not stop aggression, mass rapes or genocide?
Mr. Hogg: While there are clearly close parallels in moral terms between what has happened in Bosnia and what happened in Germany and as a result of Nazi policy, it is very wrong to regard Serbia as posing anything like the kind of strategic risk that Germany posed to Europe in the 1930s. Therefore, it is unwise to talk about appeasement in that sense. We are not embarking on a policy of war. By a range of policies, involving substantial pressure, we are seeking to get the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from the territory that they have occupied.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I have an application under Standing Order No. 20 from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Bombing (Northern Ireland)
4.8 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the sequence of bombs in Northern Ireland over the weekend.
I appreciate that it is normally the practice in the House not to have immediate statements or debates on specific terrorist incidents, because that amplifies the terror created by those incidents. However, we are dealing not with "a" specific incident, but with a quite alarming series of incidents, which perhaps marks a new phase in the terrorist campaign, and it has serious implications for people in Northern Ireland.
The incidents to which I refer are, first, the bomb on Thursday in Glengall street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), which seriously damaged the opera house and other commercial premises, as well as the headquarters of the party.
On Saturday morning, a massive bomb containing more than 1,000 lb of explosive went off in the main street of Portadown in my constituency. That bomb may result in the demolition of nine or 10 major commercial premises. The explosion took place right in the centre of the town. The so-called warnings that accompanied the bomb were consistent with an attempt by the Provisional IRA to cause massive loss of life. Thankfully, that was avoided, thanks to the skill of the police, but no thanks to the terrorists. Substantial dislocation has occurred as a result of the bomb.
That was Saturday morning. On Saturday evening, a large bomb exploded at the Drumkeen hotel. In addition to damaging the hotel, the bomb damaged several private homes, some of which were just recovering from the last explosion a matter of months before. Lastly in the sequence, last night there was a massive bomb in the town of Magherafelt in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). Again, it occurred in the town centre and caused massive disruption to commercial life.
The bombs obviously have security implications. In deference to your views, Madam Speaker, I shall not go into the security implications at this stage, except to say that a debate under Standing Order No. 20 would require Northern Ireland Office Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and give some statement and some answer instead of their shameful silence, which demonstrates their ineptitude and incompetence.
The blockbuster bombs are part of the IRA's economic war. It has been estimated that the compensation bill will be about £20 million. The bombs will also affect the lives and livelihood of many small business men in the towns affected. For that reason, and because in recent months there has been a tendency among people at home to despair of the political process, I wish to have this urgent debate.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said. Of course, I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could help Members from Northern Ireland. Over and over again, when atrocities have been committed and there has been no response from the relevant Ministers answerable in the House, we have attempted to use Standing Order No. 20 and the old Standing Order No. 10 to bring the matter to the attention of the House. Habitually, the applications have been turned down by various Speakers before you.
Could you help Northern Ireland Members to know what must happen, what atrocity must take place, how many people must be murdered and how many millions of pounds' worth of damage must be done before we can bring the matter before the House?
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's real concern about the matter, which he has voiced for several years. As he appreciates, and, I know, understands, we do not discuss security matters across the Floor of the House.
May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two things? When we return from the recess on 8 June, there will be a debate on the emergency provisions Act. For an earlier opportunity to raise the matter, the hon. Gentleman can make an application to my office before 10 o'clock this evening for an Adjournment debate on Thursday this week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: A few years ago, it was common practice that terrorist atrocities, either here or in Northern Ireland, were the subject of either a statement or a private notice question. In the application for a Standing Order No. 20 debate today, we heard a plea from a member of one of the Northern Ireland parties which agreed a few years ago to stop the discussion of any private notice question or statements by Ministers. There was an agreement between the Government and the Opposition to be silent about such atrocities. Some of us disagreed with that at the time.
We cannot accept the idea that, when people are killed in terrorist attacks of whatever nature, the House cannot debate the matter. It is ironic that the demand for a Standing Order No. 20 debate has come from a member of a party which took part in the silencing. Despite the House being silent, terrorist activities have continued to take place both here and in Northern Ireland. So the silence has not served any useful purpose. It is time we got back to discussing such matters.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong a discussion. This is not a point of order. I have already dealt with the matter in connection with the point of order earlier.

Scott Inquiry (Evidence)
4.15 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order arises from evidence given this morning by Sir Hal Miller to the Scott inquiry, which raises very serious matters for the House concerning the information with which the House is provided, and the deception of the House and its Committees.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, and my office informed him that he was raising a serious matter that might involve a possible contempt of the House. I know that he takes that seriously, as I do. If he will write to me providing the information that he has, I shall certainly ensure that it is dealt with in the usual way in the event of there being a contempt of the House. The hon. Gentleman should not pursue the matter now, on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cousins: I shall be guided by you, Madam Speaker.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standintg Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
That the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 567) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Harefield Hospital National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993 No. 820) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

INSOLVENCY
That the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 602) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EDUCATION
That the Education (Individual Pupils' Achievements) (Information) (Wales) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 835) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Education (School Curriculum and Related Information) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 998) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

FISHERIES AND COMMITTEES
That the Local Fisheries Committee (Fees for Copy Byelaws) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 116) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EC AND SAN MARINO
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Customs Union and Cooperation
584
between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

HOUSING
That the draft Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
DRUG TRAFFICKING
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
FORFEITURE ORDERS
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CIVIL DEFENCE
That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Question agreed to.

RAILWAYS BILL [Money] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

(a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown or Government department for the making of payments under or by virtue of the Act to the trustees or administrators of any pension scheme;

(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying expenditure of the Franchising Director—

(i) in exercising or discharging functions assigned or transferred to the Franchising Director under or by virtue of the Act;

(ii) in fulfilling guarantees given in the exercise of any such function; or

(iii) otherwise in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

(c) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under agreements under which he undertakes to make payments to goods service operators in respect of track access charges;

(d) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the Board, or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, for the purpose of enabling the Board or subsidiary to make any payments (whether by way of repayment of principal or payment of interest or of any other description) in respect of loans made to the Board or subsidiary under section 20 of the Transport Act 1962.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Orders of the Day

  Railways Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the Railways Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clause No. 3, New Clause No. 29, Amendments relating to Schedule 10, other New Clauses, other Amendments to the Bill, New Schedules, Amendments relating to other Schedules to the Bill.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Madam Speaker: I have to announce a small addition to my provisional selection of amendments. In the group beginning with Government new clause 4, amendment No. 237 should be inserted immediately before Government amendment No. 110. The selection list in the Lobby already shows the change; I have made the announcement merely to help hon. Members who may have picked up an earlier version.

  Railways Bill
    New clause 3

      RIGHTS OF TRUSTEES OF BOARD PENSION SCHEMES
      '(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes by order to amend the trust deed of any existing Board pension scheme, or the rules of any such scheme, or any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of any such scheme and has consulted the trustees of the scheme but does not propose to act precisely according to their advice, he shall prepare a report setting out the advice received from the trustees and his reasons for rejecting, or accepting with modifications, that advice.
      (2) Any such report shall be published and copies thereof laid before each House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. Marek.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.16 pm
      Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I think that it is a good new clause, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I also hope that you will allow me to move the new clause formally at this stage, although I may seek to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker.
      Madam Speaker: With this new clause, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 29—Joint industry pension scheme—
      '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions under this Act relating to pensions until he has consulted the trustees of any existing scheme (within the meaning of Schedule 10) and such other persons as may have an interest, or appear to the Secretary of State to represent persons having an interest in any existing scheme, as to the feasibility of establishing a joint industry scheme, the form such a scheme might take, and the implications for participants in existing schemes.
      (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in any case where the trustees of a scheme have received actuarial advice that the fund may not he able to meet any of its actual or projected liabilities at any time from its actual or projected assets.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 106 and 107.
      Amendment No. 190, in clause 25, page 26, line 42, at end insert—
      586
      '(6) The Franchising Director shall not enter into a franchise agreement unless he is satisfied that the franchise operator will offer pension rights to future employees no less favourable than those provided by the Board pension scheme.'.
      No. 253, in clause 116, page 112, line 22, after '(1)', insert
      'Subject to section (Joint industry pension scheme)'.
      Mr. John Prescott: Recently, Madam Speaker, you informed the House of the tragic death of Robert Adley, the former Member of Parliament for Christchurch. On a day featuring both Transport questions and the beginning of a transport debate, it is appropriate for us to place on record our respect for his memory and his contribution to transport debates—and, in particular, his views on the railways. Although those views were controversial, it is to his credit that they were always well informed and added to hon. Members' knowledge of such matters.
      Robert Adley was an independent-minded Member of Parliament and a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport. His judgments were reflected in the recent Select Committee report on rail privatisation. Those views, too, were controversial, and will lie at the heart of our debate over the next two days. Undoubtedly, the controversies will continue; I think that he would want them to, and would listen with a smile—as I did yesterday, when I heard the Secretary of State quote Mr. Adley on the Frost programme yesterday. I am sure that many of us will quote him in future. The Secretary of State said:
      "as far as Robert Adley is concerned, whose loss we all deeply regret, I think it's interesting that the report which he had actually drawn up concluded … 'the government is right to give a high priority to seeking ways of improving the quality of rail services offered to both passengers and freight customers and the government is justified in examining as one possible method the scope for expanding the role of the private sector.'"
      That is right, and it was mentioned in the report of the Select Committee. The late Robert Adley would have asked the Secretary of State to complete the quote, and it is important for me to put it on record for him. It continued:
      "provided that this can be done without jeopardising the cohesiveness of the national network and the benefits it provides."
      That interpretation lies at the heart of today's debate.
      There are differences of opinion on the issue. The House must be grateful for the contributions made by the late Robert Adley.
      The controversy continues with today's debate, particularly in respect of pensions. Recently the newspapers have contained many pieces about how important the Bill is and what it will do for the railway industry. Clear differences of opinion have been expressed, not just between the Opposition and the Government, but between Conservative Members. Much attention has been given to whether concessionary passes should be granted and whether British Rail should have the right to bid for the franchises.
      We should give attention to the question of how to treat the pensioners. It is a controversial issue, which is why we have chosen to start the debate with it. It is particularly important to do so as the Secretary of State formally moved the money resolution which will affect the Transport Act 1980 as it relates to pensions. Therefore, it seemed logical to begin the debate with a discussion on pensions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for

      587
      Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for moving new clause 3. The resolution that affects the 1980 Act will implement one of the Government's changes of heart on pensions that occurred during their discussions.
      I am prepared to concede that the Government have made considerable changes after listening to representations, but I do not think that they have made the fundamental change that the new clause is designed to achieve. Some of the changes relating to pensions that have been made have been welcomed by Members—both Opposition and Government—who pressed for them in Committee. Today we can judge whether the promises given by the Minister of State in Committee will be realised, particularly those relating to pensioners who belong to the closed fund—200,000 British Rail pensioners currently receive pensions from the British Rail pension fund. They are worried that the changes will make them worse off. We must make a judgment on that issue in today's debate.
      Pensioners have been worried by what happened in the Maxwell and other cases. Companies have begun to realise that surpluses have accrued and have, apparently, claimed the right to use them as they think fit. Sometimes, they have done so with the agreement of the trustees. That has often meant that the chairman—whether an independent chairman or someone appointed by the company management—has used the surplus funds for other reasons. Sometimes they have used them to fund redundancies in the industry or to relieve the financial difficulties of a company during a recession. Such cases have caused a climate of fear about what is happening to pension funds. The Goode committee has been established, and the Select Committee on Social Security is considering pensions. Our present debates are made difficult because we do not yet have the conclusions of those committees. Therefore, we must press ahead with debating the Government's proposals.
      The British Rail pension fund is massive, being worth about £8 billion. The Post Office and Coal Board funds are also of the same magnitude. Large amounts of assets have been deposited in the funds which are available to pensioners or to contributors. The Government have contributed to British Rail, a publicly owned industry. The resolution means that the Government will continue to contribute to the fund, which is important.
      I remember when British Rail was largely funded under an unfunded system, which was common to the public sector and applied under Labour and Tory Governments. The police forces and hospitals still operate under the same system as, I think, do firemen. The Treasury has an obligation to make payments to the pension schemes, but they are not funded schemes. In 1980 it was agreed to apply the funded scheme system to British Rail. The then Minister, who is now Home Secretary, believed that the fund should no longer be the responsibility of the Government. The Government will make their contributions to the funded schemes—a yearly payment which was agreed at that time and which we now agree should continue. The schemes are of considerable size and are of interest to the Treasury.
      When the Government privatised the gas, electricity and telecommunications industries, they were faced with the question of what they should do with the pension
      588
      funds. There has not been a consistent approach to that. In the main, those industries did not involve multi-operators —they have usually had only one or two operators so the pension liabilities have been split between them. In the announcement today, we are presented with the possibility that the rail industry will have multi-operators who will have obligations under the Government's reorganisation scheme for apportioning the fund's assets.
      Much of our complaint about the difficulty of meeting the assurance for pensioners comes from the Government's chosen way of reorganising the industry. The tax authorities have decided that the assets must be apportioned to each of the operators. Because of that difficulty and decisions that have been made, I do not think that we will be able to meet the Government's essential commitment—that pensioners in the present British Rail pension scheme will be no worse off than they are at present. It is not possible to meet that promise and that is why we have tabled this amendment.
      Mr. William O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept the representations that I have received from many pensioners in my constituency who belong to the railway pension fund expressing the same concern as that of my colleagues about the future security of pensions and the bonuses that the pensioners used to receive? Does he accept that that is the real concern? I hope that he will press that on the Government.
      Mr. Prescott: That is the heart of the argument and I shall come to it in a moment. We must bear in mind that public pension schemes were good and, as the Secretary of State said, well managed. Because of the scale of the fund, the management of the assets—an important point is the distribution between equity and gilts—was able to put more faith in equities than gilts because gilts were not paying a great deal under this Government. Certainly, management was able to get a better rate of return under the equity arrangements. That has meant that they have had a better pay-out system.
      It has been argued by employees in the privatised industries that they accepted a lower rate of pay in return for better pension provisions. They made a decision in the long term to accept a better pension provision, yet live with a lower rate of pay compared to what they may have received in the private sector. We must bear that judgment in mind when we ask whether the Government's proposals, which were announced as late as Thursday, meet the requirement that the present pensioners will be as well off in the future as they were in the past.
      The concerns and failures in the past have caught up, as we have seen in the transport industry. If we look at British Rail or deregulation of the buses, evidence abounds that the break-up of the pension funds—the redistribution of the surpluses often to the management of the companies and not the employees—left the remaining employees in that industry with much inferior pension schemes. The whole purpose appears to be not to treat such schemes as a level playing field for the payment of pensions but to encourage competition for the provision of pensions, which inevitably drives down the benefits and they take the cheapest option available.
      There is much evidence of that in the parts of British Rail that were privatized—catering, Travelfare, hotels and engineering. Originally, employees were told that they would be no worse off with regard to their pensions. I will

      589
      not weary the House with quotes from the industry—I did that in Committee—but the evidence is absolutely clear. That evidence persuaded the Government to keep at least some semblance of an industry-wide scheme, instead of breaking it into bits and parts. The retention of an industry-wide scheme is generally agreed and accepted, although it does not provide all the assurances that we want. I shall come to that in a moment.
      Many charges have been made that the scale of the resources available is such that it will make it an attractive proposition to the Treasury. The Government have responded and said that that is not true. Their original proposition, which rapidly changed in Committee, was to have a pension fund for the existing pensioners. There are about 200,000 pensioners, and 130,000 people are still in active employment. If those assets were sequestrated and payment made by the Government instead of under a funded scheme, assets of about £4 billion would be eyed by the Treasury. It could take the money to ease its £50 billion debt on the public sector borrowing requirement and simply meet the pensioners' requirements year by year. It would not be cheap for the Treasury to do that but it would certainly ease the PSBR difficulties which will continue to increase. The money in the British Rail pension fund must look attractive, as do the billions in the pension funds of British Coal and the Post Office.
      4.30 pm
      Although it cannot be shown that the Government would make money from selling British Rail, perhaps they have their eye on the gold pots in the pension funds. But those funds do not belong to the Government, and that was the Government view in 1980. To take that money from pensioners and contributors, even by changing the law to do so, amounts to robbery. The proposed legislation appears to make it easy to take that money. It is an Italian solution and that is not acceptable. The funds have been built up by the enforced savings of workers and they belong to them and to no one else. That is a straightforward proposition and it is our approach to the matter.
      The resources of £8·5 billion have been used to pay inflation-proof pensions and have provided real value. The Minister and the Secretary of State have agreed that the pension funds have other attractive features. The Bill has seen many changes. In Committee, we tabled many amendments to clause 116, which deals with pensions, and on the morning that the Committee met the clause was removed. It was agreed to wait for a new schedule but, during debate on the Bill, three different schedules, reflecting Government thinking on the hoof, were introduced. They wanted to pinch back their contributions under the 1980 Act, which amounted to about £70 million a year.
      The money resolution shows that the Government have changed their mind about ratting on their £70 million a year contribution to the pension fund. Under the 1980 Act, the Government were obliged to pay that amount each year. The Secretary of State looks surprised. I shall give way to him if he wishes to intervene. He does not. Perhaps the little look of surprise was just for the telly.
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): There has been no change at all as I shall explain later. We clearly set out a variety of options in a
      590
      consultation document in January, and said that we would recognise our commitment in the money resolution. We have recognised that commitment from the beginning.
      Mr. Prescott: The Government had intended that there would be no future commitment under the 1980 Act. The money resolution must be to change something and, if it does anything, it must restore the position that we thought existed under the 1980 Act—an obligation to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) debated the money resolution on Second Reading, and presumably it suggested that the obligation under the 1980 Act would end. That is the only reason for a money resolution at this stage. I am thinking on my feet, but what else would it he for?
      In Committee we discussed the Government's obligation to pay and, for whatever reason, the Government have decided to continue to pay the £70 million a year. The only reason for the debate is that the Government were thinking of discontinuing their payments, otherwise what the hell are we talking about?
      Under the 1980 Act, the Government offered the pensioners two options. They said, "If you take option 2, we shall consider that we have an obligation to pay your pension." The fund could then be closed and, presumably, the assets could go to the Government. The Government have now announced that they will not continue with option 2 because they believe that the pensioners have decided, after consultation, that that is not the option that they wish to pursue.
      Option 1 would allow the fund to remain in the scheme and take its chance on future payments. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) tabled an amendment to option 1 because he wanted a guarantee that the pensioners would not be any worse off and that whatever assets were apportioned would be sufficient at least to guarantee the same payments and benefits as those given under the British Rail scheme in its new form. The hon. Member for Eastleigh has been fighting on a fair point, but I do not believe that he has secured that guarantee. He has to buy a pig in a poke and believe a Government promise —a tricky thing to do in this day and age. I do not think that that promise offers sufficient protection for his constituents, who made it clear that that is the guarantee they want from the Government.
      Last week, the Government said in a parliamentary reply that they wished to honour that agreement. They have not gone out of their way to do that. Whether it will be honoured, I do not know—perhaps the Secretary of State could give an assurance about that. The difficulties that we are having over the pension fund have come about solely because the tax authorities have decided that, if one wishes to keep the railways and Railtrack as independent bodies and set up private companies, they believe that there is nothing in common between those companies and that, therefore, there cannot be an industry-wide scheme unless the assets of the pension fund are apportioned. The difficulties and uncertainties are arising out of that decision. That is what we must address.
      The Minister has said that option 2 is not acceptable. Last Thursday we received a parliamentary reply in which he made it clear that option 2 was not acceptable and that he would concentrate his mind on option 1. This would mean that, instead of allowing pensioners' money to be kept in a separate fund, and protected from any other influence, that money could now remain in the British Rail

      591
      industry scheme. Because of that promise, option 1 now turns out to be worse than option 2 because at least under that option the Government guaranteed that the pension would be inflation free. The Government said that, whatever the inflation rate, they would see that the pension was paid. Now, there is no such continuing obligation.
      What pension fund can guarantee that it will be able to pay out pensions inflation free? It has to look at the circumstances of and the return on its investments and the balance between equities and gilts. It cannot know for sure what will happen. For example, consider the actuaries' assessment of the British Telecom fund. Everyone thought that it had a massive surplus. Now we are told that, for a number of reasons, it is not judged to be in surplus by the actuaries. The judgment of the last assessment in 1990 showed earnings of between 1·5 and 2 per cent. less on equities than they received. So, to that extent, the fund is in real difficulties in maintaining a surplus. The growth in the economy has not been as great as predicted. The actuaries made a judgment—based on what the Government had told them—believing that the recession was over and the green shoots were coming up. Well, they got it wrong, and clearly many others have as well.
      The number of redundancies that have occurred in the country mean that liabilities have increased considerably, especially where pension funds are being used to fund redundancies. British Coal has made a controversial application to use the pension fund to fund redundancies. Consideration is also being given to using the British Rail pension fund to fund redundancies or to finance management buy-outs. That is unacceptable and I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that the fund will not be used to fund management buy-outs or to fund any redundancies that might be associated with the reorganisation. If that were to happen, funds would be taken away from pensions and used for industrial reorganisation. I think that the House would find that totally unacceptable. The Goode committee is addressing that issue and I hope that the Select Committee on Social Security will also want to make it clear that that is not a realistic proposition.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am having a little difficulty following the hon. Gentleman's argument. A moment ago he said that option 2 amounted to robbery by the Government. Now he is saying that it is a rather more attractive option than the Government's option. Will he explain that? Is he aware that the trustees have said that they are extremely pleased with the announcement that the Government made on Thursday?
      Mr. Prescott: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am talking to the trustees, just as he is. What I am saying is quite consistent with what the trustees have said to me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to progress with the argument about the difference between option 1 and option 2. That argument is important for the pensioners and for those who wish to vote tonight.
      We all thought that the guarantee on inflation sounded attractive, but the pensioners rejected that for a number of reasons. They have always received benefits which are greater than inflation, so they do not want anything less. Now, there is no guarantee on inflation and the scheme will pay only on a promise of what is given in the total
      592
      fund. That will be possible only if the assets in the fund can meet the commitment. If the industrial fund cannot pay, I am sure that the Government will not step in and meet the difference between what the closed fund's obligations are and what it has to meet those obligations. There are real difficulties.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh is right to point out the dilemma, but the problem is that we shall not know whether the Government are pinching the assets until we see the regulations that will arise from the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the industry-wide single fund will not remain. People will stay in that for a while, but the Government have argued that, because the number of pensioners is greater than the number of full-time employees, instability may occur in the fund. One may wish to separate it completely from the fund—its management, its liabilities or its commitment. That is a fair point, but we shall not know for sure until the order comes before the House.
      We have to buy a pig in a poke. In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastleigh voted against the opportunity to put into statutory form the promise that he has made to his constituents. We were told to wait until Report. We are here, and now we are told—as I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee that we would be told—that we should wait until some other time. We cannot judge the Government's intention until we see the order, but the House will not be able to amend that order. All that we can do is vote for or against it after a one and a half hour debate. We had to fight to get that.
      Originally, the Government intended that the regulations should be set out in orders that would be drawn up in what we call the negative form, which meant no guarantee of a vote. We has to get the Government to change that. I have no doubt that the Treasury, whose hand is behind all this—it has little to do with the Department of Transport—does not want a debate that will allow justice and fairness to come into our judgment about the distribution of money.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh has to decide whether he will rely on the promise from the Secretary of State and accept the regulations or whether he will vote tonight to ensure that the rights for which his pensioners are asking are to be guaranteed and controlled by the trustees. At the moment, the only obligation on the Secretary of State is to discuss those matters with the trustees.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham tabled a new clause to deal with that matter. All the signs are that the Government may wish to accept it. I hope that they do, because it will ensure that the trustees are consulted. I want to go much further than that. I want to give the trustees who are appointed by the contributors the right to make decisions themselves and to be able to say that if they believe there are sufficient funds to meet the obligations to pensioners, they will continue to meet those obligations. They should not have to accept an order from the Government telling them to separate, and should do that only if there is an instability in the fund and the actuarial authorities say that a position cannot be maintained. That is fair enough. If the actuarial authorities have come to that judgment—we cannot know what will happen in the next 10 years—we shall have given them that authority in pension legislation. However, if they do not do that, what right have the Government to make a judgment about defaulting on those agreements?

      593
      The Minister said in Committee that people could pay into the pension fund in the same way as firemen, nurses and the police pay into theirs. In the language of pensions, that means an unfunded scheme. That means that the assets that will be transferred with the pensioners will be available to somebody. They may stay in the pension book as part of the public sector financing and, even if the money is not directly transferred to the Treasury, it will become part of the assets against the public sector borowing requirement liabilities. Even if it is kept in a separate fund, the liability over the long term for pensioners will be a yearly payment.
      The £4 billion worth of assets will be discounted in public funancing under assets and liabilities. It would achieve for the Treasury what it wants. I think that that is the whole purpose of the exercise. The Government did not do that when they sold off the electricity, gas and water industries because they were making quite a lot of money selling those industries. The Treasury was the main beneficiary of that. In this sell-off, they will get no money for the industry. We know from the consultants' report and what the Minister has admitted that it will cost the country more to run a railway industry under privatisation, for many reasons, including bureaucracy, profits, and paying people. Where will the money come from? It will come from the pensioners, from the pots of gold that do not belong to the Government. We disagree with that.
      4.45 pm
      The Minister told us in Committee that the Bill will ensure no less favourable future pensions benefits. If he looks at how the pension fund is managed and at what he promised in his reply, he will find that the very nature of the funds is such that, under the options, he will have to agree that they will not be in a position to meet some of their obligations. For example, there may be instability in the fund. We have made it clear that if there is instability, the actuarial authorities and the trustees should tell us.
      Our difficulty is that we do not trust the Government. We believe that, by breaking up the pension fund industrial scheme, they will weaken its ability to earn the right kind of income with the right kind of balance between equity and gilts—more loaded towards the former than the latter. The breaking up of assets, proposed solely to meet the privatisation of rail, will weaken the structure of the pension fund. The nature of gilts is that one gets less of a return, although it is more certain. The problem with equity is that, while one may get a bigger return, one will take a bigger gamble. If the fund is large enough to take the risk, as has been the case with the pension fund, it can get a greater benefit with that balance than from buying only gilts, on which many pension funds rely. If that is the case, the fund will not be able to meet the extra values that are over the rate of inflation. That is the nature of the fund.
      Another important factor about the fund is that its contributions meet its commitments. Therefore, it has never had to sell off assets. It has been able to live from its returns. It one changes the balance—it is about 80 per cent. equity and 20 per cent. Gilts—and splits the assets in the way suggested, the balance will be switched to 80 per cent. gilts and 20 per cent. equity. The consequences for the pension fund and its" earnings will be considerable.
      The fund will not be able to meet the extra benefits that people have got used to. Therefore, the promise that they will be no worse off will not be met and those in the closed
      594
      pension funds—the ones with whom we are more materially concerned—will suffer most. Unless the Government say that they will apportion the assets to the closed pension funds—that is, to existing pensioners—and that if the existing railway fund pays better benefits, greater than the earnings can justify under the closed pension fund, they will make up the difference and meet that commitment, they will have made a blue chip promise. We would accept that. I do not think that they will say that. They will say that it is nothing to do with them, and the splitting up of the assets and the breaking up of the security of the fund will mean that the commitment cannot be met.
      Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a proper allocation of the pension fund assets is absolutely crucial. However, his argument about the balance between gilts and equities was the same argument that he used in Committee against the previous proposal for a closed fund. The whole point of the Government's new proposal is that combining existing pensioners with those who continue to work for the rump British Rail—and therefore continue to pay contributions—will enable the trustees to continue to invest in a mixture of equities and gilts, as they have done previously.
      Mr. Prescott: An essential point is involved in this argument, which I hope the Secretary of State will clarify. The pension scheme will still be a closed fund; it will simply be managed by the industry fund. Assets will be allocated to existing pensioners, but they will not continue in the broad strength of the industry fund—[Interruption.] I want the Secretary of State to clarify the issue. My understanding is that the assets will be apportioned, probably under an order laid in the House, but eventually it will be a closed fund. In fact, I understand that that will happen before 1 April 1994, when most of the changes will occur. That closed fund, with its own assets, will be managed by the industry fund, so it will have the limitations that I have described. I agree that I have difficulty making my remarks today consistent with what I said in Committee, but that is because the Government have changed their position again. They constantly change position and we have to live with that. The hon. Member for Eastleigh knows that there have been changes virtually from day to day, so we do not have sufficient time properly to consider them.
      Will the Secretary of State confirm that the assets will be broken up and given to the closed fund under an order laid in the House—which we assume he will lay before April 1994—so the possibility of the fund meeting its commitments will be determined by how much money the trustees can earn from the balance of assets and equities in the fund. That is a powerful judgment. Bigger funds have a better chance of achieving that. As a fund becomes smaller, the judgment becomes more difficult.
      We must bear in mind what happens with closed and open funds. With an open fund, contributions come in and contributions go out. With a closed fund, no contributions come in other than the fund's earnings. There is no revenue from employee contributions. If the earnings of the fund are less than the amount paid out in benefits in the industrywide scheme, the fund cannot meet them. Indeed, no actuarial authority would allow it to be so unless the Government guarantee to meet the shortfall. They will not give that guarantee.

      595
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh may be satisfied with the Secretary of State's promise, but the assets may not live up to that promise. We will not know until the order is laid. I ask the hon. Gentleman to join with us tonight and support us in trying to ensure that if there is a difficulty, the judgment will be that of the actuarial authorities, not of the Secretary of State. I would prefer the judgment to be in the hands of those who have to justify their action rather than in the hands of a Secretary of State who will simply bring a one-and-a-half-hour order before the House and bulldoze it through. There would be no justice for the pensioners in that.
      I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, beware of what the Treasury is doing. It is after the assets in the pension fund, but they do not belong to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman has a choice tonight: he can either join us in trying to effect an insurance policy to protect the pensioners or he can accept the rhetoric of his Secretary of State, who gives him promises but nothing to back them up.
      Mr. MacGregor: I join the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in his opening remarks about our late colleague, Robert Adley. As we embark on this Report state, we are all conscious of his very sad death. He took a great interest in all transport matters. I and, I am sure, all hon. Members pay tribute to him for all that he achieved. He had a deep knowledge of and passionate commitment to transport, but his greatest enthusiasm was for railways.
      The hon. Gentleman said that Robert Adley and I had differences of view on some aspects of our proposals for the reform of British Rail. I quoted the key passages on television yesterday—
      Mr. Prescott: Why not all of them?
      Mr. MacGregor: Because it was a short programme. I should have been quite happy to quote all the passages, on many of which Robert Adley and I agreed. Indeed, about four fifths of the Select Committee's recommendations have been accepted either in whole or in part. There is no doubt that Robert Adley made a very constructive contribution and we agreed on many matters. We disagreed about vertical integration and one or two other issues, but it is possible to have two different but genuinely held views about vertical integration.
      The most important point is that Robert Adley brought his great knowledge to the House with great enthusiasm. He was a bubbly character. I had the pleasure of sharing an office with him when I first came to the House. He did not just serve the House well on transport matters; he served the House with distinction in many other ways and he will be greatly missed. I am sure that we all wish to convey our heartfelt sympathies to his widow Jane and his family.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Those of us who served with Robert Adley on the Select Committee learned to appreciate his total commitment to transport and his clear view about privatisation. I want to put on record the fact that we believe that the enormous work that he did on the Select Committee report and the pressures that were brought to bear on him unfortunately and undoubtedly had some effect.
      Mr. MacGregor: I certainly hope that that was not the case, but that underlines the detailed work that he put into the Select Committee—and, indeed, into every other cause in which he believed.
      The Government are prepared to accept, in principle, the intentions behind new clause 3 and amendment No. 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). They require a report to be published and laid before the House before an order can be made to amend the trust deed for the rules of any existing board pension scheme, contrary to the advice of the trustees.
      It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot recommend acceptance of new clause 3 as drafted, for three technical reasons. First, it would sit better as a paragraph in schedule 10 rather than as a complete new clause. Secondly, the phrase "existing board pension scheme" is not defined in the Bill, whereas "existing scheme" is defined in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 10. Thirdly, I am advised that it would be unwise to use the word "precisely" in primary legislation. Who can judge what "precisely" means? In any case, it would be better to publish the trustees' advice, whether or not it is accepted.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my intention to accept the clear spirit of the new clause and the amendment. I assure the House that the Government will be in close touch with the trustees on such matters and will wish to bring their views to the attention of the House when laying any relevant draft statutory instruments. We would also wish to explain the reasons for not wholly accepting their advice. Of course, that position may never arise; it is hypothetical.
      I want to give further thought to the best method of achieving the intentions of the new clause, both in publication and announcement, and to bring forward a suitably drafted amendment at a later stage in the other place. I give a firm undertaking to do so. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not wish to press his new clause.
      I cannot be quite so charitable to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I welcomed his opening remarks, which acknowledged the Government's position on so many of the issues in our final pension proposal, agreed and announced last week. However, that greatly contrasted with his quite outrageous remarks on "Newsnight" on Friday night and on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday. He repeated some of those comments in his later remarks today. He said on "Newsnight"—I shall leave out a tiny bit of the quote—[Interruption.] All right, I shall read the whole quote. He said:
      "So the only money that's available—and there is money available in the railways, Post Office and the Coal Board—is in the pension funds, something like £4 billion in each one of them, and what the Government is about to do is to raid the pension funds of £4 billion each."
      The hon. Gentleman said on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday:
      "Something like £8 billion belongs to British Rail pensioners and they are carving up the pension funds to get £4 billion off the pensions and into the Treasury."
      Those remarks were outrageous on two counts. First, his remarks were not true; it was scaremongering of the sort to which we have become accustomed in recent months, especially with pensions. Secondly, he raised quite unnecessary fears and concern among vulnerable sections of the community—British Rail pensioners who are dependent on their British Rail and state pensions.

      597
      From the beginning, I have gone out of my way to make it quite clear that the Government have no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, yet even after he saw the published proposals on Thursday he continued to repeat his allegations. I can only assume that he had not read our conclusions on Thursday. I should like to take him through the facts because they are terribly important.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: If the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Friday was so important and comprehensive and would have stilled pensioners' fears, why did he not come to the House to make it? Why did we have to discover it in a written answer at the back of Hansard?
      5 pm
      Mr. MacGregor: We were informing the House of our conclusions so that we could hold this debate today. I want to make the position absolutely clear. I gave a pledge at the outset, and I have repeated it in the House more than once, that British Rail's pension funds would not be used for any purpose besides paying pensions. In January, we produced our pensions document. It was clearly a consultation document in which we raised a number of issues and outlined two main options. It cannot be argued that we have done a U-turn or effected any changes since then. What is the point of offering options and going out to consultation unless, ultimately, we make a decision on one or other of those options?
      The two main options were the closed fund in due course and a Government offer of a guarantee of index-linked pensions to all British Rail pensioners. We offered pensioners a fair and open choice. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put his finger today on the difference between British Rail's privatisation in respect of pension funds and the privatisation of electricity. As he rightly said, the area board structure of electricity meant that the employees involved in that industry were not to be split up into all sorts of different organisations, so there was no need for a variety of pension funds. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified the fact that the Inland Revenue would not allow employers to cross-subsidise or deploy cross-arrangements as between one pension fund and another. That Inland Revenue rule is designed to avoid the risk of unfair treatment in the use of taxation.
      Clearly, then, with British Rail we were faced with a situation that was not paralleled by electricity. We therefore had to find another solution. That is why, genuinely, fairly and openly, we offered these two alternatives to existing pensioners. It was not possible to say that they could for all time participate in open funds in which employees also participate because, with a large number of pension funds, and the large number of British Rail pensioners whom the hon. Gentleman correctly identified, that could overwhelm some of the new pension fund arrangements for employees. That is why, under the first option, in due course the fund has to become a closed fund.
      In order to assure pensioners that there was an alternative of a guaranteed index-linked pension—all this is spelt out in the document—we offered the same sort of arrangements to British Rail's existing pensioners as obtain for the civil service. Clearly, the Government cannot undertake the liabilities that would arise in this
      598
      respect without the transfer of the assets that were available in the pension fund to meet the pensions in the first place. I have had discussions with the pension trustees and with a great many others since the document was produced in January. They have recognised straight away that assets have to flow if liabilities are being incurred. If the Government, therefore, were to offer guaranteed index-linked pensions, they clearly had to have the right assets to pay for them. The process would be carried out independently, based on actuarial advice on all sides. That is why it was outrageous to say that the Government were going to purloin pension funds and use them for other purposes.
      But the issue went further than that. Having consulted widely, I came to the conclusion that, as the second option, which had been fairly offered, was not favoured by most of those who responded to the document—a few did favour it—and as most preferred the first option, it was right to accept the option that most people wanted. That is what we announced on Thursday and it meant that there was no possibility, on Friday, Sunday or today, of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East correctly arguing that the Government were taking over pension fund money to use it for other purposes.
      Even so, the hon. Gentleman went on putting out his scare story, and at one point this afternoon he did it again. I want to ask him an important question—important from the point of view of pensioners. Given the background that I have outlined and the fact that the first option is the one that we have chosen, there can be no case for saying that the Government are taking 4 billion away from the pensions and putting it into the Treasury. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation because it is not in the interests of pensioners or of anyone else to believe it. I invite him to withdraw it, now or at the end of the debate—
      Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with it at the end of the debate.
      Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to reach agreement with me on various other aspects of pensions, too.
      I want to talk about our conclusions based on the consultations that we held with trustees, the British Railways Board, large numbers of pension organisations and the rail unions. The Minister of State and I met the unions at least twice, and we have certainly consulted widely. That those consultations were genuine is shown by the fact that our conclusions met at least 90 per cent.—probably more—of the requests put to us. We could not accede to one or two of them, but the reasons for that were understood. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) for what he said about the pension trustees' approach to what we have done. They understand how far we have gone to meet all their concerns.
      It would never be—it never was—any part of my purpose to take away from pensioners any of their pension funds. I understand only too well how important pensions are to them and to existing employees. That is why I was anxious to reach the best possible arrangements within the terms of the new reforms.
      Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman has said that people who are existing employees of British Rail and who go to another employer in the reorganisation will still

      599
      belong, if they want to, to the British Rail fund—that is described as an indefeasible right. The industry welcomes that. Can the right hon. Gentleman, however, assure us that that right is not time limited? A document sent to his Department suggests that it might be.
      Mr. MacGregor: If people choose to stay in the joint industry scheme, they can do so—that is the indefeasible right. I am happy to make that clear.
      As requested by almost all the interested parties, we will set up a joint industry scheme for the railways to succeed the British Rail scheme. I know that that has been widely welcomed. We have made it clear that staff serving when the Bill gains Royal Assent will have a right to remain in the scheme while they are still in the railway industry. That is what is meant by an indefeasible right—the right of existing employees to remain in the joint industry scheme. Both it and any scheme subsequently set up by employers must offer benefits no less favourable than those in the existing scheme to people who are members of the scheme when the Bill gains Royal Assent. There will be no penalties for involuntary breaks in employment. The matching of additional voluntary contributions—known as the British Rail additional superannuation scheme—will continue, and there will be safeguards for pension funds when franchises change hands. That is a clear set of commitments to employees.
      As for new employees entering the railway industry, it will be for employers to negotiate their own arrangements with them. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has tabled an amendment on that aspect, but as he did not refer to it, I shall not do so either now—but I make that point clear.
      On pensioners, I have already said that we are going for option 1, so there is no question of any funds being transferred to the Government in return for a Government commitment on a guaranteed, inflation-proof pension. It is correct to say that pensioners will eventually enter the closed scheme—I will explain why later—but they will remain with British Rail employees in the short term and the closed scheme will be managed as part of the joint industry scheme.
      The funds will continue to be managed by representative trustees, as now. The division of the funds to reflect the trustees' liabilities and decisions will occur in due course, after a new revaluation. A revaluation is currently under way, and clearly we must wait for it to be completed. I make it absolutely clear that the fund splits will he based on independent actuarial advice, as one would expect. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, Government contributions under the Transport Act 1980 will continue. I shall explain shortly the purpose of the Ways and Means resolution and the new clause that has been tabled.
      We have met fairly well, with one exception, the main requests made of us. The orders for putting those schemes into effect will be subject to statutory consultation with the trustees—I will refer again to that point in relation to the hon. Gentleman's amendment—and to affirmative resolution of both Houses.
      I cannot accept new clause 29 and the consequential amendment No. 253, because there is no need for them —the purpose has been covered already. The concept of the joint industry scheme is wanted by everyone whom we
      600
      consulted. In particular, the British Railways Board and the railway trade unions were keen for such a joint scheme, which they felt could best continue to provide the benefits that staff already enjoy. I made clear in my written answer last week, as earlier, that the scheme will be established.
      Consultation with the board and with the trustees has already begun and will continue until the joint industry scheme is formally established. We make it clear in the Bill that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the statutory order establishing the scheme, because all such orders will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If the trustees disagree with any part, then, in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we will report to Parliament and that will be reflected in an amendment in another place.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the aftermath of the Maxwell affair and to the Goode committee. He made a fair point, and I understand the concern among pensioners as a result of that affair. My constituents have been affected and I have had many surgery and other discussions with them. That is why I was particularly cross that Opposition Members tried to stir up unnecessary fears among pensioners.
      When the Goode committee reports, the timing will be such that we should be able to take into account those recommendations that are accepted in any of the arrangements when we come to deal with the orders. In other words, I hope that we will be able to reflect that committee's recommendations.
      New clause 29 is therefore redundant. We have already given our commitment to consult and that consultation has already begun. This afternoon, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made different points—and they are not relevant to the new clause. I do not see how it would achieve the objective that he set himself this afternoon. It is therefore redundant in more than one way.
      Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State will know the difficulty of devising acceptable new clauses. If he will take that new clause together with many amendments, he will see that we chose to make one principal point—that nothing can move on the right hon. Gentleman's order unless the actuarial authorities say that there is instability. All the other points are embodied in later amendments. Given the limited time available for debate, we cannot discuss them all because there is much to cover in two days —as the Secretary of State knows from our negotiations.
      Mr. MacGregor: I know also that pensions are very complicated. As to actuarial instability, the actuaries must address that key issue when they come to the eventual split of the funds. They would not want to establish a closed fund that was inherently unstable. Clearly, the trustees will be watchful on that issue.
      As to the "no less favourable" question, I will be completely fair with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Prescott: This will be the first time.
      Mr. MacGregor: I am always fair with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will be fair and withdraw his accusations later.
      Mr. Prescott: There would be no reason.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that his accusations were wrong—but I suppose that it would be a precedent for him to withdraw them, knowing that he is wrong.
      I want to be fair about the hon. Gentleman's specific point. He rightly explained why we could not distribute the pension liabilities of existing pensioners around a whole series of funds. We had to find another solution, and we offered two options. The solution adopted is to move eventually to a closed fund.
      The hon. Gentleman tried to argue that that would not give pensioners a "no less favourable" commitment—but by that, we mean retail prices indexed. Also, if there is a surplus in the fund at any time, the trustees can decide what can be distributed from that surplus. There is never any guarantee about a pension fund's future performance, but there are 60 closed funds in British Rail at present. Their history is good and they have been able to find surpluses, despite the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised as to the balance between equities and gilts—I well understand that point, which is why we are allowing time for moving to a closed fund.
      We have found the right solution and the one that pensioners, pension fund trustees and others want. We have gone for the closed fund because that is the only way under the new arrangements. The hon. Gentleman's new clauses would not make any difference.
      As the hon. Gentleman did not raise amendment No. 190, I will not refer to it, but I revealed that we could not accept it.
      As to Government amendments Nos. 106 and 107, we have already said that we intend to continue payments in support of the historic underfunding of British Rail pension schemes. The purpose of the amendments—this touches on the hon. Gentleman's point about the Ways and Means resolution—is to take account of changes in future pension arrangements that will occur on privatisation.
      It is a matter not of changing our mind and deciding to continue the Government's commitment to payments to support that historic underfunding but of recognising that we had to make changes to the Bill to enable that commitment to continue under the new arrangements. Having realised that, we needed a Ways and Means resolution to put the amendments forward. That is the reason and no other. It is actually quite technical.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, those support payments date back to the 1974 capital reconstruction of British Rail, when the Government decided that British Rail would be unable to meet all the pension liabilities inherited under the Transport Act 1962 and therefore assumed responsibility for funding the unfunded portion of the pre-1975 pension obligations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is with me so far; this can get a little complicated.
      Those obligations included pensions, the cost of some early retirement schemes and the provision of cost-of-living increases for pensioners from some early BR schemes that had no provision for index linking. The method of payment of Government support was changed by the Transport Act 1980 because the Public Accounts Committee criticised the previous system, particularly on the ground that it involved payments being made in advance of need.
      602
      Payments are therefore currently made on an emerging cost basis—[Interruption] I am talking about the PAC, not the public sector borrowing requirement, and about the propriety of Government funding. Payments were made on that emerging cost basis so that the Government's contribution is made only as and when payments are made to pensioners. Those arrangements can be changed again only by further primary legislation. Payments made since 1981 total £1·3 billion at present-day prices. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East acknowledges that that is a substantial contribution.
      Mr. Prescott: But it is an obligation.
      Mr. MacGregor: I grant that, but it is a very large contribution.
      Under the 1980 Act, a determination was made of the unfunded proportion of pre-1975 liabilities of each of the funds. The determinations were on a once-and-for-all basis. There is no provision for further determinations under the 1980 Act, regardless of whether the state of the funds' assets has changed. That was deliberate, so that British Rail would have an incentive to manage the funds effectively.
      Why do we need to make these changes? As the 1980 Act stands, we have no powers to make periodic payments to other than a British Rail pension scheme, as defined under the Act, nor to make once-and-for-all payments to pay off the remaining liability to any scheme. We might want to do that, for example, where that liability to a scheme with a few and a diminishing number of members is very small. It makes sense to do that.
      Another problem is that at present when a transfer value is paid to another scheme on an employee leaving British Rail, any unfunded proportion of the transfer payment is reimbursed immediately to the transferral scheme. I have a detailed brief, which I could read out, but it may be simpler if I tried to explain it in my own words. This is to meet the Public Accounts Committee's point.
      If the existing scheme changed to the new arrangements under the joint industry scheme, technically speaking that would be a change. Therefore, the overall lump sum payment would have to be made at the moment, although underlying it there would be no change at all in the liabilities. That would certainly be criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. That is why we have made the changes.
      It is to overcome these difficulties in the new arrangements that our proposed amendments will allow for varying the method and timing of payment to individual schemes, or in respect of different classes of member within a scheme. I do not need to weary the House, unless any hon. Member wishes to ask me questions, with precisely how that will be done. However, the fact is that that is all that the amendments seek to do.
      The amendments would reverse the action that was taken by the Government in 1980 to respond to criticisms by the Public Accounts Committee about how the support payments were being made at the time, particularly in relation to the very small payments point. I can, however, reassure the House that the primary reason for amending the 1980 Act is to ensure that the bulk of the payments can continue to be made, whenever practicable, on the present pay-as-you-go basis.

      603
      I hope that the House will accept our amendments. I have already said why I am unable to accept the amendments and the new clause that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants. The most important point about the debate, and why I am glad that it is taking place so early on Report, is that it enables me to give the reassurances that pensioners and employees were seeking about their pensions and to emphasise that in the decisions that we have now announced we have met the vast majority of the representations made to us.
      The pension trustees have acknowledged that we have approached this issue extremely fairly. I fully understand and completely sympathise with the concerns of pensioners about their pensions. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will withdraw and not repeat the shameful allegations that he has made.
      Mr. John Heppell: I have to declare an interest, as I did in Committee. I am an ex-British Rail employee. I am also a deferred member of the British Rail pension scheme. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for telling me that I should now be reassured by what he has told me, but I must say to him early in the debate that he has not reassured me.
      I was told that I could speak on my interest in the pension scheme, because it is not significant enough to prevent me from speaking and voting. However, my pension is significant to me. It will decide what happens to me in the future. It will be my security for the future. It is significant to me and to hundreds of thousands of others like me. It may be the deciding factor in whether I live in relative comfort in my old age or in poverty.
      I do not take kindly to having to discuss my personal finances in front of the House of Commons and the country and I consider it to be in very bad taste that the Secretary of State has made me do so. I disagree even more with the fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport should feel that they can tinker with my pension without my express permission.
      It is important to recognise to whom this pension belongs. It does not belong to the Government; it does not belong to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott); it does not belong to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). It belongs to me and to the other pensioners. If that fact is recognised, all these matters are put into their proper context.
      Over a year ago I thought—naively when I look back on it now—that my pension was safe. We had seen the tragedy of Maxwell and what could happen to pensions, but I knew that the trustees of the British Rail pension scheme had done a good job in the past. I had faith in them and had no worries about the future. I was even more reassured in July last year when the Government said in their White Paper:
      "Privatisation will not affect pensions already being paid from or preserved in British Rail schemes."
      I regard that as a guarantee and as a promise. It proved not to be a guarantee and, if it was a promise, that promise has not been kept.
      I was not reassured for long. Before long I saw that the Government had two options. The Secretary of State still tries to portray those two options as a choice for pensioners and for deferred pensioners, like me. If they provide a choice, it is Hobson's choice. For me the choice
      604
      is between whether I should be burgled or mugged. It means, in effect, that my pension is going to be tampered with and reduced by the Government, without my say-so under either option.
      Under the second option, it is clear that the Government will take my money. However, under the first option
      "an appropriate portion of each fund"
      will
      "be set aside as a closed scheme."
      If an appropriate portion is to be set aside for a closed scheme, what will happen to the other portion? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me what is to happen under the second option.
      The first option means that the funds will be stripped and that there will be a change to a closed scheme. That scheme will die as the pensioners die. The scheme is terminal. It gives the Government the opportunity to evade and escape from the responsibilities that they had in the past. It provides no opportunity for shortfalls to be met by employee contributions.
      The first option is unacceptable. The second option effectively allows the Government to take over all the assets of the pension fund. They promised me that my pension would rise in line with the retail prices index. But I already had that, and something else: I knew what my scheme was all about. I read the annual reports every year. It is no use Conservative Members shaking their heads. I know more about the British Rail pension scheme than any of them. I am a member of it.
      The Government say that they will take all my assets and that in return my pension will rise in line with the RPI, but I already have over and above that in my present scheme. The trustees have looked after that scheme. Neither of the Government's options offers the same security or the same benefits as that scheme does.
      Under the British Rail pension fund, pensions have increased by a third since 1984—not because of RPI increases, but through the use of surpluses. Widows' pensions have increased by even more—they now receive a half-payment rather than a third of a payment because of the surpluses created by good investment. The employer enjoyed a five-year contribution holiday thanks to surpluses in the fund. Other employees, but not me, had been enjoying a thirteen-and-a-half year half-payment contribution holiday which would not have ended until 2004, all because of the fund's surpluses. I was going to lose all those benefits under either of the Government's options.
      5.30 pm
      The fund is a living fund, and I use that word deliberately. It regenerates itself and keeps going because, as people die, new employees join, balance the fund and keep it balanced. For example, as at 31 March 1992, there were 295,478 people in the British Rail pension fund; 131,478 were contributing members; 40,000 were, like me, former members with preserved benefits; and 123,984 were beneficiaries. A balance was achieved between the new employees and people who were receiving benefits. The fund was stable not only in terms of numbers but financially. The accounts showed that the money coming in from employees was similar to that being paid to beneficiaries. The scheme worked and it was going to carry on working.

      605
      The figures for the same year show that 10,346 new members joined the scheme whereas 3,631 left. There were unfortunately 400 deaths in service and 4,022 retirements. The balance was set to continue and could have existed for ever if the Secretary of State had not interfered. He gives the impression that he is trying to be helpful to me and the pensioners, but I can only say, "Thanks but no thanks. I don't need it". I like the scheme as it is. I am happy and satisfied with it and I want to continue with the scheme that has given me such benefits.
      The scheme provided me with as many guarantees as anyone can expect from any pension scheme or from anything else in life. There is no doubt that it worked well. Everyone agreed about that—the trustees, the Government, the unions, the pensioners arid the contributors. If it ain't broke, why has the Secretary of State got to fix it?
      I have heard people say that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport have made changes and granted concessions as they went along. They have, and sometimes very rapidly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has sometimes been as confused as I am by the rapidity with which the Government have changed their mind. They began by saying that the new scheme would he "comparable". I am not sure what tht means, but the phrase was changed and it was said that any new scheme would be "no less favourable". Whether it is comparable or no less favourable will be a decision not for me as a deferred pensioner, for other pensioners or for the trustees, but for the Secretary of State. He is the same Secretary of State who has already told me that options 1 and 2 are comparable with the scheme that I already have. It ain't true. This is the same Secretary of State who offered me options 1 and 2 after telling me initially that privatisation
      "will not affect pensions already being paid from or preserved in British Rail schemes."
      With respect, would I not be a little more naive than the hon. Member for Eastleigh if I were now to accept that my future and that of the other 200,000 people involved was to be left to the Secretary of State's interpretation of the phrases "comparable" and "no less favourable" when, only a few minutes ago, he was telling us that it was very difficult to describe what "precisely" meant? If he cannot tell us what "precisely" means in law, it will be very difficult for him to tell us what "comparable" and "no less favourable" mean in law. People have been caught by such phrases before.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to previous BR privatisations when employees were told that their pensions would be mirror images of British Rail pensions. Were they mirror images? There was not a single scheme in which the contributors or pensioners did not lose out as a result of the change to the "mirror image" pension schemes. If I am wrong—I do not think that I am because it is a matter of record—or if the Secretary of State can tell me of one BR privatisation scheme which worked out better for pensioners and contributors, or one which worked out just as well, I should be very happy to hear about it. However, I have investigated them all and I could not find one.
      I ask the Secretary of State what is wrong with continuing with a truly open scheme, not one that is open only at present? I noted that in Committee the Minister referred to the proposals as an open fund for the present, but the Secretary of State now refers to them as a closed
      606
      fund in due course. It may be a question of semantics, but the delay is leading to a closed fund which, in the end, will be worse for me and for the present pensioners. The closed fund will be introduced not at my request or that of the trustees, but at that of the Secretary of State.
      What is wrong with asking new employees to make a choice? What is wrong with asking them whether they want to contribute to a joint industry fund which is open to all, to take out a private pension or to join the pension scheme offered by the new operators? What is wrong with offering people that choice? Anyone with any sense will want to stay with the joint industry scheme which is open and is—I use the word again—a living scheme that will not disappear.
      If the Secretary of State thinks that the delay is a sop or that it will persuade me that he is doing something for me, he is wrong. Pensions work on a long-term basis. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East because I do not think that the new scheme will be introduced in 1994. I believe that it will be introduced later, but does it matter if it is introduced in one, two or three years? Does it help me if it is introduced in five or 10 years? The answer is no. I shall not be drawing my pension for 20 years, but 20 years matter because by then the Secretary of State will have made his changes and will have made my pension a closed scheme. By virtue of its being a closed scheme, the trustees will not have the leeway to invest wisely to ensure that I receive proper benefits.
      I refuse to be grateful for the Secretary of State's concessions because none of them is a proposal that in any way matches or even comes close to what I have now. At the moment, I have a pension scheme with which I feel safe and secure—a pension scheme which means that I can sleep at night without worrying that it will disappear. The Secretary of State seems to be proposing something that will not allow me to sleep at night and, more importantly, will not allow hundreds of thousands of other people to sleep at night. I have an edge on all those people because I have a House of Commons pension. What an outcry and what a Back-Bench revolt there would be if the proposals for the railway pension scheme applied to the House of Commons pension scheme. How would Conservative Members react then? If they feel passionately—as I hope they do—that people should be protected, they should put themselves in the position of those hundreds of thousands of railway employees.
      Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about what will happen to the surplus in the pension fund? Little has been said about the surplus. As I understand it, in law the surplus in any pension fund is the property of the employer. In this case the surpluses—
      Mr. Bowen Wells indicated dissent.
      Ms Corston: Conservative Members shake their heads. I have had the point clarified in Committee on another matter. The surplus in the railway pension fund is owned by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need assurances from the Secretary of State that the Government do not intend to do anything with the surplus in the fund, other than to disburse it for employees and pensioners?
      Mr. Heppell: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a need for further reassurances. We get reassurances about the present, but not about the future. I do not wish deliberately to draw comparisons between Maxwell and what is happening now. However, although it may be legal for the Government to take my pension, I do not think that it is moral. In the Maxwell case, it was neither legal nor moral.
      The problem is that, although I accept the assurances of the Secretary of State that I should not worry because the Government are not taking my pension now, I still have grave concerns and doubts about whether the Secretary of State plans to take my pension in the future. I am not willing to accept guarantees that are given to me in the form of words such as "comparable" or "no less favourable". I want something written into legislation that protects me now.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was quite right. We were told in Committee not to worry because something would be provided on Report to reassure us. We are now being told that there will be an order in the future to reassure us. It has already been stated that we shall be able to debate the order, but that we shall not be able to amend it. The Whips will be on. When that happens, there will be an hour and a half's debate and, although the hon. Member for Eastleigh may be outraged by the Government's betrayal, the vote will go through. We all know how things work in Parliament. I am not prepared to be grateful for any concession. Why should I be grateful for someone throwing me crumbs when they have stolen my loaf'? Someone is stealing something that belongs to me; it may be legal, but it is not moral.
      How will the two-tier system created by the Secretary of State affect the work force? All new employees will be expected to take a new and, I suspect, substandard, second-rate pension scheme instead of the one currently on offer. In future, people will be worse off and I want to fight that. I want not only to look after myself and the present pensioners, but to ensure that the people who come after us will have a decent pension scheme. People have the right to expect a decent pension scheme. Why should we have legislation that worsens the scheme?
      What about the existing employees? We shall create two types of employees: the employees who have low pension costs and those who have high pension costs. The House should mark my words. It will not be long before the private operators and the unscrupulous realise that it is cheaper to employ people on the new pension schemes. People who presently work for the railways will be shed because they will be more expensive. That will happen, just as full-time jobs are being lost across the country to make way for part-time jobs in which the beneifts are not so good for the employees, but in which the costs to the employers are less. By fair means or foul, new employers will recognise the savings and will make the changes.
      5.45 pm
      We asked for guarantees on a number of issues in Committee. The Minister said many times that he could not give guarantees that would apply for ever and that nothing was certain in life. I accept that on many issues; I accept that there will be change, whether we like it or not. Changes are often for the good, so we should not resist just for the sake of resisting change. However, there is one matter about which people—I am certainly one of them —expect to have some certainty: their pensions. They
      608
      expect to have guarantees about their pensions and they expect to have some guarantees about their future. They are not prepared to leave their pension to chance and they are not prepared to gamble with it. Yet that is what the Secretary of State wants me to do now. He wants me to gamble with my pension, but I am not prepared to see my pension go without protest. I know that there are hundreds of thousands of people who feel the same and they will continue to protest if the Government push the proposal through.
      Mr. Milligan indicated assent.
      Mr. Heppell: The hon. Member for Eastleigh nods; he knows some of the pensioners and he knows how strongly they feel on the issue.
      This debate is not just about my pension, nor is it just about railwaymen's pensions. It is about everyone's pension. It is about miners' pensions, about the Post Office pensions and about all the public sector pensions. It is also about the state pension. Let us not—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The debate cannot be about state pensions. It must be about the new clause.
      Mr. Heppell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that I was straying from the point.
      The new clause makes it clear that there is a need for consultation with the trustees. I wish that the Government would consult people more widely on every issue. The Government are in economic crisis. Part of the reason for the changes in pension plans is that the Government would like to take some money out of the pension fund. Members of the other place have told us that state pensions are under threat. That is not something to be laughed at or scoffed at. As a result of the pressures on the Government, there are all sorts of strange decisions. There is the threat of prescription charges for the old and the young. There is the threat of the closure of post offices and pharmacies.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not true. Post offices are not under threat—not that we are discussing them at the moment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been entirely in order, but he is now straying. Would he please return to the new clause and to the new clauses and amendments associated with it?
      Mr. Heppell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will return to the new clause. I was trying to point out that everything was up for grabs and that people accepted that fact. Pensions are one of the things that are up for grabs. I believe that there is a threat to state pensions as well as to occupational pensions.
      I realise that I am trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I cannot accept the Secretary of State's promises. We have heard those promises before and we have seen them broken. I believe that the promises on pensions in respect of the new clauses will be the new broken promises of this Government. I hope that hon. Members will support new clauses 3 and 29 and I hope that they will do all that they can to ensure that the pensions belong to the pensioners and not to the Government.
      Dr. Marek: I spent no longer than 30 seconds moving new clause 3 and that produced a most surprising result from the Secretary of State. After 10 years in Parliament,

      609
      I did not expect him to say that he accepted the spirit of my new clause and that he would table amendments in another place. I thank the Secretary of State for that. That is a small but welcome step and I believe that it will be appreciated by every railway pensioner.
      I speak as a sponsored member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. However, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), I do not have a railway pension. I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings when he said that he felt happy with his pension at the moment, but he was worried about the future. He is worried about the Government getting their sticky fingers on his pension fund. That is the root of the problem. If the Government are able to get their sticky fingers on the railway industry's pension fund, they may be encouraged by their success and try to get their sticky fingers on pension funds elsewhere.
      Having gained success by being brief earlier, I suppose that I must not be other than brief now. I agree with the Secretary of State that the provisions in new clause 3 would have been better in schedule 10. However, in line with the procedures of this place, I thought that it was right to table the new clause in the first instance.
      I obviously failed in my drafting when I included the words "Board pension scheme." Perhaps I should have spotted that, but all is not lost. I included "precisely" in the new clause intentionally. It is perhaps a comment on our law, and the way in which lawyers earn their money, that we cannot include "precisely." Life being as it is, it is likely that "precisely" will have to be dropped from the eventual wording. However, I hope that the Secretary of State can find a form of words that will be as close to "precisely" without encouraging lawyers to make a lot of extra money by challenging a particular decision in the courts.
      I want to refer to the representations and responses of the British Railways Board. A BRB response to "Railway Pensions After Privatisation," under a paragraph entitled "Safeguards in the Railways Bill," states:
      "The Board considers that, for the further protection of the security of members' interests, the Railways Bill should include the following provisions:
      1. Any regulations under the Act must not enable any decision about the use of funds to be made other than with the agreement of the Trustees."
      Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that I tabled an amendment to that effect which did not find favour with the Committee. However, it is a central issue in this debate. The Secretary of State should be able to make changes with regard to the use of funds only with the consent of the trustees.
      In the response to which I have referred, BRB makes two other points:
      "2. Any Joint Industry scheme should offer benefits no less favourable than the present schemes.
      3. Transfer payments should reflect a fair division, as agreed by independent actuaries, of the existing funds between beneficiaries."
      I recently received a briefing note from British Rail that amplified those points. It stated that BR staff should be able
      "to remain permanently in the proposed joint industry scheme, if they wish".
      It stated that existing BR schemes should
      "remain open for BR staff and pensioners as long as feasible."
      It also stated that
      "the agreement of their trustees"—
      must—
      "be required to changes to those schemes."
      610
      The Government have gone some way down that road in relation to the Secretary of State's written answer which gives commitments. I hope that those commitments are genuine, in the spirit that there should be a guarantee for BR staff to remain permanently in a proposed joint industry scheme and that any future benefits should not be less favourable. If that is the case, we have moved a little. However, it is a great pity that we have not been able to get the Government to accept that no changes should be made without the agreement of the trustees. Unless the Government can accept that, I am extremely worried about what the Government will do.
      The Secretary of State for Transport is being honest and I believe him. However, he is not master in his own house with regard to the sum total of Government finances. The Treasury may well have different priorities and it may wish to change the uses to which some of the money can be put in years to come.
      We have moved some way in that option 2 has been withdrawn and we have moved to option 1, although that is imperfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East put it very well, if it is a good scheme, why change it? There is no obvious reason why we are changing it, save, perhaps, for the position of new entrants.
      I am sure that new entrants will not be able to join such a scheme. They will not be able to benefit from improvements to such a scheme or have the lifestyle that existing pensioners will have as a result of their participation in the present scheme. This debate is about the impoverishment of the people of this country. People will be poorer as a result of the changes that the Government have announced.
      I believe that new clause 3 is valuable because it will clarify what the Government are doing. I hope that the Government will accept my new clause because if Transport Ministers want to do the best for the pensioners, they should be happy to demonstrate publicly and to the House that any changes will not adversely affect pensioners. I doubt whether that will be the case when the Treasury gets going on this matter in years to come. However, I will be charitable to the Secretary of State for Transport and say that I believe that that is what he hopes to do.
      As to new entrants, we need simply consider what happened in earlier privatisations. Without exception, all the pension schemes in the National Freight Corporation. Sealink, British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Travellers Fare Ltd. now offer inferior benefits. Despite reductions in the membership contributing to large scheme surpluses, the National Freight Corporation, Sealink and BREL have all enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, a pensions contribution holiday. Unfortunately, the schemes' members have not been treated as generously. In addition, the National Freight Corporation and Travellers Fare Ltd. have established new schemes offering inferior benefits which, at the same time, provide the companies with greater control of scheme assets than did the initial schemes established on privatisation. We will have to examine the results of the Goode report, but if the history of privatisation is anything to go by, the more security we can establish, and the more we can tie the Government down in the operation of the new scheme in respect of any changes that will be introduced, the better. I am convinced that as a result of the measure that we are debating today, new entrants will be impoverished in their pensionable years.

      611
      I thank the Government for accepting the spirit of new clause 3. I look forward to the amendments being tabled in another place. Every British Rail pensioner will be happy that the Government have accepted the change suggested in new clause 3. They will know what changes will be made. Most important, they will know when the Government propose to do something other than what the trustees would wish. I only wish that the Government were prepared not to make any changes except with the agreement of the trustees. This is the next best thing. In view of what the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier, I certainly shall not press the new clause to a Division.
      6 pm
      Mr. Milligan: I should like to reply to some of the points that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) raised in a passionate, sincere and deeply felt speech which I am sure that the House respected. I hope that I can say a few things that will enable him and 200,000 other pensioners to sleep well at night. Before I do so, I wish to add a few words to the tributes paid by both Front-Bench spokesmen to the late Robert Adley.
      As a new Member, I particularly appreciated Robert Adley's generosity and kindness. He showed it to me in a particular way when I had an Adjournment debate on the future of the rail maintenance works in my constituency in which he had hoped to speak. Shortly before the debate, he came to me and said that he would withdraw his name because he realised that as a critic of the Government his support might be counterproductive.
      It was typical of Robert Adley's generosity that he put other people and, indeed, the railways before his self-interest. I remember him as not only a critic of the Government on rail privatisation but a strong supporter of the Government on the Maastricht treaty. He was a positive European and a strong European. He argued convincingly in the House for the European cause. We shall miss him greatly.
      As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, the pensions issue is of great concern in my constituency, where there are almost 2,000 railway pensioners. As other hon. Members have said, the issues give rise to wider concern. People on railway pensions receive a modest pension—typically, £40 a week. That is not a large sum. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, East made clear, such people usually have not earned a great deal of money in their lifetime, but they have done extremely well out of a pension scheme which has been well run and well managed. In the past six or seven years, for a typical person, the amount has risen by a third above inflation.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, East asked how Members of Parliament would feel if we were discussing changes to the House of Commons pension scheme. The British Rail pension scheme has probably done rather better than the House of Commons pension scheme. We would all be rather well off if our pensions were run by the British Rail pension board.
      Mr. Heppell: The average pension of a pensioner in the British Rail pension scheme is about £30, so there is a difference between the schemes in the amounts that individuals receive.
      Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. But he will agree that the percentage increase has been impressive.
      The issue that we are discussing this afternoon is not whether but how pensioners should be protected from any adverse effects of privatisation. From the outset, the Government have made it clear that railway pensioners will receive no less favourable treatment than they would have done if the scheme had continued in the same way.
      Opposition Members have asked why the existing scheme cannot continue. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport explained at great length why, for tax reasons and because of Inland Revenue rules, that was not possible. He also made it clear that he was determined to ensure that pensioners were protected. The Government have been criticised for changing their policy. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has made some capital out of such criticism. It is characteristic of the discussions on the Bill that the Government have listened. They have consulted. They listened to the trade unions and accepted the unions' view that a joint industry scheme would be good.
      The Government listened to the trustees. They listened to British Rail. Only today they listened to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. Even more remarkably, the Government have listened to Conservative Back Benchers. The Government should not be criticised for taking account of the objections that have been made. They should be congratulated on having widely consulted, listened and taken account of what people have said.
      The Government have taken account in particular of what the pensioners have said. As the House knows, the Government originally provided two options. Under one option, which was much criticised, the money would have been transferred to the Treasury. Pensioners would have had an inflation guarantee. There were some attractions to that option because, contrary to what is widely said, the present scheme is not index linked.
      However, the pensioners, certainly in my constituency, made it clear that they did not want that option. They preferred to have a scheme as close as possible to the existing scheme. That is why I suggested in Committee what I knew was the view of the trustees. I asked whether it would not be better to put pensioners, existing employees and those who remain with British Rail in the same scheme. That would get around one of the problems of the Government's original plan.
      As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made clear, a closed scheme including pensioners only would have to invest more in gilt-edged stock because the scheme would not have a continuing flow of contributions from people who were still working in the industry. The suggestion was that the two should be combined in a transitional scheme. That is exactly what the Government have announced. Having talked to pension trustees last week and this week, I know that they are delighted with that announcement. It goes a long way towards meeting the concerns that have been expressed.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, East asked how "no less favourable treatment" could be defined precisely. That is difficult to do. We are not asking for a guarantee that railway pensioners will receive the same increases that they have received in the past seven or eight years. That is not possible. We do not know what the performance of the

      613
      underlying investments will be. However, we want a guarantee that they will have the same prospects and opportunity of benefiting from efficient management of the pension fund. The scheme that has been announced today gives them that guarantee, and it is encouraging that the trustees have welcomed it.
      On behalf of the trustees, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to emphasise that the guarantee of "no less favourable treatment" will continue to apply even when the scheme becomes a closed scheme, if that is the case. That is important.
      I congratulate the Government on accepting the changes. The changes have satisfied the trustees and pensioners will recognise that the Government have met their concerns. I understand why the Opposition have attacked and criticised the Government. That is their job. They do not always do it effectively, but sometimes they do. However, they must accept yes for an answer. The Government have accepted the points that they have made. To continue to make capital from the now rejected scheme of transfer to the Treasury by using words such as robbery, theft, burglary and mugging goes beyond the bounds of decent argument. The Opposition are trying to exploit the concerns of people who are vulnerable. They have failed to recognise the Government's announcement. That is disgusting, and I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will have the grace and decency to withdraw his allegations at the end of the debate. The Government have my full support.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), I wish to declare an interest, in that I am sponsored by a rail union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
      The concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) were also expressed in the petition that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East presented to the House on Friday morning. The thousands upon thousands of signatures of British Rail pensioners were not created by the Opposition. They were the genuine and still real concerns of BR pensioners. The accusation that the Government were attempting to steal from the BR pension fund began, if memory serves me correctly, in economic newspapers. People may not have gone all the way and called it theft, but there were reports that the Government were attempting to get their hands on the BR pension fund. The newspapers raised the issue that if the Government got away with the BR pension fund, they would then attack the coal fund and the Post Office fund. The Opposition are always accused of scaremonger-ing—[Interruption]. "Hear, hear," say Conservative Members. Nine times out of 10, those scares come well and truly home to roost.
      How can any pensioner have real trust in a Government who have suggested, in the European Year of the Elderly, that pensioners may have to pay prescription charges? The Government promise to impose VAT on fuel, which, as we all know, affects pensioners deleteriously.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). She must address her remarks to the new clause and the amendments grouped with it, and not be tempted to range more widely.
      Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was taught always to give in to temptation, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion.
      Changes have already been made to the Government's proposals for a pension scheme. To my certain knowledge, they have taken three bites at the cherry, and have cracked their molars every time. They have had to come back with an alternative scheme; but that scheme has not stemmed the fears of British Rail pensioners—or, indeed, those of current employees. The idea that all employees will be allowed to enter the joint industry scheme is welcome, but why is there not the concomitant that all new employers must also participate in the scheme? As was pointed out in Committee, it is entirely possible that a new franchisee, or an open-access employer, will find it economically unviable. We will be creating a two-tier system.
      Mr. Milligan: The hon. Lady seems to misunderstand the joint industry scheme. Employers will be obliged to take part in it.
      Ms Jackson: I am not surprised to learn that I lack understanding in that regard. I understood very clearly when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East described the pension scheme as it now exists; I am sure that the Secretary of State will take that as a valuable lesson when he wishes to define the Government's scheme in more detail.
      My understanding is that new employers will not be forced, or obliged, to enter the scheme if they can offer their employees what they call a better scheme. But, as we have heard, the current employees do not want any change in the existing pension scheme. If such a change is to be made, they want a fail-safe guarantee that no alterations may be introduced without the full and tacit agreement of the trustees. Surely every hon. Member should want to guarantee that safeguard for BR pensioners.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East pointed out, the actual pensions are extremely small. Employees of British Rail, as it still is, have given more than financial contributions to the scheme. As was said in Committee—I must emphasise this—this is a high-risk industry, not for the travelling public, but certainly for those employed on the railways. There has been a marked increase in the number of injuries and, in some instances, deaths. We are being asked, in a sense, to penalise people who have not only given their work and their money to the pension scheme, but—in a number of cases—given their lives to the industry.
      The complexities and difficulties that the Government are experiencing are entirely their own fault. It was the Government who decided to privatise British Rail, not the BR board or the employees. The Government's problems are entirely of their own making. Surely it is up to the Government to listen to those who know best the realities of the industry, and the realities of having to live on small pensions.
      In a letter dated 19 May, Mr. R. S. Green, chairman of the Southend and district branch of the British Transport Pensioners Federation, wrote:
      "Mr. MacGregor offers us nothing we do not already have —but he is taking something away … Mr. Freeman repeats that BR's pension fund will only be used to provide for pensions. I believe him. But this is not the same as saying that we will get our full and fair share. By limiting payment under Option 2 to the already existing 'pension plus RPI' level he is simply providing more for others (which could include

      615
      Franchisees). By removing the chance for us to share in any possible future surplus he robs us of the hope of a better future and alienates pensioners."
      Earlier in his letter, Mr. Green wrote:
      "Just this past week you will have read that the BT pension fund has been revalued and shows a large downturn in income. Their entire surplus has been wiped out and the employer's 'contributions holiday' has been terminated. They are now resuming payments into their fund … If a huge fund with a surplus can be reduced to deficit in a year what hope would there be for a fund deprived of both employer and employee contributions? But this"—
      so a BR pensioner believes—
      "is the essence of the Government's proposal."
      We have all made our points to the Government, both today and in Committee. The Minister has said that the Government are willing to listen. I urge him to continue to listen and to give pensioners the necessary safeguard—certainly in regard to the trustees' decision—if any change in pension schemes is considered. We owe it not only to BR pensioners and employees, but to the millions of citizens who—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said earlier—are concerned about their pensions, whether or not they are connected with BR. I believe that that should be part and parcel of decisions made in the House. Not only should the fine detail of Government proposals be examined, but an attempt should be made, as far as is humanly possible, to give a wider perspective to issues about which the public are genuinely concerned— issues that relate to their future.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Let me take up what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) has just said. It is clear that the Government have indeed been listening.
      I welcome this afternoon's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is evident that consultation has been wide and effective, taking on board points as wide-ranging as those raised by the Cicero of Eastleigh and the McGonagall of Wrexham. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking up the points that I have raised on behalf of the Chester branch of the British Transport Pensioners Federation. Its concern was, first and foremost, to ensure the preservation of the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners.
      The federation will welcome the joint industry pension scheme, the fact that existing employees' rights will be protected by statutory orders and the fact that the benefits offered to employees will be no less favourable than those in the existing scheme. They will welcome the fact that there will be no penalties for involuntary breaks in employment—that the present scheme, under which the employer matches additional voluntary contributions made by employees, will continue; in short, that there will be no mucking about with BRASS.
      The federation will particularly welcome the written reply in which, on Thursday, the Secretary of State went further, and gave staff serving at the time of Royal Assent the individual right to remain in the joint industry scheme for as long as they were employed in the railway industry. As has been explained, the amendment to the Bill that will secure what I believe is termed an indefeasible right will be presented in another place. In particular, the federation
      616
      will welcome the specific safeguards in franchise contracts to cover the transfer of pension funds when a franchise changes hands.
      Mr. Bill Newman and his colleagues in the Chester branch of the federation—to whom I have spoken again today—are reasonable people. They are looking for helpful reason, rather alarmist rhetoric; yet they have been alarmed by unnecessary scaremongering, which has gone on for weeks and has been perpetuated today by a positive Niagara of words from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—a Niagara thick with the flotsam and jetsam of scare, smear and half-truth. What they wanted, and what they received, was the cool stream of reason and the solid, tangible reassurance provided by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. John Denham: It is significant that we have had clarification of the Government's intentions for pensions so late in the day. It reflects an underlying attitude that has been clear ever since the privatisation proposals were first introduced—that the least of the Government's concerns has been the welfare of those who ensure that the railway system operates. I know that it is sometimes unfashionable—even, for Conservative Members, an insult—to talk about producer interests. I believe that those who provide our railway services, and those who have done so in the past, deserve to be given as high a priority as any other group. The lack of that consideration explains why the pension proposals have been introduced so late. It also explains why we are still being asked to rely on promises rather than written guarantees.
      Throughout the debate of recent months pensioners have been treated as a problem, not as people to be respected for their contribution. It has not been said often enough by Conservative Members that the reason for the problem with past and future pensioners is privatisation itself. Everything that we hear from the Government starts with the assumption that the railways will be privatised, then the problems caused for pensioners will be considered. There would be no problem about the future of the pensions of those who work in the railway system and have given their lives to it were it not for the Government's intention to privatise it. That is the gulf that divides the two sides of the House on so many occasions. The Government ask us to assume that privatisation is a good thing, so the House should concentrate on dealing with the problems for pensioners that will follow from it. The Opposition are inclined to say that there would be no problem if the Government had not started on the madcap policy.
      Privatisation brings two problems for pensioners. The first is the interpretation of the Inland Revenue rules, and how the contributions of non-associated employees should be handled. I am not convinced that the Government could not have found a way round that problem had they the political will to do so. It has been convenient for the Government to hide behind the Inland Revenue rules to push forward with their wider objectives.
      The second problem caused by the proposed privatisation is the unwillingness to require employers in the private sector railway system to bring their new employees into a pension scheme on the same basis as existing employees have been brought into the Government scheme. It is, above all, the determination to lower employer costs for new employees of the railway

      617
      system that lies behind the rest of the problems, threats and uncertainties that hang over existing British Rail pensioners and those who will become pensioners in the next few years. That is wrong—it is wrong to try to provide this country's railway system on the basis of driving down the conditions of those who will provide railway services in future.
      In Committee I described the Government's preoccupations as ideological dogma. The Minister for Public Transport said that it was not ideological dogma, but a statement of principle. We can choose the words that we want to use to describe that attitude, but it comes clown to one of political belief rather than a rational approach to running the railway system.
      Without privatisation there would be no such problems. Have the Government done what they are now trying to say that they have done for pensioners? Have they found a way of securely cutting through the problems caused by privatisation to guarantee the pension rights of current and future pensioners? I have to say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan)—who has taken much time and trouble over the matter—that I do not believe that the answer to that question is yes.
      If we compare the rights currently available to British Rail pensioners and employees with those that will exist in future we see a number of critical weaknesses that the Government's proposals do not overcome. The pensioners have clearly had a number of concerns. Their bottom line concern involves the security of their assets—the fear of somebody "doing a Maxwell". The Government fuelled that fear themselves by their infamous option 2 proposal to nick the money and stick it in the Treasury. There is nobody but the Government to blame for the fears that pensioners expressed about that option. We are told that that option has now been rejected, although I have not heard the absolute assurance that it has been rejected for the future which many of us would like to have heard. The idea of taking money in the short term appears to have come off the agenda.
      Pensioners have expressed a second worry. They want to be able to compare what they will receive under the Government's proposals with what they currently receive under an industry-wide scheme, in which all those who provide rail services share and in which the costs and future risks are shared between the current pensioners, current employees and future pensioners. When one compares what pensioners receive at present with what the Government propose for the future, one highlights the reason why the Government have not managed to tackle the problem properly.
      Once a fund becomes closed, it has to adopt a more conservative investment strategy. It will not be possible for pensioners in a closed fund to enjoy the sort of returns on assets that the British Rail pension fund has previously produced. The original proposal was to close the fund immediately; the current proosal is to close the fund in a few years' time. The fundamental proposal to close the fund has not varied.
      We hope that all current British Rail pensioners and those who become pensioners in the next year or so will wish to draw their pensions for much longer than t he five or six years that the fund may remain open. I hope that many of them will draw their pensions for 20, 30 years or more. For most of the period that those pensioners draw
      618
      their pensions they will be drawing on the assets of a closed, not open, fund. The fund will not benefit from an inflow of money from new contributors.
      As I understand it, it is likely that all the funds will be managed as one pool by the British Rail pension fund, but the different claims on that fund will buy into or be allocated certain parts of it. A central pool of funds will purchase equities, gilts or property. However, assets will be apportioned differently depending on whether someone belongs to the closed fund of pensioners or to the relatively active fund of a new employer. The pensioners in the closed fund will receive the most conservative portion of the assets.
      In practice, that means that someone who is now retired will find that, within a few years, he or she will he in a closed fund that pursues a conservative investment strategy and gives a conservative rate of return. A member of British Rail staff who transfers to a franchise organisation in the next year or so will be in a different part of the fund which has very few pensioners. Someone of 63 or 64 who transfers to a new franchise will be one of the first pensioners in that part of the fund, whereas a person who is now 66 and retired will be one of the last pensioners to join the closed fund.
      On the advice that I have been given, my understanding is that the performance of those two funds will be different. An employee who is two years older than another employee in another part of the railway system will receive a different return on his or her pension. A British Rail pensioner will receive a lower rate of return in future than someone in a more advantageous part of the system.
      Therefore, the Government's scheme fails for two clear reasons. The first reason is that the scheme that is now being proposed is less favourable than the current scheme because it forces the closure of the fund in the foreseeable future. The second reason is that that fund is likely to prove less favourable than the fund used by other people working within the railway system. In both cases pensioners will say that they are worse off than they would have been had the system remained unchanged. They are even likely to say that they will be worse off than someone who retired only a couple of years before them because of the way that the scheme is structured.
      6.30 pm
      The third reason relates to security. It is possible that the closed fund could be worse even than index linking, which was in option 2. Everyone accepts that there is no guarantee even of index linking in the current pension system. Pensioners rejected the index-linking option because they perceived it as likely to be worse than what they get under the current British Rail system. It is still a fear of the pension fund trustees that it is possible that, once the fund is closed, it may not only work less favourably than other parts of the railway system; it might not be able to meet the demand of index linking. As far as I can tell, the Government have given no guarantee that even that basic index linking would be met under this option. They will say that they have given pensioners the choice by going out and consulting. However, the pensioners did not like option 2.
      The Government have increased the risks to pensioners of staying in an investment fund by the way in which they have chosen to do it. They have told pensioners that they can have a fund that may give them a return on their assets but the risk is much higher. It is unacceptable to give

      619
      pensioners the choice of maintaining the rate of return that they have seen recently, perhaps losing it altogether, or accepting the index linked Treasury option.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh said that he wanted the Minister to give a guarantee that, if the fund is unable to meet at least index linking, it will in some way be topped up by the Government. The Government should also give a guarantee that, if the closed fund performs less satisfactorily than other parts of the British Rail pension fund, they will bring its performance up to that of the more favourable parts of the fund. After all, it is the Government's action of pursuing privatisation that has created the risk of either of those two things not happening.
      The only way in which they can give a guarantee to pensioners is to make it clear that they will top up the closed fund if its performance does not come up to that of the more favourable parts of the fund. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance. If not, I hope that not only Labour Members but the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who has made great play of protecting the interests of pensioners, will not vote with the Government on this crucial clause.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: At the outset, I remind the House that I am sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. In my brief time as a Member of Parliament, I have had a larger postbag on rail privatisation than on any other issue. Since the Bill was published, I have received more than 400 letters from my constituents.
      Not one of those letters supported the Government's proposals for privatisation, despite the fact that a number of those who wrote described themselves as lifelong Tory voters. The vast majority of the 400 letters came from rail pensioners living in my constituency, expressing their disbelief and outrage at the Government's proposals for the pension fund.
      The Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of scaremongering. But that statement of the Secretary of State will simply be met by stunned disbelief by the rail pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere. He is looking for a scapegoat—he is prepared to blame anyone but himself. I remind him of what he said in the House in January during the debate on rail privatisation. About the pension fund, he said:
      "we propose one of two options. The first is that an appropriate part of the existing fund should be set aside and administered separately for the pensioners … Alternatively, part of a fund could be taken over by the Government who would undertake to pay index-linked pensions."—[Official Report, 12 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 795.]
      Mr. MacGregor: As I made clear earlier, if we had gone for that option, if that was what the people had wanted, it was accepted by the pension trustees that, if the Government were making commitments to liabilities of that sort, it was reasonable that a part of the total assets should be handed to the Government in response to giving those liabilities.
      All the liabilities related to pensions, and would have been independently and actuarily calculated. We could not give an absolutely clear actuarial commitment, given that there was an open-ended Government guarantee, but it would have been as near as one could get. It would have been absolutely fair, and done entirely for pension reasons.
      Mr. Bayley: It was in the plans, but the Government were blown off course—they had to drop the idea.
      Mr. MacGregor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if that option had been chosen, the Government should then be responsible for paying all pensions and giving a guaranteed index-linked pension, but should not have any assets to pay those pensions, so the assets in the pension fund should have remained in toto for the benefit of existing employees? If that is what he is saying, the Public Accounts Committee would have made a devastating comment on that proposal.
      Mr. Bayley: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that that is not what I am saying. Labour Members have never argued for that option, but the Government have. If pensioners were scared—indeed, they have been scared by the Government's proposals—it was the words of the Secretary of State that scared them, not the words of Labour Members.
      To make it absolutely clear to my constituents what the Government were proposing, I lodged in every public library in my constituency a copy of the White Paper, and a copy of each of the Department of Transport consultation documents, including the one on pensions, and a copy of the Bill. My constituents were able to read what the Government proposed and draw their own conclusions. I wish that all Conservative Members in railway constituencies had been as open and free with information to their constituents as I was with mine. Perhaps they would have received 400 letters if they had done the same.
      Pensioners were scared by what they heard from the Government. It was not Labour Members who were—as the Secretary of State looks at it—whipping up fear among pensioners. An article in the Financial Times on 15 March said:
      "The result"
      of the Government's proposals for rail pensioners
      "is that a chastened government is preparing to beat a rapid retreat in the face of pensioner power."
      The Government's proposals created the reaction from pensioners.
      The article goes on:
      "The second option would, in effect, involve the nationalisation of the pensioners' money … the government would be taking on a commitment to pay pensions in exchange for acquiring the scheme's assets, the Treasury would then have to dispose of £8·5 billion of mainly equity-type investments. This would be helpful in funding a soaring public-sector borrowing requirement since it would take pressure off the gilt market."
      Those are not the words of Labour Members—they are the independent words of a journalist writing in the Financial Times.
      It is a cheek for the Government to accuse the Labour party of scaremongering when they have only themselves to blame. Because of the pensioners' protests, they were forced to withdraw option 2—the "nationalisation of pensioners' money" option, to use the words of the Financial Times.
      What about option 1? Mr. Robertson, the chairman of the British Rail pension scheme, wrote in a letter to the Standing Committee examining the Bill that option 1 "undermines the pensioners' security". I recognise that the Government have been forced to not only withdraw option 2 but make a number of significant amendments to option I. For example, in their consultation paper, the

      621
      Government considered tearing up the agreements that they had made under the terms of the 1980 Act, but those have been reinstated.
      The BRASS obligations have been confirmed, and the Government have been forced part of the way down the road to a single, industrywide pension fund. They have agreed to what they call an industrywide fund that will consist of existing pensioners, former employees of BR who remain within the rail industry and continuing BR employees.
      I suspect that there will be much dispute over the definition of a former employee who remains in the rail industry. Some employees will transfer from BR to a private company operating a rail franchise. There will be no doubt that such people still work in the rail industry, and, under the Government's proposal, if they were former BR employees, they will take with them their pension rights.
      Many people in my constituency work as professional engineers designing signalling systems and permanent way installations and designing and repairing bridges. Under the Government's privatisation proposals, many of those people could transfer to firms of consulting, civil, electrical, or mechanical engineers.
      Those firms would certainly be working on some railway projects: that is why they raided British Rail for the required skills. However, they would also work on other civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering projects. Would those people still be regarded as working in the rail industry, and would the guarantee that they would retain their pensions under the BR fund still apply? I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will answer those questions.
      The scheme offered in the modified option 1 is still a long way from the "comparable scheme" that the Secretary of State promised in the White Paper. In due course, it will become a closed scheme, with all that that implies for a more cautious investment strategy that is less likely to generate the surpluses from which pensioners have benefited in the past. It will deny future rail employees who are not currently BR employees the choice to join the main railway industry pension scheme. That will be brought about by a Government who say that they believe in choice and want to extend it. If the Government's proposal is accepted an Act of Parliament will deny choice.
      When the scheme becomes a closed one, it will wither and die. What the Minister for Public Transport described to the Committee as the best-managed pension scheme in the country will be snuffed out over time. Perhaps that will be because the Government do not like to see a public pension scheme offering the sort of competition that private schemes cannot match. The Government are determined to peck away at the public sector pension scheme until private schemes can get a look in.
      The Government's proposal will drive a wedge between former BR employees working for private railway companies and people taken on by the private companies who did not formerly work for BR. The private sector employee will be able to play one employee off against another. He will say, "I will offer you promotion only if you drop your pension rights, because your rights in the British Rail scheme are more costly than those of other employees." Former BR employees could price themselves
      622
      out of promotion and, ultimately, out of a job. That is no way to bring in a new age of railways, which is what the Government pretend privatisation will do.
      An industrywide scheme that encompassed everybody in the industry now and in the future would bring benefits. Privatisation means that railway men and women, instead of working for BR throughout their working lives, will work for a number of employers, as franchisees come and go and as the management of routes, lines, functions or support services moves from one company to another.
      It is a great boon not just to employees but to employers to be able to spend one's working life of service to the railways under a single scheme by which one can accrue benefits in the sure knowledge that on retirement the full 40 years of service would be reflected in a decent and secure pension. That would create the sort of stability that privatisation intends to disrupt. Only a little foresight, imagination and common sense by the Government would enable them to introduce such a scheme, but the Bill shows that foresight, imagination and common sense are qualities that the Government do not have.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Prescott: The debate has shown that considerable uncertainty exists about the Government's proposals. Hon. Members have tried to find the basis for that and to determine whether we can now trust the Secretary of State. All hon. Members are agreed that the debate is about the concern of pensioners.
      The Government have made changes to the proposed legislation, some of which are considerable advances on the proposals contained in the document about changes to the pension funds. In that document, the Government said that they intended to listen. Pressure has contributed to the changes, but I doubt whether we can accept further Government promises.
      I shall correct one or two points made by the Secretary of State about the options. He spoke about the 1980 Act and criticism by the Public Accounts Committee. The report by that Committee showed the public sector borrowing requirement liabilities that would accrue to the Treasury from an unfunded scheme. In its management of public funds, the Treasury is rightly concerned about the public sector borrowing requirement. Such liabilities may arise in future, and that leads one to conclude that the assets in the pension funds would be of short-term assistance to the Treasury in reducing the PSBR. In that context, option 2 would have been useful for the Government.
      In Committee, there were eight or nine changes to the legislation and one or two more were announced on Thursday by the Secretary of State … Those changes are the result of discussions and pressures. The Secretary of State conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) that one of the intentions of option 2 was to take the fund assets. The Secretary of State is right to say that, if the Treasury had done that, it would have been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York is certainly a sound one. The particular attraction of option 2 is that the Treasury would get a considerable amount of money—e estimate about £4 billion—and it is that proportion that would have been allocated, under such circumstances, to the current 220,000 pensioners. It

      623
      was clearly the Government's intention to consider that option as one of the possibilities, and it was right for us to draw attention to that.
      At the first public meeting on this issue, in Chester, I pointed out that that was an option that the Government had in mind. That led to a tremendous reaction and brought into the political debate what I have identified as option 3—which we tabled as an amendment in Committee. Many thousands of pensioners agreed with that option. We made it clear that any consultation process should include option 3 rather than be limited to options 1 and 2.
      We called on railway pensioners to sign in favour of option 3—including my father, who lives in Chester, and is one of the fund's pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If that is a declared interest, I am proud to say that I have a father who was a railwayman and is a recipient under the pension fund. That is not a declared personal interest—but it has made me aware of the concern felt by pensioners.
      A number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—made it clear on Friday that they wanted an industrywide scheme—and that is what has eventually been achieved. They wanted it to be available to all employees, and that, too, has been established. They wanted that scheme to be available to the British Transport police fund, under a continuation of the closed fund, and that, too, has been established.
      They also wanted it to be available to all the British Railways Board employees who might be transferred to other employers. That was the final change that the Secretary of State was to make—it was described as the "indefeasible right" of people. I received information that that right might be limited, but I assume from what the Secretary of State has said that that is not so.
      But that is not guaranteed. Look at what has happened to some other pension funds, where an employer has a choice between keeping an employee with a more expensive pension fund and a new employee with a cheaper arrangement, because such rights will not apply to him. The Secretary of State is clear about that. He will not accept the amendment that we have tabled to ensure that the pension rights are available to anybody who becomes an employee of the rail industry. We will have two categories of employees—working for the same company, doing the same work—because the pension costs of one will be cheaper than those of the other.
      The evidence for that can be found in some of the other privatised British Rail facilities, where, eventually, most of the employees were driven on to the cheaper scheme. They were then told that the scheme was no longer acceptable, because it could not fund itself, the scheme was closed down and then—surprise, surprise—the surplus assets were redistributed to the company, not to the pensioners. There is no guarantee under the Bill that this will not happen. All it says is that one set of employees will be more expensive in social cost than another.
      Bearing in mind the Government's attitude towards Europe and social costs—apparently we pride ourselves on having the cheapest labour and cheapest costs—all the Secretary of State is doing is introducing a similar kind of discrimination because the "European" labour will be
      624
      those employees identified with the indefeasible right and those coming to the industry as new employees will get nothing.
      Under those circumstances, I do not think that that right will last very long, because an employer who wants to compete for a particular line—let us say the east coast line—will be able to take on new employees on those new rates. He will also gain a competitive advantage from doing so, because he will be able to bring in new employees without the same pension rights. That is feeding the process of competition and undermining the social rights of employees who come directly under this process.
      The Secretary of State said that he had no choice in this because, in the reorganisation, the definition for the suggested break-up of the pension funds comes from the tax authorities.
      The Minister of State was good enough to provide me with a report in Committee which made it absolutely clear that there are two ways in which the Inland Revenue rules on membership of centralisation schemes apply. It is possible to have, under the Inland Revenue, an industrywide scheme without having to apportion the resources and assets to individual employees. It is possible to have that under the tax rules.
      Committee paper No. 15, provided by the Government, makes it absolutely clear:
      "The Inland Revenue permit two types of schemes to be set up where more than one employer participates:

      (a) A scheme established to provide benefits solely for the employees of associated employers and/or employees of employers who are associated through a permanent community of interest; and

      (b) Schemes established to provide benefits for non-associated employers."

      The Inland Revenue definition for the membership of the associated employees provides the crucial fact:
      "a centralised scheme for associated employers allows associated employers to provide benefits for all their employees. The associated employers can then adopt any method of funding as if it were a scheme for a single employer, and there need be no "separation" of ownership of assets between participating employers."
      So the Government could privatise the railways and keep the pension fund as one fund, as we have called for today, without having to apportion the assets as they have suggested. The Government state that, according to the tax authorities' definition, there is no associated means or common ownership identity between the track authority and British Rail. It is the Government who have chosen to differentiate between the track authority, which will maintain the track, and the operators, in this case known as British Rail.
      They have chosen to do that under their reorganisation of the railway system. They have created those separate identities. All the uncertainty arises from the route that the Government have chosen for the reorganisation and privatisation of the railways. The consequences for the pension fund flow from that.
      All the uncertainty is of the Government's own making. Even if they had opted for privatisation, they could have retained a single, industrywide pension fund. That is what the employers, the trustees, the trade unions and the pensioners asked for, but the Government have not chosen to meet that request. That choice causes us to have even greater fears about the Government's possible intentions.
      We have suggested that the Government's decision is based on the fact that they have their eyes on the assets of the pension fund. The Government have now made it clear

      625
      that they have opted for the closed fund, which will still operate within the British Rail pension fund. They must therefore satisfy the House and the pensioners that the terms of the new fund will be no less favourable than those of the old one.
      Although the Government are establishing a closed fund of assets within the industry fund, that is no guarantee that that fund will operate on equally favourable conditions to those applying to the original fund. What is likely to happen is that that new fund will be paid what the assets can afford to give it.
      There is some dispute about whether the regulations governing the new fund will be brought in on 1 April 1994; perhaps the Government can confirm that one way or another. Whenever that happens, a fund will be established for the pensioners out of the assets of their own original fund. The regulations will be approved by the House and the assets will be managed by the common fund management, but only after a given point in time.
      Our new clause is designed to ensure that the judgment about that given time is that of the actuarial authorities and not of the Secretary of State. The new clause would not prevent the Secretary of State from doing what he wants to do, but we do not believe that he can meet his commitment to the effect that the new fund will exist on conditions no less favourable than those operating the original fund. The availability of assets may not allow for that, but we must wait for the decision of the actuarial authorities. We cannot learn of their decision, however, until the regulations and changes proposed by the Secretary of State are made.
      At one time, it was the intention of the Secretary of State that the Treasury should have access to the fund. Let me outline a scenario that is not impossible under his terms. He may identify, in the division of the assets, those that will apply to the present pensioners. For the sake of debate, let us value those assets at £4 billion. Once he has identified them, they will be self-managed by the fund managers, with the proviso that, if possible, the same benefits as before will be paid. The Government may then decide, however, that it would be better for the pensioners if they reverted to option 1
      He may say to them that the Government will guarantee that their pensions will be inflation-proof. That may look a lot more attractive when the pension fund, broken into its parts, begins not to perform as well as the present BR fund. The pensioners in the closed fund may then find such a guarantee rather attractive. They may then say that they would like to take the Government's original promise, now withdrawn, to inflation-proof the pensions.
      7 pm
      If pensioners went along that line—the Treasury may want to ask them whether that is the case—the Secretary of State could then go back to the option that he gave us before, whereby the Treasury get the £4 billion and then the Government continue to pay the yearly option. We think that that is wrong, but it is still a possibility. Even under this fund, the Secretary of State must admit that that is a possibility. He does not have to come to a judgment about that until some time after the passing of the Bill.
      If the Secretary of State is asking me to accept his assurance that he has no intention of doing that, having already proposed it at one stage, I do not believe him. I do not know what the implications of that are, but I did not
      626
      believe the Tories who told us that they would not increase VAT. I did not accept the words of the Secretaries of State who told me that they would not increase prescription charges. That is a matter of political judgment. I do not accept the promise of the Secretary of State for Transport, any more than I did the other promises.
      However, I am prepared to accept—we shall wait for history to decide who is right on that political judgment —that the new clause at least allows the judgment to be made. Whatever the Secretary of State does with the funds must be done with the agreement of the trustees on the basis of the actuarial authority's report, not his judgment after consulting the trustees. That is not good enough. We press the new clause because we want to give pensioners some assurance and protection.
      Mr. MacGregor: I shall endeavour to be brief and, wherever possible, not repeat points that I made earlier. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) complained that the announcement made last week came too late. It seems that one cannot win. If one decides to go out and consult on what are readily agreed by all to be extremely complex matters, and takes a reasonable proportion of time to enable all who have been consulted to consider them and respond, one is then accused of coming forward late with the proposals.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) and for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) were right. We looked carefully at all the issues before we drew up the original document in January. The document then listed eight issues about which views would be welcomed. As these are complex matters, it took time for everyone to respond, but that is what we did.
      In the light of those responses, we took firm decisions. I had originally told everyone that I had hoped to make the decisions, knowing that it would he quite an effort, by the end of this month. I brought it forward to enable our decisions to inform this debate. I do not make any apologies for the time in which we announced the decisions, because I think that it was right to do the full consultation.
      Mr. Denham: Does the Secretary of State accept that my point was not so much that we got the final version last Thursday as that the Government's outline plans, which have caused so much fuss, came forward only in January, while the rest of the privatisation proposals were published last July?
      Mr. MacGregor: These are complex issues, as is shown by the way in which the responses have come through, and we took some time so as to offer fair choices.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) has to accept that one can give no guarantees about the performance of funds. There are some 60 British Rail closed funds. Some are small, but one is very large. They have performed well throughout the 1980s, but there is no guarantee that any of them will continue to perform that well. When it eventually gets to the point of being a closed fund, the new fund will be very large.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) was right to say that performance can be variable, and that there can be no guarantee of indexation even within an open fund. It will depend on the performance of the economy and of the trustees. I find it ironic that we were offering option 2 as a safe guarantee to existing pensioners when I know that many employees and

      627
      pensioners in occupational funds in other sectors of the economy look with envious eyes at the civil service guaranteed index-linked pension fund. I thought that we were making a pretty fair offer.
      Did I hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) correctly? Did he say that I should keep open the possibility of the option that he has so derided up to now and that has been the basis of his accusation that the Treasury wishes to purloin funds? If that is what he meant, he has performed an interesting somersault.
      Mr. Prescott: If the reorganisation of the pension fund that the Government intend to make makes it less of a contributor to the inflation payments and real value increases that have been made under the old scheme, pensioners might feel that any promise of a link to inflation was better than what would result from the performance of the new pension fund. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State might want to consult them again, to offer them option 1 or option 2, because the Treasury would then have a chance to get at the £4 billion.
      Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that the Treasury getting its hands on the funds is not the purpose of option 2, and never was. The purpose is entirely to give a reasonable alternative choice to pensioners. By and large, they have rejected that, which is why we have come to the conclusion on the two options that we have offered.
      It is an interesting suggestion that if, in 10 years' time, they realise that they have made the wrong choice—I am talking entirely hypothetically—they should be able to change their minds. That underlines the point that I was making. There can be no guarantee of performance on either an open or closed fund that does not have the benefit of a full Government guarantee. The choice has been made, and I have responded favourably to the choice that most people wanted.
      Millions of individuals have personal pensions and, on their retirement, will be dependent entirely on the performance of funds. That will be individual to them, as with life policies, and it will vary between individuals. That is in the nature of the performance of investment funds. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East again made the accusation that the Government will purloin the funds, but there is no question of that. The pensions belong to the pensioners, and I have made that clear.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), who is no longer here, asked what would happen to the fund, once it had closed, when there was no employer. There was a slight implication that the Government should step in and secure some of the funds in such a case. There is no question of that. When the fund is closed, no one other than the pensioners will be the beneficiaries of the fund, and it will be for the pensioner trustees to decide how to do that.
      The hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke of the necessity of having the approval of the trustees for every step that would be taken. There is a difficulty about that, because in effect it amounts to a veto. Opposition Members have said that, while I might be reasonable in all the decisions that I take, some future Secretary of State might not, so one has to look at all possible situations.
      628
      The pensioner trustees might refuse to agree to any solution other than an enormous skewing of the division of funds, against actuarial advice, in favour of the existing pensioners. I do not think that that would happen, but we must allow the House to make the final decision rather than leaving it totally to the pensioner trustees. If they had a total veto, they would have a power that could be exercised against the interests of future taxpayers who would have to top up any existing pension funds.
      That is one reason why we cannot accept the veto. I have made it clear that we shall consult the pensioner trustees, and that the division of the funds when that point comes will be based on independent actuarial advice. There will be no question of political interference. The matter will be discussed fully in the House, with an independent report if the pensioner trustees disagree on anything, and decided by affirmative resolution.
      I want to make one thing clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about the joint industry scheme. Where any employer, including any future employer, has some employees who have stayed within the scheme because they have exercised what is known as their indefeasible right to do so, that employer will have to be in the joint industry scheme for those employees.
      However, new employees—this is the difference between us—will not have the right, by right, to join that scheme. We believe that the pension rights for new employees of franchisees, recruited in the future, must be a matter for negotiation between the new employee and the employer. It is not for the Government to dictate the terms and conditions of employment for new recruits.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) asked me about the position under a closed scheme. When the fund is closed, it will have sufficient funds to secure the actuarially calculated liabilities. That is a crucial point for all pensioners, and it underlines the points that I have made about independent actuarial valuation. The benefits will be as stated in the rules, including index-linking, but if the fund does better than expected, further enchancements to benefits may be made. That will be a decision for the pension trustees.
      The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) prayed in aid the Financial Times in suggesting that others had also said that the Government wanted to purloin the pension funds. He quoted the figure of £8·5 billion, which actually shows the inaccuracy of that report. By no stretch of the imagination could it ever he said that the sum involved was £8·5 billion.
      The article was also wrong to suggest that I was beating a retreat. In no way could I have been doing so, when I was still consulting and had not made a decision. In any case, I had two options available, so there could not have been any retreat. I made it clear that, at those early stages, we were not stating any preference for either of the options.
      If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, when the Financial Times speaks, it is always right, as he suggested, I hope that he will read its leader today on our reforms as a whole, and support us in the Lobby on Third Reading. The leader comments favourably on the proposals as a whole.
      We have had a full debate on this important matter. I warmly welcome that, because the pensions issue is extremely important. I commend the Government's amendments but, for the reasons that I have given, I must reject the new clause.
      Dr. Marek: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the spirit of new clause 3 and amendment No. 2, and his undertaking that he will rephrase them and put them in a more appropriate place in the Bill when it reaches another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 29

      JOINT INDUSTRY PENSION SCHEME
      '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions under this Act relating to pensions until he has consulted the trustees of any existing scheme (within the meaning of Schedule 10) and such other persons as may have an interest, or appear to the Secretary of State to represent persons having an interest in any existing scheme, as to the feasibility of establishing a joint industry scheme, the form such a scheme might take, and the implications for participants in existing schemes.
      (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in any case where the trustees of a scheme have received actuarial advice that the fund may not be able to meet any of its actual or projected liabilities at any time from its actual or projected assets.'.—[Mr. Prescott.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
      The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 304.

      Division No. 278]

      [7 13 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clapham, Michael

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Coffey, Ann

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin-Walker, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Battle, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darling, Alistair

      Bermingham. Gerald

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Boateng, Paul

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

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Denham, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Dewar, Donald

      Bradley, Keith

      Dixon, Don

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dobson, Frank

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

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

      Dowd, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Burden, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Byers, Stephen

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Enright, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Cann, Jamie

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Fisher, Mark

      630

      Flynn, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Madden, Max

      Foulkes, George

      Mandelson, Peter

      Fraser, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Galloway, George

      Martlew, Eric

      Gapes, Mike

      Maxton, John

      Garrett, John

      Meacher, Michael

      George, Bruce

      Meale, Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michael, Alun

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gould, Bryan

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hain, Peter

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Henderson, Doug

      Olner, William

      Heppell, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Parry, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoey, Kate

      Pendry, Tom

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howeils, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hutton, John

      Radice, Giles

      Ingram, Adam

      Randall. Stuart

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Salmond, Alex

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Leighton, Ron

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Litherland, Robert

      Short, Clare

      Livingstone, Ken

      Simpson, Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      Lynne, Ms Liz

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

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Snape, Peter

      McCartney, Ian

      Soley, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spearing, Nigel

      McFall, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Stevenson, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stott, Roger

      McLeish, Henry

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McMaster, Gordon

      Straw, Jack

      631

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wilson, Brian

      Turner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Worthington, Tony

      Wallace, James

      Wray, Jimmy

      Walley, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Wicks, Malcolm

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Alexander, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Day, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Ancram, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dover, Den

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baldry, Tony

      Eggar, Tim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Elletson, Harold

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evennett, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Faber, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Body, Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Freeman, Roger

      Brandreth, Gyles

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Fry, Peter

      Bright, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Butterfill, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Cash, William

      Hague, William

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clappison, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Harris, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Congdon, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Heald, Oliver

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hendry, Charles

      Couchman, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      632

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Page, Richard

      Horam, John

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Richards, Rod

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Key, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sackville, Tom

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

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knox, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Sims, Roger

      Leigh, Edward

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lidington, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, Iain

      MacKay, Andrew

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maclean, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stephen, Michael

      Madel, David

      Stern, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stewart, Allan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      Malone, Gerald

      Sumberg, David

      Mans, Keith

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mills, Iain

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moate, Sir Roger

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      633

      Watts, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Yeo, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Willetts, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

  Schedule 10

    PENSIONS
    Amendments made: No. 106, in page 165, line 20, at end insert:
    'Payments in final discharge of liabilities under s.52(1) of the Transport Act 1980
    7A.—(1) In section 52 of the Transport Act 1980, in subsection (1) (which requires the Secretary of State to make payments each year to B.R. pension schemes in respect of unfunded pension obligations owed by the Board), after the words "Subject to the provisions of this section" there shall be inserted the words ", section 52A" and after that section there shall be inserted—
    "Power to make payments by way of final discharge of
    liabilities under s.52(1).
    52A.—(1) If the Minister is desirous of making to the persons administering a B.R. pension scheme one or more payments by way of final discharge of his liability to make payments to them under section 52(1) in respect of the proportion which has not been funded, as determined for the purposes of section 52(1)(a), of so much of any relevant pension obligations as are owed in respect of —

    (a) all pension rights under the scheme,

    (b) pension rights of some particular class or description under the scheme, or

    (c) pension rights of persons of some particular class or description under the scheme,

    he may give to the persons administering the scheme a notice identifying the pension rights in question and specifying in relation to those pension rights the matters set out in subsection (2), as determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
    (2) The matters mentioned in subsection (1) are—

    (a) the capital value of the attributable unfunded obligations in question, as at the beginning of the next financial year;

    (b) the amount or amounts, or the method of determining the amount or amounts, of the payment or payments to be made under this section by way of final discharge of the Minister's liability under section 52(1) to make payments in respect of the attributable unfunded obligations; and

    (c) the date or dates on which that payment or those payments are to be made.

    (3) In making any determination for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the amount or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts mentioned in that paragraph shall be such as to include—

    (a) a sum equal to the capital value determined under paragraph (a) of that subsection; and

    (b) interest, payable at such rate as may be determined by the Minister, on so much (if any) of that sum as may from time to time be outstanding after the beginning of the financial year mentioned in the said paragraph (a).

    (4) For the purposes of this section, the capital value mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) shall either—

    (a) he determined by the Minister, or

    (b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be determined by the actuary to the scheme in question and approved by the Minister,

    634
    and it shall be for the Minister to determine the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection.
    (5) Notice under subsection (1) above shall only he given after consultation—

    (a) with the persons administering the scheme in question; and

    (b) with the actuary to that scheme, except in a case where the capital value mentioned in subsection (2)(a) is determined by that actuary pursuant to subsection (4)(b);

    and any such notice must be given not less than one month before the beginning of the financial year mentioned in subsection (2)(a).
    (6) The giving of a notice under subsection (1) shall—

    (a) terminate the liability of the Minister to make payments under section 52(1) in respect of the attributable unfunded obligations in question for financial years beginning after the giving of the notice; and

    (b) impose upon the Minister a duty—

    (i) to make to the persons administering the scheme in question the payment or payments mentioned in subsection (2)(b); and

    (ii) to do so at the time or times specified in pursuance of subsection (2)(c).

    (7) Where notice has been given under subsection (1), the Minister may—

    (a) at any time before the expiration of the period of eleven months beginning with the financial year mentioned in subsection (2)(a) as it applies in relation to that notice, and

    (b) after consultation with the persons administering the scheme in question and the actuary to the scheme,

    amend that notice by giving notice of the amendment to the persons administering the scheme.
    (8) If notice is given under subsection (7) of an amendment affecting the amount of a payment which has been made pursuant to this section, the Minister may also give notice to the persons administering the scheme in question requiring them—

    (a) to repay to him so much of the payment made as exceeds the amended amount; and

    (b) to pay interest to him, at such rate as he may determine, on the amount to be repaid, as from the date on which the payment in question was made by him;

    and where notice is given under paragraph (a) or (b), the amount required to be repaid or, as the case may he, the amount of interest required to be paid from time to time, shall be treated as a debt due from those persons to the Minister.
    (9) Nothing in this section affects the liability of the Board in respect of any relevant pension obligations, but where any liability of the Minister to make payments under section 52(1) has been terminated by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (6), the amount of any payments required to be made by the Minister under section 52(1) shall be determined for each of the financial years mentioned in that paragraph as if the Board's liability in respect of the attributable unfunded obligations mentioned in that paragraph had been discharged.
    (10) In this section
    "attributable unfunded obligations" means the proportion which has not been funded, as determined for the purposes of section 52(1)(a), of so much of the relevant pension obligations mentioned in subsection (1) as are owed in respect of the pension rights identified pursuant to that subsection;
    "capital value", in relation to any attributable unfunded obligations, means the capital equivalent, actuarially determined, of the payments that would, apart from this section, have been expected to be made by the Minister under section 52(1) in respect of those attributable unfunded obligations for the successive financial years beginning with the one mentioned in subsection (2)(a).
    (11) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament."
    (2) In section 70 of that Act, in subsection (2), (interpretation) for the definition of "the Minister" there shall be substituted—
    ""the Minister" means the Secretary of State;"

    Application and modification of Part III of the 1980 Act
    7B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate—

    (a) any occupational pension scheme which would not, apart from this paragraph, be included among the pension schemes which are B.R. pension schemes for the purposes of Part III of the 1980 Act, or

    (b) any section of an occupational pension scheme,
    being a section which would not, apart from this
    paragraph, be included among those schemes,

    as a pension scheme which is to be treated as included among those schemes for the purpose of requiring or enabling him to make to the persons administering the scheme payments under section 52(1) or 52A of that Act in respect of qualifying pension rights transferred (whether under paragraph 4 above or otherwise) so as to become pension rights under that scheme.
    (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above may make provision, in any case where qualifying pension rights of any persons are transferred as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, for treating those persons as constituting a section of the occupational pension scheme to which those qualifying pension rights are so transferred.
    (3) No order shall be made under sub-paragraph (1) above except after consultation with the trustees of the occupational pension scheme to which the qualifying pension rights are transferred.
    (4) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, Part III of the 1980 Act shall have effect as if any reference in that Part to a B.R. pension scheme included a reference to a designated scheme.
    (5) Where qualifying pension rights are transferred to a designated scheme as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, the proportion referred to in section 52(1)(a) of the 1980 Act in its application by virtue of this paragraph in relation to the designated scheme shall, instead of being determined under section 54 of that Act, be taken to be the proportion which has been determined under that section in relation to the B.R. pension scheme from which the qualifying pension rights are transferred; and references in Part III of that Act to that proportion shall be construed accordingly.
    (6) In the application of Part III of the 1980 Act in relation to a designated scheme, references in that Part to "the relevant pension obligations" shall, in relation to the designated scheme, be construed—

    (a) as if the reference in section 53(1)(a) of that Act to obligations of the Board which were owed on 1st January 1975 in connection with the scheme were a reference to so much of the obligations of the Board which were owed on that date in connection with a B.R. pension scheme as are obligations in respect of qualifying pension rights transferred to the designated scheme; and

    (b) as if the reference in section 53(1)(c) of that Act to an obligation of the Board arising after that date to pay or secure the payment of increases payable under the scheme included a reference to so much of any such obligation of the Board in respect of a B.R. pension scheme as is an obligation in respect of qualifying pension rights transferred to the designated scheme.

    (7) In the application of section 55 of the 1980 Act in relation to a designated scheme, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) (which requires the proportion of the scheme's outgoings which corresponds to the relevant pension obligations to be determined before the beginning of each financial year or, in the case of the first financial year, as soon as practicable after
    636
    the passing of that Act) shall be taken to require the proportion mentioned in that paragraph to be determined—

    (a) before the beginning of the financial year in question, or

    (b) as soon as practicable after the coming into force of the order under sub-paragraph (1) above by virtue of which the scheme in question is a designated scheme,

    and paragraph (b) of that subsection shall be construed accordingly.
    (8) The power to give a direction under section 57 of the 1980 Act (which provides for certain determinations to be made as if no transfer had taken place) shall be exercisable in any case where the whole or any part of a person's accrued pension rights under a B.R. pension scheme or a designated scheme are transferred (whether under paragraph 4 above or otherwise) to—

    (a) a designated scheme, or

    (b) a pension scheme established by the Board,

    as it is in the case of any such transfer as is mentioned in that section.
    (9) Without prejudice to section 59(1) of the 1980 Act (which provides that the making of payments under section 52(1) does not discharge certain relevant pension obligations), the making of any payment under section 52(1) of the 1980 Act to the persons administering a designated scheme shall not discharge any relevant pension obligation, so far as it is an obligation to pay pensions or increases of pensions under that or any other designated scheme, or under a B.R. pension scheme, or is an obligation to secure the payment of those pensions or increases.
    (10) Without prejudice to section 59(2) of the 1980 Act (power to amend pension scheme for certain purposes), if the persons administering an occupational pension scheme would not otherwise have power to do so, they may amend the scheme by instrument in writing for the purpose of enabling persons to be admitted as members of the scheme on the basis that payments will fall to be made under Part III of the 1980 Act in respect of qualifying pension rights of theirs which are transferred so as to become pension rights under the scheme.
    (11) Where the persons administering an occupational scheme have power, apart from sub-paragraph (10) above, to amend the scheme for the purpose mentioned in that sub-paragraph, they may exercise that power for that purpose without regard to any limitations on the exercise of the power and without compliance with any procedural provisions applicable to its exercise.
    (12) Any reference in Part III of the 1980 Act to a "financial year" shall, in relation to a designated scheme, be taken as a reference—

    (a) to such period as—

    (i) begins with the transfer of the qualifying pension rights in question, and

    (ii) ends with the last day of an accounting year of the scheme,

    and is a period of not less than twelve months and less than two years; and

    (b) to each successive accounting year of that scheme.

    (13) Where any provision of Part III of the 1980 Act requires anything to be done in, or in relation to, the first financial year of a B.R. pension scheme, that provision shall (so far as so requiring) be disregarded in the application of that Part in relation to a designated scheme.
    (14) In any case where—

    (a) the whole or any part of a person's accrued pension rights under a B.R. pension scheme are transferred so as to become pension rights under a designated scheme, and

    (b) immediately before that transfer takes effect, relevant pension obligations a proportion of which, as determined for the purposes of section 52(1)(a) of the 1980 Act, has not been funded are owed in respect of those pension rights by the Board to the persons administering the pension scheme from which the pension rights are so transferred,

    637
    an order under sub-paragraph (1) above may provide for the benefit of that proportion of so much of those relevant pension obligations as are owed in respect of those pension rights to be transferred, so as to become relevant pension obligations owed by the Board to the persons administering the pension scheme to which the pension rights are transferred.

    (15) Where the benefit of any relevant pension obligations is transferred by virtue of sub-paragraph (14) above, the persons administering the pension scheme to which the benefit of those obligations is transferred shall have, in relation to the relevant pension obligations the benefit of which is so transferred, all the rights of the persons administering the pension scheme from which the benefit of those obligations is transferred.
    (16) In this paragraph—
    "the 1980 Act" means the Transport Act 1980;
    "designated scheme" means an occupational pension scheme or, as the case may be, a section of any such scheme, which is designated under sub-paragraph (1) above;
    "pension scheme" includes a section of a pension scheme;
    "qualifying pension rights" means any pension rights as respects the whole or some part of which there are subsisting relevant pension obligations a proportion of which, as determined for the purposes of section 52(1)(a) of the 1980 Act, has not been funded;
    and, subject to that, expressions used in this paragraph and in Part III of the 1980 Act have the same meaning in this paragraph as they have in that Part.'.
    No. 107, in page 165, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—[Mr. MacGregor]

  New clause 16

    CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR AND THE BOARD ETC. FOR THE PROVISION OF NON-FRANCHISED RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES
    '.—(1) The Franchising Director may enter into agreements with the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board for the provision by the Board or subsidiary of any railway passenger services which are not provided under a franchise agreement.
    (2) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for the making of payments under any agreement entered into by virtue of this section shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
    (3) Any sums received by the Franchising Director under any such agreement shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund' —[Mr. MacGregor]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 27—Powers of Franchising Director to enter into agreement with the Board, etc.—
    '() (1)The Franchising Director may enter into agreements with the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board for the provision by the Board or subsidiary of any railway passenger services which are not provided under a franchise agreement.
    (2) Any sums required by the Board by virtue of this section shall be paid by the Secretary of State to the Board out of money provided by Parliament.'.
    Mr. MacGregor: The purpose of the new clause is to put beyond doubt the ability of the franchising director to
    638
    enter into agreements with the BR board or its wholly owned subsidiaries. As the House will recognise, this covers the period while franchising is being introduced, where the franchising director is to assume responsibility for payment of all subsidy in respect of passenger services to the board and to franchisees. The measure covers the BR board and its wholly owned subsidiaries because the franchising director's contracts may be directly with the shadow franchise operating units as they are formed rather than globally with the board. The new clause is designed to clarify that.
    The new clause also enables me to say a word or two about the shadow franchise operating units. Earlier this afternoon I answered a question about the way in which we suggest that the rest of BR's passenger services should be set up as franchising units for ultimate franchising. Copies of the answer and of the document giving the breakdown of the different franchise units are now in the Vote Office.
    Mr. Prescott: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we are continually being fed information just minutes before debates take place. It is impossible to debate these matters properly when we are handed five or six pages just before a debate—and this comes on top of today's other statement about franchising. There is another document relating to the exemptions, to which the Secretary of State may refer today.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. MacGregor: Tomorrow.
    Mr. Prescott: Even so, the right hon. Gentleman is creating real difficulties, and I hope that he will bear that in mind when he explains those documents. I was given some indication of the document to which the Secretary of State is now referring at 11 o'clock, and received it a little later than it would have been available to most right hon. and hon. Members, in the Library. We should be grateful for some explanation now.
    Mr. MacGregor: That document does not affect decisions relating to new clause 16, so therefore it was not essential to produce it today. In fact, we could have delayed it for a considerable time. The exemptions document will be relevant to debates tomorrow.
    The franchise proposals are to allow BR to start thinking about the restructuring of the remaining franchise units and to enable people more widely to see how we propose the breakdown. The document was not required for tonight's debate, but I thought that it would be convenient to mention it—since we are discussing shadow franchise operating units.
    On Second Reading, I announced the first seven franchise units and British Rail is currently restructuring their management, operation and financial accounting. Those seven will be among the first to be franchised—one or two of them, we hope, later next year. It is important for BR to move ahead with those so that operational experience may be gained and the units can be set up with a track record under the new arrangements well before the franchising director puts those franchises out to tender. In that way, applicants will have some financial and other basis on which to make their bids.
    The designation of the groupings that I published today is not a complete blueprint. There are proposals for 25 franchise units and we think that it will probably work out

    639
    like that. However, the designation is incomplete for two reasons. For some parts of the network—InterCity cross-country services, Regional Railways long-distance inter-urban services, and the central region of Regional Railways—I have not yet taken decisions as to how they should best be packaged for franchising. They will be reviewed over the next few months.
    Also, the final form of franchises will be determined by the franchising director, who will want—as we have emphasised throughout—to take a view of the market at the time and to respond to market indications. In some cases, the director may want the franchises to be handled differently. So the designation is not a blueprint, but an indication of how things are likely to end up—and the basis on which British Rail will restructure. It is substantially the plan for transferring the whole passenger network to franchises.
    As I said, the network will be divided into 25 businesses, but the crucial point is that, by and large, we are basing them on existing British Rail profit centres. That has a number of advantages for BR in restructuring and for management-employee buy-outs—which we are keen to encourage and for which we are providing financial assistance—which will more readily recognise most of the franchise units. That arrangement is also much in line with the recommendations in the Transport Select Committee's final report. We took note of that Committee's views and that is another example of identity of thinking. We were working on the same lines, leading to the announcement.
    Some units, however, do not follow the profit centres exactly. As 25 are announced and there are only 19 profit centres, it is clear that there are some splits. I have already announced that one is the Isle of Wight. That split is sensible, because the local community has long wanted to run its own railway, and it is a discrete unit. Others are based partly on responses to the original consultation document and partly on our belief that one can produce smaller but viable units that make perfectly good franchising sense.
    That designation is now available to the House and to the wider public and I hope that it will prove helpful as a further development of our proposals in the gradual evolution of the reforms for British Rail.
    As to new clause 16, it is our policy that the franchising director should be responsible for paying all subsidy in respect of passenger rail services, excluding payments made by the PTEs. While franchising is being introduced, that will mean the director making payments both to franchisees where franchises have been granted and to the BR board where they have not. As the new clauses indicates, he may also enter into agreements directly with the operating subsidiaries that BR will form to run the services in preparation for franchising—the shadow franchises.
    We think that there is a clear case for making the franchising director responsible for paying all support in respect of passenger railway services, excluding that paid by PTEs from April 1994, but including payments to franchisees and to BR while it is still running passenger services. I therefore invite the House to reject new clause 27.
    New clause 16 will make for clear financial management. Franchises will commence throughout the
    640
    year—they will not all start at the beginning of the financial year and therefore they will not all be granted to commence on 1 April. It therefore makes sense for one person—the franchising director—to be responsible for making the necessary accounting arrangements, to switch subsidy between BR and franchisees in-year. If that were not done, there would have to be some shift of subsidy between whoever, under any alternative arrangements, makes the subsidy payments to BR and the franchising director, who would pay subsidies to franchisees.
    There would be further transitional difficulties. If there were two separate pools of subsidies to passenger services, as new clause 27 indicates, their size would have to be settled in the annual public expenditure round—which would be announced in the autumn statement in November but almost certainly settled before then. If new franchises were to operate in the next financial year in question—from 1 April, say—they would not actually be settled until well after the autumn statement. There would then need to be further transfers. In terms of clear financial management, it makes sense to have subsidies allocated by one person.
    Mr. Prescott: Presumably the moneys paid to the franchise director—however they may be apportioned between British Rail operations, shadow operations, and existing franchise operations—will still be seen as moneys paid from the public purse. So they will still be affected by anything that happens in the public expenditure round.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those moneys would not only be affected by the public expenditure round but directly settled and decided in the annual public expenditure round in the normal way —because it would be subsidy direct from the taxpayer. Moreover; it is important to maintain public accountability.
    Another advantage of adopting our approach is that it would establish a system under which, from the outset, the roles and responsibilities of the various players will be clear. The Secretary of State will he responsible for the total size of the budget for supporting passenger railway services, while the franchising director would be responsible for spending that budget in a way that will achieve his objectives and obtain good value for money.
    The third reason for adopting our proposal and not new clause 27 is that it will assist the process of shadow running. Before a service is franchised, it will be run as a shadow franchise by British Rail, which will form a discrete subsidiary for each proposed franchise to run the services in question. Shadow running will generate information on both the operation and its costs. That information will enable the franchising director to take final decisions on the franchise to be offered to bidders, as defined in the invitation to tender, and on the value for money offered by bids, judged against the cost of British Rail continuing to run the service.
    To channel the subsidy through the franchising director will, I believe, allow him to enter into agreements not just with the British Railways Board but directly with the British Rail subsidiaries. That has some advantages, which I think are important.
    That brings me almost to the end of what I want to say in what I hope will be a short debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants, in new clause 27, grants to continue to be provided to British Rail by the Secretary

    641
    of State. That means that the cost of supporting rail services would remain hidden within a vast block grant. For some reason, the Opposition do not trust the franchising director's ability to make payments to British Rail, or perhaps they are unhappy about the transparency that the new arrangements will bring. I can think of no other reason why they should want to delay the point at which the franchising director becomes responsible for the total budget for supporting passenger railway services. As I have already said, I see clear advantages in going down the route that we recommend. Therefore, I commend new clause 16 to the House and invite it to reject new clause 27.
    Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State stuck closely to his notes, but these matters are still under discussion and late decisions could be made. As he explained, new clause 16 gives all the resources to the franchising director, who will receive them, presumably, from the Secretary of State for Transport who will negotiate them with the Treasury. The difference between the two new clauses is that we have chosen to identify that section that he has already said is a candidate for franchising. It covers seven areas. Today, the Secretary of State identified another 18. Those 25 areas account for practically the whole of the railway system. The exception that he is still considering is the Isle of Wight, and perhaps another area.
    The Secretary of State said today that he has now identified all the areas that are likely to make up the character of future franchises. Managements can now look at the railway system and identify those areas. They account for the greater part of the railway system that the Secretary of State—presumably after discussion with the franchising director—thinks will provide a commercial railway, or one that will be available for bids under the franchise arrangments.
    The first seven are probably more attractive than the other 18 that have been announced today. Perhaps one should compare the InterCity east coast main line with the strategic route along the west coast main line. Those two main lines face completly different problems. A common feature of both lines is that both run from London to Scotland, with one going up the east coast and the other up the west coast, but that is where the similarity ends. There has been considerable investment in the track and rolling stock and in the electification of the east coat main line. However, investment is desperately needed on the west coast main line. About £1 billion of investment is needed to modernise the line from London up the west coast to Scotland. It is at this point that the differences begin to emerge.
    The Secretary of State says that he considers that these lines are likely to be candidates for franchising. If somebody said to him, '"I'm interested in the west coast main line, but I want to go only as far as Manchester and I don't want to operate up to Scotland," I wonder what his reaction would be? People fear that that is where the west coast main line will end and that the route to Scotland will be by means of the east coast main line.
    Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the InterCity network route to Glasgow will continue and that a through service will be retained from London up the north-west coast to Glasgow? That question arises from the implication of his announcement. InterCity is, effectively, finished. There will no longer be a corporate body, InterCity. All the argument about who will get the InterCity logo is finished. None of these lines could claim
    642
    it. I suppose they could claim it to a certain extent, but a corporate identity, with one body providing a connection between all our main cities, will be removed. Those services will be provided by individual operators bidding for the franchises for about 25 services.
    7.45 pm
    I presume that the Secretary of State believes that those are the possibilities, but the services provided will be determined by the people who make the bids and by whether they receive sufficient subsidies from the Government to maintain them. Not all those services can be described as cherry-picked lines that will provide profits. The east coast main line makes a profit, which is estimated to be about £70 million. We should prefer the Secretary of State to have a global amount with which to provide a network service, because of the issue and principle of cross-subsidy.
    I have listened to transport debates ever since I became a Member of Parliament 20 or so years ago. What characterises the difference between the two sides is the cross-subsidy factor. Many Conservative Members say that cross-subsidy undermines competition. Anybody who knows anything about transport, whether it be public or private transport, recognises that peak-time services are subsidised in one form or another. Under the InterCity network concept, it is recognised that some areas are less profitable than others and that a network service must be provided. A network service means that communities throughout the country can be assured of the maintenance of a railway network.
    Let me give an example. My Hull constituency is tagged on to the InterCity network. There are only two services, one each way. I have no doubt that some people who run InterCity would like to lop off the InterCity service to Hull, because the part of the network that runs between Doncaster and Hull is probably not as profitable to them as it would be if they were able to run it directly from York to London. If it takes an hour for a complete set to be diverted from Doncaster to Hull and an hour for it to return to Doncaster, that amounts to one leg of the journey up to York. If it is thought that more money can be earned by providing a frequent service, the commercial ethos, the desire to maximise profit, will undermine the network requirement for a connection to Hull.
    The Secretary of State will probably tell me that it will still be possible to maintain a service, that the franchising director will look at the old pacer train, or one of the new regional trains, and say, "Look, you can still get to Hull in the same time as the InterCity takes." But that will not be a through service. When travelling from one city to another, most people like to do the journey in one haul. They do not like having to change trains.
    If we want to encourage people to get out of their cars and travel on public transport—to take the Hull example again—people will stay on the motorway to get to London instead of going by public transport, if there is no through service. The lack of a through service will lead to people being discouraged from using public transport. That is true of many other areas besides Hull. InterCity has cut off Cleveland, Shrewsbury and Blackpool. Substantial communities such as those are entitled to some form of network service to London, although perhaps not so frequent a service as the services to York or to our other main cities. At least one through service should be provided.

    643
    The provision of through services will not, however, be provided by the market. The market will determine what is the maximum revenue and the maximum profit. I cite as examples the east coast and the west coast main lines.
    If the franchising operator gets the profits from our £500 million investment in the east coast main line, the £70 million will not be used to reinvest in the west coast line but will go to those operating the franchise. It will be profit for shareholders or those who have invested, and we shall presumably have to pay a considerable sum to whoever takes over the west coast main line.
    The concept of cross-subsidisation is at the heart of a good transport policy. If we want to maintain that principle, it is critical that we get people out of their cars and on to the trains. I understand that the Secretary of State has found another solution—charge people to use the roads. On Wednesday, we shall perhaps hear more about road pricing and tolls and making it so damned expensive for cars that people will have to use the trains. That is one way of forcing people into the hands of those who will make money out of the syatem, but it is not the best or most rational way of dealing with the environmental and congestion problems.
    Our approach to the Bill characterises our approach to transport in general. It is not surprising that we find the franchising process outlined in the Bill unacceptable for transport and environmental reasons and the reduction of congestion. We hear what the Secretary of State says, but we dispute and reject it. I should have thought that the process runs counter to the public service obligation which was originally introduced by a Labour Government.
    The aim of the PSO is to recognise the need for a social railway system and to tell the management that we know it cannot make a profit but we shall pay because the community desires to maintain a network of 11,000 miles. That was the idea behind the PSO. It was called a PSO when we entered into the European agreement for the payment of subsidies. We entered into a social contract and agreed to pay a contribution to the running of a social railway.
    However, we always specified that InterCity was different. We said that it was not entitled to a subsidy, but the Government are now going to pay to InterCity subsidies that they have not paid for a number of years. They always took the view that InterCity was not to be regarded as part of the social railway. The Secretary of State now proposes to bring InterCity into that category and, along with it, the freight system which we shall debate later. We are now to have a social freight service. I presume that another factor to be taken into account is that it is the Secretary of State who will govern the finances for the social railway. We shall not be absolved from responsibility but will presumably have to get the money and judge where it should be used to make up the difference in the track costs under the social freight concept which he has just announced.
    The Secretary of State is introducing even greater subsidies without a guarantee for the network. I mentioned InterCity lines such as the west cost line which, because of the need for capital and massive maintenance costs, are not profitable. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to cross-subsidise the whole system, issue the money in one payment and tell InterCity that he wants it to run a network service? He cannot do that if it is divided among different operators. That is the craziness of the system on which he has embarked.
    644
    Another criticism is that not only is the Secretary of State moving away from the PSO concept identified in the European agreement but he is doing something else that is causing considerable concern, as highlighted in our safety inquiries. Managers are obsessed with the organisation of the railway, not with how to produce a new, good or even a safe railway. They spend all their time jockeying to see what board they can get on and what they can do about their wages and conditions. Very little time is spent trying to produce the best possible railway with inadequate finances.
    The Clapham inquiry warned us that so much time is being taken up by management concerns that the commercial ethos and the pursuit of profit are beginning to undermine the very safety of the railway. We were warned not to allow that to continue, but the Secretary of State's announcement is a signal to all British Rail managers to stand by to make a few bob because British Rail is finished and there will be no social railway system and no subsidised or non-subsidised railway. He is making it clear that the whole system is up for grabs, but he knows that, even if he wished it, that will not happen this century.
    Some of the system may be gone. The Secretary of State may wave a few flags—like the Minister for Public Transport, who raised the flag on private organisations such as Stagecoach, which did not last six months—and say, "I launch this new privatised service." However, as the track will belong to someone else and, under the leasing arrangements, the assets will belong to another authority, we shall merely have caught people to manage the system. As Sir Peter Parker pointed out in his article today, they will not control anything because we shall merely be buying management skills, which will not make it difficult for us to bring the system back into public accountability, to which we are committed.
    The process will not improve the railway system one jot, but will take the managers' minds off reality. The only way to maintain the network and the safety of the system is to make it clear, as we do in new clause 27, that, in the areas not passed to franchise operation, in the maintenance of a social network and in compliance with the European arrangements, the money should be paid for network provision to the remaining non-franchised parts of the service. That should he the Secretary of State's responsibility. If the right hon. Gentleman passes it wholly to the franchising director who is obliged to encourage as many private operators as possible, will there not be a danger that so much money will be given to private operators—as the Government are pressing him to do—that he will have no money left for the less profitable parts of the system?
    It is true that the Secretary of State has now made it clear that the announcements that are made in the public expenditure round for the PSO payment—let us say that it is £1 billion, as it has doubled in the past few years—will no longer be governed by that particular year. When the legislation was first introduced, it was agreed that the figure could not rise above that announced in the public expenditure round. By removing that provision, the Secretary of State has made it clear that it is open ended. Open ended can mean many things but, in the Treasury's present frame of mind, it does not mean more money. It means that money will be squeezed. Does anyone believe that the railways will receive more subsidy against the background of a £50 billion public borrowing deficit? If it is left to the franchising director to decide, will it not mean

    645
    that the least profitable and most socially necessary railways will suffer—the rural stations and the very areas for which we want to maintain 11,000 miles of track?
    The essential point is that, according to the PSC), which we accepted under the European arrangement, we agreed not to reduce services but to provide sufficient money to maintain the system at its existing level, which was always measured to be 10,000 or 11,000 miles. How will that be maintained? How are we to observe the quality of service that we are obliged to provide under the European agreement? Will it be the franchising director's responsibility or the Secretary of State's?
    The Secretary of State is the only one who signs the agreement and is responsible for the Government's policy. The franchising director is not independent—as we know from the legislation, at end of the day he is accountable to the Secretary of State. Will the money be provided to meet the obligation? We want the Secretary of State to be answerable. We do not want him telling the House that the franchising director had told him that he had enough money but that people were not efficient or that too many people were employed and paid too much overtime.
    The Secretary of State has avoided giving answers about British Rail many times. He has caused more parliamentary questions to be asked than anyone else and does not come to the Dispatch Box very often to explain what he is doing. It is rare for us to get him into television studios, never mind the House of Commons. However, in spite of that and in spite of the nature of the present Secretary of State, we want him to be answerable.
    We must rely on the fact that the PSO payment is largely about maintaining a social railway. Privatisation is about making profit for the private sector. We want the money to be retained by the Secretary of State for the maintenance of a public network. He should be answerable to the House, which is the purpose of new clause 27.
    8 pm
    Mr. Peter Snape: Listening to the Secretary of State is an enormously depressing experience. Anyone who has sat through railway debates over the years, as many of us have, must be struck by the sense that there is little new under the sun. There is nothing at all new about successive Secretaries of State, except the personality of the person at the Dispatch Box. Secretaries of State come and go. I read in the newspapers that this one is not long for us, and that he has other fish to fry and other jobs in mind. No doubt his successor will trot out the same fallacies that the right hon. Gentleman has given us this afternoon.
    The Railways Act 1974, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred, came about in part because of the inexact nature of planning subsidies to the railways on a line-by-line basis. Before the 1974 Act, the subsidy paid to a particular line was based on an annual and occasionally twice-yearly passenger count on that line. It was, as I have said, a fairly inexact science, and one that most people connected with the railway industry were glad to see disappear following the passage of the 1974 Act. Therefore, to talk about returning to that method, in the way that the Secretary of State has done today, is enormously depressing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked the Secretary of State about the provisions of
    646
    the 1974 Act and whether they would still apply if and when the Bill became law. Will there be some guarantee from the Secretary of State—not from someone whom he has appointed as franchising director—about the size of the network? Is it still the Government's intention that the 11,000 miles, to which my hon. Friend referred, should remain in situ, to be the railway of the future, as it has been over the past 20 years or so?
    Given the view expressed by the Secretary of State and the Conservative party's general ideological view that the private sector is inherently good and the public sector inherently bad, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give us that any moneys allocated through the person whom he appoints will be fairly divided and will not go largely to the new private franchises at the expense of the rump railway operating in the public sector, at least until the unlikely day when the right hon. Gentleman can find someone to take it off our hands? What guarantee can he give us that the railways still operated by British Rail, albeit in the short term as the Government intend, will be properly treated in the allocation of funds?
    Ministers trot out the phrase "value for money" all the time. All of us, even Conservative Members who support the Bill, know full well that franchises will be awarded to the lowest bidder. In those circumstances, there is no real guarantee of value for money. If the franchisee runs half a dozen trains during a day at a time that suits him or her, he or she will be able to put in a far lower bid than someone who wants to run a comprehensive day and evening service. Without some guarantee—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) says something incoherent. If he has a point to make, I shall be delighted to give way.
    Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware that potential franchisees will be invited to bid for specified timetables. They will not be able to pick and choose which services they deliver.
    Mr. Snape: Although the hon. Gentleman has not been here long, his naivety does him no credit. Does he seriously think that there is any long-term guarantee of railway services on that basis?
    Mr. Luff: Yes.
    Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says, "Yes." He and I will debate these matters in a television studio at the weekend. I am looking forward to that immensely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State will not appear in a television studio. None of us is surprised if he sends along people such as the hon. Member for Worcester.
    No real value-for-money judgment can be made about the proposals. The Secretary of State and his more emollient colleague, the Minister for Public Transport, have given us no guarantees. I hope that before the House comes to a conclusion on the new clause, guarantees are not only sought, but given.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: I do not subscribe to the view that the railway is badly managed. I am the holder of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship and in the short time in which I have held that fellowship I have met many senior and middle-level managers of British Rail. I have been impressed by the people whom I have met; they are excellent, dedicated people. However, no one in the

    647
    country, even in the railway industry itself, believes that there is no scope for improvement. I have no difficulty, therefore, with the principle of introducing private sector management techniques into the railway industry. The people who work in the industry have no difficulty with that principle either.
    I also have no difficulty with the desire to introduce private sector capital into the railway industry. The trouble with publicly funded industries, as we saw with water and electricity, is that there is only one source of money—the Treasury. The Treasury usually has only one word in its vocabulary, which is no. Especially in the case of industries such as the railways, one is always told by the Treasury that hospitals, schools and other areas have a far greater priority.
    I have difficulty, however, with the implementation of the process. The privatisation of the railway industry proposed in the Bill is a very ambitious project and there is no doubt that there will be teething troubles. I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, for an assurance that the privatisation process will be conducted on a step-by-step basis and that we shall learn from the errors that will inevitably be shown up when implementation begins. I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that we shall not rush headlong into anything.
    Mr. MacGregor: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond quickly to the points raised. The reason why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and I were yesterday in the same studio, but discussing the matter separately, is that in the short time allotted to us we should have been talking very fast at each other. It was probably more productive for the distinguished interviewer to bring out separately different aspects of our policy. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have had many debates on these matters and I am sure that we shall have many more on transport matters for a long time to come.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made two good points, with which I entirely agree, about the present BR management. I know that many BR managers see great opportunities to produce better passenger services through the proposed systems. My hon. Friend also made a good point about private capital.
    I have always emphasised that this is an evolutionary reform of the railways in a private sector direction; it is not revolutionary reform and will not happen all at once. I pray in aid a leader in the Financial Times today which my hon. Friend may have seen. It suggests that we should go faster than we are. It says:
    "All the private sector is being asked to do is to bid for franchises to operate passenger services on British Rail's behalf. But even this small step brings the prospect of significant benefits—worthwhile improvements in productivity, a management motivated by financial rewards, and, it is to be hoped, the beginning of private sector investment in rolling stock. And because the chosen structure sensibly avoids a 'big bang' approach in favour of a piecemeal allocation of franchises over a period of years, there will be every opportunity to learn from experience as privatisation progresses."
    Mr. Bob Cryer: At the expense of passengers.
    Mr. MacGregor: Certainly not at the expense of passengers. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point. We shall benefit all the way through from better and better handling of the whole system.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: This is the second time that the Secretary of State has referred to this morning's Financial Times editorial. In the interest of balance, every time that he quotes from today's Financial Times editorial, will he also quote from last week's editorial in The Daily Telegraph, or is The Daily Telegraph no longer an acceptable journal of opinion for the Conservative party?
    Mr. MacGregor: The reason why I am quoting from the Financial Times is that an Opposition Member raised its editorial. I simply thought that the Financial Times put the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham made extremely well.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to Glasgow and I can give him a clear affirmative on that point for two reasons. First, British Rail has no plans to discontinue any services beyond Preston on the west coast main line. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the invitation to tender will be based on the network as it exists immediately before that invitation.
    That is very clear. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will see that that is the case from the chart that has been produced today for that franchise unit. I can see that there are real merits in having competition under our franchising system between individual operators and between the west coast and east coast main lines.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to cross-subsidies. Under the system that we are proposing, where a line like the east coast main line has received substantial investment and where bidders are therefore likely to pay a premium in return from the profits which, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, are available on that line, that premium will be able to be offset—in effect, it will be taken into the calculation—against the total amount of subsidy that will be paid out in the bids for other franchises such as for the west coast main line where, I readily acknowledge, further investment on a significant scale will be required over the years.
    That brings me to the next and very important point about PSO grants. We are continuing the subsidies. We believe that we have found a more effective way, in operational terms in respect of getting value for money, and in transparency, by allocating the subsidies in the way that we propose. However, the subsidies will continue.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also referred to inadequate finances, although he conceded that the current level of PSO is twice the level of recent years. He will be aware that the currrent level is much higher than for a very long time—[Interruption.] That was the hon. Gentleman's phrase. That is also why investment is at such a high level, including £500 million which has been spent on safety in the past three years.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I must make progress.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will also be aware that we have given clear commitments in relation to safety on the basis of the Health and Safety Executive report. This debate comes down to whether the subsidies are allocated through two different routes or

    649
    through one. I have already said why I believe that it is right to proceed via the franchising director. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but that is why I commend new clause 16 and urge the House to reject the other new clause.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Secretary of State had given way a moment ago, I would not have needed to intervene now as
    I wish to contribute literally three sentences. The PSO grant has been cut by 23 per cent. over last year's figure. Even according to the somewhat short-term thinking of the Conservative party these days, I do not believe that that counts as a very long time.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 4

    DUTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS TO FURNISH INFORMATION TO THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR ON REQUEST
    '.—(1) Any of the following persons, that is to say—

    (a) the Board,

    (b) any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, or

    (c) any person who is the holder of a network licence or a station licence,

    shall be under a duty to furnish to the Franchising Director in such form and manner as he may by notice request such information as he may so request, being information which the Franchising Director considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of his under this Part.
    (2) A request under subsection (1) above must be complied with within such time (being not less than 28 days from the making of the request) as may be specified in the request.
    (3) If any such request is not complied with, the Franchising Director may serve a notice under subsection (4) below on the person from whom the information was requested under subsection (1) above.
    (4) A notice under this subsection is a notice signed by the Franchising Director and—

    (a) requiring the person on whom it is served to produce, at a time and place specified in the notice, to the Franchising Director or to any person appointed by the Franchising Director for the purpose, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in that person's custody or under his control; or

    (b) requiring that person to furnish, at a time and place and in the form and manner specified in the notice, to the Franchising Director such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

    (5) No person shall be required under this section to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court or, in complying with any requirement for the furnishing of information, to give any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in any such proceedings.
    (6) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by notice under subsection (4) above is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    (7) A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required by any notice under subsection (4) above to produce is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

    (8) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under subsection (4) above, the court may, on the application
    650
    of the Franchising Director, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good; and any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the person in default or by any officers of a company or other association who are responsible for its default.
    (9) Any reference in this section to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form; and the reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.
    (10) In this section "the court" means the High Court, in relation to England and Wales, and the Court of Session, in relation to Scotland.'—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 13—
    Transfers of franchise assets and shares.
    Government new clause 23—Powers of the Franchising Director to make transfer schemes.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 23, in line 7, at end insert—
    ', or
    (d) the Board, or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board'.
    Amendment No. 237, in clause 5, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
    '(c) to ensure that the levels of fares charged or to be charged under a franchise agreement are reasonable to passengers'.
    Government amendments Nos. 110 to 112, 153, 162, 13, 166, 164, 165, 168 to 172, 174, 179, 177, 180 to 182, 184, 72, 80, 85 to 88, and 24 to 28.
    Mr. Freeman: I will speak to new clause 4 and the other Government new clauses of which there are a great number. I will explain relatively simply what they are intended to do. They all relate to the powers of the franchising director.
    Government new clauses 4 and 13 replace clause 68. They improve the drafting of the Bill. They extend the powers of the franchising director in obtaining information to a much wider range of bodies. At the moment, clause 68 specifically gives the franchising director power to obtain information from BR to prepare information for a bid for a franchise.
    New clauses 4 and 13 extend the powers of the franchising director to obtain information from Railtrack and from station licensees to prepare the necessary information to advertise to the private sector what is on offer in terms of a franchise. That will enable the franchising director to prepare proper information. There will certainly be sufficient time for the private sector to bid for the franchise.
    8.15 pm
    Clause 24 is replaced by Government new clauses 13 and 23. The purpose of those new clauses is to give the franchising director powers of designation, protection and transfer of what are called designated franchise assets. The new clauses provide, in the Government's judgment, a clearer regime. In particular, for the first time, the franchising director will be able to designate leases of rolling stock. As those are clearly rights of the operating companies and assets which do not belong to the

    651
    franchisee or potential franchisee, the franchising director will have the power to control the continued use of leased rolling stock on a particular line.
    An amendment to which we shall come later should be read in conjunction with that new power. It gives the franchising director the right to roll forward leased rolling stock from one franchise to another. The purpose of that amendment is to enable the leasing industry to have sufficient security in writing long-term leases, even though a particular franchise might be for a more limited period.
    Under those Government new clauses, the franchising director will be able to designate assets, rights and liabilities. The new clauses also provide for designation of those franchise assets by agreement with the franchisee. We believe that that is important. They will be protected under the franchise and there are provisions in relation to assets, removed at the end of a franchise period from one franchisee and passed to the next, for appropriate values to be paid to the franchisee at the conclusion of his franchise. There is also a provision which places on a statutory footing the obligation of the franchisee not to encumber certain assets.
    I hope that that is a concise introduction to the amendments.
    Mr. Cryer: Before the Minister concludes, will he describe the circumstances in which the franchising director is given powers in new clause 4 to impose criminal penalties, albeit through the courts? The power will apply if a person fails to provide adequate notice or if he or she alters documents. Does not that suggest that the proposed system is fraught with legal difficulties, arguments and deceit? New clause 4 provides for the standard of production in civil proceedings and it adds on criminal offences. Does not that envisage serious difficulties in the work of the franchising director?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the franchising director is established as a non-ministerial Government Department, answerable to the House through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Therefore, he constitutes a public body. It his duty to let by franchise the responsibility for running passenger rail services. Therefore, there should be some compulsion available to him to obtain information. We are not simply talking about BR or Railtrack—and it is intended that Railtrack shall be a Government-owned company. There may also be private providers of infrastructure and, for example, private sector station licensees.
    If the franchising director needs to obtain information to enable him to relet a franchise—or to let one initially —it should be within his powers to obtain that information. That is the reason for the sanctions in Government new clause 4, to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has drawn the attention of the House. He was right to do so. That does not imply that there is any web of deceit or malevolence among those who seek to provide station services, network services or franchised passenger rolling stock services. It gives the franchising director the essential power that he needs.
    I note that the group of amendments includes amendment (a) to new clause 23. I am sure we shall hear a speech on it shortly from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is important that the House should recognise that it is
    652
    not intended that British Rail should have any determinate length of responsibility for running franchise services once an initial franchise is let.
    As I understand it—I look forward to responding in due course—amendment (a) to new clause 23 provides the power to transfer assets from the franchising director to British Rail for a period to run services if the franchising director decides that that is the best solution. I look forward to hearing the arguments. I shall argue that the franchising director will look to British Rail in certain circumstances. But the franchising director can and will make management arrangements with British Rail to provide the services. There is no need to give British Rail either a formal franchise or for there to be a formal arrangement between the franchising director and British Rail.
    Mr. Wilson: We have here a preliminary skirmish on some of the issues that we will return to in more detail during tomorrow's debate. As the Minister said, these new clauses and amendments are to some extent technical. Some piquancy has been introduced to the group of amendments by the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on fares and the franchising director's role in that, and also of course by the hon. Member for, North Devon (Mr. Harvey) who has raised the subject of British Rail's right to do anything after the legislation is passed, if it is passed in its present form.
    The amendments also give rise to some discussion of the powers of the franchising director. I see the director as a figure who will be of great convenience to the Government, in that responsibility for everything that happens on the railways will then be transferred to him. The Government are looking for a figure of whom they can say, "It is nothing to do with us. This is the franchising director's job. It is he who has made the decisions and the idea of holding Ministers responsible really is quite ridiculous."
    I can tell the Minister that the Government will not get away with that. The creation of the structure is the responsibility of the Government. When things start to go wrong—as they certainly will for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) outlined in the previous debate and for the reasons that we can see in this debate—I assure him that it will be political responsibility that is carried. It will not be the franchising director who does not have the money to sustain the system. It will not be the franchising director's fault when franchises fail and such measures have to be brought into play.
    There are things that we can welcome. If the legislation goes ahead, clearly it would create additional difficulties if every time that a franchisee changed, it was all change for rolling stock and everything else. As the principle of leasing, which is a far more rational and intelligent form of private sector involvement than anything that we have heard from the Government, was first suggested by the Opposition, it would be illogical of us to oppose the idea that leasing should be made possible by a recognition that the leased rolling stock would carry over from one franchise period to the other. However, that does not acknowledge the sense of franchise periods. That is a separate story.
    We support leasing. It is a sensible way of creating investment in the railways. It is a sensible way of giving

    653
    work to the railway manufacturing industries. Of course, leasing could have been introduced years ago. It is not in the least dependent on anything else in the Bill. It is remarkable that the Government took so long to come round to our way of thinking.
    The rest of the new clauses and amendments are not controversial. We support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. We also support the Liberal Democrat amendment, on which we shall vote later. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and his colleagues suggest that the franchise director should have a responsibility
    "to ensure that the levels of fares charged or to be charged under a franchise agreement are reasonable to passengers".
    I have no wish to pre-empt what the hon. Gentleman intends to say, but if the Government do not accept the amendment as a signpost that many Conservative Members are extremely discontent with the Bill, they will not accept much else.
    It is surely reasonable to expect the franchise director to have responsibility and take an interest in the level of fares charged by the operators. All the pressures in the Bill will be to force fares upwards. The financial regime which will be put in place will force fares upwards. The main pressure will come from the profit element, but the structure will depend largely on the level of subsidy. There is no guarantee that in future the subsidy will be maintained at its present rate. Indeed, we believe that a large part of the Government's operation is intended to reduce that level of subsidy, and hence the cost of the railways to the Government.
    The Liberal Democrat amendment, which will also have our support, is straightforward. It raises the principle of involvement of British Rail in what happens after the legislation is passed, if indeed it is. The franchise director can apparently transfer assets to virtually anyone in Christendom except the people who at present run the railways. Here we see the Government's prejudice against British Rail. It is further confirmation that the purpose of the Bill is to squeeze British Rail out of existence. The Government intend to erode it steadily. Prejudice is the only word that I can use because it is difficult to see any rationale behind the Government's position.
    The Minister's attitude to the Liberal Democrat amendment seems to confirm that anything which sustains or extends British Rail's role is anathema to Ministers. We shall deal with that approach in much more detail tomorrow. The tone of the Minister's remarks must be offensive to some Conservative Members. It will certainly be offensive to people in British Rail who work to make the system function as well as it does. The blinkered focus of so much of the legislation is that British Rail must be squeezed out of existence by whatever means possible.
    Like the Minister, I hope that I can catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give notice that we shall support the amendments. I look forward to much more discussion of the principles which underlie them as we proceed.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to put four questions to the Minister. I think that they are relevant to the new clauses. I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to speak. New clause 4 says that any person shall furnish information. Does that information relate to nationality? I was astonished, as I know that you will be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that while foreign railway
    654
    companies such as the French or Belgian railway network will be permitted to put in a bid for the Fenchurch Street line, British Rail will not.
    I find it unthinkable that British Rail might be able to tender for the Fenchurch Street line only by securing a French subsidiary company. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind our obligations under European Community law, and will ensure that no one is treated unfairly. I hope that he can assure us either that national railway companies will be able to put in a hid, or that they will not. I think he will accept that it would be rather unfair to the people of Southend, and rather alarming for them, if they were subject to control by a French company rather than by British Rail—for which they have a high regard, despite the dreadful service with which they are provided.
    8.30 pm
    My second point is fundamental. Can the Government assure us that, when the franchises and information are sought, the people—including hon. Members—will be able to see what is being asked for? I think that, if the franchising director decides that he wants the Fenchurch Street line to have two trains—perhaps on Wednesday, every second week—the people of Southend are entitled to have that information. I hope that the Minister will make it abundantly clear that, if the franchising director is looking for bids, the people will know what is being paid for. As he probably knows, there is a certain amount of suspicion about the whole business in some parts of the country.
    Thirdly, can the Minister give an assurance that the franchising director will consult the respected rail passenger organisations in Southend and elsewhere? The Government now seem to be setting up quangos constantly. I remember a time when Conservatives used to complain about quangos, describing them as nasty, costly nonsenses created by socialist Governments. In fact, we have set up far more quangos than any socialist Government, and they are becoming more expensive and more bureaucratic. When I look around my own country —including a place called Chelmsford, which some hon. Members may have observed— I find that many people are employed by quangos, and that it costs a fortune. It is all very sad.
    I have a high regard for the Minister, and I know that there is no way of preventing the Government from rushing to create a mass of new quangos. I hope, however, that he will at least assure us that the exciting new quango known as the franchising director will have an obligation to consult rail users' associations.
    Finally, let me convey a simple request from Southend-on-Sea. Our rail system is wildly out of date. Let me pay a personal tribute to the Minister, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon): he agreed to new signalling equipment for the line. It is only fair to point out that the signalling at Fenchurch Street station is older than I am: that shows that it is rather out of date. However, we have now been assured that something will be done—and we hope that it will, despite the problems facing the Treasury. My right hon. Friend and I—along with all the travellers of Southend—also hope that this exciting new arrangement will ensure the provision of new rolling stock on the Fenchurch Street line.
    We respect the Minister. He has said things that we have found to be correct, which is rather unusual in

    655
    Ministers nowadays; he has forecast developments that have actually come about—which, again, is commendable and unusual. Given our trust in the Minister, based on what he has done for us in the past, we hope that he can answer the four points that I have made. If he can, it will greatly reassure the people of Southend, who have suffered a great deal and who hope that the Government's exciting new plan will limit their sufferings in the future.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: The Minister anticipated that I would want to speak to amendment (a), and I intend to do so. The new clause strays further into the realm of BR's future involvement in the railways, which will clearly be a substantial matter for debate tomorrow.
    Only a few minutes ago, we were considering Government new clause 16 and the principle of BR running services that are not franchised—that is, operating services before the creation of a franchise. I wonder why it should be so out of the question for us to discuss BR's involvement after the ending of a franchise. It strikes me as the height of absurdity that, under Government new clause 23(1)(b), the franchising director will apparently have to go to the lengths of setting up his own subsidiary company to run services where there will be no other franchise. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) pointed out, that rules out the obvious party to which the franchising director should turn in such circumstances—the only experienced operator in the land, British Rail.
    The amendment would not set up a formal BR bidding process at the end of a private franchise. There would be no obligation to hand everything over to British Rail; that would simply be retained as an option, at the franchising director's discretion. The experience of London Buses is vaguely comparable to what we are discussing. In some cases, at the end of a private franchise, the service has reverted to London Buses.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North: the Government's proposals are based on ideology —on a dogmatic determination to squeeze BR out of existence. If, at the end of a franchise, it is decided that there will not be another franchise for some reason, and the franchising director contemplates handing over the service to BR—the Minister has conceded that that could be done on the basis of, for instance, a management agreement—it must be because something is wrong.
    The fact that the existing franchisee is not coming back for more, or there is no queue of potential franchisees waiting to take over, suggests that the franchise is failing. In such circumstances, the option—the right—to hand the service to British Rail would be a valuable tool in the franchising director's armoury.
    If, as has been suggested, that could be done simply through management agreements, why not write it into the new clause and enable the assets to be handed over? How, through a management agreement, can BR run a service without being given the franchise assets—the trains and everthing else on the line? How can any management agreement cover BR's ability to operate such a service if it is not given the tools with which to do so?
    I admire the conviction with which the Government are planning ahead—burning the bridges behind them; doing without any safety mechanism to catch the pieces if the whole thing falls apart—but I am forced to doubt their
    656
    judgment. They are impressively buoyant in their approach to a scheme that is almost universally derided by those outside their ranks.
    The Government believe that the introduction of the private sector through the franchising set-up that they anticipate will result in a reduction in the cost to the Exchequer; but many of us do not. They believe that a queue of interested parties is champing at the bit to take on these services; but many of us do not. They believe that the private sector whizz kids will come in, improving services and increasing revenue; again, many of us do not. The Minister himself has agreed that, if the private sector is unable to come in and increase the revenue, there will be a disaster. How right he is.
    At present, none of us knows who is right. No one can say for certain whether the Government, in their buoyancy, conviction and optimism, are right, or whether the many others who have considered these matters and retain some scepticism are right. Let us just suppose that it is we who are right—we who are sceptical about the potential success of the scheme—and that franchises start to fail. If one private franchise fails, why should another on the same line and service succeed? What would happen if nobody came forward to take it over?
    If the amount that the franchise director has to offer to try to tempt people in to save the day in those sorry circumstances is more than it would cost British Rail to run the service, the National Audit Office will probably take an interest in the matter, as it would amount to the squandering of public funds. It would be in the best interests of the Minister and the scheme if that fallback option and safety net could be continued. I sincerely believe that the Government are displaying pig-headed obstinacy and that the British Rail option should remain available to the franchise director.
    Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I wish to speak to amendment No. 237. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to Madam Speaker for selecting the amendment at a late stage. I believe that it is extremely important for the House to discuss the amendment, and Madam Speaker has done the House a service by enabling hon. Members to debate fares policy.
    As the House may know, I expressed strong reservations on Second Reading about the effects on fares of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's British Rail privatisation proposals. My fears were based on a combination of three factors, which all appeared to me to show that a strong upward pressure on fares would be created. The first was that the private sector franchisees would certainly look for a significantly higher rate of return than is currently being obtained by British Rail and is being sought by the Treasury as a rate of return on capital by British Rail.
    Secondly, there is no certainty about the level at which present subsidies will be continued for British Rail, particularly in relation to Network SouthEast. The Government have made a commitment that subsidies will continue, but have declined to say at what financial level. The subsidies might be cut by half, two thirds or three quarters, which would result in further upward pressure on fares. Thirdly, the Bill does not contain a specific provision to moderate the level of fares that can be set under the franchise proposals.

    657
    Since I expressed those concerns on Second Reading —concerns that were also expressed in other parts of the House and by a number of hon. Members—there has been remarkable agreement in the comments on the fare implications of the proposals. The House has had the benefit of the Select Committee report, which expressed a similar view.
    Outside the House, there has been a host of reports by independent firms, consultancies, independent commentators, transport user groups, consumer interests, including the National Consumer Council, and major local authority associations such as the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They have all come to the same conclusion: that the pressure on fares will tend to be upwards. Against that background, I urge my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to give the most serious consideration to that substantial weight of opinion from all quarters on the proposals' likely fare implications.
    8.45 pm
    I tabled amendment No. 237 because, although the Bill has now reached its Report stage, there is still no sign of material moves by Ministers to allay my fears on the fares issue. I had hoped that, in Committee, the concerns that I had expressed on Second Reading would be at least partly met, but unhappily that is not so.
    Since I spoke on Second Reading, there have been two policy announcements. At virtually the eleventh hour and 59th minute of the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport popped into his wind-up speech a significant statement of policy. I believe that it appeared there for the first time, unless it had previously escaped me. He said:
    "We propose a cap on fares for those services which are a monopoly, and I can confirm that the commuting lines into London constitute a monopoly."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 243.]
    That constituted acceptance of the principle of a cap.
    Tucked away in the voluminous documentation submitted to the Standing Committee was a paper entitled, "Draft Objectives of the Secretary of State for the Franchising Director". It contained two paragraphs with the arresting title of "Fare Levels", setting out the draft objectives. But, unfortunately, they contained nothing of great substance, other than stating that only on franchise services which enjoy significant market power—monopolies—could the franchise agreements limit price increases on fares. No such limits would apply on other lines.
    To determine whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could say anything more substantial about what he intended to do in relation to fares, I asked key questions about capping: at what level could the cap on fares be set and what would be the criteria for triggering the cap on fares where the franchisee had a monopoly? I also asked whether my right hon. Friend had any further information to supplement the thin information set out in the two paragraphs of the draft objectives to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Minister replied:
    "Further work remains to be done in developing the draft guidance that I provided to the Standing Committee in relation to fares regulation and other matters."—[official Report, 5 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 158.]
    We are none the wiser about what is intended in the way of fare control.
    Mr. Mark Wolfson: While I clearly welcome the fact that commuter lines into London are to be regarded as a monopoly, and will consequently be eligible for capping, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many other cases all over the country in which, in railway terms, the franchisee will have a monopoly?
    Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a significant point. In practice, it will be extremely difficult to ring-fence the capping principle on a geographical basis. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) has said.
    On Second Reading, I said that I felt that I was being asked to sign a blank cheque on my constituents' cheque books for their travel-to-work costs—the second highest item of household expenditure in my constituency after food, runing at about £2,000 per year. The object of amendment No. 237 is to try to place an upper limit on the blank cheque by introducing the principle of reasonableness, inserting in clause 5 an additional statutory duty on the franchising director.
    The House may find it interesting to look at the franchising director's existing statutory duties. In many ways, the first two duties are symptomatic of how the Bill is drafted, as they simply put clear obligations on the franchising director to do what the Secretary of State tells him. In other words, the franchising director will follow only the Secretary of State's objectives, guidelines and instructions. Indeed, he is a creature of the Secretary of State.
    That is a perfectly reasonable principle, and I do not contest it. But that is where it ends—no further obligation whatever is placed on the franchising director, other than to do what the Secretary of State says. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an additional statutory duty —the requirement that the level of fares set should be reasonable to passengers.
    I anticipate two possible questions that may be asked with regard to it. The first is whether it is technically and legally satisfactory to base a duty on the principle of reasonableness. I submit that there are ample precedents in statute law, and that it is a familiar legal concept. Obviously, in considering the amendment, I and those associated with it considered other options, such as whether there was a possible formula that could be adopted. We concluded that, given the multiplicity of lines, the different financial patterns and the different social requirements, there was no formula that could conceivably make sense and that therefore the criterion of reasonableness was the best one to adopt.
    The second question that I anticipate is whether such an amendment is necessary: is the point that I am making covered elsewhere in the Bill? If my hon. Friend the Minister seeks to draw attention, for example, to clause 4(1)(a), which refers to the statutory duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator, there is a statutory duty
    "to protect the interests of users of railway services"
    That statutory duty is not sufficient to deal with the specific issue of fares—it is an extremely generalised duty.
    Indeed, from some standpoints, one could well argue in favour of a substantial increase in fares, possibly in the interests of users of rail services in certain circumstances —for example, if a major investment programme had to

    659
    take place. I do not believe that the statutory duty in clause 4 in any way provides an adequate answer to the question of protection in the area of fares.
    My hon. Friend may seek to draw my attention to amendment No. 111. I appreciate that that amendment enables a franchising agreement to include provisions on fares, but their content is left wholly open and could amount to anything. Therefore, the specific legal point, the specific policy and the specific structure in law that is covered by my amendment is not in any way covered elsewhere in the legislation. If the amendment is accepted by the House—obviously, I hope that it will be—it will be the only specific wording in the legislation biting on fare levels.
    The amendment could not be a wrecking amendment. It does not in any way seek to undermine the Government's proposals or stop franchising getting off the ground. It is based entirely on reasonableness.
    I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the only conceivable basis for failing to accept such an amendment is that they wish to keep open the option of fare levels becoming unreasonable. I assume and hope that that is not what they wish to do. The amendment is modest, sensible and necessary, and I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Snape: As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, we must pay tribute to the Government for one thing—they have accepted the principle of rolling stock leasing. Before the last general election, they were resolutely against rolling stock leasing. Indeed, during the campaign and for several months after it, the Minister of State said—I do not recall whether it was in the House or outside—that the Labour party's proposal on the leasing of rolling stock was impractical. It is a pleasure to see him, albeit from an odd angle, standing on his head at the Dispatch Box.
    For some time, Labour Members have felt that the leasing of rolling stock was sensible because it would allow the newly formed leasing companies to raise private capital for new trains without having an impact on the external financing limits of the railway system. When we put that point to the Government, as we have done in the past few years, we were scorned, so we are delighted that yet another Labour party policy has finally been accepted by the Government.
    I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who has some reason for not being in his place at present. I appreciate the British Rail versus the SNCF argument. Generally, the hon. Gentleman is not overly keen on foreigners—he has made that plain in many debates in the House. He did not go so far as to imply that the employees of SNCF would trundle up and down through Fenchurch Street station and on to Southend wearing striped jerseys and berets and reeking of onions or garlic, but one got the general drift that he was not overly keen on the prospect of the French railway system intervening or operating trains in his part of the world.
    When one looks at the comparative efficiency of British Rail and SNCF, the illogical nature of the legislation strikes one because the Government have admitted that BR's productivity and ability to run a railway system have recently improved dramatically and, indeed, by any
    660
    benchmark exceed that of SNCF. However, not only will BR not be allowed to bid for railway franchises, but, in the event of a franchisee not renewing his franchise or going bust during the period of the franchise, British Rail will not be allowed to take over. Yet we have heard from Ministers that a less efficient, foreign-owned railway system will be allowed to take over. It is a rum form of Toryism. I always thought that Toryism was a fairly rum creed, but it gets rummer the more one looks at the proposals in the legislation.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) understandably expressed concern about the likely impact of the proposals on fares in his constituency and on Network SouthEast. He is right to express that concern because it is the Government's intention to reduce and eventually eliminate subsidies to Network SouthEast commuter trains by 1995. It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. He has a reputation of being the ultimate Thatcherite in his younger days. However, like most other Thatcherites, he is not overly keen on the plunge in the cold bath of reality when it affects his constituency or—as subsidies are likely to be reduced or eliminated by 1995—his re-election prospects. If the subsidy to Network SouthEast has been abolished by that time, it will at least provide Conservative Members with a ready talking point on the doorsteps during the next election campaign.
    It is acknowledged, not least in the latest report on rail privatisation by the consultants Steer Davies Gleave, that fares on Network SouthEast would have to rise by 37 per cent., presumably by 1995, if the Government's intention to withdraw the subsidy were realised. I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and I appreciate the thinking and the feeling behind his amendment. I am not sure whether he has got the right person to whom to appeal for a ruling on the reasonableness or otherwise of the proposed fare rises, given the Government's intention and the duties of the franchising director to allocate routes depending on the quality and level of bids. Is the franchising director the right person to decide on the reasonableness of those fare increases? The right hon. Gentleman might consider the regulator a more suitable person.
    9 pm
    Not only is it politically reckless for the Government to present such proposals, but they will add considerably to the congestion on south-eastern roads and make it more difficult for Tory Members to be re-elected. That last point will not cause me to lose much sleep, although it is obviously disturbing to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, whose amendment is in this group.
    Is it logical to stand by while the increases illustrated by Steer Davies Gleave are implemented? Given the Government's intention to abolish the subsidies, perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether he thinks that the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing is reasonable.
    The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) also said that the proposed legislation was nonsense. He mentioned the refusal to countenance the idea of the expert at running trains, British Rail, taking over a franchise. That is not fair to the management of BR. When I worked at BR, there were good and bad managers and the campaign of denigrating BR management has had an

    661
    enormous impact on managerial morale. To suggest that people are effective as managers only if they mortgage their homes to put together a buy-out is as insulting as it is untrue. The Minister of State should look again at the whole issue of BR's managerial involvement. If the legislation is implemented with its provisions unscathed, there will be a further deterioration of managerial morale in the railways and the consequences of that will be borne by all our constituents.
    The Minister should reply to the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Devon. I welcome the Minister's conversion to the principle of leasing rolling stock, but the amendments address many matters that are eminently unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Paul Channon: I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and 11 wish to raise are more apposite to the ammendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) than to some others.
    My second apology is to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is never wise for ex-Secretaries of State to return to issues after they have been away from them for a few years. They are clearly out of date and probably have everything wrong. No doubt the Minister will politely correct me if I make some mistakes.
    I am strongly in favour of the Bill and I hope that I am not the only hon. Member who takes that view. If I were not strongly in favour, I would certainly have landed the Government with a poisoned chalice. Perhaps I have done that. The Bill will bring long-term benefits to my constituents and to rail travellers in my constituency. [Interruption.] I intend to deal not with the macro side but with some of the small problems in my part of the world. I used to have to deal with the macro side and it is a great relief not to have to do that any more.
    The point that some of my constituents raise with me is that, although they know perfectly well that over the past 50 years or so their service to London has left a great deal to be desired, they are alarmed by what is proposed in the Bill because they want to hold on to nurse for fear of getting something worse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he considers the points raised by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, will consider how we can reassure them—because they are eminently reassurable.
    I believe that, before the franchises are awarded, it is important to consult those people in the local community who have strong views and some experience of how those rail services are or should be run. That is why I strongly believe that there should be some form of consultation or discussion with the local railway travellers' associations and perhaps with the consultative committees, so that those who are the leaders on this issue in my constituency —and, no doubt, many others—can be seized of the merits of the case. They will know why Mr. X has become one of the franchisers rather than Mr. Y and what criteria have led the Government or the franchising director to that decision. Such people should know some of the contents of the franchise—perhaps some things will be commercially confidential and will not be able to be revealed, but there will be some things that can easily be revealed. That would go a long way, at the beginning, towards reassuring people who are nervous about what might take place.
    662
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing raised in his powerful speech the most important issue of all—fares. I respect and believe the assurances given by my right hon. and hon. Friends, during the passage of the Bill and before, about what will happen to fares on commuter lines if the new system is adopted. I am not particularly worried about that because I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make sure that, on fares, nothing dreadful happens to my constituents. If something dreadful does happen, not only my seat but several hundred seats around London will be lost. The Government would be foolish to try it, so I am confident about that.
    It is not surprising that representatives of the commuters in my area, who do not have the experience or the pleasure of knowing my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as I do, are naturally nervous about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing outlined their anxieties, quite rightly, a few moments ago. I endorse everything that he said, and that may reassure one or two hon. Members who are nervous about some aspects of the Bill.
    I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up, to give careful consideration to trying to make sure that, when the changes take place, local people are fully consulted so that they know what they are in for and it does not come as a tremendous surprise. I think that they will find that they are very pleased with what will happen to them when the franchising takes place—that is the Government's intention and my intention, and I am sure it will be achieved—but they need to be helped, reassured and encouraged.
    I would echo the tributes paid to my hon. Friend the Minister. He has paid several visits to my constituency, ridden on the notorious misery line, and lived to tell the tale. He does not look too bad for having done so. I, too, have done so, and I can say that in recent months the line has got a great deal better. There is a considerable local problem, but I believe that franchising the service is likely to improve the position.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the need to consult people, to take note of their views—in particular, the local railway travellers' association—and to give careful consideration to them before the franchises are awarded.
    Mr. John Gunnell: Much of the press comment on the Bill recognises that it creates a new class of endangered species—that of the railways system and its dependants. Many of the amendments tabled for consideration seek to protect those dependants. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has moved an amendment which clearly seeks to protect passengers and the reference to the consultative system is again an attempt to protect passengers.
    Other amendments will be moved which seek to protect freight users, lines from closure and employees—we have already had a debate about protecting employees. I suspect that the Government know well that many aspects of the railway system are seriously threatened by the Bill. The Minister commented on leased rolling stock, which is also affected by new clauses 13, 14 and 18, an issue that we must consider fully, and that has been raised several times in the debate.
    New clause 4, on the duty to furnish information, does not specify what information it is expected will be

    663
    required. Let me suggest to the Minister the information that I think should be known to the franchising director. He should have a view on the historic costs of every service going out to franchise. That view should also be made available to the public. When services are to continue and support is offered by the franchising director, it is important to know what the cost of those services is now so that comparison may be drawn between the cost of the services run by British Rail and the anticipated cost under a franchising system.
    That information is necessary because the invitation to tender, which comes from the franchising director, must contain the best available information so that bidders can respond appropriately, bring forward cost-effective proposals and have an idea as to about where their bid should be pitched. We do not expect that there will be an excessive number of bidders. It is clear that there are likely to be few and only a few services may go out to franchise in the first instance. It is important that we set down and make public the costs and that they form part of the tendering process. It is also important that the franchising director has information on aspects of the track so that he is able to inform Railtrack of where new investment will be necessary. He will have to have much information that will need to be disclosed.
    Amendment No. 237, to which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing spoke, concerns the fare levels that will be required and imposed. They will be affected by the amount that the franchising director is willing to pay for services. He will make a judgment about fares if he knows the current usage and costs of operating that line. He will be able to set the subsidy, which will enable bidders to draw a relationship between the passenger throughput and the possible rate of return on investment. It is important not only that his judgments are based on information, which he can obtain through new clause 4, but that that information is given to the public.
    Rolling stock was mentioned in the debate that preceded Second Reading and on Second Reading. It came up frequently during our debates. We recognise that the Bill threatens the railway engineering industry in a way that passengers, freight users and the environment are not threatened at this stage. They will be affected only when the Bill comes into operation and we find out whether it works. The railway engineering industry began to suffer as soon as the whiff of privatisation was in the air. That is made clear in the Select Committee report.
    The report literally illustrates the point graphically. It sets out the levels of the order books of the railway engineering companies and suggests that by the end of 1995 there will be no orders on those books. The report clearly shows how long it has been since orders were placed by British Rail and others. The fall-off in business has been significant. When speaking to the Select Committee, Lord Prior said that £150 million over three years was nothing like sufficient and that unless there were more orders there would be no industry left in three years.
    9.15 pm
    I and other hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee acknowledge that the Minister is a good listener and that he responds constructively whenever possible. We welcome the fact that he has included in the new clause the ability for the franchising director to pass
    664
    on rolling stock. That is a constructive move, because without it no one will want to acquire rolling stock for relatively short leases. The ability to pass on leased rolling stock is essential if the railway engineering industry is to get orders.
    I want to ask some questions about the way in which the franchising director's ability to pass on rolling stock links with new clause 14, which deals with the ability to form finance companies, and new clause 18, which also refers to financing. The three hang together—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use new clause 14 as a key element in his argument, but will wait until we reach that new clause. The same applies to new clause 18. The hon. Gentleman's argument must be centred on the new clause before the House.
    Mr. Gunnell: I thought that this was the time to raise points about the rolling stock aspects because three other hon. Members, including the Minister, have done so. However, on the question of the financing of that stock I shall happily wait until we reach new clause 18 and make a brief contribution then.
    Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to new clause 23, which refers to schemes relating to the transfer of assets. It is in that context that the Minister and other hon. Members referred to the transfer of rolling stock and that is why my hon. Friend referred to it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I heard the other contributions to which he referred. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) specifically referred to new clauses 14 and 18 and said that he would develop his argument. I am saying that he must concentrate his remarks on the new clauses before us. If he wishes to speak later on new clauses 14 and 18, that is appropriate—but he cannot develop his argument on those new clauses now.
    Mr. Gunnell: I shall rest my case at this stage by saying only that I recognise that the financial aspect of leased rolling stock is part of the franchising director's ability to pass on that stock. However, I must say that that is necessary as a protection for the railway engineering industry only because of the threats resulting from privatisation. I am not saying that the new clause is necessary in itself—it would be better to be without the Bill and then we would not need the new clause.
    Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) opened up the question of fares very elegantly, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The latter and I are in competition for representing the worst commuter line into London. Those from Essex maintain that the line from Southend is the worst; we in Kent believe that the run from the Kent coast and the Kent link, along the north Kent coast, are worse than the Essex run. Either way, we compete for the worst rail link in Network SouthEast.
    That is why I am on my feet this evening. Although I have not been deluged with letters about the Bill by my constituents, they have raised justifiable concerns about what may happen to them. They travel into London along a line of about the same length as the one from Tonbridge

    665
    and they pay about £2,000 a year to stand in filthy carriages being transported from the Medway towns. My constituency includes a station on the Kent link and one on the Kent coast line. Although the Kent link trains are beginning to improve, the Kent coast trains are still dreadful. My constituents fear that they will end up travelling on the same clapped-out rolling stock but paying a good deal more for the privilege.
    I think that it was the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who mentioned the much-vaunted Steer Davies Gleave report which makes an even more horrific suggestion—that fares on London commuter services would have to rise by at least 58 per cent. if the Government went ahead with their plans to halve Government grant over the next three years.
    My constituents considered that the increase that they suffered in January this year—because of poor standards of service on the north Kent line, it was limited to between 5 and 6 per cent., compared with the average 8 per cent. —was unreasonable. They would consider an increase of 10 times that amount extremely unreasonable. They are particularly worried that the sort of investment which will be needed on the Kent coast lines into London over the next decade will be so large that, to achieve the return of 8 per cent. for the Treasury, heavy fare increases will be required. My constituents have some aspirations to an improvement in their service when the channel tunnel fast link is built, because commuter trains may be allowed to travel on the line, joining it somewhere close to Dartford. But even then, they will be expected to pay a premium for the privilege of shortening their journey.
    I support my right hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Mailing and for Southend, West. Like them, I should like to hear from the Minister of State what sort of fare increases he would consider reasonable for my constituents, who daily pay a high price to travel on a very poor service from north Kent and the Medway towns.
    Mr. Cryer: The new clause gives the impression that the Government are anticipating dealing with a gang of crooks. This will not be a decent organisation in which franchisees compete with one another to provide excellent services:
    "A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required by any notice under subsection (4) above to produce is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine."

    So the Government anticipate that some dubious people will engage in the franchising process—so much so that they feel the need for criminal sanctions to make sure that people provide information to the appointed director. That is a peculiar attitude to adopt. Some Conservative Members say that, save for a few minor reservations about fares and other such matters, they agree with the principle of the Bill. It is an odd principle to embrace in which criminal sanctions will be used to provide information on which to base judgments about awarding franchises.
    Also, much energy and time will need to be devoted to awarding franchises, but that will not help passengers. We are talking not about any improvement to the service or new rolling stock but about documentation. The Department of Transport suggest that as many as 14,000 contracts could he created. There is no doubt who will
    666
    benefit from that—Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne. Enormous fees will fall payable to lawyers as arguments about franchise contracts run riot.
    Experience of British Rail privatisation so far suggests that there will be confusion. The only examples of privatised services on British Rail have gone into liquidation, such as Yeoman and Stagecoach. Those services have gone by the board. Another is apparently not in a good financial state but the Secretary of State has asked British Rail not to foreclose on that operation during the passage of the Bill because it would embarrass the Government. That does not augur well.
    When people become involved in drawing up contracts, arguing about the amount of information provided, and threaten legal action to obtain such information, that energy is not being devoted to running a railway service, running clean trains into stations on time, timetabling to the convenience of passengers, and the multiplicity of other aspects that go into running a railway.
    It is not easy to run a railway, particularly given the highly intensive services that operate in the United Kingdom. They take much effort, and many men and women, in providing services that run on time. The Bill undermines those people, and that will add a crazy bureaucracy, with threats of legal action of one sort or another, civil or criminal—as new clause 4 stipulates.
    The scope of the new clauses indicates a lack of Government preparation. They produced a White Paper and took the Bill through Committee, but still they are introducing mammoth new clauses. That is hardly the action of a Government who have considered the legislation and are well prepared to put it before Parliament. It is the action of a Government making a last-gasp attempt to arrive at a vaguely workable solution. Throughout the nation, the public are deeply apprehensive about the Government's proposals. I am pleased that the Government have at long last acknowledged, in clause 23, rolling leases—so that as one franchisee collapses into liquidation, leases can continue to provide a degree of security for leaseholders.
    As the Minister well knows, that arrangement was requested two years ago for electrification of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines. The Government could not agree and as a result there is still an argument about the provision of new rolling stock on the lines that are currently being fitted with overhead electrification. There is still a possibility that second-hand and third-hand rolling stock that has cascaded down from other services will be used on a brand-new, electrified railway providing an intensive commuter service.
    Incidentally, on occasions the Airedale and Wharfedale uses four-wheel rail buses, which do not provide the best ride, coupled together to provide a barely adequate service that is highly overcrowded at peak times. I wish that the Minister had adopted the ideas in new clause 23 about 18 months ago, because then we could have arranged leases. That would have obviated the problem that arose when, because of the uncertainty surrounding the Government's proposals, the Royal Bank of Scotland refused to provide the cash to introduce new rolling stock under a leasing system. It is a belated conversion. That is recognised in new clause 23. If it provides some degree of certainty that new rolling stock will be provided, it is a step in the right direction, although it is a minor one when one considers the chaos that the Bill will cause.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Because of the way in which they have been reported, hon. Members misunderstand the leasing arrangements. Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail will not be allowed to take on leases? It was made clear in Committee by the Scottish Office Minister that if British Rail takes on any leases it will be under an obligation to pass them on at the first opportunity to a franchisee.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In the case of the Airedale and Wharfedale line, it happened to be the passenger transport authority that would have undertaken the leasing. As the Government had not produced clear proposals, financial institution after financial institution said, "Because we do not know what the future will bring, there is absolutely no guarantee. Therefore we shall not support the passenger transport authority." A lamentable position was created by these nutty proposals.
    Amendment No. 237, which stands in the name of several Conservative Members, is a reasonable proposal, but, unlike them, I am completely opposed to the principle of the Bill. It spells chaos and uncertainty and in the worst set of circumstances it means that services will not run. Those Members of Parliament with Southend constituencies cannot get across the virtues of the Bill to the people of Southend, so they are begging the Minister for a titbit to persuade their constituents that everything is all right. They will find, however, under the worst possible confluence of circumstances, that trains do not arrive at Southend. If a firm goes into liquidation overnight, there will be absolutely no possibility of services running the following day if the receivers are called in and they say that they cannot authorise further activity by that company. The franchising director has the power to arrange for services to continue, but it remains a real possibility that in the worst possible confluence of circumstances, services will not run.
    Any amendment that suggests that some regard should be paid to fares should be incorporated in the Bill. A few hon. Members have said that it could be argued that higher fares are necessary because of the need to invest. Those arguments were used when water was privatised. However, even some Conservative Members who voted for water privatisation now say that charges are too high and that a balance has to be struck between the need to invest and the ability of water customers to pay the bills. One Conservative Member of Parliament who voted for water privatisation even went to the extent of introducing a ten-minute Bill that would have brought about a change in the structure in either Kent or one of the south-western counties. It would have led to that county being exempt from the increased charges that the water company had justified, on the basis of the need to invest.
    The same argument could be used regarding fare increases. Passengers in an area that depends heavily on commuters are entitled to be able to make a judgment between the amount of money spent on investment and the amount of money that they can afford to pay when they have to travel between 50 and 60 miles to get to work.
    I should have thought that amendment No. 237 had some merit in that it does not impose an absolute obligation on the Minister. However, if a group of passengers, some of whom are extremely well organised,
    668
    believed that the franchising organisations were charging too high a fare, it would give them the reserve right of a possible application for a judicial review at the worst of the confrontation, or would at least make the franchising operators conscious of a statutory obligation to passengers which, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said, is only sketchily outlined in the Bill.
    It is worth reminding the House of something that we all know. Once the Bill has passed all its stages in this place, gone to another place, returned and has been given Royal Assent, it will be out of our hands. If it does not contain a safeguard for passengers, any protection will be well and truly gone.
    I wish to ask the Minister about the line from Leeds to Bradford, up the Aire valley, through Keighley to Skipton, which is being electrified. It is a monopoly line as there are not two lines running up the Aire valley but only one.
    Sir Donald Thompson: What about the hon. Gentleman's railway?
    Mr. Cryer: It does not run up the Aire valley. The hon. Member is referring to the Keighley and Worth Valley line. It was discarded by British Rail many years ago, but I am happy to say that it is now running extremely well. The line to which he refers does not run up the Aire valley, but up the Worth valley which is a tributary to the Aire valley.
    The Aire valley railway is a monopoly. When it is electrified, will the Aire valley route be treated as a monopoly and will fares be capped? If so, we should know about it and we should also know what form the capping will take. The Government say that capping is very popular with local authorities, although there is not much evidence of that. They say that they cap local authorities because they do not want local authorities to place too heavy a burden on local council tax payers. The same argument will surely be applied to rail fares so that franchisees are not allowed to become too greedy.
    The Minister may expatiate on the virtues of the water and telephone privatisations, but no one, other than the blind and ideologically foolish, could say that people on the boards of privatised concerns have not exhibited greed in levering their salaries to heights which have invoked derision and contempt from the customers who have to pay. There is nothing to make us suppose that that could not happen with the franchising operators if they could get away with it.
    It will be interesting to know whether the lines in the area that I represent will be subject to fare capping limitations so that people who have to commute in and out of Leeds and Bradford will not suffer enormous burdens as a result of the legislation. We want to find out what improvements we can make to the legislation because, as drafted, it is a recipe for utter railway chaos, degradation and gloom. We are merely trying to improve what is hopeless, wholly ideologically daft legislation which should have been thrown out at the beginning.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: I declare an interest because I am a consultant to Hertz Rent a Car. I wish to raise one issue, and I believe that this is the correct group of amendments under which to raise it.
    I am worried about the fact that the Bill does not mention protection for people who provide services at stations. Hertz Rent a Car has a contract with British Rail,

    669
    which enables it to provide such a service. The Bill contains no mention whatever of what will happen to its arrangements after privatisation. The Minister may say that, when an operator takes over the running of a station, a new arrangement or agreement can be made but the Bill contains no recognition of that.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will remember when we debated the Airports Act 1984. The same situation arose because it was suggested that the only people who used the facilities at airports were the airport owners and airline operators. We raised an issue similar to the one that I am raising now. There are others besides British Rail who use the stations. The franchisees, as in airports, earn a living from that facility.
    When my hon. Friend replies, will he explain with some clarity exactly where the people who operate on the stations—in newspaper stands, Tie Rack shops or car rental—will stand under the new proposals and whether there will be any benefits for or guarantees of their future operation from those stations?
    Mr. Alan Beith: My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has already dealt with amendent (a). I shall voice some support for amendment No. 237, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). It raises issues that relate not only to the south-east and London commuter area, which the right hon. Gentleman described, but to other parts of the country.
    Anxiety about levels of fares is found in many parts of the country and monopoly, as other hon. Members have said, exists in many areas. I take the example of the Berwick to Penzance train. Just after 9 am every day, a train departs from Berwick for Penzance. It is used by many people travelling to the west country and to the midlands along a route that may involve numerous different franchisees in the future. I notice that the list of franchises published today has still not been able to crack the problem of what to do with the Berwick-Penzance train. People using that train often travel on a combination of railcards, apex fares and whatever other bargain they can put together so that they can visit their relatives in another part of the country. They see themselves as potential victims of large fare increases on cross-country journeys.
    I ask the Minister to take a sympathetic view of amendment No. 237 and to recognise the importance of declaring from the start that the franchising director has a responsibility on fares. He should not merely have, as the Government propose in the new clause, a right to concern himself with fares; he should be charged with the responsibility of promoting low fares.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) touched on the immediate consequences of receivership. I remain extremely concerned about what will happen when a contractor on a major route goes into receivership, which is quite possible as recent experience demonstrates. I believe that the trains will stop and that all action by the employees of the franchise holder will be immediately stopped. Notices will go up at stations saying that no further trains can be run, that announcements will be made in due course, that meetings are taking place, that approaches are being made and that the franchising director is having discussions with bodies that might run the franchise. In the meantime, there will be an interrupted service.
    670
    I am reminded of what can happen by the experience of a friend who sought to prevent a major company of which he was a director going into receivership. He was travelling on a train and making calls from his mobile telephone to set up meetings to try to get more orders for the company. At 9 am precisely, he ceased to be able to make any further calls. The message came on his mobile telephone, "Your mobile telephone service has been disconnected." It was disconnected because at 9 am the receivers walked in and gave immediate instructions that anything that might incur a charge or liability was to be stopped immediately. That is exactly what is likely to happen in the immediate aftermath of receivership.
    I hope that the Minister can now give us some explanation about what will happen. Ministers have rightly used the argument in relation to strikes and industrial disputes that an interrupted service is a service that destroys itself. If trains are withdrawn, people will have to make other arrangements and transfer to some other form of transport. Through the possibility of receivership, which has not existed in the railway system before, Ministers are introducing the possibility of interruption of service every bit as damaging as strike action in that it will lead people to believe that the service is unreliable and one on which they cannot depend.
    I have a question for the Minister about the powers of the franchising director. The previous assurance given by the Secretary of State has been questioned by people who have put the following point to me. The Secretary of State has said that passengers travelling from stations such as Berwick and Alnmouth will have confidence that their InterCity services will continue because the franchising director has the power to insist that the existing timetable forms the basis of the franchise.
    It has been put to me that that power will effectively he non-existent where the franchise does not involve an element of subsidy. Where no subsidy is being offered and where there is a commercial franchise in which maximum commercial freedom is being offered, that guarantee will not exist. I hope that that is not the case. If it is, that would destroy the assurance given in terms by the Secretary of State during Question Time a month or two ago. Perhaps the Minister will address that.
    My final point about the franchising director relates to what he does in relation to the boundary lines of the system. For example, I looked at the maps that were issued today and discovered from the Scot Rail map that Scot Rail is not allowed to run a train to Dunbar. It has no power to run a train there. It has no access to the railway line that leads to Dunbar which is an InterCity route. So far as I can see, Dunbar is the only station in Scotland to which Scot Rail cannot run a train.
    9.45 pm
    In addition, ScotRail cannot run a train to Berwick, which is the rail head for much of the borders, and into which subsidised bus services feed. What does the franchising director do if the franchisee with the service from Newcastle to Berwick, which is a local and minimal service with two trains a day, does not improve that service and the franchising director believes, as I believe, that it will be better to have a through service between Newcastle and Edinburgh picking up passengers at several stations including Berwick, Dunbar and Alnmouth? The franchise system that has been set out would not permit that to happen because ScotRail has no access to Berwick or

    671
    Dunbar. The regional franchise holder in the north of England has no access beyond Berwick, as the maps make clear. Only InterCity can provide that service. I presume that an InterCity contractor would not regard it as its role to provide a service stopping at smaller stations to which InterCity does not provide a service at the moment, for example, stopping at stations like Chathill, Acklington and Drem.
    I do not understand what the franchising director will do in those circumstances, particularly if the InterCity contractor does not provide an adequate service, even to existing InterCity stations. I hope that the Minister can assist us in respect of some of those matters when he replies.
    Sir Keith Speed: I should begin by declaring an interest as, for a number of years, I have been a consultant to InterCity. Perhaps, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I can get together in order to help him with his problem.
    The amendments and new clauses that we are discussing encapsulate some of the problems to which my hon. Friends have alluded. Reference has been made to the leasing of rolling stock. Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, we know that £150 million was up for grabs for leasing. Unfortunately, the west coast main line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line and the Kent coast line require that money and £150 million between those three lines will go very little distance.
    I believe that I am correct to state that the west coast main line needs £750 million to £800 million to improve rolling stock. The Kent coast main line desperately needs £550 million for new rolling stock. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred to that. In addition, the London-Tilbury-Southend line needs hundreds of millions of pounds for rolling stock and the infrastructure and signalling that the line so desperately needs.
    We are talking about large sums of money and there seems to be a large lacuna in the Bill in relation to where the investment will come from in the short term, over the next two or three years, to at least maintain the present railway service and, hopefully, to improve it.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has tabled a very good amendment about fare structures. We know that there will be capping where there are monopolies such as in respect of many commuter lines into London. However, many right hon. and hon. Members have reminded us that many lines are not necessarily monopolies, but are essential to certain local communities. In some cases they require investment in new rolling stock and perhaps new track and other equipment which would justify quite considerable increases in fares.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends from Kent will be aware that the Kent coast line requires a massive injection of investment and that could be used as an excuse to hoick up fares to service that £550 million worth of investment. Many commuters could then be priced out of the market. There is a real problem. I echo the calls for my hon. Friend the Minister to give a fair wind to the demands made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing for measures to be built into the Bill. That is terribly important. Exhortations from Secretaries of State or the House are insufficient. If a franchise decides at some
    672
    stage to hoick up fares unreasonably, Parliament has made the decision and must be reported to. I hope that we get a positive response.
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no comparable role—as in other privatisations—to that of the regulator for the interests of the consumer? Does he also agree that the amendment, about the role of the franchise director, who must take into account reasonableness of fare increases, would go some way to rectify that?
    Sir Keith Speed: I accept that, and go further. We should be learning from the lessons of some of the previous privatisation legislation to see whether Ofgas and Ofwat, for example, were given sufficiently wide powers. At least we are determined not to make the same mistake. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I hope that we can learn from experience.
    I commend the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Local consumer groups and rail travellers' groups are terribly important. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend talked about the need of those groups to be informed by Ministers, but there is a great role for the groups to play, certainly in Kent, Essex and elsewhere, to inform Ministers and franchise operators. They have local knowledge, and know what is required. In Ashford, where new timetables have been drawn up, there has been much controversy. The role of the commuter groups in saying what they want, the stations they want to go to and the sort of timetable they want has been of immense value to British Rail and made a lot of commercial sense. The railway company is providing the service customers want rather than the service the railways want to operate. It is very much a two-way movement and I hope that the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend can be accepted. They would make a positive contribution towards getting even better rail services, particularly in commuter areas.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I want to take two minutes to focus attention on an anomaly to which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) drew the attention of the House earlier. He did the House a favour in doing so. We have been hearing about a fare cap. I served with some hon. Friends for more than 100 hours on the Committee stage of the Bill. Not only did the Committee not focus particularly strongly on the fare cap, but the matter did not even surface during the whole Committee stage. One wonders what the fare cap is all about. Is it about railways or divisions? Is it anything to do with real delivery or is it an attempt to lure the lambs on the Conservative Benches into the Lobby behind the Minister?
    There is a basic incongruity in the argument. It is not possible to argue that subsidies will go on Network SouthEast. It is not possible to argue that there will be cuts in subsidies on the line mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and to argue that there will be a cap. As has been said, if there is a cap, there will be a 37 per cent. gap between the present fare structure and viability. Who is to take on the line mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, which has a 58 per cent. viability gap? Why have not we heard about the capping before? The Secretary of State has not said much about the Bill. He did not come to the Committee to give us the benefit of his

    673
    thoughts on capping. There were more than 100 hours of argument in Committee, but not once did the Minister to my recollection shelter behind the defensive position that a cap would have given him when fares were referred to.
    Sir David Mitchell: Has the right hon. Gentleman failed to take account of the £300 million subsidy that goes into Network SouthEast and the £700 million that goes into the other regional railways? If the right hon. Gentleman took that sum of some £1,000 million into account, I think that his argument would be rather different.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has just made my case foir me. That money must be made up with capped railway fares, because, according to the Minister, the railways will not receive those subsidies in future. The objective is to phase out the subsidies for Network SouthEast. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing cited his area.
    I do not mind how the Minister squares the circle. Conservative Members obviously want to be persuaded and I shall be fascinated to hear what he has to say; but —I say this particularly to hon. Members who have been in the House for a while and are not too dewy-eyed about ministerial assurances—it is strange and puzzling that a fare cap should suddenly appear at the same time as a mini-rebellion. I suspect that, ultimately, the fare cap will prove to have as little reality as the rebellion.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: Let me say a little about amendment No. 237. There is no doubt that many of our constituents who use British Rail frequently—whether to commute, to shop or for pleasure—are very concerned about the effect of privatisation on fares. We have heard a number of arguments today about how their concern will be met, but it seems almost certain that costs will increase, at least in the short term.
    One possibility is capping fares on the one hand and increasing Government subvention on the other. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out, there is room for doubt about how long that subvention will continue, which points to an increase in fares. The Select Committee's report advocated a strict limit to fare increases, tied to the retail prices index. The Government replied that they would
    "give guidance to the Franchising Director on this matter."
    Amendment No. 237 was tabled in an attempt to elicit just that guidance.
    It is unreasonable to expect people to accept that the Government's proposals will lead to improved efficiency and improved services if they cannot take advantage of those improvements because of extraordinary increases in costs. I urge Ministers to bear the consumer interest in mind, especially in regard to amendment No. 237.
    Dr. Marek: The two amendments that have caught the House's attention in the past hour and a half are amendment (a) to new clause 23 and amendment No. 237. Let me make a general point. Neither amendment would do grave damage to the Bill; in my view, they would both improve it no end. Notwithstanding the Government's political dogma, the amendments would not drive a coach and horses through it and might even make life easier for the Government at the end of the day.
    What is the franchising director to do when a company goes bust and services are withdrawn or likely to be withdrawn at a moment's notice? He can try to form a
    674
    company himself—under some of the Government's new clauses he will have various possibilities to consider. But the easiest way would be to ask the British Railways Board to run the service again. It may take the franchising director five minutes or half an hour to decide, but I am sure that the board would be prepared to take on that duty as it would have the skills, expertise and capability to do so.
    Why are the Government resisting amendment (a)? The only answer to that can be political dogma—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Railways Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. MacKay.]
    Question agreed to.
    Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Dr. Marek: The Government must be resisting the amendment purely on the grounds of political dogma. They are not interested in running a proper railway service with a proper national timetable with connections that will enable people to transfer from one train to another. They are more interested in divesting themselves of the responsibility of running the railway services. If that is not the case, the Minister must put a lucid and persuasive case to the contrary, and I do not believe that he can. If the Bill is ever enacted, amendment (a) will help the Government, rather than hinder them.
    Amendment No. 237 will not shake the Bill to its foundations and the Government should not resist it. The amendment should be properly considered by the House.
    Clause 4 imposes a number of duties on the regulator. There are seven duties, (a) to (g), which are somewhat conflicting. The first duty, (a), is
    "to protect the interests of users of railway services".
    That duty will not always run in tandem with (f), under which the regulator has to
    "impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of his functions under this Part".
    In individual cases, the regulator will have to decide which of the duties assigned to him is most important. Clearly, the functions contain nothing about the fare levels, although clause 4(1)(a) contains the general statement:
    "to protect the interests of users of railway services"— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is having difficulty making himself heard.
    Dr. Marek: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall not speak for too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must not tempt me as I could introduce more issues that need to be raised. However, for the convenience of the House, I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
    In Committee I tried to introduce an amendment that would raise the level of clause 4(1)(a) to make it more important than (b) to (g), but the Government refused to entertain any such amendment, and persuaded their Back Benchers to vote against it. Amendment No. 237 is a sensible amendment. The amendment will not wreck the Bill or drive a coach and horses through it. It is in the interests of consumers and railway passengers—I speak as a railway passenger. Before Conservative Members troop

    675
    into the Lobby, I hope that they will examine the proposals carefully. The Government's life is not at stake. The Minister's hair shirt should not be at stake over something like this. However, passengers and railway users will benefit if the regulator is able to exercise some of his power in favour of consumers by keeping down unwarranted and unnecessary fare increases.
    If the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing press their amendments to a vote, they can be sure that they will have my support.
    Mr. Wilson: We are moving towards a vote and I certainly do not want to detain the House for long. However, some of the points raised require a little elaboration.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said that the cost of transport is the second biggest household item. It is worth noting that hon. Members are privileged to be spared at least one item from which many of our constituents suffer—the cost of parking at stations. We all have our little passes. Sharper-eyed Members in the House may have noticed that the new passes run from May 1993 to March 1994 instead of May 1993 to May 1994. The reason is that no one knows who will own the car parks, run the trains, own the stations, and so on after March 1994.
    It is rare to find Tory Members voting against self-interest—they will vote for the abolition of these little passes as well as the fragmentation of the system. I do not care about the passes, but I care very much about the loss of network benefits to pensioners, young people and all the other constituents who will suffer as a result of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked about the railway companies that will be able to bid for franchises. We know that British Rail will not be able to bid. It will be written out of existence—it will be given the airbrush treatment. It will be excluded from all its present roles as rapidly as the Government can achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not only state-owned railways that will be excluded, because the state railways of Germany, France, Ireland or any other EC country will be able to bid for franchises. The only state railway that will not be able to bid or play a proper part in our nation's affairs is that of Britain. That is not a measure born of rationality or one excluding the public sector; it is a specific act of prejudice against British Rail which cannot be dressed up in any other way.
    As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, there are three elements that lead with all certainty to substantial increases in fares if the legislation is passed. The first element is that private companies will reasonably be looking for a profit—they would not be in the business if they were not looking for a profit—so that new element will have to be extracted from somewhere.
    The second element is subsidy. Earlier, it was said that the subsidy for the current year has been reduced by 23 per cent. It might increase next year and come down the year after that, but the overall expectation is that it will be a decreasing subsidy. The ability of franchisees to make ends meet will depend on that element, which is entirely in the hands of the Government. If franchisees cannot get the money from subsidy in any given year and are making
    676
    insufficient profit, the only other source of revenue is fares. No hon. Member should disguise from himself the inevitable consequence of fare increases.
    The existing railway will not be the only one to bid for subsidy, even if it continues at the present level. In Committee, the Minister for Public Transport said that more services might qualify for grant than at present, but that that did not mean that the total cost of subsidy need be more. More services will bid for subsidy because, for reasons that defy logic, InterCity is to be broken up. Therefore, a railway which currently does not require subsidy, which makes a small profit, will lose its profitable parts to the private sector. Overnight, that will create a new subsidised railway. The loss-making parts of InterCity will be added to the other loss-making railways which will also be bidding for subsidy.
    Even if there is the same amount of money as at present, which I doubt, more services will compete for a share. There will be only one other source of revenue to bridge that gap—fare increases. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing rightly spoke about the complete lack of control over fares. The three elements that lead to substantial fare increases are profit, subsidy and lack of control.
    The most recent statement of Government policy on the matter was issued last week in response to the Select Committee report. The tone of the Government's response to that unanimous report was derisory and weak on almost every point and it failed to give the satisfactory responses that the report demanded. The unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee was that the franchising director should not be able to permit fares that went beyond the retail price index for fare increases on all franchised services. The Government's response to that is instructive. They said:
    "The extent to which fares will be controlled will depend on the degree to which a franchise operates in a competitive market."
    So far, so good, but the response continues:
    "Where real competition exists from other modes of transport, then the market will determine the level of fares which an operator can charge."
    That sentence removes the possibility of intervening in a large swathe of services because there are few services on which there is competition between modes of transport. That next sentence in the response states:
    "Where an operator could use significant market power to the detriment of passengers, the franchising agreement will limit fare increases."
    That sounds reasonable, but the response continues:
    "On the other hand, where passengers are expected to benefit from investment to improve the quality of service, then higher increases in fares may be justified."
    Every route that has been mentioned in the debate will require massive investment, and all those routes are excluded from the protections supposedly offered by that reply. Every line in the country is subject to market forces on the basis of that Government response. The assurances are not worth the breath used to utter them because the caveats in the response ensure that the guarantees are meaningless. Whatever is given with one hand is always taken away with the other.
    How can the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and the hon. Member for Southend, East oppose the amendment on the basis of the response from the Government? Those right hon. and hon. Members argue that huge investment is needed on the line, yet the

    677
    response from their Government is that if that investment is made, market forces will determine the level of fares. They can take nothing from the debate.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
    Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way. The House is impatient for the debate to be concluded and I cannot imagine that anything that the hon. Gentleman could contribute would diminish that impatience.
    The Steer Davies Gleave report cannot be dismissed by the Government, because it was presented by the same consultants who advised them on bus privatisation. It is worth considering the three categories to which it referred. On InterCity, it stated that the projected 15 per cent. increase in costs meant that, whatever one did to fares, it would be impossible to make that service, once again, an unsubsidised one. The fares on InterCity journeys will increase, but even that money will not be enough to make that an unsubsidised service.
    The report also states that, to cover the 15 per cent. increase in costs, it would be necessary to increase Network SouthEast fares by 37 per cent. on current levels. One can play with figures and mention 17 per cent, 27 per cent., 37 per cent. or above, but the message is clear: to generate the necessary returns, fares must increase greatly. The Bill provides no protection against that and hon. Members should not attempt to hide that fact from themselves.
    Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not. The hon. Gentleman was not present for the debate and he cannot turn up now for a spoiling act. He cannot turn up for his sound bite, or, in his case, a large lunch.
    Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.
    Mr. Wilson: Conservative Members do not like facts. They do not like to be told by the consultants' report and every other authoritative source—not by me—that the price of privatisation will be massive fare increases for all their constituents. They must learn to live with that if they pass the Bill.
    The other category of services to which the Steer Davies Gleave report referred was regional railways. It stated that a 45 per cent. revenue increase was needed to offset the projected 15 per cent. increase in costs. Those are the facts.
    If one passes legislation that will, inherently, increase the costs of running the railways—for reasons well understood by Conservative Members—the only way to pay for them is through increased fares.
    On that basis, the Opposition would like to have the opportunity to vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), but unfortunately it was not selected. In due course, we will vote for amendment No. 237, but, in the meantime, I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against new clause 4. Many Conservative Members have spoken a lot of sense about the issue, and if they voted against the new clause, they would record the feeling of the clear majority in the House and in our constituencies.
    Mr. Freeman: The debate has lasted for about two and a half hours and it has concentrated, quite rightly, on fares
    678
    and the report of Steer Davies Gleave. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if, in the interests of time and my intention to be concise, I do not cover all the points made in the debate. I shall, of course, write tomorrow to those hon. Members whom I do not answer.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) sought an assurance that consultations would be held between the franchising director, the public and rail user groups. I can give that assurance. It is important that the franchising director bears in mind what the public wants.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about the report by Steer Davies Gleave. I categorically reject the conclusions in the report. The assumptions are flawed because the consultants assumed substantial increases in the cost of leasing existing rolling stock which did not occur. They also assumed that Railtrack's charges will disappear outwith the subsidisation of passenger services, which will not happen.
    As to subsidies, I can tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that we have not fixed the passenger service obligation grant for next year or the year after. That subsidy is fixed close to the beginning of the financial year and it is incorrect to assume that the Government intend to reduce the subsidies of Network SouthEast or any other part of the railway system.
    Mr. Snape: Is it or is it not Government policy, already announced, to reduce the overall subsidy for British Rail by 50 per cent. in the next three years?
    Mr. Freeman: No decisions have been taken on the subsidy level for the simple reason that the only figure that is put into the Government public expenditure survey is the external financing limit. The level of subsidy has not been determined. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for the past three years, the Government have had to go back in the middle of the year to increase the subsidy because of the consequences of the recession on fare income. We have responded positively and constructively to the subsidy needs of British Rail.
    Amendment No. 237 was tabled, and spoken to, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley). The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) also referred to it. The Government understand the concerns expressed about fare levels. In Standing Committee, a great deal of time was spent debating how the franchising director would control fare levels on monopoly services.
    I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on the matter. The amendment was selected relatively late. I assure him that, before we come to amendments Nos. 239 and 244, which relate to much the same issues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will reflect on the debate. We look forward to answering the points and, I hope, satisfying my right hon. and hon. Friends tomorrow with appropriate assurances. The Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends share the same aims—to control fares on monopoly services and to demonstrate to our constituents, the electorate and passengers that we are serious and mean to control fare levels where it is appropriate.

    679
    I hope that, given those assurances, the House will support new clause 4.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
    The House divided: Ayes, 308, Noes 275.

    Division No. 279]

    [10.24 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Devlin, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dicks, Terry

    Amess, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Ancram, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Ashby, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Eggar, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Elletson, Harold

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bates, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Faber, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forman, Nigel

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Booth, Hartley

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Freeman, Roger

    Bowden, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Bowis, John

    Fry, Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bright, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butterfill, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Cash, William

    Hannam, Sir John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Churchill, Mr

    Harris, David

    Clappison, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hayes, Jerry

    Coe, Sebastian

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Conway, Derek

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hicks, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Couchman, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cran, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

    Horam, John

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

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

    680

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Redwood, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Key, Robert

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sackville, Tom

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

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knox, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shersby, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Sims, Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lidington, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spring, Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sproat, Iain

    Maclean, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Madel, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stern, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    Malone, Gerald

    Streeter, Gary

    Mans, Keith

    Sumberg, David

    Marland, Paul

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marlow, Tony

    Sykes, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Monro, Sir Hector

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

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Needham, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Watts, John

    Page, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Paice, James

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whitney, Ray

    681

    Whittingdale, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Yeo, Tim

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Willefts, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

    Wolfson, Mark

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

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

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Denham, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Dewar, Donald

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dixon, Don

    Allen, Graham

    Dobson, Frank

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Dowd, Jim

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashton, Joe

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Austin-Walker, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Enright, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Barron, Kevin

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Battle, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fatchett, Derek

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Faulds, Andrew

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bell, Stuart

    Fisher, Mark

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Flynn, Paul

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Benton, Joe

    Foulkes, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fraser, John

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Fyfe, Maria

    Betts, Clive

    Galbraith, Sam

    Blair, Tony

    Galloway, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Gapes, Mike

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Garrett, John

    Boyes, Roland

    George, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Burden, Richard

    Gordon, Mildred

    Byers, Stephen

    Gould, Bryan

    Caborn, Richard

    Graham, Thomas

    Callaghan, Jim

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gunnell, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Hain, Peter

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hall, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clelland, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Henderson, Doug

    Coffey, Ann

    Heppell, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hoey, Kate

    Corbett, Robin

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cox, Tom

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hutton, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Illsley, Eric

    Darling, Alistair

    Ingram, Adam

    Davidson, Ian

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Janner, Greville

    682

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jowell, Tessa

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Radice, Giles

    Keen, Alan

    Randall, Stuart

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Redmond, Martin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Reid, Dr John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rendel, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Leighton, Ron

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Litherland, Robert

    Rooker, Jeff

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rooney, Terry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rowlands, Ted

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Salmond, Alex

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCartney, Ian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McFall, John

    Short, Clare

    McKelvey, William

    Simpson, Alan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

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

    Madden, Max

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

    Mahon, Alice

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Snape, Peter

    Marek, Dr John

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Spellar, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Maxton, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Meacher, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Meale, Alan

    Stott, Roger

    Michael, Alun

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Straw, Jack

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Milburn, Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Miller, Andrew

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tyler, Paul

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Vaz, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Walley, Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mudie, George

    Watson, Mike

    Murphy, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wilson, Brian

    Olner, William

    Winnick, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Worthington, Tony

    Parry, Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Patchett, Terry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pendry, Tom

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Pope, Greg

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

  New clause 13

    TRANSFERS OF FRANCHISE ASSETS AND SHARES
    '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Franchising Director before entering into a franchise agreement to satisfy himself that if the franchise agreement is entered into—

    683

    (a) the initial franchise assets (if any) for that franchise agreement will be vested in the person who is to be the franchise operator; and

    (b) if the franchise agreement is to be one under which the franchisee undertakes to secure that a wholly owned subsidiary of his provides the franchised services, that the franchise operator will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the franchisee.

    (2) After a franchise agreement has been entered into, it shall be the duty of the Franchising Director before any property, rights or liabilities are subsequently designated as franchise assets in accordance with the terms of, or by amendment to, the franchise agreement, to satisfy himself that, if the property, rights or liabilities in question are so designated, they will be vested in the franchise operator.
    (3) Without the consent of the Franchising Director, the franchise operator shall not—

    (a) if and to the extent that the franchise assets are property or rights—

    (i) transfer or agree to transfer, or create or agree to create any security over, any franchise assets or any interest in, or right over, any franchise assets; or

    (ii) create or extinguish, or agree to create or extinguish, any interest in, or right over, any franchise assets; and

    (b) if and to the extent that the franchise assets are liabilities, shall not enter into any agreement under which any such liability is released or discharged, or transferred to some other person.

    (4) Where the franchise agreement is one under which the franchisee undertakes to secure that a wholly owned subsidiary of his provides the franchised services, the franchisee shall not, without the consent of the Franchising Director, take any action which would result in the franchise operator ceasing to be a wholly owned subsidiary of his.
    (5) In any case where—

    (a) there are to be initial franchise assets in relation to a franchise agreement,

    (b) a franchise agreement is to be one which provides for subsequent designation of property, rights or liabilities as franchise assets, or

    (c) property, rights or liabilities are to be designated as franchise assets by an amendment made to a franchise agreement,

    the Franchising Director shall ensure that the franchise agreement includes provision specifying, or providing for the determination of, amounts to be paid in respect of the property, rights and liabilities which, immediately before the end of the franchise period, constitute the franchise assets in relation to that franchise agreement if and to the extent that they are transferred by transfer scheme at or after the end of that period.
    (6) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions that may be included in a franchise agreement with respect to the acquisition, provision, disposal or other transfer of property, rights or liabilities (whether franchise assets or not), the Franchising Director may undertake in a franchise agreement to exercise his powers under Part II below to transfer franchise assets to himself or another in such circumstances as may be specified in the franchise agreement.
    (7) The Franchising Director shall ensure that every franchise agreement includes such provision (if any) as he may consider appropriate in the particular case for the purpose of securing—

    (a) that the franchise assets are adequately maintained, protected and preserved; and

    (b) that, at the end of the franchise period, possession of such of the franchise assets as may be specified for the purpose in the agreement, or by the Franchising Director in accordance with the agreement, is delivered up to the Franchising Director or such other person as may be so specified.

    (8) In this Part, "franchise assets", in relation to any franchise agreement, means—
    684

    (a) any property, rights or liabilities which are designated as franchise assets in the franchise agreement as originally made (in this section referred to as the "initial franchise assets"), and

    (b) any property, rights or liabilities which, after the making of the franchise agreement, are designated as franchise assets in accordance with the terms of, or by an amendment made to, the franchise agreement,

    but does not include any property, rights or liabilities which, in accordance with the terms of, or by an amendment made to, the franchise agreement, have for the time being ceased to be designated as franchise assets.
    (9) No rights or liabilities under contracts of employment shall be designated as franchise assets.
    (10) In this section "security" has the meaning given by section 248(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
    (11) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for making payments for or in connection with the acquisition, transfer or disposal of property, rights or liabilities in pursuance of provisions contained in a franchise agreement shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
    (12) Any sums received by the Franchising Director for or in connection with the acquisition, transfer or disposal of property, rights or liabilities in pursuance of provisions contained in a franchise agreement shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 23

    POWERS OF THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR TO MAKE TRANSFER SCHEMES
    '.—(1) The Franchising Director shall have power to make schemes for the transfer, at or after the end of the franchise period, of property, rights and liabilities which, immediately before the end of that period, are for the time being designated as franchise assets for the purposes of the franchise agreement in question to—

    (a) the Franchising Director,

    (b) a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director, or

    (c) a franchise company.

    (2) In the following provisions of this section—

    (a) the "transferor" means the person from whom any such property, rights or liabilities as are mentioned in subsection (1) above are transferred by a scheme under this section: and

    (b) the "transferee" means the person to whom any such property, rights or liabilities are so transferred.

    (3) Subject to any contrary agreement or arrangements which may be made between the transferor and the transferee, where any property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a scheme under this section, there shall be paid by the transferee to the transferor or, as the case may require, by the transferor to the transferee, on the day on which the scheme comes into force such sums as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the franchise agreement mentioned in subsection (1) above.
    (4) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, on the day on which a scheme under this section comes into force, the property, rights and liabilities affected by the scheme shall, subject to section 85 below, be transferred and vest by virtue of and in accordance with the scheme.
    (5) Except as otherwise provided by this Act—

    (a) any reference in this Act to a "transfer scheme" shall be taken as including a reference to a scheme under this section;

    685

    (b) in the application of any provision of this Act in relation to a scheme under this section, any reference to the "transfer date" shall be taken as a reference to the date on which the scheme comes into force.

    (6) In this section "franchise agreement", "franchise period" and "designated as franchise assets" have the same meaning as they have in Part I above.
    (7) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for the purpose of making payments in respect of property, rights or liabilities transferred by a scheme under this section shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
    (8) Any sums received by the Franchising Director in respect of property, rights or liabilities so transferred shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 14

    POWERS OF THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR TO FORM AND FINANCE COMPANIES AND TO ACQUIRE AND DISPOSE OF ASSETS
    '.—(1) The Franchising Director may form companies for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any functions assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of this Act.
    (2) The Franchising Director may—

    (a) hold interests in any company which he forms as mentioned in subsection (1) above;

    (b) exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in any such company; and

    (c) provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of any such company, including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations.

    (3) The Franchising Director may (whether by exercising his powers to make a transfer scheme or otherwise and whether or not for any consideration) acquire or dispose of any property, rights or liabilities which have been, or which are intended to be, designated as franchise assets by or under any franchise agreement.
    (4) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for making payments in consequence of the exercise of any such powers as are mentioned in this section shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
    (5) Any sums received by the Franchising Director in consequence of the exercise of any such powers as are mentioned in this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: Government new clause 15—Performance of Franchising Director's duties to secure the provision of services etc.
    Government new clause 21—Failure to secure subsequent franchise agreement.
    Amendment (b) to new clause 21, leave out lines 9 to 11.
    Government amendments Nos. 160, 113 to 117, 121, 119, 120, 118, 122, 125, 123, 124, 126, 130, 148, 178. 176,175, 71, 81 and 82.
    Mr. Freeman: I will be brief but will explain the reasons for these amendments, which all relate to the franchising director's ability to form companies, to fulfil his duty—[.Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly —and those remaining to give the Minister a fair hearing.
    Mr. Freeman: I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Government new clause 14 and the other new clauses grouped with it relate to the ability of the franchising director to form companies so that the franchising director is able to ensure the continuation of rail passenger services, in the event of the early termination of a franchise or when a subsequent franchise competition, after the first one, results in failure to let a new franchise.
    The first time round, if there are no acceptable competing bids, British Rail continues to run the service. In the event of a closure having been proposed but not yet approved, the franchising director has to ensure the continuation of the services for the time being.
    Government new clause 14 gives the franchising director powers to form and finance companies which will be wholly owned subsidiaries of the franchising director. The intention is that those companies should either themselves perform the service or contract with others to provide a rail passenger service. Government new clause 14 also gives powers to the franchising director to acquire and dispose of designated franchise assets. Our previous debate touched in part on the definition of designated franchise assets, including leased rolling stock.
    Government new clause 15 enables the franchising director to perform his duties by securing the provision of services by agreement with others —for example, a neighbouring franchisee. The new clause gives the franchising director power to stipulate fares and, therefore, to control them.
    Finally, Government new clause 21 places a duty on the franchising director to secure the continued provision of rail passenger services, except where he considers that there are satisfactory alternatives.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure that we could debate this new clause at great length and go over much of the ground that was covered in the last debate, but it is in nobody's interest to do so. Our views on the role of the franchising director have been set out, as have our concerns about the power that he is to be given—taking responsibility for many of these matters, the Government hope, at long arm's length from themselves. Therefore, I shall concentrate my remarks on Government new clause 21—"Failure to secure subsequent franchise agreement." This is a significant new clause. It is the basis upon which a large number of services would be removed over a number of years.
    The key words in the new clause are
    "adequate alternative railway passenger services are available;".
    The powers given by the new clause allow the franchising director to cease to provide services if, in his opinion, adequate alternative railway passenger services are available.
    It is odd that the Government want to add this new clause to the Railways Bill. It deals specifically with circumstances where there are two operators running on the same routes. The most obvious example relates to those parts of the country where there are both InterCity services and Regional Railways services. That was the position on the routes to Blackpool, Clitheroe and a number of other places that have already lost their

    687
    InterCity direct services. Much more pertinently, the new clause covers those routes that will lose their direct routes, if this legislation is passed.
    If I may make so bold as even to refer to the place in present company, Hull is an obvious example. The services to Aberdeen and Inverness on the east coast main line and the services to Penzance on the Great Western line are other obvious examples. The new clause provides a mechanism by means of which these services can be withdrawn.
    Nobody doubts that when the franchises are drawn up and advertised, amid much ballyhoo, every station on the railway map as it is at present will be there. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is what happens thereafter within a relatively short space of time. Logic suggests that one of the things that will happen is that InterCity—although it is wrong to talk about an entity called "InterCity" because it will no longer exist—will start to rationalise its operations.
    10.45 pm
    The arguments should be familiar even if they are not. At present, InterCity is an extremely successful railway company. It is successful in that it records a small yearly profit. It does so on the basis of massive cross-subsidy within its own operations, but one of the Bill's specific purposes is to destroy InterCity and remove the possibility of cross-subsidy.
    There is currently an entity called InterCity; from next April, there might be the coaches painted in the livery of InterCity and the name may even be used as a marketing device, but the entity itself will have been splintered, not so much to the four winds but to six different profit centres around the country.
    I do not pretend to have any insights into the Tory mentality, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why any Conservative Member, any more than a Labour Member, should regard it as a great wheeze to destroy InterCity. I should have thought that InterCity was something of which people could be reasonably proud—a profitable railway, which is unique in Europe in that respect. For all the abuse that is hurled at it and all the denigration of British Rail, InterCity in my experience provides an absolutely first-class service on the basis of being an integrated, highly motivated entity. In any event, InterCity is to go. It will be no more, but will be divided among six profit centres and a range of separate franchises.
    When cross-subsidy is removed, each section of what is now InterCity will be left to its own devices. Some will depend directly on subsidy and a few will be profitable, but we all know that even those that are profitable are not profitable to the extent required by the private sector. The Minister for Transport in London helpfully confirmed that in Committee. I said that even the profit made on the east coast main line, which is by far the most profitable sector of the British Rail network because of the investment that has been put into it, was nothing like what the private sector would want. The Minister readily agreed and said that the private sector would of course he looking for a far higher return and would get it through entrepreneurial flair and better marketing.
    I do not think that many people with two brain cells to rub together would accuse InterCity of being deficient in marketing ability. The idea that the east coast main line
    688
    will greatly increase its profits through better marketing is absurd. Every hon. Member knows that, but it is the basis on which InterCity is being broken up. What I have said applies to the most profitable route on the network, never mind the rest.
    When the rubbish has been exposed and the east coast main line is not making the greatly enhanced profit which the Minister for Transport in London acknowledges will be required of it, the operators will be looking for other ways of increasing their profits. Even within the east coast main line, the Great Western line or some other sectors of InterCity, there is a great deal of cross-subsidy. It is an imprecise breakdown, but, by and large, where a route is electrified, it makes money, but because of the additional on-costs of diesel operation where the route is not electrified, it loses money. For example, the east coast main line is highly profitable overall, but north of Edinburgh it is a significant loss maker. In the case of the south-west, perhaps everything south-west of Plymouth is also a clear loss maker. Clearly, when a route is not making the required return, the operators or franchisees —if they ever exist—will look for ways of cutting or getting rid of loss-making routes.
    Nobody has suggested that places will be left without train services. The proposition being put forward, which all common sense suggests is what will happen, is that instead of having a choice of direct services to London, there will be feeder services into InterCity at the point at which InterCity becomes profitable. That is exactly what happened at Blackpool, at Clitheroe and at Stranraer a couple of years ago. We are not talking about a far wider range of direct services being threatened.
    I ask Conservative Members to study new clause 21 and to ask themselves what other conceivable reason there could be for including it in the Bill, apart from the reason that I have given. People would not lose their trains, but it would be reasonably argued that it was adequate for them to be able to get a train from Aberdeen to Edinburgh to join InterCity there, to get a train from Inverness to Glasgow to join InterCity there or to get a train from Penzance to Plymouth to join InterCity there. It would be argued that there would still be a service with no loss of frequency. However, crucially what would be lost would be direct services.
    New clause 21 fits that scenario exactly. The franchising director will be given the power not to say that lines will be closed—nothing as dramatic as that—but to say that adequate alternative railway passenger services are available. The franchising director will not be able to say that adequate bus services are available, but that adequate railway passenger services are available. In other words, the only scenario in which new clause 21 is applicable is one in which there are at present two types of railway operations—Regional Railways and InterCity. InterCity will go and Regional Railways will be left with feeder services.
    The proposal makes sense for many other reasons. At present, InterCity travels for nothing on the stretches of line about which I am talking because the costs are borne by Regional Railways. It is a fairly ad hoc arrangement, but essentially both InterCity and Regional Railways are part of British Rail. Although there already are subdivisions—ludicrous in my opinion—and cost apportionment within British Rail, the organisations are part of one operation. That will not be the case in the brave new

    689
    world that is envisaged. The operators will pay money to Railtrack and Railtrack will have a commercial imperative under the Bill to make a return from all operators.
    Railtrack will not be able to say to InterCity, "You can ride for nothing and we shall put the entire burden of costs on to whichever ship that passes in the night happens to be running that sector of Regional Railways." There would be an outcry: "How can the guy who runs the Regional Railways sector make a profit when his competitor, InterCity, is riding on the tracks for nothing? "That would not be sustainable. However, the moment that one says that Railtrack will charge InterCity or its successor for operating on the tracks, one increases another burden, which is why those services will not be there for very long.
    690
    New clause 21 will chop down the branches of InterCity, as experience will show. I do not expect much from most Conservative Members, although I expect a lot from some of them. I suggest that any Conservative Members who have an area served by InterCity which is a loss-making part of the InterCity network at present should look closely at new clause 21. If they can find a better explanation for giving the franchising director the right to cease to provide passenger services if, in his opinion, adequate alternative railway services are available, I should be interested to hear it.
    Mr. James Wallace: Like the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I think that new clause 21 is well worth examination. I also draw the House's attention to amendment (b), which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), myself and others of my hon. Friends.
    The House is aware of the Government's prime argument for the Bill—that it introduces competition into the railway system. They say that it will lead to customers becoming winners, through lower costs, greater frequency and reliability of trains and a better overall service. That view has clearly been challenged. The key to better performance is not an argument over ownership; it is the key question of investment.
    We believe that privatisation is a smoke screen for the Government to hide behind and so avoid the charge of inadequate investment. New clause 21 is a classic example of such a smoke screen. On the face of it, it appears that the Government are trying to do something positive and helpful. It is a good longstop or safety net. If the franchisee ends the agreement, the franchising director will have a duty to secure the provision of the services that were secured under the franchise agreement until there is time for a new franchise agreement to be provided.
    The rub comes in the phrase in new clause 21:
    "subject to subsection (2) below".
    According to new clause 21 (2)(a), the franchising director does not have to
    "secure that provision of any services, if and to the extent that, in his opinion, adequate alternative railway passenger services are available."
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has already described how that could be used to strip away the uneconomical parts of the InterCity service and to provide connecting feeder services that would downgrade many parts of the network.
    That exemption and means of relieving the franchising director of a duty reduces competition. Far from promoting competition, it allows a service to be eliminated. Read in conjunction with clause 5, where the franchising director is required to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, it is clear that services can he withdrawn, although at arms length so that the Government do not get their hands dirty. That is what the franchising director would be required to do.
    Despite the rhetoric of competition and improved customer service, the effect of the new clause 21 would be to reduce services. That could apply in many places. The service between Carlisle and Glasgow is the main line from Carlisle to Lockerbie and Carstairs to Glasgow. The other line runs through Annan. Dumfries and Kilmarnock. That line provides a very important service, but it might be challenged with regard to new clause 21.
    Scottish Members and Members in the north of England are concerned about how new clause 21 might place a question mark over the key connection of the west coast main line from London to Glasgow. Increasingly, that line is seen to be in competition with the east coast main line in respect of the number of trains linking through Edinburgh into Glasgow.
    As the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was recently informed, in European terms, the west coast main line is the third most important line in terms of traffic flow. The west coast main line and the east coast main line to Edinburgh are key arterial rail routes for Scotland. In its
    692
    submission to the Select Committee, the CBI in Scotland stated that the "priority" in the rail privatisation exercise was to secure the
    "preservation of the East and West Coast Main Lines".
    In its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, the Department of Transport conceded that the west coast main line was
    "vital not just to Scotland's needs, but to that part of England through which it runs".
    A survey of businesses in Carlisle carried out by Carlisle city council found that when 91 businesses were asked about rail issues, they stated that the priority to them was the upgrading and improvement of the west coast main line.
    Ms Liz Lynne: Does my hon. Friend also accept that it is vital for areas like mine and for the rest of the north-west that the west coast main line is protected? If we do not have money for that line and the Government use that as an excuse to run down the west coast main line by saying that the east coast main line will take the traffic, my constituency and many other constituencies in the north-west will suffer.
    11 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It is not only a Scottish fear. It is a fear in many parts of the north-west of England. The west coast main line links five key conurbations—Greater London, the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Clydeside. Those are important links for the commercial and economic well-being of not only Scotland but of the whole United Kingdom. In addition, there are links into the west coast main line from north Wales, the Fylde coast, Cumbria, the Lake District and the south of Scotland.
    So the west coast main line is a key line. We argue that it has been starved of necessary investment in the past 20 years since electrification was completed in 1974. There is a problem of underinvestment which gives rise to fears. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that there could be a direct service from Glasgow to London, with routes feeding into that. It could be worse than that. Inter-city services could stop at Preston with only a regional route going to Carlisle.
    That begs the question of what would happen to a station such as Lockerbie. I understand that in the previous debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) noted that Dunbar could no longer be served by ScotRail. According to the map of the franchise for ScotRail, Lockerbie would not be allowed to have a service provided by ScotRail. If the inter-city service excluded Lockerbie, what would happen to that important station for the south of Scotland?
    I remember standing on a crowded Lockerbie station waiting for the train to Edinburgh on many Sunday evenings when I was a student. I understand from local sources that it is still a busy station. Potentially no provision is made for it. There is a need for investment in locomotives and carriages and to improve the reliability of the track and timetabling. In all those matters, the west coast main line has lagged behind the east coast main line.
    The trains and carriages on the west coast main line are mostly of a 1970s design. Even if the track were improved to allow greater speed, I understand that the trains and carriages would not allow it. Last year the tendering arrangements for a substantial investment by British Rail

    693
    in new carriages and trains for the west coast main line were allowed to lapse because the resources were not there. BR was starved of resources and was unable to go ahead with that necessary investment.
    The line is also in urgent need of investment to improve track and signalling systems. In a British Rail document which came into the public domain in February this year it was stated that, in addition to all the other investments, between £3 million and £5 million per annum would be needed every year until 2000 to restore signalling and telecommunications. It said that the track between Carlisle and Gretna in particular was in need of resignalling on safety grounds.
    We have poor rolling stock, a poor state of track and increasingly a limit on the high-speed performance of trains on the west coast main line, so it is less competitive than the east coast main line. A cursory look at the timetable shows that the Scottish Pullman takes four and a quarter hours from King's Cross to Edinburgh while the Royal Scot takes one minute short of five hours from Euston to Glasgow. What private company would be prepared to take on the London to Glasgow west coast franchise in the face of fierce competition from the east coast, especially when it is not allowed to compete on level terms?
    Paragraph 45 of the Scottish Select Committee report said:
    "We wish to see the plan to invest £750 million in track improvements and new rolling stock implemented as soon as possible. This upgrading must not be delayed by uncertainties about rail privatisation and the transfer of responsibility to Railtrack."
    That view is certainly endorsed by Opposition Members. I hope that it will also find favour with Conservative Members who also want to see an improved rail network.
    Investment is needed to improve and secure quality, enhance safety, reduce operating and maintenance costs, to be more environmentally reliable and, through the improvement of consumer choice, to increase usage and revenue. Investment, not the form of ownership, is the key to providing more effective competition and securing a better service for the customer. We believe that new clause 21(12)(a) is a Trojan horse which could be used to eliminate lines and reduce competition. I hope that the House will support the amendment which my hon. Friends and I have tabled to the new clause.
    Mr. Snape: Like earlier speakers, I am concerned about new clause 21(2)(a).
    First, there is the competition—if that is the right word—between the west and east coast main lines. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) reminded us, since the completion of the electrification of the west coast line in the mid-1970s there has been little investment in the route, if any: indeed, the service has slowed down by about 35 minutes since the stretch from Weaver junction northwards to Glasgow was electrified. As for the service in other north-western cities, the service between Manchester and Glasgow is no more punctual now than it was in the days of steam. Such a franchise would not prove particularly attractive—to say the least —to any private operator.
    There is an investment problem on the west coast main line, and the sooner that problem is tackled, the better; but many of us feel that it will not be tackled by the Bill, which —if anything—is likely to dissuade investors rather than attracting them.
    694
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned towns that are currently served by both Regional Railways and InterCity. As he said, the Government propose the fragmentation of the InterCity network. Where that has already happened, InterCity is withdrawing, leaving Regional Railways to provide the only service between, for instance, Blackpool and Preston —where the InterCity service was recently withdrawn—and Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury, in the west midlands area.
    It is an open secret that British Rail want to withdraw InterCity services completely, in the short term, from cities such as Hull: my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North referred to the recent whittling away of that service. But the Bill will not only affect the towns and cities currently served by both InterCity and Regional Railways. I ask the Minister to consider the service between, say, Birmingham and Stratford in the context of new clause 21(2)(a). At present, two services exist, both supported by the passenger transport executive: one runs via Solihull, the other via Shirley.
    Let us suppose that there are two separate franchisees, one of which decides not to renew the franchise or to withdraw the service. Would the franchise director be right in saying that, as another service exists—let us say that the service via Solihull remains—
    "adequate alternative railway passenger services are available"?
    He might well point out that the distance by road between Solihull and Shirley was five or six miles and that there was a bus service connecting the two points. One rail service still exists; is it adequate, in the terms of the new clause?
    A couple of weeks ago, Birmingham Snowhill station —in the same part of the world—was reconnected with London for the first time in 30 years. The Network SouthEast Chiltern line turbo train service was extended to Birmingham Snowhill and there is now a two-hourly service via Solihull. It is difficult to imagine such a franchise being considered particularly attractive once the various sections of the railway network are up for grabs; but let us suppose that someone bids for that franchise and decides after a while to cut the turbo service to Banbury, Bicester or another point on the Marylebone line. Passengers in Solihull who wish to travel by rail normally drive five or six miles up the M42 to Birmingham International station to catch the service running between Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Euston. Could not the franchising director decide that, as that service presumably still exists, it should be regarded as an adequate railway passenger service under the terms of the Bill?
    Problems will arise not only in relation to cities that are currently served by two different segments of a nationalised railway system, but in relation to those services that I have just described and similar services in other parts of the country. Will the Minister give a straight answer? What will the franchise director regard as an adequate alternative passenger railway service? Will it be a service of the sort that I have described, or will there be even greater safeguards?
    The Minister referred to the franchise director's duty to guarantee future rail services. During the previous debate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) asked how he or she was to fulfil that duty. In repeating that question I shall outline a scenario which is not beyond the realms of possibility under the terms of the legislation. A franchisee could go bust quickly—as people do—owing a great deal

    695
    of money. That has happened to hundreds of thousands of businesses since the present Administration were elected. People to whom money is owed will seek to recover that money by the sale of the franchisee's assets, whatever they may be. How can the Minister say that, the day after a franchisee goes bust, British Rail or someone else will come to operate those services?
    Trains are not like buses; it is not practical to pluck a driver off the street, put him behind the controls of any train and say, "Drive from A to B." Drivers have to know every inch of the route, the signalling system, the bends and the speed restrictions. It is not possible to stop a train in the same way as a bus—it takes weeks, sometimes months, to train drivers on a specific route. How can the Minister say that in the event of a franchisee going bust it is the franchise director's duty to find an alternative operator? How could such a duty be discharged?
    Today, the length of an individual route is often controlled by a signal box—to use more modern parlance, a signalling centre. In the event of a franchisee going bust, who negotiates the signalling of that route with the new franchisee, assuming that such an alternative franchisee exists?
    The reasoning behind the new clause and others in the group is flawed because it has been drafted on behalf of politicians who believe only in ideology and have failed to look in depth at the problems that will arise if the scenario —which is by no means unlikely—occurs. The Minister will have to come up with better arguments to persuade most Opposition Members that the group of amendments is feasible. I hope that some of the more thoughtful Conservative Members will express the reservations that my hon. Friends and I have expressed.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Dickens: The new clause is a safety valve which is central to the Bill. In the unlikely event of a franchisee dropping out, the franchising director can step in to ensure that all our constituents enjoy a proper rail service while a new franchise arrangement is created. That seems to be common sense.
    Earlier, many hon. Members talked about profit being a dirty word and higher fares being the only way to create profit. They could not be more wrong. If there is a sensible level of fares, clean comfortable trains running on time with good facilities on them and a package of concessions to make it attractive, people will start to move off the overcrowded roads. We are doing that with freight to Europe and we should do it with passengers all over the country. We should get cars off the roads and people on to trains. However, people will get on trains only is if there is a sensible level of fares and sensible arrangements.
    That is the essence of creating a profit. The profit is then ploughed back in. We have ploughed the profits back into many other privatised industries and they have improved to the point at which they are the wonderful industries that we have today. In the old days, we shovelled millions of pounds into a bottomless pit—into nationalised industries —and we never got anything for it except misery all the time.
    The Bill is important. New clause 14 is a safety valve to ensure that we keep trains running to our constituencies in the unlikely event of a franchisee dropping out. It is sheer
    696
    common sense. I cannot understand why any hon. Member would want to vote against something that is a safeguard.
    Mr. Gunnell: I shall resist the temptation to respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). He shows even more faith than the Conservative Members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.
    I shall simply ask the Minister two questions. On clause 21, many of the services that will be franchised will be those on which the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive have been involved in discussions. If clause 21 becomes operative and there is a failure to provide a sequential franchise, what will be the involvement of the PTA and the PTE at that point? That is not spelt out, but the passenger transport authorities need to be clear about it.
    On new clause 14, is it anticipated that, perhaps in securing railway investment, the frachising director will form a finance company to finance, for example, the purchase of rolling stock? If so, and given the powers provided in new clause 18, will it be in order for the franchising director to form a company jointly with perhaps several passenger transport authorities to secure investment in rolling stock?
    Mr. Denham: I almost hesitated to raise an example of another route that might be hit by new clause 21? It struck me that, when new clause 21 was being drafted, there must have been a moment at which either the Minister turned to his civil servants and said, "Why don't we put this in new clause 21" and the civil servant said, "What do you have in mind, Minister? What about so and so?", or the civil servants came to the Minister and said, "We think you should put this in new clause 21" and he said, "What do you have in mind? What about such and such a route?"
    We have heard speculation about whether the franchising director will say that the east coast route is a satisfactory substitute for the west coast route or vice versa. I have a specific constituency interest to which I referred several times during the Standing Committee deliberations. There is an InterCity route that normally runs from Poole to the north-west—to Manchester—or the north-east. I understand that it is one of the loss-making parts of InterCity. Therefore, it will lose the cross-subsidy from the east coast line when that is privatised.
    Most, though perhaps not all, of the stations on the InterCity route from Poole through my constituency can be reached by alternative routes via London. It is usually quicker to go via London, but more expensive under current arrangements. There is a fair degree of passenger choice because people can decide whether to break the journey by travelling via London, spending more and taking less time, or have a longer more roundabout journey.
    I said several times in Committee that the cross-country route from Poole is likely to be threatened by the new franchising regime. That is because it will require a subsidy and BR and the Central Transport Consultative Committee have told us in briefings in the past 24 to 48 hours that there is still great uncertainty about whether there will be enough money in the system to subsidise those routes. Any future francisee running that cross-country

    697
    route runs a high chance of failing to provide a service or he may decide to withdraw after the initial franchise period.
    Does the Minister envisage the alternative routes through London as satisfactory, adequate or acceptable substitutes for the current InterCity route from Poole through Southampton to the north-west and the north-east? It is reasonable to ask the Minister that question because every hon. Member knows that when the framework is in place and the system is operating, complaints about decisions of the franchising director will be met by the Minister or his successor saying, "It has nothing to do with us, guy. It is the responsibility of the franchising director. That is the way Parliament set up the system." This is our only opportunity to ask the Minister what he had in mind with new clause 21.
    It is reasonable for hon. Members to name specific routes and ask the Minister whether he decided that they would be acceptable alternatives. The Minister must know the acceptable alternatives, or he would not have used the term in the legislation. Which routes had he in mind when he agreed with his advisers to put that in the Bill?
    Mr. Freeman: Six issues have been raised and I shall try to deal with them succinctly. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke about InterCity. I confirm that we want the brand name to continue because there is no reason why it should be inconsistent with the separate management of the individual routes. There will be further discussions with Mr. Christopher Green, who is responsible for running InterCity I pay tribute to Mr. Green and his managers for what they have achieved. InterCity has been a success story over the past 10 years and it can do better. It needs more investment in rolling stock, especially on the west coast main line, the Great Western line and the midland main line when it is eventually electrified.
    The franchising of InterCity services will be based on the whole timetable, including services to Penzance, Inverness and Aberdeen, immediately before the franchise is let. That will apply to all the services and stations served by that InterCity line. The amendments are not about chopping InterCity branches. We want InterCity to thrive.
    I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that considerable investment is required on the west coast main line; perhaps up to £500 million on the infrastructure and £300 million on rolling stock. If the £150 million worth of new leasing facilities is used on the west coast main line, that would be a start. If not, I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have already assured the House, that as soon as British Rail makes its mind up on the use of that £150 million facility, we will work with it on the route where that money is not used to devise a proper operating lease which meets the Treasury guidelines. If a satisfactory lease is drawn up, even more investment can be made. We want the west and east coast main lines to be thriving, because we want choice and competition. There is no hidden agenda to end services north of Preston on the west coast main line.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also asked what would happen should a franchisee go bust. We amended the Bill in Committee to provide for railway administrative orders. They are unique because they enable the franchising director, with the assistance of the courts, to step in to ensure the continued provision of railway services. That is quite unlike the arrangements for
    698
    any other form of transportation or any other company. It will not happen that a franchisee will be in financial difficulties on a Sunday and the trains will not run on Monday. We spent considerable time developing the new concept of railway administration orders to deal specifically with that problem.
    The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) asked whether the passenger transport executive would have a continuing role should the franchising director not renew a franchise. The answer is yes. If the hon. Gentleman studies clause 29, he will discover that it offers provision on that score. If he is not satisfied, perhaps he would write to me. The hon. Gentleman also raised the interesting idea of a joint company being formed between the franchising director and the passenger transport executive to own rolling stock. I shall certainly consider that suggestion, which is consistent with our desire that the franchising director, the PTE, the franchisee and the lessor should be tied together, by legal agreement, for the provision of new rolling stock.
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) asked about cross-country services. We want to franchise all railways that are run—that is our intention. When we come to franchise the InterCity cross-country services, the same principle will apply. We will take the entire service offered and franchise it. We have not yet been specific about cross-country services, or the central division of Regional Railways, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, Regional Railways, and, to some extent, cross-country services, are run on artificial boundaries. We want to ensure that we provide the right geographic description or boundary of specific services. There is no hidden agenda for the cessation of cross-country services. They are part of the present pattern of railway services and we intend to franchise those lines.
    It is important to consider the purpose of the new clause. Today, my right hon. Friend has announced 26 fairly large franchises. If a franchise comes to an end, it does not mean that the franchising director must look at alternatives. That is not possible when one considers the east coast main line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line or lines to Wales and the south-west. We are discussing large franchises.
    Where open-access services are developed in the coming years, they may provide a satisfactory, unsubsidised, unfranchised service. The franchising director might consider that those routes—perhaps they would operate in those parts of the country to which reference has already been made—provide a satisfactory service. It might then be considered unnecessary to franchise that part of a much larger franchise.
    Mr. Wallace: I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he wanted the west coast main line, as well as that on the east coast, to be successful. How is that likely to happen, given that the line will be starved of investment? The £150 million that the Minister mentioned represents about one third of the tender price for new rolling stock on the west coast main line, a tender which British Rail had to allow to lapse last year. How does he expect that line to be successful if it does not have the investment to allow that to happen?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that British Rail, Railtrack and the successor franchisees cannot do everything at once. The east coast main line has

    699
    benefited from a successful investment project worth up to £450 million. Network SouthEast has benefited from upwards of £700 million of investment on the Kent link. Attention must now be turned to the west coast main line. We have announced that the private sector has put forward propositions to improve the infrastructure. The private sector, working with the public sector, can help to advance the date of completion of works. Already, British Rail plans to start soon on resignalling the west coast main line, and I welcome that. I am determined that new, modern rolling stock should come on to that line, which is the premier line in Britain's railway infrastructure, as soon as possible.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Prescott: That is a sound bite.
    Mr. Freeman: It is not a sound bite, it is the truth. The west coast main line is our most important rail artery. Its services will continue to run to Glasgow and north of Glasgow. Investment is coming to the line and privatisation will advance that. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Wilson: That is a good saying: "It is not a sound bite, it is the truth." That may be the first confession by a politician that the two are incompatible.
    Two of the Minister's statements cannot be allowed to go unchecked. He said that InterCity was a success. In that case, why not leave it alone and let it develop? He then said that he could confirm that the Government want the brand name to continue. InterCity is not a shell. It is not livery and a brand name. It is not a marketing concept alone. It is about people who have worked hard to make it what it is—a profitable railway company. Why cannot it be left to do that job, dependent as it is on internal cross-subsidy?
    The Minister did not give us one rational reason for separating from InterCity the profitable elements so as to create, overnight, a whole new railway that will have to be subsidised if it is to survive in anything like its present form. Where is the virtue in that? I cannot see where that comes from in my philosophy and I find it odd that it is part of Tory philosophy to create new businesses that are dependent on public subsidy instead of profitable ones that stand on their own feet.
    The Minister told us that the new clause was based on a hypothesis of future open access. I doubt whether anyone believes that we shall ever see the open access proposals come to fruition, but if this is to do with open access, such a provision could be written into existing clauses. The new clause is far too convenient for the Government, because they are getting a device by which InterCity routes can be pruned, to be replaced by feeder services. It distresses and disappoints me that not one Tory Member representing the areas that will be threatened by the clause has got to his feet to lodge concerns which, at the very least, are justified by inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 109.

    Division No. 280]

    [11.33 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Gallie, Phil

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Gill, Christopher

    Alexander, Richard

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Amess, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Ancram, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hague, William

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Baldry, Tony

    Harris, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Bates, Michael

    Heald. Oliver

    Bellingham, Henry

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hendry, Charles

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Horam, John

    Booth, Hartley

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

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Bowis, John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Jack, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bright, Graham

    Jessel, Toby

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Burns, Simon

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Burt, Alistair

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Butterfill, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Knox, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Cash, William

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Clappison, James

    Legg, Barry

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Lidington, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lightbown, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Congdon, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Lord, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Luff, Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Couchman, James

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    Maclean, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Day, Stephen

    Malone, Gerald

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Mans, Keith

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Marlow, Tony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dover, Den

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Duncan, Alan

    Merchant, Piers

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Milligan, Stephen

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mills, Iain

    Elletson, Harold

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Faber, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fabricant, Michael

    Needham, Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Norris, Steve

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Freeman, Roger

    Paice, James

    French, Douglas

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gale, Roger

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    701

    Pickles, Eric

    Stewart, Allan

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Sykes, John

    Redwood, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Richards, Rod

    Thomason, Roy

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thurnham, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Trend, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Trotter, Neville

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wells, Bowen

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Whittingdale, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wilkinson, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wood, Timothy

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Sproat, Iain

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stephen, Michael

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Stern, Michael

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Benton, Joe

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Betts, Clive

    Hutton, John

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Illsley, Eric

    Bradley, Keith

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cann, Jamie

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clelland, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Coffey, Ann

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cohen, Harry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Cryer, Bob

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Mahon, Alice

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Marek, Dr John

    Dafis, Cynog

    Michael, Alun

    Dalyell, Tam

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

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

    Milburn, Alan

    Denham, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Dixon, Don

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Morley, Elliot

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Etherington, Bill

    Mudie, George

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Fraser, John

    Parry, Robert

    Galbraith, Sam

    Pendry, Tom

    Gerrard, Neil

    Pickthall, Colin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Graham, Thomas

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Prescott, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Gunnell, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Hall, Mike

    Reid, Dr John

    Hanson, David

    Rendel, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Harvey, Nick

    Rowlands, Ted

    Heppell, John

    Salmond, Alex

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Simpson, Alan

    702

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wallace, James

    Snape, Peter

    Walley, Joan

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Spellar, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Winnick, David

    Stott, Roger

    Wray, Jimmy

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Turner, Dennis

    Mr. Hugh Bayley and Mr. Alan Meale.

    Tyler, Paul

    Vaz, Keith

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 15

    PERFORMANCE OF FRANCHISING DIRECTOR'S DUTIES TO SECURE THE PROVISION OF SERVICES ETC.
    '.—(1) Where the Franchising Director is under a duty to secure the provision of any services or the operation of the whole or any part of a network, station or light maintenance depot, he may perform that duty by entering into agreements or arrangements under which other persons (in this section referred to as "sub-contractors") are to provide the services or, as the case may be, operate the network, station or light maintenance depot, or the part of the network, station or light maintenance depot, in question.

    (2) The Franchising Director may enter into an agreement or arrangement such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above notwithstanding that the sub-contractor in question is a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.

    (3) Any agreement or arrangement such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may include such provisions, including provision with respect to the fares or other charges that may be imposed by the sub-contractor in question, as the Franchising Director may think fit.

    (4) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for the purpose of performing any such duty as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.

    (5) Any sums received by the Franchising Director in consequence of the performance of any such duty as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 21

    FAILURE TO SECURE SUBSEQUENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
    '.—(1) In any case where—

    (a) a franchise agreement is terminated or otherwise comes to an end, but

    (b) no further franchise agreement has been entered into in respect of services formerly provided under that franchise agreement,

    it shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be the duty of the Franchising Director to secure the provision of those services until such time as they again begin to be provided under a franchise agreement.
    (2) Subsection (1) above does not—

    (a) require the Franchising Director to secure the provision of any services, if and to the extent that, in his opinion, adequate alternative railway passenger services are available;

    (b) preclude him from giving notice under subsection (3) of section 33 below in relation to any of the services in question, in which case his duty under this section to secure the provision of the services to which the notice relates will (subject to subsections (3) and (4) of that section) terminate on the day specified in the notice in pursuance of paragraph (b) of that subsection; or

    703

    (c) preclude him from ceasing to secure the provision of any of the services in question, if the discontinuance is certified by the Regulator as being a minor closure, within the meaning of that section.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 17

    PAYMENTS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF TRACK ACCESS CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH RAILWAY GOODS SERVICES
    '.—(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of securing the provision of adequate services for the carriage of goods by railway, enter into agreements with goods service operators under which he undertakes to make payments to the goods service operator in question in respect of all or any part of the track access charges which may be incurred by the goods service operator in connection with the provision of the services to which the agreement relates.
    (2) The Secretary of State shall not enter into an agreement by virtue of subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that benefits of a social or environmental nature are likely to result from the provision of those services for the carriage of goods by railway to which the agreement relates.
    (3) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under agreements entered into by virtue of this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    (4) In this section—
    "goods service operator" means a person who operates services for the carriage of goods by railway;
    "track access charge" means any payment required to be made under an access agreement conferring a right to use track;
    and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 73.
    Mr. MacGregor: This is the only Report stage debate on freight, and at this hour of night I will be brief. It is unfortunate that we could not have had the debate earlier, because the freight aspects of our proposals are most important. Our purpose is to deal with an issue that has faced nearly every country around the world. Over the years, the volume of freight taken on rail as a proportion of inland freight has markedly declined. We are not unusual in that. Last week, I published the Government's proposals on "Rail Freight Privatisation", which on page 5 presents a table that shows the share of freight moved by rail compared with other modes.
    In Great Britain the figure is 7·2 per cent.; in France, 8·5 per cent.; western Germany, 8·7 per cent.; the Netherlands, 2·5 per cent.; Belgium, 12·7 per cent.; and Spain, 2·4 per cent. Although those figures do not show the movement over the years, they clearly indicate that rail freight accounts for a small proportion of the total. The Government's objective is to halt that decline and to move freight back on to rail.
    There are three major reasons for that trend. First, the kind of bulk freight for which rail is most suited is itself a
    704
    declining market. Secondly, the expanding market for consumer goods freight are just-in-time deliveries to supermarkets and so on—where the requirement is to shift comparatively small amounts every day to individual supermarkets, with prompt delivery. That is normal commercial practice, and all the developments are in that direction. Rail is not particularly well suited to competing with road for that sort of freight, and it must improve in order to do so.
    Thirdly, a key issue in the competitiveness and viability of rail is its suitability for transporting freight over long distances—and almost inevitably, we do not have as many as other countries. The same table that I quoted earlier shows that the average length of haul in Great Britain is 113 miles, compared with 154 in France, 249 in western Germany, and 367 in Italy. However, I believe that the channel tunnel offers an opportunity to overcome that distance problem, to make rail freight more viable. That is why there is such a concentration of investment by British Rail at this time.
    I have never hidden the fact during the past year that it will he a big challenge to shift more freight back to rail, but I believe that our proposals—some of which were contained in the document that I published last week—offer the best package of opportunities in offering a combination of selling rail freight to the private sector, open access, breaking British Rail's monopoly, and enabling more freight operators to offer individual services or multiple services.
    Also included is the three-point package that I presented on Second Reading. That brings me to new clause 17, which honours my undertaking on Second Reading to bring forward provisions to allow the payment of grants to rail freight operators in respect of track access charges. They seek to tip the balance in favour of rail over road where that is economically and viably sensible. Grant will be triggered only where there are demonstrable social and environmental benefits.
    At this time of night, I do not propose to go into all the details. I am happy to do so, if that is required during the debate. All I would say at this stage is that the new clause provides for new track grants for goods operations. Therefore, I commend it to the House. It is a modest new grant. It is designed to deal with those marginal rail freight flows that cannot fully pay their way, and where track costs are the problem.
    However, taken as part of the package which I have briefly outlined, I believe that it offers the best opportunity for getting more freight off the roads and on to rail and, in particular, of halting the decline in the carriage of freight by rail. That is something to which everybody subscribes but which has proved very difficult to achieve in practice. I believe that our proposals, of which this is part, offer the best opportunity.
    Mr. Prescott: Like the Secretary of State, I feel that the debate on freight warrants more time than it is likely to get because of the pressures of time at this late hour. I do not disagree fundamentally with the Government's approach. I have argued for it for 20 years, even against a Labour Government. We are now beginning to witness the acceptance in this country of a social freight system—acceptance that subsidies should be used to encourage the movement of freight from road to rail. There has been some movement in the past few years as a result of the

    705
    section 8 provision—but not enough. It has not made up for the difference between the costs of moving freight by road compared with rail.
    No matter how effective these provisions may be—we hope that they will be effective—the reality is that most freight traffic—85 per cent., or even more—will always be carried by road. A 1 per cent. increase in total freight traffic is the equivalent of almost double what is carried by rail at this time. Road traffic is increasing by 1 per cent. a year, anyway.
    The road versus rail argument has always been a nonsense. We should use both road and rail capacity as best we can. There is considerable congestion on our roads. It is agreed that we shall be unable to build our way out of that problem and that we should use rail more effectively than we do now.
    Past policy has not been right in one particular respect: that freight should be expected to achieve an 8 per cent. rate of return. It has been difficult for British Rail operators to achieve that return. One difficulty facing British Rail is that its rolling stock, particularly engines, is very old. British Rail freight is often pulled by two or three engines, on account of their age. It was one of the reasons that led me to accept that private sector capital should be made available to British Rail for freight. I have never had an ideologial problem over that.
    British Rail's need for capital is so great that if private sector companies, such as English China Clays, are prepared to provide resources to take that traffic off the roads and put it on to rail, it is a good investment for the community. It is far more expensive to build roads than to use fully, by means of subsidy, the rail capacity that is already available.
    There have been a number of examples, but a simple change from public to private resources does not guarantee overnight success. English China Clays ran into problems when Tiger Rail moved into Scotland. That was a private operation. It went bankrupt. Rail Charter, another private company. is another example. There is no guarantee, I repeat, that private operations will be a success. Those examples perhaps reflect the difficulties of the times.
    My point is, perhaps, an ideological one: that a change of ownership does not necessarily guarantee that there will be a movement from road to rail. We spend far too long arguing about whether "public" means only public money and public use and about whether "private" means privately owned, effective use being made only of private capital. That is not the case.
    British Rail has been judged a little unfairly. Its long-haul freight, particularly the movement of coal and steel, has been in massive decline, for reasons that are known to the House. Its merry-go-round trains were in advance of rail investment in most other parts of the country. It has a good record on through haul.
    One of the problems of moving a large amount of traffic from the road to rail is that one cannot always guarantee that the traffic will be in trainloads. Trainloads are cheap but much traffic is in wagonloads. It is very expensive to operate a wagonload system and we must recognise that there are financial problems in attracting traffic from the roads and on to the rail.
    The irony is that the Government's own proposals, with the enforcement of the expected rates of return which they have increased in the past 12 months, have forced British Rail to ditch more traffic. We have mentioned cider,
    706
    cement and other products, trainloads of which are being chased off the railways and on to the roads. That is unfortunate. Indeed, it is silly that the resources which will be available under the new rules are not made readily available to British Rail by the Secretary of State. He could ensure that they are, although there was some dispute about the issue on Second Reading.
    There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State making changes under section 8 to increase the subsidy in order to retain the traffic which is currently moved by rail and which the private sector wishes to keep on the railway but which is increasingly being forced on to the roads. It would be sad if traffic were moved back on to the railway once the orders are introduced. Why cannot the Secretary of State take the necessary action now? It would be welcomed by all involved.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend is making a fundamental point. With the new clause, the Government are apparently attempting to do something that they refused to do under public ownership. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that.
    As this is the Report stage, will my hon. Friend mention some elementary points which have not come across in public print? On what basis will Railtrack charge for freight traffic which will presumably be originated by anyone who can offer the stock and locomotives for a particular service? Will it be in the hands of the accountants, or will it be subject to marginal cost pricing? It is possible that there could be an increase in freight traffic merely through the accountants' use of figures.
    Mr. Prescott: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. It brings to mind an experience of the railway system in my area of Hull, which led me to argue with the Labour Government of the time that their view that there should be no subsidy for freight, and the accounting rules affecting the operation of the freight system, were nonsense.
    Freightliner which operated from Hull provided a network service to a major port. It was desperately short of cash and wanted a Freightliner crane in York to be moved to Liverpool, but it was unable to get the Treasury to give it increased resources or to raise its borrowing requirement and so began to cannibalise the system. it argued that it needed to move the crane. It made sense from Freightliner's point of view but it meant that the community was going to lose a freight service.
    When I approached the then Labour Minister, he argued that a subsidy could be given only to the passenger service, not to freight. It sounded like a fair principle and I understood why he said what he did, but the consequence was that we lost the freight service and the line lost revenue. By losing revenue, and because the Government were prepared to increase the subsidy for passengers, the community ended up paying more in passenger subsidy and losing a freight service. In my view, the community lost because more traffic went on to the roads and we paid more in subsidy because we believed in subsidies for passengers but not for freight.
    The new clause raises the possibility that subsidies can be used, a notion in which I have always believed. I am glad that the Secretary of State is introducing the idea, although I could not convince the Labour Government at that time that they should consider it. It is a sound idea. Like many of my ideas, the Government have got around

    707
    to picking it up so I can hardly vote against them on this occasion. We hope that it will have the desired effect, although I am a little doubtful.
    We must wait and see what the total costs are because one of the difficulties with the Government's thinking now is the track costs. Railtrack, an independent body, may be expected to make an 8 per cent. rate of return. For an independent body which is presently in the public sector but earmarked to go into the private sector, that rate of return, or whatever rate is expected, means that the costs will be considerable and that they will be imposed on the operator. The Government say that the new grant under the new clause is geared to dealing with that track cost. I hear from operators that they have some doubt about that; I hope that they are wrong. We need to know many more details.
    12 midnight
    I have seen the complicated formulae which are available in the consultative documents on the matter. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands them. I am not sure that I understand them although I have tried to do so on a number of occasions. We shall have to see some examples before we can have a full understanding. The bottom line seems to be that the Government are prepared to pay subsidies for anything that is not operating costs. The operators are expected to provide the fuel and the running costs, but subsidies could make up the difference between what the commercial provider is prepared to give—[Interruption.] I thought that I heard a different view being expressed in the official Box. As the House moved from passenger to freight services, a new group of civil servants walked in. I have often thought that it would have been nice in the past few days to have had different advisers to give us advice on different matters.
    The complexity of the system is such that everything will depend on how much money is made available. As I understand the Secretary of State, there was to be a limit on the amount of subsidy available which has now been removed. Presumably, whatever money is given and by whom will be part of the public expenditure round and will have to be negotiated and readily available each year. Is there a limit? Could the Secretary of State give us some idea of the estimates he has on that? Presumably the money will be governed by Treasury rules about the amount that can be lent. I assume that the money will be part of the PSBR. Could the Secretary of State tell us? Alongside that, we must put the £1 billion-plus of PSO payments—a figure that we all agree will continue. Having followed a policy over the past years of saying how the PSO has been halved and how that has been a great success, the Government now propose to double the amount and they crow that that is a success policy. Whatever, we are back to the figure of £1 billion at which we started at the beginning of the 10-year period, despite the different policies of different Ministers. Do we now expect £1 billion of subsidies on the freight side? Has the Secretary of State any idea of the order of magnitude or resources that will be available to meet the requirements? As he can understand, that could double the leading requirement and the subsidies given by the Treasury to the railway sector in both passenger and freight operations.
    708
    Has the Secretary of State given any thought to an idea that was suggested to me and to other hon. Members by Railstore? It is an interesting idea about which many of the operators will be thinking. If there is to be competition between rail and road, and if we seek through the grants to make the competition fairer, the judgment will be made—as it is now—that what those at the Department of Transport who are responsible for investment in roads impose as a road tax is a contribution to costs. There is some argument about whether the full costs are met; I shall leave that to one side at present.
    The structure is that the Department of Transport imposes the so-called "tax" on lorries; Railtrack is the equivalent body on the rail side. It could impose a charge, which might vary. It does not vary on the roads, where there is a charge for a particular size of vehicle. Railstore talks about a 44-tonne lorry—all the signs are that that is the size to which we are moving. The road fund licence for a 40-ft lorry that carries 24 tonnes is £2,160. Railstore suggests that the charge for the 24 tonnes that a railway wagon can carry should be £2,160. If Railtrack and the Department of Transport were seen as comparable bodies which raised money by some form of tax—either a road or a rail fund tax—those would, Railstore believes, be fair amounts. I do not know.
    Has the Secretary of State given any consideration to comparability? The suggestions are concerned with trying to level the field of competition and with intervening to try to get more traffic off the roads and on to rail. Is the Secretary of State considering that or, under the massive bureaucracy that we are establishing through Railtrack, will each company bid for its own contract? The latter seems to be what the Secretary of State is suggesting and I wonder whether he is happy with that kind of bureaucracy.
    Under new clause 17, a new subsidy will be paid to meet different charges. Although the problems involved in the new subsidy may be considerable, I believe that this is a welcome development.
    Although the Secretary of State did not mention it because he was pressed for time, I welcome the extension of section 8 grants. It makes a great deal of sense to extend those grants to traffic that has affected the environment. We must consider the effect on congestion on our motorways. I have argued for some time that apart from the immediate roads around the point of origin of the traffic, the proposal is worthwhile in respect of traffic heading south via the M25 or the M6. If we can get traffic to stay on the railways, particularly on the way to Europe, that will relieve congestion on the M25 and the M6.
    I am glad that the Government have accepted the extension of the grants to assist traffic moving by rail. I also welcome the fact that the grant is to be extended for locomotives, sidings, wagons and terminal handling equipment. That makes a lot of sense.
    My main complaint is why all that could not be available to British Rail. Why can we make all those grants and facilities available as soon as the railways enter the private sector? Is it to make the ideological point that the private sector can do it better? That has nothing to do with private entrepreneurial ability. It is fixing the system to provide the benefits which were denied to British Rail in the public sector. That is a load of ideological nonsense.
    We should ignore the ideology and consider how the community can get more traffic from the road on to the

    709
    railways through the best use of its financial facilities and so reduce congestion costs and environmental damage and therefore best use our under-utilised facilities.
    I welcome the fact that we are moving towards a PSO for freight. We should consider road and passenger and freight and passenger in the light of PSO and try to get more traffic off the roads and on to the railways.
    I have taken advice, and although I do not accept it fully, I will accept it for the sake of this argument, that the grants that the Secretary of State is offering would not have prevented the current movement of traffic from rail to road. It is said that the grants would not even have covered operating costs. That is an interesting point, but it does not take us very far, particularly when we consider traffic from Abersystwyth and Oban where oil is now being transferred from rail to road simply because the operating costs are not being covered.
    I hope that we can accept that the idea is to try to keep what traffic we have on the railways and, at the same time, try to encourage more. There are many examples of that. I have already referred to oil, but cement and cider in different areas of the country also prove my case.
    We must recognise that there may be some deficiencies in what the Government are doing at the moment, but largely they are moving in the right direction. I do not necessarily accept the involvement of the private sector, but open access causes me no problems if it improves the amount of available capital and investment. If it improves the movement from road to rail and uses our railways to the full, that is acceptable in view of the many difficulties that the railways face. My only objection is why we have to wait until the system is privatised. Why not give BR the opportunity to do all that now?
    Sir David Mitchell: I rise to support the new clause and to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a few questions. There is widespread support throughout the country for the concept of transporting more goods by rail than by road. As my right hon. Friend said, the channel tunnel will help. The old section 8 provided capital grants to assist in that transfer. I have to plead guilty that when I had some responsibility in that area I spent more public money under section 8 than any Minister has ever done.
    New clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to pay all or part of the track usage charges that go to a freight operator. That is a far more important and wide-reaching change than the public have recognised. It is perhaps a pity that the debate is taking place shortly after midnight. I should have liked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take the opportunity of blowing his trumpet and telling the freight hauliers, environmental pressure groups, the town centre conservation groups and the public at large just how important is the initiative that he is now taking to help that transfer of freight from road to rail.
    If the Government intend to subsidise the transfer from road to rail, we need to know the answer to some questions. What are the criteria to be? My right hon. Friend spoke of a demonstrable benefit. Could he perhaps explain a little further what a demonstrable benefit is? Will it relate purely to congestion on the roads? Will such benefits include pre-empting the need to build new roads? Will it be taken into account that pressure of lorry traffic causes environmental damage in conservation areas? Could we have a little more information about the criteria that the Secretary of State will use? How much has my right hon. Friend budgeted to spend? Can he assure me
    710
    that section 8 will continue? Although its purpose is similar, it operates in a different way in the form of capital grants.
    The public are seized of the fact that there is not a level playing field between the road haulier and rail transport. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) drew attention to the proposition from Railstore Ltd. which has been circulated to several hon. Members. It asks simply why we do not charge for a rail freight truck the same as would be charged for an equivalent weight road freight truck in the form of a licence and use section 17 if that is too heavy a charge which needs to be remitted to achieve the Secretary of State's desire to achieve a transfer of freight from road to rail.
    I support what is proposed in the new clause, but could my right hon. Friend spell out a little more information to the House?
    Mr. Harris: I do not know whether it is because we have just passed the witching hour of midnight or whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has mellowed in recent times, but I find myself in agreement with many of the points that he made.
    I believe that British Rail has thrown away much of its freight traffic, perhaps deliberately or perhaps because of circumstances. I had occasion in the past three weeks to write to Sir Bob Reid about what I regard as perhaps the supreme illustration of the way in which British Rail has thrown away its freight traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and I have received letters suggesting that British Rail was using road transport to take its fuel to Long Rock depot in my constituency to fuel its trains.
    I asked Sir Bob how, if British Rail could not use its own rail service to move its fuel, it could expect anyone else to use rail freight services. He wrote back a nice letter in which he said that the economics were such that it was not feasible for British Rail to move its fuel by rail. That make the point that rail freight is not used because freight services, certainly in the south-west, have been run down to the point of non-existence.
    My constituents look back with nostalgia to the days when the fish from Newlyn went on trains and the broccoli—that is cauliflower to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in Cornwall it is called broccoli—was transported in special trains. At this time of year, trainload after trainload ran from the branch lines through Helston to Gwinear road and through west Cornwall to the markets.
    Now all that has gone, and I do not think that we can put the clock back, sad though that may be. However, I welcome the new clause, in the hope that we may be able to save some services.
    It is a sad fact of life that, in recent times, Royal Mail parcel service traffic has been lost completely in my part of the world and, I suspect, many others. Similarly, newspaper trains have disappeared in the south-west. That is very sad. I hope that we will be able to regain some freight traffic. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly referred to the position that, happily, still applies to china clay; let us hope that we hang on to that rail traffic.
    I believe that we have opportunities to return some freight to rail, despite the obvious advantage of road transport for many commodities. I welcome new clause 17, which tries to do that, and I wish my right hon. Friend's laudable objectives every success.

    711
    When I wrote to Sir Bob Reid, Cornwall 2000 said, "Ah: the reason why British Rail is now switching transport of its own fuel to the roads is all to do with privatisation." That is not true; in fact, it is already happening under the present system. I believe that new clause 17 may provide at least a glimmer of hope that more freight will be returned from road to rail, and I wish my right hon. Friend every success in that endeavour.
    12.15 am
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I add my support to this environmental measure, which—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out—is a welcome development of the section 8 grant provision. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for all the work that he did as a Minister; I looked with admiration from my roads desk at what he was doing on the railways. Although there are few instances in which a grant by itself will make it possible to avoid building a road, there are many instances in which it will bring about an environmental improvement, especially in the localities where the goods start out or end up.
    I think that it would be sensible for those proposing to give up such grants to, in effect, auction them: instead of saying, "We will not continue to use the railways unless we receive an ever-growing sum", they should ask what sort of sum is available and what kind of bid people will put in to try to transfer some of their traffic from road to rail or to stay on rail. That is the only way in which to achieve competition; otherwise, we shall end up with an open-ended subsidy, as we have in other contexts.
    Let me end by making a prediction. As those involved in moving freight say that they do not need a road through Oxleas wood, I forecast that it will not be built.
    Mr. MacGregor: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
    I am very grateful for the positive response that the new clause has received from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have had a short but realistic debate: while we all want more freight to be transported by rail—I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on that—we also know that it will be difficult to achieve and that we need a package to give us the opportunity of achieving it.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for what he said. Let me quickly answer his questions. He asked about the size of the subsidy and whether it would be open ended. From the point of view of the beneficiary, subsection (2) of the new clause makes it clear that it is not open ended; payment will be triggered only when there are demonstrable social and environmental benefits. As for the total amounts, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that they will have to be negotiated each year as part of the public expenditure round. At this stage we have no clear facts on which to build estimates of what will be needed, but it will clearly have to be part of the public expenditure negotiations in the autumn and the White Paper.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the other parts of the package—the freight facilities grant and the potential move to 44-tonne lorries for combined transport movements to railheads. I say
    712
    potential because we went out to consultation on that issue and I am now evaluating all the responses. Clearly, we hope to implement that move. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was an element of ideology in that move as we were proposing the package only as we moved towards privatising the freight section of railways. That is not true; the move was made as a result of my analysis of the problems of freight in the past year.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me about some freight operations that are no longer being continued on rail because the contracts involved were not even covering the operating costs. He is right about that and under the proposal the grant will be available to cover track access costs, not operating costs, which must be right. That partly answers my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). It is true that some contracts have been lost in the past year—they did not even cover their operating costs, let alone their track costs. To put the figure in context, last year it involved about 3 per cent. of the volume of trainload freight, and some new contracts have been awarded in the past year.
    My heart sank when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East started talking about Railstore and level playing fields. It sank only because I realised that to do justice to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman would take about an hour and I am sure that the House would not wish me to speak for that long at this time of night. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded to a number of requests from colleagues in the House on the Railstore analysis.
    The level playing field argument is complex and I shall not enter into it tonight except to say that the Green Paper on motorways and the possibilities for private finance which, as the House knows, I shall soon be producing contains a fairly long analysis of the level playing fields issue. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is complicated and that the simple comparison made by Railstore does not do justice to the argument.
    Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State will appreciate that the issue of freight, and its increase, is vital to increasing the finances of the railway network, whatever it may comprise. On what basis will the future track cost of freight be calculated? He has explained the disastrous present position of fuel being taken by road, even for British Rail, due to the fact that it cannot cover its track costs. If there is to be a minimum timetable—which he said that there would be for passenger traffic—will the marginal costs of the additional track costs for the freight that may use those routes be the basis of the charge? If not, what is the basis to be? Unless we know that, the degree to which the subsidy will help remains unknown.
    Mr. MacGregor: The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives did not relate to track costs, but to the fact that the contractors were not even covering their operating costs, which is a problem. On the issue of track costs, we have stated the broad principles for access charges. I do not wish to speak on the subject in detail now, but the relevant document is freely available to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The relevant point in relation to the new clause is that it enables up to 100 per cent. of the track costs to be met where there are clear social and environmental benefits.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked how the environmental benefits would

    713
    be evaluated. Officials in the Department are currently drawing up the administrative guidelines that will govern the new grant regime, including the methodology for evaluating environmental benefits. I envisage that the guidelines will be similar to those that apply to the current freight facilities grant scheme, with environmental benefits measured in terms of reduced lorry miles. All applications will also be subject to a financial appraisal and there will be safeguards against fraud. I note the comments of my hon. Friend, who has always shown an interest in the subject. I will ensure that he receives the details as soon as they are available.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 18

    EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS FOR PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING INVESTMENT IN THE RAILWAYS
    '.—(1) The Franchising Director or a Passenger Transport Authority or Passenger Transport Executive—

    (a) in exercising or deciding whether or not to exercise any of his, or (as the case may be) their, franchising functions, may take into account the desirability of encouraging railway investment; and

    (b) may exercise any such functions for the purpose of encouraging railway investment or for purposes which include that purpose.

    (2) The Franchising Director may, for the purpose of encouraging railway investment, enter into agreements with any person under which the Franchising Director undertakes to exercise franchising functions of his or to exercise such functions in a particular manner.
    (3) The Franchising Director and any Passenger Transport Executive may enter into agreements with each other as to the terms on which franchise agreements to which the Executive is to be a party are to be entered into.
    (4) In this section—
    "franchising functions", in relation to the Franchising Director, means—

    (a) any functions of his under sections 15, 17, 20 to 30, (Transfers of franchise assets and shares), (Failure to secure subsequent franchise agreement), (Contracts between the Franchising Director and the Board for the provision of non-franchised railway, passenger services) and (Powers of the Franchising Director to form and finance companies and to acquire and dispose of assets) (3);

    (b) any power conferred on him under or by virtue of Part II below with respect to the effecting by transfer scheme of any transfer contemplated by any provision of those sections; and

    (c) any other functions of his which relate to the provision of railway passenger services under franchise agreements;

    "franchising functions", in relation to a Passenger Transport Authority or Passenger Transport Executive, means any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority or, as the case may be, the Executive under or by virtue of section 29 above;
    "railway investment" means investment in assets for use in the provision of railway services.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I suggest to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that, because this is such an important subject, I send him a copy of the full statement that I intend to make next Thursday, in the recess, which
    714
    brings together all the initiatives on leasing. Perhaps he and I can then have an Adjournment debate on the West Yorkshire PTE rolling stock issue because the way forward on that may be charted more clearly as a result of the statement that I shall make next Thursday, assuming that the new clause is accepted.
    Mr. Prescott: I am all for doing things for the convenience of the House, but the statement on leasing is important. We are now being told that the statement cannot be made in the House because hon. Members want to go home. I understand the argument. Labour Members do not have to stay for the vote. We cannot win in the House. If we want to let those hon. Members go who do not want to vote, we can stay and talk. Then we are told that we cannot have a statement now because hon. Members want to go home, but we will have it next week when we are in recess. Frankly, that is not acceptable. We are supposed to subject the Minister's statements to examination. I am fed up with a Department that constantly gives statements outside and not in the House. Even the objectives for British Rail are no longer given in the House—they are announced outside.
    I have been told that there is an important development on the issue of leasing. As hon. Members know, I have been an advocate of financed leasing for a long time. When this Government and the last Labour Government would not accept it, I thought that at least I would have had an opportunity in the House to see how this Government approach the issue of leasing. [Interruption.] This is important. I hope that the Government Whip does not keep making that sort of face. I am all for the organisation of business. I am not saying that we should have an hour's debate, but we should have at least five or 10 minutes because leasing is important. It gives us an opportunity to deal with the real problems of finance in British Rail. It cannot be achieved by simply getting finance from the Treasury—it must come some other way.
    We will not have an opportunity to hear any statement. Does that mean that the Minister does not have a statement, or that he is thinking about it? If he has it, why does not he make it to us tonight so that we can go away and at least read it? Then I would not need to wait until the recess because I hate giving press statements on what Ministers have said. What does the Minister intend to do?
    Mr. Freeman: If I catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be happy to go into detail.
    Mr. Prescott: I am not asking the Minister for the statement—I am trying to get a proper balance, as the Secretary of State did on the issue of freight. The Secretary of State wanted to make a full and proper statement about the important matter of freight, but, in five minutes, he managed to give the essential details.
    I am not asking the Minister to give us the full statement on leasing. If he will give the details in a parliamentary reply, as he and the Department always do, I will put a question down tonight. He can reply to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who is being pressed not to get into this debate. Can we find a happy compromise, because there is a fair point to be made? We must get a balance on this matter which is not being achieved at present.
    The Minister could give us one or two points to show his position on leasing and then make his written statement later. If he did that, I could at least address some

    715
    of my criticisms of his essential points because, while I agree with leasing, certain points need to be made in the debate. I do not know how to deal with the matter now because the Minister has sat down and I have said my bit. He must have the leave of the House and God knows what else if he wants to speak again. I am prepared to give way to him for a few minutes so that he can outline his principles for leasing.
    Mr. Freeman: New clause 18 deals specifically with the issue of the franchising director fettering his discretion, essentially, by agreeing to the continued use of leased rolling stock on a particular railway line through the first franchise. That is all that the new clause does.
    The problem in the past has been that franchises might be for five, seven or 10 years, but the economic life of new rolling stock might be 30 years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the new clause will allow the franchising director to develop an operating lease by saying to the franchisee, the lessor and to the PTE—perhaps all of them joined by a legal agreement—that he will undertake to continue to designate the leased rolling stock as franchise assets on a specific line beyond the first franchise. The franchises are for seven years, and the period for two franchises, 14 years, is about the minimum rental length that lessors will require on rolling stock to reduce the residual value to an acceptable risk. That is all that the new clause does and it has been widely welcomed.
    12.30 am
    I told the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that on Thursday I shall seek to bring together not new policy statements, but the various policy statements that we have made about the establishment of public sector rolling stock companies, the £150 million of lease finance for British Rail, and the time scale for decisions on that facility and one that may or may not replace it. I owe it to the House to set out clearly in one document all the statements that we have made so far.
    There is a real possibility of developing a rolling stock leasing market, but we have to transfer the risk to the private sector to ensure that it is not caught by public expenditure constraints. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a great supporter of leasing. I have differed from him, largely because he thinks that it is possible for British Rail as a nationalised industry to lease rolling stock and not be caught by conventional public expenditure definitions. That is not possible. This is the way forward and I look forward to debating the matter at much greater length—perhaps for the full time of an Adjournment debate or on some other occasion. [Interruption.] I am happy to debate specific issues, but I sense that the mood of the House is to move to other matters. I am not afraid to stay here all night to answer every question that hon. Members put to me. I am trying to observe the niceties of debate and endeavouring to be courteous by being as concise as possible.
    Mr. Prescott: The Minister says that he would stay here all night. I hope that that means more than it did on Stagecoach rail when he launched a service and then shot into the sleeping section.
    The Minister has made an important statement. I look forward to his written comments and hope that we can have a longer debate in the future. I welcome the
    716
    Government's return to leasing. Years ago there were leasing arrangements for British Rail and I served on the Committee that investigated British Rail's use of those arrangements. BR abused them, and that is why the Treasury took them away. British Rail sold to the private sector and used the money that was raised and other tax arrangements for the revenue and running requirements of the railways. The resources should have been used for capital replacement, but BR was starved of cash at that time.
    British Rail was able to lease as a publicly owned company, which shows that the Treasury has different rules for different industries at different times. The publicly owned British Airways was able to lease aeroplanes and there was no problem in dealing with that. The Treasury has never been consistent on this matter and policy depends on what the Treasury thinks is important at the time. BR has been denied the possibility of any further leasing.
    The Government's attitude now is a welcome change. I am not sure that the Minister is right when he says that the public sector cannot lease. Every other railway system in Europe leases and they are publicly owned. Treasury rules in Britain are different. It is not that public finance cannot be organised to allow the public sector to raise its capital requirements on lease. A silly British rule makes us feel superior to the French, whose railway system has got the better part of the deal, as President Mitterrand reminded us only last week.
    Even if the Minister sets up separate leasing companies, presumably they will be subsidiaries of British Rail. If so, under the normal Treasury rules, they will still be subjected to the PSBR rules and the external financial limits. How will they be free from those constraints? From what the Minister has said, I cannot see that those new companies will be subject to anything different. Those companies are intended to be the subsidiaries of a publicly owned company and, by definition, they are wholly owned by British Rail. According to the Treasury's definition, and even subject to its latest rules on private finance, those companies will be considered a public sector liability. Given what the Minister has said, I cannot understand how it is possible for those companies to be free from the restraints of public financing and the Treasury rules interpreting that financing.
    I should like to consider other technical matters relating to maintenance and operational stupidities that stem from that interpretation of the Treasury rules, but, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not do so.
    The Government want competition in the private sector—I do not think that there is much available—but they cannot afford to allow an operator to have a franchise for more than seven years. If a franchise were to last as long as the life of the stock, the franchisee would be given private monopoly control for perhaps 20 years.
    The Government are faced with a dilemma: who owns the stock? The operator will not be prepared to invest in something for which he might have an operational contract of seven years only, especially if the asset he has purchased will hold its value for 20 years. Should he lose the contract and have to pass it on, that will place him in a difficult position. The reality is that the public sector will own that stock. I am happy about that, because it will make it all the easier for me to bring that stock back into

    717
    the sector where it belongs. If that is an ideological point, I happen to believe that 80 per cent. of the electorate agree with me.
    Leaving that aside, what the Minister has said represents a welcome step forward, although I do not understand how that falls in with the supposed one great leap from the existing controls under the current interpretation of the Treasury rules.
    Mr. Gunnell: I welcome new clause 18. I accept the Minister's offer of an Adjournment debate on this matter and I shall put in for one as soon as we return from the spring recess.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: It would be appropriate to say something about the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Transport on investment in the railways. We are discussing the investment new clause which does not limit itself to investment in rolling stock.
    That report noted:
    "if Ministers' expectations of increased private and public sector investment in the railways are not realised it will scarcely matter what structure of ownership or management is put in place."
    The Select Committee will be grateful that the Government have recognised that the provision of sufficient resources is important. In answer to the Select Committee's call for investment, however, the Government said:
    "Investment in British Rail will show a temporary dip this year but it is still high in comparison with recent years. This dip is in part due to passing the peak of new rolling stock deliveries."
    The Select Committee has been most concerned about the investment famine that will become apparent in the next two to three years. From discussions that the Select Committee had with witnesses, it became clear that private sector operators are unlikely to place orders for the next two years and are unlikely to receive deliveries for a year or two after that. In effect, there is a four-year gap.
    Without a steady stream of orders, we will not preserve our railway stock building at the desired level If we consider channel tunnel-linked investment and what is happening, we hope, with crossrail, Thameslink 2000, the Jubilee line extension and the fact that the 10 per cent. of British Rail stock, which is way past its sell-by date, must be replaced, we will end up with a boost in railway stock investment at a time when we have half destroyed our railway stock building industry. That is not good value for money or good for employment.
    In the past nine months, we have had a great deal of discussion about how we should spend a lot of money subsidising extra jobs underground. If we spent anything like that amount of money in the next three years endowing capital investment in British Rail, we would do more for employment prospects throughout the country and make more of a contribution towards the economy than through investing underground. That would also help railways make their full economic contribution to the economic geography of the United Kingdom—Scotland, the north of England, Wales, the south-west as well as the rail links to the ports that link us to Northern Ireland.
    I hope that the Government will find a way—I understand that it cannot be included in the Bill—in which to create capital investment in British Rail—I suppose that one should now say the railways—up to the level of above £1,000 million a year for the next five years.
    718
    That would be better than giving £1,000 million in the year before an election, and then cutting it to below £600 million in the years after the election. Those sudden boosts and drops are economically highly inefficient. The Government must find a way, with or without private sector help, to have a level of capital investment that ensures that the existing railway is kept at the present running speeds or, even better, increased speeds, rather than continuing the deterioration on the west coast mainline.
    In their response to the investment section of the Select Committee report, the Government have said that they agree with four fifths of what the Committee said. The one fifth that is still in doubt, with the exception of British Rail bidding for franchises, is the most important part—the level of cash investment for this year, next year and the year after. If the Government could find a way to endow the railways with a high level of capital investment, they would find that their plans work, and that the bids for the franchise would be at a higher level, with very little net cost to the Government or the taxpayer. That level of capital investment—on which Ministers probably cannot give a full response tonight—will be the key to the success of their proposals.
    Mr. Bayley: I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). His view was shared by hon. Members of all parties serving on the Transport Select Committee. As he said, it is vital that the Bill allows the franchising director to take note of the investment needs of the railways when issuing the terms of the franchise. To provide the sort of railway that we want and to maintain the ability to manufacture rolling stock, we need investment.
    The hon. Member for Eltham proposed an investment level that needs to be secured whether the investment comes from the private sector or the public sector over the next three or four years. If that does not happen, we shall not have a railway manufacturing capacity left to provide for rail rolling stock needs towards the end of the decade. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been made.
    Mr. Gary Waller: I hope that, even at this late hour, I will be forgiven if I say a few words about the new clause, which is, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, of extreme importance to my constituency because it relates, perhaps more specifically than to any other project, to the electrification scheme for the Leeds, Bradford, Airedale and Wharfedale lines. Regrettably, I shall not be able to be here on Thursday, as I shall be away with a Select Committee, so it is important that I say something about it now.
    The project has gained universal approval because not only will its result be of great benefit to people in the area but it more than met the 8 per cent. return on capital that was demanded by the Treasury. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there was no problem in going ahead quickly with credit approval for the track electrification, but since that point, a cloud of uncertainty has hung over the provision of rolling stock. Already the scheme has made history because exceptional provision was made for leasing arrangements to be entered into and still, regrettably, problems continued to arise with the financial institutions because of the uncertainties that lay ahead.

    719
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the time and energy that he has devoted to solving the problem. I know that he has made a number of visits to west Yorkshire and has worked extremely hard to try to blow away the difficulties that have arisen. I am grateful to him for introducing the new clause. I hope that it will enable new rolling stock to be running on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines sooner rather than later, because the local people deserve that.
    Tribute should also be paid to the Wharfedale rail users group, which has played an important part in the process. It has access to a great deal of expertise. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has already said that the franchising director will be committed to consult user groups such as this which have an important role. I welcome the new clause, which I believe will prove extremely helpful.
    12.45 am
    Mr. John Greenway: I shall take just one minute of the time of the House to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). This is potentially the most important new clause that the House will debate throughout the Bill's entire Report stage. We all want an improved railway system, but we will not get that unless there is investment in new rolling stock. The real issue is whether the new clause provides the mechanism to overcome the difficulty that the public purse simply cannot afford that. We heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hill, East (Mr. Prescott) said about the constraints on the public sector borrowing requirement.
    I hope that in the Adjournment debate on Thursday my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will reassure the House that the mechanism will allow for investment in rolling stock. Many of my constituents work at the ABB factory, as do many of those of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the great concern in York that, unless orders for new rolling stock are placed with ABB over the next two or three years, we will lose the capacity of what is undoubtedly the most modern rail workshop in Europe. That would be a tragedy.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will bear those points in mind when he responds not just to this debate but to the wider issue of ensuring that there is more investment in our railways.
    Mr. Cryer: I want to add to the remarks about the new clause and encouragement for investment. I want to put my comments in the context of the idea that, for some reason, the Minister should be congratulated on—and, by reflection, the Government approved for—the way that he has dealt with franchising. As I have said, the Government's playing of ideological drakes and ducks with the railways has prevented leasehold investment in new rolling stock on the Leeds-Bradford and Airedale lines. The Minister shakes his head, but he well knows that that is the case. Had it not been for the uncertainty created by the Government's privatisation proposals, the leasing of new rolling stock for the electrified railways in west Yorkshire would have been decided long ago.
    The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that uncertainty has led, for example, to a break in the ordering
    720
    programme for Hunslet Engineering, which is building new rolling stock for the Birmingham area and was to build the new rolling stock for the Aire Valley and Leeds-Bradford area. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, it is important that there is a consistent ordering programme. Without that, skilled people will be pushed on to the dole to join the 3 million-long queue of misery created by the Government's economic policies. We will lose those vital skills. Britain has a longer history than any other nation in the building of railway engines, rolling stock and multiple units, electric and diesel. If there is not a consistent ordering programme, the necessary skills will be lost because the system of education and training will not be sustained. Indeed, that is already happening.
    The new clause is by no means the panacea suggested by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). There are real difficulties with the Aire valley and Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme. Bradford has lost a valuable trolley bus innovation scheme, which was to cost £6 million and run from the centre of Bradford to part of my constituency. It was sacrificed to produce money for the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme. Sacrifices have been made, but not to the same extent by the Government, who should bring the matter to a certain conclusion by providing up-to-date rolling stock for what will be a modernised railway with high commuter use at peak times.
    The Minister may be emollient and smooth over our discussions in his usual way, but under his smoothness beats a sturdy, right-wing heart. [Interruption.] His Parliamentary Private Secretary, who thinks that all BBC programmes are communist propaganda, may gurgle at that, but he is not alone this evening—he sits in a right-wing, ideological cesspit. He must take the blame.
    The ideological absurdity of privatisation, as symbolised by the new clause, has brought uncertainty both to this scheme and to the railways.
    Mr. Freeman: This debate has taught me a lesson: I end up answering both it and an Adjournment debate.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me why leasing can develop successfully only with the private sector's involvement. If British Rail is the only possible operator, by definition it cannot write an operating lease. All leases are thus financing leases, so they are all capitalised and therefore count against public expenditure borrowing limits. Only when the new alternative of other public sector rolling stock operators opens up is it possible to write an operating lease.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was right to underline the importance of investment in both infrastructure and rolling stock. The Government acknowledge that. For the first time, Railtrack, the infrastructure body, will have its own external financing limit and will be obliged to plan 10 years ahead. That represents an advance. At present, when there are problems, due to the recession and a fall in fare revenues, investment is postponed and BR has to live within the overdraft limit. But for the first time infrastructure investment will henceforth be dealt with separately and will be planned a long time ahead.
    We look forward later this year to the announcement of Railtrack's initial EFL.
    The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and I have had several exchanges before on the subject of rolling stock and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr.

    721
    Greenway), whose constituency I have visited, is, l know, concerned about the future of ABB and employment in the rolling stock industry. I agree that we cannot afford to lose our domestic rolling stock manufacturing capacity. If we do, in five or 10 years' time, we will end up having to place orders with the French and Germans to cope with the next genuine upswing in the investment cycle for rolling stock.
    It is my responsibility to ensure that BR places the order for £150 million as quickly as possible, not in four years' time. Because BR has concentrated the orders on trains that have already been designed, they can be built quickly, either in York or by GEC, whichever it decides. They will not have to be redesigned from scratch. I have given the House an undertaking that once the order has been placed I will work on the next one. It will have to be a genuine operating lease.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I have had exchanges before about the West Yorkshire PTE. He does not do me justice in the matter. He knows that it was a choice between the £50 million for infrastructure and an operating lease, or no project at all. I chose—I stick by my choice—the £50 million resource cover for infrastructure and tried to work with the PTE for a lease. With this group of amendments we stand a good chance—the Government, the PTE, the franchisee and the lessor all bound together in legal contracts—of ensuring that the lease is written.
    I commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 19

    PENALTY FARES
    '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with—

    (a) the imposition of requirements on persons travelling by, present on, or leaving trains or stations to produce, if required to do so in accordance with the regulations, a ticket or other authority authorising them to travel by, be present on, or leave the train or station in question; and

    (b) the charging of persons in breach of such requirements to financial penalties (in this section referred to as "penalty fares") in such circumstances, and subject to compliance with such conditions (if any), as may be prescribed;

    and in this section any reference to a ticket or other authority of any description includes a reference to any other document which, under the regulations, is required to be produced in conjunction with any such ticket or other authority, for the purpose of demonstrating that the ticket or other authority produced by a person is valid in his case.
    (2) Regulations may make provision for or with respect to—

    (a) the persons who may be charged penalty fares;

    (b) the persons by or on behalf of whom penalty fares may be charged;

    (c) the trains and stations by reference to which penalty fares may be charged;

    (d) the amount, or the greatest amount, which a person may be charged by way of penalty fare, whether a specified amount or one determined in a prescribed manner;

    (e) the authorising of persons to be collectors;

    (f) the manner in which charges to penalty fares may be imposed by collectors, including any requirements to be complied with by or in relation to collectors;

    (g) the authorising of collectors in prescribed circumstances to require persons on trains or stations to furnish prescribed information;

    722

    (h) the display of prescribed notices in places of a prescribed description;

    (j) the manner in which, and the period within which, any penalty fare charged to a person is to be paid;

    (k) the issue of prescribed documents to persons who are charged, or who have paid, penalty fares;

    (l) the recovery of any unpaid penalty fare as a civil debt, including provision—

    (i) for or with respect to defences that are to be available in proceedings for the recovery of an unpaid penalty fare; or

    (ii) for presumptions of fact to operate, in such proceedings, in favour of the person charged with the penalty fare, but subject to compliance with prescribed procedural requirements;

    (m) the retention, by persons by or on behalf of whom charges to penalty fares are imposed, of sums paid by way of penalty fare;

    (n) the remission of liability to pay penalty fares and the repayment of sums paid by way of penalty fare;

    (o) the prevention of a person's being liable both to payment of a penalty fare and to prosecution for a prescribed offence:

    (p) the imposition of prohibitions on the charging of penalty fares by or on behalf of persons who are suspected by the Secretary of State or the Regulator, on reasonable grounds, of failing to comply with such requirements imposed by or under the regulations as may be prescribed.

    (3) The documents mentioned in subsection (2)(k) above include any document which consists of or includes—

    (a) notice of the imposition of a charge to a penalty fare;

    (b) a receipt for the payment of a penalty fare; or

    (c) a ticket or other authority to travel by, he present on, or leave a train or station.

    (4) Regulations may impose, or make provision for and in connection with the imposition or enforcement of, prescribed requirements in prescribed circumstances on or against a holder of a passenger licence or station licence or a passenger service operator (whether or not one by or on behalf of whom penalty fares are or are to be charged); and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such regulations may make provision with respect to—

    (a) the display of notices relating to penalty fares;

    (b) the provision of facilities for the issue of tickets or other authorities to travel by, be present on, or leave trains or stations;

    (c) the provision of information to prescribed persons or persons of a prescribed class or description.

    (5) The functions which may be conferred on the Regulator by regulations include—

    (a) functions which involve the exercise by him of judgment or a discretion; and

    (b) functions which empower him in prescribed circumstances to impose such conditions or requirements as he may think fit on prescribed persons or on persons of a prescribed class or description.

    (6) Regulations may confer power on the Regulator to make by rules any provision which could be made by the Secretary of State by regulations, other than provision for or with respect to any matter specified in—

    (a) paragraph (d), (l) or (o) of subsection (2) above; or (b) subsection (7) below;

    and any such rules shall have effect, to such extent as may be prescribed, as if they were regulations.
    (7) Regulations may provide that where information is required to be furnished pursuant to the regulations—

    (a) a refusal to furnish any such information, or

    (b) the furnishing of information which is false in a material particular,

    shall, in prescribed circumstances, be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
    (8) Apart from subsection (7) above, nothing in this section creates, or authorises the creation of, any offence.
    (9) Regulations may make provision for any area within Great Britain and may make different provision for or in relation to different areas.
    (10) Any power of the Regulator to make rules under or by virtue of this section includes power to revoke, amend or re-enact any rules so made; and—

    (a) any such rules may make different provision for different cases; and

    (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, subsection (9) above shall apply in relation to any such rules as it applies in relation to regulations.

    (11) Subsections (2) to (5) above are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above.
    (12) In this section—

    "collectors" means the individuals who perform the function (whether as servants or agents or otherwise) of imposing the charge of a penalty fare on the person liable to pay it under the regulations in each particular case;

    "document", without prejudice to the generality of the expression, includes any badge, token, or photograph or any other form of identification, certification or authentication;

    "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations;

    "regulations" means regulations under subsection (1) above;

    "station" includes a reference to a part of a station;

    "ticket or other authority" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;

    "train" includes a reference to a part of a train;

    and, subject to that, expressions used in Part I above and in this section have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.'.—[Mr. Norris.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Norris.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dr. Marek.
    Hon. Members: Oh no!
    Dr. Marek: It is all right Government Members moaning. I have been sitting quietly here listening to an interesting debate, but one that took time.
    Where a ticket is not available at a station because the ticket office is closed, will there be strict conditions to ensure that—in any zone or other area where a penalty fare may be imposed on a passenger travelling without a ticket—a machine in working order will be in operation to issue an authority to travel? If such an authority is issued, can the passenger be certain of not being refused a discounted or any other ticket that might have been available at the station, had the station ticket office been open? If the Minister can give categorical assurances on those two points, we can deal with the amendment quickly.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 5

    CROWN APPLICATION
    '.—(1) The following provisions of this Act bind the Crown—

    (a) sections 15 to 19;

    (b) section 43;

    (c) sections 45 to 48, except sections 45(8) and 48(4) and (5);

    724

    (d) sections 49 to 52;

    (e) sections 74 to 76, 79 to 82, 84 and 85;

    (f) section 107, except subsections (7) and (8);

    (g) section 125, so far as relating to other provisions of this Act which bind the Crown;

    (h) Schedules 5, 6 and 7.

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above so far as relating—

    (a) to sections 45 to 48 above, or

    (b) to section 125 above, so far as relating to those sections,

    shall authorise proceedings to be brought against Her Majesty in her private capacity.
    (3) Subsection (2) above shall be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (interpretation of references in that Act to Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 20

    POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS IN OTHER ACTS ETC.
    '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of existing provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Act, being modifications in respect of—

    (a) any reference in an existing provision to the Board or any subsidiary of the Board;

    (b) any reference (in whatever terms) in an existing provision to any railway, railway service or railway undertaking;

    (c) any reference (in whatever terms) in an existing provision to any person who—

    (i) provides a railway service, or

    (ii) carries on a railway undertaking,

    or who is authorised to do so under or by virtue of any enactment;

    (d) any reference in an existing provision to any enactment amended or repealed by or under this Act;

    (e) any existing provision, so far as appearing to the Secretary of State to be of no further practical utility, having regard to the provisions of this Act;

    (f) any other inconsistency between an existing provision and this Act.

    (2) In this section—

    "existing provision" means a provision contained in any Act (whether public general or local) passed, or in subordinate legislation made, before the relevant date;

    "railway" has its wider meaning, within the meaning of Part I above;

    "railway service" has the same meaning as in Part I above;

    "the relevant date", in relation to any modification, means the date of the coming into force of the provision of this Act on which the modification is consequential;

    "subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 7

    CONFLICT BETWEEN DUTIES PLACED ON THE REGULATOR AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE
    '(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or to the Regulator that, in discharging his duty regarding the exercise of the functions assigned or transferred to him under Part I of this Act, the manner best calculated for any reason or at any time under one or more of paragraphs (a) to (h) of subsection (1) of section 4 of this Act may be, to any material extent, inconsistent with his duties under any other such paragraph, he shall refer the matter to the Central Committee.
    (2) The Central Committee shall consider any matter referred to it under subsection (1) above and may advise the Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) as to how, in its opinion, he should discharge his duty, having regard to all circumstances and, in the case of any advice to the Regulator, shall send a copy of that advice to the Secretary of State.
    (3) The Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) shall have regard to any advice tendered by the Central Committee under subsection (2) above.
    (4) Any referral under subsection (1) above may include a requirement that the Central Committee tender its advice with such time (being not less than 28 days from the date of the referral) as may be specified in the referral; and if such a requirement is not complied with, the Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) shall proceed as if the Central Committee had considered the matter but had tendered no advice.
    (5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any advice received by or sent to him under subsection (2) above.'.—[Dr. Marek.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Dr. Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I am glad that I did not hear any moans this time.
    This useful clause seeks to help the regulator, who will find himself in difficulty on a number of occasions when trying to perform the various duties imposed on him by clause 4. If the regulator has competing claims for his attention under the various subsections of clause 4, by this amendment he could appeal for advice. New clause 7 would give him the freedom to seek the advice of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee. If it is added, it would make the Bill better and help the regulator to do his or her job.
    Mr. Freeman: I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not accept the new clause. He argues that the regulator could go to the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee for advice. New clause 7, however, provides for a disputes resolution procedure, whereby if there is any disagreement between the Secretary of State and the regulator it would have to be referred to the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee. I could not agree to that, because the regulator and the Secretary of State have clearly defined separate but parallel duties. They are set out in clause 4 and other provisions of the Bill.
    I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's recommendation that the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee should play an important part in offering advice to the regulator. It is a sensible recommendation. There should be a repository of information and experience in that committee. I underline the fact that we wish the committee to have real power and influence and a real job to do.
    1 am
    Dr. Marek: With the permission of the House, the Minister's reply has not been altogether negative. I invite him to think about how new clause 7 could be redrafted as a result of this exchange. If he could think of a form of words by means of which the regulator could go for advice to the CRCC, perhaps he would consider tabling an appropriate amendment in another place.
    There is, however, one problem. There are constraints upon what the CRCC can discuss. An amendment would be needed to allow the CRCC to give advice to the regulator. If questions relating to classes of fares were
    726
    involved, there would have to be an additional amendment. The CRCC is not, as the Bill is drafted, allowed to discuss such matters.
    I am pleased with the Minister's reply. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 11

    NATIONAL PLAN FOR RAILWAY SERVICES
    '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to formulate a national policy as respects the provision, maintenance and improvement of the railway network in Great Britain and from time to time to review that policy.
    (2) In exercising his functions under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability—

    (a) of the policy operating in a consistent manner throughout Great Britain;

    (b) of the policy being formulated early enough to enable its implementation to be achieved efficiently and to enable those with functions in relation to the provision, maintenance and improvement of railway services adequately to plan their own policies with respect to the execution of their functions.

    (3) Before finally determining his policy in relation to any matter for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall engage in such consultations with those appearing to him to be representative of persons having such functions as are mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above as appear to him to be appropriate.
    (4) The Secretary of State shall secure that a written report containing a summary of the policy formulated by him under subsection (1) above is prepared before the expiry of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and that subsequent reports are prepared at intervals of not more than one year.
    (5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report prepared under subsection (4) above before both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Rathbone.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rathbone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause is self-explanatory. It imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to formulate, in consultation with the operators, users and others, a national rail policy for the provision, maintenance and improvement of the railway network. It would provide a consistent framework within which passenger and freight services could be planned and operated over the short, medium and longer term. It would require the Secretary of State to prepare a written report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
    In moving the new clause, I believe that one should tip one's hat again to our late colleague, Robert Adley. His belief in the way in which British Rail should operate in the future was always dependent upon a national plan for the railway services and a transport policy. Those are reflected in his Select Committee report.
    Mr. Freeman: I certainly agree with the spirit of the new clause. I do not commend it to the House, but I can give clear assurances to my hon. Friend that the two key elements of the policy that he has just outlined will be followed. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will clarify his policy towards a national policy for the railway network, something which my right hon. Friend and I have sought to do on many occasions, particularly before the Select Committee that was chaired by the late Robert Adley. Secondly, I can give an assurance

    727
    that there will be a written report. Perhaps the right vehicle would be the Department's annual report, which is available to the House. My right hon. Friend confirms that he will ensure that the annual report is written in such a clear fashion as to set out not only the achievements of his policy, but the activities and responsibilities of the regulator, the franchising director and, most important of all, the investment programme.
    We accept unreservedly the spirit of the new clause. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press it. I look forward to the production of the first annual report covering the period following Royal Assent and the introduction of our reforms.
    Dr. Marek: If the information is to be included in the annual report, let us have a little objectivity rather than a glossy Government public relations handout. If it were objective, with only a few statistics and with level-headed statements, I could go along with what the Minister has just said.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Without being presumptuous, I hope that, if Robert Adley is looking down on us, he will welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I hope that he will smile at the way in which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular have debated with Ministers and that, like me, he will regard the outcome as advantageous to the country, as it is likely to help the railway's contribution to the country.
    Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the thought that he has put into the new clause in preparation for its being debated this evening. In light of what he had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

    COMPANY TAXATION
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7021/92, relating to company taxation; endorses the principle of subsidiarity; believes that Commission proposals should allow for decentralisation of economic policy within member states; further believes that proposals should take full account of budgetary costs and the world context of Community action; and opposes measures which would distort the internal market and which bear upon company taxation.
    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9880/91 and 10306/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 15th February and 10th May 1993, relating to the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing; and supports the Government's intention to seek Community action to ensure high standards of welfare at slaughter which will be implemented and enforced throughout the Community.

    YOUNG WORKERS (PROTECTION)
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5378/92 and 4690/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 10th May 1993, relating to the protection of young people at work; endorses the conclusions of the Madrid, Rome and Edinburgh European Councils that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to their effects on job creation, to the principle of subsidiarity, and to the diversity of national traditions and practices; and shares the Government's view that, while protection for children and young people at work is essential, existing legislation in the United Kingdom provides appropriate protection, that the need for Community legislation to protect children and young people has not been demonstrated and that the proposed Directive would be damaging to their employment opportunities and prospects. —[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    UNFAIR DISMISSAL
    That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.

    LEGAL AID
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

    Bypass (Aylesbury)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]
    1.6 am
    Mr. David Lidington: We have waited several hours for the Adjournment debate, but as the Minister will know, my constituents in Aylesbury have waited far longer for their bypass. I welcome the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention and that of the House to the urgent need for better road communication to Aylesbury. I represent the county town of Buckinghamshire, a town designated as a growth area for housing and industry but whose growth is being stifled by inadequate road communication, which has been delayed for far too long.
    In all my dealings with my hon. Friend the Minister, I have met with nothing but courtesy and good humour. I know that he will not take it amiss if I sometimes feel that it would take the pen of a Dickens to do justice to the way in which the Department of Transport has behaved with regard to the Aylesbury bypass. The spirit of the Circumlocution Office and its principle of "how not to do it" seems alive and well and is inspiring the Department's work.
    The saga began as early as the 1960s, when the need for a bypass for Aylesbury was first recognised. In 1972, the Department of the Environment commissioned a highway feasibility study and concluded that a new trunk road was needed to link Oxford and the A1 (M), passing south of Milton Keynes. Eight years later, in 1980, the Department of Transport decided to abandon its plan for a new trunk road in favour of improvements to existing roads and a network of bypasses around the major towns.
    The Thame bypass, part of the series of links, was completed in 1980. In 1985, the Department of Transport's document "National Roads, England" called on the three county councils involved—Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire—to make bypass proposals to improve the A418-A505 route. In 1987, the Department of Transport announced in its White Paper that the Government intended to give the new route trunk road status. With that in mind, the Department provided a 100 per cent. grant for the Leighton Linslade bypass, which has now been completed, and proposes to make a 100 per cent. grant available for the proposed Wing bypass.
    Buckinghamshire county council, as one would expect because it is an authority that is always active in the interests of its residents, did exactly what the Department of Transport asked. It formulated proposals to bypass Aylesbury. It drew up options for a bypass to the north or to the south of the town. It consulted the Aylesbury Vale district council. It published the alternatives in the local plan to allow full public consideration of the two options.
    In 1989, the county council decided on the southern route as more practical and supported decisively by public opinion. Not only that, but the county council was ready to start building the first stage of the bypass linking the Wendover road, the A413, and the Stoke Mandeville road, the B443. The county council had planning permission for the first stage of the route. It had gone to the Secretary of State for Transport to ask whether he wanted to call in the application, and was told that he had no wish so to do.
    In 1989, there was a further somersault by the Department of Transport. The White Paper "Roads for
    730
    Prosperity" stated the Government's intention to develop an east-west corridor between the M40 and the east coast ports. The Department took over from the county council responsibility for the Aylesbury proposals which would form part of that route. Concern was expressed by the local authorities then about possible delays. The Department, as always, was reassuring.
    Sadly, those reassurances were not borne out in practice. On 13 November 1990, Buckinghamshire's concern about the continuing delay was recorded in the minutes of the Department of Transport's eastern region consultative committee. The Department then said that public consultation on the preferred route would take place in July 1991. That target was not met.
    On 23 January 1992, the consultative committee met again and the public papers of the committee show a target date for public consultation on the preferred option of spring 1992. That target was not met. On 8 December 1992, the consultative committee convened once more and the target date was announced as spring or early summer of 1993. That target was not met, and we are told that the target has slipped a further few months to perhaps the autumn of this year. It is little wonder that my constituents are becoming impatient of the Department's promises, which have been so often postponed.
    I ask my hon. Friend to explain the reasons for the delay. We know that Oxfordshire county council and South Oxfordshire district council object to the southern route and prefer the northern route up to Bicester. The differences between the various local authorities have been known for a long time. They are surely the issues that should be debated at the public inquiry which is now long overdue. The need is now urgent.
    Aylesbury is designated as a growth area, and the new proposals for the south-east—SERPLAN—mean still more growth for the town. The housing target set out both in the structure plan and in the local plan cannot be met unless the bypass is built. The bypass has strong support from local business, because every study shows that it is poor road communications more than any other single factor that is holding back the needed growth in Aylesbury's economy and the town's recovery from a severe and long-lasting recession.
    What inspired me to apply for this debate was that Aylesbury is now in the ridiculous position whereby new planning applications for businesses to take up vacant lots on industrial estates are being recommended by the county council to the district council for refusal on the grounds that new business would bring in extra traffic and that that would be more than the already congested roads in Aylesbury could bear.
    For example, in early 1993 more than 24,000 vehicles passed along Gate House road in Aylesbury, which adjoins major industrial estates, in 12 hours. That was down 1,500 vehicles on the 1990 peak, a peak which I am sure will be reached again as economic recovery in the south-east gathers strength. The single carriageway of that road is inadequate for the purposes that it is supposed to serve.
    There is a strong economic and social case for the Department to press ahead as quickly as possible with the bypass that it has promised for so long. However, there is also a personal side to this question and that concerns the personal circumstances of my many constituents who live along the proposed route of the bypass.

    731
    Fortuitously, in the past week I have received a letter from a constituent who lives in Stoke Mandeville. I want to read one paragraph of that letter which summarises the feelings of people in my constituent's position. After describing the difficulties he faced in selling his house, because searches declared that the bypass was likely to pass within 200 yards of his home, my constituent wrote:
    "I am not a 'NIMBY'. I simply ask that if the community wishes to mount a project for the general good then it should not be allowed in the process to damage my interests, life, career and marriage, all of which have been or are at threat because of this ineptitude. To prevaricate for over two years is neither equitable or responsible. To be dismissed with a mix of arrogance and indifference by Department of Transport officials; to be imprisoned without any end in sight to the sentence, is frankly intolerable in a fair and civilised society."
    I believe that many other constituents who also live near the proposed routes would echo those sentiments.
    In the interests of the town that I have the honour to represent and the many individuals whose lives have been blighted by the uncertainty over the future of the road, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to explain the reasons for the delays so far; and to tell us how long it will be before the Department goes out to consultation on the preferred route and how long it will be before the building of this much needed bypass gets under way.
    1.17 am
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is my pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing tonight's debate. Throughout his time in the House, he has shown tremendous determination to bring to me, either here in the House or in the Department, his concerns about his local roads. I respect that very much. At this late hour, he has pursued the history of the Aylesbury bypass as fiercely as Sherlock Holmes would have pursued any rogue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will carry on determinedly in that vein until we have delivered the road.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and his determination. I recognise that Aylesbury, like many other communities in the country, needs a bypass and that there are very strong economic and personal reasons for that community to have a bypass. We have a very big road building programme and many conflicting demands to meet.
    In answering this debate, I feel that it is worth exploring some of the history of the scheme and the broader issues. If we do that, we will obtain a better appreciation of the situation. The current scheme has its origins in local authority proposals that, in the 1980s, formed part of a plan for a new route between Thame and Stevenage. Since 1983, proposals have been developed on a southern route following a joint planning study and public consultation by the county and district councils.
    The Aylesbury district plan, adopted in 1991, confirmed the planning status of the proposals and consequently planning decisions in the area have assumed that a southern bypass would be built. That set the scene, in planning terms, for a route south of Aylesbury, and the scheme entered the trunk road programme in 1989.
    That date is not too distant. Many schemes which entered the programme before then are only just coming to fruition now. So the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity"
    732
    announced the plans for a new strategic east-west route between the M40 and the east coast ports that would build on work already carried out by local authorities.
    In view of its background knowledge of the scheme as a local authority scheme and to maintain momentum, Buckinghamshire county council was appointed as the design agent to continue the development of the Aylesbury proposals to meet the needs of the new trunk road.
    Several strategic options have been examined as the bypass has developed. The study has proved complex and I know that at times it has led to local disappointment when the expected targets for consultation on the route of the bypass have been achieved. My hon. Friend gave strong expression to that disappointment in his speech.
    For a start, the original strategy for a southern route has been developed in detail and reviewed. The investigation of strategies involving routes north of the town, and the implications that they could have for local planning issues and the economies of the scheme have also been studied. We have also had to consider the location of junctions and the justification for road links that might be provided to bring relief to Aylesbury from traffic using the A41 and A418 corridor through the town.
    I recognise the importance of the scheme to the area. Progress has been made as quickly as possible, given the required detailed analysis of the options. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that, with a scheme which represents such a large investment and has a significant impact on the environment and the economy of the area, there must be proper evaluation before taking the next steps to public consultation.
    I should like to strengthen the arguments by saying that the scheme is complex. The decisions are certainly not easy. The road will cost a considerable sum of money. I advise my hon. Friend that it would be foolish to rush ahead with a scheme which we could not deliver or which would not stand up to public inquiry. Many schemes have been rushed forward but then delayed far beyond the date by which they should have been built because the preparation was short. Therefore, it is our right, in such an expensive and complex scheme, to take due care.
    Also relevant to Aylesbury is the future development of the western section of the east-west route west of the town to the M40. It is no secret to my hon. Friend that the choice is between a northerly route along the A41 and a southerly one along the A418/A329. The choice could have a bearing on the solution for Aylesbury. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the pressures that the choice will put on other communities. He will recall the recent Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) in which we considered Waddesdon on the A41 west of Aylesbury.
    I have considered in the past few days our conclusions for the consultant study. I expect shortly to make an announcement about the way ahead. Once that is done, I should be able to authorise the way forward for the Aylesbury bypass proposals. Then we shall be able to fit that bypass into the wider theme of the east-west route. When we do that, it will remove speculation about the possible consequential effects on communities west of Aylesbury. It will enable us to proceed with greater certainty in both local and strategic terms.
    As I said, it is important to get it right. The Department is sometimes criticised for not thinking strategically and not seeing a motorway scheme beyond the limits of the town by which it passes. It is important that the east-west

    733
    route—which embraces not only Aylesbury, but communities to the west and many others to the east—is considered properly.
    I must defend my Department's performance against my hon. Friend's understandable criticisms. We truly want a rapid, effective scheme, but—as I have said—we need to get it right. We seek at all times to deal with hard-pressed members of communities as gently, and as correctly, as possible.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that, within the scope of our busy roads programme, we are eager to make progress for Aylesbury and many other communities throughout the country. I thank him for raising the
    734
    subject, and hope that at least he and his constituents will be assured that progress with the bypass will proceed to the next stage in its development without delay. I hope that that stage will be reached fairly soon, not least because it is very important to relieve communities of blight and uncertainty.
    I am certain that my hon. Friend will keep up his relentless pressure. He is determined to have the road, and I know that he will fight long for his community to secure it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Defender Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for a public defender service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the average duration of court cases involving claims for compensation for medical negligence affecting children born with disabilities, during each year since 1987.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have been undertaken by his Department to date to speed up the process of dealing with claims for compensation for medical negligence in the courts affecting children born with a disability.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Over the last two years a number of jurisdictional, procedural and administrative changes have been introduced with the aim of reducing delay in case progress. These were not designed specifically for medical negligence cases, but such cases will have benefited from new regulations which include the early exchange of more information, including medical reports and other witness' evidence, serving proceedings within four rather than 12 months and allowing courts to deal with the question of liability in advance of the question of quantum.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about his Department since April 1989; and how many have been accepted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Of those Select Committee reports which have been wholly or significantly addressed to my Department, the 21st report of the Committee of Public Accounts for the Session 1991–92, on expenditure on criminal legal aid, made eight conclusions and recommendations, which were in general accepted. The third report of the Home Affairs Select Committee—HASC—for the Session 1992–93, on domestic violence, made 42 recommendations some of which were wholly or in part directed at the Lord Chancellor's Department. The fifth report of that Committee, "Legal Aid: The Lord 362
  Chancellor's Proposals", made 10 recommendations. The Government have not yet responded to either of the HASC reports.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what date the current term of office on National Rivers Authority regional flood defence committees expires for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National Rivers Authority and local authority appointments, respectively;

  (2) on what date the current period of service on National Rivers Authority local flood defence committees expires for the appointees of regional committees and local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  The appointment to regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are due to expire on 30 June 1994. Information about the end dates of appointments to these committees by other bodies is not held centrally, but, according to the NRA, its appointments are due to end on 31 August 1994 and in a majority of regions those for local authorities are due to end on 31 May 1993.

  The end dates for appointment to local flood defence committees vary in different regions and, according to information provided by the NRA, range from 31 May 1993 to 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what written guidance or instructions he has given to the chairmen of National Rivers Authority regional flood defence committees regarding the experience and interests of the appointments made to local flood defence committees under section 13 of the Water Resources Act 1991; and if he will place a copy in the Library;

  (2) what written guidance or instructions he has given to the levy-paying local authorities on the financial, commercial or personal interests of the members whom they appoint to regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Curry
  The broad criteria to be taken into account in appointing members to regional or local flood defence committees are set out in sećtions 10(4) and 13(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991. Schedule 4 to that Act sets out more detailed provisions regarding the membership and proceedings of the committees, including declarations of interests. While the NRA and local councils are encouraged to appoint members representing a broad range of local interests, no supplementary written guidance or instructions have been issued.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many offcials were employed by his Department to administer, inspect, regulate and advise the fishing industry either directly, in agencies or on special contracts(a) in 1992 and (b) at the latest available date; how many professional fishermen are in full or part-time employment; and if he will make a statement;
  363
  (2) how many officials were employed by his Department to administer, inspect, regulate and advise the farming industry either directly, in agencies or on special contracts (a) in 1992 and (b) at the latest available date; how many farmers are engaged in full or part-time professional farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on the numbers of staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, its agencies and the Intervention Board is set out in the "Ministry's Departmental Report on the Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96" which was issued in February, and which is available in the Library of the House. Although it is not possible to isolate the staff resources devoted to the specific activities listed by my hon. Friend, the report does contain detailed information on the functions performed by the Ministry and the resources consumed. Numbers of fishermen are set out on page 38 of the report, and numbers of farmers are set out in the latest version of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"—also in the Library.

  EC Beef (West Africa)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about supplies of EC beef in west Africa.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 19 May,Official Report, column 174.

  Seismic Surveys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the report into the effects of seismic surveys in shallow waters on(a) fish in general and (b) bass stocks and spawning grounds.

  Mr. Curry
  A study was made of the movements of bass in shallow waters during and after the seismic survey which was undertaken in Poole bay last year. The preliminary report of this work will be available this summer. The area in question does not include any bass spawning grounds.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportions of United Kingdom beef consumption are imported from sources in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Veńezuela, Chile and Peru.

  Mr. Curry
  The proportion of beef consumed in the United Kingdom in 1992 imported as fresh, chilled or frozen beef from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay was 1·3 per cent. No beef was imported from Venezuela, Chile or Peru.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost to date and the expected future cost of his Department's market-testing programme; how many staff are engaged full-time in work relating to market 364
  testing; which firms of consultants have been used in connection with the market-testing programme; and how they were selected.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cost of market testing in the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies and Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information from November 1991 to date have been £916,000. The estimated cost for the remainder of the current financial year is £1,102,000. There are eight staff currently engaged full-time on market testing.

  The consultants who have been used by OPSS, its Agencies, HMSO or COI in connection with the market testing programme, and the method of their selection, is as follows:

  CDL Associates (competitive tender)

  Chris Goodall Associates (competitive tender)

  DMW (competitive tender)

  Ernst & Young (competitive tender)

  Ernst & Young (call-off contract)

  OSI (competitive tender)

  PA Consulting (competitive tender)

  Price Waterhouse (competitive tender)

  Shreeveport (single tender)

  Symonds Facilities Management (competitive tender)

  Touche Ross (competitive tender)

ENVIRONMENT

  Polar Bears, Chessington
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were held with his Department about the sale and removal of the polar bears, Bonnie and Clyde, from Chessington world of adventure to a zoo in Zagreb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  An application to export the two bears to Zagreb zoo was lodged with the Department in January. The rules governing such exports are set out in EC regulation 3626/82 which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora throughout the European Community.

  The application was considered very carefully, in conjunction with our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It was decided that export should be allowed and the appropriate permit was issued on 28 January.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about compulsory competitive tendering for white collar services.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend's answer on 10 November,Official Report, column 743, and to my answer on 19 April Official Report, column 42.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.
  365
  Mr. Howard
  My Department was notified in November 1991 that the Data Protection Registrar was investigating a complaint made against the Department in relation to the disclosure of personal data held under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The outcome of the investigation is awaited.

  Redundant Refrigerators
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of redundant refrigerators retrieved for the extraction of chlorofluorocarbon gas during the last full year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department does not hold these figures. However, we are keen to promote CFC recovery and encourage local authorities to set up recovery schemes. We gave priority to schemes for CFC recovery when distributing supplementary credit approvals for investment in recycling facilities for 1993–94. Twenty-six schemes have been allocated SCAs for 1993–94.

  Nichols Institute Diagnostics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the prosecution of the Nichols Institute Diagnostics for breach of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution prosecuted Nichols Institute Diagnostics for breaches of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 on its premises at Newport, Essex. At the hearing at Saffron Walden magistrates court on 6 April 1993, the company pleaded guilty to four charges of accumulation of radioactive waste without authorisation, holding radioactive material without a certificate of registration and exceeding the limit for holdings in their registration. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £2,726.

  Environmental Networks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department provided to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in the preparation of its recent report on the establishment of environmental networks.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report on the establishment of environmental networks has been produced as part of an environmental project undertaken by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and supported by the Department's environmental action fund. The NCVO received £44,000 in 1992–93 towards the project and a sum of £52,000 has been offered to it in 1993–94.

  Lambeth Services
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from the London borough of Lambeth in relation to the five notices serviced on Lambeth on 24 March under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will take into account the quality of service currently being given in relation to refuse collection in the London borough of Lambeth.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The London borough of Lambeth has made an interim response to the notices served on the 366
  authority on 24 March. It has requested an extension of time until 4 June 1993 to make a considered final response, and this has been granted. My right hon. and learned Friend, in deciding whether to take further statutory action, will take into account all the relevant information put before him, including the authority's response.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish(a) the number of hours worked and (b) the total amount of money earned by each chairperson of the non-departmental public bodies appointed by him and his predecessors in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Howard
  Information about the remuneration of chairmen appointed to non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible is contained in the annual HMSO publication "Public Bodies". Copies for each year since 1987 are available in the Library of the House. Information on the numbers of hours worked in each year since 1987 is not held centrally.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he has planned to encourage the involvement of children in environmental protection.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 29 April my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced an initiative to encourage children to protect the environment. The first project will be a summer competition to select participants for a children's summit in Manchester on 18 September. The summit will discuss future projects for the campaign. Every competition entrant will receive an environmental summer activity pack. My Department also supports a number of projects involving children through the environmental action fund.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of households where the value of the property is less than the amount of the mortgage.

  Sir George Young
  Based on changes in house prices measured by the Department's house price index, the number of owner occupiers with mortgages larger than the value of their properties in the first quarter of 1993 is estimated to be about 1 million, the same as in the previous quarter.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek a derogation from EC measures implementing the terms of the Montreal agreement banning CFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]Under the EC regulation on ozone-depleting substances, CFC production and consumption will be phased out by 1 January 1995, subject to any exemptions for essential uses which may be agreed. My Department issued a consultation paper on possible exemptions in March, and we are now considering carefully the bids we have received.
  367
  We have no plans to seek derogations from the regulation. We may have nominations for continued production for essential uses.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the scheme used in calculating the transitional council tax reduction for 1992–93 for each local authority in England;

  (2) if he will publish the amount of other adjustments which formed part of the personal community charge in 1992–93 for each local authority in England;

  (3) if he will publish the amount of the collection fund deficit at the most recent available date for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  County Councils
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the Isle of Wight, Cornwall, Somerset and each county council where no political party has overall control,(a) the population, (b) the capital budget for 1993–94 and (c) the revenue budget for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]The available information is as follows:

  Liberal-Democrat controlled county councils

  Total population1

  Total capital budget 1993–94 £ million

  Total revenue budget 1993–942 £ million

  Isle of Wight

  126,593

  9·018

  78·453

  Cornwall

  473,171

  35·252

  290·095

  Somerset

  469,373

  43·900

  271·355

  County councils with no political party in overall control

  Total population1

  Total capital budget 1993–94 £ million

  Total revenue budget 1993–942 £ million

  Avon

  962,037

  39·830

  570·767

  Bedfordshire

  534,276

  20·179

  352·125

  Berkshire

  752,471

  46·558

  465·589

  Cambridgeshire

  669,898

  31·262

  389·217

  Cheshire

  966,590

  79·857

  587·400

  Cumbria

  489,673

  27·694

  310·634

  Devon

  1,040,021

  44·238

  594·059

  Dorset

  663,091

  n.a.

  353·565

  East Sussex

  716,077

  40·929

  416·519

  Essex

  1,548,329

  64·256

  925·046

  Gloucestershire

  538,779

  33·880

  316·889

  Hampshire

  1,576,295

  110·035

  875·267

  Hereford and Worcester

  686,039

  17·151

  372·260

  Hertfordshire

  991,515

  39·450

  594·557

  Kent

  1,538,943

  121·700

  964·833

  Leicestershire

  890,832

  37·525

  554·413

  Lincolnshire

  592,556

  47·999

  357,829

  Norfolk

  759,363

  41·617

  442·260

  North Yorkshire

  720,626

  43·408

  396·419

  Oxfordshire

  579,650

  37·310

  325·369

  Shropshire

  412,534

  25·905

  241·354

  Suffolk

  661,853

  36·850

  373·373

  368

  Total population1

  Total capital budget 1993–94 £ million

  Total revenue budget 1993–942 £ million

  Surrey

  1,033,611

  75·512

  535·000

  Warwickshire

  489,850

  23·864

  288·312

  West Sussex

  715,617

  47·549

  403·100

  Wiltshire

  577,399

  22·813

  324·509

  Notes:

  n. a. = information not yet returned by the authority.

  1 Resident population at 30 June 1991 (provisional estimate, as used in the 1993–94 Settlement).

  2 Net revenue expenditure as returned by authorities on the Budget Requirement (BR) return.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the consultation draft on the review of MPG 3; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]I intend to publish the consultation draft of the revised MPG 3 as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if civil service(a) terms and conditions and (b) codes of conduct apply to special advisers attached to Ministers in Government.

  The Prime Minister
  Special advisers have generally the same conditions of service as other civil servants, except that their salaries are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and are confidential. Different arrangements apply to severance pay. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 30 points.

  Special advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with the exception of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and certain aspects of the rules on political activities.

  European Parliament (Elections)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the de Gucht report on elections to the European Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  We are ready to discuss the issue in Council when the presidency decides to table the report. If the council were to reach a consensus, which remains to be seen, it would certainly need to respect different national traditions. We acknowledge the attempt made by the de Gucht report to take these considerations into account.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will sympathetically consider any request to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.
  369
  The Prime Minister
  Studies so far have shown that the incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among British nuclear test veterans than among the general population. If, however, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has any new evidence to change the position, I should be pleased to examine it and will readily consider any subsequent request for a meeting in that light.

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the correspondence he has received about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations on a wide range of coal issues.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those organisations and companies, other than the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, from which he has received recent representations concerning the crossrail project.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations in recent weeks from the following organisations and companies:

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  Grosvenor Estates

  London Chambers Network

  London First

  MEPC plc

  Residents' Association of Mayfair

  Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  The Corporation of the City of London

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost of Britain's contribution to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia.

  The Prime Minister
  The costs cannot be precisely calculated but are considerable in the military, political and humanitarian fields. Up to 31 March 1993, the United Kingdom's contribution to UNPROFOR operations in Croatia and Bosnia has amounted to £93,835,679. Further expenditure of £2,576,831 has been incurred as a result of the airlift of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo. We expect to recover a proportion of these costs from the United Nations in due course.

  EC Additionality
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss the application of the additionality principle by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I last discussed additionality with the Commission and other EC Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Edinburgh. We agreed that the basic principles laid down in 1988—concentration, programming, partnership and additionality—should continue to guide the implementation of the structural funds. Financial control more generally will be 370
  strengthened and greater emphasis will be given to appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. The current review of the structural funds regulations is examining the Commission's proposal on additionality.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he intends to bring to the Council of Europe Heads of State summit in October with regard to the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, at its meeting at Strasbourg on 14 May, instructed that work should proceed urgently on the mandate for a draft protocol amending the European convention on human rights, to be submitted to Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe summit in October. The United Kingdom will contribute fully to this work.

  The purpose of the draft protocol will be to reform the control machinery of the convention, in order to accommodate the growing workload of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights and to ensure that cases are heard in good time. All member states are agreed that such reform is urgently needed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the waiting time for cases to be decided in the European Court of Human Rights for cases commencing in the last 10 years; what is the projected waiting time for cases commencing in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the waiting time for cases to be decided by the European Court of Human Rights over the past 10 years is not readily available.

  In practice, most cases are dealt with by the Commission of Human Rights. For those cases which reach the court, the waiting time for a decision is now five to six years. It is clear that, unless there are changes to the machinery of the European convention on human rights, the delays will grow as more countries join the Council of Europe and as awareness of the system increases.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated earlier, the United Kingdom will contribute fully to the work now under way to improve the system so that cases are heard in good time.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1963 the United Kingdom has been found in breach of the provisions of the European convention of human rights; and what that number represents as a proportion of(a) cases brought against the United Kingdom and (b) plaintiff won cases.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases are currently proceeding against Her Majesty's Government through
  371
  the European Court of Human Rights; and how much time each has taken so far since commencement of the action.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are at present seven cases before the European Court of Human Rights. These cases were first introduced to the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 September 1988; early 1989; 19 January 1989; 9 October 1989; 8 January 1990; 2 February 1990; and 11 May 1990.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to hold meetings with the three parties involved in the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg, the co-chairmen of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia, hold regular talks with the parties to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They met most recently with the leaders of the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croats on 18 May. Military commanders of the three parties meet regularly in the mixed military working group in Sarajevo, under the auspices of the international conference. We have no plans to hold separate meetings with the parties.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what breaches there have been of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina since the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 816; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UNPROFOR reports of violations of the no-fly zone give details of 28 breaches or probable breaches between 12 April, when the NATO operation to enforce the no-fly zone began, and 12 May, the end of the period covered by the latest UNPROFOR report.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what importance Her Majesty's Government attach to the current co-operation of the leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in supporting the Vance/Owen peace plan; and what measures have been taken to encourage their further support.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  While we welcome President Milosevic's announcement of support for the Vance/Owen plan, we have made it clear we now expect him to use all his influence to persuade the Bosnian Serbs to accept it. We have called on him to accept international monitoring of the border between Bosnia and Serbia/Montenegro to 372
  establish whether he is carrying out his declared intention to cut off all but essential humanitarian supplies to the Bosnian Serbs. President Milosevic is aware that United Nations Security Council resolution 820 provides for a review of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro if the Bosnian Serbs accept the peace plan and effectively implement it in good faith.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all confirmed breaches of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina since its introduction, in circumstances where aircraft are known to have crossed international frontiers; if he will detail the origin and destination of such flights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been 545 violations or probable violations of the no-fly zone set up in UN Security Council resolutions 761 and 776 since 13 October 1992. Most of these appear to have taken place entirely within Bosnian airspace, although there have been some instances where aircraft have been observed flying away from or towards an international border. The information available in these cases is generally insufficient to determine whether the aircraft involved actually crossed the border.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when discussions are next scheduled with EC or United Nations Security Council partners to discuss the implementation of a monitoring force along the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A resolution authorising the deployment of United Nations monitors along the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina is currently under discussion at the UN in New York.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the continuation of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of their co-operation and support for the Vance-Owen peace plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UN sanctions have made a major contribution to the current serious economic situation in Serbia and Montenegro. We consider that the pressure exerted by the international community, including sanctions, was instrumental in the recent decision of the Presidents of Serbia and Montenegro and of the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to announce support for the Vance-Owen peace plan.
  373
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom plans to contribute forces to monitor the border between Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At its meeting on 10 May, the EC Foreign Affairs Council indicated that the European Community and its member states would be willing to contribute to international efforts to monitor Bosnia's border with Serbia and Montenegro. No decision has yet been taken on a United Kingdom contribution.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government last had official contact with the President of Serbia; and what were the circumstances and outcome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to President Milosevic on 17 May. He welcomed President Milosevic's agreement to support the Vance/Owen plan and to close the border of Serbia with Bosnia to all but humanitarian supplies, but made it clear that we would judge the President's policies by deeds rather than words. We support the EC offer to contribute to an international monitoring operation on the Serbia-Bosnia border to ensure that President Milosevic lives up to his commitment.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the introduction of further sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia if there is no change in current political circumstances.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sanctions were toughened recently with the passage of Security Council resolution 820 on 17 April but we would certainly consider the need for further measures against Serbia and Montenegro if we felt the political situation required them.

  Israel
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to encourage Israel to implement its human rights obligations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly raise human rights issues with the Israeli authorities, and have done so within the last month. I set out our considerable concerns on Israel's record in the occupied territories when I addressed the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in February.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State since his decision not to attend the proposed United Nations Security Council meeting on Friday 21 May; and what indications Mr. Christopher has given since them in respect of support for the Vance/Owen peace plan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had talks with Mr. Christopher on 21 and 22 May on a range of United Nations issues including the former Yugoslavia.374
  On 22 May, the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, Russia and Spain, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, met in Washington and agreed a joint programme of action, with the objectives of stopping the conflict and of moving forward to a lasting political solution building on the Vance/Owen process and intensified international cooperation.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reasons the United States Secretary of State has given to Her Majesty's Government for his country's decision not to attend a proposed United Nations Security Council meeting to be held on Friday 21 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Russia, which holds the presidency of the Security Council this month, originally proposed a meeting of the council on 21 May with Foreign Ministers present to review follow-up to the United Nations Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had planned to attend the meeting. In the event, the Russians decided to postpone it.

  Personnel
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's personnel are United Kingdom based; and what information he has on comparable data for the foreign ministries of France and Germany.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Approximately 61 per cent. of the FCO's diplomatic wing staff and 95 per cent. of the aid wing staff, including the ODA's executive agency, the Natural Resources Institute, fill jobs in the United Kingdom. Approximately 39 per cent of French foreign ministry staff and 47 per cent. of German foreign ministry staff fill jobs in France and Germany respectively. But it is extremely difficult to make valid comparisons between the figures for the FCO and other foreign ministries, because of differences in the functions for which each is responsible; differences in structure; and differences in the division of tasks between home and overseas.

  Settlement Visas
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average waiting time for an interview for a settlement visa(a) generally and (b) from the Indian subcontinent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On average, the waiting times for settlement visa interviews are:

  (a) Generally: this information is not available centrally.

  (b) In the Indian Sub-Continent at end of March 1993:

  Months

  1. Queue 1: people with claim to right of abode, dependent relatives over 70, special compassionate Cases

  3

  2. Queue 2: all spouses and all children under 18 years

  4½

  3. Queue 3: fiance(é)s and others applying for the first time for settlement

  6½

  4. Queue 4: Reapplicants

  9

  Diplomatic Estate
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 373, if he will list those publications, in addition to the Official Journal of the European Community, in which invitations are routinely published for construction companies to tender for work on the overseas diplomatic estate.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1993,
  c. 624]: Herewith the corrected version, omitting the first sentence.

  Invitations to tender are not routinely published. It is our policy to invite tenders from construction companies short-listed after pre-selection procedures.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 373, how often, and in what format, the further information about a wider range of projects to which he refers is circulated to the Export Group for the Construction Industry; if that information includes all opportunities for work on the overseas diplomatic estate, or only selected opportunities for such work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1993, c. 623]: Herewith the corrected version, omitting the first sentence.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sends a list about once a year to the Export Group for the Construction Industries of key details about planned projects likely to be of interest to United Kingdom construction companies and of an estimated value above a stated threshold. For 1983–86 the threshold was £250,000; for 1987–89, £500,000; and since 1990, £1 million. The latest list will be sent within the next few weeks.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the provision of aid to the Russian Federation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has consistently supported the process of economic and political reform being undertaken by President Yeltsin and his Government, and endorsed by popular referendum in April. The British contribution for this year and next will be £444 million, plus the bulk of a $1 billion commitment for export credits for the whole of the former Soviet Union.

  Multilateral contributions 1979 to 1991–92 (£ thousands)

  Organisation

  UN Environment Programme1

  UN Development Programme

  UN Children's Fund2

  Food and Agriculture Organisation3

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  World Food Programme

  Year

  (Calendar Years)

  1979

  599

  28,533

  7,382

  2,482

  0

  7,017

  1980

  593

  15,000

  4,991

  3,217

  0

  2,488

  1981

  600

  17,500

  7,356

  3,616

  881

  1,853

  1982

  600

  18,500

  5,983

  5,592

  2,110

  3,392

  1983

  750

  18,500

  6,069

  6,195

  3,552

  828

  1984

  750

  19,000

  6,025

  8,153

  4,243

  1,039

  1985

  750

  21,000

  8,400

  6,779

  5,450

  500

  1986

  1,000

  21,000

  8,308

  7,358

  3,509

  500

  Poverty Forecasts
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what forecasts he has made of the change in the number of people in the world who are living in absolute poverty by the year 2000.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A number of bodies, including the World bank, have made varying forecasts of the numbers in poverty. The reduction of poverty, through sustainable economic and social development, is the central aim of our aid programme.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aid given to Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Nigeria remains a major aid recipient. Gross bilateral aid in 1991–92 totalled £14·46 million. We are currently developing programmes of assistance in areas of health, education, natural resources and good government.

  Africa (Aid)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development next intends to visit Africa to discuss matters relating to aid and development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to visit east and southern Africa later in the year. Her detailed programme is not yet available.

  United Nations Funds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been granted by the Overseas Development Administration to(a) the United Nations Environmental Programme, (b) the United Nations Development Programme, (c) the United Nations Children's Fund, (d) the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, (e) the International Fund for Agricultural Development and (f) the World Food Programme in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table shows United Kingdom Government contributions to those organisations specified.
  377

  Organisation

  UN Environment Programme1

  UN Development Programme

  UN Children's Fund2

  Food and Agriculture Organisation3

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  World Food Programme

  1987

  1,000

  23,000

  12,000

  5,760

  3,280

  10,392

  Year (Financial Years)

  1987–88

  1,000

  23,250

  15,223

  2,815

  2,861

  7,502

  1988–89

  1,250

  25,250

  8,000

  8,518

  2,657

  9,823

  1989–90

  3,000

  13,598

  8,450

  8,611

  3,166

  8,154

  1990–91

  3,000

  27,017

  9,035

  10,210

  2,875

  7,542

  1991–92

  4,000

  28,908

  9,047

  9,643

  2,847

  20,264

  1 ODA makes no contribution to UNEP; Funds are disbursed by the Department of Environment but counted in Aid Statistics as Official Development Assistance.

  2 The 1991–92 figure for UNICEF does not include United Kingdom responses to emergency and supplementary appeals. These totalled £4,634 thousand.

  3 The 1991–92 figure for FAO includes a supplementary contribution of £132 thousand.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been contributed by his Department to(a) the common fund and (b) the European Community's STABEX, COMPLEX and SYSMIN mechanisms to compensate developing countries for shortfalls in commodity earnings in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA has contributed, via the Department of Trade and Industry, to the common fund for commodities as follows:

  £

  1990

  1896,910

  1990

  2448,455

  1991

  21,793,830

  1992

  3—

  1Cash.

  2 Promissory note.

  3 No expenditure.

  The United Kingdom's share of the Community's expenditure on STABEX, COMPEX, and SYSMIN was as follows:

  £

  STABEX

  1990

  25,089,880

  1991

  55,430,396

  1992

  46,263,043

  COMPEX

  1990

  1,322,835

  1991

  1—

  1992

  2—

  SYSMIN

  1990

  4,406,728

  1991

  3,071,380

  1992

  1,340,442

  1 No expenditure.

  2 Figures not yet available.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many tonnes of humanitarian aid were delivered to Bosnia-Herzegovina 378
  along the land corridor from Split through Vitez before the recent Croat-Muslim hostilities; and which alternative routes have been used subsequently.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Exact figures for the total tonnage of humanitarian aid sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina subdivided by specific routes are unavailable. It is estimated that some 70,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid have been delivered from Metkovic, which is used as the principal depot for convoys into Bosnia from the south, and which is supplied from Split and Ploce, since November 1992.

  Recent hostilities in the Mostar area have resulted in the closure of the main road and caused these convoys to have to follow more circuitous routes which involve using mountain tracks. As a result, it takes convoys longer to reach Vitez and other areas of central Bosnia, thereby reducing the amount of relief supplies they are able to deliver.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the numbers of(a) Serbian and Muslim citizens of Zagreb and (b) Muslim and Croat citizens of Belgrade who have been displaced as a result of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Detailed figures of the number of people displaced by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia are not kept by municipality. The latest estimate from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that in Croatia there are some 246,000 displaced people from other parts of Croatia and 238,000 from Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Serbia there are 166,000 who have fled from Croatia and 219,000 from Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given by the Government and the EC to Macedonia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have already provided £1 million of emergency aid, in the form of urgently needed medical supplies, to Macedonia. We have committed a further £1 million for 1993–94. The EC has committed a total of 45 million ecus for the supply of primary materials, including fuel, medical supplies and technical assistance to Macedonia. In addition, the EC has committed 15 million ecus for emergency aid.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many miles of road he estimates that his Department will fund in third-world countries in the coming year; by whom these roads will be constructed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration expects to fund the construction and rehabilitation of 312·7 miles of road in the developing countries in the coming year. This work will be carried out by local labour and/or United Kingdom contractors. A breakdown by country is as follows:

  Country

  Miles

  Contractor

  Belize

  Stann Creek Valley

  5

  Local and United Kingdom consultant

  Montserrat

  Lovers Lane to Cork Hill

  1

  Direct Labour/United Kingdom consultant

  St. Lucia

  West Coast Road

  4

  Regional and United Kingdom consultant

  Turks and Caicos

  Bight-Ramada Road

  1·7

  Local

  Suzi Turn Road

  1

  Local

  Bottle Creek Road

  2

  Local or United Kingdom

  Malawi

  Lilongwe—Salima Road

  25

  United Kingdom

  Kenya

  New bitumen sealed road

  28

  Local

  Uganda

  Resealing (inc 10 miles of reconstruction)

  50

  Local

  Tanzania

  Resealing

  30

  Local

  Bangladesh

  ODA to part fund with World Bank

  165

  Local and international

  312·7

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the International Development Association regarding the economic prospects of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular touch with the World bank about the economic prospects of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, especially through periodic consultative group meetings for individual countries and through the special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa, a mechanism for co-ordinating bilateral and multilateral assistance to support economic reform in the region.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Objections to Bail
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria the Crown Prosecution Service considers when deciding whether to object to bail.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the considerations and exceptions to the right to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 and any other relevant information available to it, including material from the police, the probation service, and other sources.

  European Law Specialists
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff in his Departments specialise in European law.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government legal service contains a large number of lawyers with expertise in European law. In the legal secretariat to the Law Officers there are five lawyers with specialist skills in this subject.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Official Report (CD-ROM)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1992,Official Report, column 201, what progress has been made in the consideration of making the Official Report available to hon. Members on CD-ROM.

  Mr. Waller
  A CD-ROM version of the Official Report covering the period from 1990 is available for reference in the Members' Library in the Palace and Derby Gate Library. For a trial period, Members who choose not to receive the bound volumes of the Official Report may obtain one copy of the CD-ROM covering the period from the start of the current Parliament on application at the Vote Office. This arrangement will be reviewed in due course.

  Tools for Self Reliance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Tools for Self Reliance" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 28 June to 2 July.

EDUCATION

  English Orders
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what period of time passed between his announcement of the revised orders for English and their delivery to all schools in England; and what percentage this is of the consultation period.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced proposals for revisions to the English order on 15 April and asked the
  381
  National Curriculum Council to carry out the statutory consultation in England and report by 30 September. Dispatch of the proposals to all schools in England was completed by 17 May. The period for consultation extends until 30 July.

  Nursing Education
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each Greater London borough, the percentages of children under five years old currently registered in nursery places(a) in 1986, (b) in 1988, (c) in 1990, (d) in 1992 and (e) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Participation rates in each local education authority in Greater London in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992—the latest date for which information is available—are shown in the table.

  Because of recent revisions to the population estimates to take account of the provisional results of the 1991 census of population, the participation rates for 1992 are not directly comparable at the LEA level with those for earlier years.

  Estimated percentages of the local 3 and 4-year-old population attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in Greater London (1986 to 1992)

  Position in January of each year

  Participation rates (percentages)

  1986

  1988

  1990

  1992

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  47

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  42

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  38

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  29

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  39

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Westminster1

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Pupils aged under five in maintained nursery schools and in nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in Greater London—January 1992.

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  schools

  pupils

  schools

  pupils

  Camden

  3

  191

  24

  821

  Greenwich

  6

  682

  48

  2,421

  Hackney

  2

  165

  50

  2,047

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6

  574

  23

  935

  Islington

  3

  268

  39

  1,529

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  263

  18

  563

  Lambeth

  5

  447

  44

  1,847

  Lewisham

  2

  231

  51

  2,338

  Southwark

  5

  484

  51

  2,223

  Tower Hamlets

  7

  695

  53

  1,992

  Wandsworth

  3

  209

  47

  2,002

  Westminster1

  3

  165

  24

  913

  Barking

  —

  —

  32

  1,750

  Barnet

  4

  512

  36

  1,839

  Bexley

  1

  180

  18

  947

  Brent

  4

  239

  46

  2,151

  Bromley

  —

  —

  3

  154

  Croydon

  4

  453

  11

  706

  Ealing

  6

  589

  44

  2,657

  Enfield

  —

  —

  25

  1,484

  Haringey

  3

  214

  44

  2,332

  Harrow

  —

  —

  19

  958

  Havering

  —

  —

  4

  247

  Hillingdon

  1

  120

  47

  3,030

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  43

  2,469

  382

  Participation rates (percentages)

  1986

  1988

  1990

  1992

  ILEA2

  40

  38

  35

  —

  Barking

  37

  31

  35

  40

  Barnet

  30

  29

  29

  29

  Bexley

  12

  14

  15

  19

  Brent

  34

  33

  32

  35

  Bromley

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Croydon

  7

  7

  7

  13

  Ealing

  35

  34

  35

  43

  Enfield

  21

  21

  20

  21

  Haringey

  41

  40

  38

  43

  Harrow

  16

  16

  16

  17

  Havering

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Hillingdon

  44

  46

  49

  48

  Hounslow

  69

  69

  66

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  30

  31

  31

  35

  Merton

  36

  39

  40

  57

  Newham

  63

  58

  54

  58

  Redbridge

  8

  10

  13

  16

  Richmond upon Thames

  16

  17

  19

  18

  Sutton

  17

  20

  31

  36

  Waltham Forest

  38

  40

  35

  40

  Greater London

  32

  31

  31

  33

  1 Includes Corporation of London.

  2 Information was not collected prior to 1991 for the individual boroughs which comprised the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA).

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in each London borough currently provide nursery classes; and how many children attend such classes.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the number of maintained nursery schools and maintained primary schools with designated nursery classes in each local education authority in Greater London and the numbers of pupils aged under five who attended such classes in January 1992 are shown in the table.
  383

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  schools

  pupils

  schools

  pupils

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  242

  15

  931

  Merton

  —

  —

  36

  2,593

  Newham

  8

  947

  45

  3,498

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  17

  987

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  71

  12

  635

  Sutton

  2

  240

  25

  1,444

  Waltham Forest

  4

  321

  34

  2,181

  Greater London

  89

  8,502

  1,028

  52,624

  1 Includes Corporation of London.

  Science Tests
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes have been made to the key stage 3 science tests following his consideration of the comments he received from science teachers, inspectors and advisers after the 1992 tests.

  Mr. Forth
  An independent evaluation of the 1992 science tests for 14-year-olds conducted for the School Examinations and Assessment Council has led to changes which are designed to improve the reliability of the test questions and marking scheme.

  GCSE Assessments
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what date it was decided to delay the introduction of the new assessment arrangements for GCSE; and on what date that decision was communicated to schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 April that the present grading arrangements for GCSE will be retained for 1994 pending the outcome of the current review of the national curriculum and assessment by Sir Ron Dearing. Detailed information about this decision will be sent to schools by the School Examinations and Assessment Council on 24 May.

  Grant-Maintained Schools (Disabled Facilities)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools have facilities for disabled students; and what percentage this is of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collated centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all the successful capital grant requests from grant-maintained schools in each of the last three years stating the work to be carried out and its value; and how many of these projects enabled disabled students to have access to these schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I have placed in the Library copies of papers detailing the allocations of named project capital grant to self-governing—grant-maintained—schools in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Allocations are made on the basis of specific priorities. Since 1991–92 these priorities have been urgent health and safety work, major repairs, bids under the technology
  384
  schools initiative, and improvements to the delivery of the national curriculum, especially science and technology. Information on the number of projects which have facilitated disabled students' access to schools is not available.

  Age-weighted Pupil Unit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will publish a table indicating the value in cash terms of the age-weighted pupil unit used this year by the local education authorities in(a) North Yorkshire, (b) Cleveland, (c) County Durham, (d) Cumbria, (e) Lancashire, (f) Bradford, (g) Leeds, (h) Wakefield, (i) Doncaster and (j) Humberside for children in nursery classes, children in reception classes and children in each year from year 1 through to sixth form;

  (2) What is the value in cash terms of the age-weighted pupil unit used this year for children in nursery classes, reception classes and in each year from year 1 to sixth form by his Department for funding each grant-maintained school in North Yorkshire, Cleveland, County Durham, Cumbria, Lancashire, Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster and Humberside; and what are the amounts per child in each of these schools, the amount of transitional funding, special purpose grant, top-up funding and other DFE funding provided this year.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on age-weighted pupil unit values is contained in part 3 of the budget statement required to be published by each local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988. These returns from the 10 local education authorities listed are being placed in the Library. Annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools is calculated by reference to the local education authority's local management of schools scheme and so incorporates its age-weighted pupil units. Grant-maintained schools also receive a share of the local education authority's central budgets, calculated as a percentage addition to the local management of schools budget rather than a sum per pupil.

  As soon as a school is approved as self governing, transitional grant is available to help in preparing the school to take on its new responsibilities. Secondary schools, and primary schools with 200 or more pupils, are currently eligible to receive £30,000 plus £30 for each pupil, subject to a maximum of £60,000.

  A primary school with fewer than 200 pupils is eligible to receive £20,000 plus £30 for each pupil. A range of other special purpose grants are available to self-governing schools. Of these, only the grant for curriculum and staff development is derived from pupil numbers in the school. This grant is paid, for 1993–94, at the rate of £42·50—or the part-year equivalent—per pupil. Self-governing

  385
  schools are also eligible for a pupil related capital allocation for 1993–94. A full year's allocation is £11,000 plus £20 per pupil. Schools becoming self-governing through the year will receive a pro rata allocation.

  GCSE
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average number of GCSE passes received in (i) grant-maintained schools and (ii) other state schools under the control of local authorities in 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The average number of GCSE passes received by 16-year-old pupils in (i) self-governing state

  Self Governing State Schools (Grant Maintained) 1993–94

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School

  1,633,708

  28,846

  14·6

  Oldfield School

  1,347,723

  197,036

  14·6

  Barnet

  Hendon School

  2,076,628

  303,600

  14·6

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  2,293,740

  335,342

  14·6

  Mill Hill County School

  2,478,559

  362,363

  14·6

  Bedfordshire

  Queensbury School

  1,914,222

  279,857

  14·6

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  263,044

  48,137

  18·3

  Manshead CE Upper School

  1,567,093

  229,107

  14·6

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  2,626,870

  384,045

  14·6

  Ashcroft High School

  1,458,417

  196,886

  13·5

  Crawley Green GM Infant

  347,883

  63,663

  18·3

  Icknield High School

  2,312,915

  312,244

  13·5

  Lea Manor High School

  2,228,982

  300,913

  13·5

  Lincroft Middle School

  569,307

  76,856

  13·5

  Wootton Upper School

  2,050,579

  276,579

  13·5

  Berkshire

  Southlands School

  1,190,501

  177,938

  14·9

  Reading School

  1,417,073

  207,174

  14·6

  St. Bartholomew's School

  2,988,992

  436,987

  14·6

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  2,064,111

  301,770

  14·6

  Denefield School

  1,823,244

  266,556

  14·6

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  1,329,283

  194,340

  14·6

  Herchel Grammar School

  1,153,912

  168,701

  14·6

  The Dovyns School

  1,147,375

  167,745

  14·6

  Cippeham Middle School

  582,820

  85,208

  14·6

  Priory Combined School

  703,314

  102,824

  14·6

  Upton Grammar School

  1,217,398

  177,982

  14·6

  Holy Family Combined School

  401,674

  58,724

  14·6

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  237,967

  28,318

  11·9

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infants School

  326,867

  47,788

  14·6

  Barnehurst Junior School

  326,867

  47,788

  14·6

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  1,506,139

  141,577

  9·4

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School

  1,399,209

  131,526

  9·4

  Birmingham

  Haverstook GM School

  1,972,510

  378,169

  19·2

  Small Heath School

  2,082,539

  304,465

  14·6

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  1,444,249

  274,968

  19·0

  Great Barr School

  3,597,661

  525,974

  14·6

  Hall Green School

  1,337,251

  185,878

  13·9

  King Edward VI Aston School

  1,190,318

  165,454

  13·9

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys School

  1,265,517

  175,907

  13·9

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls School

  1,221,479

  169,786

  13·9

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  1,274,790

  177,196

  13·9

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  1,589,773

  220,978

  13·9

  386
  —grant-maintained—schools was 7·6 and (ii) other maintained schools excluding special schools under the control of local authorities 7·2 in 1992.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each grant-maintained school in 1933–94 the value of(a) the direct annual maintenance grant and (b) the central annual maintenance grant; and what is (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the table. The cash figures and percentages given could change in many cases as we continue to refine grants in consultation with schools and LEAs.
  387

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Bolton

  St. James' CE School Bolton

  1,338,378

  195,669

  14·6

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  525,262

  76,793

  14·6

  Canon Slade School

  2,842,246

  264,329

  9·3

  George Tomlinson School

  1,343,928

  124,985

  9·3

  Bradford

  Bingley Grammar School

  1,776,622

  269,471

  15·2

  Hanson GM School

  2,307,474

  267,667

  11·6

  Laisterdyke GM Middle School

  556,396

  64,542

  11·6

  Oakbank School

  2,152,572

  249,698

  11·6

  Thornton School

  1,702,276

  197,464

  11·6

  Brent

  Claremont High School

  2,477,568

  362,218

  14·6

  Copland Community School

  2,435,721

  356,100

  14·6

  Convent of Jesus and Mary

  1,963,354

  174,738

  8·9

  Kingsbury High School

  4,454,288

  396,432

  8·9

  Queens Park Community School

  1,923,639

  171,204

  8·9

  Bromley

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  2,167,614

  321,583

  14·8

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  2,514,527

  331,512

  13·2

  Langley Park Boys School

  2,411,550

  333,750

  13·8

  Hayes School, Bromley

  2,540,061

  361,038

  14·2

  Ravens Wood School, Bromley

  1,946,503

  267,277

  13·7

  Kelsey Park School

  1,761,459

  255,938

  14·5

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  2,066,367

  211,470

  10·2

  Crofton Junior School

  897,041

  133,769

  14·9

  Newstead Wood School

  1,682,522

  172,188

  10·2

  Charles Darwin School

  1,468,886

  160,109

  10·9

  Holy Innocents Primary School

  327,103

  48,779

  14·9

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's School

  1,467,499

  150,183

  10·2

  St. John Rigby School

  1,881,691

  192,571

  10·2

  Buckinghamshire

  Bridgewater Hall School

  2,705,857

  404,647

  15·0

  Brindley Hall School

  2,067,128

  302,212

  14·6

  Beaconsfield High School

  1,500,771

  220,140

  14·7

  Brookmead County Comb Middle School

  286,820

  48,473

  16·9

  The Chalfonts School

  1,916,265

  222,298

  11·6

  Overstone Combined School

  373,788

  63,170

  16·9

  Beechview Middle School

  318,827

  53,882

  16·9

  Hamilton Combined School

  854,221

  144,363

  16·9

  Lord Grey School

  2,095,488

  243,077

  11·6

  The Radcliffe School

  3,239,101

  375,736

  11·6

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  2,364,275

  274,256

  11·6

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath School

  1,286,801

  194,668

  15·1

  North Halifax High School

  1,442,530

  210,896

  14·6

  Salterlee Primary School

  111,421

  18,050

  16·2

  Trinity CE Senior School

  1,395,039

  163,220

  11·7

  Rastrick High School

  1,706,376

  199,646

  11·7

  Cambridgeshire

  St. Helen's Primary School Bluntisham

  337,012

  49,271

  14·6

  Bassingbourn Village College

  775,614

  113,394

  14·6

  Gamlingay Village College

  357,351

  52,244

  14·6

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  2,624,482

  383,696

  14·6

  Park Lane Primary School

  333,576

  48,768

  14·6

  Sawtry Village College

  1,162,813

  170,002

  14·6

  Wheatfields Junior School

  432,063

  63,167

  14·6

  Crosshall Infant School

  370,906

  54,226

  14·6

  Crosshall Junior School

  430,187

  62,893

  14·6

  The King's School, Peterborough

  1,574,804

  230,235

  14·6

  Jack Hunt School

  2,624,647

  383,720

  14·6

  Ailwyn Community School

  1,334,413

  101,415

  7·6

  Deacon's School

  1,708,097

  129,815

  7·6

  Longsands Community College

  2,606,884

  198,123

  7·6

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  325,008

  37,051

  11·4

  Sawston Village College

  2,152,635

  163,600

  7·6

  Stanground College

  2,547,881

  193,639

  7·6

  Village College, Comberton

  1,418,500

  107,806

  7·6

  388 389

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Cheshire

  Bankfield High School

  1,078,010

  157,604

  14·6

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  77,328

  11,305

  14·6

  Fallibroome High School

  1,691,875

  155,652

  9·2

  Henbury County High School

  1,604,140

  147,581

  9·2

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown High School

  2,132,523

  311,772

  14·6

  Edenham School

  2,298,920

  232,191

  10·1

  Cumbria

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  1,917,707

  280,366

  14·6

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  1,071,135

  156,599

  14·6

  Hayton CE Primary School

  113,785

  17,068

  15·0

  St. Aidan's School

  1,257,049

  183,779

  14·6

  Trinity School

  3,278,641

  479,333

  14·6

  Scotby CE Primary School

  230,635

  34,595

  15·0

  The Queen Katharine School, Kendal

  2,267,872

  331,560

  14·6

  Appleby Grammar School

  980,109

  97,031

  9·9

  Dallam School

  1,315,207

  130,205

  9·9

  Harraby School

  1,082,102

  107,128

  9·9

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  726,096

  71,884

  9·9

  Derbyshire

  Netherthorpe School

  1,439,375

  210,435

  14·6

  Ecclesbourne School

  2,240,762

  405,376

  18·1

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  245,111

  38,482

  15·7

  Belmont Primary School

  363,530

  57,074

  15·7

  Chellaston School

  1,575,822

  230,383

  14·6

  The Merrill Community School

  1,903,930

  278,352

  14·6

  Belper Grant-Maintained School

  1,867,712

  184,903

  9·9

  Heanor Gate School

  1,660,669

  164,406

  9·4

  John Port School

  2,946,249

  291,679

  9·9

  Murray Park Community School

  1,734,111

  171,677

  9·9

  Noel Baker School

  2,370,859

  234,715

  9·9

  Repton Primary School

  222,783

  34,977

  15·7

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  1,035,908

  163,604

  15·8

  Torquay Boys Grammer School

  1,774,814

  259,476

  14·6

  St. Boniface's College

  1,375,223

  126,520

  9·2

  Teign School

  1,565,351

  144,012

  9·2

  Dorset

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  1,814,054

  265,213

  14·6

  Woodroffe School

  1,511,788

  228,359

  15·1

  Budmouth School

  1,683,719

  250,091

  14·9

  Avonbourne School

  1,633,903

  238,875

  14·6

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  1,373,046

  200,738

  14·6

  Bournemouth Girls School

  1,651,809

  241,493

  14·6

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  1,298,547

  189,846

  14·6

  Poole Technical High School

  2,092,648

  236,469

  11·3

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  444,783

  71,610

  16·1

  Dudley

  Old Swinford Hospital

  1,160,548

  186,080

  16·0

  Ellowes Hall School

  1,465,222

  189,014

  12·9

  Kingswinford GM School

  1,310,860

  169,101

  12·9

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  2,199,370

  268,323

  12·2

  Drayton Manor High School

  2,450,447

  298,955

  12·2

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  2,000,880

  244,107

  12·2

  Greenford High School

  1,969,122

  240,233

  12·2

  Northolt High School

  1,957,191

  238,777

  12·2

  Wood End First School

  426,674

  71,255

  16·7

  Wood End Middle School

  400,710

  66,919

  16·7

  Essex

  Chalvdon School

  2,504,853

  3366,207

  14·6

  Westcliffe High School for Boys

  1,718,291

  251,212

  14·6

  King John School, Benfleet

  2,203,841

  322,199

  14·6

  Beauchamps School, Wickford

  1,417,253

  207,201

  14·6

  390 391

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Gram £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  1,399,827

  204,653

  14·6

  Elmwood Primary School

  551,869

  80,683

  14·6

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  379,024

  55,413

  14·6

  Saffron Walden High School

  2,505,240

  366,263

  14·6

  The Philip Morant School

  1,998,980

  292,249

  14·6

  The Plume School

  3,229,705

  472,179

  14·6

  West Hatch High School

  1,828,626

  267,343

  14·6

  The Boswells School

  2,531,434

  241,794

  9·6

  Chelmsford County High School

  1,408,772

  134,561

  9·6

  The Eastwood School

  1,587,750

  151,657

  9·6

  Furtherwick Park School

  1,706,655

  160,014

  9·4

  Katherine's Primary School

  325,027

  49,102

  15·1

  King Edward VI G School, Chelmsford

  1,516,827

  144,882

  9·6

  King Harold School

  1,495,906

  142,884

  9·6

  North Crescent Primary School

  2283,187

  42,872

  15·1

  Rickstones School

  1,261,607

  120,504

  9·6

  Thurstable School

  1,598,152

  152,650

  9·6

  Torells Comprehensive School

  1,229,223

  117,411

  9·6

  Northlands Junior School

  350,178

  52,902

  15·1

  Great Totham County Primary School

  442,950

  66,917

  15·1

  The Appleton School

  2,183,358

  207,547

  9·5

  The Deanes School

  1,249,678

  119,365

  9·6

  The Hedley Walter School

  1,851,527

  176,851

  9·6

  Castle View School

  1,510,261

  144,255

  9·6

  Cornelius Vermuyden School

  1,465,034

  139,935

  9·6

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  1,800,180

  171,946

  9·6

  The Fitzwimarc School

  2,136,399

  204,052

  9·6

  Westborough Primary School

  655,917

  99,091

  15·1

  King Edmund School

  2,109,182

  201,462

  9·6

  Belfairs Community College

  2,437,981

  221,856

  9·1

  Chelmer Valley High School

  1,683,897

  153,235

  9·1

  Davenant Foundation School

  1,994,618

  181,510

  9·1

  Gable Hall GM Comprehensive

  1,896,666

  172,597

  9·1

  Jotmans Hall Primary School

  337,768

  48,639

  14·4

  Newport Free Grammar School

  1,249,963

  113,747

  9·1

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  279,538

  40,253

  14·4

  Northwick Park County Junior School

  371,933

  53,558

  14·4

  Rainsford School

  1,728,967

  157,336

  9·1

  Rolph CE VA Primary School

  202,991

  29,231

  14·4

  Southend Girls High School

  1,680,686

  152,942

  9·1

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  180,756

  26,029

  14·4

  St. Clere's School

  1,632,620

  148,568

  9·1

  St. Martin's School

  2,058,582

  187,331

  9·1

  Tendring High School

  2,474,888

  225,215

  9·1

  The Grays School

  1,617,924

  147,231

  9·1

  The Greensward School

  1,549,340

  140,990

  9·1

  Thorpe Bay School

  1,349,294

  122,786

  9·1

  William De Ferrers School

  2,637,311

  239,995

  9·1

  William Edwards School

  1,565,866

  142,494

  9·1

  Self Governing State Schools (Grant Maintained) 1993–94

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall High School

  825,677

  122,664

  14·9

  Marling School

  1,382,098

  202,061

  14·6

  Pate's Grammar School

  1,702,766

  263,872

  15·5

  Stroud High School

  1,312,990

  191,958

  14·6

  Robinswood Primary School

  424,252

  62,025

  14·6

  Tewkesbury School

  1,904,191

  278,391

  14·6

  The Crypt School

  799,745

  116,922

  14·6

  Balcarras School

  1,198,943

  175,282

  14·6

  Chosen Hill School

  1,974,371

  288,651

  14·6

  Katharine Lady Berkeley School

  1,833,040

  267,988

  14·6

  Churchdown School

  1,863,730

  272,475

  14·6

  The Cotswold School

  1,020,833

  149,245

  14·6

  Newent Community School

  2,010,291

  293,902

  14·6

  392 393

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Rednock School

  1,943,319

  284,111

  14·6

  Saintbridge School

  1,438,979

  210,377

  14·6

  Chipping Camden School

  1,434,064

  209,658

  14·6

  St. Gregory RC Primary School

  446,791

  65,320

  14·6

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained School

  287,450

  39,668

  13·8

  Picklenash County Junior School

  288,938

  39,873

  13·8

  Wyedean School

  1,126,146

  130,633

  11·6

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  3,378,300

  668,903

  19·8

  Hampshire

  Hardley Secondary School

  1,397,575

  204,324

  14·6

  Burgate School

  1,091,648

  159,598

  14·6

  Arnewood School

  2,067,639

  302,286

  14·6

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  1,429,546

  208,998

  14·6

  Crofton School, Fareham

  1,846,231

  269,917

  14·6

  The City of Portmouth Boys' School

  1,578,029

  230,706

  14·6

  The Priory Primary School

  140,013

  21,702

  15·5

  Testwood School

  1,595,347

  233,238

  14·6

  Abbotswood Middle School

  708,213

  109,773

  15·5

  Front Lawn Middle School

  356,069

  55,191

  15·5

  All Hallows RC School

  2,017,686

  205,804

  10·2

  Bay House Grant-Maintained School

  2,915,958

  297,428

  10·2

  Blackfield Middle School

  492,024

  76,264

  15·5

  Bohunt Community School

  1,922,482

  196,093

  10·2

  Calmore GM Middle School

  451,822

  70,032

  15·5

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  459,669

  71,249

  15·5

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  1,533,993

  174,875

  11·4

  Coopers Company and Cobom

  2,419,022

  275,768

  11·4

  Frances Bardsley School

  2,356,534

  268,645

  11·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  St. Augustine's RC High School

  1,435,836

  162,249

  11·3

  St. Bede's School

  775,721

  87,656

  11·3

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  2,025,340

  296,102

  14·6

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  2,174,406

  317,896

  14·6

  Francis Bacon School

  995,273

  156,924

  15·8

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  2,147,903

  314,021

  14·6

  Parmiters School

  2,026,651

  296,294

  14·6

  St. Mary's R.C. Primary School

  256,823

  39,294

  15·3

  Christ Church CE JMI School, Chorley

  269,328

  41,207

  15·3

  Parkside First School

  301,876

  46,187

  15·3

  Hertingfordbury School

  206,111

  31,535

  15·3

  Bishop Stortford's School

  1,988,859

  290,769

  14·6

  Ashlyns Grant-Maintained School

  1,328,656

  140,837

  10·6

  Bushey Hall School

  2,280,801

  241,765

  10·6

  Bushey Meads GM School

  1,897,977

  201,186

  10·6

  Dame Alice Owens School

  2,316,103

  245,507

  10·6

  Mount Grace School

  1,079,233

  114,399

  10·6

  Queens School

  2,426,771

  257,238

  10·6

  Hillingdon

  Bishopshalt School

  2,045,378

  342,554

  16·7

  Haydon School

  2,366,141

  326,903

  13·8

  Queensmead School

  1,936,377

  277,062

  14·3

  Vyners School

  1,879,630

  279,902

  14·9

  Uxbridge High School

  1,475,457

  214,957

  14·6

  Northwood School

  1,961,004

  297,940

  15·2

  Hayes Manor School

  1,506,331

  215,109

  14·3

  Mellow Lane School

  2,072,571

  280,787

  13·5

  Oak Farm Infant School

  419,346

  81,744

  19·5

  Oak Farm Junior School

  480,056

  93,578

  19·5

  The Douay Martyrs School

  2,070,421

  280,496

  13·5

  Abbotsfield School

  1,580,321

  183,317

  11·6

  Grange Park Infant School

  365,825

  60,361

  16·5

  Grange Park Junior School

  395,515

  65,260

  16·5

  Swakeleys School

  1,646,393

  190,982

  11·6

  Hounslow

  394 395

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Gumley House Convent School1

  1,957,513

  254,477

  13·0

  Gunnersbury Catholic School1

  1,920,624

  249,681

  13·0

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Primary School1

  121,213

  19,636

  16·2

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  1,721,938

  406,096

  23·6

  Kent

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  965,161

  127,015

  13·2

  The Cornwallis School

  1,578,594

  224,836

  14·2

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  1,356,329

  185,732

  13·7

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  723,273

  99,781

  13·8

  St. George's CE School, Gravesend

  2,031,786

  284,822

  14·0

  Homewood School

  2,441,340

  324,777

  13·3

  Thamesview School

  1,979,169

  271,916

  13·7

  Dartford Grammar School

  1,583,271

  220,332

  13·9

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  2,133,561

  290,573

  13·6

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  1,489,802

  206,519

  13·9

  Aylesford School

  1,827,149

  247,290

  13·5

  Wrotham School

  888,991

  119,683

  13·5

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  1,233,808

  169,121

  13·7

  Snodland CE Primary School

  448,750

  74,044

  16·5

  Oldborough Manor High

  1,319,626

  199,299

  15·1

  Senacre High School

  1,800,475

  248,843

  13·8

  Cranbrook School

  1,482,083

  212,028

  14·3

  Angley School

  1,581,444

  172,377

  10·9

  Fulston Manor School

  1,550,317

  168,985

  10·9

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  969,009

  105,622

  10·9

  Rainham Park Grammar School

  2,054,565

  223,948

  10·9

  Robert Napier School, Gillingham

  1,560,014

  170,041

  10·9

  The Minster School

  2,629,113

  286,573

  10·9

  The Skinner's School

  1,348,336

  146,969

  10·9

  The Canterbury School

  1,602,901

  174,716

  10·9

  Borough Green Primary School

  359,340

  59,291

  16·5

  Chatham Grammar School

  1,084,788

  118,242

  10·9

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  1,347,982

  146,930

  10·9

  The Archbishop School

  1,233,571

  134,459

  10·9

  The Mailing School

  1,150,544

  125,409

  10·9

  Sandown Court School

  1,671,987

  182,247

  10·9

  Meopham School

  878,560

  95,763

  10·9

  Holy Trinity

  294,829

  48,647

  16·5

  The Bradboume School

  951,443

  103,707

  10·9

  Hugh Christie School

  1,787,900

  194,881

  10·9

  St. Simon Stock School

  1,706,071

  185,962

  10·9

  Mascalls School

  2,560,289

  279,071

  10·9

  Roseacre Junior School

  385,523

  63,611

  16·5

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  1,686,900

  183,872

  10·9

  St. John Fisher, Chatham

  2,159,331

  235,367

  10·9

  Sutton-at-Hone CE Primary School

  376,771

  62,167

  16·5

  The Charles Dickens School

  1,468,886

  160,109

  10·9

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  1,574,065

  171,573

  10·9

  The Wildernesse School

  1,305,611

  142,312

  10·9

  Westlands High School

  2,566,244

  279,721

  10·9

  Kingston

  Tiffin School

  2,065,071

  301,911

  14·6

  Holy Cross Convent School

  1,343,148

  138,344

  10·3

  Richard Challoner School

  1,406,739

  144,894

  10·3

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  1,314,731

  192,212

  14·6

  Castle Hall GM School

  783,243

  114,509

  14·6

  Lambeth

  La Retraite School

  1,458,724

  255,277

  17·5

  St. Bernadette Junior School

  355,003

  89,816

  25·3

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  1,271,048

  222,433

  17·5

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  2,139,657

  374,440

  17·5

  Dunraven GM School

  2,683,506

  469,614

  17·5

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  1,585,021

  231,728

  14·6

  396 397

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  1,716,904

  251,009

  14·6

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  1,394,580

  203,886

  14·6

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  1,944,932

  284,347

  14·6

  Newton Blue Coat CE School

  331,062

  51,315

  15·5

  Baines School

  1,335,938

  195,312

  14·6

  Archbishop Temple School

  1,081,404

  111,385

  10·3

  Leicestershire

  Long Field High School

  721,457

  109,453

  15·2

  Abington High School

  1,072,465

  130,841

  12·2

  Bushloe High School

  1,233,364

  150,470

  12·2

  South Wigston High School

  1,277,617

  155,869

  12·2

  Uppingham Community College

  1,200,821

  146,500

  12·2

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary School

  728,449

  196,681

  27·0

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  781,093

  106,496

  13·6

  Skegness Grammar School

  1,314,009

  179,364

  13·7

  The Kings School Grantham

  1,687,328

  220,612

  13·1

  Carre's Grammar School

  956,128

  129,788

  13·6

  St. George's School

  1,982,852

  237,768

  12·0

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  1,253,803

  179,770

  14·3

  Caistor School

  911,390

  128,165

  14·1

  Bourne Primary School

  596,420

  90,656

  15·2

  Gartree School

  768,012

  110,302

  14·4

  Magdalen CE/Meth Primary School

  300,264

  45,640

  15·2

  Yarborough High School

  2,120,366

  288,277

  13·6

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  2,386,241

  334,515

  14·0

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  1,035,426

  101,472

  9·8

  North Kesteven School

  2,402,288

  235,424

  9·8

  North Rauceby Primary School

  114,617

  17,421

  15·2

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Horn

  1,216,391

  119,206

  9·8

  Robert Pattinson School

  2,218,147

  217,378

  9·8

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  587,988

  89,374

  15·2

  Ancaster High School

  1,150,423

  112,741

  9·8

  William Farr CE School

  1,574,253

  154,277

  9·8

  Ermine School

  367,800

  55,906

  15·2

  Gleed Girls School

  1,096,394

  107,447

  9·8

  Monks' Dyke High School

  1,359,368

  133,218

  9·8

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  509,418

  77,432

  15·2

  Malcolm Sargent County Primary School

  639,906

  97,266

  15·2

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  2,183,879

  319,281

  14·6

  Newham

  Stratford School1

  1,401,962

  238,509

  17·0

  Norfolk

  Wymondham College

  2,030,235

  296,818

  14·6

  Gresham County Primary

  146,350

  21,396

  14·6

  Heacham Middle School

  322,991

  47,221

  14·6

  Redgate Middle School, Hunstanton

  256,311

  37,472

  14·6

  Loddon Middle School

  320,494

  48,840

  15·2

  Costessey High School, Norwich

  1,326,513

  193,935

  14·6

  Cromer High School

  1,097,472

  160,449

  14·6

  Dereham Church VA First School

  194,542

  28,442

  14·6

  Downham Market High School

  2,702,641

  395,123

  14·6

  Marshland High School

  1,208,288

  176,650

  14·6

  Norwich Road School

  447,268

  65,390

  14·6

  Robert Kett Middle School

  549,491

  80,335

  14·6

  West Flegg Middle School

  555,825

  81,261

  14·6

  Acle High School

  1,000,381

  146,636

  14·7

  Sheringham High School

  1,088,381

  159,120

  14·6

  South Wooton School

  168,449

  24,627

  14·6

  Cliff Park High School

  1,384,638

  105,233

  7·6

  Flegg High School

  1,096,199

  83,311

  7·6

  Great Yarmouth High School

  1,454,991

  110,579

  7·6

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  1,496,431

  113,729

  7·6

  St. Clements High School

  1,080,193

  82,095

  7·6

  Northamptonshire

  398 399

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Southfield School for Girls

  1,265,684

  185,041

  14·6

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  540,393

  79,005

  14·6

  Kingswood School

  1,860,044

  271,936

  14·6

  Moulton Primary School

  493,772

  72,189

  14·6

  King John School

  423,897

  61,973

  14·6

  Northampton School for Boys

  1,690,538

  247,155

  14·6

  Lodge Park School

  1,617,189

  236,431

  14·6

  Manor School

  1,397,453

  117,386

  8·4

  Montagu School

  1,699,066

  142,722

  8·4

  Weavers School

  2,316,277

  194,567

  8·4

  Windmill Primary School

  546,201

  67,183

  12·3

  Wrenn School

  2,046,531

  175,013

  8·6

  Sir Christopher Hatton

  1,548,809

  130,100

  8·4

  Danesholme Junior School

  457,596

  56,284

  12·3

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  479,142

  58,934

  12·3

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle School

  545,541

  79,757

  14·6

  Greenwood Dale School

  1,159,012

  144,876

  12·5

  George Spencer School

  1,759,986

  219,998

  12·5

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School1

  107,439

  16,223

  15·1

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary School

  281,164

  41,106

  14·6

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  455,749

  63,805

  14·0

  St. James CE Primary

  275,195

  38,527

  14·0

  Wardle High School

  1,892,379

  170,314

  9·0

  Sandwell

  Manor High School

  1,540,270

  225,186

  14·6

  Sheffield

  Clifford First School

  124,276

  18,169

  14·6

  Shropshire

  Adams' Grammar School

  1,009,015

  147,517

  14·6

  Corbet GM School

  1,112,407

  112,353

  10·1

  Ercall Wood School2

  1,180,593

  103,892

  8·8

  Solihull

  Hatchford Primary School

  706,907

  110,277

  15·6

  Somerset

  Sexey's School1

  1,131,247

  165,387

  14·6

  Bruton Primary School1

  291,981

  53,725

  18·4

  Southwark

  London Nautical School

  1,216,956

  242,174

  19·9

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary

  624,767

  167,438

  26·8

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More School

  1,651,234

  241,408

  14·6

  Cannock Chase High School

  1,853,274

  209,420

  11·3

  Surrey

  Guildford County Secondary School

  1,585,741

  221,152

  13·9

  Collingwood School, Camberley

  2,988,420

  422,747

  14·1

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  1,370,008

  187,359

  13·7

  Glyn School

  1,725,814

  230,663

  13·4

  Gordon's School

  677,114

  97,325

  14·4

  Beacon School

  1,555,783

  178,930

  11·5

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  1,759,053

  202,308

  11·5

  Hawkedale First School

  152,769

  25,313

  16·6

  Heathside Secondary School

  1,081,857

  124,424

  11·5

  Manor First School, Byfleet

  214,755

  35,584

  16·6

  Roseberry School, Epsom

  1,680,235

  193,243

  11·5

  Stonleigh First School

  261,423

  43,316

  16·6

  De Stafford School

  1,058,765

  121,768

  11·5

  Send CE First School

  201,997

  33,469

  16·6

  Thamesmead School

  979,482

  112,650

  11·5

  St. Paul's School

  1,320,301

  130,710

  9·9

  400 401

  LEA/School

  (a) Direct Annual Maintenance Grant £

  (b) Central Annual Maintenance Grant £

  Percentage (b) to (a)

  Sutton

  Wilsons School

  1,454,272

  248,961

  17·1

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  1,738,088

  256,092

  14·7

  John Fisher School

  1,454,435

  215,712

  14·8

  Cheam High School

  1,924,582

  225,097

  11·7

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  1,285,145

  150,309

  11·7

  St. Philomena's School

  1,699,377

  173,336

  10·2

  Wallington High School for Boys

  1,306,716

  133,285

  10·2

  Wellington High School for Girls

  1,511,973

  154,221

  10·3

  Tameside

  Audenshaw High School1

  1,380,454

  201,821

  14·6

  West Hill School1

  1,327,644

  142,058

  10·7

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  2,011,147

  434,408

  21·6

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey School

  1,621,670

  167,032

  10·3

  New Wellington High School

  1,653,588

  170,320

  10·3

  Sale Moor School

  1,126,561

  116,036

  10·3

  Walsall

  The Streetly School

  2,028,385

  296,547

  14·6

  St. Thomas More RC School

  2,301,934

  336,540

  14·6

  Shire Oak Community School

  1,263,004

  155,349

  12·3

  Waltham Forest

  Highams Park School

  2,145,893

  315,446

  14·7

  Wandsworth

  Graveney School

  3,882,643

  577,628

  14·9

  Burntwood School

  3,034,341

  438,934

  14·5

  Elliott School

  3,131,969

  338,253

  10·8

  Salesian College

  1,295,195

  139,881

  10·8

  Ethelburga Primary School

  363,171

  59,923

  16·5

  Hillbrook Primary School

  625,753

  103,249

  16·5

  John Paul II RC School

  1,306,129

  141,062

  10·8

  Southfields School

  3,160,338

  341,316

  10·8

  Warwickshire

  Newbold Grange High School (alias Avon)1

  623,679

  95,690

  15·3

  Ash Green School (Exhall)1

  948,491

  141,683

  15·0

  Hartshill School1

  1,165,046

  167,408

  14·4

  Queen Elizabeth School, Atherstone1

  1,391,275

  145,094

  10·4

  Myton School1

  2,002,429

  208,830

  10·4

  Alcester Grammar School1

  1,163,674

  96,585

  —

  Rugby High School for Girls1

  1,129,411

  93,741

  8·3

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  2,072,366

  186,513

  9·0

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine's School

  1,016,685

  148,638

  14·6

  Aloeric School

  417,004

  82,984

  19·9

  Highbury School

  995,756

  145,578

  14·6

  Lavington School

  912,503

  133,407

  14·6

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park

  2,168,107

  327,384

  15·1

  Wolverhampton GS

  1,170,673

  182,018

  15·5

  1 Consultation on a proposed final grants for these schools has been completed and a finalised grant notified to the school and LEA.

  2 School became grant maintained after 1 April 1993.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of school children removed from school because of behavioural problems in the last three years are dyslexic.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  First Aid
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will require basic instruction in first aid to be part of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 already requires the curriculum of maintained schools to prepare
  403
  pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. As part of that preparation, all pupils are now required to be taught those aspects of safety education contained in several national curriculum core and foundation subjects. In addition, the National Curriculum Council has issued guidance to all maintained schools in England offering advice on how schools might incorporate topics about safety education, including knowledge of basic first aid, into their wider programmes of health education.

  Law Students
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations his Department has received in the last 12 months regarding discretionary grants made by local authorities to trainee lawyers.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received over the last six months on the subject of discretionary grants to law students seeking to qualify in one of the two branches of the legal profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject. They have been made by the Law Society, the College of Law and the Trainee Solicitors Group, among others. We have also received correspondence and parliamentary questions from several hon. Members on the training of lawyers.

  GEST Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each of the last three years the local education authorities which have not been able to take up grants for education support and training funding offered to them; for what purposes the unused funding was originally made available; and what it was used for subsequently.

  Mr. Forth
  The information provided in the table is for 1992–93 and for 1993–94. Information about 1991–92 is not readily available. The tables set out the local education authorities which surrendered some of the allocations made available to them. Each year's programme covers some 30 or more individual grants for different purposes. The sums surrendered ranged across most grants. We do not know what use LEAs will have made of their unused 40 per cent. contribution to GEST allocations. The saving in central Government grant which represents 60 per cent. of GEST allocations has been redeployed to a range of other Department of Education programmes. To provide the full information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  1992–93

  Gest allocations not taken up

  £ thousands

  Hammersmith

  10·0

  Southwark

  41·3

  Brent

  64·5

  Haringey

  146·5

  Havering

  24·8

  Merton

  74·3

  Newham

  34·0

  Redbridge

  13·9

  Dudley

  84·5

  Solihull

  9·6

  Wolverhampton

  31·1

  404

  £ thousands

  Liverpool

  172·9

  St. Helens

  64·5

  Sefton

  62·0

  Wirral

  228·5

  Bury

  40·9

  Rochdale

  55·5

  Salford

  106·3

  Bradford

  11·0

  Calderdale

  52·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  173·1

  North Tyneside

  53·0

  South Tyneside

  1·3

  Sunderland

  106·7

  Bedfordshire

  6·0

  Cheshire

  3·8

  Cleveland

  4·2

  Derby

  182·3

  Essex

  346·0

  Gloucestershire

  74·3

  Isle of Wight

  14·4

  Kent

  1·7

  Lincolnshire

  0·9

  Oxfordshire

  26·5

  Somerset

  17·2

  Surrey

  3·8

  West Sussex

  68·2

  Total

  2,411·6

  Note: Total programme

  377,200·0

  Percentage not taken up

  0·6

  1993–94

  Gest allocations not taken up

  £ thousands

  Greenwich

  129·4

  Lambeth

  14·1

  Barnet

  21·7

  Manchester

  296·6

  Kirklees

  153·5

  Wakefield

  206·7

  Gateshead

  165·4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  109·0

  North Tyneside

  60·8

  Sunderland

  43·3

  Avon

  11·3

  Cleveland

  169·5

  Cumbria

  57·5

  Devon

  747·7

  Durham

  233·3

  Gloucestershire

  348·6

  Humberside

  315·9

  Norfolk

  221·5

  Northamptonshire

  20·0

  Total

  3,325·7

  Note: Total programme

  320,200·0

  Percentage not taken up

  1·0

  Educational Psychology
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the funding allocation for the educational psychology service for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally. Each local education authority is responsible for securing educational psychology services in the light of local needs and priorities. Central Government, through
  405
  the grants and education support and training programme, provide financial support to authorities to assist them with the costs of the initial training of educational psychologists. Funds to support LEA expenditure of £3·5 million on the training of educational psychologists have been allocated in 1993–94.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking(a) to protect the educational psychology service and (b) to ensure a common standard service throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Each local education authority is responsible for securing educational psychology services in its area. The Education Bill contains power to enable authorities to provide support services, such as educational psychology, to all pupils with special educational needs, including those without statements.

  Under the Bill, all authorities in England and Wales will be placed under a duty to have regard to the provisions of a code of practice, issued by the Secretary of State, giving them practical guidance in discharging their duty towards children with special educational needs. One of the objectives of the code is to secure greater consistency in local education authority practice, to the benefit of children with SEN and their parents.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many educational psychologists were employed by each local education authority in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of educational psychologists employed by individual local education authorities is collected annually by the Department. However, pre-1992 returns were not compiled in a standard format and are not readily available for every year. Figures are shown in the table for 1985 and 1992.

  Numbers of full-lime equivalent educational psychologists in post by local education authority

  LEA

  1985

  1992

  Inner London

  87·7

  City

  0·0

  Camden

  7·8

  Greenwich

  11·0

  Hackney

  8·5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8·0

  Islington

  10·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6·0

  Lambeth

  7·8

  Lewisham

  10·0

  Southwark

  15·0

  Tower Hamlets

  10·0

  Wandsworth

  11·0

  Westminster

  7·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  7·0

  7·5

  Barnet

  8·5

  13·6

  Bexley

  5·0

  6·5

  Brent

  9·6

  11·2

  Bromley

  8·0

  10·0

  Croydon

  9·0

  10·8

  Ealing

  5·4

  9·8

  Enfield

  9·0

  12·5

  Haringey

  7·0

  9·8

  Harrow

  6·0

  6·0

  Havering

  8·0

  8·0

  Hillingdon

  5·0

  8·2

  Hounslow

  5·9

  5·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  2·0

  3·0

  Merton

  5·0

  5·7

  Newham

  11·0

  11·0

  406

  LEA

  1985

  1992

  Redbridge

  6·0

  7·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  4·0

  5·5

  Sutton

  4·0

  6·0

  Waltham Forest

  8·0

  7·0

  Birmingham

  37·2

  37·5

  Coventry

  12·3

  14·0

  Dudley

  7·5

  8·5

  Sandwell

  8·0

  14·0

  Solihull

  7·3

  8·0

  Walsall

  7·0

  10·0

  Wolverhampton

  6·0

  10·0

  Knowsley

  7·0

  6·8

  Liverpool

  15·5

  18·0

  St. Helens

  4·0

  6·5

  Sefton

  9·0

  11·0

  Wirral

  8·0

  13·5

  Bolton

  4·0

  7·4

  Bury

  3·5

  4·5

  Manchester

  14·0

  19·3

  Oldham

  5·0

  4·0

  Rochdale

  9·0

  7·5

  Salford

  6·0

  7·0

  Stockport

  6·7

  9·5

  Tameside

  7·0

  11·0

  Trafford

  3·0

  4·0

  Wigan

  8·0

  6·5

  Barnsley

  4·0

  4·5

  Doncaster

  9·0

  9·0

  Rotherham

  9·0

  10·3

  Sheffield

  13·6

  16·2

  Bradford

  14·0

  19·0

  Calderdale

  2·0

  6·8

  Kirkless

  12·0

  15·0

  Leeds

  13·5

  19·0

  Wakefield

  6·0

  12·0

  Gateshead

  8·0

  10·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  12·0

  11·0

  North Tyneside

  8·0

  8·0

  South Tyneside

  6·0

  8·0

  Sunderland

  9·0

  10·1

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  28·6

  28·8

  Bedfordshire

  12·0

  17·0

  Berkshire

  17·3

  17·0

  Buckinghamshire

  16·0

  21·9

  Cambridgeshire

  12·0

  14·0

  Cheshire

  17·0

  25·1

  Cleveland

  18·0

  18·3

  Cornwall

  8·0

  12·0

  Cumbria

  9·0

  18·0

  Derbyshire

  21·5

  33·1

  Devon

  20·4

  22·1

  Dorset

  14·5

  17·5

  Durham

  17·4

  20·4

  East Sussex

  11·8

  19·6

  Essex

  31·4

  42·7

  Gloucestershire

  11·0

  17·0

  Hampshire

  31·5

  44·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  11·0

  16·5

  Hertfordshire

  21·5

  28·4

  Humberside

  21·0

  24·0

  Isle of Wight

  3·0

  3·0

  Kent

  19·0

  30·0

  Lancashire

  34·0

  42·0

  Leicestershire

  19·0

  33·6

  Lincolnshire

  10·0

  13·0

  Norfolk

  14·0

  18·5

  North Yorkshire

  15·2

  20·0

  Northamptonshire

  15·0

  17·5

  Northumberland

  4·1

  9·5

  Nottinghamshire

  30·0

  28·5

  Oxfordshire

  12·5

  14·5

  Shropshire

  8·0

  12·0

  Somerset

  9·0

  11·0

  Staffordshire

  17·7

  29·4

  Suffolk

  13·0

  14·0

  Surrey

  22·0

  28·4

  Warwickshire

  9·8

  12·3

  407

  LEA

  1985

  1992

  West Sussex

  12·0

  17·4

  Wiltshire

  13·0

  14·8

  Total: All LEAs

  1,173·4

  1,501·6

  Behavioural Problems (Referrals)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each year since 1985 by local education authority, the number of referrals by teachers of children with behavioural problems.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not centrally available.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail Employees (Concessions)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received over the past year concerning the future of concessionary travel facilities for current British Rail employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have given a clear assurance that travel concessions for employees of BR and their dependants, and for retired staff will be safeguarded in the privatisation of British Rail.

  Red Routes
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the operation of red routes has had on the use of buses in the relevant areas.

  Mr. Norris
  Since the start of the pilot scheme in 1991, the number of passengers using the 43 route and the new express service introduced last year has increased by about 11,000 a week. This is an increase of about 10 per cent., compared with a small overall decline in bus patronage in London over the same period.

  London Transport Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many physical assaults on London Transport staff took place in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Norris
  There were 517 assaults on LT staff in 1990–91, 689 in 1991–92, and the provisional total for 1992–93 is 622. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the crossrail project.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the CBI last Tuesday, we have concluded that crossrail can be carried forward as a joint venture with the private sector and that London Transport's Crossrail Bill should proceed to its Second Reading next month.
  408
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those organisations and companies, other than the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, from which he has received recent representations concerning the crossrail project.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations in recent weeks from the following organisations and companies:

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  British Airways plc

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  Department of Trade & Industry

  Grosvenor House

  Howard de Walden Estates Ltd.

  London Borough of Camden

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  London Regional Passengers' Committee

  London Tourist Board and Convention Bureau

  Oxford Street Association

  Regalian Group of Companies

  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

  Save London's Theatres Campaign

  Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners

  St Albans Friends of the Earth

  Trafalgar House

  Wokingham Friends of the Earth

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the proposal by the consortium consisting of Trafalgar House, Balfour Beatty and GEC Alsthom, in connection with upgrading of the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The consortium has put forward outline proposals for a joint venture to upgrade the west coast main line and I have responded to them. Further work is in hand to identify a way forward—which must include a competition for the choice of private sector partners.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the locomotive breakdowns, signal failures and other causes of train delays on the west coast main line, from 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held by the Department. These are operational matters for British Rail.

  British Rail Journey Times
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on the reduction of journey times on its principal routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timetabling and routing of services is entirely a matter for the management of British Rail and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.

  Traffic Congestion, London
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce traffic congestion in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Our aim is a much-improved public transport system, capable of responding efficiently to
  409
  changes in demand, and offering a good-quality alternative to the private car. In terms of the road network, we are planning increasing emphasis on road traffic management measures—such as the introduction of red routes—to improve the reliability of journeys—especially for buses—to take traffic off residential roads, and to provide safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Our roads investment programme has the limited objectives of improving orbital movement, dealing with congestion black spots, and improving access to docklands and east London. For the longer term, we are examining the case for and against congestion charging in London.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with which organisations he has discussed transport links in the east Thames corridor.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The east Thames corridor was one of the topics I discussed at a meeting which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had recently with the chairman and other representatives of the London and South East regional planning conference. Also, my Department participates in the east Thames corridor forum.

  Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the publication of the memorandum of sale of Red Star Parcels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board is at an advanced stage in preparing the Red Star information memorandum, and will publish it as soon as all relevant documentation has been completed.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effect on passengers of the introduction of tendering for London's buses.

  Mr. Norris
  Tendering has introduced an element of competition into the provision of bus services in London. The effect has been to improve service quality and reduce costs, both on tendered routes and on the rest of the network, to the benefit of the bus passenger and the taxpayer alike.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from private companies concerning the proposed deregulation of London Buses.

  Mr. Norris
  I have received a number of written and oral representations from private companies concerning aspects of our plans to deregulate London bus services.

  Local Roads (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates have been made of the effect of 20 mph zones on the safety of local roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Transport Research Laboratory is currently carrying out a study into the 410
  effectiveness of 20 mph zones in improving safety on local roads. Early research shows that reductions in speed brought about by the traffic-calming measures have resulted in a 50 per cent. fall in road casualties within these zones. It has also been found that accidents on surrounding roads have not increased. However, it is still very early days and much remains to be learnt about the operation of 20 mph zones.

  Rolling Stock (Leasing)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken and will take to promote the development of a rolling stock leasing market.

  Mr. Freeman
  The measures include approval in the autumn statement for the leasing of £150 million of new rolling stock by British Rail. British Rail is to establish rolling stock companies and transfer its existing stock to them by 1 April 1994. These companies will lease stock to franchisees and BR's operating divisions pending franchising. They will be transferred to the private sector as soon as practicable. The Government are proposing to add a new clause to the Railways Bill specifically enabling the franchising director to exercise his franchising powers to encourage investment. This would, for example, allow the franchising director to undertake to lessors that, if they supplied new trains, he would ensure that those trains were used on two or more successive franchisees, thus giving the lessors comfort that they would not be left with trains which they could not release at the end of the first franchise. Such undertakings should help to encourage private sector investment in rolling stock in the early years of franchising before an active secondhand market for rolling stock develops.

  Ashford International Railway Station
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the building of a new Ashford international railway station together with related works.

  Mr. Freeman
  I visited Ashford on 17 May and announced that British Rail expects to go out to tender in July for the track and platform works for the international station with a view to works starting in October. The Government have allocated £30 million for such works. I also announced that the principal terms have been agreed for a competition for the private sector to build the station, car parks and other development. The details are currently being finalised and within two weeks British Rail will be seeking initial expressions of interest.

  British Rail and London Buses (Restructuring)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given since 8 May to revising the Government's proposed restructuring of British Rail and London Buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are always ready to reconsider their policies where there is good reason for doing so.

  Freight (Rail Promotion)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures taken to encourage freight operators to use rail rather than road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1975, grants have been available under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 to assist companies to meet the capital cost of projects in cases where the goods would otherwise go by road and where there are readily quantifiable environmental benefits in removing lorry traffic. Some 200 schemes have been assisted at a cost of £78 million in cash terms. This has resulted in 3 million annual lorry journeys removed from the roads.

  To further encourage a switch from road to rail, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced three important new measures during the Second Reading of the Railways Bill on 2 February 1993. These are set out in the Official Report, columns 164–65. These measures cannot be implemented prior to the passing of the legislation and until Railtrack is operational as a commercial entity.

  Both the enhanced freight facilities grants scheme and the proposed track access charges grant will be monitored to ensure that payments continue to represent value for money.

  Rail Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish the headquarters of Railtrack, the Rail Franchising Authority and the rail regulator in York.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The franchising director and the rail regulator will need to maintain close and constant liaison with each other, the Department of Transport, BR, train operators and others, many of whom are also located in London. Initially, at least, their headquarters will therefore be in London.

  While it remains a division of British Rail, the location of Railtrack's headquarters is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Railways
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement setting out his policy on exemptions to be granted from the various requirements of part I of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today published a statement setting out our policy, and placed a copy in the Library. Copies are available from the Department of Transport, Room S18/22, 2 Marsham street, London SW1P 3EB.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when open access for operators of new services will come into effect, following enactment of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is intended that open access—the opportunity for new operators to run services on the rail network—will start in April 1994, the proposed vesting date for Railtrack. We have already announced that there will be restrictions placed on open access, to the extent 412
  necessary, to allow the successful transfer of British Rail's passenger services to the private sector. Guidance on the restrictions required for each franchise will be given when invitations to tender are issued. If open access operators apply for train paths in advance of invitations to tender for the franchise concerned, they will be informed then of the terms of competition which will apply.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to decide the full programme for franchising British Rail's passenger services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today published plans for the restructuring of BR's passenger network into 25 businesses which will be the basis for franchises to be offered to the private sector. Included in this are some parts of the network which will be further reviewed to decide on the grouping of services for franchising: the central region of Regional Railways and InterCity cross country and Regional Railways long-distance inter-urban services. Copies of the full list of service groupings and illustrative maps of them have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further consideration he has given to the Transport Select Committee's first and second reports on the "Future of the Railways"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I responded to the Committee's interim report by letter on 20 January. I responded to the Committee's final report on the future of the railways on Friday 21 May. I very much welcome the Select Committee's conclusion"that the Government is right to examine ways of involving the private sector in the railways as a means of increasing the total amount of investment".

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to begin discussions with private sector interests about the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is today sending a consultation document to a number of private sector interests. Views are invited on the best way of taking the project forward so as to offer the private sector a proper return on its investment and to secure value for money for the taxpayer. The Department will hold follow-up discussions where appropriate. I am placing a copy of the consultation document in the Library.

  Road Bridges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the merits of design and build of road bridges relative to conventionally commissioned structures.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No representations for publicly financed design and build road bridges schemes have been received. There is, however, an ongoing dialogue with the industry.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if an environmental impact assessment of proposals for an M1-M62 link road will be carried out under EC directive 85/337/EEC.
  413
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  If proposals for a MI-M62 link road go ahead, an environmental impact assessment will be carried out under EC directive 85/337/EEC. An environmental statement under this directive would normally be issued at the time of publication of draft orders under the Highways Act.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Ml-M62 questionnaires he has received from local residents and those involved in the link road proposals.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Almost 6,000 completed questionnaires have been received in response to public consultation on the Ml-M62 link road proposals.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the grey route proposals for the M1-M62 link road are publicly available; and what assessments have been made of this route.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Details of the grey route were released at the public consultation. It was rejected on the basis of its effect on property in Lower Hopton, higher cost and low value for money.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make publicly available all data associated with traffic studies for the proposed Ml-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All reasonable requests for traffic data in connection with the Ml-M62 link road proposals will continue to be met.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when traffic surveys carried out to determine the impact of the proposed M1-M62 link road were undertaken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Traffic surveys for the proposed M1-M62 link road were undertaken between May 1990 and June 1991.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what weighting was placed upon traffic calculations for the M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The calculations for the traffic forecasts for the proposed M1-M62 link road are derived from a complex computer model and depend upon a number of predictions. I will write to the hon. Member in relation to these and their weighting.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are under consideration to encourage and improve road safety for the(a) purple and (b) yellow route Ml-M62 link proposals.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Both the yellow and purple routes would improve road safety in the area as a whole. If one of these is selected as the preferred route and taken forward for further development, measures to encourage and improve road safety would be pursued.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the national road traffic forecasts index.
  414
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The national road traffic forecasts give forecasts of traffic by type of vehicle on all roads in Great Britain. The current forecasts were issued in 1989, based on 1988, and are provided up to 2025. The table compares the forecasts in terms of all vehicle kilometres with the outturn. The forecasts are given in a range between low and high.

  They are long-term forecasts, and are not expected to be completely accurate year on year, or over short periods.

  Indices of traffic—1988 = 100

  Year

  Forecast of all Traffic1

  Outturn Traffic1

  Low

  High

  1988

  100

  100

  1989

  104

  105

  108

  1990

  106

  109

  110

  1991

  108

  113

  110

  1992

  110

  117

  108

  1 All motor vehicles except two-wheelers.

  The 1992 statistics of outturn are provisional.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if COBA 9 cost benefit analysis systems are to be replaced.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department uses the principles of cost benefit analysis to assess the economic viability of schemes in the national road programme. The COBA program incorporates the principles of cost benefit analysis and is used to assess the majority of schemes. The techniques and parameters within the program are continually under review and occasionally changes have to be made as the results of new research become available. COBA 9, the version currently in use, is a flexible program and generally parameter changes can be made by the user following instructions issued by the Department. However, periodically it is necessary to revise the program itself and a new version, COBA 10, is currently being developed for release later this year.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), of 17 May,Official Report, column 2, in what financial year he intends to make funding available for the Robin Hood line; under what powers such assistance will be given; and what discussions he has had about extending the line to Retford.

  Mr. Freeman
  Assistance will be given either in the form of credit approvals under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or, subject to appraisal, in the form of grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968. Discussions are in progress with Nottinghamshire county council about the nature and timing of this funding, and about the case for further extending passenger services on the Robin Hood line.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage more people to use public transport; and if he will make a statement.
  415
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage the use of(a) bus and (b) rail public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  The best way of encouraging greater use of public transport is to promote increased choice for passengers and increased competition for the provision of public transport services. The Government's policies of deregulation and privatisation will help to achieve these objectives. We are also continuing to make resources available for high levels of investment by those public transport operators who remain in the public sector; the autumn statement provided for expenditure of some £2 billion a year on public transport over the next three years. We have also made increased resources available this year to enable local authorities to help local bus services through bus priority measures. I look forward to further proposals from local authorities in their transport policy and plans bids later this year. My Department also has a programme of research on city congestion charging, one of whose possible benefits would be to influence people's travel choices and improve the competitive position of public transport.

  Road Pricing Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Oslo to study road pricing schemes.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I visited Oslo and Gothenburg on 10 and 11 May to see demonstrations and working examples of road charging systems, and to talk to those involved. I was impressed that technology is now available to make electronic systems work successfully. No decisions have been taken about the introduction of charging for roads in the United Kingdom.

  I will shortly be issuing a Green Paper on charging for inter-urban roads that will seek views on the issues involved. The paper and the research will reflect the experience of other countries.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development for United Kingdom transport policy.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for supporting the commitment to achieve a reduction in motor vehicle carbon dioxide emission levels to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Transport must play its part in the national sustainable development plan and in the programme to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The Government are particularly keen to encourage more economical use of fuel by road transport. We have already taken steps to do this. In the Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a 10 per cent. increase in road fuel duties. He also announced that in future Budgets he will increase duty on all road fuels by at least 3 per cent. in real terms.

  Other measures to improve fuel efficiency include an emissions check into the MOT test which encourages people to keep their engines in tune and the introduction
  416
  of speed limiters for new heavy lorries since August 1992 and for many of the heaviest existing lorries from August 1993.

  We are encouraging the use of public transport by supporting the highest level of investment in rail for 30 years and we are working with the bus industry and local authorities on ways to make bus travel more attractive, for example, through traffic management measures to speed up journey times.

  London Ring Rail
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 862, on the London ring rail, if he will place in the Library details of his response to the proposals of S. B. Tietz and Partners.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: We were very interested to read the proposals which were sent to the Department last year. However it is for British Rail—and, in the longer term, for Railtrack—to consider whether such a project would be worth while and what priority it might deserve in their investment plans. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport sent a reply to Mr. Tietz explaining this.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the economic impact of road construction for urban regeneration.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Secretary of State includes economic revival in inner cities as one of his objectives for local authority transport investment. New roads will be able to improve access to and within certain urban areas, and ease traffic congestion making them more attractive places for people to live and work. Transport supplementary grant support for road projects in urban areas is particuarly targeted at the 57 Action for Cities locations. However, the Government recognise that there is a limit to the extent to which the construction of new roads can assist inner city areas, and looks to local authorities, where appropriate for their area, to bring forward alternative proposals for dealing with traffic congestion. Central Government support may for example be given towards measures to improve public transport infrastructure, calm traffic, and offer priority to buses.

  London Underground
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss the development of the existing underground network.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Underground regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including development of the existing underground network.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about his Departments since April 11989; and how many have been accepted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Copies of the Select Committee reports made since April 1989 which contain recommendations for HM Treasury, and copies of the responses made by the Government, are available from the House of Commons Library. The "Sessional Information Digest" lists Select Committee reports and provides reference numbers to Department responses where appropriate up to the start of the current Session. Similar information for the current Session can be found in the House of Commons "Weekly Information Bulletin".

  Economy, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment on the current state of, and prospects for, the London economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a statement to the House on the current state of, and prospects for, the national economy, in his Budget statement. It is not our practice to make local forecasts.

  Drug Detection
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money HM Customs and Excise has been allocated in each of the last five years for the specific purpose of installing computer intelligence systems to detect drug trafficking.

  Sir John Cope
  The data are not available in the form requested. Over the past five years, money has been allocated to various computer projects in customs. A number of these include intelligence systems with a specific anti-smuggling function and so make a significant contribution to the detection of drug trafficking.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of(a) the Civil and Public Services Association and (b) the National Union of Civil and Public Servants to discuss the role of customs officers in drug detection.

  Sir John Cope
  The role of customs officers in drug detection was last discussed by the Minister responsible for HM Customs and Excise and a joint representation of customs trade unions, which included representatives from the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, at a meeting on 4 March 1992. There has since been discussion by correspondence.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of drugs seized within the United Kingdom and its waters in each year from 1988 came from or via other European Community countries.

  Sir John Cope
  The percentage by weight of drugs seized is shown in the table. The decline in the overall 418
  percentage for 1992 does not indicate a drop in quantities coming from or via the EC, but reflects a rise in quantities, particularly cannabis resin and cocaine, arriving direct from other countries.

  Percentage

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  Amphetamine1

  78

  81

  95

  95

  92

  Cannabis herbal

  4

  50

  67

  7

  44

  Cannabis resin

  46

  40

  60

  62

  27

  Cocaine

  36

  65

  3

  6

  8

  Diamorphine (heroin)

  13

  24

  58

  30

  44

  Total via EC

  22

  41

  61

  65

  32

  1 Amphetamine includes MDMA (Esctasy).

  2 1992 figures are provisional.

  Animal Smuggling
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were apprehended for smuggling animals into the United Kingdom during 1992.

  Sir John Cope
  Precise figures are not available on the number of people apprehended for smuggling animals into the United Kingdom.

  There were, however, 54 seizures in 1992 of animals being smuggled into the United Kingdom. This figure does not include interceptions by customs of animals subject to rabies controls where subsequent action, as a matter of practice, has been passed to the local authorities.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect the reductions in the top rate of tax since 1979 have had on restraining the rate of increase in (i) gross earnings and (ii) in the value of perks, share options and pensions for directors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Growth rates of gross earnings, perks, share options and pensions for directors are determined by many factors, of which reductions in the top rate of income tax is only one. It would be extremely difficult to identify and measure the contribution of income tax rates.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the United Kingdom pay income tax at the higher rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 1·6 million.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the reason for his Department having had the majority shareholding in International Military Services Ltd.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Treasury has not had any shareholding in International Military Services Ltd.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue forgone by the Exchequer because of the abolition of the car tax.
  419
  Sir John Cope
  Abolition of car tax has an estimated revenue cost of £100 million in 1992–93 and £750 million in 1993–94. The loss from 1993–94 onwards has been offset by an increase in road fuel duties.

  Oil Taxation
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many proposals for oil wells in the North sea have been cancelled as a result of his Budget proposals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not have access to information which would allow us to answer this question accurately.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring has been undertaken by his Department of the impact of changes made to the system of mortgage tax relief upon low-income mortgage-holding households; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The restrictions on mortgage interest relief that we introduced in 1988 apply in the same way to borrowers at all income levels. Low-income borrowers were not affected by the abolition of relief at the higher rate from 1991.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his assessment of the results of the Budget measures designed to assist the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Budget measures designed to provide over 100,000 more opportunities for unemployed people are being implemented as quickly as possible by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. They will be closely monitored to test their effectiveness.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much the Inland Revenue paid in postal surcharges for completed tax returns which arrived in envelopes that had no, or insufficient, postage in each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimates he has for the cost of supplying a reply paid envelope with each tax return; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of supplying a reply paid envelope with each tax return would be about £2 million a year. Information is not held centrally on the cost of postal surcharges, but it is clear that this cost is relatively small.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the likely overall cost of the forthcoming British Telecom share offer including consultancy, financial and legal advice, PR, marketing and advertising, underwriting, receiving banks' costs, selling commission and fees and overseas costs of share shops.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The costs of the BT3 share offer will be reported to Parliament after the sale has been completed. Sales proceeds will be appropriated in aid of the expenses of the sale.
  420
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the sum provided for the preliminary expenses of the 1993–94 British Telecom share offer in class XVII, vote 17 of the March 1993 Supply estimates has yet been spent; and when he intends to bring further supplementary estimates before the House.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Only part of the provision for preliminary expenses of the 1993–94 BT share offer in class XVII, vote 17 of the March 1993 Supply estimates has so far been spent. I will bring further estimates before the House for this expenditure as and when necessary. Proceeds of the sale will be appropriated in aid of the expenses of the sale.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much foreign investors have contributed to the public sector borrowing requirement in 1991 and 1992; what is the forecast for 1993 and 1994; what is the annual cost of servicing this increase in overseas debt from 1991 to date; what is his forecast for the rest of 1993 and 1994; and how the increase in the payments deficit will be financed.

  Mr. Nelson
  Annual net official sales of British Government stocks to the overseas sector for 1991 and 1992 appear in table 3.5 of the March 1993 edition of "Financial Statistics". Official forecasts of the level of such sales to the overseas sector are not available.

  Statistical estimates of the interest paid to the overseas sector on holdings of British Government stocks are available on the Central Statistical Office databank, series XAMF, which is available in the Library. Official forecasts of the annual level of interest payable to the overseas sector on British Government stocks are not available.

  The current account deficit forecast for 1993 is small as a percentage of gross domestic product and is expected to be readily financeable, and the measures put in place in the Budget should help to strengthen the United Kingdom's trade position over the years ahead.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the fall in the nominal and real rates of exchange between pound sterling and the individual exchange rate mechanism currencies, the dollar and the yen between August 1973 and February 1987 and (b) the corresponding change in the terms of trade for finished manufactures in trade between the United Kingdom, EEC and non-EEC countries, respectively; and what assessment has been made of the effect on output and unemployment between 1986 and 1988.

  Mr. Nelson
  Monthly and yearly average daily exchange rates between sterling and the US dollar, the yen and those countries that were members of the ERM during the period in question can be obtained from the CSO database and can also be found in chapter 13 of the CSO's publication "Financial Satistics". Reliable figures for bilateral real exchange rates over that period are not available but real effective exchange rate indexes covering the countries in question can be found in "International Financial Statistics" published by the International Monetary Fund. Prior to 1988, indices for terms of trade are available only on a whole world basis, but these can
  421
  also be accessed from the CSO database by the Library of the House. There are a large number of influences on output and unemployment at any one time and it is impossible properly to assess the effects of exchange rate changes in isolation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses when deciding whether sterling is fully competitive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have no target for either the nominal or the real exchange rate. There are a number of ways of assessing competitiveness: for example, real exchange rates can be calculated using various price indices and there are also economic concepts such as fundamental equilibrium exchange rates and purchasing power parity exchange rates. The only way to secure competitiveness in the long term is for producers to maintain strict control over costs and to sustain a high quality of output.

  Relocation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relocate Treasury civil servants to Inverness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the estimated increase in earnings of full-time male manual workers, not affected by absence, in manufacturing industry since September 1992 relative to the increase in the real exchange since sterling fell to DM2·30.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data on the earnings of full-time male manual workers, not affected by absence, in manufacturing industry are available only on an annual basis. Monthly data on the earnings of all employees in manufacturing industries may be found in table 5.1 of the Employment Gazette.
  Series for various measures of the real exchange rate arc published in "Economic Trends" (table 28). They do not yet extend to the period requested. However, the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (paragraph 3.44) estimated that United Kingdom unit labour costs in manufacturing were unchanged in the fourth quarter of 1992 compared with a year earlier; while our competitors' unit labour costs in manufacturing rose by 3¼ per cent. Over the same period, the nominal exchange rate (ERI) fell by 12¼ per cent.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to control the spread of drug abuse in the inner cities.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government remain committed to improving all aspects of inner city life including combatting the problems of drug misuse. There is an established strategy for tackling drug misuse which aims to 422
  reduce both the supply of and demand for drugs. This involves the combined efforts of police and customs together with work on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation by statutory and voluntary agencies. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 has increased the scope for including treatment requirements in probation orders to deal with offenders with problems such as drug dependency. National anti-drugs campaigns have been run since 1985 and drugs education of all primary and secondary schools is now included in the national curriculum. Under the drugs prevention initiative, the Home Office has established local teams in 20 towns and cities in Great Britain. They are working with local communities in finding effective ways of preventing the spread of drug misuse and co-ordinating community preventive action. Some of the safer cities projects have also developed schemes to combat substance misuse. Widespread Government support and participation in European drug prevention week was also aimed at raising awareness of the benefits to be obtained from good preventative approaches.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people during the last three years, to date, have(a) been killed and (b) injured in incidents which are accepted by the appropriate police forces as racially motivated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about introducing new offences connected with racial hatred and racial attacks; and what plans he has to propose such new offences as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission for Racial Equality in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976, recommended that consideration be given to specifically crimnalising racial violence and racial harassment. All the CRE's recommendations are now under consideration.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made by his Department of the total annual cost of criminal activities of drug users in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The involvement of drug misusers in criminal activity is difficult to quantify. It has not yet been possible to produce reliable estimates of the cost of drug-related offending, although work is continuing.

  Custodial Places
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of additional custodial places which will be required if the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] is amended as outlined in his statement of 13 May.

  Mr. Jack
  It is at present not possible to make any conclusive assessment on this matter.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firemen were employed in each local authority area in England for each year since 1987.

  Firefighters employed in each local authority area in England on 1 January each year since 1987

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  Whole-Retained time

  FCDAS

  London

  6,535

  0

  6,887

  0

  6,620

  0

  6,601

  0

  6,696

  0

  6,614

  0

  6,563

  0

  Greater Manchester

  2,195

  92

  2,223

  47

  2,212

  35

  2,203

  53

  2,171

  53

  2,194

  53

  2,188

  63

  Merseyside

  1,499

  9

  1,528

  9

  1,540

  7

  1,558

  8

  1,557

  8

  1,565

  6

  1,561

  6

  Tyne and Wear

  1,084

  20

  1,073

  32

  1,072

  18

  1,084

  22

  1,085

  23

  1,068

  20

  1,077

  18

  West Midlands

  2,122

  68

  2,079

  4

  2,074

  20

  2,086

  10

  2,096

  11

  2,097

  10

  2,095

  10

  South Yorkshire

  1,088

  101

  1,093

  138

  1,068

  144

  1,068

  109

  1,067

  99

  1,041

  93

  1,030

  70

  West Yorkshire

  1,862

  245

  1,873

  288

  1,874

  191

  1,950

  240

  1,969

  223

  1,885

  210

  1,830

  198

  TOTAL

  16,385

  535

  16,756

  518

  16,460

  415

  16,550

  442

  16,641

  417

  16,464

  392

  16,344

  365

  Counties—England

  Avon

  639

  178

  650

  179

  644

  180

  636

  169

  641

  166

  650

  174

  640

  182

  Bedfordshire

  308

  129

  311

  123

  290

  125

  296

  133

  308

  123

  310

  127

  309

  126

  Berkshire

  423

  134

  420

  141

  426

  125

  426

  119

  422

  127

  433

  133

  434

  136

  Buckinghamshire

  277

  213

  278

  191

  288

  191

  316

  190

  321

  202

  301

  189

  316

  172

  Cambridgeshire

  268

  294

  268

  286

  263

  284

  270

  284

  265

  309

  266

  291

  267

  288

  Cheshire

  609

  209

  613

  199

  624

  182

  623

  182

  618

  159

  614

  141

  638

  133

  Cleveland

  632

  64

  633

  64

  652

  62

  657

  60

  649

  60

  658

  61

  641

  59

  Cornwall

  178

  392

  179

  387

  181

  384

  179

  392

  181

  396

  185

  393

  183

  379

  Cumbria

  290

  364

  295

  373

  295

  359

  293

  404

  296

  370

  294

  380

  287

  382

  Derbyshire

  511

  341

  512

  351

  509

  332

  508

  332

  516

  333

  497

  334

  492

  346

  Devon

  530

  614

  540

  638

  540

  644

  546

  655

  544

  665

  544

  672

  535

  659

  Dorset

  309

  290

  307

  282

  303

  280

  308

  285

  302

  284

  309

  303

  307

  313

  Durham

  422

  157

  415

  144

  423

  150

  419

  159

  435

  147

  432

  142

  429

  143

  Essex

  870

  380

  893

  379

  909

  367

  904

  378

  912

  382

  906

  396

  922

  403

  Gloucestershire

  225

  235

  225

  231

  233

  250

  238

  252

  227

  248

  226

  243

  232

  253

  Hampshire

  756

  541

  759

  552

  755

  552

  745

  5671

  761

  563

  777

  566

  778

  567

  Hereford and Worcester

  339

  295

  341

  296

  340

  304

  348

  293

  347

  297

  342

  308

  342

  313

  Hertfordshire

  551

  212

  551

  211

  564

  208

  555

  203

  548

  224

  568

  225

  573

  218

  Humberside

  739

  255

  732

  267

  738

  268

  751

  260

  734

  265

  744

  261

  724

  257

  Kent

  825

  676

  842

  670

  868

  643

  887

  656

  891

  692

  897

  695

  908

  682

  Lancashire

  935

  388

  952

  376

  964

  379

  957

  365

  963

  379

  967

  380

  974

  374

  Leicestershire

  455

  189

  456

  172

  454

  178

  464

  179

  463

  183

  466

  192

  452

  196

  Lincolnshire

  184

  409

  190

  438

  186

  422

  193

  410

  188

  428

  190

  443

  190

  441

  Norfolk

  287

  458

  283

  460

  280

  459

  278

  463

  274

  446

  280

  442

  288

  448

  Northants

  274

  210

  288

  226

  292

  225

  289

  222

  299

  223

  293

  221

  292

  215

  Northumberland

  251

  142

  253

  142

  256

  139

  259

  148

  263

  150

  258

  143

  238

  149

  Nottinghamshire

  613

  275

  615

  270

  621

  254

  622

  258

  614

  254

  610

  270

  613

  266

  Oxfordshire

  223

  256

  222

  255

  224

  248

  226

  250

  238

  227

  225

  230

  229

  229

  Shropshire

  208

  216

  207

  216

  209

  217

  199

  214

  205

  222

  206

  215

  203

  236

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  30

  I

  29

  1

  29

  0

  29

  0

  31

  0

  31

  0

  29

  Somerset

  161

  364

  161

  352

  163

  350

  165

  359

  168

  360

  167

  367

  172

  369

  Staffordshire

  460

  311

  469

  322

  456

  317

  475

  318

  485

  336

  485

  336

  492

  296

  Suffolk

  247

  385

  250

  387

  247

  384

  254

  378

  251

  370

  258

  373

  262

  391

  Surrey

  677

  112

  681

  116

  674

  109

  707

  103

  697

  94

  697

  106

  691

  114

  East Sussex

  437

  212

  438

  224

  441

  220

  429

  228

  433

  235

  429

  230

  436

  245

  West Sussex

  366

  280

  368

  277

  367

  280

  368

  293

  371

  284

  376

  294

  395

  302

  Warwickshire

  325

  209

  320

  211

  314

  207

  319

  199

  325

  179

  318

  158

  321

  168

  Isle of Wight

  48

  149

  49

  148

  46

  148

  49

  159

  49

  162

  48

  163

  48

  151

  Wiltshire

  183

  267

  188

  268

  192

  265

  200

  257

  205

  274

  209

  288

  206

  290

  North Yorkshire

  385

  422

  397

  418

  398

  427

  401

  429

  403

  425

  405

  390

  405

  414

  TOTAL

  16,420

  11,257

  16,552

  11,271

  16,630

  11,147

  16,759

  11,238

  16,812

  11,274

  16,840

  11,306

  16,864

  11,334

  GRAND TOTAL

  32,805

  11,792

  33,308

  11,789

  33,090

  11,562

  33,309

  11,680

  33,453

  11,691

  33,304

  11,698

  33,208

  11,699

  Notes:

  1. Fire and Civil Defence Authority (FCDAS) figures for 1987 as at 30 September 1986.

  2. Retained figures are expressed in units of wholetime cover.
  424
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of firefighters—men and women—employed in the area of each fire authority since 1987 is given in the table.

  Dri nk-driving
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted for(a) driving under the influence of drugs or (b) drunk driving in each police authority area for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  Numbers of convictions for driving after consuming alcohol or taking drugs are published in `Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables', table 16. Copies of this publication for the years in question are in the Library.

  The two offences are not separately identifiable from each other in the statistics collected centrally.

  Obscene Publications
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of prosecutions in England and Wales under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amended by the Obscene Publications Act 1964, rose from 174 in 1990 to 364 in 1991, an increase of 109 per cent. 1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Suspended Sentences
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from judges and the magistracy about the restrictions on the powers to impose a suspended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received numerous representations from judges and magistrates about various provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, but we cannot recall receiving any specific representations about the restrictions introduced by the Act on the imposition of suspended sentences.

  Asylum Seekers (Angola)
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to review his Department's position on applications for asylum and extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom by applicants from Angola.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All applications for asylum, regardless of nationality, are carefully considered in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Each case is assessed on its merits taking account of all the circumstances of the particular case, including conditions in the country of origin. We are keeping a close watch on developments in Angola.

  Police (Presentation of Evidence)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the procedure by which the police have to present evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service and also their evidence to the courts in order to increase the effectiveness of criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.
  426
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced a three-month study by consultants to see what can be done to reduce the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy on the police. That study will include a systematic analysis of the procedures by which the police present evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons convicted young offenders with homes in the north of England have been held in Feltham young offenders institution over the last six months; and how many individuals have been involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 21 May 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about why convicted young offenders with homes in the North of England have been held in Feltham Young Offender Institution over the last six months; and how many individuals have been involved.

  There has been a rapid increase in the number of young offenders being sentenced by the courts to custodial sentences. The bulk of this increase has occurred mainly in the North and Midlands, and whilst we have tried to find places in establishments near to home, it has been necessary to utilise accommodation in the South. This has involved 25 young juveniles, most of whom have now returned to their home area. The two remaining are content to stay at Feltham and take advantage of the wide range of regime activities that are available.

  Prison Department (Market Testing)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of the market-testing exercise at the supply and transport division of the Prison Department, how many staff have so far accepted the redundancy terms which were imposed last October; how much the redundancy has cost; and what has been the cost of recruiting replacements so far.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 20 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the market testing exercise at the Supply and Transport Branch of the Prison Service.

  In September 1992, 106 staff at Branston and 34 staff at Leeds were issued with redundancy notices. Eighty-nine staff have accepted the redundancy terms offered and the total redundancy payments to be made to those staff is currently estimated at £687,000.

  Recruitment of new staff for the Branston warehouse is being undertaken by local Supply and Transport management as part of their normal function. There were minimal administrative costs for advertising in the local press, postage, etc., which are estimated not to exceed £100.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any non-governmental consultants currently assisting with Home Office market-testing exercises will in future be allowed to tender for any Home Office businesses.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Restrictions will be placed on consultants bidding for the service provision of a particular market test where they have undertaken work, connected with that particular business, either for the in-house bid team or the market testing unit.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Passport Agency framework document will next be reviewed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is planned to complete a review of the United Kingdom Passport Agency's Framework Document between April and October 1994.

  Police Mergers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table or tables showing the list of those police forces regarding which a representation has been received urging that it be merged with another force(a) since he took office as Home Secretary and (b) in each of the previous 10 years; and how many representations in each case were made by (i) the police authority, (ii) the chief constable, (iii) serving police officers, (iv) local authorities, (v) magistrates, (vi) members of the public and (vii) other organisations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 May, at column 343.

  Juveniles (Custody)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has of an increase in the number of juveniles aged 15 to 17 years who have been committed to custody, other than under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, over the last year; and whether any regional trends are apparent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 19 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of juveniles aged 15 to 17 years of age who had been committed to custody.

  Table A

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the indictable offence of theft of a motor vehicle' by police force area and age group 1991

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  18

  51

  45

  114

  100

  Bedfordshire

  94

  67

  23

  16

  141

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  36

  23

  66

  42

  156

  100

  Cheshire

  8

  10

  32

  41

  79

  100

  428
  I attach a table showing the sentenced prison population aged 15–17 on 31 March 1993, together with corresponding figures for 31 March 1992. These indicate a slight decline in numbers. Separate figures are shown for the three Prison Service directorates. The Directorate of Inmate Administration (DIA) covers Wales and South West and Central England, the Directorate of Custody (DOC) covers London, South East England and East Anglia and the Directorate of Inmate Programmes (DIP) covers the East Midlands and Northern England. The establishment to which a prisoner is allocated depends on the availability of accommodation and so prisoners with homes in one directorate may be allocated to establishments in another directorate.

  Population aged 15 to 17 under sentence1 in prison service establishments in England and Wales: 31 March 1992 and 31 March 1993

  Directorate

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1993

  DIP

  218

  254

  DOC

  116

  146

  DIA

  368

  292

  Total

  702

  692

  1 Excludes those committed under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy that any new regime for setting the level of fines shall ensure that there is an objective relationship between the level of the fine, the nature of the offence and the wealth or poverty of the offender.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 13 May, at column 939, his intention that the new provisions which replace the statutory unit fine scheme should still require magistrates who have decided that the appropriate penalty for a particular offence or offences should be a fine fully to consider an offender's means before settling the level of that financial penalty.

  Auto Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each police authority in 1991 the number of known offenders found guilty or cautioned for offences of(a) theft or (b) unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle; and what proportion of the total number of known offenders in those categories were (i) juveniles and (ii) young adults;

  (2) if he will list for each police authority in 1991 the number of known offenders for offences of theft from a vehicle; and what percentage of those offenders were (a) juveniles and (b) young adults.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the tables.
  429

  16-Oct

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Cleveland

  37

  35

  39

  37

  105

  100

  Cumbria

  10

  22

  15

  33

  45

  100

  Derbyshire

  42

  33

  52

  40

  129

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  39

  20

  69

  36

  192

  100

  Dorset

  23

  31

  24

  32

  74

  100

  Durham

  31

  30

  33

  32

  103

  100

  Essex

  98

  34

  103

  35

  291

  100

  Gloucester

  7

  18

  10

  26

  38

  100

  Greater Manchester

  112

  33

  82

  24

  335

  100

  Hampshire

  56

  29

  45

  24

  190

  100

  Hertfordshire

  52

  36

  63

  43

  145

  100

  Humberside

  76

  46

  39

  23

  167

  100

  Kent

  147

  38

  126

  33

  384

  100

  Lancashire

  20

  18

  36

  32

  111

  100

  Leicestershire

  34

  26

  53

  41

  129

  100

  Lincolnshire

  11

  27

  17

  41

  41

  100

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  100

  Merseyside

  13

  16

  24

  30

  79

  100

  Metropolitan police

  31

  10

  115

  37

  310

  100

  Norfolk

  16

  20

  28

  35

  81

  100

  Northamptonshire

  7

  9

  33

  42

  78

  100

  Northumbria

  56

  34

  47

  28

  165

  100

  North Yorkshire

  20

  37

  14

  26

  54

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  62

  30

  69

  33

  208

  100

  South Yorkshire

  136

  45

  78

  26

  302

  100

  Staffordshire

  9

  11

  32

  41

  79

  100

  Suffolk

  34

  37

  25

  27

  92

  100

  Surrey

  33

  38

  31

  36

  86

  100

  Sussex

  35

  32

  42

  39

  109

  100

  Thames Valley

  61

  30

  67

  33

  204

  100

  Warwickshire

  32

  52

  21

  34

  61

  100

  West Mercia

  19

  22

  32

  37

  86

  100

  West Midlands

  198

  48

  99

  24

  416

  100

  West Yorkshire

  124

  32

  130

  34

  383

  100

  Wiltshire

  3

  7

  21

  48

  44

  100

  Dyfed Powys

  5

  17

  11

  37

  30

  100

  Gwent

  21

  33

  22

  34

  64

  100

  North Wales

  23

  35

  27

  42

  65

  100

  South Wales

  46

  25

  68

  37

  184

  100

  England

  1,842

  32

  1,886

  32

  5,808

  100

  Wales

  95

  28

  128

  37

  343

  100

  England and Wales

  1,937

  31

  2,014

  33

  6,151

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 1.

  Table B

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the summary offence of stealing and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle1 by police force area and age group 1991

  Police force area

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  112

  19

  338

  57

  595

  100

  Bedfordshire

  89

  31

  130

  45

  289

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  38

  25

  73

  48

  153

  100

  Cheshire

  259

  44

  213

  36

  587

  100

  Cleveland

  192

  42

  207

  45

  461

  100

  Cumbria

  112

  42

  99

  37

  266

  100

  Derbyshire

  122

  36

  137

  40

  342

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  135

  30

  188

  42

  452

  100

  Dorset

  60

  31

  79

  40

  196

  100

  Durham

  86

  31

  137

  49

  281

  100

  Essex

  144

  28

  238

  47

  511

  100

  Gloucester

  58

  37

  66

  42

  158

  100

  Greater Manchester

  1,038

  42

  998

  40

  2,499

  100

  Hampshire

  219

  35

  262

  42

  621

  100

  Hertfordshire

  103

  36

  132

  46

  286

  100

  Humberside

  195

  46

  163

  38

  428

  100

  Kent

  102

  32

  156

  49

  319

  100

  Lancashire

  249

  32

  346

  45

  769

  100

  Leicestershire

  213

  34

  301

  49

  619

  100

  Lincolnshire

  65

  28

  113

  49

  231

  100

  City of London

  —

  —

  6

  38

  16

  100

  Merseyside

  347

  37

  399

  42

  940

  100

  Metropolitan Police

  1,116

  37

  1,203

  39

  3,053

  100

  Norfolk

  111

  36

  134

  44

  305

  100

  Northamptonshire

  34

  17

  116

  57

  204

  100

  430 431

  Police force area

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Northumbria

  433

  41

  462

  43

  1,064

  100

  North Yorkshire

  66

  29

  108

  48

  224

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  339

  40

  375

  44

  852

  100

  South Yorkshire

  334

  42

  307

  39

  793

  100

  Staffordshire

  176

  34

  229

  45

  513

  100

  Suffolk

  64

  32

  91

  45

  200

  100

  Surrey

  55

  27

  107

  52

  205

  100

  Sussex

  98

  22

  214

  48

  444

  100

  Thames Valley

  377

  40

  415

  44

  951

  100

  Warwickshire

  63

  33

  96

  50

  191

  100

  West Mercia

  206

  42

  194

  40

  491

  100

  West Midlands

  864

  40

  911

  43

  2,139

  100

  West Yorkshire

  742

  39

  789

  42

  1,895

  100

  Wiltshire

  76

  39

  79

  40

  196

  100

  Dyfed Powys

  53

  34

  63

  40

  156

  100

  Gwent

  116

  51

  78

  34

  229

  100

  North Wales

  93

  36

  108

  42

  259

  100

  South Wales

  502

  44

  482

  42

  1,141

  100

  England

  9,092

  37

  10,611

  43

  24,739

  100

  Wales

  764

  43

  731

  41

  1,785

  100

  England and Wales

  9,856

  37

  11,342

  43

  26,524

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 12(1) as amended by CJA 1988 Section 37; being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven away; unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle.

  Table C

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the indictable offence of theft from a vehicle1 by police force area and age group 1991

  Police force area

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  26

  10

  163

  63

  259

  100

  Bedfordshire

  77

  48

  53

  33

  159

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  42

  21

  100

  51

  196

  100

  Cheshire

  47

  18

  137

  51

  267

  100

  Cleveland

  122

  40

  127

  42

  305

  100

  Cumbria

  63

  55

  42

  37

  114

  100

  Derbyshire

  66

  21

  159

  50

  317

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  21

  72

  51

  141

  100

  Dorset

  35

  24

  62

  42

  148

  100

  Durham

  52

  27

  92

  48

  190

  100

  Essex

  118

  23

  258

  50

  513

  100

  Gloucester

  44

  25

  85

  49

  175

  100

  Greater Manchester

  370

  41

  351

  39

  895

  100

  Hampshire

  141

  28

  230

  46

  505

  100

  Hertfordshire

  52

  18

  184

  63

  291

  100

  Humberside

  110

  26

  217

  52

  420

  100

  Kent

  94

  22

  216

  50

  434

  100

  Lancashire

  101

  34

  138

  47

  293

  100

  Leicestershire

  122

  27

  228

  50

  457

  100

  Lincolnshire

  22

  12

  95

  53

  180

  100

  City of London

  5

  17

  7

  24

  29

  100

  Merseyside

  179

  58

  88

  29

  308

  100

  Metropolitan police

  479

  33

  557

  38

  1,459

  100

  Norfolk

  50

  32

  74

  47

  158

  100

  Northamptonshire

  14

  17

  41

  51

  80

  100

  Northumbria

  214

  38

  225

  39

  570

  100

  North Yorkshire

  46

  28

  77

  46

  167

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  154

  30

  213

  42

  507

  100

  South Yorkshire

  144

  27

  240

  46

  524

  100

  Staffordshire

  75

  48

  57

  36

  157

  100

  Suffolk

  34

  28

  53

  43

  122

  100

  Surrey

  12

  12

  58

  59

  98

  100

  Sussex

  64

  19

  174

  52

  336

  100

  Thames Valley

  158

  37

  193

  46

  423

  100

  Warwickshire

  61

  37

  74

  44

  167

  100

  West Mercia

  60

  34

  79

  45

  177

  100

  West Midlands

  529

  50

  348

  33

  1,050

  100

  West Yorkshire

  337

  35

  414

  44

  950

  100

  Wiltshire

  36

  24

  74

  50

  148

  100

  Dyfed Powys

  35

  50

  26

  37

  70

  100

  Gwent

  58

  38

  68

  44

  154

  100

  North Wales

  39

  20

  100

  51

  195

  100

  South Wales

  164

  44

  135

  36

  373

  100

  England

  4,384

  32

  6,055

  44

  13,689

  100

  432 433

  Police force area

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Wales

  296

  37

  329

  42

  792

  100

  England and Wales

  4,680

  32

  6,384

  44

  14,481

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 1.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the effect of raising the upper disposable weekly income limit used in the unit fine system from the £25 employed in the four pilot schemes to the £100 used in the scheme brought into effect by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Within the maximum fine levels then permitted by law, the upper unit values in the four pilot unit fines schemes were determined individually by the courts involved. When Parliament was invited to approve increases in the maximum levels of fines that might be imposed by a magistrates court, at the same time as it was asked to approve a statutory unit fine scheme, it was understood that the effects would be likely to include an increase in the amounts of fines imposed on offenders with comparatively high incomes and a decrease in the amounts imposed on the less well off and that courts would be likely, in the case of the more serious offences with which they had to deal, to use their maximum sentencing powers.

  Juveniles (Supervision Orders)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many supervision orders with residence requirements have been imposed upon juveniles by courts in England and Wales over the last period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The Children Act 1989 introduced powers which enable the courts to include a requirement in a supervision order that a child or young person shall live for a specified period in local authority accommodation. Information about the numbers subject to the requirement will not be available until the autumn of 1993.

  Deportations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals, after being detained under the Immigration Act 1971, were subsequently deported in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process is given in table 15 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1992", a copy of which is in the Library. Precise information on the number of such persons who had been detained under the Immigration Act 1971 immediately prior to deportation is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been removed or deported as illegal entrants on the basis of false declarations about accommodation in each year since 1990.

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

  Immigration Detentions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many individuals have been held in detention under the Immigration Act 1971 in each year since 1990; and how many were attempting to enter the United Kingdom as students, visitors and asylum seekers;

  (2) how many individuals were held in detention (a) on arrival in the United Kingdom and (b) after arrival in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table; the statistics do not identify the basis on which the person sought entry to the United Kingdom.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Passengers detained overnight or longer on arrival

  9,007

  8,016

  6,918

  Persons detained overnight or longer after entry1

  3,607

  4,578

  4,666

  1People dealt with under deportation powers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals seeking asylum were(a) held in detention centres and (b) detained in prison or police stations in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Asylum seekers are not identified separately in the statistics on total persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971. The only readily available information is of the number of asylum seekers who had been detained for more than a month at the points of time given in the table.

  Asylum applicants1 detained for more than one month at certain points of time, by place of detention.

  26 April 1991

  3 April 1992

  19 May 1993

  Harmondsworth

  33

  42

  66

  Haslar

  36

  37

  81

  Her Majesty's Prisons2

  51

  48

  137

  Total

  120

  127

  284

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work. For the latter, the figures exclude persons whose asylum application was refused and who remained in detention pending removal.

  2 No such cases were held in police stations.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to increase the number of detention centres for those held under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Work started in March on the redevelopment of a vacant Prison Service establishment at Campsfield house, Kidlington, near Oxford, to provide up to 200 additional places for immigration detainees.
  435
  Further possible options, including the creation of additional facilities close to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, are under consideration, but no final decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs in each year since 1990 of running detention centres for those held under the Immigration Act 1971; and what are the projected costs for 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Immigration detention centres are managed under contract, and the costs involved are not disclosed on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, columns 216–17, if he will publish the standing instructions issued on the practice of issuing travel documents to those in the United Kingdom on exceptional leave to remain on asylum grounds in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The answer that I gave on 28 April,Official Report, columns 445–46, explained that applications for Home Office travel documents from those granted exceptional leave are considered on their individual merits. It has been our long-standing practice not to publish internal staff instructions.

  Ex-Detainees (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-detainees from the former Yugoslavia have arrived in the United Kingdom since November 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A total of 235 ex-detainees and 374 dependants from the former Yugoslavia have so far arrived under the arrangements I announced on 30 November 1992.

  Racially Motivated Crime
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces in the United Kingdom about the criteria in defining crime as being racially motivated; and what representations he has received concerning such definition and the recording by the police of racially motivated crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All police forces in England and Wales use the definition of racial incidents set out in the 1991 report of the interdepartmental racial attacks group. The definition is as follows:Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an clement of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation by any person.

  All forces systematically monitor reported racial incidents and HM inspectorate of constabulary collects statistics centrally.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any representations about the above definition or about the police recording of racially motivated crime.

  Adolescent Psychiatric Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the establishment of a national forensic adolescent psychiatric service.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Services for mentally disordered adolescents are currently provided by a number of agencies including the national health service, social services, the youth treatment service and the independent sector. The recent Department of Health/Home Office review of services for mentally disordered offenders—Cm 2088—included those relating to children and adolescents.

HEALTH

  Child Mortality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the top 20 causes of death for children aged under 18 years in each year since 1979 and the number of deaths in those years from those 20 causes by sex.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information by "International Classification of Diseases" (9th edition) chapter heading, by sex and for the age-group one to 19 years (inclusive) is, however, readily available and will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the top 20 causes of death in children aged nought to one and one to 16 years for each of the last five years;

  (2) what were the 20 commonest causes of death for children aged under one year and the numbers of death by sex for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information by "International Classification of Diseases" (9th edition) chapter heading, by sex and for the age-groups nought to one year (28 days to 11 months inclusive) and one to 14 years (inclusive) is, however, readily available and will be placed in the Library.

  Gluten-free Foods
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the reimbursable status of gluten-free foods and low protein products; how many patients suffering from coeliac disease and metabolic disorders currently benefit from the present arrangements; what is the annual cost; when she expects the committee on borderline substances to report on the future status of currently available products; and if she will hold discussions with the manufacturers of these products and representatives of sufferers.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to change the reimbursable status of gluten-free foods and low protein products. The independent Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances will, however, be reviewing products in these categories later in the year. Its remit is to ensure that such products which have therapeutic use in the treatment of disease in the community can be provided as economically as possible under the national health
  437
  service. Patients' needs will be taken into account and they will continue to receive products which are necessary to treat their condition under the NHS. We expect the committee to complete this task early next year and manufacturers who may be affected will be given the opportunity to present information to the committee before their products are reviewed. A total of 998,100 prescriptions for foods for special diets were dispensed by community pharmacists, dispensing doctors and for personal administration, in England in 1992 at a total cost of £ 14·9 million. Details on the number of patients are not available.

  Birth Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many miscarriages, stillbirths and children born alive were recorded in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of live births and stillbirths which occurred in England and Wales from 1988 to 1992 are shown in the table. The total number of miscarriages is not known.

  Live and Stillbirths England and Wales 1988–1992

  Live births

  Stillbirths

  1988

  693,577

  3,382

  1989

  687,725

  3,236

  1990

  706,140

  3,256

  1991

  699,217

  3,254

  1992

  689,656

  13,160

  1 The figures given for 1992 include 216 stillbirths of 24 to 27 weeks gestation which occurred between 1 October and 31 December. On 1 October 1992 the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered from a baby born dead after 28 completed weeks gestation or more, to one born dead after 24 completed weeks gestation or more.

  Cancer (Specialty Review)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to undertake consultations before deciding whether to implement any recommendations of the specialty review on cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The standard consultation procedures will be followed for any change of use of hospital premises arising from the acceptance of options presented by the review.

  Medicines Bodies (Membership)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and positions of the current membership of(a) the Committee on the Review of Medicines, (b) the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, (c) the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, (d) the Medicines Control Agency and (e) the Medicines Commission.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  MEDICINES COMMISSION (MC)

  Professor Dame Rosalinde Hurley, DBE LLB MD DUniv(Surrey) FRCPath FFPM(Hon) FRCOG (Chairman)

  Professor of Microbiology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School's Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of London

  Professor I. D. Aitken, PhD BVMS MRCVS

  Director of Animal Diseases Research Association, Moredun Research Institute, Edinburgh

  438

  M. J. S. Butler Esq, BSc(Econ)

  Lecturer in Politics and Public Administration, University of Kent. Former Chairman of Association of CHC's for England and Wales

  Dr. M. G. Carter, MB ChB BPharm DipPharmMed FRPharmS MCPP FFPM

  Director, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals

  Professor J. G. Collee, CBE MD FRCPath FRCP(E)

  Emeritus Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Edinburgh

  Professor P. F. D'Arcy, OBE DSc BPharm PhD FRPharmS CChem FRSC FPSNI

  Professor of Pharmacy, Queen's University, Belfast

  Professor A. D. Dayan, MD FRCP FRCPath FIBiol FFPM

  Professor of Toxicology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  Dr. Sheila Gore MA PhDP

  Senior Statistician, Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge

  Miss Joan Greenleaf, OBE BA FRPharmS

  Former Regional Pharmaceutical Officer, North East Thames RHA

  B. D. Hoskin Esq, BVMS MRCVS

  Consultant to Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry

  Professor C. N. Hudson, MChir FRCS FRCOG FRACOG

  Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  Professor T. M. Jones, BPharm PhD FRPharmS CChem FRSC MCPP

  Director, Research, Development and Medical, Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Professor D. G. McDevitt, MD DSc FRCP FRCPEd FRCPI FFPM

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Dundee

  Professor P. Reilly, MD Belf. MB BCh BAO FRCGP

  Professor of General Practice, Queen's University of Belfast

  Dr. A. G. Renwick, BSc PhD DSc

  Reader in Clinical Pharmacology, University of Southampton

  Professor John Rhodes, MD FRCP BSc ChB

  General Physcian, University Hospital of Wales

  Professor P. S. J. Spencer, BPharm PhD(London) DSc(Wales) CBioI FIBiol MCPP FRPharmS

  Professor of Pharmacology and Head of School, Welsh School of Pharmacy, University of Wales, Cardiff

  Gordon Tuck Esq, LLB

  Barrister, Legal Director for Europe and Africa, Miles Ltd.

  Professor D. W. Vere, MD FRCP FFPM(Hon)

  Professor of Therapeutics, University of London

  Dr. D. R. Williams, BSc PhD CChem FRSC

  Chief Chemist and Company Quality Manager, BOCM Silcock Central Laboratory

  H. Cowan Wilson Esq, BVMS FRCVS

  General Veterinary Practitioner, Fife

  COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF MEDICINES (CSM)

  Professor M. D. Rawlins, BSc MD FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed) FFPM: Chairman

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Newcastle University

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge, MD MSc FRCP FRCPE FRSE

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Liverpool University

  Dr. Kate L. Costeloe, MA MB BChir FRCP

  Senior Lecturer in Child Health and Consultant Paediatrician, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  Dr Janet H. Darbyshire, MSc (Epidemiol) MBChB FRCP

  Head of the MRC's HIV Clinical Trials Centre, Brompton Hospital, Hon. Consultant in Thoracic Medicine and Hon. Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, Brompton Hospital

  Professor D. S. Davies, BSc PhD CChem FRSC

  Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London

  Professor Anne Ferguson, PhD FRCP FRCPath FRSE

  Professor of Gastroenterology, and Head of Department of

  439

  Medicine, Edinburgh University

  Professor A. T. Florence, DSc FRSC FRSE FRPharmS

  Dean of the School of Pharmacy, London University

  Professor A. M. Geddes, MB ChB(Ed) FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed)

  Head of Department of Infection, Birmingham University and Consultant Physician, East Birmingham Hospital

  Professor E. C. Gordon-Smith. FRCP FRCPath

  Professor of Haematology, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London

  Professor K. Gull, BSc PhD

  Professor and Head of Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Manchester University

  Professor H. S. Jacobs, BA MD FRCP

  Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London

  Dr. W. A. Jerrett, MB BCh FRCGP

  General Practitioner, Glamorgan

  Dr. B. J. Kirby, MB ChB FRCP

  Consultant Physician, Postgraduate Medical School, Exeter University

  Miss Gillian C. L. Lachelin MA MD FRCOG

  Reader and Hon. Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London

  Professor M. J. S. Langman BSc MD FRCP

  Professor of Medicine and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Birmingham University

  Professor D. H. Lawson MD FRCP(Ed) FRCP(Glas)

  Consultant Physician, Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Visiting Professor Strathclyde University

  Dr. A. V. P. MacKay MA BSc(Pharm) MB ChB PhD(Cantah) FRCPsych FRCP(Edin)

  Physician Superintendent and McIntosh Lecturer in Psychological Medicine, Glasgow University

  Professor J. M. Midgley BSc MSc PhD CChem FRSC FRPharmS

  Professor of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Strathclyde University

  Professor B. K. Park BSc PhD

  Professor of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Liverpool University

  Professor J. C. Petrie MB ChB FRCP(Ed) FRCP FFPM

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Aberdeen University

  Professor Alain Li Wan Po BPharm BA PhD FRSC MRPharmS MPS(N.I.)

  Director of School of Pharmacy, and Professor of Pharmaceutics, Queen's University, Belfast

  Professor Anne E. Tattersfield, MD, FRCP

  Professor of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University

  British Pharmocopeia Commission (BPC)

  Professor D. Ganderton, BPharm, PhD, FRPharmS (Chairman)

  Visiting Professor of Pharmaceutics, University of London

  Professor P. Turner, CBE, MD, BSc, FRCP, FFPM, Hon.MRPharmS, FiBiol

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of London

  Mr. W. G. Allen, MRCVS

  a Veterinary Surgeon

  Professor A. O. Betts, BSc, MA, PhD, MRCVS

  Professor Emeritus, University of London; formerly Principal of The Royal Veterinary College, University of London

  Dr. D. H. Calam, MA, DPhil, Hon. MRPharmS, CChem, FRSC

  Head of Chemistry Division, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control

  Mr. A. C. Caws, BSc CChem, MRSC

  Formerly a Senior Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry

  Professor A. F. Fell, BPharm, PhD, FRPharmS, CChem, FRSC, FIQA

  Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Bradford

  Professor J. A. Goldsmith, BSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC, FIQA

  Formerly a Director of Technical Operations in the

  440

  Pharmaceutical Industry; Visiting Professor, University of Strathclyde

  Dr. E. Griffiths, BSc, PhD, DSc, CChem, FRSC

  A member of the Division of Bacteriology, National Institute of Biological Standards and Control

  Professor J. M. Midgley, BSC, MSc, PhD, FRPharmS, CChem, FRSC

  Professor of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, University of Strathclyde

  Professor G. F. Phillips, OBE, MSc, Hon. MRPharmS, CChem, FRSC

  Formerly Superintendent, Environmental and Forensic Services, Laboratory of the Government Chemist; Visiting Professor of Analytical Chemistry, Glasgow Polytechnic

  Professor L. E. Ramsay, MB ChB, FRCP

  Consultant Physician, Royal Hallamshire Hospital; Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Sheffield

  Dr. N. Randall, PhD, CChem, FRSC, FIQA

  A Director of Quality Assurance in the Pharmaceutical Industry

  Dr. G. D. Rees, BPharm, PhD, MRPharmS, CChem, FRSC, FIQA

  A Manager of Quality Assurance in the Pharmaceutical Industry

  Dr. B. A. Wills, BPharm, PhD, FRPharmS, CChem, FRSC

  Formerly Chief Pharmacist, Department of Health

  Dr. H. E. C. Worthington, BPharm, PhD, FRPharmS, Diploma of the Plastics Institute

  A Head of Pharmacy, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry

  The Committee on the Review of Medicines (CRM) was disestablished on 31 March 1992, following the completion of its review of the safety, quality and efficacy of substances or articles in respect of which product licences of right were granted, in accordance with section 25 of the Medicines Act 1968. The membership of the CRM was published in its last annual report for 1991. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is an executive agency of the Department of Health. Dr. K. H. Jones, its chief executive and director, is responsible and accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the day to day management of the licensing of medicines for human use and its associated activities—the responsibility of Ministers (`the UK Licensing Authority')—under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 and associated European directives.

  In accordance with statutory requirements, the annual reports for the MC, CSM, BPC and MCA are presented to Parliament each year.

  Referrals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra-contractual referrals were made and how many were refused in each regional health authority between April 1992 and September 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to announce the chairman and terms of reference of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee.
  441
  Mr. Sackville
  Professor Dame June Lloyd has today been appointed as chairman of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). The terms of reference for the committee are as follows:To consider and advise on the acceptability of proposals for gene therapy research on human subjects, on ethical grounds, taking account of the scientific merits of the proposals and the potential benefits and risks.
  To work with other agencies which have responsibilities in this field, including local research ethics committees, and agencies with statutory responsibilities—the Medicines Control Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of the Environment.
  To provide advice to United Kingdom Health Ministers on developments in gene therapy research and their implications.
  The membership of GTAC will be announced later.

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to issuing model practice guidance on unreported abuse of elderly people for social services departments to issue to their staffs. and what scope she sees for social services departments to offer training on such abuse to all staff involved in direct work with elderly people.

  Mr. Yeo
  The social services inspectorate has drawn up practice guidelines which will be published this summer.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake a review of legislation on protecting elderly people's property, social workers' powers to intervene in cases of abuse and registration of private domiciliary care; and what action her Department has taken to raise awareness of the extent of unreported abuse of elderly people.

  Mr. Yeo
  Proposals from the Law Commission "Mentally Incapacitated and Other Vulnerable Adults: Public Law Protection" (Consultation Paper No. 130), which are relevant to areas of concern about elder abuse, have recently been published, and the Department will be responding to the Commission. We have no plans to introduce compulsory registration of domiciliary care agencies.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet the editor of "Community Care" to discuss the prevention of unreported abuse of elderly people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No, but officials from the social services inspectorate are available to contribute to the "Community Care" magazine's current articles on this subject.

  Mr. Graham Pink
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to reimburse Stockport health authority for the costs of pursuing the industrial tribunal claim for unfair dismissal by Mr. Graham Pink.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Any liability for costs rests with the employing authority.

  Suicides
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women committed suicide in each of the last three years for which figures are available; in each case, how many of those suicide victims were homeless; and how many were known to be sufferers from either schizophrenia or another mental illness.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of(a) men and (b) women who have been recorded as having committed suicide, in each year from 1990 to 1992 are shown in the table. The number of those who have been recorded as having committed suicide and were homeless could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number who have been recorded as having committed suicide and as being schizophrenic or suffering from another mental illness is not available centrally.

  The numbers of (a) men and (b) women who have been recorded as (i) having committed suicide and (ii) having died from an injury where it was undetermined whether that injury was accidentally or purposely inflicted, in 1990–92, England and Wales.

  Cause of death

  Sex

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury

  M

  2,994

  3,007

  3,049

  (E950–959)

  F

  956

  886

  903

  Undetermined injury

  M

  1,338

  1,355

  1,310

  (E980–E989

  F

  658

  699

  680

  Homelessness
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical provision is specifically made available to homeless adults with children in(a) London, (b) Manchester and (c) Liverpool; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  General medical and hospital services are available to homeless people on the same basis as to the rest of the population.

  Where the needs of homeless people for general medical services cannot be fully met under the normal arrangements, the Department is funding 30 projects designed to improve their access to primary health care. There are eight projects in the Greater London area and two in the Liverpool area.

  The projects aim to improve access to medical services for homeless people, including adults with children. One scheme in Liverpool provides general medical and other health care services to a women's refuge and a child support refuge.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many women aged 50 years and over each year(a) have breast cancer diagnosed, (b) die from breast cancer and (c) receive treatment and survive;

  (2) how many women aged under 50 years each year (a) have breast cancer diagnosed, (b) die from breast cancer, and (c) are treated and survive.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given for the number of deaths for the years 1983–1992 and registrations for the years 1983–1987.
  443
  The figures for five-years survival rates are published only by 10-year age groups from 1981 registrations, as shown in the table.

  Number of deaths for female breast cancer (ICD 174) for England and Wales, 1983–1992

  Age group

  Year

  0–50

  50+

  1983

  1,523

  11,149

  1984

  1,583

  11,727

  1985

  1,534

  11,979

  1986

  1,622

  12,019

  1987

  1,590

  12,161

  1988

  1,678

  12,045

  1989

  1,694

  12,314

  1990

  1,596

  12,038

  1991

  1,555

  12,231

  1992

  1,628

  12,035

  Number of registrations for female breast cancer (ICD 174), for England and Wales, 1983–1987

  Age group

  Year

  0–50

  50+

  1983

  4,289

  17,008

  1984

  4,284

  17,079

  1985

  4,549

  17,515

  1986

  4,879

  17,878

  1987

  4,866

  18,874

  Five-year survival rates for female breast cancer (ICD 174), for England and Wales, based on 1981 registrations, (which are only published by 10-year age group)

  Age group

  45–54

  55–64

  Crude 5-year survival rate1

  64·68

  57·13

  Relative 5-year survival rate2

  66·22

  60·63

  1 Represents the percentage of registrations alive at the end of each time span with a correction made for withdrawn.

  Type of birth

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Twins

  6,308

  —

  6,201

  6,293

  6,321

  6,700

  6,969

  Triplets

  91

  —

  70

  89

  80

  93

  123

  Quadruplets

  4

  —

  6

  4

  5

  7

  10

  Quintuplets

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  6,404

  —

  6,277

  6,387

  6,406

  6,803

  7,105

  Total maternities

  654,501

  632,350

  623,511

  626,277

  633,965

  653,142

  657,308

  Type of birth

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Twins

  7,186

  7,452

  7,579

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  Triplets

  125

  157

  183

  201

  208

  202

  Quadruplets

  7

  12

  11

  10

  10

  8

  Quintuplets

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  7,319

  7,622

  7,774

  8,145

  8,380

  8,525

  Total maternities

  677,467

  689,153

  682,979

  701,030

  693,857

  683,854

  Information on multiple maternities is not available for 1981.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  444
  2Represents the crude rates adjusted using the life table probability of surviving each time period.

  Skin Conditions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those drugs and creams used for the treatment of skin conditions which will be included in the review to be carried out by the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The committee will consider all the drugs that are currently available on the national health service for the treatment of skin conditions. A list of these products is available in the Library.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on infertility treatment by the Gloucestershire district health authority in the latest year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Miss J. O. Trotter, the chairman of Gloucestershire health board for details.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of (i) twins, (ii) triplets, (iii) quadruplets, (iv) quintuplets and (v) sextuplets were born in England and Wales in each year since 1980; what was the total number of maternities in England and Wales in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of(a) in-vitro fertilisation, (b) gamete inter-fallopian transfer and (c) other forms of assisted conception.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table (England and Wales):
  445
  Information on the number of multiple births attributed to assisted reproduction is not available. However some information on multiple pregnancies is published in the first annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and in earlier reports of the interim licensing authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  RU486
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require cases where RU486 is used with accompanying prostaglandins to be treated solely at family planning clinics; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the availability of foetal scanning equipment in family planning clinics which administer RU486.

  Mr. Sackville
  Arrangements for the use of RU486 are set out in the drug data sheet and are subject to the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended. The provision of equipment in national health service premises is a matter for local decision.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 765, if she will now require regional health authority chairmen to provide substantive answers to hon. Members representing constituencies within the region in respect of requests for information on aspects of regional health authority expenditure.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not require the publication of provisional information collected for management purposes. If the hon. Member has had difficulties in obtaining normally available information perhaps he will let me have the details.

  Income Support
  Mr. flinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is(a) the total amount of the assessed income support claims within the Yorkshire region for 1993–94 and (b) the Yorkshire regional allocation of the DSS transfer funding in respect of terminal illness special rate income support for 1993–94; what assessment has been made of the implications of the difference between (a) and (b) on hospices within the Yorkshire region; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what is the methodology used in determining the national allocation of the DSS transfer funding in respect of terminal illness special rate income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about Department of Social Security (DSS) benefits is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and for the DSS Benefits Agency. No transfer has been made specifically in relation to terminal illness higher levels of income support (IS). The £5 million transfer from DSS to the health service in respect of hospices was based on the number of hospice patients which it was estimated would 446
  have claimed the higher level of IS this year had the previous system continued. It was assumed that there would be about 500 claimants of the higher levels of IS in hospices in Great Britain in mid 1993–94. This was based on a 1991 study by "Help the Hospices", which found that 16 per cent. of hospice patients nationally received the higher levels of IS and that this accounted for about 8 per cent. of hospice income.

  The allocation of the central funds from the DSS transfer to each region was based on weighted population. This meant that the funds for 1993–94 do not necessarily relate directly to the amount of IS payments received by hospices in a particular region in the previous year. This is because many hospice patients did not claim the higher levels of IS as their care was being provided free of charge.

  Post-trauma Counselling
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to establish a post-trauma counselling service to provide immediate and expert counselling support for all those affected by large-scale tragedies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Post-traumatic stress disorder is a recognised psychiatric condition. General practitioner services are increasingly able to respond to this condition and provide counselling or drug therapy as necessary. Cases may also be referred to the specialist psychiatric services. The Department is supporting from central funds the creation of a new victimology unit at the Maudsley and Bethlem Royal group specialising in post-traumatic stress, including research. We are also funding continuing work at the traumatic stress unit at the Middlesex hospital. These centres constitute an additonal national source of expertise in this condition.

  Persistent Vegetative State
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently categorised as in a persistent vegetative state; and how many such cases were caused by(a) road traffic accidents, (b) physical assaults and (c) other causes.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally. However, independent estimates suggest there may be about 1,200 cases in total in the United Kingdom.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the names of public appointments that she has made within the Mersey region, giving in each case the body to which the appointment was made, the position held, the relevant qualifications of each appointee and the remuneration that each currently receives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of public appointments made by the Secretary of State to national health service authorities and trusts within the Mersey region are as listed. Information on appointees' qualifications is not available centrally. Individuals are appointed to NHS authorities and trusts for the personal qualities, knowledge and skills that they bring to the post. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 5 May at column 91 for the present remuneration rates.
  447

  Appointments to Mersey RHA

  Name

  Body

  Position

  Prof. A. M. Breckenridge

  Chairman

  Mrs. J. E. Timms

  RHA Member

  Mr. J. R. Halliday

  RHA Member

  Appointments to DHAs

  Mr. D. H. Tod

  Liverpool DHA

  Chairman

  Mr. G. Murray

  St Helens and Knowsley DHA

  Chairman

  Mr. R. S. Gordon

  Wirral DHA

  Chairman

  Mr. S. H. Cussons

  Macclesfield DHA

  Chairman

  Appointments to FHSA

  Mrs. R. M. Hawley

  Liverpool FHSA

  Chairman

  Mr. C. D. Darley

  Sefton FHSA

  Chairman

  Mrs. M. Pearce

  Wirral FHSA

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Brown

  Cheshire FHSA

  Chairman

  Appointments to NHS Trusts

  Name

  Body

  Chairmen

  Mr. A. H. Duncan

  Wirral Hospital

  Mr. J. R. Higham

  St Helens and Knowsley Hospital

  Mr. J. B. Fitzpatrick

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Mr. F. A. Fenney

  Broadgreen Hospital

  Mrs. J. E. Hill

  Cheshire Community Healthcare

  Mr. M. F. Emberton

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Mr. P. R. D. Hayes

  East Cheshire

  Miss L Brown

  Southport and Formby Community Health

  Mr. D. W. Hammond

  Halton General Hospital

  Mrs. J. Grundy

  Warrington Community

  Mr. N. Banner

  Warrington Acute Hospital

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. J. W. Royle

  St Helens and Knowsley Hospital

  Mrs. J. L. Waitson

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital

  Ms B. N. Ong

  Mid-Cheshire Hospitals

  Mrs. S. Malthouse

  Cardio-Thoracic Centre-Liverpool

  Prof. Sir Robert Shields

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Dr. Jennifer Ensor

  Aintree Hospitals

  Mr. R. F. Dewhirst

  St Helens and Knowsley Community Health

  Mr. J. Teare

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

  Dr. G. Jones

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Lord Wade of Chorlton

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Mr. S. H. Bartlett

  Cheshire Community Healthcare

  Mrs. R. Phillips

  Cheshire Community Healthcare

  Mrs. V. Basford

  Cheshire Community Healthcare

  Mr. R. C. Hodson

  Halton General Hospital

  Dr. K. MacVicker

  Halton General Hospital

  Mrs. S. Anderson

  Halton General Hospital

  Mr. A. Weir

  East Cheshire

  Mrs. M. Loran

  East Cheshire

  Mr. S. Blenkinsop

  East Cheshire

  Mrs. C. Baker

  Southport and Formby Community Health

  Mrs. M. Jackson

  Southport and Formby Community Health

  Mrs. G. Gilbertson

  Southport and Formby Community Health

  Mrs. D. Lawson

  Warrington Community

  Mr. M. Davies

  Warrington Community

  Mr. P. L. Clarke

  Warrington Community

  Mr. P. Jeffrey

  Warrington Acute Hospital

  Mrs. J. Lang

  Warrington Acute Hospital

  Ms C. Bingham

  Warrington Acute Hospital

  Children (Behavioural Problems)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1985, by district health authority, the number of referrals by general practitioners of children with behavioural problems.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally.

SCOTLAND

  Sex Offences
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of rape crisis centres to discuss the conduct of rape and sexual assault cases in the courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conduct of rape trials is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord
  449
  Advocate and his deputes, who undertake such prosecutions. They and procurators fiscal undertake prosecutions for sexual assault. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is aware of the general views held by rape crisis centres and does not believe that a meeting would serve any particular purpose. If, however, representatives of rape crisis centres care to raise specific points of concern by writing to him, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be happy to consider them.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with health board chairmen, chairwomen and officials concerning the implications for their decisions relating to compulsory competitive tendering of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble Friend the Minister of State holds regular meetings with health board chairmen at which matters of common concern are discussed. In addition the national competitive tendering group, consisting of health board staff and officials from the NHS management executive in Scotland with responsibility for market testing, meets regularly. Guidance on the application of the regulations was issued to health boards on 11 March and further guidance on market testing will be issued shortly.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a witness protection scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a national witness protection scheme. Provision already exists in law to take action against people who threaten or injure witnesses. Decisions about the level of protection to provide for witnesses in individual cases are an operational matter for the police.

  Cervical Screening (Greenock)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent information he has concerning the programme of reviewing of cervical smear slides from Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock; what methods are being used to locate women who have left Inverclyde; when he expects the whole of the programme, including the re-examination of women recalled by the hospital, to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 May 1993]: Argyll and Clyde health board has informed me that some 12,000 slides have now been re-examined and a further 8,000 have been sent to laboratories for return next week. The board is on target to notify all the women who have been traced through NHS information sources of the results of the re-examination by the beginning of June.

  The main method being used to trace women is through the "Community Health Index". The board has also contacted other health authorities and the USA naval
  450
  authorities. The telephone helpline has also picked up changes of address. It is too early to say whether any outside agencies will be required to assist.

  The board is making good progress with the review. The programme is expected to be completed in eight to nine weeks and on present progress will be achieved by the end of June. The preliminary results indicate that 90 per cent. of women have negative results. The majority of others are expected also to have similar results when the results of re-smears or investigations are completed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I met the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme on Thursday 20 May.

  Package Travel
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the EC package travel directive; and what measures he intends to take to help small travel operators to meet the demands of this directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received numerous representations about the EC package travel directive, from trade associations, tour organisers, travel agents and consumer bodies. The implementing regulations were drafted to allow the widest possible measure of choice in meeting the requirement of the directive regarding security for pre-payments and against the cost of repatriation in the event of insolvency in order to help small travel operators.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been created by firms which have received a loan under the loan guarantee scheme since 1983; what is the average number of employees employed by firms which have received a loan under the loan guarantee scheme; and how many businesses that received loans under the loan guarantee scheme since 1983 continue to trade.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested on the number of jobs created, and the number of employees employed by firms who have received loans under the loan guarantee scheme is not available.

  From June 1981 to 31 December 1992 a total of 32,716 loans were guaranteed, of which 11,890 had defaulted on the loan during the same period. Of the remaining 20,826 loans it is not known how many businesses continued to trade after the loan had been repaid.

  Telecommunications Companies
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many telecommunications companies are licensed in the United Kingdom; and how many of them are based(a) in the United States or (b) other foreign countries.
  451
  Mr. Leigh
  Around 900 licences have been issued under the Telecommunications Act since it was passed in 1984, although not all remain in force. Companies may also operate under a number of "class" licences: these are generally applicable and are not issued in respect of individual companies. Information relating to the location and corporate nationality of licensed companies is thus not readily available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. A list of licences is held at the library of the Office of Telecommunications.

  BNFL
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department has given to the serious crime squad of Cheshire police in its investigation into alleged financial irregularities at BNFL.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 19 May,Official Report, column 228.

  Company Turnover Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies traded in the last year for which figures are available, with an annual turnover in the ranges(a) less than £37,600, (b) £37,600 to £50,000, (c) £50,000 to £100,000, (d) £100,000 to £200,000, (e) £200,000 to £300,000 and (f) above £300,000.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The latest information, on United Kingdom companies based on VAT data, is given in the table. It is not available in the ranges requested.

  Number of VAT registered companies and public corporations in 1992

  Turnover size £ (Thousand)

  Number of corporate business

  0

  30,000

  1–25

  61,000

  26–49

  72,000

  50–99

  62,000

  100–249

  100,000

  250–499

  76,000

  500 +

  166,000

  Total

  567,000

  Small Firms' Awards
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small firms merit award for research and technology stage I and stage 2 awards were won by companies in each region of the United Kingdom over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Between May 1992 and April this year the number of stage 1 and stage 2 small firms merit awards for research and technology (SMART) scheme were as follows:

  Region

  Stage 1

  Stage 2

  East

  17

  7

  East Midlands

  17

  7

  North East

  8

  3

  Northern Ireland

  6

  3

  North West

  16

  10

  452

  Region

  Stage 1

  Stage 2

  Scotland

  17

  13

  South East

  31

  20

  South West

  20

  13

  Wales

  16

  8

  West Midlands

  18

  14

  Yorks/Humberside

  14

  10

  Total

  180

  108

  There have been a record number of entries to this year's SMART stage I competition. When the 180 winners are announced at the end of July over 1,000 projects will have been supported under the scheme since its inception in 1986.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to announce those areas to be designated as assisted areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 6 May,Official Report, column 206.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many officials were employed by his Department to administer, inspect, regulate and advise businesses either directly, in agencies or on special contracts(a) in 1992 and (b) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 1 April 1992 there was some 8,050 staff in the Department—including agencies and trading funds —engaged in these activities and some 8,000 on 1 April 1993.

  Council of Industry Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 13 May,Official Report, columns 533–34, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the EC's Council of Industry Ministers held on 4 May.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 May 1993]: No formal votes were taken at the EC Council of Industry Ministers on 4 May.

  Rolls Royce plc
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the value of financial support to Rolls Royce plc from his Department in the last available financial year; under what programmes that support was provided; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the value of aero engine launch aid receipts from Rolls Royce plc in (a) the last financial year, (b) in total since 1979 and (c) in total since 1972; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: My Department provided a total of £6,287,529 in financial support for Rolls Royce plc in the year ending 31 March 1993 under a number of schemes.
  453
  The value of aeroengine launch aid receipts received by the Department of Trade and Industry from Rolls Royce plc are as follows:

  (a) £32·9 million was received in the last financial year ending 31 March 1993;

  (b) £209·4 million has been received since 1979. Launch aid payments by the Government to Rolls Royce over the same period were £454·7 million;

  (c) £239·4 million has been received since 1972. Launch aid payments to Rolls Royce over the same period were £580·9 million.

  Aero Engines (United States)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of financial support to the United States aero engine manufacturers by the United States Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The United States aeroengine industry receives no direct financial support from the United States Government. However, indirect support, primarily from NASA and the Department of Defense for research and development, is estimated by the United Kingdom industry to be approximately $700 million per annum. The high level of indirect support provided by the United States Government to its aircraft industry is one reason why the United Kingdom strongly supported the EC/United States agreement on trade in civil aircraft reached last year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make borrowing easier for small businesses seeking to expand after the recession.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: Significant improvements to the loan guarantee scheme, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, will be introduced from 1 July. There is an increase in the guarantee level from 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. aimed at those who lack security to offer against a loan. Also, for established businesses with a track record, the maximum loan size will be increased to £250,000. For all businesses, the premium payable to the DTI, by borrowers, will be reduced to 1·5 per cent. of the outstanding loan in respect of variable rate lending, to 0·5 per cent. in respect of fixed rate lending and to 0·5 per cent. for borrowers in inner city task forces and city challenge areas.

  The Government are supporting five projects which are looking at ways of bringing together business angels—informal investors—and small businesses seeking investment.

DEFENCE

  LPH Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the source of the main propulsion engines for the LPH helicopter carrier; and what plans he has to encourage United Kingdom companies to offer to undertake their manufacture.

  Mr. Aitken
  The selection of the main propulsion engines for this ship is the responsibility of the prime 454
  contractor, VSEL, which has invited tenders from a number of engine manufacturers including United Kingdom companies. Industry was made aware of this opportunity by means of an MOD contract bulletin published in March 1992.

  Sub-strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 20, what specific contribution sub-strategic nuclear weapons make towards the United Kingdom's deterrence posture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sub-strategic nuclear capability ensures the coherence of our overall deterrent posture by providing the essential link between conventional and strategic nuclear forces.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the number of sub-strategic nuclear weapons deployed by Russia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many Russian sub-strategic forces are being withdrawn from service and are earmarked for destruction, but it is estimated that some 12,000 warheads remain. Many of these are not assessed as being fully operational.

  WE177
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement of 27 October 1992,Official Report, column 858, when he expects to make an announcement regarding a possible future replacement for the WE177.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 20 May 1993 Official Report, column 263.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions have been taken by his Department following paragraph 12 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 to ensure that the WE177 will remain serviceable well into the first decade of the next century.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We maintain a continuing monitoring programme of our stockpile of WE177 free fall bombs to assess their remaining life. Based on this, we now expect that the WE177 will remain safe and serviceable well into the first decade of the next century.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when was the last occasion on which the annual "Statement on the Defence Estimates" was debated by the House of Commons;

  (2) how many times since 1963 the annual defence estimates have not been debated by the House of Commons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These are matters of public record.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the balance of conventional forces between the North Atlantic Treaty
  455
  Organisation and Russia in (i) infantry, (ii) main battle tanks, (iii) armoured combat vehicles and (iv) combat aircraft.

  Personnel

  Main battle tanks

  Armoured combat vehicles

  Combat aircraft

  NATO

  2,590,784

  23,424

  32,255

  4,901

  Russia1

  1,298,299

  8,893

  18,834

  4,387

  1 These figures represent the forces of Russia only and do not include the forces of the other countries in the former Soviet Union or the forces of the countries of the former Warsaw pact.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Trident is capable of fulfilling the role of a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 May, Official Report, column 19.

  Templeton Airfield
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is made of the three communication aerials on Templeton airfield for purposes other than for his Department's communications.

  Mr. Aitken
  The aerials are used solely for defence purposes.

  Nuclear Convoy (Erskine Bridge)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the breakdown of a nuclear convoy on the Erskine bridge on 18 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A military convoy stopped near the Erskine bridge on 18 May while a defective tractor unit was inspected and replaced. At no time was there any danger to the public or convoy personnel. It is long-standing Government policy not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place or time.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those forms of advice and assistance provided by the British Frontier Service for soldiers serving in the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British frontier services provides advice to the British military authorities in Germany on a variety of customs and immigration issues; it also advises and, where appropriate, assists individual service personnel, United Kingdom-based civilians and their dependants on these matters.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, columns 445–46, on automated credit transfer, if
  456
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  National declarations by signatories of the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty show that between the Atlantic and the Urals, the following forces are held by NATO and Russia at 1 January 1993:

  he will publish details of the type of building society or bank account held by 65 per cent. of pensioners and benefit recipients currently paid through the post office; and what percentage of these are savings accounts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. A limited survey was carried out in July 1991 on the type of accounts held by recipients of retirement pension, income support and child benefit only; information on recipients of other benefits is not available. The research asked only about accounts that were suitable for automated credit transfer—ACT—payments, and those that were not are excluded. It should also be noted that the income support figures contain a number of customers paid by girocheque, not all of whom may actually use the post office.

  The information available is in the tables. Totals exceed 100 per cent. because many people have more than one type of account.

  DSS customers using the post office who have accounts suitable for ACT

  Per cent.

  Child benefit

  Bank account:

  Current, with interest

  22

  Current, no interest

  41

  Savings-deposit

  16

  Building Society:

  With cheque book

  5

  No cheque book

  46

  Other:

  7

  At least one account suitable for ACT

  82

  No such account/don't know

  16

  Refused

  2

  Retirement pension

  Bank account

  Current, with interest

  23

  Current, no interest

  31

  Savings/deposit

  19

  Building Society:

  With cheque book

  4

  No cheque book

  41

  Other:

  17

  At least one account suitable for ACT

  83

  No such account/don't know

  17

  Income support

  Bank account:

  Current, with interest

  19

  Current, no interest

  10

  Savings/deposit

  10

  Building Society:

  With cheque book

  3

  No cheque book

  19

  Other:

  9

  457

  Per cent.

  At least one account suitable for ACT

  55

  No such account/don't know

  45

  Income Maintenance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has for the overall cost of provision for income maintenance in Wales; and if he will indicate(a) the estimated cash expenditures, (b) the estimated tax expenditures and (c) the estimated costs of administration.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The only income maintenance cash expenditure information available specifically for people residing in Wales is expenditure on housing benefit and income support. The latest available expenditure figures are £380 million for housing benefit1 for 1992–93 and £442 million for income support2 for 1989–90. The latest estimates for personal tax allowances and tax relief on earnings and investments, excluding MIRAS, are around £6,740 million for 1990–91.

  The latest estimate for the cost of the administration of all social security benefits by the Benefits Agency in Wales is £55·3 million for 1992–93. The estimated budget for the administration of tax in Wales for 1993–94 is £78 million3.

  Notes:

  1 Table 8.7 of CSO Regional Trends 27 (1992).

  2 Figures underlying Table of the Departmental Report (Cm. 2213).

  3 Excludes any apportionment to Wales for expenditure on forms and central computer systems.

  Benefit Costs
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the daily equivalent cost per working person of spending on social security.

  Mr. Burt
  Based on estimates of the grand total of social security spending for 1993–94, the daily equivalent cost per working person is around £13.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of savings in costs and time brought about by the computerisation within his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has achieved some £124 million savings from its computerisation programme operational strategy over the four years up to 1991–92, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Over the same period, there have been corresponding improvements in claims clearance times for those benefits which changed from a clerical to a computerised system, as follows:

  Clerical System 1987–88 Days

  Computerised System 1991–92 Days

  IS Claims

  6·1

  4·0

  RP Claims

  24·7

  15·8

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women (i) under and (ii) over pensionable age are dependent on income support in Wales.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers receiving income support in Wales

  Claimants and partners under age 60

  Claimants and partners aged 60 and over

  Total

  Men

  108,000

  27,000

  135,000

  Women

  124,000

  80,000

  204,000

  Total

  232,000

  107,000

  339,000

  Notes:

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1992.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. For the purposes of this reply the term "pensionable age" has been defined as 60 years old, this is consistent with the age at which Pensioner Premiums become payable with Income Support.

  Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much compensation was paid to benefit recipients by the Benefits Agency in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will break this figure down by benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest year for which definitive figures are available is 1991–92.

  A breakdown of the figures is only available for five benefits. The figures for these benefits are as follows:

  Benefit

  Amount paid (£'s)

  Maternity allowance

  294

  Retirement pension

  177,367

  Widows benefit/pension

  31,242

  Invalidity benefit

  80,639

  Income support

  459,849

  Total

  749,391

  Figures for the remaining benefits are not kept separately.

  Concessionary Bus Passes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when was the last occasion that Walsall council contacted his Department regarding the concessionary bus pass for those in receipt of the disability living allowance; what advice was given to the council in this respect; and if a Minister will now write to the council;

  (2) what action his Department will be taking if a council refuses to follow its advice regarding those entitled to the concessionary bus pass;

  (3) pursuant to his answer on 7 May, Official Report, column 299, what has been the latest response received from Walsall council regarding allowing those in receipt of the disability living allowance to have the concessionary bus pass.

  Mr. Scott
  Walsall metropolitan borough council wrote to the Department on 10 May with the observations of the
  459
  council's lawyers on section 73(14) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The Department is engaged in negotiations with the Council in an attempt to come to an agreement as to the scope of section 73(14) and its applicability to the council's concessionary fare scheme. The Department will consider, at the conclusion of those negotiations, whether further action is necessary.

  Appeals Tribunals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals sought appeals in(a) social security appeals tribunals and (b) medical appeals tribunals in the last year for which figures are available in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole; and what were the results of these appeals.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested since national administrative appeal statistics for appeal tribunals are not available for areas smaller than a former social security region; and since available figures give details of workflows rather than the outcome of individual appeals. The last full year for which figures are available is 1991. The table provides details for Scotland as a whole.

  1991 social security and medical appeal tribunal statistics for Scotland

  SSATS

  MATS

  1991

  Appeals lodged

  22,838

  4,798

  Not admitted

  635

  38

  Lapsed

  3,791

  —

  Withdrawn

  1,681

  223

  Struck out/abated

  3

  4

  Heard

  7,589

  2,662

  For appellant

  2,752

  1,178

  Source: DSS Annual Social Security and Medical Appeal Tribunal Statistics.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ballyconnnell Canal
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the Intereg funding for projects in Northern Ireland for each of the last three years; what is the projection for the current year; what sums were expended on the Ballyconnell canal joint project; and what percentage of the total sums donated to Northern Ireland this represented.

  Mr. Mates
  EC funding from the Northern Ireland/ Ireland Intereg programme is designed to assist both cross-border projects and projects which fall within the eligible areas of either member state.

  The figures in the table show EC funding expended by Northern Ireland under Intereg since the initiative was approved in July 1991.
  460

  Northern Ireland expenditure under Intereg £ million

  Northern Ireland Intereg expenditure on Ballyconnell canal £ million

  Percentage

  1991

  4·9

  0·5

  10

  1992

  8·9

  0·9

  10

  '1993

  18·4

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  32·2

  1·3

  4

  1 Represents a projected figure and assumes that the value of the pound will remain 1·256 against the ecu.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the sums expended on the Ballyconnell canal joint project was expended on administration and support services; and how much on actual construction and remedial works.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ballyconnell canal joint project is estimated to cost IR£30 million. Cumulative expenditure at 31 March was IR£23·69 million. This was in respect of feasibility studies and site investigations, land acquisition costs, construction costs, site supervision and project management costs incurred by the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland. The Northern Ireland contribution to the project is capped at IR£2·4 million and cumulative expenditure at 31 March 1993 was IR£2·3 million. Details of the administrative overhead costs incurred by the two sponsoring Governments in overseeing the project are not available.

  Charities
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to introduce legislation which will enable the Government to collect and release information about the charitable status of organisations in Northern Ireland and which will bring that part of the United Kingdom into line with England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Mates
  The Government are reviewing the law relating to charities in Northern Ireland and this review will include the arrangements for the provision of information on charities to the public. Any proposals for a change in legislation will be presented in due course and consultation will take place in the normal way.

  Fire Sprinkler Systems
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statistics he has on the effectiveness against fire of sprinkler systems fitted to buildings in Northern Ireland, including the percentage of occasions on which they fail to operate, or operate inadequately.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no statistics available on sprinkler effectiveness. However the fire brigade reports that, in its experience, operational failures are extremely rare and that sprinkler systems provide a highly reliable method of automatically controlling fire.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the effect of blast on sprinkler systems fitted to buildings in Northern Ireland.
  461
  Mr. Atkins
  Depending on the severity and location of a blast and whether it is accompanied by fire, a sprinkler system may either be unaffected, or be activated by mechanical disturbance or fire, or be disabled as a result of damage to the building structure or the water supply to the system.

  The fire brigade reports that, in practice, blasts caused by bombs or blast incendiaries have had little detrimental effect on the operation of sprinkler systems.

  Interview Expenses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people have received traveling expenses from the Training and Employment Agency for travel to a job interview in each of the last three years;

  (2) how many people who received travelling expenses in each of the last three years from the Training and Employment Agency to attend a first job interview and who have been shortlisted for a second interview have been unable to attend because travelling expenses funding has not been allowed for a second interview.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question is a matter for 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. Roy Beggs, dated 20 May 1993:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to state how many people have received travelling expenses from the Training and Employment Agency for travel to a job interview in each of the last three years.

  The Information you requested is as follows:—

  Financial Year

  Number of Approved Applicants

  1990–91

  1,124

  1991–92

  1,363

  1992–93

  1,256

  In a further question you asked how many of those included in the above who received assistance from the Training and Employment Agency to attend a first job interview and were short listed for a second interview were unable to attend because travelling expenses funding was not allowed.

  All applicants who apply to the Training and Employment Agency for assistance under the Travel to Interview Scheme are formally advised of the conditions which relate to entitlement for support prior to this being given. These conditions are, that the applicant must not have had assistance under the Scheme for a previous interview for the same job. This arises from the fact that as limited funds are available, it is not possible to help at every stage of a lengthy selection procedure. Second interview applications are not accepted and as a result no statistical information is available in this area.

  Building Regulations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 19 January Official Report, column 175, if the European Commission has yet completed its consideration of his proposals for amendment to parts E and EE of the Building Regulations (NI) 1990; and what observations the European Commission has made.
  462
  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed amendments to parts E and EE of the Building Regulations (NI) 1990 have not yet been submitted to the European Commission.

  Hostel Accommodation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length of stay for single occupants of hostel accommodation funded by the DHSS in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  While the Department of Health and Social Services provides housing benefit assistance to many hostel residents, it does not fund hostel accommodation in Northern Ireland.

  This is, instead, a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I have been advised by the chairman that although an average figure based on the length of stay of all single persons on hostel accommodation is not readily available, it is estimated that single persons who have been accepted as homeless and in priority need under the terms of the Housing (NI) Order 1988, and placed in hostel accommodation by the Executive, spend an average of 8·6 weeks there before being permanently rehoused.

  Building Regulations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to take account of the effects of the amendment to the England and Wales Approved Document B (Building Regulations, Fire) before deciding whether it should be followed in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Northern Ireland Building Regulations closely reflect and are based on the equivalent regulations in England and Wales. In deciding that the fire safety requirements developed for England and Wales, and expressed in approved document B, should be adopted for Northern Ireland, account has been taken of the development of those requirements, the approved document in its final form and of experience of its operation since it came into force on 1 June 1992. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will continue to monitor the operation and effectiveness of the fire safety requirements of the England and Wales regulations.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment has been made of the sufficiency of the length of time of fire resistance required for a commercial building over 30 m in height in the proposed Northern Ireland Building Regulations (Fire) to offer adequate escape time in the case of fire arising from a terrorist incident.

  Mr. Atkins
  No specific studies have been undertaken of escape times required in the case of fires arising from terrorist incidents. However, experience of fires shows that there is little difference in growth rates between fires arising from such incidents and those arising from other causes, apart from the initial intensity. Northern Ireland Building Regulations presently require commercial premises over 28 m high to have two hours, fire resistance; they do not require the premises to be sprinklered. The proposed new regulations would require buildings over 30 m high to have the same fire resistance for elements of structure as
  463
  currently required, reducing to a minimum of 90 minutes for elements not forming part of the structural frame, and in addition, would require all such premises to be sprinklered.

EMPLOYMENT

  Acquired Rights
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's implementation of the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19 January Official Report column. 183, to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will shortly receive its Third Reading in the House of Lords.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the supply and demand of youth training places in each training and enterprise council area on a monthly basis for the last six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the availability of youth training places is not collected nationally. However, I am satisfied that there is sufficient YT provision available to meet demand. Information on the total demand for YT places is also not collected, but the number of young people who are registered with careers services in England, who are covered by the YT guarantee and have been waiting for a YT place for eight or more weeks in March and April is shown in the table. Information for the previous months is not reliable.

  Young people wailing for 8 or more weeks for a place on YT: 1993

  TEC

  March2

  April3

  Avon

  88

  117

  AZTEC

  156

  95

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  36

  35

  Bedfordshire

  115

  1164

  Birmingham

  110

  131

  Bolton and Bury

  41

  19

  Bradford

  15

  18

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  18

  15

  CAMBSTEC

  69

  54

  Central England

  14

  19

  Central London

  136

  1152

  CEWTEC

  18

  12

  CILNTEC

  143

  109

  County Durham

  62

  71

  Coventry and Warwicks

  79

  186

  Cumbria

  33

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  66

  171

  Dorset

  23

  15

  Dudley

  2

  1

  ELTEC

  19

  29

  Essex

  373

  329

  Gloucester

  28

  11

  Greater Nottingham

  32

  35

  Greater Peterborough

  23

  17

  Hampshire

  207

  1304

  HAWTEC

  19

  130

  Heart of England

  15

  24

  Hertfordshire

  107

  164

  Humberside

  47

  36

  Isle of Wight

  37

  28

  Kent

  338

  183

  464

  TEC

  March2

  April3

  LAWTEC

  40

  28

  Leeds

  37

  26

  Leicestershire

  27

  131

  LETEC

  439

  380

  Lincolnshire

  19

  39

  Manchester

  106

  193

  Merseyside

  42

  47

  METROTEC

  21

  6

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  32

  142

  Norfolk/Waveney

  4

  31

  NORMIDTEC

  13

  9

  North Derbyshire

  42

  39

  North London

  66

  179

  North Nottinghamshire

  91

  55

  North West London

  111

  107

  North Yorkshire

  79

  159

  Northamptonshire

  62

  139

  Northumberland

  47

  58

  Oldham

  36

  48

  QUALITEC

  20

  16

  Rochdale

  18

  15

  Rotherham

  4

  9

  Sandwell

  10

  20

  South and East Cheshire

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  156

  147

  Shropshire

  19

  24

  SOLQTEC

  206

  194

  Somerset

  97

  1114

  South Derbyshire

  25

  129

  South Thames

  476

  451

  Staffordshire

  4

  6

  Stockport and High Peak

  16

  19

  Suffolk

  13

  13

  Surrey

  94

  199

  Sussex

  66

  86

  Teesside

  45

  56

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  185

  1198

  Tyneside

  60

  159

  Wakefield

  18

  18

  Walsall

  3

  12

  Wearside

  0

  0

  West London

  36

  48

  Wiltshire

  68

  168

  Wolverhampton

  2

  6

  1 These figures are subject to final confirmation.

  2 11 March 1993.

  3 17 April 1993.

  Sources: Information from Careers Service Management return (Supplement).

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the numbers(a) employed and (b) self-employed; and what the equivalent figures were 12 months previously.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom

  (Thousands)

  Year

  1Employed

  Self-employed

  December 1991

  22,614

  3,066

  December 1992

  21,992

  2,936

  1 Employees in employment, H.M. Forces and participants1 on work-related Government training programmes.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest percentage and actual figures for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom for (i) all adults and (ii) males aged 16 years or over recorded as economically inactive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: The latest estimates from the labour force survey—not seasonally adjusted—are given in the table:

  Labour Force Survey

  Thousands

  Adults

  Men

  England, Autumn 1992

  Total aged 16 and over

  37,821

  18,280

  Economically inactive

  13,841

  4,763

  36·6 per cent.

  26·1 per cent.

  United Kingdom, Spring 1992

  Total aged 16 and over

  45,205

  21,809

  Economically inactive

  16,801

  5,733

  37·2 per cent.

  26·3 per cent.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to public a regularly updated list of deletions and additions to the list of members of(a) appoints or (b) advises on; and how many such names will appear in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 March, Official Report, columns 549–50

  Mr. David Hunt
  New appointments which I make to public bodies in Wales are regularly announced in my Department's press notices which are available in the Library of the House.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) the top decile male earnings as a percentage of median male earnings, (b) the bottom decile male earnings as a percentage of median male earnings, (c) the top decile female earnings as a percentage of median female earnings and (d) the bottom decile female earnings as a percentage of median female earnings in Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1984, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1992.

  Education (excluding school catering) as a percentage of total counties spending (a)

  Total counties

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1985–86 (b)

  59

  60

  58

  63

  56

  59

  57

  57

  61

  1986–87 (b)

  60

  60

  59

  63

  56

  59

  58

  58

  61

  1987–88 (b)

  59

  60

  58

  62

  55

  59

  58

  57

  62

  1988–89 (b)

  59

  60

  58

  62

  56

  59

  59

  57

  61

  1989–90 (b)

  59

  59

  58

  62

  55

  60

  59

  57

  60

  1990–91 (b)

  59

  58

  58

  60

  54

  60

  58

  57

  60

  1991–92 (c)

  58

  59

  57

  60

  55

  60

  58

  56

  60

  1992–93 (d)

  58

  59

  57

  59

  54

  59

  57

  55

  58

  466
  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is published in table 116 of part E of the new earnings survey. A copy for each of the years concerned is available in the Library of the House.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women were in employment in Wales in each year since 1984; and if he will indicate the number which were (a) full-time employees, (b) part-time employees, (c) full-time self-employed, (d) part-time self-employed and (e) on Government employment and training programmes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for men and women in employment and those on work-related Government training programmes may be accessed on-line by the staff in the Library of the House, although information distinguishing between full and part-time male employment was available in census of employment years only prior to 1989.

  Estimates of the number of self-employed which are derived from the labour force survey and which may be subject to sampling variability are given in the table:

  Self-employed

  Thousands

  Men

  Women

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  1984

  107

  1

  25

  11

  1985

  96

  1

  21

  12

  1986

  104

  1

  23

  1

  1987

  86

  1

  25

  14

  1988

  94

  1

  24

  13

  1989

  134

  11

  24

  16

  1990

  121

  1

  23

  15

  1991

  117

  1

  25

  13

  1992

  121

  1

  22

  17

  Source: Labour Force Survey, spring of each year.

  1 Estimates below 10,000 are not thought to be sufficiently reliable to be published.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of county council spending in Wales was allocated to education; and what proportion of the total spending of each county council in Wales was allocated to education for each of the last 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  County council spending on education as a proportion of total county council spending on all rate/general fund services is given in the table. Figures are available on a consistent basis only for the last eight years.
  467

  (a) Net current expenditure

  (b) Outturn

  (c) Revised estimates

  (d) Budgets; most higher education expenditure excluded, as function transferred to Central Government.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the student-tutor ratio in each of the colleges within the current structure of the university of Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Ratio of FTE of students to University funded full time academic staff1

  Academic year beginning

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Aberystwyth

  8·6

  8·5

  8·8

  9·5

  9·2

  13·4

  13·5

  11·0

  11·0

  Bangor

  9·8

  9·4

  9·7

  9·9

  10·5

  9·4

  9·7

  10·1

  10·2

  Cardiff

  9·3

  10·3

  9·6

  9·5

  9·3

  9·6

  10·6

  11·8

  12·4

  St. David's, Lampeter

  9·8

  11·0

  11·5

  11·5

  11·0

  10·6

  10·5

  11·0

  10·7

  Swansea

  10·0

  10·7

  10·6

  10·6

  10·3

  10·6

  11·5

  11·7

  12·1

  Welsh National School of Medicine

  5·0

  4·8

  4·5

  4·6

  4·8

  5·8

  5·4

  5·6

  5·3

  University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology

  9·6

  10·6

  10·6

  10·2

  9·3

  9·9

  10·5

  10·5

  10·8

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Aberystwyth

  12·0

  12·3

  12·7

  Bangor

  10·7

  11·9

  13·0

  Cardiff2

  13·2

  12·7

  13·1

  St. David's Lampeter

  12·5

  12·5

  13·6

  Swansea

  12·3

  14·5

  14·2

  College of Medicine

  5·7

  7·3

  7·1

  Notes:

  1 Ratio of full time equivalent student load to full time academic staff paid wholly from university general funds. The academic staff numbers exclude part time staff and those staff not wholly funded by the university.

  The exclusions numbered 984 academic staff in 1990–91 or 34 per cent. of all academic staff recorded for the University as a whole.

  2From 1988 the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology merged with the University of Wales College Cardiff.

  Source:

  "Statistics of Education, Volume 6—Universities" and "University Statistics; Finance" published by Universities' Statistical Record.

  Pregnant Women
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of pregnant women who have' been dismissed from employment(a) with less than two years' service to the employer and (b) with more than two years' service.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Water Bill Debts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many county court judgments have been obtained for water bill debts in Wales in each year from 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the water supply companies serving Wales.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner practices run their own pharmacies in each of the counties of Wales.
  468
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on staff and students at the colleges of the university of Wales is collated and published by the "Universities Statistical Record"—USR.

  The ratios, shown in the table, are calculated as defined in the USR publications. Information for 1991 onwards has not yet been published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The description "pharmacy" may be used only in respect of premises registered under the Medicines Act 1968. I am not aware of any GPs in Wales who run their own pharmacies.

  All GPs may personally administer appliances or drugs, other than scheduled drugs, to their patients, and they are obliged to provide such appliances or drugs which are needed for the immediate treatment of a patient before provision can otherwise be obtained.

  In addition, a GP can provide pharmaceutical services to a patient on his or her list where the patient has requested this and a number of conditions, which are specified in regulations, are met. The number of GPs providing pharmaceutical services under these arrangements in each family health services authority is given as follows:

  Number of General Practitioners providing pharmaceutical services to their patients, as at 1 April 1992

  Number

  Clwyd

  51

  Dyfed

  17

  Gwent

  38

  Gwynedd

  57

  Mid Glamorgan

  20

  Powys

  47

  South Glamorgan

  8

  West Glamorgan

  5

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pharmacies there are in each county of Wales.

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

  Number of pharmacies1

  Clwyd

  88

  Dyfed

  99

  Gwent

  96

  Gwynedd

  62

  Mid Glamorgan

  142

  Powys

  23

  South Glamorgan

  99

  West Glamorgan

  98

  1 As at 30 September 1992.

  NHS Staff(Attacks)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of violent attacks that have been committed against health service staff on hospital premises in Wales in each year from 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been convicted of committing violent attacks against health service staff within hospital premises in Wales in each year from 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These figures are not held centrally.

  Hospitals (Thefts)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what has been the number of reported thefts from each acute treatment hospital in Wales in each year from 1988;

  (2) what estimates he has of the cost to the national health service in Wales stemming from reported thefts from hospitals in each year from 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Child Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the training and enterprise councils in Wales taking part in the Government scheme to develop child care facilities for the over-fives.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  1993–94 is the first year in which the new out of school child care grant will be available. Welsh training and enterprise councils were consulted about how the initiative should be developed in the first year., and agreed that the work should be co-ordinated by the Chwarae Teg/Fair Play consortium with five TECs participating: Gwent, South Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, West Wales and Powys. The remaining TECs will be able to take part in 1994–95.

  Traffic, Builth Wells
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 117, what assessment he has made of the average time taken by a motorist to drive through Builth Wells in (a) February and (b) August.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Such assessments are made only in months little affected by seasonal traffic: April, May, June, September and October. The average journey times on the trunk roads between the limits of the proposed Builth Wells by pass were 181 seconds for the A470 and 340 seconds for the A483.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if an environmental impact study has been undertaken into the proposed Builth Wells bypass.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  An environmental appraisal of viable routes for a possible bypass of Builth Wells has been undertaken.
  470
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer on 5 May,Official Report, column 117, what is the average annual road accident figure; and how many road accidents took place in Builth Wells in 1992.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The average annual number of accidents that occurred in Builth Wells over the last five years on the A470 and A483 trunk roads, within the limits of the proposed bypass, was eight. The provisional number for 1992, within the same limits, is nine.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on current plans for the improvement on the A470 between Betws-y-coed and Blaenau Ffestiniog.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales" shows improvements in the Lledr valley are programmed for the short and medium term. Work on the Minffordd to Cancoed section is currently expected to start before April 1996 and the remainder before March 1999, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Farmers and Fishermen
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many officials were employed by his Department to administer, inspect, regulate and advise the farming and fishing industries either directly, in agencies or on special contracts(a) in 1992 and (b) at the latest available date; how many people are involved in (i) farming and (ii) fishing, full or part time, in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the numbers of staff in the Welsh Office and its agencies, and the number of people involved in farming and fishing in Wales is set out in the departmental report, Cm 2215, which is available in the Library of the House. Although it is not possible to isolate the staff resources denoted to the specific activities listed by my hon. Friend, the report does contain detailed information on the functions performed by the Department and the resources consumed. The most recent information on the numbers involved in farming is given in Welsh Office press notice published on 6 January 1993.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 363, if he has yet received the report of his working party on one-stop shops; and if he will make it his policy to place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The working group will report to me shortly. I will announce my decisions in due course and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Dentists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of dentists have withdrawn from the provision of NHS dental treatment for all except exempt categories since 1 April; what is the number of salaried dentists appointed by each family health service authority; and if he will make a statement.
  471
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is not available in the form requested. Returns provided by family health services authorities indicated that between 27 March and 7 May 1993, five dentists left authorities' dental lists as a direct result of the new fee scale introduced on 8 July 1992. Twelve dentists joined dental lists during the same period. This information was provided for managerial purposes and is not statistically validated.

  Approval has been given for Dyfed and Gwynedd family health services authorities to employ a total of six whole-time equivalent salaried dentists. Both authorities are in the process of identifying suitable applicants and premises.

  Withybush General Hospital
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will initiate an inquiry into the reasons why Withybush general hospital's roof needs substantial repair; who will supervise the repairs; what is the estimated cost of supervision; what will be the cost of the repair; who will pay for it; and which organisation supervised the construction of the new roof.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a contractual matter which is being pursued by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. The contractor has accepted responsibility for the remedial work to the roof and the authority is seeking 472
  to recover any indirect costs that may accrue in order that the work will be completed at no cost to the Pembrokeshire National Health Service Trust. Supervision of the remedial work remains the responsibility of the architects for the scheme.

  Data Protetion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has not been subject to any investigations by the Data Protection Registrar.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of grants received from the European Community, by each local authority in Wales in 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

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

Group 4
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that Group 4 has been handling the obligations of its contract with the Prison Service in a competent manner.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, difficulties were experienced in the early weeks of the court escort contract, some of which were outside the control of the contractor. We are satisfied that Group 4 has the capacity to meet its contracts with the Prison Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he prepared to consider the prison officers' recommendations, the anxiety felt at many levels, the spate of worrying escapes and the alarming deaths in prison? Is it not time to take stock and to decide whether Group 4 is responsible and answerable for what is happening in the Prison Service today?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, takes an extreme view. Group 4 had five prisoners escape from escort in the first two weeks. That compares, if I might say so, reasonably with the Prison Service. The whole purpose of contracting-out the work is to relieve the Prison Service and the police service from carrying out the functions that they are carrying out. That has resulted in a saving from which prisoners and others will benefit.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, was the employment of Group 4 part of a wider government policy to help relieve overcrowding in British prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the policy is simple. It is that it is possible for the private service to do the work carried out at the moment by prison officers, whether in prison or on escort service, possibly cheaper, certainly better, and with any luck there will be a considerable improvement in the standards of those in prison. If that can be done at a cost which is the same or less than that provided by the Prison Service, it seems that everyone should be satisfied.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Minister said Group 4 compared favourably with the Prison Service. What are the figures for the Prison Service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not catch the end of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Minister said that Group 4's figures compared fairly and favourably with those of the Prison Service. What are the figures for the Prison Service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there were 380 escapes from escorts by the police and the Prison Service. That amounts to 32 a week. Group 4 lost five in the first two weeks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are Group 4's personnel scrutinised or passed by any government agency such as the Home Office?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. Those who tender for work, and those who take part in the work of Group 4, are vetted and given seven weeks' training, which brings them up to the standards required by the Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, who does the training?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, principally the trainers. I cannot give the noble Lord more detail than that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not Group 4 also involved in the contract for the Wolds Prison? Is that benefiting the Prison Service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is benefiting the Prison Service. As I explained earlier, there were admittedly two escapes from the Wolds Prison. The result of the Wolds Prison being administered by a private contractor is that the prisoners there have more time off, more education and more time out. I believe that they have better clothing and, possibly, also better food.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister assured that when he gave the figure of 335, as I think it was, escaping from the Prison Service as against five from Group 4, he was comparing like with like, both so far as concerns the timescale and the degree of security of the prisoners involved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I was not comparing like with like. I was doing my best to answer the question that I was asked. I told the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that there were 380 escapes per year from escorts carried out by the police and Prison Service, which is an average of 32 per week. I said that Group 4 lost five in the first two weeks. That covers only an area and not the whole country.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the Minister think, therefore, that the figures he quoted were remotely helpful to the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, frankly, I thought that they were extremely helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, can do his own mathematics and algebra if he likes but I believe that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the answer to the question that he asked.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I understand that the chairman of the Conservative Party is also one of the directors of Group 4. First, is it wise for a senior politician to have a close relationship, such as a contractual relationship, with a government department? Secondly, does Group 4 benefit more from his experience as chairman of the Conservative Party than the Conservative Party benefits from his experience as a director of Group 4?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that question was slightly out of keeping with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who must be well aware that the chairman of the Conservative Party is not a Cabinet Minister. He, like anyone else, can have such directorships as he desires and are required. The information which he can give, or which he gathers, as a director of that or any other organisation must be a matter for the organisation and him. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since Group 4 and the Conservative Party are down on their uppers is it not time that the chairman resigned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Group 4 is not down on its uppers; the Conservative Party is not down on its uppers. I can give the noble Lord the categorical assurance that, as far as I know, neither the Government nor any of their members have any intention, and will have any intention, of resigning
4
over Group 4. As I explained last week, there were several teething difficulties after the takeover but it is expected that those difficulties will be overcome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what sanctions are available against Group 4 for non-performance of the duties in its contract? The non-performance of duties includes not only escapes but the death of a prisoner in custody and allegations that prisoners have been kept in illegal leg shackles. What sanctions exist for non-performance and have any yet been applied?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the sanctions applicable to any contract are financial and ultimately there is the ability to cancel the contract. There was the death of a prisoner while in the custody of Group 4 and the matter is now being considered. A full inquiry is being held and it would be wrong for me to attribute blame, or anything else, until that is complete. The noble Lord also referred to leg straps. They were used on a couple of occasions when two prisoners were being particularly difficult and violent and had to be restrained. There is nothing in the Prison Service orders which prevents that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the replies which the Minister has given to the many questions which have been asked today, including the four issues which I raised, will he at least assure the House that it is not unreasonable to take stock of what has happened in the Prison Service since Group 4 has had responsibility?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we are taking stock but we should not reach too many conclusions too quickly. On a number of occasions the Director-General of the Prison Service has seen representatives of Group 4 about these matters and the position is being tightened where possible. I must remind the House that the duties taken over covered seven counties, seven police forces, 72 magistrates' courts, 10 Crown Courts, 71 police stations and 20 prisons—
A noble Lord: Too many!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in retrospect that may be so but there were two alternatives; either the whole lot was taken over altogether or it was taken over in bits and pieces. It was considered best that the takeover should be undertaken in one fell swoop. It may be with hindsight that we should have done so less quickly but because there were difficulties at the start there is no reason to believe that the regime will not work. It will.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the takeover was done so widely and so quickly —as the Minister said —is it not a fact that women secretaries have been obliged to drive prison vehicles because Group 4 has been short of staff?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is nothing peculiar in people who are not prison or escort officers driving vehicles. That frequently occurs and there is nothing wrong with that.

NHS: London Specialty Reviews
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the reviews of medical specialties announced in Making London Better, and due to be completed in May, will be made publicly available, and what opportunities there will be for public consultation before any further action is taken on the basis of these reviews.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the specialty reviews are due to be presented to Ministers as independent advice in June and will subsequently be published. Together with the review of special health authority research and the assessments of London hospital sites, the specialty reviews will inform decisions on the future pattern of hospital services in the capital. There will be full public consultation, where appropriate, on subsequent proposals for change.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful Answer. I am glad that the time limit on the reviews has been extended from the end of May. Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety about the nature of the reviews? As was said in Making London Better and as she repeated in her Answer today, the reviews will have some impact on the modification of acute services; for example, the possible closure of hospitals in London. Will the Minister assure the House that in addition to those involved in the health professions users of the services will be included in the consultation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there will not be a full consultation on the reviews per se. Consultation will take place when there is a recommendation to alter the services. But there is a patient representative on each review team; that is, except for the plastic surgery review.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the document mendaciously called Making London Better there is an undertaking at paragraph 25 that the London Implementation Group will establish a primary health care forum which will report by 1st April 1993? Has that undertaking been fulfilled, and, if not, why not and when will it be?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the report states that the London Implementation Group will establish a primary health care forum to develop an agenda for change and that it will report back on a programme for the first two years by 1st April 1993. The primary health care forum has been established and it has reported back on a programme.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the crucial nature of the decisions which have to be taken and their effect on millions of people in the Greater London area, does not the Minister believe, first, that it would be wise to have proper consultation rather than to wait for implementation? Secondly, I was glad
6
to hear the Minister say that the reports will be published. But will that include also the publication of the evidence that has been given to the review teams?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there will be proper consultation as soon as recommendations are made on changes to any of the London hospitals or services. There will not be consultation on the individual reviews which have taken place, just as there will not be consultation on the review of special health authority research. Both those studies and the evidence given to the review teams are elements in order to help the regional health authorities formulate recommendations to the Secretary of State on the changes in hospital services.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but will she tell me whether the evidence which was given to the review teams is to be published?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand it, not as appendices. It is part of the evidence that has been given to the review teams in order for them to reach their conclusions. The full reports will be published. But I very much doubt whether the review teams will wish to isolate specific evidence.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one of the problems in London, and, indeed, in the conurbations as a whole, is that people have made far too much use of hospital out-patient departments instead of using their GPs, where those GPs exist in the local area. Will my noble friend say what plans the Government have, first, to increase the number of GPs in under-serviced parts of London and, secondly, to persuade people not to use hospital out-patient departments?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have set aside for this year alone £43.5 million to invest in primary health care. The Government are anxious that people should use appropriately accident and emergency departments and out-patient clinics, but that depends on the primary care being of the standard which enables them to do so. We have been very much aware that the level of primary health care in London has been poor. That is why we must re-order the services and ensure that less money is spent on acute services and more is spent on primary health care.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister as regards going back to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the nature and timing of proper consultation. Is it acceptable for there to be consultation once decisions have been taken on the reorganisation of acute services rather than, as it said in the original document, in the light of the specialty reviews which may cause modification of those decisions? Surely the time to talk to the users of the services is before decisions are taken.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Government will consult once the final recommendations have been made.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will the Minister say on what evidence the thinking is based which implies that increasing the primary health care services will reduce the need for hospital services? Is she aware that a substantial body of medical opinion believes that improving primary care in areas where there is deprivation will lead to an increased need for hospital services rather than a reduction?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, recent studies which we have undertaken show that at least 10 per cent. of patients are admitted to London hospitals who, if they were situated and living outside London, would be treated by their GPs. I believe that it is reasonable to suppose that if we improve primary health care services there will be less call on acute hospital services.

Metropolitan Police Stolen Vehicle Squad
2.54 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the Metropolitan Police Stolen Vehicle Squad.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the commissioner will retain a centrally-based stolen vehicle squad to deal with major organised motor vehicle crime in London.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that at this time of proposed reorganisation of the police, many rumours are flying about and there is much anxiety on the part of organisations and groups which have an interest in vehicle crime? Bearing in mind the considerable successes which the Metropolitan Police Stolen Vehicle Squad has had with regard to all kinds of crime ranging from small cars to articulated lorries and earth-moving equipment, there is much concern that the funding and expertise of that squad should be maintained.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that when there is any form of uncertainty, rumours fly around. Usually such rumours are wrong. The whole purpose of any kind of reorganisation is to make the police even better than they are at present. At present there are 49 officers in the squad of whom 17 are vehicle examiners and 18 are civilians. The proposal is that four of the 17 examiners' posts will be civilianised. It is a matter for the commissioner how he disposes of his resources, but I assure the noble Viscount that there is no question of cutting out that particular squad.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my car was stolen about three months ago? I received a form from the police which I filled in and I have heard nothing further. I have received the very strong impression that when cars are stolen, everybody gives up. It seems that nothing whatever can be done. It seems to have become a feature of our lives which we accept. I hope that I am wrong in my belief but that is the impression which I have gained from personal experience.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry indeed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, had his car stolen. I was not aware of it and he has my commiserations. I wonder whether he locked the car properly and ensured that the burglars could not get in. I believe that I am right in saying that something like 40 per cent. of all forms of burglary and so on result from the burglars being able to gain access through open doors and windows. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is about to rise to his feet. I have no doubt that he locked his car. I am sure that the police will do their best to find it for him.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the stolen vehicle squad has had many successes? It caught a gang which was stealing a large number of Harley-Davidson motorcycles, particularly in the London area, and it also caught a gang which was stealing Peugeot GTis and exporting them to the West Indies. It would be a great shame if the squad was not allowed to continue with its extremely good work.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out because it is exactly that kind of car crime with which the squad deals. A centrally-based stolen vehicles squad will be retained to deal with major organised motor vehicle crime in London and also to provide support and assistance to the divisions where necessary. The kind of vehicle crime to which my noble friend referred underlines the importance of the squad.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is one aspect of the stolen squad which commands our full support; namely, those who investigate abandoned vehicles which might contain bombs? The squad does splendid work and deserves our full support. Will the noble Earl assure the House that every assistance will be given to it in that difficult task?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy that we are dealing not with a stolen squad but with a stolen vehicle squad. Such a squad is concerned with any kind of stealing. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy that the greatest attention is paid to the possibility of undesirable objects being placed in abandoned vehicles.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many of us the phrase "no plans" from a government Minister means that it will not be done immediately but will be done very soon afterwards? Will the Minister change his wording and say that the stolen vehicle squad will not be disbanded or its powers or abilities infringed in any way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is the most curious of people because he tries to put words into my mouth that I have not said. I said that the Government have no plans. As far as I know, the commissioner has no plans, but I cannot tell the noble Lord what the commissioner's plans may be in a week, a year or five years' time. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that four of the

9
examiner posts are to be staffed by civilians; and that is all. Of course, there are more people in the stolen vehicle squad.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the co-operation at Interpol will still continue, as has been the case?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords.

EC-US Procurement Practices: Reciprocity
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the agreements reached between the European Community and the United States of America on reciprocity in access to public procurement contracts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton): My Lords, the agreement reached between the European Community and the United States is an excellent one. Both sides have agreed to liberalise their procurement practices for all central government purchases and for the electrical sector; and, at the sub-federal level, the US administration is to make all efforts to remove "Buy America". It will open up major new opportunities for British suppliers in many areas of the United States public procurement market. Unfortunately, the dispute in the telecommunications sector remains unresolved and I regret that there is still a risk of limited US sanctions as a result.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome reply. While it appears that there has been a significant reduction by the United States in its barriers against tenders from the EC—and much of the credit for that should go to Sir Leon Brittan—is there now a prospect of negotiations in the foreseeable future for further reducing the barriers which still remain on both sides of the Atlantic?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is right to congratulate the right honourable Sir Leon Brittan on the significant rolling back of measures. We can hope that is the start of some significant change; but, in itself, it is a major step forward.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister's excellent answer mean that Members of your Lordships' House will also have access to those contracts?
A noble Lord: She is mystified.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Yes, my Lords; I am rather mystified. But I suspect that the answer is yes.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall not pursue that theme. What the Minister said is good news. But reciprocity means equal treatment from both sides. I understand the point the Minister made about central
10
government. However, am I not right in thinking that it is still true that at the level of the individual states, where a great deal of public expenditure takes place in the US, there is not much reciprocity? Further, if there is to be a next phase, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, surely something must be done about what happens at the level of the individual states. Can the Minister give us any information as to what progress is being made? Their tendency to buy American—and, indeed, to buy in the narrower sense —has been known for a great many years as being not unconnected with a degree of corruption.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would not expect me to comment on American practice in the detail that he just outlined. However, part of the discussions between the United States trade representative, Mr. Kantor, and the right honourable Sir Leon Brittan covered the fact that the United States is to make efforts to eliminate "Buy America" at sub-federal level. I utterly agree with the noble Lord that that is crucial.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in so far as British Rail's franchising may well be a public service contract (a public procurement contract), will it be possible for the United States to tender for a railway franchise—as indeed the nationalised French railways and the nationalised German railways may do —when BR itself will not be able to tender for such a franchise? If so, will the Minister please explain the position?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall contain my answer to that part of the noble Lord's question which reflects the Question on the Order Paper. On that basis, I am delighted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that UK industry has everything to gain from an agreement that opens up procurement. It is for the benefit of the taxpayer that such matters are available.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has already indicated that she cannot comment on the arrangements that apply within the United States of America. Will she therefore give the House an assurance that those liberalisations of public procurement contracts do apply at present within Europe?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bruce Donington, that Article 29 of the Utilities Directive was seen as a useful negotiating tool—and indeed it has proved to be so. Part of the agreement between the right honourable Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kantor was that both sides are to sponsor an independent study into their respective procurement opportunities. With that information, we shall undoubtedly be able to make more progress.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's replies to the questions so far, I believe it is right to say that they have been about the relationship between the European Community and the United States. Can the Minister advise us what contacts have been made between the United

11
Kingdom Government and the individual states of the United States to ensure reciprocity in terms of realistic trade relationships?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, the question of negotiation is a matter for the Commission. However, I believe that I have some evidence which indicates that there is constant contact with various areas of the states. I am delighted to tell the House that in the first quarter of 1983, in comparison to 1982, our exports to that country increased by 27.9 per cent.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I must, first, apologise for the length of today's Business Statement. It may be for the convenience of the House if I outline the procedure to be followed on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill today.
The House agreed last Thursday to recommit the Bill in respect of the amendment to insert a new clause before Clause 13. Amendments Nos. 1 to 11 on the Marshalled List which has been printed and made available to your Lordships will be debated in Committee.
On conclusion of Committee proceedings, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Cranborne will repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on Bosnia. During that time, amendments may be tabled for the Report stage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. Those amendments will be circulated in the usual way. The House will then proceed to receive the Report and take any amendments which may have been tabled and, on conclusion of the Report stage, will move directly to Third Reading. Amendments to be moved on Third Reading are marshalled on the list available to your Lordships, beginning on page 3 of that list.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that proceedings on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Third Reading of the Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill will be taken.

Pension Schemes Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the enactments relating to private occupational and personal pension schemes other than those relating to the treatment of such schemes for taxation purposes. The principal Act relating to pension schemes is the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, but further provision about the subject has been made almost annually by successive Social Security Acts. The need for a consolidation has therefore become pressing.
12
The consolidation Bill contains a number of minor technical amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission which are necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation. The amendments are contained in the joint report of the two commissions. I wish to take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation to both commissions and to the draftsman for their work in producing the consolidation.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee (on Recommitment) pursuant to the resolution of Thursday last.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Viscount Ullswater.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) pursuant to the resolution of Thursday last.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we are not, of course, on this side of the House opposing that the House should go into Committee on this section of the Bill as that was agreed by your Lordships last Thursday. Indeed, we had been pressing for that ourselves through the usual channels ever since we understood precisely what was involved, or likely to be involved, as we did not see the text of the new clause until late last Wednesday.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to place some remarks on the record. The noble Viscount said that,
"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".—[Official Report, 6/5/93; col. 860.]
The Minister said it was the intention to introduce an amendment to clarify the law in that area. At that time the text of the Court of Appeal's decision was not available; nor was it known whether or not there would be an appeal to the House of Lords. The Government had apparently made up their mind without knowledge of these important points. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a number of us went

13
away after 6th May to try to find out rather more about this matter and seek to ascertain why it was so urgent for the Government to take the most unusual step of introducing an amendment with apparently far-reaching implications very late in the passage of a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Indeed it could hardly be later than the Third Reading.
When we discovered the Government's intention we were even more disconcerted and, indeed, gravely disturbed at what we on this side of the House felt to be an abuse of parliamentary procedures. It transpired that the issue was by no means a new one and not one that in our view needed urgent clarification. There had been previous decisions in line with the Court of Appeal decision, which itself was fully in line with Section 146 of the 1992 Act. That was simply a consolidation of what was in the 1978 Act, which itself consolidated the 1975 Employment Protection Act. Therefore, the provision we are discussing has been established in law for a long time and the Government have had ample time to change it, if they wished to do so, through normal processes. What the Government appeared to be doing was attempting to write into legislation what apparently was a maverick decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In any event, that decision was not unanimous and a member of the tribunal had issued a dissenting opinion.
The Court of Appeal decision which overturned the EAT was, on the other hand, a unanimous judgment. What is at issue here is a matter of the greatest importance. Section 146 of the 1992 Act is a piece of legislation which is fully in accord with the UK's international obligations as a signatory of ILO conventions. It specifies that an employee has the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him as an individual by his employer for the purpose of preventing or deterring him from being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union, or penalising him for so doing. As recently as 25th March of this year the Minister spoke with approval of this particular section of the law. He said:
"Secondly, the law already affords protection for individuals whose employer might dismiss or discriminate against them on the grounds of union membership or activities. That protection is a real protection. It applies regardless of the length of time which an employee has been in employment with the employer. An employer does not have a free hand to discriminate against employees who are union members".—[0fficial Report, 25/3/93; col. 472.]
On 25th March the Government were still speaking of that section of legislation with approval. There has been no consultation that I am aware of with any interested parties, certainly not with the TUC, whose members are, of course, likely to be affected by any proposed amendment to Section 146 of the 1992 Act. Therefore, while we are pleased that there is to be recommitment, we wish to place on record in the strongest terms our objections to the procedures followed by the Government with regard to this new clause. We shall have our discussion in Committee and then there will be provision for a Report stage; but that will be held all in one afternoon so that amendments which noble Lords have tabled expecting them to be properly debated on Third Reading, following a Report stage held in the normal manner, will be put back and taken very much later. I deeply
14
regret that the Government have decided to go down this path. I had hoped they would not proceed but unfortunately they have done so. I wish to place on record the objections of this side of the House.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I wish to express my own concern at what has happened. Only this morning I received a letter from Mr. Willis, the General Secretary of the TUC. He wrote:
"I am writing to you as the Chairman of the Hansard Society's Commission on the Legislative Process to express the TUC's concern at the Government's decision to move a significant amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill at the Third Reading Stage in the House of Lords. I believe the Government's action is an affront to normal Parliamentary procedures and a clear illustration of the need for changes in the legislative process along the lines of the recommendations put forward by the Commission".
I express no views about the merits of the new clause which the Government have proposed but I find it very disturbing that the Court of Appeal should issue its unanimous judgment on 30th April on two cases—I do not know whether there was any question of their going to the House of Lords—and then on 6th May for the noble Viscount to say that he would move an amendment. That amendment was published on 20th May for debate on 24th May. I share the views expressed by Mr. Willis that the hasty response to the judgment was made before anyone had seen the full transcript of the Court of Appeal's ruling and without waiting to see whether either case would proceed to the House of Lords. The amendment was published on Thursday 20th May for Third Reading debate in this Chamber on Monday 24th May. The text of the amendment was not available until the last possible moment before the debate. Although I understand the Government have allowed a separate Committee stage for the amendments today, this cannot be considered an effective parliamentary scrutiny.
Furthermore, there has been no prior consultation with interested parties. I am bound to say I cannot see any justification for legislating in this way. We had a valuable debate last Wednesday on the Salisbury rules and some of the other practices of this House. One of the points that was made not only by the Hansard Society but by a number of your Lordships was that in any event there was usually insufficient time between the various stages of Bills for Members of this House, and certainly those outside, to consider what is happening. This is a rather disturbing example of the way in which we tend to legislate.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. I wish to add a few words to what I said last Thursday when the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, repeated what he had said on Report; that is, that the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in two cases had confirmed that the law was giving rise to difficulties and confusion and that it was important for the Government to act quickly to make the law clear. I believe an important principle is at stake here. It is not for the Government but for this House in its judicial capacity to clarify the law if called upon to do so. In introducing this amendment the Government

15
are in my view seeking not to clarify but to alter the law to the advantage of employers and the detriment of employees.
Last Thursday the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and myself for our constructive and helpful approach to this matter. The noble Lord the Leader of the House added that he was extremely grateful to us for agreeing —albeit reluctantly—that the course proposed in the government Motion was probably the best way in which to proceed. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not present. I have told him that it would have been more accurate to say not that we agreed this was the best course but that we felt obliged to acquiesce in the Government's decision. The Government may succeed in forcing through their amendment this afternoon. All we can do is to protest at this position, and that I do most strongly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I know that we have no rigid rules in this House which one can be accused of breaching, but I question whether this is the time for this point to be raised. We rely upon self-discipline. That is the only way in which we can make sense of our discussions. We must use our discretion when we raise matters. However, on this particular matter we are not in Committee and we are not in the Report stage. All of a sudden, out of the blue, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has raised this issue. I do not know whether she gave notice to my noble friend the Leader of the House that she intended to do so. She has given no chance for anybody who could deal with the matter to be present on the Front Bench.
While it can seem a good publicity ploy to take advantage of the circumstances, it is wrong to misuse the absence of rules so to distort the way we do our business that we do not know where we are. No one can answer my question but, for the record, I want to ask whether this is the correct time for this point to be made when it could properly have been raised when the amendment itself was on the table for discussion. To jump the gun in this way is to twist the procedures of this House in a way which is not in the interests of the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that we all heard what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said. He asked whether this is the right time to discuss the matter. There is no other time when we can raise this point of whether it is right to proceed with the matter now.
I was not present on Thursday. I have only become aware of the situation today. I agree with everything which the noble Lords, Lord Rippon and Lord Rochester, and my noble friend on the Front Bench said.
I must declare an interest. In 1939 I was secretary of my local chapel of the National Union of Journalists. That was some time ago, but I have an interest in the subject and in the views which that union may express about the propriety of the Government's behaviour. I believe that the Government should think again about the matter.
16
How can it be proper to rush through such far-reaching legislation without any opportunity for consultation whatever with those who are concerned by it and about it? Like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I find the way in which this Government proceed, making decisions on the hoof without consultation, quite intolerable. I have mentioned consultation, but how can the Government expect there to be respect for the law when they seem to defy the due deliberations of three Lords Justices on a point of principle, especially as the case may yet go to the Court of Appeal or to this House? It is quite wrong that the issue should be dealt with in this way.
Having heard strong representations both from our Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench I say that in principle this is the wrong thing to do. I plead with the Government to think again before they proceed with what I believe is a very rushed, totally unnecessary and unprincipled action.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for the record, I should like to dissociate myself from the observations made to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I shall assuredly not enter into the merits of the debate. I rise only to deal with the question of the order of debate.
There were two issues which I had to try truly to understand. One was the reasoning of the judgment. I had only half an hour to do so. I need very much more time because the issue goes back over a long period. I shall not go into details, but I need more time, although I am a fairly fast worker. I also wanted to see how the opt-out provisions of the Social Chapter could affect the nature of the amendment. I have not had a moment to consider that aspect.
This is what happens if one proceeds in this way. Of course we shall do the best we can. It is a lovely day and we shall do so with good will. However, there are problems and I merely rise to point out the difficulties which I had in dealing with the matter objectively.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is right that we should follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, particularly on his birthday, on which I congratulate him.
Like other noble Lords, I do not wish to comment on the merits of the Government's amendment or the amendments to it. My noble friend Lady Turner is far better qualified than I to do so. However, I want to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said.
The Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is a debatable Motion. It should be stated clearly to the House that this is not only the right time but the only real opportunity for us to debate whether it is proper for the amendment to be put to this House in this way at Third Reading.
It may be said that we have acquiesced in the procedures. That is the case. I understand that the usual channels have acquiesced in the procedures, and my noble friend Lady Turner confirmed that point. We acquiesced only in the knowledge that it was the firm intention of the Government to push through the amendment come what may. The concession of recommitment to Committee is only a concession to

17
us. It has a certain amount of virtue but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, not very much virtue because those who are involved deeply with the issues have not had an opportunity to investigate the matter fully.
All Members of your Lordships' House should be clear that it was proper for my noble friend Lady Turner to have risen and to have raised the issue. The propriety of her action has been confirmed by many speakers in this debate.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have been approached by two trade unions in relation to this matter. One was the Society of Telecom Executives and the other the National Union of Journalists, of which I have been a member for only 20 years, unlike my noble friend Lord Ennals whose membership goes back further. The significant point which they raised in their approaches to me is that neither union, both of which are greatly concerned with the matter covered by the amendment, has been properly consulted. They have not been consulted at all.
I suggest to the Government that the procedure proposed for this afternoon is outrageous. I do not care whether or not it has been agreed through the usual channels. It remains outrageous, for the following reason. We are expected to discuss a recommittal stage for a time. Then there will be a brief period, during the Statement, in which amendments can be put down for the Report stage. After that there will presumably be a brief period before we move on to the Third Reading, during which no further amendments can be put down. We would normally expect that after Report stage we would be in a position to put down amendments for the Third Reading if that were appropriate.
It may well be that after the Committee stage I shall feel obliged to consult the Society of Telecom Engineers and the National Union of Journalists. I shall have very little time in which to do so. Again, after Report stage I and other colleagues in this House may wish to consult appropriate trade unions or the TUC. We shall have no time to do that.
I should like to suggest to the Government an alternative proposal to the one which is before us today. I suggest that we take the recommitment stage as proposed and then adjourn the House for a period which is long enough to allow proper discussion and consultation to take place. We should then hold the Report stage later. The Third Reading should be abandoned for today and resumed at a later stage next week, the following week or whenever is appropriate. There is no overwhelming urgency about the Bill. I commend my proposal to the Government and I hope that they will listen to it and accept it.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about the flexibility of procedure turns back upon him. The ability to introduce amendments at Third Reading has distinguished this House from another place for approximately 350 years at the least.
18
However, like other privileges of this House, that privilege depends for its enjoyment upon continued self-restraint. In the light of our agenda after the Whitsun Recess, I cannot help wondering whether this is precisely the moment for the Government to set an example of breaking that self-restraint. That view may not be universally shared in the Department of Employment but I would imagine that it is widely shared on the Government Front Bench in this House.
Speaking for a moment purely personally, I cannot help expressing regret that at precisely the moment when I am about to set out with the Government on a long route-march they choose to shoot themselves in the foot. I am in full agreement with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on my own Front Bench. I am in particular agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I am not yet convinced that there is so much doubt and confusion in the law that it is urgently in need of clarification.
I am more convinced by the remark of Mr. Clarke, counsel for Palmer in Palmer v. Associated British Ports, in one of the cases which the Government propose to reverse. At page 24E of the transcript he stated:
"It is a simple enough case for a junior. I am sure their Lordships do not need to be troubled".
With that opinion I agree.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was indisposed last Thursday and obviously unable to make her comments on the recommitment proposal that I made on that date. I understand that she wishes to have her remarks today on the record. Of course, the noble Baroness is quite right. I gave notice on 6th May at col. 860 of the Official Report of our intention to move the amendment during the Report stage of the Bill. As I said at the time —and I may be repeating myself, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said—the Government's purpose is to clarify the effect of the law in this area. The recent judgments of the Court of Appeal in two cases have confirmed that the law is giving rise to difficulties and confusion. The present position is unsatisfactory and it is important that we should act quickly to make the law clear.
It is clear from the decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the judgments of the Court of Appeal that the law is giving rise to considerable difficulties. I believe it is right that we should take this opportunity, while the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill is before Parliament, to clarify the law in that area.
It is not the case that the Government are simply reacting instantly to the Court of Appeal judgment. My noble friend Lord Rippon was not making a comment on the amendment itself but on the speed of introducing the amendment. We have been aware for some time that Section 146 has been causing difficulties for the industrial tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunals. We have been keeping the matter under close review. However, it is true to say that the Court of Appeal judgments were

19
not in line with what the Government had expected and certainly not with the Government's intention as to the way in which the law should operate in that area. In the circumstances, we believe that it is right to bring forward an amendment now. Obviously when we discuss the amendment I shall be able to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who introduced the provision and to indicate why we believe that the amendment is a clarification. From what the noble Lord said when he introduced the provision in 1975 it is quite clear that what we are doing today is purely clarifying the law.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene. Is he saying that the matter has been of some concern to the department for some time? If that is so, why was not the amendment brought forward earlier?
Is it right to assume that the Government decided to bring the amendment forward when they did not like a decision by the Court?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is a rather complicated area. The industrial tribunals found one way; the Employment Appeal Tribunal found another, which was in line with Government thinking. However, it gave leave to appeal. It said that there are difficulties in this area of the law. As the law stood, at that moment obviously the law supported the line that the Government took. I believe that the noble Lord would understand that. However, when the Court of Appeal judgment was released only a few days ago it acted in the opposite way. Having been aware of the inconsistencies in the law—and they were pointed out to us—at that moment we sought to make this amendment while the Bill was before Parliament.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene. I ask the question in order to speed up our debates if they are to go ahead. He has often said that the Government needed to clarify the judgments of the Court of Appeal. Either now or before substantive debate, will he give us a reference to pages or paragraphs in the Court of Appeal judgment which are unclear so far as concerns principle? Will he also give references to the industrial tribunal decisions and the EAT decisions—for the first time he states that they exist—which have thrown doubt on the law? It is not the mere fact that one court reverses the decision of another; that happens every day. If the Government legislated every time the Court of Appeal did so, we should be debating night and day.
Will the noble Viscount also state that if he goes ahead with the substantive debate he is able, and has the authority, to consider any amendments put to the Government; and that if they are difficult amendments to accept, that he can adjourn the House when necessary in order that proper consideration can be given not by noble Lords on this side of the Chamber but by the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to go into some detail. Perhaps I may quote from an extract of the EAT judgment. It states:
"Section 23(1) (a)"—
that is the section under the 1978 consolidated Act—
"has caused and may well continue to cause problems. We will give leave to appeal and would welcome guidance. We share the difficulties which this Industrial Tribunal found in the wording of S.23(1) (a)".
It continued:
"For the reasons we have given therefore the appeal is allowed and the Originating Application of each of these complaints must be dismissed. Leave to appeal".
I have sought to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on my feet. I should prefer to do so when we speak to the amendment.
However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to delay the passage of the Bill. We are providing through this Motion an opportunity for the House to consider the amendment in detail on recommitment. It will obviously be discussed in another place. We have tabled the new clause as soon as possible to allow time for any further amendments to be tabled. Amendments have been tabled. The remainder of the Bill has received very thorough consideration by your Lordships. I believe it reasonable in the circumstances for the House to proceed to Third Reading of the Bill on this day.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been very considerate over interventions. Will he comment on my suggestion that the Third Reading should be postponed? As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, it has been the custom to put down Motions in this House at Third Reading for a very long time. It may well be that the need for further amendment between Report stage and Third Reading could arise from our debates today. However, as yet there is apparently no opportunity for that. I suggested—I sought to help the Government —that the Third Reading be postponed until another day so that adequate consultation and consideration of further amendments at Third Reading should take place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course these matters have been discussed with the usual channels. We do not come to the Dispatch Box to propose something that has not already been discussed and agreed between ourselves and the Opposition. I sought to explain why I felt it was perfectly reasonable to go through to Third Reading. The remainder of the Bill has been discussed in some detail.
I recognise that if we were to deal with the amendment proposed on Third Reading it would restrict the scope for debate. I agree that it is important for your Lordships to have the opportunity to debate the amendment thoroughly. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that we want to get on with the debate in order to have a proper discussion. That is why the Government tabled the Motion providing for the Recommitment of this part of the Bill. I commend the Motion.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he was kind enough to say that he intends to quote from the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made in 1976. So that we may take care and follow precisely what he says, will the noble Viscount now cite the reference so that we may look it up?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may make a humble suggestion. We are where we are now. There is obviously criticism of the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and others have made that plain and stated their objection. However, every prolongation of this part of the debate will be at the expense of the substantive discussion and will make matters worse. Should we not get on with it?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not that suggestion in itself rather damaging to what we are trying to discuss? If one gets on with it, one accepts it. What people like myself, who come to the matter afresh, want to know is: why are we in this situation? The usual channels who acquiesced in this obviously have doubts as to whether what they did was right. They were not happy about it, otherwise there would have been no debate. They tell us that they agreed to go along with this arrangement in order to facilitate the Government. Those who come to the matter afresh are faced with a situation which we had no reason to expect. This is an unusual procedure and if we accept the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, we shall be accepting that we go ahead with a discussion which those of us who come to the matter afresh feel ought not to take place in the way proposed on the Order Paper. For that reason, I take the view which has been most widely expressed; that some arrangement should be made so that the matter can be examined in greater detail than is presently proposed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, taking part in our debate this afternoon. He has not done so to date, but I look forward to his contribution.
In order to help the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I shall cite the reference for the quotation for which he asked. It is from Hansard, 23rd September 1975, col. 189 and subsequent columns.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Action short of dismissal: non-infringing actions
(". In section 148 of the 1992 Act (consideration of complaint of action short of dismissal), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(3) In determining what was the purpose for which action was taken by the employer against the complainant in a case where—

(a) there is evidence that the employer's purpose was to further a change in his relationship with all or any class of his employees, and

(b) there is also evidence that his purpose was one falling within section 146,

22
the tribunal shall regard the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) (and not the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b)) as the purpose for which the employer took the action, unless it considers that the action was such as no reasonable employer would take having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a).
(4) Where the action which the tribunal determines to have been the action taken against the complainant was action taken in consequence of previous action by the employer paragraph (a) of subsection (3) is satisfied if the purpose mentioned in that paragraph was the purpose of the previous action.
(5) In subsection (3) "class", in relation to an employer and his employees, means those employed at a particular place of work, those employees of a particular grade, category or description or those of a particular grade, category or description employed at a particular place of work.".").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment that stands in my name I am aware that it has already been the subject of a certain amount of controversy. I have to say that a little of it even surfaced today. I am pleased, therefore, that we have been able to resolve into Committee once again this afternoon so that the issues may be debated fully, without the constraints that would apply at Third Reading.
I believe that it will be helpful to our deliberations this afternoon if I set out the background to the tabling of this amendment and, in particular, details of the recent Court of Appeal cases that have pointed to the need for clarification of the law.
The law on action short of dismissal has, since we consolidated industrial relations law last year, been contained in Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In broad terms, it provides protection for the individual against action taken against him by his employer for the purpose of deterring or compelling trade union membership. It offers protection for the individual trade union member (or non-trade union member) against victimisation at work by his employer.
The recent Court of Appeal cases which have persuaded the Government that the amendment before us today is necessary arose before the law in this area was consolidated and when it was contained in Section 23 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The law itself was exactly as it is today.
In these related cases, two separate employers, Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports, decided that they wanted to alter the way in which they negotiated with their workforce. Instead of maintaining collective bargaining arrangements they wanted to de-recognise the union in question and move to a system of personal contracts. It is, of course, the employer's right to decide exactly how he wants to negotiate with his staff. After all, no one but the employer in question can know all the relevant circumstances and can decide what is best for his business. It has always been this Government's policy to ensure that employers have the freedom to act in this way.
In these cases, in order to persuade their employees to accept new personal contracts of employment, the employers offered them a financial inducement to sign. In effect, those who signed the new contract received

23
a pay rise, and those who refused did not. The employers believed, as did many of those who have followed these cases, that there was nothing unlawful in their actions. They made a business decision about their future method of negotiation with staff and took appropriate action to implement it. They have maintained throughout that they had no interest in whether or not their employees were members of the formerly recognised union or any other union. They have certainly not sought to prevent their employees continuing to be members of a union—which would indeed have been unlawful. Their interest and their action related to the conduct of their own relationship with their employees.
Nonetheless, cases were brought under what is now Section 146. In each case, the industrial tribunal found that the employer had contravened Section 146, but that finding was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT's rulings were, I have to say and have said, in line with what the Government had expected, and applied the law in the way in which we had understood it would operate. However, only a few weeks ago, the Court of Appeal found that the employer had acted unlawfully in both cases.
These cases have proved difficult to resolve, and this area of law is now in a state of confusion because, it seems, of the way that Section 146 is formulated. The section protects against action taken against the individual for the purpose of compelling or deterring trade union membership. Our understanding is, and always has been, that this means that in broad terms an employer is prevented from victimising individual trade union members or non-trade union members. The provisions were not intended to apply in a situation where an employer takes a particular action in order to achieve an organisational or strategic purpose, and where that action may incidentally have negative side effects for certain people who are, or are not, trade union members.
Thus, it seems to us that Section 146 should not have applied in the Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports cases. The fact that it has successfully been argued that it does indicates that the law is unclear and that it is not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. We have therefore brought forward this amendment.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I set out in a little more detail exactly how Section 146 was originally intended to operate. The law in its current form was first introduced by the Labour Government in 1975. To illustrate the intentions that lay behind that legislation I can do no better than to quote the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who took the relevant legislation through your Lordships' House. In doing so he emphasised that the clause:
"deals with individual rights of employees, not collective bargaining issues."—[Official Report, 23/9/75; col. 189.]
He went on to explain:
"a prohibited action must be for the purpose of prevention, deterrence or penalisation. Actions aimed at other purposes, such as helping recognised unions, which have the incidental effect of restricting some employee's rights comparatively, do not infringe these rights."—[col. 192.]
When the law on action short of dismissal was amended in 1982 these intentions were unchanged. My noble friend Lord Ferrers explained the position to your Lordships' House in these words:
"Clearly, it would be unfair if an employee were, for instance, to have taken away from him his company car because he was not a member of a trade union … but it would not be unfair to have a differentiation between rates of pay …" —[Official Report, 28/7/82; col. 331.]
As noble Lords will see, from its earliest days, and under different governments, the intention behind the section has been to protect against individual acts of discrimination, and not to confuse those with collective bargaining issues.
I hope that the Committee will forgive that lengthy preamble to my description of what the amendment actually does, but I thought that it would assist our deliberations this afternoon to have this information about the context in which I am bringing forward this amendment.
The amendment clarifies for the benefit of tribunals and courts the way in which an employer's purpose should be determined in cases such as those which have occurred most recently. It provides for the situation where a case comes to a tribunal and the employer and the individual put different arguments about the employer's purpose in taking a particular action. Where it is argued, on the one hand, that the employer's purpose was to bring about a change in how he conducts his relationship with his employees (that is to say, his bargaining arrangements) and, on the other hand, that his purpose was a purpose falling within Section 146, then the tribunal is to take the bargaining purpose as the relevant purpose. However, the tribunal must always have regard to the reasonableness of the action taken. If the action is,
"such as no reasonable employer would take"
in the circumstances, then the tribunal will still be able to decide that the action amounts to action short of dismissal in the terms of Section 146.
The effect of the amendment will be to restore the proper distinction in Section 146 between individual and collective matters. Section 146 will continue to give individuals important protection against victimisation because of their trade union membership or non-membership, but it will not prevent employers from making and implementing legitimate decisions about how they wish to negotiate with their employees.
We should not exaggerate the effect of this amendment, which does no more than clarify this particular area of the law. It will apply only in a particular set of circumstances, such as those that arose in connection with the recent cases which I have described. Only where an employer wishes to bring about a change in the way he conducts his relationship with his employees and in order to do so takes action which is argued to be action in contravention of Section 146 will the amendment come into play; and only then if the action is reasonable in the circumstances. It is an important amendment, but it does not amount to a fundamental change in the law. Indeed, as I have argued, the Government believe that it does no more than ensure that the law is applied in the way that had always been intended.
There is a further important point that I should like to make clear about the effect of this amendment. It arises from a question which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised during the brief debate on the Government's Recommitment Motion last Thursday. The noble Lord said (reported in Hansard on 20th May, cols. 1857–58) that his understanding was that the new clause would not affect either of the two cases covered by the Court of Appeal's recent judgments, nor indeed any others which may be awaiting hearing by an industrial tribunal. He asked me to confirm that that was the case.
I thought it right to deal with this matter in introducing the new clause. I can indeed confirm that the noble Lord's understanding is entirely correct. The amendment would not take effect until after the Act receives Royal Assent and this particular provision has been commenced. That means that any existing cases currently before the courts or the tribunals—and, indeed, any cases which concern action taken before the new clause comes into effect—would fall to be decided under the law as it currently stands. As I have made clear, the Government believe that the amendment will simply ensure that the law operates as had always been intended. Nevertheless, it would clearly be wrong to attempt to make the amendment apply retrospectively, and I am happy to give the House reassurance on that point.
Moreover, it should not go unremarked that the amendment will not apply solely in situations where an employer's purpose is to de-recognise a trade union—such a narrow amendment could hardly, after all, be described as clarifying the law. The amendment provides that in any situation where an employer wants to change his negotiating arrangements and takes reasonable action to bring about that change he will not be acting in contravention of Section 146.
Before concluding, I should like to take up a point about which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is concerned. I understand that he is unable to be present today, but for clarification I confirm to the House that the provisions contained in this new clause will not he among the provisions extended to Northern Ireland by Clause 53.
In conclusion, a government's duty is to bring forward legislation to implement the policies on which they were elected, and to keep a watchful eye to ensure that legislation continues to achieve the purpose for which it was made. Recent events have made it clear that Section 146 has ceased in certain cases to achieve its intended purpose. The purpose of the amendment before the Committee is to put that right. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 6, leave out ("further a") and insert ("negotiate an agreed").
The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to insert into the new clause the requirement that the employer should negotiate and agree with his employees any
"change in his relationship with all or any class"
of them. If unamended in that way, or in one of the ways later to be suggested by my noble friends, the
26
new clause would have the effect, in my view, of totally undermining the protection afforded to employees by Section 146 of the 1992 Act. As we have seen, Section 146(1) (a) states that,
"An employee has the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him as an individual by his employer for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or deterring him"—
and I emphasise that point—
"from being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union, or penalising him for doing so".
Of course it is about individuals. We have never argued that it was about collective rights.
This is not a new provision, as I said earlier. It appears in the Act of 1978 in exactly the same wording, and, as the Minister himself has agreed, in the Employment Protection Act of 1975. I again say to the Minister that if the Government thought there was a need for so-called clarification, there has been ample opportunity for doing so, certainly before this afternoon on the final stages of a major Bill. Furthermore, the decision to take this course was apparently taken following the Court of Appeal judgment on 30th April and, as we all know, before the full transcript was available.
As we have seen, the cases before the Court of Appeal—Wilson v. Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports v. Palmer—concern the denial of pay increases to employees who refused to sign personal contracts which required them to relinquish trade union representation. In both cases the industrial tribunal decided that offering financial inducements in that way constituted action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership activities. The EAT, as the Minister has explained, overturned those verdicts, again by a majority decision—a member of the EAT dissented. The Court of Appeal ruled that the employer's actions amounted to unlawful discrimination under Section 146 of the 1992 Act. As I said earlier, in my view the maverick decision is that of the EAT. The Court of Appeal seems to have followed precedent set in other cases. The Court of Appeal judgment refers specifically to the cases of the National Coal Board v. Ridgway and Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd. v. Armitage. Here we have the Government seeking an amendment which would appear to support the EAT as against the Court of Appeal and previous precedents. It does not seem to me to be a case for clarification. If one is talking about clarification, just look at the wording of this amendment! Perhaps I may read subsection (4) of the proposed new clause:
"Where the action which the tribunal determines to have been the action taken against the complainant was action taken in consequence of previous action by the employer paragraph (a) of subsection (3) is satisfied if the purpose mentioned in that paragraph was the purpose of the previous action".
If that is clarification, I really am very surprised. I wait to hear the Minister explain to us precisely what that means.
In his judgment Lord Justice Dillon states that he had no doubt that the purpose of Associated British Ports in offering extra pay to those employees who signed the new personal contracts was to persuade

27
employees to abandon union representation by making personal contracts so attractive that, as it was put by the dissenting member of the EAT,
"the union would wither on the vine".
It was claimed that although some employees had accepted the offer of a personal contract, they could have remained members of the union.
However, Lord Justice Dillon referred to the case of Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd. v. Mrs. Armitage. In that case, the employee was dismissed by her employers after she had consulted a union official about the terms of her contract of employment and the union official had written a letter to her employers on her behalf about the terms of the contract. The industrial tribunal held that she had been dismissed because of her union membership. The employer's appeal to the EAT said that there was a distinction to be drawn between membership of a union on the one hand and resorting to the services of the union on the other. That argument was dismissed.
There is no need for that kind of clarification. The Court of Appeal judgment seems very clear. If the clause now suggested by the Government is incorporated into the Bill, it is likely to lead to much more confusion. Employers will imagine that the type of actions embarked upon by Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports are now legitimate, and that it is open to them to end collective bargaining and offer bribes in the shape of higher salaries to individuals who will opt for personal contracts and will agree to forgo union representation. It will not be very long before that is being widely interpreted as legitimising pressure for people to leave the union altogether.
If our amendment were accepted, it would at least bind the employer to negotiate any changes in his structural relationships and to agree them with the employees so affected instead of simply imposing them. That would be some small amelioration in a totally unsatisfactory and indeed totally objectionable clause. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Rochester: Earlier this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that the Government had had this matter under consideration for some time and that they were surprised by the Court of Appeal judgment overturning the judgments of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which they had thought represented the existing law. But the Court of Appeal judgments were consistent with earlier industrial tribunal findings. I believe the point has already been made this afternoon that it seems odd, to say the least, that it has taken 15 years (since the passing of the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act on which the present law depends) for the Government to find that there is need for this amending legislation.
In debates in Committee and on Report, my noble friends and I felt that the effect of the Bill in a number of ways was to undermine what might be called the
28
raison d'Être, of trade unionism; namely, the right of people to combine together and ultimately, if the need arises, to withdraw their labour.
In our view, good industrial relations depend on there being a reasonable balance between management and employee representatives. But if instead of legislation being even-handed in its application, the process is weighted at every turn—as it has been in this Bill—in favour of the employer, not only individual freedom but ultimately this country's economic performance will suffer.
Accordingly, the question we have to ask is: what is the Government's real aim in introducing such an amendment into the Bill? I am sorry to have to say it, but feel that I must: is it so to weaken trade unions that they will eventually be driven out of existence? In our view, trade unions are an essential part of a free society—look at the countries in which they no longer exist—and a free society dismantles them at its peril.
We are told in this amendment that where there is a conflict between the employer's purpose no longer to recognise a trade union—a purpose which he is already at liberty to pursue—and the right of an employee not to have action short of dismissal taken against him by his employer to deter him from being the union member, it is the purpose no longer to recognise the union which is to prevail. It is true that subsection (3) (b) states that the action of the employer must not be:
"such as no reasonable employer would take having regard to the purpose"—
which is, not to recognise the union.
There are several comments to be made on that. First, once more it will fall to lawyers to argue among themselves, this time as to what is meant by the term "reasonable employer". I hope that tribunals will conclude that an employer who, as in the recent Court of Appeal cases, grants significant pay rises to employees who accept personal contracts but not to those who choose to remain union members is not a reasonable employer. But I fear that in moving the amendment the Government consider that if the new legislation had applied in those two cases (the Minister has practically said so), the actions of the employers concerned would have been held to be within the law. Otherwise, I do not see why the Government would want to amend the law as they are doing.
In other and cruder words, it seems that under this Government we have now reached the position that in future there will be nothing to stop employers who are so inclined from offering sweeteners—or bribes; let us not mince words—to employees to induce them to leave their union. I find that offensive. I hope that the Committee will, too. I am glad on that basis to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which at least goes a little way to mitigating the effects of the government amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The question with which the Committee is concerned on both the amendments can be put quite simply. I want to make a simple speech because this is a very complex subject. It might be helpful to leave the legal technicalities to the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner,

29
from whom we have already heard some of them put extremely well. It will be found in five lines on page 22 of the judgment:
"this decision does not dispute an employer's right to de-recognise a union and make changes in consequence in the terms and conditions of the employee's employment. The employer only enters a potential danger area if he offers a douceur"—
the bribe, as it was called by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—
"to employees who will support his policy, which is to be withheld from those who are not prepared to support it".
In five lines, that is the question.
Leaving aside the complex reasoning of the judgment, which I have not been able to assimilate, and the technical legal questions of statutory interpretation as to action short of dismissal, the cases on it and unlawful discrimination, the question is simply whether an employer has a right to derecognise a union. That is not in dispute; it is whether, in implementation of that policy, the employer may offer increased wages to those who accept and withhold from those who refuse. To be quite frank, I cannot see the difference, which my noble friend Lord Ferrers sees, between a car and wages. But there it is. Reading the judgment, perhaps this all but incomprehensible maze of statutory provision is overripe for total reclarification not only concerning this question.
The proposed amendment has to be seen in fair perspective. As I read it, subject to correction, it would not preclude the courts from reaching precisely the same decision as that reached by the Court of Appeal if, as the Court of Appeal held (but not in terms), no reasonable employer—having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) and the tailpiece to paragraphs (a) and (b)—would have taken such action. It is little different from the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.
The Committee may feel that the proposed amendment provides an alternative avenue by which the decision of the Court of Appeal could be upheld in similar circumstances. I agree with the Minister that in that sense the clause makes no fundamental change. It follows that to some degree it serves as an aid to the clarification of this complex statutory provision, in the light of contradictory decisions which have taken three years to reach the Court of Appeal and, for all one knows, may be on their way to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
We have to look at the fundamental principle behind the amendment. Both the proposed amendment and the Government's attitude are a reflection of fundamental government policy —affirmed by the Minister today at the Dispatch Box—that employers should be free to decide whether to accord recognition to a trade union, and that the setting up of recognition machinery is wholly unacceptable. If such is the policy, then, if an employer is free to recognise; or not to recognise; to implement a "no-strike" clause; or to conclude a single union agreement; surely he must also be free to seek to induce the non-union representation as proposed by the amendment subject to some proposed safeguard.
In regard to the safeguard proposed, this is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I,
30
without any form of consultation, have held the same type of reservations. It is apparently an objective standard for the decision of the tribunal and the courts on the evidence adduced. It may not be entirely satisfactory. What is the action which no reasonable employer would take? Is it rather like the elephant which one recognises when one sees it, but which belies any easy definition?
While the fundamental policy of government remains in place, I simply do not understand what useful purpose can be served by opposing the amendment. On many occasions, I have sought in vain to persuade the Government to change their policy. The Government have set their face against any form of statutory framework for recognition machinery. It must be fairly conceded that neither I, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, the TUC nor anyone else so far as I am aware, have been able to devise any satisfactory framework. It is not a simple problem. None of us, in our cross-party discussions which we have at times, indicated that we wanted to go back to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971 which were lifted piecemeal from the Barbara Castle industrial relations Bill.
Nonetheless, before too long the day must come—and it surely will—when recognition procedures, worker participation, inducements to avoid trade union representation with which we are concerned today and other aspects of our domestic law of industrial relations, with or without the Maastricht opt-out clause (which I have not been able to study sufficiently for this purpose), will receive consideration from the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. I wholly support the Government in the view that our domestic law requires clarification in this context. It is of course subject to supranational law, according to the jurisdiction that we have conferred on those courts.
The sovereignty of Parliament to introduce amending legislation of this order is not in question. But the implementation of that legislation can be called into question. If the Government are dissatisfied with the decision of the judiciary, they retain the sovereign right to strike down the decision by amending the legislation. Perhaps the most notable example in that sphere was the Taff Vale case.
As members of the European Community, our sovereignty to implement domestic legislation is now qualified. I am grateful to the Minister for making it patently clear that the legislation cannot affect any position that arose prior to Royal Assent. In conclusion—at all events, until Maastricht has cleared our parliamentary hurdle, as affording a step in an ongoing process of negotiation and while the fundamental policy of government as regards recognition remains as it is, in place—it would be pointless and perhaps even premature to oppose the Government on Amendment No. 1.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, partly because he was the first to recite in full to your Lordships a passage from the judgment, and to do so with great effect. Amendment No. 2 points to a crucial area of the Government's amendment which poses the

31
question whether an employer under the Government's regime would be able to force through, without any negotiation with anyone, changes in the employment relationship and so wipe out whatever was the area of his intent or purpose to indulge in trade union cleansing.
Faced with that, the Government retreat with what they call "uncertainty". All that they have shown is that they like the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal but not that of the Court of Appeal. Governments and others frequently find themselves in that position. I fully share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Government should have the right to legislate in face of that. But they should have read the judgment properly before doing so. With great respect, even our debates so far show that the Government have not done so. They should have stopped the amendment in its tracks, gone away and thought again.
I refer especially to page 22 of the judgment, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, cited, both in respect of the Court of Appeal's insistence that its decision and the decisions of industrial tribunals in the future in this area would rest upon the balance of the evidence—not as under the Government's amendment, where one piece of evidence can wipe out another piece of evidence, but on the evidence as a whole. That is the first of three points on the judgment. Secondly, Lord Justice Dillon—I cite this again in quotes in order that the Minister should take account of it and reconsider his briefs on the question—said that,
"this decision does not dispute an employer's right to de-recognise a union"—
I interpolate "collective rights"—
"and make changes in consequence in the terms and conditions of the employee's employment. The employer only enters a potential danger area if he offers a douceur to employees who will support his policy, which is to be withheld from those who are not prepared to support it".
The Court of Appeal there is in direct accord with the only piece of evidence that the Government have cited so far concerning the intent and clarity of this section. Section 146 goes back to 1975 in precisely the same terms and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, rightly said it goes back really to 1971. Although Section 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was rather different in some respects, nevertheless the broad thrust of it—that the employer should not deter or penalise an employee from becoming a member of a trade union—was the same. Indeed, this is an area which up to now, since 1971, give or take the terms precisely, has been, oddly enough, an area of bipartisanship. No one has thought fit to knock out the right to be a trade union member or to so pose it against the employer's rights that the employer can knock it out when he likes. That, of course, is the reality of the Government's amendment. And if the Government refuse and reject my noble friend's amendment, the employer will not be required to negotiate with anyone, not even individually.
But the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in 1975, in introducing the Labour Government's clause, drew a distinction between rights, as the Minister said, which
32
the worker holds as an individual and collective rights concerning recognition or collective bargaining. If one goes to the bottom paragraph of page 22 of the judgment one finds that distinction set out yet again as an obvious statement of law. There is no uncertainty. I have consulted a large number of brethren and, I hasten to add, sisters in the practising profession over the past few days since we had sight of the Government's amendment. They are not all in agreement with me on policy but I did not find one who rejected the concept that this is a new departure. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not work for the Government because he stated something with which we all agree, as does the Court of Appeal. Can the noble Viscount cite a book? Can he cite an article or a commentary—or even a footnote—which suggests that this section should be interpreted in a way other than that in which the Court of Appeal interpreted it?
It was the Employment Appeal Tribunal which was the novelty. Mr. Justice Wood, rather carefully on the facts, did two things; first, he said that he decided this on the special facts of the case; but secondly, he said, at a vital point of the judgment concerned with the law in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that it would be nice to have the guidance of a higher court on the matter, which is a sign of uncertainty. If one goes to the Court of Appeal judgments, with the orthodox long-standing interpretation, there is no uncertainty there. Of course, I do not guarantee that the Judicial Committee of this House will not form either view or even a third view. I cannot insure your Lordships against that. But there is no literature suggesting that there is any uncertainty; or if there is, will the Minister please cite it?
What there is is a government decisicn—on the evidence it seems to be a pretty recent government decision; on the evidence perhaps not through the processes of the Department of Employment. One does the Department of Employment the compliment of thinking that it would have longer consideration of matters within its direct purview. On the evidence it seems possible—though this is speculation—that someone in a huff, having lost in court, got in touch with someone higher up, and someone higher up said, "This has got to go". So of course when the noble Viscount came to announce the decision he did not cite—with great respect to him, he does not cite now —the Court of Appeal judgment properly.
The other issue involved is precisely the individual right issue. The international standard—we shall be coming to international standards in some of our later amendments—is quite clear. It is laid down by the International Labour Organisation conventions, by the Council of Europe social charter and by the United Nations international covenants. It has been clear since 1948 with the ILO freedom of association convention, with the 1949 right to organise and collective bargaining convention and also with the European Convention on Human Rights, as that is an instrument on which it appears the Government place greater weight, although they have ratified and still accept theoretically all the rest.
What do these instruments say—that there should be freedom of association not in an abstract sense; not

33
in a sense of simply having the right to hold a party card and going to work and then being penalised. Anyone concerned with international comparative labour law would laugh at any such idea. The extent of the protection is a matter for application. It was in decisions such as National Coal Board v. Ridgway in 1987 in the Court of Appeal that the Court of Appeal insisted that this was a protection only for individuals. In the case of Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd. v. Armitage in 1990, Mr. Justice Knox held that it went a little further than the right to have a union card. A union card yes, but what should happen when a worker required a local official to help him or her—it was "her" in that case? Yes, said Mr. Justice Knox, having the local official to help is part of being a member.
The Minister seemed to cite the case of Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd. v. Armitage as though it was to do with collective bargaining. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It is to do with grievances. The noble Viscount says that he did not. I apologise to him. I am sure in that case that he did not. It was someone else, Someone else cited it in that way. The Minister agrees with me that they were wrong. What was being discussed was the individual right to have the help of a local official in certain circumstances on an individual matter. It is by no means certain. Mr. Justice Knox held that that right was the outward and visible manifestation of union membership and formed part of the right not to be penalised by the employer for doing it.
In those circumstances, if the Government are really going to come forward with this novel piece of law, they must understand that they are undercutting every other norm, not merely of our past law but also of international comparative labour law as well. Not every country abides by its obligations. One can go to the ILO Committee of Experts' reports and find examples. This country has been one of the examples in other areas. It grieves me and makes me sad to see this country being rushed at six days' notice—72 hours' working notice—into a new law which will form another passage in the Committee of Experts of the ILO. If the Government want this, could they not show that they have some understanding of the power relationship on the office floor and the factory floor by accepting that before the employer is put into this driving seat he must at least put forward a little evidence of negotiating with the people who are now to be in his power?
Lord Moyne: My worry about the Government's proposal does not refer to the comparison with international norms so much as the comparison with their own policy. In the Government's legislation over the past 10 years or more it has been established—and quite rightly established—that it is the individual's right not to belong to a trade union. Surely that implies that it is also an individual's right to belong to a trade union
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the care he has taken to make the Court of Appeal transcript available to us and for his care to
34
make the text of the amendment available to us before the weekend. In all the dissatisfaction I have expressed about the procedure I have not for a minute criticised or intended to criticise the courtesy with which the noble Viscount personally has conducted it. Nevertheless, the point remains that at short notice I must speak more speculatively about the meaning of this amendment than I would otherwise have wished. The point has been made many times by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Rippon of Hexham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that rushed and hasty legislation does not always achieve its desired effect. The noble Viscount told us that this amendment did not achieve a fundamental change in the law. Before listening with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I felt that perhaps the noble Viscount was speaking rather truer than he knew. Purpose tests in court often cause difficulty. Some of us may remember the cases that used to arise under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 involving a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the state. It was sometimes very difficult to decide whether or not a purpose was prejudicial to the safety of the state.
The amendment before us asks us to distinguish between two purposes. In theory and in principle it is perfectly possible for such a distinction to be made and to stand up. The question that causes me doubt is whether, on the facts of an individual case, the court will see two separable and distinguishable purposes or whether they will see one single purpose. I have attempted to apply that test to the transcripts of the Palmer and Wilson judgments which the noble Viscount told us on Report this amendment was intended to reverse. I am not a lawyer and have not had time to take expert advice. I speak with hesitation. Looking at this amendment, we are asked to distinguish between a purpose by the employer to further a change in his relationship with his employees from a purpose falling within Section 146, which is to penalise or deter membership of a trade union.
The noble Viscount explained this a little further, referring to an organisational or strategic purpose. When I look at the transcripts of the Palmer and Wilson cases the only organisational or strategic purpose that I can see is the purpose of deterring employees from belonging to a trade union and penalising them if they do so. Speaking purely as a layman, if I was asked on the facts of those cases to make the distinction which this amendment asks us to make I simply could not do it. It is perfectly possible that anyone who followed that line of reasoning might reach exactly the same judgment after this amendment as they would have made before it.
The idea of a double purpose reminds me of the 18th century story of the father and son: Father, "Listen to me, my boy. When you see the two lights at the end of the hall turn into four lights you know you have had a bit too much to drink". Son, "I can see only one light". Like the son, I can see only one purpose. Why have the Government chosen to legislate in this rather weasel way? It appears to me to be as plain as a pikestaff that the underlying intention is to repeal Section 146 of the 1992 Act, but no such

35
intention is avowed. Whether right or wrong, that at least would have been intelligible. But here we are given an attempt to distinguish between two purposes which are likely to be conflated.
Why the weasel way? One thought that occurs to me is that possibly the more robust intention may be in conflict with one of our international obligations. At home late on a Sunday night I was in no position to check the scope of our international obligations. Mention has been made of the ILO Convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred in one of her amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights. Reference has also been made to the Council of Europe Social Charter of 1961. The one that I read, late at night, was Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome. That guarantees the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers. Article 118B, inserted by the Single European Act, tells the Commission that it shall develop a dialogue between management and labour. It is possible that the repeal of Section 146 may infringe either of those. My question is: does it necessarily follow that the weasel way of proceeding adopted in this amendment does not infringe either of those provisions? Has the noble Viscount taken legal advice on whether the amendment infringes those provisions? If not, will he withdraw his amendment until he has done so?
That brings me to the important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway: what is the useful purpose in opposing the amendment if it does not change anything? The reason is that the amendment does not do what the Government believe it does. Therefore, the result of having it on the statute book will be many more judgments unexpected by the Government, a considerable number of cases going to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House at considerable expense, and further cases of rushed amendments, imperfectly drafted, coming forward on Third Readings leading to even further consideration in this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Rippon of Hexham, have both argued that while brevity and clarity in the drafting of legislation are important, certainty is paramount. In this amendment I see no certainty, and I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I believe that the Government amendment has been rushed through merely because this Bill happens to be before us at this time. Had the decision of the Court of Appeal not been three weeks ago but three weeks hence the Bill would have been passed and the Government would have had to consider their position more carefully. They would have had to go through the normal procedures of consultation, bringing in whatever amending legislation they thought necessary at a later date. I still believe that that would have been a much more sensible thing in any case. The Government are not clarifying the law but attempting to change it because they did not like the decision of the court. That is perfectly understandable, but we wish the Government to come clean and say what their true motives are.
36
The Committee will recall that Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 made discrimination on the ground of union membership illegal. The result of the Wilson case indicates that so far the right not to be discriminated against is a right not to be discriminated against for making use of union services; that is, collective bargaining. Wilson refused a personal contract and wished to retain his right to collective bargaining. The NUJ in his case remained recognised but had no collective bargaining role. Wilson's pay was not increased, unlike that of his colleagues who accepted personal contracts. Thus, he suffered loss by refusing to give up his right to collective bargaining; in other words, Wilson was discriminated against, and the court rightly held that to be illegal.
The Wilson case is not an isolated example. There have been many other cases where financial inducement or a douceur, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, called it, has been offered in order to tempt employees to move to personal contracts and to remove collective bargaining. In 1989 about 3,500 middle managers in British Telecom were offered company cars and one-off payments of between £1,000 and £1,500 to persuade them to take up personal contracts. The Society of Telecom Executives offered to conduct a secret ballot jointly with BT to see what the majority actually wished. BT refused. The union carried out a ballot of its own, and 89 per cent. of the employees were in favour of retaining collective bargaining. Unfortunately, in the course of time, a majority of those yielded to the inducements offered by BT. However, about 200 refused the contract on a point of principle.
Subsequently, those people were threatened with a pay freeze unless they took up personal contracts. What is that but discrimination or intimidation? I can hardly believe that that is what the Government intend in this legislation. The union took the case to the industrial tribunal and established that it could represent personal contractors on an individual basis but not collectively. The majority of the tribunal took the decision that the main purpose of the move to personal contracts was
"to improve the quality of management",
which was fair enough, and that the deterrent for those members was merely a necessary side effect to achieve BT's main purpose—that is, to offer some of the employees a pay freeze and others a pay rise. That was merely a necessary side effect. It is extraordinary.
At the time the union's lawyer reflected on the case in these words:
"No rational employer expends effort in ridding itself of the influence of a union for its own sake. It is precisely because he cannot achieve his main purpose of procuring a compliant work force who can be paid as little or as much as he wishes without weakening the union and reducing its membership. It is in order to protect the rights of employees to be members of an effective union, thereby reducing the imbalance of the employees' bargaining position with the employer, that Sections 23 (and Section 28) of the EPCA 1978 exists".
The Government's amendment as it stands could remove most of the present protection against discrimination on grounds of union membership. The right not to suffer discrimination on those grounds, or on the grounds of the use of union facilities, are

37
fundamental rights enshrined in ILO principles to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
Personal contracts are designed to remove rights to collective bargaining. It is a roundabout way of de-recognising the union in all but name. I believe the amendment to be vindictive. We are acquainted with the Government shifting the goal posts from time to time. On this occasion they have shifted the goal posts, removed the pitch, dismantled the grandstands and taken the ball home as well. The Government should seriously think again in a more mature way rather than react quickly and improperly to a court decision which they do not like.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister was kind enough to give the Committee a reference as regards the quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I have read it. What comes through is that the noble Lord was replying to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who was moving an amendment. Such was the situation of the Conservative Party in those days. The amendment was seeking to limit the scope of the clause to recognised unions. It appears that the Opposition at the time took the point that if the rights were given to unrecognised workers, collective bargaining might be undermined. That was the view with which the Opposition were concerned.
It is important to take on board what was happening at that point. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was saying that that part of the Bill was not just about recognised unions and situations and collective bargaining; it was about individual rights and the prevention of penalties. As many other speakers have said, that is precisely what was said in the judgment. Mr. Wilson was penalised by not getting a 4.5 per cent. increase. As an individual he was penalised, and that is what is wrong.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The Minister has been very helpful to the Committee in tracing the lineage of this particular proposal—questionable though that lineage may be—and seeking in part to put it into an historical context. The real context of this proposal is a Bill which purports to strengthen the rights of individual employees. It is a Bill which purports to give to the individual employee the right to join, and to enjoy the benefits of, an independent union of his choice. This proposal exposes not only itself, as has been so amply demonstrated, but the whole motivation of this Bill, in one fell swoop. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I too can recognise an elephant when I see one and I can see what is the purpose of this clause.
It is to put one more weapon into the armoury of employers and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, it is to add one more weight to the scales which are already weighted exorbitantly in favour of the employer and against his employees. The arguments we have heard today are based on the purported rights of the individual to enter freely into a contract of his choosing with his employer. This is not a debate on political philosophy. To understand the motivation
38
behind this clause a pathologist rather than a political philosopher is more helpful. It goes deep into the terrible apprehension and fear of this Government of combinations formed by working men to enable them to talk with employers from some basis of equality because of the employees' obvious and clear inequality in terms of their power in industry. This clause is not new. I shall take the noble Viscount even further back in history to 1833 when the employers of the day in the building industry introduced infamous documents which insisted that trade unionists should renounce membership of their trade unions and to engage themselves not to support any other trade unionist in a contest with his employer. The response of trade unions in those days was to ignore the document; to say that it had been imposed upon them by force majeur; and that they were having no part of it. Until now, trade unionists believed that they had the protection of the law.
As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn made abundantly clear, this is not a question of the law being confused; it is a question of the law being far too clear for the Government's liking. Why do they not say so? They do not like it, so even before it has been further clarified they intend to eliminate the possibility asserted by the Court of Appeal. The substance and vindictiveness of the clause, and the way in which it has, hugger-mugger, been brought to this place can only. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said this, but he will forgive me if it was not—bring the law and the legal processes into contempt. It is a result which I, like other noble Lords, would deprecate, but that will be the consequence.
Trade unions are right to be suspicious of the law and the role it is supposed to play in the regulation of their relationships with employers. This is a clause too far. If it is embodied in the law, an employer will be able to tell trade union members that they can have their wage increase only by signing away their trade union rights, because the Government have removed the protection that they thought they had. The only response of a decent and honourable trade unionist will be to say, "In concert with my fellows, I shall no longer work for you", and to take industrial action. Any trade unionists with decency and integrity will refuse to bow down before such an imposition. For them, as has been said in another and less noble context, there is no alternative.
Lord Mottistone: I have consulted the CBI which tells me that employers support Amendment No. 1. The amendments to it will only weaken that amendment. As I understand it, the amendment does nothing more than restate the right of the employer to seek to order his relations with his staff in a way which is considered most appropriate for the organisation concerned. More and more employers are moving to individual arrangements with their employees where-by reward is tailored to individual performance.
Without the amendment, the Court of Appeal ruling threatens to disrupt those welcome developments which are paying off in terms of improved performance, productivity and competitiveness in the private sector and in the public services. The amendment is consistent with the commitment given

39
by the Government in last year's White Paper People, Jobs and Opportunity, that they would take action to encourage employers to move away from centralised pay bargaining to individual contracts and rewards.
Many employers in both the public and private sectors have moved to individual terms and conditions, and many more wish to do so. Few have encountered any employee opposition to those arrangements. To clarify the situation, the wise thing for the Committee to do would be to support the Government's amendment and to resist the various amendments which will serve only to weaken it and not enable it to carry out its purpose, as the Opposition propose.
Viscount Ullswater: I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, when she introduced the amendment. She spoke in rather broader terms than the narrow scope of the amendment—I shall return to the amendment in due course—as did the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. In many instances I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said. We want to encourage employee/employer relations. I believe that we seek to do so. The noble Lord has certain approaches to that which we may not share, but I do not seek to criticise what he said.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, again in general remarks which went rather wider than the narrow scope of the amendment, identified rightly the need to define the employer's purpose in this instant. That is what the Government's amendment seeks to do where the law is unclear. Perhaps I may take up one point with him. He drew from the quotation which I gave of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that the difference which my noble friend was pointing out was not between taking away a company car and a difference in wage rates. That is how he explained it. But what is meant by that, and what is clear from that, is that it was an action directed towards an individual and towards a group or class of employees; that is, a collective action. I seek to persuade my noble friend that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was trying to differentiate between an action against an individual and one against a group or collection of individuals.
The amendment seeks to undermine one of the central purposes of our amendment. It is clearly contrary to the effect of Section 146 in its present form. We believe that an employer should be free to seek to establish the bargaining arrangements with his workforce that he believes are best suited to the needs and circumstances of his organisation. He is best placed to decide on such issues. We do not consider it to be the Government's role to put obstacles such as the amendment proposes in his way.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone confirmed the view taken by the CBI. I am pleased that I am not a lone voice when I try to persuade the Committee that those are the views of employers. In seeking to establish new arrangements, an employer may wish, as we have seen in recent cases, to offer incentives to his workforce to accept the new arrangement. What is wrong with that? It is up to the employees concerned whether they accept those incentives. So long as the
40
employer is not singling out trade union members, and penalising them for being trade union members, then such action has nothing to do with the law on action short of dismissal, which our amendment seeks to clarify.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, asked me whether we were changing the law on individual rights. No, Section 146 protects individual rights. The Government's amendment does not seek to interfere with them. It clarifies the position with regard to an employer's rights to choose his own negotiating arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, cannot ignore or disregard the words of the Government spokesman at the time the present law was introduced. Contrary to what he asserted, we have considered carefully the Court of Appeal judgment. We are clear, in the light of that judgment, that the law needs to be clarified to ensure that it achieves the intended purpose. The Government do not accept that the only benefits of trade union membership accrue through recognition of the union by the member's employer. Presumably neither do the thousands of individual trade union members who work for an employer who does not recognise their union.
Members of the Committee may have seen that the Court of Appeal's decision in the two recent cases did not dispute an employer's right to de-recognise a union. Lord Justice Dillon stressed that very issue, as the noble Lord read out in the judgment. The court's decision rested on its interpretation of the purpose of the offer of an inducement to those who agree to enter personal contracts. That is the point at issue.
As I have made clear, the important question in this section is not whether the employer recognises a trade union, or how the employer negotiates with those who are not trade union members, but whether the action is taken against an individual on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. That is what we are seeking to clarify in the amendment—
5 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister leaves that point perhaps I may ask whether he is again making the point that he made earlier: that any action by the employer which deals with a collection or group of employees is a collective matter. Does the Minister accept that the employer (as in the case concerned in the Court of Appeal) dealt with a number of individuals on the grounds that—in the words of one of the dissenting industrial members—by ensuring that the union withered on the vine he also discriminated against the individuals at that place of work who did not wish to accept his douceur?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that the original intention of the law was perfectly clear. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would care to look at the amendment. I also address the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, because he introduced the concept of an attack on individual rights in the provision:
"In determining what was the purpose … there is evidence that the employer's purpose was to further a change in his relationship with all or any class of his employees".
That is what the Government are saying. That was the original intention to which the noble Lord, Lord

41
Jacques, addressed himself. He made clear the intentions of the Government of the day in creating that legislation. At the time Section 146 related to individual protection and not to collective bargaining issues. I believe that our amendment restores that intention, which recent cases have confused.
I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who took us back even further than the genesis of this section. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the Armitage case. Nothing in the new clause is intended to overturn the principles expressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in deciding the Armitage case and nor will it do so. The EAT found that action was against Mrs. Armitage as an individual on grounds of her trade union membership. Therefore, there is a distinction between the Armitage case and the amendment that we are seeking to move—
Lord Howie of Troon: Does the Minister recall the 200 employees of British Telecom who were offered a wage freeze if they declined personal contracts? Is the Minister trying to persuade us that that was not a class of employee but was a random agglomeration of 200 individuals?
Viscount Ullswater: One must be careful in one's interpretation of "individual" and "class", which Section 146 was set down to do. It was intended to prevent individual discrimination and not class discrimination in that sense.
It is sufficient therefore, that the new clause should make it clear that Section 146 does not apply to actions which are taken with a purpose of altering bargaining arrangements. How those bargaining arrangements are to be arrived at is irrelevant and the effect of this amendment would be to indicate that any change—returning to the wording of the amendment—that was not negotiated and agreed could be considered as action taken to deter union membership.
Indeed, the noble Baroness's amendment would potentially run counter to one of the findings of the Court of Appeal in the recent cases. The court's judgment made it clear in its decision that it did not dispute an employer's right to de-recognise a union and, as a consequence, make changes in the terms and conditions of the employee's employment. As I explained earlier, that at least is in line with what Parliament had always understood and intended. The amendment, however, would appear to require an employer to negotiate on these matters in order to avoid the risk of being found to be in breach of Section 146. That is unacceptable to the Government. I believe that the amendment is misconceived and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down will he tell me whether he has taken legal advice on whether his amendment is contrary to European law?
Viscount Ullswater: I did not address my remarks to the noble Earl. Of course, the amendment proposed is
42
for domestic reasons and for the clarification of existing law. We do not believe that there is any infringement of any international obligations.
Earl Russell: Is that opinion based upon any legal advice?
Viscount Ullswater: I should have to take advice upon that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not altogether surprised that the Minister does not accept my amendment to his amendment. However, at the outset of his remarks he said that the Government's intention —their desire—was to encourage employee and employer relationships. If that were so it would be sensible for employers who wanted to embark on any far-reaching structural changes in their industrial relations to do so via a negotiated agreement. As we have said on a number of occasions, our contention is that the Government's amendment is not required because there is no need to clarify. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put forward the crux of the matter when earlier in the debate he quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice Dillon.
We are not talking about individuals as opposed to collectives. We clearly understand that the employer has the right to end collective bargaining arrangements if he wishes to do so. We are talking about action taken against individuals. Mr. Wilson was an individual who was disadvantaged because he refused to give up the right to trade union representation. In a nutshell that is what the issue is all about.
But the Government have introduced their amendment because they believe that employers may wish to change their arrangements. Those arrangements may require the employers to do all kinds of things that are not provided for in Section 146 and so forth. All right, if the Government want to introduce new arrangements it is logical and legitimate to do so through a negotiated arrangement with the people concerned. Why should people—collections of individuals —have different arrangements imposed upon them? If they do not like those arrangements presumably the only recourse will be to leave their employment. That is not easy when there is not much alternative employment to be had.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's response to this small and I believe entirely reasonable amendment. It provides that if an employer wishes to change structures which affect individuals he should negotiate and endeavour to agree those arrangements. In view of the Government's response I have no alternative but to test the feelings of the Committee.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) to Amendment No. I shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Attlee, E.

Addington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

43

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Listowel, E.

Brightman, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brimelow, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

Croham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Moyne, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glasgow, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cawley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Annaly, L.

Clinton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Cochrane of Cults, L.

L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cox, B.

Astor, V.

Cranborne, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blake, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Derwent, L.

Borthwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Faithfull, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainsborough, E

Butterworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Cadman, L.

Goschen, V.

Caithness, E.

Granard, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haig, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

44

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Nelson, E.

L.

Norfolk, D.

Halsbury, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Harlech, L.

Onslow, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Orkney, E.

Harvington, L.

Palmer, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hemphill, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Holderness, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rennell, L.

Hood, V.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Layton, L.

Shannon, E.

Long, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Manchester, D.

Tebbit, L.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Manton, L.

Teviot, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marsh, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:
Line 6, after ("further") insert ("by lawful means").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 pursues the same objective which is apparent in a number of the amendments; namely, to moderate the extreme character of the Government's amendment.
First, the Government's amendment amounts to what one might call a grade (a) and a grade (b) purpose. The essence of the Government's amendment is that where the employer has a grade (b) purpose—that is, a purpose to discriminate contrary to Section 146 on trade union grounds or, although I do not believe our side of the Committee will make much of this, on, curiously enough, non-trade union grounds—he nevertheless escapes from the regime which has been the law since 1971 if he can show a grade (a) purpose. A grade (a) purpose is anything which shows that he is furthering a change in the relationship with all or any class of the employees.
In moving the amendment, there is an attempt to say that the Government may have that regime but surely the employer should be able to prove a grade (a) purpose only where his aim is to use lawful means or to adopt the objective of a change in that relationship by lawful means. More important, evidentially, is the fact that the Government's amendment does not speak of Section 146. Members of the Committee may have noticed that it refers to Section 148. Of course,

45
the latter section is the sanction, or procedurally the remedying part, of the regime in the consolidation Act which, again, has virtually always been the same. In other words, the employer here is before the tribunal because he has adopted a grade (b) purpose of discrimination, but he will escape by proving any, and however small, grade (a) purpose for changing the relationship at work on his initiative and, as we have just seen, without any need to negotiate with anyone.
As the Government's amendment stands, it would include a case like that decided by this House's Judicial Committee in 1988 of Rigby v. Ferodo where an employer insisted upon a reduction in wages. He imposed it and refused to negotiate it. He, perhaps, made the mistake from his point of view of allowing the employee to continue to work—we shall come to that point in a moment—and the employee eventually claimed the back pay that he had lost by reason of the reduction. It is a very unusual case in the way that the facts turned out; but the Judicial Committee had no doubt whatever that the employee's right of action was secure, because the contract had been broken.
In the present case, the same employer may impose a penalty upon the employee—perhaps, for example, a wage reduction —thereby furthering, according to his evidence (which has to be there), a change in the relationship of the workforce. As I understand it now, the noble Viscount would accept that such decisions were individual decisions even though they referred to a "class". The employer may say, "I am reducing the wages of all my employees. I know that that will be deeply resisted by those who want to call in their union officials, but I am not having any union officials in here".
The noble Viscount accepted that the decision in the Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd. v. Armitage case still stands. Therefore, the latter situation would be a breach of Section 146 and the employee would have no chance of bringing an action before the tribunal, unless he could prove that the employer had taken action which no reasonable employer would take. I believe that the Government would strongly resist the idea that the employer had taken action that no reasonable employer could take. That is a very different formula. I must point out to the Minister that it is not the same as saying that the employer has or has not taken reasonable action or adopted something that is reasonable. It is quite different. In order to prove that the employer had adopted an action which no reasonable employer could take, one would virtually have to prove that the employer had become irrational in the sense of the word always used by Lord Diplock.
I ask the Minister the following question in passing. It is possible that now is not the time to answer it. If so, I shall understand because it is a difficult matter. However, I have a practical problem with the amendment. Is it the case that, in the kind of situation that I have described, the burden then passes, as I think it does, to the employer to show that he is not an irrational employer? Alternatively, is it the Government's understanding that, under their amendment—as one of the Minister's phrases may have indicated, although he may not have been
46
dealing with the present issue—the employee would have to prove the points by evidence all along the line; that is to say, he would have to prove that the proviso exists and applies unless it is considered that the action is such that no reasonable employer would take it, having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a)? Members of the Committee will notice that the tribunal must have regard, again, only to a grade (a) purpose.
Therefore, if the amendment to Section 148 does not include any such phrase as that contained in our amendment—namely, "by lawful means"—that would allow the employer to get through that web of the new network of rules simply by having the affidavit that is necessary to show that he has evidence that he wishes to take on the role of changing the relationship at work—however illegal that change or the means may be. He can sit on a raft of grade (a) purposes in a sea of illegalities created by his own grade (b) purposes and still win the case.
I mentioned earlier that I had discussions over the weekend, as I am sure did other Members of the Committee, with lawyers and others about the effect of the amendment. It was put to me very strongly by a few of them that unless the phrase,
"a change in his relationship",
was governed and limited by something like the words "lawful means", it would allow the employer to win by doing anything, including taking illegal action. It is not restricted to a change which the employer is in any way entitled to make. As one adviser put to me, if the employer changes job descriptions and working hours for the purpose of achieving a flexible workforce (as he would put it) and on the way penalises any employee who complains to the union or deters those who want to attend a union meeting or bring in a union official, that is all permissible. Moreover, it is all permissible so long as the collateral purpose exists of having a view to change the relationship at work. We shall return later to that phrase.
There can be no pretence whatever as to whether or not the Government's amendment adopts any part of the Court of Appeal decision; or, indeed, those of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Members of the Committee should not take from the previous debate the idea that the EAT's decisions in the Palmer and Wilson cases are in any way what the Government's amendment would lay down as the law. For example, the Wilson case was an interpretation, albeit one that proved to be wrong and rather novel, of the existing Section 146. I repeat, if the Government refuse or reject an amendment of the kind now before the Committee and reject the idea that the employer's objective and purpose must be limited to "lawful means"—or even "lawful objectives"—we can, if they wish, add something by way of manuscript amendment and state,
"by lawful means and objectives".
The Government are in fact legislating to allow employers to use unlawful means. It is very simple: that which is unlawful today would be the equivalent, quite clearly., of what the Government have in mind. My noble friend Lord Murray mentioned 1833. Of course, that is the right time to consider. At that time,

47
the Master and Servant Acts were in force and a great deal of contract employment was criminal. They know that they cannot make it criminal now, so they want to give all power to the employer in civil law. It is as easy as that. If we accept the amendment, we would be accepting a new master and servant law. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for the explanation of the purpose of the amendment under consideration. The amendment seeks to qualify further the circumstances in which an employer may be found not to be in breach of Section 146 by virtue of the purpose for which he has taken the action in question. Our new clause provides that, where there is evidence that the employer's purpose was to further a change in his relationship with his employees as well as evidence that his purpose falls within the scope of Section 146, then the tribunal is directed to treat the first purpose as the relevant purpose—always provided, that is, that the act in question was reasonable.
The noble Lord asked what was the test of reasonableness and who would have to provide it. I am advised that the tribunal will obviously have to make up its own mind, based on the evidence before it, as to whether or not it was reasonable. Therefore, if I may say so, it is a neutral situation between the employer and employee.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is, quite simply, unnecessary. It is not part of our intention, or the effect of the clause, that acts that are otherwise unlawful when the provision becomes law should be treated as lawful. That is most certainly not the position in law. This provision will not undermine any other rights that individuals may have in law.
I am sure that it is unintentional, but the amendment also has the potential to confuse the tribunal. It is not clear with regard to what law it is expected to establish the lawfulness or otherwise of the employer's actions. If the amendment appeared to introduce the possibility that it should assess whether the employer's actions would be lawful except for the effect of this new provision, then it will reach an impasse, and the purpose of the provision will be undermined. I am sure that this cannot be the intention.
It is clear, though, that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has some very legitimate concerns about the possible intimidation of individuals at work by their employer. Let me make it perfectly clear that I share this concern. Individuals should not be subject to intimidation at work because they are or are not trade union members. That is precisely what Section 146 was designed to protect against, and our amendment does not frustrate this. I believe I said that in answer to my noble friend Lord Moyne on the previous amendment.
An individual who is intimidated by his employer—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, cited a case—allegedly for the purpose of furthering a change in his relationship with his employees will be protected in two ways under this new provision. First, a tribunal is
48
unlikely to find that there is genuine evidence that the employer's purpose was to further that change in his relationship. Secondly, even if it does so find, the employer's actions are subject to a test of reasonableness, a test which an act of intimidation would not pass. I hope that these points have reassured the noble Lord on the issue of potential intimidation.
I believe that there is no need for this amendment. The Government's new clause does not, as some would appear to fear, give employers carte blanche to do as they will. Individual rights are still protected. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, with great respect to him, I should say that it does not come to the point. The test is not a test of reasonableness; it is a test of whether the action was such that no reasonable employer would take it. That is a totally different test. If the noble Viscount is advised that they are the same, I can only take issue with him and that advice and suggest to him that that is not the case. It is quite clear that the courts would not turn that into a test of reasonableness. One has to say, "There are all the facts and the employer in question could not be a reasonable employer taking those facts into account". That is a quite different matter. If I had to look after the noble Viscount, or he me, and our duty is one of reasonable care, that is one thing. But if we have to avoid damage to the other by a step which no reasonable human being could take, that is a much higher duty of care in terms of any possible plaintiff, and a lower duty of care in terms of the defendant.
I begin to wonder what the Government are doing in this rushed legislation. The noble Viscount was asked earlier in the debate by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whether he had taken advice on this matter. I cannot repeat the noble Viscount's exact words but I believe he said that he thought he had taken enough advice. I can only suggest to him that he has not taken enough advice. I do not believe anyone who has been briefed on this point could come to the opinion that it is a test of reasonableness. I hope he will accept that.
Of course Section 146 will still exist but it will not operate in favour of the plaintiffs for whom it was devised as the Government's amendment will remove that protection—the paragraph (b) protection—whenever the employer can give evidence that he has a paragraph (a) purpose. His legal advisers at any rate, and perhaps he himself, would have to be so negligent as to be almost deserving of committal not to be able to draft a suitable affidavit. The employer is not someone whom I cast in the role of an evil genius or demon. He is someone trying to run a business. However, if he asks whether he can carry out this provision, and he is told that he can, he may do it. He would only have to say he thought that was the best way to proceed. He does not have to care about trade union rights with regard to his individual employees. He does not have to care whether he is taking unlawful action.

49
The noble Viscount has said that if an employer carries out an unlawful action, the persons against whom that is committed will still have rights. But why should that provision cancel out someone else's trade union rights? If under the new definition an employer refuses to consult according to the European directive of 1975, he may, where he proposes dismissals by reason of redundancy, in the same course of action discriminate in terms of trade union members. He may discriminate against trade union members when he selects staff for redundancy. Certain people may have rights as regards that selection or that failure to undertake consultation with a recognised union, but the rights under Section 146, which some employees in such a situation may have as their only remedy, would disappear. The people who can sue under the other rights I have referred to will still sue. However, the employer has taken unlawful action and he has taken that action to discriminate against trade union members and yet, because he claims his action furthers a change in his relationship with the workforce, he can cite it in evidence as the answer to his liability.
This is "master and servant" legislation. The section we are discussing, above all sections passed since 1980, is a class section. This is class legislation. The Government are depriving people of their fundamental rights that are recognised throughout the world. The Government are saying, "I am depriving them of those rights because the employer can further his purposes with regard to the workforce". If one asks the Government whether they can limit the action to where an employer is acting lawfully, the answer is no. The Government are acting in a class biased way and the world as a whole needs no further proof of that. One day when the technicalities of this section are explained more widely, it will be seen clearly that that is so. Ministers who are proposing this legislation will in the future be ashamed of its terms. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. I, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 5:
Line 10, after ("section 146") insert ("but not such as to infringe the right to form or join trade unions set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 or the right to organise in the Council of Europe Social Charter of 1961.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I seek to ascertain what the Government's position is on this important matter of fundamental rights. The Committee will understand that, having had a somewhat broad debate on the first amendment—I make no complaint about that—it is useful for us to look for the areas which were not covered or which need further explanation by the Government.
I take it that it is quite clear that the Minister will not accept any amendments today, no matter how we may re-jig them. I asked him earlier this afternoon whether he had the authority or the ability to accept an amendment if he suddenly had a flash of inspiration and saw merit in anything we were doing.
50
As that is impossible, we should place on record our comments on how awful the Government's amendment is. We should also try to understand the Government's position—I have not been able to understand it so far—on international instruments.
Amendment No. 5 states that the employer's purpose should not be,
"such as to infringe the right to form or join trade unions set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 or the right to organise in the Council of Europe Social Charter of 1961".
If the Minister has no objection, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6 and mention the position of the ILO convention. We did not move Amendment No. 4, which states:
"there is no evidence that the employer's predominant purpose was to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice any employee by reason of his membership of an independent trade union".
The wording of that amendment follows almost precisely the wording of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining.
The International Labour Organisation convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Social Charter and the European Community Social Charter, whose wording is reflected in Amendment No. 6 and which I apprehend was agreed by only 11 member states with the right to choose whether or not to join, albeit in slightly different ways, all contain an understanding that the right not to be prejudiced at work by reason of trade union membership does not mean only going to work with a union card in one's pocket. The ILO is the most firm, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter are different but strong, and the European Community Social Charter is rather weak. In addition to the instruments that I have mentioned there are many other international covenants and regional charters on human rights. There is no clear holding by any international body which limits the right to be a trade union member to the right merely to have a union card.
Beyond that there are certain areas which some international instruments stress more than others. I want to know from the Government which areas would be left under the regime which they set up under the amendment. What action would be possible in terms of the individual employee, which would still be prejudiced under discrimination under Section 146, but which the employer could not remove by saying simply that he has an intention and purpose to further the relationship being changed among the workforce? If there is no clear example then the Government are at risk of being in breach and in contravention of virtually all those international instruments. The one which comes to mind is the International Labour Organisation Committee on Freedom of Association—which we have chosen not to take as one of the three provisions, but nevertheless it is relevant—together with the Committee of Experts, which comprises 20 independent experts nominated for the ILO. All have termed parts of the legislation from 1980 until today as contraventions of Conventions 98 and 87.
The Government are simply trailing a coat if they do not add any limitation here, because they will be

51
held to be in breach of Convention 98 as soon as winter turns to summer. I believe that they know that. The Government's real position on the ILO convention, the European convention and the 1961 Social Charter is not really that they are not in breach. They have to say that. Their position is really that they know a better place to go to and have a better way of doing things than those old-fashioned conventions. It would be much better if the Government said that.
However, if, as I believe he will be compelled to, the noble Viscount tells us that there is no breach of any of those international instruments and conventions then I believe that he is flying in the face of all the evidence. It would be possible for a case to go relatively quickly to the Strasbourg court under the European convention on the protection of human rights. I am sure that the Government will have had that in mind. I invite the noble Viscount to tell us what the Government's defence would be. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: At the outset I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that the Government are fully committed to their obligations which arise from international treaty. That includes obligations arising under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe Social Charter. We would not have proposed the new clause to which the amendments relate if we did not believe that its provisions would be anything other than compatible with those obligations.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the Government have not taken legal advice outside Government on the matter. However, the Government are satisfied that there is nothing in the amendment which is in breach of our EC or other international obligations.
Frankly, if we were to accept the amendment, we would run a very strong risk of distorting the nature of certain international obligations which have long been accepted by different governments, both Conservative and Labour. It has always been evident that both the ECHR and the Council of Europe's Social Charter create certain rights and obligations. No one would deny that.
Equally, however, it has always been accepted that guarantees and obligations arising under those international instruments fall to be enforced in particular ways. The amendments propose completely to alter those longstanding arrangements.
Nothing in the new clause will undermine in any way the present right of any individual to petition the European Commission of Human Rights on the basis of a claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights set out in that convention. There have, of course, been cases where individuals—having properly exhausted domestic remedies —have made such petitions. Indeed, in the case of British Rail employees dismissed for refusing to join a specified trade union, in accordance with a closed shop agreement brought in during the 1970s, not only was such a petition made
52
but the commission referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights and the court upheld the former employees' complaint.
We never found out, of course, exactly what the then Labour Government proposed to do in response to that judgment. As it was, this Government were very happy to enact legislation which swept away the scope for the unjust practices that typified the closed shop.
We would certainly not willingly risk putting the UK in jeopardy of another judgment such as was given by the European Court of Human Rights in the British Rail case. We do not believe that we have done so by proposing the new clause.
Since 1953 all UK governments—whether Conservative or Labour—have been content for the ECHR to be applied in that way. Why then should we suddenly contemplate such a fundamental change as the amendment proposes? We must ask ourselves whether it would be either appropriate—or practicable—for domestic courts or tribunals to attempt to decide for themselves whether a particular action or purpose was an infringement of the ECHR.
In the Government's view, and taking proper account of the judicial practices and traditions of this country the answer to that question must be "No". Respect for the ECHR simply does not require us to adopt such arrangements. It is enough that our legislation does not infringe its provisions, and that the Government are ready to amend the law to do so, if necessary. The proposal that our courts and tribunals should make their judgments and decisions with reference to the articles of the Council of Europe Social Charter is even more radical. I should add that it is at least equally inappropriate—and perhaps even more so.
The terms of the Council of Europe Social Charter clearly apply only to the "contracting parties", who consider themselves bound by the obligations laid down in its articles. The UK Government are, of course, just such a party.
However, there is no, and never has been, individual right of complaint relating to purported breaches of those particular obligations. Instead, compliance with relevant obligations is assessed by reporting and supervisory mechanisms within the Council of Europe itself.
It follows, therefore, that to require UK courts, or tribunals, to have reference to the articles of the Social Charter in deciding cases before them would be quite incompatible with the intended operation of the Social Charter itself.
To summarise, the Government are convinced that proper respect for the obligations arising out of either the ECHR or the Council of Europe's Social Charter does not require the establishment of arrangements along the lines proposed by the amendment.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The explanation that the noble Viscount has been good enough to give us is the explanation which the Government have given—I shall read it to see whether it is the same text —every time an issue is raised on any international

53
instrument. They never argue as to why the instrument would not be broken, but refer to the fact that they never break it, that they have not broken it, and that they never will break it, and noble Lords must be satisfied with that.
I refer to the ILO Committee of Experts Report 1992. The same passage appears in the 1989 report to the Government. It states that the committee considers the overall effect of legislative change in this area since 1980 is to withdraw protection from strikes and other forms of industrial action in circumstances where such action ought to be permissible. It later continues by saying that the committee:
"would ask the Government to introduce amendments which enable workers to take industrial action against their 'real' employer and which accord adequate protection of the right to engage in other legitimate forms of industrial action such as protest strikes and sympathy strikes, as guaranteed by Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention."
Repeatedly for six years the ILO has thus gone on record. The Committee on Freedom of Association in case 1546 has also accepted that analysis, as has the National Union of Seamen in its case. The Government all the time have stated that they are not in breach of the convention.
We do not know what they have said to the ILO. We are about to know because the noble Viscount was good enough to say that the documentation will be in the Library. Some parts are in the Library in the House of Commons in a bout of democratic fervour. However, we have it in the Library today.
The noble Viscount did not answer my question. That is not unknown although he usually answers most of my questions. I asked whether or not he could possibly accept the amendment or any other amendment today. He states that a way of incorporating part of those international instruments into our law would be to accept and recognise them in the amendment on the Marshalled List today. In certain respects I accept that. The European Social Charter 1961 is a good example. However, taking a standard from such a charter—the European Convention on Human Rights or Convention 98 of the ILO, which we have ratified and are supposed to adopt and accept—is surely the right way to proceed if we do not wish to be held in contravention.
Looking back over the years, I am very dissatisfied with the way that the Government have dealt with the matter of international instruments. On the one hand they say that they like them when they have a decision such as the three railway men's case in 1981 on the closed shop. With great respect to the noble Viscount, the court did not say exactly what he suggested. It will be interesting to see whether they like so much the recent decision in the Sibson case which was recently reported in the same court.
The Government have the tendency to select the cases that they like and not the cases that they do not like. That is what is happening today. They like a bit of the EAT judgment. They dislike that of the Court of Appeal. However, they will not allow the Court of Appeal judgment to be reversed with reference to international instruments which we have ratified and should observe. That is a strange posture.
54
However at this stage I can do no more than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 7:
Line 11, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: The amendment looks small but it may be important. I hope that the Government will give us some good reason if they do not accept it. As the provision stands, the government amendment demands that the industrial tribunals tell a lie. The tribunals are by order, by fiat, of the Government's new clause, compelled to tell a lie. They must say whether there is evidence of the offence within Section 146. We must say that there was not, if there is evidence of a grade (a) character, as I called it earlier in Committee. The industrial tribunal is then told to find that the paragraph (b) purpose does not exist unless it is proved that the employer is irrational in his actions or could not be regarded as a reasonable employer. It is sometimes said in the unfair dismissal cases that the employer does not fall within the band—I thought that the Government would use the phrase; I believe that it is the wording to which the courts would turn—of reasonable employers who could possibly do that kind of thing.
In the Wilson case in the Court of Appeal, it was agreed that the stated purpose of the employers was to end collective bargaining. But that was not enough in that case, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. The passage was read to the Committee.
The Court of Appeal states at page 22 of the transcript that,
"an Industrial Tribunal is entitled to conclude robustly that an employee who has been dismissed or penalised for invoking the assistance of his or her union in relation to his or her employment has been dismissed or penalised for being a member of the union. That may not be so in all cases but certainly in an appropriate case".
In other words, the Court of Appeal is delicately telling the industrial tribunals to weigh up the evidence on all sides—not in all cases, but in an appropriate case.
The contrast with the Government's structure of thought is quite remarkable. There is no question of the tribunal weighing up all the evidence. As soon as that affidavit from the employer falls on the desk of the chairman—even if one of the industrial members dissents, as is not unknown —the game is up. The affidavit from the employer cancels out the entire discrimination, penalty or whatever it may be.
The amendment provides that the tribunal should weigh up those factors and that it may say that the one action prevails over the other unless it is such as no reasonable employer would take. That is a more reasonable provision. It is primarily a question of fact to begin with: where is the purpose; what are the purposes? The amendment moves the track of the tribunal to perceive the evidence in the way that the Government demand. However, it does not take from the tribunal that final possibility of saying in a case

55
where it wishes to do justice, "In this case at any rate the discrimination is so overbearing that we say it must cancel out the first purpose under paragraph (a)". I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord has chided me for perhaps not responding to him. He asked, "Do we ever accept any amendment? Are we going to accept any amendments today?" He has not spoken to me personally about it. However, I believe that we have to take each amendment on its merits. The Government have accepted amendments and have also responded by moving their own at Committee stage during the passage of the Bill. I therefore believe that there is evidence of good faith which I believe the noble Lord to be impugning. I rather resent the attitude that he takes. However, let us leave that on one side.
I may have misled the noble Lord when I used the phrase, perhaps inadvisedly, that there was a test of reasonableness. The words that I used sounded as though I was using a test of reasonableness when I was really referring to the words as printed in the schedule. I talked about the tribunal making up its own mind. Yes, the tribunal has to make up its own mind. It has to consider,
"that the action was such as no reasonable employer would take having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a)".
The noble Lord kindly explained the effect of the amendment. It goes to the heart of that argument. I am afraid that although the amendment may have been presented as an eminently reasonable one, I am unpersuaded of its value. In fact I am persuaded only that the amendment would undermine all that our provision is intended to achieve.
While the new Clause I moved earlier this afternoon directed the tribunal considering a Section 146 case (where evidence of two conflicting purposes for the employer's actions is presented) to treat the negotiating purpose as the relevant purpose, this amendment would provide only that the tribunal may do so.
I am surprised, given the explanation that I gave, in moving the Government's clause, of the longstanding intentions behind the provisions concerning action short of dismissal, that this amendment has been moved. I have made it clear that what is now Section 146 was only ever intended to apply in situations where acts of individual discrimination had taken place. It was never intended to have a locus in issues related to collective bargaining.
Recent cases have shown that this intention is being undermined, as the section has been brought into play in situations where employers have sought to change their negotiating arrangements. That is why our amendment was tabled. Our amendment says, in effect, that where an employer can demonstrate that he genuinely has the purpose of changing his negotiating arrangements, Section 146 does not apply. It re-establishes the firm principle that the section does not apply to issues relating to changes in collective bargaining arrangements.
The amendment we are considering here says effectively that the section might apply, but then again
56
it might not. It gives tribunals discretion. But, in doing so, it leaves them in no better a position than they are now to know how to decide these cases. It leaves the current confusion in law unresolved, when we have made it quite clear that our intention is to clarify the law. For all these reasons it is unacceptable, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wish to make two points to the noble Viscount. First, he often compliments my noble friends and myself on moving tiny little amendments which he then says will undermine the entire structure of the proposed legislation. There is this curious but highly clever method of moving "may" instead of "shall". If the new clause is such a curious structure that it could be undermined by changing one word for another, I hesitate to think what may happen in the real world of litigation.
The noble Viscount repeats the formula and I took account of what he said earlier. I believe that the nub of it was that Section 146 is only intended to protect individuals, not to deal with collective bargaining. That is absolutely right, we have been saying that to the Minister all the afternoon. It is exactly what the Court of Appeal says on page 22 in the Wilson and Palmer cases. However, the Minister does not seem to accept that. He casts out that paragraph from the judgment as though it were almost as bad as a paragraph (b) purpose. It can have no place. The Court of Appeal ruling must be overturned without anyone worrying about it. That is strange.
Do the Government realise what the law will look like when it is produced to a tribunal which has to deal with matters on the ground, with ordinary people's lives and employers' lives? The tribunal will see all the evidence and whoever represents the employer will be able to say, "I am sorry, you can't look at that, you can't take any account of it whatever because it relates to Section 146. The evidence must go". It is not being put to the tribunal under the terms of the Government's new clause, with the tribunal weighing it up and considering it. It is to be cast out.
Thus, the tribunal is likely to say the same as in the famous cases back in the 1960s where tribunals refused to decide matters as the statute demanded. They said that the decisions were political. It may be that the noble Viscount is jeopardising the position of tribunals in that respect because it is inserting a serious political test in the middle of industrial relations. We are now gradually seeing how far the Government wish to go. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 8:
Line 16, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The Government make a great deal this afternoon of the word "clarity" and defend the whole new clause that we have considered on the grounds of making things clear. Then we come to subsection (4) which is the object of our amendment. We propose that the five lines in

57
subsection (4) should be deleted, not because we are certain that they are evil or that they are contradictory, but because we cannot make sense of them.
I believe it was before the noble Viscount participated in these exchanges, but the subsection reminds me of the famous Section 228 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which came out of the previous legislation about separate work place ballots. At that time it used be called the "gibberish clause". This clause is like the gibberish clause and I shall read it to the Committee, not in any way to make it unclear but to try to clarify it because it is not clear to me. The subsection states:
"Where the action which the tribunal determines to have been the action taken against the complainant was action taken in consequence of previous action by the employer paragraph (a) of subsection (3) is satisfied if the purpose mentioned in that paragraph was the purpose of the previous action".
I find that difficult. I ask the Minister: what can it mean? It could mean one of two things. The first seems reasonably peaceful and non-significant and therefore, in one of his favourite words, "unnecessary". However, the other is doubtful and perhaps dangerous:
"Where the action which the tribunal determines to have been the action taken against the complainant".
It could be, for example, an offer of 10 per cent. if the worker would go on to individual contracts. Secondly, was the action,
"taken in consequence of previous action by the employer"?
Was there, for example, a prior decision to move to the de-recognition of a union? Then,
"paragraph (a) of subsection (3)".
That is to say, in a situation where,
"there is evidence that the employer's purpose was to further a change in his relationship with all or any class of his employees",
the tribunal will be satisfied if,
"the purpose mentioned in that paragraph was the purpose of the previous action".
That previous action was the desire to further a change in relationships by introducing individual contracts.
If the clause is to be construed in the way in which I construe it at the moment, an offer of 10 per cent. to move to an individual contract for the purpose of de-recognition is a sufficient justification of subsequent action, short of dismissal.
The problem with that is that one wonders why we have the phrase in subsection (4) about previous action, and the consequences of that previous action. If one takes a rather more worrisome view of the clause, it is not clear how previous is "previous". What exactly is "consequence"? It is possible to look at the clause and say that the employer might have taken some action in the past in relation perhaps to some other group of employees and they were being changed in order to further a change in relationship. Having done that once, the employer now cites it in order subsequently to do the same to another group of workers in quite different circumstances at an undated time in the future. We do not know which the clause means or what it means. We ask these questions for the purpose, as the Minister says, of clarification.
Lord Rochester: I must join the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in questioning the logic of subsection (4). I do not understand it either and I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to offer some explanation. Whether or not he can, it is not good that the Bill should leave this House in a state where the subsection remains. I do not know quite what we can do about it at this stage. I take comfort from the thought that it may be possible at Report later this afternoon to introduce an amendment which would make more sense of what the Government have in mind, apart from the merits, before the Bill goes to another place.
For the moment I content myself with saying that I support the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in expressing the hope that the noble Viscount will be able at least to explain in more simple terms than those of the subsection itself what on earth it means.
Viscount Ullswater: I accept that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, introduced this in the nature of a probing amendment and that the amendment itself would remove from the new clause subsection (4), which is a subsidiary but necessary part of it. It may be helpful if I explain what the intended effect of the subsection is. I have to say that not only did I have to read the subsection very carefully but also the amendment to make certain that I understood the purpose and wording of it. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the Committee that it is required and is clear in its effect.
The first important point to bear in mind is that subsection (3) operates only where there is evidence that the employer's purpose in taking the action complained of was to further, and I stress the word "further", a change in his relationship with all or any class of his employees.
It may be best to explain the effect of subsection (4) by way of an example. Let us suppose that we have an employer who wishes to persuade his employees to give up a contractual right to collective representation or, for that matter, a contractual right to agree their terms and conditions of employment without collective representation. Let us then suppose that the employer offers a pay increase from a certain date provided his employees give up the right in question by that date.
It may turn out that the offer does not achieve its intended results because few employees accept it. If that happens, the employer may well give up any hope of achieving the change in bargaining arrangements he was hoping for. However, he is still likely, simply as a matter of good faith, to want to implement his offer to those few who did accept it.
In that situation the probability is that his purpose in not paying the increase to those who refused the offer would not be to further a change in his bargaining arrangements; rather, it would be to implement the offer he made. It would not be sensible to produce the result that, while the new clause protected the making of the offer from being found to contravene Section 146, it did not protect the consequential implementation of the offer from being found to be taken for the purpose of penalising employees who refused it from being union members. Subsection (4) removes that possibility by ensuring

59
that, where the action complained of is consequential on previous action taken for the purposes of furthering a change in bargaining arrangements, the consequential action is also to be regarded as taken for that purpose.
I do not believe that there is any hidden mystery in this subsection. I recognise that Members of the Committee opposite are not sympathetic towards the intention of the clause as a whole. I nevertheless hope they will concede that, given the policy intentions of the new clause, subsection (4) is necessary to ensure that those intentions are realised in one particular respect. I hope my explanation has made that entirely clear. Indeed, without the subsection, the law would remain unclear in this particular respect. It is therefore consistent both with our policy intention and with our purpose of clarifying the law that it should be included. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I am sure that we are all grateful to him for the example. Perhaps I may ask him a question relating precisely to his example. In many circles some effort has been made to try to find examples of where subsection (4) would be important. I keep to the example that he gave. If subsection (4) were not there—he says that it is needed; therefore there would be a change in his view—why would there be a change? If an employer makes an offer which might well be discriminatory under Section 146 and only some of the employees take it up, why is it not the case that, given proper evidence in the ordinary way, his purpose remains the same throughout. The tribunal would see that the purpose was there in the offer, there in the debates which he might have with any of the employees, and there in its implementation to the extent that it was accepted. Why is subsection (4) needed?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that in the circumstances the noble Lord suggests he is probably right. However, this is a protection for the instances where the employer may be put at risk.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Viscount confused me at the beginning (indeed, he confused me at the end) because he said he had to read my amendment very carefully. With respect, my amendment is clarity itself. It just says, "Take it away". Anybody can see that. But he tells me what it means. I think I understand now what it means, but my concerns remain. They are rather different from the concerns of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. Subsection (4) appears to say that the employer comes along and says he wants to change relationships; for example, to move to individual bargaining. That works if only 10 people want it. It works if 50 people want it. It does not make any difference. One may quote them as a particular grade. But it does not stop it working if one does not get everybody the first time. I do not see why one would
60
not want to do it. Even if one did want to do it, the way the clause is written now one would not be allowed to do it.
On the other hand, if one wants to do something more complicated—if one does not simply want to go on to individual contracts but wants, for example, to introduce performance-related pay, or some system of systematic appraisal—one might legitimately take the view that that is no use unless the whole of that category of workers can be got to do it at the same time. It is not much good if one puts in a group bonus or a performance bonus based upon the performance of the whole group and only 10 per cent. sign up for it. I see that. But then one would not want that. One would be perfectly prepared to say to the people to whom one made the offer that the offer was contingent upon most people going along with it, and that today only 10 per cent. were going along with it so one did not want to do it. Either way I do not see that one needs this clause. If the Government want to keep it in, they might write it in a more straightforward way. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 11
Line 25, at end insert:
("(6) Subsections (3) to (5) of this section shall not come into force until one year after the date of the passing of this Act or on such earlier date by which the condition in subsection (7) is satisfied.
(7) The condition is that the Secretary of State shall invite the Committee of Independent Experts of the International Labour Organisation to express their view about the compatibility of the section with the Conventions of that Organisation and shall publish their report on a date not later than one month after its receipt."
(8) Nothing in this section shall affect any enactment or rule of law other than sections 146 to 151 of the 1992 Act (action short of dismissal).").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment briefly in order that it may be put on the record. The amendment does three things. Perhaps I may begin with the proposed new subsection (8). I take it that the Government—and if this is agreed it may come back to us on Report—do not object to the notion in the new subsection (8). That notion seemed to be inherent in much that was said; namely, that the new subsection should not affect the interpretation of any sections other than Sections 146 to 151. I believe that they are the points to put in the consolidation Act.
There is one reason which makes it very important for the Government to think very hard about whether they reject this idea. Section 152 of the consolidation Act protects employees from prejudice and being discriminated against by reason of trade union membership or activities, or indeed from dismissal through being non-trade union members. I am not alone, among those who have looked at the amendment, in being very concerned and anxious about the future. It may be the next Bill; it may be the next Third Reading; who knows? That is what is so

61
bad in the Government's posture. No one had predicted this amendment, not even those of us who take perhaps a lower view of the legislation over many years than some Members. It would be heartening to know that the Government are not, by extension of logic, about to support a probe into the area of depriving workers of their protection against unfair dismissal on the ground of being a trade union member where the argument as to what is and what is not a proper range for a trade union member in his activities is precisely the same in the case law as for action short of dismissal. If the Government say there is a gulf—they may say, "Right, indeed there is"—between action short of dismissal and dismissal, it would be heartening to know that they think that way. If they stay silent on that point or merely reject it, it may make some of us wonder whether we ought to interpret the future in that sense.
The other subsections that have been put together for convenience are different matters. Proposed subsection (6) would delay for a year the coming into force of subsections (3) to (5) of Section 148, which are the substance of the Government's amendment today. Our amendment is too humble in that respect. There are many debates and discussions which could take place during such a period. We have only put down one condition for consideration. No doubt, in view of their attitude to these matters, the Government will object. It seemed to us quite reasonable that a report on this matter by the Committee of Independent Experts of the ILO should be awaited—if it were not received within a year the matter would pass over—and its publication should be rather more widespread than perhaps is now contemplated. As the Committee has heard, we are making progress through the various libraries, in this country at any rate.
So there are three different points: the confinement of the new law to Section 146; the stay of execution for a year for proper consideration; and during that year a debate to determine just where the standard should be drawn by reference inter alia to a report of the ILO Committee of Independent Experts. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I fear that I may repeat myself but I have to reiterate my assurance that the Government are fully committed to their obligations, which arise from international treaties including those of ratified ILO conventions. The noble Lord must know that no UK Government have ever felt it necessary to seek the ILO Committee of Experts' views before bringing into operation legislation which they believe to be entirely compatible with ratified conventions. I hope that he will accept that as our position, even if he does not share our analysis.
I understand the nature of what the noble Lord says. We have discussed it on a previous amendment. I do not seek to say more than that about the matter. However, I should like to address the point that he made at the beginning of his remarks. I can assure him that there is no question of the provisions of the new clause affecting any enactment or rule of law other than the appropriate parts of statutory employment protection legislation. To state that, as the third subsection of the amendment would do, is therefore quite unnecessary. To imply that there could be some
62
such effect in the absence of that subsection would be quite wrong. Indeed, to accept that element of the amendment could cast doubt on the way in which provisions without a similar disclaimer could possibly apply, and that is clearly undesirable.
The noble Lord demonstrated his conception of how certain international treaty obligations might be applied in this country. However, as I explained not only in this debate but on previous occasions, he proposes systems which we believe are neither appropriate nor practical and which even he must recognise would be highly novel. I hope, therefore, that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Viscount sits down I should like to ask him one question. I accept what he said about the intention to accept our international obligations. Were he to find that he was mistaken and the Government were pronounced by the competent authority to be in breach of one of our international obligations, would the Government repeal this amendment if it were on the statute book?
Viscount Ullswater: We respond to every recommendation of the committee of experts to the United Kingdom Government. I indicated in the last instance that, where the law was found to be outside the international standards, it was altered.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hear what the Minister says. We debate this matter often enough but I cannot promise that we shall not press him again on this matter. International standards are important. In our view the Government take their pick. They see a nice decision from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the railwaymen. They pick it out and back it. But when year after year (for five years now) they see decisions of the Committee of Independent Experts—which is the relevant authority, together with the Committee on Freedom of Association, which takes the same view as the ILO (and I remind the Committee that it is a tripartite organisation and the only world-wide tripartite organisation to deal with employment matters as an agency of the United Nations)—they do not respond but simply say that it is wrong. Year after year they have told the committee that it is wrong and year after year the committee has told them that they are wrong. That is not the way to carry on if you believe in international standards.
However, I see that we have committed our usual fault in our poor amendments: either that they are undesirable or unnecessary. Half of this amendment, as the noble Viscount said, is undesirable, and the other half he considers unnecessary. Sometimes I feel that perhaps he should flag up which of those labels he will use and use a set of red, green or yellow cards so that we would know which way to point in terms of the argument.
The last part of our amendment is important. From what the noble Viscount said, I take it that the Government have no intention of extending that line of argument to dismissal. If that holds sway, it would

63
be very welcome indeed. It would be worth hearing on this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Serota): The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We have been unable this afternoon to effect any improvements in this clause introduced so late in the proceedings by the Minister. As we said, the new clause seeks to give support to legitimise what we believe to be the maverick decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in two cases: Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Wilson and Associated British Ports v. Palmer.
The Minister has not persuaded me this afternoon that there is a pressing need for the introduction of the amendment. I do not believe that clarification is needed. The Court of Appeal decisions were not only in accordance with previous precedents. Had the court decided otherwise it would in my view have been a breach of the existing law. The decisions that the court made were in line both with Section 146 of the 1992 Act and the conventions that this Government themselves have ratified.
As we have repeatedly said, there has been no consultation with interested parties. Although we have managed to have Committee and Report stages, this legislation is all being crammed into the same day on which we are having Third Reading. There has not been time for effective parliamentary scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out. However, we have done our best in the time available to us.
It is our belief that the law should not allow employers to impose financial penalties on individual employees who wish to retain the right to be represented by their union. That is the crux of the matter and it is what this debate is all about. That is hardly strengthening the rights of individuals. In fact, it is yet another employment right that will have been taken away if this clause reaches the statute book.
The Government continue to argue that there is a difference between the right to belong to a union and the right to have that union negotiate on behalf of its members. Yet, as everyone knows, the major reason for joining a union is to have terms and conditions of employment negotiated on behalf of the individual and the group. Once that right is taken away there is every prospect that the union will "wither on the vine", as the dissenting member at the EAT correctly said. So it is disingenuous to argue that the clause is not directed against trade union membership. Clearly it is. It will give employers the loophole for which they are looking to get out of obligations imposed by Section 146 of the 1992 Act, obligations which have been in existence since 1975. I repeat that these are obligations to individuals.
The ILO Convention 98 (General Principles), Protection Against Anti-Union Discrimination, clearly states,
64
"Legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers against workers' organisations in order to ensure the effective application of Article 1 of the Convention … Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgradings and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker …"
Furthermore:
"No person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his membership of a trade union, even if that trade union is not recognised by the employer as representing the majority of workers concerned".
It would be difficult to find a more discriminatory act or one more likely to deter an employee from belonging to a union than the provision of extra money in return for giving up the right to trade union representation or, in the Daily Mail case, the withholding of an anticipated increase in pay from Mr. Wilson because of his failure to sign away that right to trade union representation. There is no doubt that both the employers involved in the two cases wanted to bring to an end the arrangement that they had had for many years—in the case of the Daily Mail since 1912—under which they had negotiated terms and conditions of employment with independent unions representing their workforces. However, it had its effect on individuals when the employers attempted to bribe the individuals to abandon rights to trade union representation that they had had for many years.
I understand that if the clause becomes part of the Act, it will not be implemented retrospectively. The Minister confirmed that during the debate and I thank him for that assurance. But there will be a clear signal to employers that, if they should attempt to do what those two employers did, they can expect to get away with it. That is entirely unacceptable. For those reasons I oppose the clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. In response to my speech on Amendment No. 2, the noble Viscount rightly said that I had spoken rather broadly to it. Indeed I did. In fact, at that time I spoke more in opposition to the government amendment than in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
We remain of the opinion that both in the manner in which it was introduced and in its substance Amendment No. 1 is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in substance for the reasons that I gave earlier. I shall therefore say no more than that we find ourselves in strong opposition to it and shall certainly vote against it when the Question is put to the Committee.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may add one word to my noble friend's case against the clause. The debate has clearly shown what the Government are about. It has shown that there was no uncertainty in the judgments of the Court of Appeal. Indeed, if it showed anything it showed that: no uncertainty at all. It showed that the Government did not like the Court

65
of Appeal judgments; that they are legislating with no concentration and with great speed against a specific judgment. But it showed even more than that.
Recently economic conditions have begun to change; there has been a greater sense that those who feel oppressed are striking back or defending themselves as individuals by collective action in the workplace. It is therefore no accident that this step has been taken so hurriedly at a time of change in the social and economic cycle. Indeed, a letter from the Secretary of State to the Graphical, Paper and Media Union on 11 th May stated:
"The nature of the employment relationship is that an employer offers work, and an employee undertakes to do that work in accordance with the terms offered by the employer".
We have had it again today—no negotiation, no talk of discussion. The employer's will must prevail as soon as he can swear the necessary affidavit. If Members of the Committee do not vote against the amendment, it will be a sad day.
Viscount Ullswater: I should like to reiterate briefly the reasons for tabling the amendment. It has always been the understanding of the Government that the law contained in Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act existed to protect individual employees from acts of victimisation by their employer on the grounds of their union membership or non-membership. The intention was never that the section should prevent employers from making and implementing entirely legitimate decisions about how they negotiate with their workforce.
As I have already made clear, that understanding was shared by successive administrations of different political persuasions. It is certainly not new. When it became apparent from the recent Court of Appeal cases that our understanding was not being borne out by the judgments in the courts and that the law was therefore in a state of some confusion, it was clear that it was the duty of the Government to act and to remedy that confusion. That is what the new clause does.
We have had a vigorous debate, not only on the new clause, but also on the amendments to it tabled by Members opposite. I hope that I have been able to offer reassurance on many of the issues highlighted. Our debates this afternoon have tended to focus on situations where an employer de-recognises a trade union, because that is the situation that gave rise to the recent Court of Appeal cases. However, I remind the Committee that our amendment protects the actions of an employer when he acts reasonably to further any changes in his relationships with his employees. The provision, therefore, could apply not only where the employer seeks to de-recognise a union, but also where he seeks to move towards recognition, perhaps because he has decided to introduce a single union deal and wants to encourage his employees to sign new contracts of employment. The provision is entirely even-handed.
Anxiety has also been expressed in regard to the late stage at which the new clause has been tabled. I explained to the Committee that the timing of the amendment was determined by the Court of Appeal cases, which demonstrated the need for clarification of
66
this area of law. I further remind the Committee that this afternoon will not be the only occasion on which the provisions will be debated. When deliberations in your Lordships' Chamber are complete, the Bill will pass to another place, where these important matters will be debated in full again.
The issue that we have debated, and shall continue to debate, is an important one. The Government's new clause will provide much needed guidance for courts and tribunals. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister sits down, the noble Viscount told us that he would not have anything to do with this kind of clause extending to dismissal. How far will it extend? Suppose an employer used the clause to refuse to promote a trade unionist; suppose he downgraded an employee; suppose he excluded an employee from a profit bonus; suppose he put all the trade unionists who would not sign to come out of the collective agreement on night work and shift work; would all that be permissible?
Viscount Ullswater: That is for the tribunal to decide, given the evidence. What we have been discussing all afternoon is what a reasonable employer would seek to do. I do not know the circumstances of all the cases mentioned by the noble Lord. It is for the tribunal to come to a comprehensive and satisfactory judgment given the indications that new amendments insert into Clause 146.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cross, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Denham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Blake, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Erroll, E.

Borthwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Granard, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Haig, E.

Cadman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harlech, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmsworth, L

Carnock, L.

Haslam, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hemphill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Henley, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Colnbrook, L.

Holderness, L.

Colwyn, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Howe, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cranborne, V.

Lane of Horsell, L

Crickhowell, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

67

Long, V.

Ridley, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

St. Davids, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seccombe, B.

Merrivale, L.

Selborne, E.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Thurlow, L.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Parkinson, L.

Vivian, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wharton, B.

Prior, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Renwick, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Moyne, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Soper, L.

Stedman, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Bosnia
6.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question which was asked this afternoon in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"The Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, Russia and Spain together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met in Washington on 22nd May and issued a statement containing a joint programme of action on the former Yugoslavia. They agreed to continue working urgently to halt the conflict—starting with further action in the UN Security Council on safe areas, monitoring of the Bosnian border with Serbia-Montenegro and the establishment of a war crimes tribunal—and to continue efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement building on the Vance-Owen process and intensified international efforts. They reaffirmed their view that sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro should be rigorously enforced until the conditions set out by the United Nations for their review are met, including the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb troops from territories occupied by force".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and welcome a number of points in it. First, I welcome the fact that pressure to arm the Bosnian Moslems has been resisted. I also welcome the continuation of humanitarian assistance and the decision to go ahead rapidly with a war crimes tribunal. We welcome on these Benches, too, the continuation of economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. But I very much hope that the decision taken some two weeks ago to tighten these sanctions has already been properly implemented. I welcome the decision to increase the international presence in Macedonia and Kosovo in the interests of preventing the spread of conflict.
I turn to one or two questions. Does this latest shift in policy mean that the Vance-Owen peace plan has been abandoned? The Minister referred to building on the Vance-Owen process. What does "building on a process" mean in this instance? Can he say whether Lord Owen was consulted on the latest proposals and what his views were on them? Secondly, can the Minister clarify the position on the sealing of the border between Serbia and Bosnia? If I may say so, the suggestion made in the joint statement from Washington that we are watching to see whether the border closure is effective is extraordinarily weak. What evidence is there that the Government in Belgrade are carrying out their undertakings in that

69
respect? What actions are we taking now to ensure that they do? Is President Milosevic to be allowed to get away with rejecting international monitors?
It is somewhat surprising that the Minister has given no indication in the Statement as to where the safe areas are to be. Nor has he given any indication as to how they are to be made safe for civilians. We need to know rather more than we have been told if we are to be reassured that the Bosnian Moslems have not been abandoned by the international community, as their president was apparently saying over the weekend. Many Members of your Lordships' House will wonder whether the Bosnian Serbs have been allowed to walk away with the spoils of war. Will independent Bosnia survive or not? Will the Minister also give the House more information on what steps are to be taken to put pressure on Croatia to stop the fighting in central Bosnia between Bosnian Croatians and Moslems? Finally, can he say what the options are for the intensified international efforts to which he referred towards the end of the Statement?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his honourable friend in another place but I must confess that I found it a dismaying Statement and a transparent climbdown. I should like to repeat the point made by my noble friend Lady Seear when a previous Statement was made that a succession of Statements or Answers to Private Notice Questions are no satisfactory way to discuss this complicated, tragic and extremely dangerous situation. It is high time that we had a proper debate in which many of the questions put to the Minister by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, can be properly discussed and properly answered in your Lordships' House. Until we have such a debate we shall get information in bits and pieces. We shall ask a few questions in a few minutes, as we are now, but we will end unsatisfied by the answers we are given and the information we receive.
I must confess that I find that the Washington communiqué, as I think it is known, in no way lives up to the scale of events which it is supposed to address. One could not find a more classic case of too little and too late. For months—I think I am right in saying that it is at least 11 months—the Government have resisted proposals made by my right honourable friend in another place and repeated from these Benches that safe havens be set up and that adequate protection be given by United Nations forces to the Bosnian Serbs. Those proposals have been consistently resisted. At that time they would have provided safe havens which were viable, which could have been protected and which would have provided the Bosnian Moslems with some way of life. Now, the Government have come round to those proposals in almost every detail except that the areas to be protected will be so small that they will be little more than refugee camps and, essentially, incapable of supplying themselves with the wherewithal for survival. This is a sad and deplorable tale. Moreover, as regards those protecting these enclaves —French, British, Spanish and Canadians—there are some notable absentees: the Germans, for so-called constitutional reasons, but, more importantly, the Americans and other members
70
of the European Community. If, as we are told, we are forming a common European policy, in common ventures of this kind the absence of colleagues from the Community in these operations cannot fail to be noticed and deplored.
The communiqué reads:
"We note the pledge of the Belgrade authorities to close the Bosnian border and to put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the peace plan".
I repeat the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Does anyone believe that statement? What faith do we put in Milosevic's words? How effective will the pressure be? Will they allow monitors in sufficient force to make those sanctions effective? Though the ultimate objective may be,
"the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb troops from territories occupied by force",
there is—and I again repeat the point made by the noble Baroness—no mention of the areas to be given up and precious little sign of the political will that is necessary to make that happen. If the end of slaughter is of course desirable, it is also desirable to take steps to prevent the conflict spreading. That is a real international danger. One of the two danger points is Macedonia. What is the size of the international presence there? Is it sufficient? Is it being reinforced? The other danger point is Kosovo. What steps are being taken to see that the human rights of the Moslems in that crucial area are being properly protected?
If this is the first test of the move announced at Maastricht towards a common foreign policy and towards building a new pillar, it is profoundly disappointing. In another place this afternoon the Minister kept on referring to the absence of will on the part of the public to enforce more stringent measures. What, we have to ask ourselves, is the will of the Government? It is they who have to make policy; and it is they who should be leading public opinion, not appealing and explaining that public opinion renders them impotent.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for welcoming elements of the Statement. I shall endeavour to address myself in so far as I am able to the large number of questions posed by the noble Baroness. Her first question on the effectiveness of sanctions was one to which the noble Lord also addressed himself. She asked in particular whether we could believe the Serbian Government's undertaking which resulted directly from the Athens agreement.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have enough knowledge and experience of that part of the world, as indeed do Her Majesty's Government, to recognise that it is unwise always to take the movers and shakers in that part of the world at their word. We are extremely conscious of the need to believe it when it happens. It is for that reason that a great deal of trouble is being taken to make sure that the sanctions; the undertakings that the sanctions are properly monitored between Serbia and Bosnia; and the undertakings given by the Serbian Government are

71
addressed. To that end the governments and the Security Council will make sure that adequate steps are taken in that direction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also asked me effectively whether the Vance-Owen plan is dead and how can we build on a process by implication rather than on sound foundations. That was a very fair question. We have to recognise that the Vance-Owen plan has already produced some proposals which specifically include the withdrawal from territory taken by the Bosnian Serbs. That is what we have to build on and also endeavour to achieve. The noble Baroness also addressed the question of pressures to try to assist and accelerate that process. They are already being intensified. The agreement that was announced this weekend in America is one important step down that road.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little on what I mean by that. There has been a good deal of speculation in the press of late about the dangers of a division between the United States and Europe in the way in which they address the thorny question of Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in general. It is fair to say that an important element of reassurance has been achieved during the course of the deliberations in the United States. I believe that we can safely say that the suspicions voiced in the press of late have been put behind us and that there is now a unanimity of view, both in Washington and in the principal capitals of Europe, about the process which we must now employ.
As regards whether the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was consulted, I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that I cannot answer that question. I shall certainly endeavour to do so and write to her immediately. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about safe areas. They will be well aware that the idea of safe areas is given a favourable reference in the communiqué which they have both clearly read. The phrase used in it is that they,
"could make a valuable contribution".
What is clearly important—and this underlies the general tenor of the answer that I am endeavouring to give to your Lordships—is that whatever we do in Bosnia has to be judged by two criteria: first, is it going to work in the context of our objectives and, secondly, is it going to be proposed by the Security Council in a spirit of unanimity? We have to make sure, according to both criteria, that, whatever policy we develop as regards safe areas, it must be a policy which is sustainable and which will work. I readily understand the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on this matter. At the same time I say to him that I would rather take time over a policy and make sure that it has a chance of working, rather than rush into it and find that it is not sustainable.
The noble Baroness also asked whether an independent Bosnia is something which can survive. The matters to which she addressed herself and to which I am endeavouring to address myself now, are designed for exactly that to happen. The pressure as a result of sanctions on Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs,; the enforcement of those sanctions and all the pressure
72
which we have been endeavouring to build up over the past few months, are designed to that end. I cannot predict whether that will work or not. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that there is clear evidence that sanctions are beginning to have a considerable effect.
As regards Macedonia and whether the conflict is likely to spread, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that that is the real question which should concern us. I draw his attention again to the communiqué which he has obviously studied with some care. Under the heading,
"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
he will have noted—and perhaps I may quote briefly from it—that the communiqué says:
"It is essential that everyone in the region understands that aggression against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would have grave consequences. We will support an increase in the international presence there in consultation with the authorities in Skopje. The United States is considering a contribution to this effort".
I believe that all of us are aware that in terms of the risk of the conflict spreading beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia occupies perhaps a more dangerous place than many others. That is the reason why I believe that that particular clause was so much emphasised during the course of the drafting of that statement.
I also sympathise greatly with two of the other remarks made directly by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and more by implication by the noble Baroness. We are well aware of the remarkable contribution made by British troops in their humanitarian efforts in Bosnia. We are also aware that there are other nations who have contributed in a slightly less prominent way. We feel that there will be more troops needed in Bosnia and that it is up to the United Nations Secretary General to find those troops. We understand that there is a possibility that the Russians may be able to contribute a contingent. We shall see. I sympathise greatly with what the noble Lord said.
As regards the way in which we debate this important question in your Lordships' House, I can only add that I am sure that my noble friend the Chief Whip, even if he were not here to hear the noble Lord's remarks, will have them reported to him en clair at the first opportunity.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to agree to any measures in this unhappy situation which are likely to result in serious risk of death or injury for members of Her Majesty's Forces?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I would be less than honest with my noble friend if I were to give him the absolute assurance for which he asks. After all, several thousand members of Her Majesty's Forces have been risking themselves to some considerable extent over the past few months. The task which those forces have been carrying out has been very clearly defined indeed. Perhaps one of the reasons why the casualty rate has been so low is that the Ministry of Defence and the senior officers who have been running this operation in particular, have been very careful to

73
follow the strictures so carefully enunciated by Field Marshal Sir Richard Vincent in another forum recently, that any operation of a military nature must above all have a clear objective.
I say also to the noble Lord that one of the reasons why there have been so few casualties is that our soldiers have been issued with the right equipment, not least of which is the Warrior armoured personnel carrier which has proven its worth time and time again. Therefore, I say again to my noble friend, that I cannot give him the absolute assurance which he needs. But the safety of our troops is certainly our prime objective. The last thing in the world that we want to do is to send them into an ill-defined civil war and put them at risk when the good that they can do is not entirely clear.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I recognise the complexities of the scene in the former Yugoslavia, which the Minister has described, does he agree that the core of the current problem is that, through aggression and ethnic cleansing, the Serbs have acquired 70 per cent. of the land of Bosnia? Is it the case that the Washington communiqué gave hope that the matter would now be resolved, if gradually? However, does he agree that sanctions themselves, however effective, will not persuade those Serbs to retreat from the land they have acquired? If he believes that they will, he should tell the House that that is the Government's view. If not, what other solution do the Government and their allies have in mind?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the record of sanctions in achieving their objectives at speed has not been universally reassuring. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that over a long period they have a severe effect upon those at whom they are directed. Let us wait to see whether in this matter the judgment of what I am told is the international community is vindicated. We are conscious of the dangers, as, I am sure, is the noble Lord, of becoming involved in a civil war in the sort of amorphous conditions which I tried to describe to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We hope and believe that the sanctions will extend the effect of the Vance-Owen peace plan so that we can begin to exert pressure on the Serbs to withdraw. I cannot guarantee that. Much as I would like to, I cannot guarantee that anything will happen in the Balkans. All I can say is that that is the judgment so far. We shall see whether we are right or wrong.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench reminds me irresistibly of Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Wilson talking in 1965 about sanctions bringing down Rhodesia. Is not it the case that we have provided a fig leaf which says that the Serbs have won and that we now have to pretend that it has not happened? Would it not be much more honest to say, "They have won. We are not prepared to do anything. We are not prepared to sacrifice any soldiers". The bones of a Pomeranian grenadier, as Bismarck said, are not worth bolts spreading to the
74
Balkans. Would not it be much more honest to say that they have got away with it, however unpleasant that may be?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me, strangely, to go down memory lane in the matter of Rhodesia. I shall resist that temptation so far as I am able. I remind your Lordships and my noble friend that sanctions are designed, above all, to achieve a clear objective, which is the withdrawal from territory gained, over and above what they should have, by the Bosnian Serbs. We believe that in the end sanctions have an effect. It is open to debate whether sanctions are always effective without other kinds of help. Nevertheless, they are effective in the long run. I ask my noble friend merely to follow the advice that I endeavoured, rather impertinently, to give to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. We should wait to see whether they work.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I have wondered for some time whether we would have a Statement or debate in our House on what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. From reading the American newspapers, one sees that change has been taking place imperceptibly. I am surprised therefore that our chance to mention the matter today should arise as a result of a Private Notice Question and not even a Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I hope that we shall have a chance to study the matter carefully. I, for one, am glad that this country has not been drawn into a real war in Yugoslavia. There are many commentators who confuse the position with Iraq and the Falklands and who know not those valleys and that part of the world where civil war has continued for centuries. To that degree, I still commend the Government.
However, despite today's Statement and the Washington statement, I am none the clearer about what is happening. If we do not have a debate, the issue will come up in the Maastricht debate. Because what does a European foreign and defence policy mean? The Germans and Italians, in particular, have a great deal to answer for in recognising Slovenia and Croatia last year. There has not been a European policy. It has been a failure, and not even a glorious one. If we do not have a debate in the House the subject will come up in the Maastricht debate. I am sure that it is relevant.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right when he draws attention to the danger of being sucked into a Balkan quagmire. I am sure that that is the common view held by every government who address themselves to this question. No one wants that to happen. On the subject of a debate, I am sure that my noble friend on the Government Front Bench will have heard the remarks of the noble Lord and of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and, as is always the case in your Lordships' House, due and careful note will be taken of them.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend say more about the war crimes tribunals which he mentioned at the end of his Statement? Have any

75
terms of reference been drawn up as to any conditions under which they will be working? Have rules of evidence been laid down as to how alleged criminals will be arrested? Finally, will my noble friend say whether those engaged in committing the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia are informed that they will come before war crimes tribunals if they carry on in the way in which they have been carrying on?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that considerable publicity has attached to the question of war crimes tribunals. I am sure that that publicity has been well noted and listened to in Bosnia. So far as concerns what one might call the modalities of this idea, noble Lords will be aware that Her Majesty's Government support the rapid establishment of war crimes tribunals so that those guilty of atrocities may be brought to justice. In pursuance of that, I am told that a Security Council resolution is likely this week. I must add that a tribunal does not come into effect unless people are within its jurisdiction. In important respects, that is not yet so. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to establish publicly, for the benefit of people who might be ordered or tempted to commit atrocities, that they will carry an individual responsibility, which was the point that my noble friend made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many people, certainly myself, who are relieved that the American military and the American people have persuaded President Clinton not to arm the Moslems and not to embark upon military air strikes in Bosnia at present? Is he further aware that the right course now, as well as keeping on the sanctions of course, is to do everything possible to bring the parties together to discuss the question again and again until they reach agreement as to how Bosnia should be divided, if that is the final answer? Will additional British troops be involved? Or shall we be able to withdraw any troops under the present circumstances? Will the Minister also reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blackstone—I do not believe that he did—about what action will be taken to police the border between Serbia and Bosnia?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I referred with some enthusiasm to the unity of view which prevails between the United States and its European allies. All sides of the House will welcome that state of affairs. At present there is no suggestion that the Bosnian Moslems should be armed. Indeed, it is generally recognised that that course of action carries considerable dangers.
As regards bringing the parties together, it must be common ground that any kind of settlement must be achieved through consent rather than enforcement. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for enabling me to underline that point. A number of dangers—of which your Lordships will be well aware —are attached to the enforcement of a settlement. Not least are the dangers to our own people and of becoming involved in the kind of quagmire which
76
many noble, Lords fear. Equally, if the settlement is not accepted by those who are affected by it, the implication is that those enforcing it will more likely than not have to remain for a considerable time. That is something which few, including the United Nations, can afford.
I apologise if I did not answer adequately the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As regards the enforcement of sanctions along the border between Serbia and Bosnia, we take that extremely seriously. Monitors, or teams of monitors, are being suggested to ensure that the crossing points are properly monitored. I am aware of a report in the weekend press suggesting that some border points are not adequately monitored. I am sure that the example referred to in the press report will have been noted with some care.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the use of British troops?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought that I had answered the question about British troops. At present there are no plans to add to their number nor to vary their existing humanitarian task. I said that it is hoped that the United Nations Secretary General will find the troops from elsewhere. It is hoped that the Russians will be able to make a contribution.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that as an aim the principle of containment must carry general acceptance far and wide as far as it goes? Secondly, does he agree that the aim of keeping out of a civil war must command support in general? However, will the Government bear in mind a new threatening danger which has not yet been mentioned; that is the possibility of the outbreak of civil war in Serbia? Milosevic is losing ground. His chief rival Seselj, who is a Bosnian, is rallying a great deal of support against concessions to the West. While we all wish to press Milosevic—I should like to string his neck—counter pressures exist. We must tread most carefully with regard to the Serbs, however angry with them we may be.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that it behoves all of us in your Lordships House to listen to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, whose knowledge of matters Yugoslavian is well known. We are well aware that the situation in Serbia is complex and that a number of political cross-currents are at work. I am sure that the House will have noted my noble friend's comments. I too emphasise that the American statement addressed itself very much to the activities of Croats within Bosnia and that the possibility of sanctions being imposed on Croatia only adds to the general complexity of an already complex question.

Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the only opportunity that we had to debate the Bill at length was on Second Reading I wish to make a few comments. The Bill was uncontroversial and therefore, apart from the formal amendments, no amendments were tabled in Committee or on Report. Perhaps the House will allow me to make a few comments on behalf of Members on these Benches as regards some of the issues which arose on Second Reading but which we were not able fully to explore.
First, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on introducing the Bill and seeing it through the House. I also congratulate the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the charm if not the conviction with which she sought to rebut our arguments. I hope that even at this late stage, as we wish the Bill well in another place, we may seek to persuade her that at least in principle the Bill is right to be supported.
I wish to return to some of the issues that were debated on Second Reading and which the Minister sought to challenge. She then made the point that to introduce cash payments for local authorities to aid the disabled was to introduce a new principle which would blur the line between the DSS and the social services; or to use the Minister's effective phrase, to make a social security system of social services. That argument would be more plausible if local authorities were not making cash payments every day of the week to adults fostering children, to adults playing hockey or tennis, or to adults running arts, voluntary and caring organisations —except to those who happen to be in wheelchairs. What on earth is the moral difference between paying a monthly amount to a disabled person in cash or, as local authorities are permitted, paying a somewhat larger monthly amount to a charity which dispenses it as smaller monthly amounts to two disabled people? Of course, there is no moral difference but there is plenty of practical difference, such as the cost and the time wasted in bureaucracy. Frankly, that is somewhat insulting if one happens to be disabled. In other words, at present local authorities may not pay cash to the disabled but they can give money to a charity to give it to the disabled, which apparently is okay.
The second argument which the Minister offered in Committee was that paying the disabled in cash rather than providing services in kind might generate escalating costs. That is not so. The argument which came from all sides of the House was that this was a no-cost option. Indeed, I suggest that it is easier to control, to cap, a cash budget than a services budget where salary costs might rise higher than inflation
78
Cash is a straight alternative at the discretion of the local authorities if they believe that it offers better value for money. As a former chairman of the finance committee of a local authority I saw that it was much easier to control the cost of grants to voluntary organisations—for example, a sporting organisation —than to control the costs of a sporting organiser employed in-house by local government. That is undeniable.
It is also a limited option appropriate especially for younger clients and spinal injuries clients who are used to being in control of their lives. In the past, such clients turned to the ILF.
The Minister also suggested that local authorities might have problems in defining eligibility, but why should they? The social work assessment would steer clients into service-based or cash-based packages of care, whichever was the more appropriate and whichever represented better value for money. I seek to find words of support from the Minister in pointing out that the Bill will give local authorities a discretion in deciding which path to go down as regards the clients who they believe will be most advantaged, which is a discretion that they desperately want.
The third point—and I do not believe that we disagree about this—is that the cash payments can represent a more dignified option. The Minister rightly accepted in well-chosen words that issues of personal dignity and autonomy are at issue here. She said that there is no reason why a care assistant should not be personally chosen by the disabled person. We are talking about the need of a disabled person to have personal help in such intimate functions as toileting. Having led for the opposition party on a social services authority, for the life of me, I do not know how the Minister's assurance that a disabled person can chose his own care attendant, even though that person is a local authority employee, can operate. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how it can operate. In no way can clients choose who the authority employs nor can they determine how the local authorities do the rostering and so on which is essential if they are to maintain an effective and value-for-money personnel budget. Clients simply cannot pick and choose and I do not know why the Minister thinks that they can. That is precisely our complaint.
The fourth point that I wish to raise is that I was not sure whether the Minister in her remarks in winding up the debate on Second Reading had taken fully into account the implications of the Disability (Grants) Bill which was handled by the sister department, the DSS. The Minister will not need me to say that if someone needs £190 worth of care, that will be provided in the form of services from the local authority. However, if a package of £400 worth of care is needed, then the person will receive £200 worth in the form of services from the local authority and £200 in cash from the ILF.
Therefore, those two Bills are proceeding through your Lordships' House in parallel but it may be that no connection is being made, as there should be, between the two Bills. Will the Minister tell us how the combination of cash and services will work? Will the

79
local authority pay a person of its choice to go in and get somebody up in the morning, feed them and toilet them and then put that person to bed at night and toilet and feed them while in between, at lunch times and over night, somebody else would be employed and paid by cash from the ILF fund? That is the kind of boxing and coxing in personal care for the severely disabled which cannot be sensible.
As was said in that debate on the ILF, community care is about avoiding residential care. And yet people go into residential care not because their disabilities are worse but because their informal care arrangements have broken down. All research into ILF money shows that cash grants, because they are cash, buying perhaps 20 hours of formal care, allow their clients to leverage a further 60 hours or so of informal care out of the system because the money is spent on respite care, on additional paid hours, on reimbursing expenses, on travel costs and so on. In other words, cash payments, which is what the Bill seeks to empower local authorities to make when they believe it to be appropriate, can network and therefore stretch informal caring. By definition, formal professional services cannot do that. Permitting clients to receive only formal services from local authorities means that they are less able and likely to keep that informal net afloat. Therefore, disastrously, they end up needing even more formal services which, sadly, the local authorities are often financially unable to provide.
I do not believe that there is a difference of principle between us. The Minister Mr. Scott made clear in another place on 27th April that if local authorities can devise schemes which are lawful—for example, using local charities—he would not oppose them. He seems to be saying, "I will not change the law but you are welcome to get around it with my blessing. You bend it because I cannot or will not amend it". That is a curious base for social policy.
Originally I thought that opposition to the Bill came from the DSS and the Treasury. The Minister made it clear that the Bill receives no government support. However, it seems that provided costs are capped, which I believe they are, the DSS and the Treasury may be open-minded on the issue. Certainly a letter from Mr. Lamont to Jane Campbell, one of his disabled constituents who is active in the disability movement, makes it clear that he has no objection in principle to cash payments but says that the Department of Health has serious reservations about that. What is the line of the Department of Health? Why does it have such serious reservations? We have discussed the argument about blurring the lines but, as I have argued, the lines are already regularly blurred, and are blurred all the time in Scotland. We have discussed the argument about escalating costs and I have tried to argue that that is not the case. We have discussed the implications of the new Disability (Grants) Bill. What is the department's argument? Why is it that, despite the Treasury and the DSS apparently being open-minded, the Department of Health appears to resist the Bill?
As far as I can tell, the argument advanced by the Secretary of State and by the Minister is that
80
inevitably local authorities are heavily burdened with new care in the community responsibilities. Therefore, it is unwise and unkind to give them new responsibilities until care in the community has properly bedded down. Yet the research of Pauline Thompson, the director of DIG, shows that local authority directors of social services want the power to pay cash because they believe—and they are running the service on the ground—that it will free them, rather than encumber them, from some of their load. Why does the Minister insist that the cash payment is an additional load when those who must administer it say that it will lighten their load? What evidence will the Minister be willing to accept to the contrary? If there is no evidence, we are simply talking about ideology.
After all, local authorities can dower their clients with a cash assessment which could then be integrated by the ILF with its own financial packages and be monitored by the ILF. That would bring simplicity, clarity, autonomy and value for money. The Minister should find quite irresistible the arguments for giving a discretion to enable local authorities to make cash payments to the disabled, especially where those disabled are also receiving cash payments from the ILF. I am genuinely baffled that she does not do so. I ask the Minister what she would like for herself or her husband. I ask what the civil servants in the Box would like for themselves. Anything less than what they would like for themselves, within cost constraints, is not good enough for disabled people.
Finally, if the Department of Health continues to repeat the doctrine of unripe time while agreeing that cash payments may be acceptable in principle and may ultimately be made, will the Government indicate whether they might accept an amendment in another place giving the Secretary of State the power to determine when the Bill comes into force? In other words, the Bill would pass through both Houses and reach the statute book but it would be brought into effect only when the Secretary of State thought it appropriate. That would meet the Minister's objections that the Government do not wish to overburden local authorities at present. I do not share the Minister's views as to the argument but if that is a way of attracting government support for the Bill, that would be a welcome path to take. Such an amendment would allow that additional discretionary power for local authorities to come into being when the Secretary of State thought that the time was appropriate. It would not require further legislation. In such circumstances, will not the Minister, at last, indicate some support for the Bill?
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend upon the clear and concise way in which he has expeditiously steered the Bill through your Lordships' House. Despite my noble friend's powers of persuasion, which are considerable, I regret to inform your Lordships that the Government's position has not changed since Second Reading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, no amendments have been tabled.

81
Local authorities are enablers, facilitators and providers of care services. It is not their core business to provide cash to support individuals in need. It would be difficult for them to manage a general system of cash payments, including defined eligibility and monitoring, to keep control over public funds. We believe also that now is not the time to add to the workload of local authorities.
We have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in support of direct payments, not least those put forward by noble Lords opposite. However, we believe that there is a significant risk that over time the link that the Bill makes between services and payments will be broken. There will be expectations of the going rate for particular conditions, irrespective of people's assessed needs and the services which would otherwise have been provided. That would put additional pressures on local authority resources which could be met only at the expense of other client groups and services.
The noble Baroness mentioned the arrangements that local authorities make with charities. That is a matter for them and for the Audit Commission. The Government would not wish to intervene. With regard to the users of services, local authorities are free to contract with anyone for the provision of care services, including individuals acting as personal care assistants. When the care plan is drawn up by the local authority, the independent living fund and the disabled person, we certainly expect the local authority to make sure that the person has as great a say as possible in the type of service to be provided and by whom it is to be provided.
We are at one in our motives, but not in our methods. It is with considerable regret that we cannot, therefore, support the Bill. However, I do not seek to oppose its Third Reading.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions made in this evening's debate. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her spirited defence. I do not think that the guessing game of which civil servant was responsible for not supporting the Bill, or which particular department is responsible, is all that profitable. Any government has to be prudent as regards not letting public expenditure get out of hand.
Government is always much more complicated than it seems. It is always easy for those of us not in government to attack the Government at every opportunity. But, of course, I have to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that one day she may become a Minister in a government, perhaps in about ten years' time—that is, if she changes party—so we must be prudent in how we attack, and so on.
Again, I should like to thank everyone for their support this evening.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.25 p.m.]

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 20th May):
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the report be now received.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for very long but I really must make my objections known to the procedure which we are adopting at this point in time. We are supposed today to be debating the Bill on Third Reading, and following Third Reading we are to have a debate—or we should have a debate—on the Motion of whether the Bill do now pass. It is now 8.25 p.m. and we still have to discuss the Government's new clause on Report, to which I understand amendments have been tabled. I do not know how long the amendments will take, but it is likely that we shall not reach the Third Reading of this important Bill until 9.30 p.m. at the earliest.
On virtually every day this Bill has been debated the House has sat until the early hours of the morning. A great deal of hard work has been put into the Bill and we are now to discuss the Third Reading at 9.25 p.m. or thereafter. Frankly I believe this is a disgraceful abuse of the procedures of this House and it treats the Members of this House with utter contempt. I implore the Government—it is unfortunate that the Chief Whip is not here; I was not able to find him to give him notice that I wished to raise this point—to take a message to the Chief Whip and to tell him we consider the Members of this House are being treated with contempt. I hope the Minister will ask the Chief Whip to move for the closure of debate so that we can take the Third Reading of this Bill at a more appropriate time on a future date.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said. I can only say that we have discussed the process of what was going to happen today through the usual channels. I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if the new clause that the Government were moving should be considered in Committee rather than after Third Reading. That is why I made the proposal to go back into Committee to discuss the new clause. We had the opportunity to do so earlier today. However, I note what the noble Lord said. I believe it is still quite proper that we should continue with the process —as we have been doing today—and that we should now move on to Report.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is not the objection that my noble friend makes much stronger than the Minister allows? There are a number of noble Lords who are concerned about a number of provisions that will arise on Third Reading. There is not a horde of other noble Lords waiting at the gates to discuss the Government's new clause. Some of us have to plough on through this unfortunate new

83
clause of the Government at Third Reading. Surely there is a case for saying that the convenience of the majority who are interested in the other clauses of the Bill might be given some priority.
I hope that it will not be thought that those of us who have been concerned primarily with the new clause wish it to obstruct our noble friends who want to discuss the rest of the Bill. I want to make that absolutely clear and I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench agree.
The noble Viscount is right to say that certain matters were agreed through the usual channels, but surely we are sufficiently flexible and not bound by the hidebound rules of some agreement. We did not know how long the Committee stage would take. No one could tell that. I am sure that everyone would feel that we could be flexible enough to allow those who wish to proceed to the Third Reading of the other clauses to do so after dinner and for those of us who have to discuss the Report stage of the new clause to wait until after that discussion.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the Bill has been very well discussed during the course of both Committee and Report stages. Whereas I shall deal with the amendments after Third Reading as diligently as I trust I dealt with those during the Committee and Report stages, I ask the House to accept the view that we should now move into Report stage on this particular clause and then deal with the amendments after Third Reading, I am afraid at a late hour this evening, but with due consideration for their importance in order to make progress with the Bill as we have discussed.
Report Received.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
In the new clause Line 7, leave out ("his relationship with") and insert ("the terms and conditions of employment of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to go into any of the debates we had before we reached Report stage, except to say that we on this side of the House regret that we are in this position. We agreed to deal with the situation so that we could have a Committee stage on the new clause. Why we have to go straight from Committee stage to Report stage is a different issue. However, we are in Report stage and I shall move Amendment No. 1.
The amendment is intended to amend the critical subsection 3(a) of the new clause so that instead of referring to a change in the relationship it refers to terms and conditions of employment. We do so for several reasons. One of the major reasons is that, as we said in Committee—and we received no reassurance from the Government—the Government have drawn that extremely wide. It refers to an employer's intention:
"to further a change in his relationship".
We do not know what kind of change in the relationship. We have said that almost anything could be said to be covered by that part of the clause.
The employer might introduce team briefings. He might say that introducing team briefings changes the relationship and he is now entitled to deny his employees collective bargaining. He could introduce total quality management audits. He could introduce semi-autonomous work groups. He could say, "I believe that my relationship with my employees would be significantly changed if they had a new suggestion scheme or if I had a management appraisal system". Almost anything could be put forward and said to be furthering a change in the relationship. The employer does not have to prove that it will produce a change in the relationship. As my noble friend said, he merely has to swear an affidavit and by the very submission of that as evidence everything which might be advanced under paragraph (b) is totally ruled out.
Then, as we know from what the noble Viscount said to me at the end of the Committee stage, a whole range of penalties can be imposed upon those who want to retain their union membership. They could be told that there will be no more wage increases for them. They could be told that there will be no more promotion for them. They could be told that they will be downgraded because they are no longer in the group which the employer wants to favour in order to produce a change in the relationship. All those things could be done.
We say that that could not in any way be said to be justified, or even related to the kind of decisions reached in the Court of Appeal. We believe that even at this late stage the Government ought to be prepared to accept a modification of paragraph (a) in order to place some limitation on what the employer would have to indicate in order to qualify for the easy way forward provided under the terms of the Bill. We say that the paragraph ought to be changed so that the employer has to show that he is dealing with the terms and conditions of employment.
That still leaves a very wide area which the employer could say that he wants to change. Most of the reasons that are advanced for such action in relation to individual contracts would be covered by reference to terms and conditions of employment. If the employer wanted to introduce a new system of appraisal that would probably be covered. If he wanted to move to a system of performance related pay he might have to show why that was necessary. That would be a fairly wide interpretation, although not as wide as the very wide interpretation that could be put on the clause as it stands. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amendment would mean that instead of there being evidence that the employer's purpose was,
"to further a change in his relationship with all or any class of his employees",
there would have to be evidence that his purpose was to further a change in the terms and conditions of employment of all or any class of his employees.
In our view the amendment would narrow the scope of the purpose to which the tribunal would be directed to have regard. Thus, if an employer wished to bring about a change in his arrangements—for example, collective bargaining—which did not form part of the terms and conditions of employment of the

85
individual employees, then the new clause would not direct the tribunal to regard that as the employer's purpose. The Government's policy does not draw a distinction in that way. The important point is that the employer should be free to bring about a change in his organisational arrangements whether or not those are enshrined in individual terms and conditions of employment. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, mentioned many other relationships, but then he did not really fail to address the point, which I believe is an important one, of the action which was taken by the employer. That is what we have to decide: what action was taken by the employer. I must not fall into the trap of referring to a test of reasonableness, but then there is the question of whether the action is action which no reasonable employer would take having regard to the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a).
We feel that the amendment narrows the scope of the clause, and with that brief reply I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount said that I did fail or did not fail to address the point. I thought that he said that I did not fail but I think that he meant that I did fail.
The noble Viscount said what we expected him to say. He said that the employer might want to change all kinds of things which are not in the terms and conditions of employment. If they are collective bargaining aspects they will be in the terms and conditions of employment; but, of course, the Government are not interested in that. They want the widest possible area in which the employer can argue one way or another and avoid his responsibilities under the other part of the clause. We are not surprised by that, but that being the situation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 2:
In the new clause, line 7, leave out ("his relationship with") and insert ("the employment relationship existing between him and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment flows from the Government's rejection of the earlier amendment on the Marshalled List. The noble Viscount's objection to the previous amendment was that it would leave matters too narrow. On Report of course we have to debate the Bill within the limits of the Government's structure. If the employer were left with a purpose to validate his otherwise unlawful discrimination relating merely to terms and conditions of employment, that was too narrow. The amendment relates to a further problem. The Government's wording is still too wide. It is imprecise in a way which none of their examples suggest that they wish it to be.
The employer's relationship with all or some class of his employees—and "class" may be very small according to the definition of subsection (5)—may, especially in a small firm, relate to a large number of matters. We say that such matters should at least relate to employment. That is why we have chosen the phrase "employment relationship". That is wider than
86
the reference to terms and conditions. Nevertheless, the phrase excludes certain other matters. On the Government's suggestions and presentations to date one would have expected them to agree to it.
For example, let us suppose that the employer in a small firm has made loans to all the employees. He wants to call the loans in because he fears for his liquidity. He calls in the loans. However, he first calls in the loans from the trade union members. That would be flagrant discrimination. Alternatively, in some way, perhaps not so flagrantly, he prejudices the trade union members as against the other employees. I refer to the employer's relationship with those employees qua creditor and debtor. In my example the relationship is quite outside the range of employment. It is quite unreasonable for the employer to be able to give as justification of his discrimination some relationship which is outwith the employment relationship.
Noble Lords might argue that that example came within the employment relationship. However, let us consider the case of a small family firm in which the relatives of the wife who are employed in the firm have always been staunch trade union members but the relatives of the husband, who is in control, are not. For reasons which are intimately connected with his relationship with the wife and her side of the family, the husband makes decisions which are easily seen as prejudicial to her relatives who are employed. As the example stands, it would fit the Government's clause. As the provision stands, the employer can say, "I want to further a change in my relationship with a class of employees". Class is easily defined. The relationship is easily shown. The discrimination is easily shown. But at that point the drawbridge comes up. No one can refer to the Section 146 discrimination.
Although that may be an improbable example, good legislation always take account of the least probable example. Good legislation would have to provide for that situation. I imagine that we would all agree that that example should not fall within the range of what we debate. However, the Government's clause brings it within range. That suggested purpose is within a purpose to further changes in a relationship with a class of employees. Yet in a sense it has nothing directly to do with employment but only indirectly. One can think of hundreds of examples. Even in large companies one can think of good examples where the discrimination would not necessarily come within the employment relationship but within a relationship which one or more of the employing companies in a group had with a class of employees.
I appreciate that the hour is late. If the objection to our amendment is an infelicity of words, I shall be only too happy to join with the Minister in finding the right phrase. But we say that, having rejected all the other arguments and taking the Government's objectives for what they are, at the minimum there must be words to provide that there is evidence that the employer's purpose was to further a change in his employment relationship with all or any class of his employees. If the Government have not noticed how widely they have gone outside those employment

87
relationships, it is not too late for them to suggest that I withdraw the amendment but that they will bring forward a better form of words at Third Reading.
At the very minimum can we not avoid the obvious litigation which will occur in tribunals around the word "relationship"? "Relationship" invites litigation. It is too wide. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord; and the explanation that it seeks to lead on from the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
I was confused by the examples that the noble Lord gave. Those that he gave seemed to me to penalise members of the trade union only. When he spoke of loans to companies and pulling loans back, I believe that he tripped into a situation which might easily fall foul of the section. We do not seek to remove individual protection from trade union members. I have said that on numerous occasions from the Dispatch Box. The amendment that he proposes would limit the circumstances in which an employer might legitimately seek to alter his negotiating arrangements and limit the situation in which an employer's action would not be in breach of Section 146.
I have already explained the provision, drawing it down to a very narrow focus. The Court of Appeal found in a recognition situation that there are at least two relationships: the contractual employment relationship between the employer and the employee; and that between the employer and union which affects the relationship between employer and employee. An employer might legitimately seek to further a change in either or both. He need not be limited by changing his direct contractual relationship with his employee, as this amendment seeks to achieve.
The intention of the noble Lord is obviously to make the wording of the new clause as clear as possible on the face of the Bill. I understand that that is his interpretation. However, we shall have to agree that our interpretations are different. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the record will show that, by refusing any part of my argument, the noble Viscount accepts that discrimination on trade union grounds which takes place during the course of a furtherance by the employer of a change in a family relationship within the firm, would be protected by the clause which the Government have introduced when the employer, as the noble Viscount rightly states, would otherwise fall foul of Section 146. The clause is a universal referee blowing a whistle in favour of one team only. The whistle blows whenever there is furtherance of a relationship be it family, creditor or debtor. Perhaps I did not choose the example well. I referred to a case of discrimination in a relationship between employer and employees as creditor and debtor which fell outside employment.
88
Not to accept that employment relationship is what is meant in the provision is quite remarkable. I have a shrewd suspicion that when the courts get their hands on the provision, they may imply that the clause probably means employment relationship. We shall then no doubt have the Government coming back with further legislation to put the clause right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 5:
In the new clause, line 11, after ("shall") insert ("if the evidence shows that his principal purpose was not to discriminate against employees who were members of an independent trade union")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, an amendment of the kind on the Order Paper in my name is absolutely necessary if the Bill is not to depart radically from the protection afforded by Section 146 of the 1992 Act or to breach ILO conventions. Again, we come back to the employer's purpose. If the employer's purpose is to deter individuals from joining or continuing to belong to a trade union, then his action should be caught by Section 146.
It seems fairly clear from the Court of Appeal judgment that the employers in both cases had as their purpose discouraging individuals from belonging to or continuing to belong to an independent trade union. In the Daily Mail case, when the employers de-recognised the union—and, incidentally, it is not in dispute here that the employers were, regrettably, entitled to do that—the employers, as we know, offered a 4.5 per cent. pay increase backdated to 1st October 1990 to all who signed their non-union contracts before 1st January 1990. I believe that that date was later extended. Those who did not sign because they still wanted some form of trade union representation did not receive the extra money. In the Daily Mail case that was what would have been their anticipated increase.
The Court of Appeal found that the ultimate purpose of the employers was to effect the wholly foreseeable consequence of deterring individual journalists from being union members. Unless an amendment of the kind I propose is accepted, the Government's new clause will legitimise actions which would otherwise be a breach of Section 146 of the 1992 Act. Is that the Government's purpose? If it is, they should say so. If that is the intention of the new clause, then it is in clear breach of ILO conventions which have already been quoted in the debate.
However, the Minister has already said that the Government do not want to remove protection from trade union members. He said so about 10 minutes ago in response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. So the amendment seeks to define more precisely that that is what they may not do. It interpolates quite precisely:
"if the evidence shows that his principal purpose was not to discriminate against employees who were members of an independent trade union".
If the Government mean what they say—and I am sure that the Minister means it; he has said it very often from the Dispatch Box—that they do not want

89
to remove protection from trade union members, then why does the Minister not accept the amendment which makes it clear that that will not be the purpose of the Bill? I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation of the purpose of the amendment. It would provide that in a situation where a tribunal has evidence of two purposes for an employer's action and where the clause provides that it shall therefore consider the negotiating purpose to be the relevant purpose, it will only do so if there is not additional evidence of a principal purpose to discriminate against employees who are trade union members.
It is worth examining at this point exactly how the clause which the amendment seeks to amend would operate and why it has been constructed in the way it has. The clause has come into being to address a particular situation in which tribunals are in need of direction. To summarise, if they are offered evidence of two conflicting purposes for action by an employer which has led to a case being brought under Section 146, then they are now directed as to which of those they should regard as the purpose for which the action was taken.
That situation will only arise when two opposing purposes may, in retrospect, be attributed to the same act. It would have been possible when the clause was drafted to adopt the approach of identifying a principal purpose. In the event, though, we decided that the approach taken in the clause tabled by the Government offered a more satisfactory solution to this difficult problem.
To ask the tribunal to identify a principal purpose would in effect offer no progress from the current position where the law has become confused. The tribunal would have no guidance on how to determine the principal purpose. Our approach offers clear and firm guidance, leaving the tribunal free to concentrate on the facts of the case and the evidence put before it on which its decision is to be based.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, if I may intervene, before the Minister passes from that point—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are at Report stage, but perhaps it is a question of guidance.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I understand that we can always give way to one another, even if we do not accept what we say. The argument which the noble Viscount has just put before us objects to the concept of the principal purpose. Does he apply the same reasoning to the long-established provision relating to dismissal? By it, the employer is liable for unfair dismissal if, for trade union or non-trade union reasons, as Section 152 puts
it,
if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the employee was … a member of … a union".
90
That is a well known provision; the courts have not found great difficulty with it. Why is it so much more difficult with action short of dismissal than it is with dismissal?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was trying to explain why the Government sought to phrase the amendment in the way they did. I was trying to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, why we sought not to identify it in the way that the noble Lord has just suggested—that is, that it would be clearer for the tribunal to weigh up the evidence and then make its judgment on the basis of the amendment which we tabled and the new clause in the Bill.
I was about to say that, of course, there is the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of the reasonableness, that the action taken by the employer was such as no reasonable employer would take, having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a). We also touched on that.
I believe that the test for the evidence put before the tribunal should be clear. The amendment seeks to alter that and put in another proviso. I believe that the way in which we have formed the new clause is the right way and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am disappointed at that response from the Minister. I thought that we had managed to draft an amendment which perhaps would be acceptable in view of his statements on so many occasions that it was not the Government's intention to discriminate against or to support employers who discriminate against individuals who want to become or remain members of a union. As that was government policy, I thought that the Minister might be prepared to accept our definition of what one of the purposes would be.
I do not find acceptable his argument that leaving it as it is makes matters clearer for industrial tribunals. I should have thought that the reverse was the case. I find, as my noble friends have said, that the amendment as drafted is confusing. If it is the Government's intention that individuals should still have protection under Section 146, then it seems to me that it would be quite proper to accept the amendment. It identifies that purpose and proposes that the IT should take account of evidence of a purpose where it looked as though it discriminated against employees who were members of an independent trade union.
As for the qualification on reasonableness on the part of employers, it seems to me that that is open to doubt. What is reasonable in particular circumstances? An employer may say that it is reasonable to do what he is doing because the kind of advice he has been receiving from the Government for a long time has been that it is not a good idea to deal with unions and that he should bring collective bargaining to an end. Therefore, it may be regarded as reasonable that he should take steps in that direction.
I am not happy with what has been said by the Minister. I very much regret that this wording, which

91
it seems to me is very moderate, has not been accepted. But at this late hour I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 6:
In the new clause, line 15, at end insert ("and to the contractual and other rights of the relevant employees.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows from my noble friend's proposal in the last amendment. Like all the other amendments debated and moved from this side of the House tonight, they are new points which were not dealt with in Committee. This is a small point but it could make a lot of difference to a few individuals. On that ground alone I would have thought that the Government could at any rate have a look at it. It arises because the tribunal has to undertake a difficult enterprise in applying the new clause. There is nothing new in that. Tribunals and courts often have to engage in difficult interpretation. But this new section has within it—taking lines 14 and 15—the test that no reasonable employer would have taken the action having regard to the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).
As I suggested in Committee, it is not a test of reasonableness as such, and I took the Minister to agree with me. It is a test of whether the employer has acted with rationality in the sense that he is outside the band of reasonable employers as can be put before the court. In that respect there is a double difficulty for the tribunals. This point is very relevant to the amendment. In the Court of Appeal judgment Lord Justice Dillon cited the judgment of Lord Justice Mustill (as the noble and learned Lord was then) in the case of Campion v Hamworthy Engineering in 1987. He said:
"Whether the decision of an industrial tribunal was "right" must be understood as meaning 'not so demonstrably wrong as to be beyond reason'".
He went on:
"The appeal from the Industrial Tribunal … only lies on grounds of law".
So we have already in the structure a decision which the appellate court has to make, the employment appeal tribunal and after it the Court of Appeal and perhaps your Lordships' Judicial Committee, as to whether or not the tribunal was not so demonstrably wrong as to be beyond reason.
Under this clause, in order to make that assessment they have to decide whether that decision of the tribunal was not so demonstrably wrong on the issue of whether a reasonable employer could have taken that action having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a).
It is within that context that one seeks to find some reasonable balance of the factors that go into the tribunal, and possibly appellate, decision. It is my contention in this amendment that that balance is not properly struck on any possible ground when it ends with the words,
"Having regard to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a)".
92
This is so, first, because those words appear to limit the tribunal and then the appellate court only to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a). Indeed, against my better wishes, I think that is the stronger interpretation of the clause. Even if we should take paragraph (a) as a dominant or primary interest, it surely cannot be right.
A purpose has to be judged with relation to all the interests that go into the questions that divide or bring together particular people. Surely a tribunal and appellate court ought to be able to have regard to the contractual and other rights of the relevant employees. Surely the Court of Appeal or the tribunal should be allowed to say: "We had regard to the purpose of Grade A type"—which is the one where he furthers a change in his relationship, as we now still have to have it: for all its uncertainties, one can hear the Court of Appeal saying, "Yes, that's there". But there are also these other rights of the employees, or non-contractual interests of the employees, and we think we ought to look at those in deciding—because what are we now deciding?—whether the tribunal was demonstrably wrong in deciding that a reasonable employer could not possibly take that decision—just to give an example of a case.
If it is limited to the employer's own purpose under paragraph (a), it is scarcely credible that he can ever lose. I know that some people say that that is the Government's intention—that the employer should never lose. Indeed, they have great weaponry in this clause at all points. But it surely cannot be the case that the tribunal is directed first to ignore the Section 146 discrimination—noble Lords will remember that that is the basis of it—ignore the fact that workers have been done down by reason of their trade union membership; take account of the employer's purpose, but do consider whether a reasonable employer could have taken that action, but, in deciding that last point, have regard only to his purpose—the particular employer's purpose, because that is what it says—under paragraph (a). It is completely circular. There is a wall of defence which is wholly circular around the employer. Surely even at this late point the Government will allow the interests of employees at least to be taken account of when the Government come to consider the balance which is demanded of the court. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in determining whether an action falls within the scope of Section 146, a tribunal must, as the clause is currently drafted, consider whether the action in question was such as a reasonable employer would take with regard to the stated strategic purpose.
The amendment would provide in addition that the tribunal should decide whether the action was such as a reasonable employer would take with regard to the contractual and other rights of the relevant employees, as I believe was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. It is at least unnecessary and could in practice undermine what we are seeking to achieve in this provision. I shall tell the noble Lord why.

93
I believe it is unnecessary because the test that the tribunal will apply—the test of whether the action concerned was one that a reasonable employer might take having regard to the strategic purpose—takes account of all the circumstances that a reasonable employer could take into account. There is no need to spell out any of those. Tribunals are well used to that test and I am sure that they apply it all the time.
Additionally, I believe it is unacceptable because the situations with which our clause is designed to deal may relate precisely to an attempt to alter contractual rights.
It is therefore possible to undermine the purpose of the clause by the inclusion of that phrase. There is nothing in the clause that prevents an employee exercising his contractual rights under his contract of employment and bringing a case of breach of contract if appropriate. We believe that there is a sufficient test in the clause as drafted. The amendment seems designed to make that test even harder for the employer to pass. I believe that the amendment is unacceptable and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As I suggested to the noble Viscount many hours ago, there is not much point in doing anything else with all of them. The idea that the amendment is unnecessary because an employer could consider the interests of the employees is the whole point of the amendment stood on its head. We suggest that somehow or other a court should be enabled to take account of the interests—not necessarily enforce them, but have regard to them. However, the noble Viscount says that it would undermine the Government's objectives. I understand that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 8:
In the new clause, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) ("previous action" means action taken within the twelve months preceding the action taken against the complainant.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very small amendment but I expect that it will receive the same treatment as before; that is, it will be considered either unnecessary or undesirable or both. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee a question was raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy as to just what was meant by "previous action" in subsection (4). In the course of that debate the small point arose of whether the previous action, which it will be remembered carries the employer through to victory if his purpose can rest upon it and it is satisfactory under paragraph (a), need be recent or a long time ago. I do not remember that the Minister suggested any cut-off point. However, on looking at the matter, we thought that it should have some reasonable cut-off point.
Surely, it cannot be right that, on given facts, a previous action could satisfy the demands on the employer if it took place 15 years ago. There is no rule in the Government's amendment to say that it should
94
not do so. The facts might rarely occur. But would it be right if it happened 10 years ago? Does the noble Viscount believe that, in a case where workers are being penalised for what previously were thought to be their rights, an action five years ago is relevant? We thought that 12 months was as long as any reasonable employer (some employers will dislike this clause very much) ought not to put in evidence the subjective matter of his purpose.
Let us remember that that is what the evidence has to be about. It is a previous action but it speaks to purpose. After 12 months or, if the Government believe that it should be a little longer, after a reasonable period, memories wane. Sometimes people give evidence about what they did last week which turns out to be unlike what in fact happened. After 12 months or two years it is very difficult to speak of purpose, even in a situation such as that about which my noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke; namely, a change in various types of employment arrangements.
So in regard to "previous action" would it help to make for clarity, certainty and less uncertainty in litigation for a period to be put on previous action? It does not cure all the other uncertainties but it helps a little with people on the shop floor and the office floor who, for the most part, will be trying to work out this provision as a sensible arrangement. It will give them something to look at in terms of time. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amendment would provide that subsection (4), which provides that the purpose of a previous action can be deemed to be the purpose of a subsequent action, would only apply if the second action were taken within 12 months of the first. We believe that there is no need to impose an arbitrary cut-off point such as the one proposed. Businesses differ and circumstances differ. I believe that it would be presumptuous for this House to impose arbitrary limits on the relationship of cause and effect between one action and another such as this. Besides, we must not lose sight of the fact that any action brought under Section 146 where there is a disputed purpose will be subject to the "reasonable employer" test.
In his attempt to curry favour for his amendment, the noble Lord oversteps the mark. He suggests that the tribunal would not consider the evidence with that test of reasonableness or look at it as how a reasonable employer would behave. I believe, unlike the noble Lord, that tribunals are perfectly capable of dealing with these matters.
The tribunals will have access to the full facts of the case. They will be able to decide whether any course of action was such that a reasonable employer might take. I believe that it does not need this arbitrary cut-off point. The facts will speak for themselves. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the tribunals will make what they can of that. They will be in much greater difficulty in not having guidance on the question of when previous actions reach a cut-off point. After all, people cannot bring an action under the sections when three months have passed. The

95
employee loses his rights after three months. But the employer can go on adding to his evidence as to purpose from facts 15 or 20 years old.
I appreciate that the noble Viscount may think that that case is unusual. But it is part of the law that if a tribunal says, "We are not going to look at the previous action 20 years ago because we do not think it is relevant to the matter", the case would immediately go to appeal and the judgment would be upset. There is no question of tribunals having the right to put aside the clause as it is drafted. Ministers often believe that they can get away from bad drafting by saying that the tribunals will deal with it. The tribunals cannot deal with it. The clause is as drafted.
The noble Viscount said that it was presumptuous for this House to engage in debate on such small matters. I should have thought that it was presumptuous of a government that puts forward this kind of clause to make that point. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 9:
In the new clause, line 25, after ("work") insert ("but does not include a group of employees categorised or described primarily by reference to their membership or non-membership of an independent trade union")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have discovered a new rejection—"presumptuous". I have counted five rejections. We are nearing the touchstone of seven degrees of rejection. "Presumptuous" may apply to Amendment No. 9; I sincerely hope not.
It may be said that the amendment is untimely. It could be argued, and perhaps the noble Viscount will argue, that Amendment No. 9 should have been moved at the same time as Amendment No. 5. It has a similar intention to Amendment No. 5. However, I am glad that it was not moved at the same time because it escapes most of the objections trotted out by the noble Viscount to deal with the points made by my noble friend Lady Turner.
The main objection to Amendment No. 5 was that it dragged in the question of principal purpose. Once one allows tribunals to decide the principal purposes, they may conceivably decide against the employer and, of course, the Government do not want that. That is therefore ruled out. One cannot say that of Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9 relates to subsection (5) of the new clause, which defines "class". It states,
"'class', in relation to an employer and his employees, means those employed at a particular place of work, those employees of a particular grade, category or description or those of a particular grade, category or description employed at a particular place of work".
Amendment No. 9 seeks to say that such a class,
"does not include a group of employees categorised or described primarily by reference to their membership or non-membership of an independent trade union".
It is not an amendment conceived in the air. One can readily think of an employer who wanted to introduce certain benefits and confine them to non-unionists. He may have tried to do that in relation to individual agreements and contracts but a few
96
people remain in the union. He therefore offers them star status or five weeks' holiday if they leave the union—benefits which will be given to non-unionists. He may say that those in a specific part of the drawing office or on a specific construction site will receive the benefits.
The union or the individuals may say, "It is strange. He has done this several times and each time the group includes people in the membership of a specific trade union"—it may be a union that the employer does not like. They may go on to say, "It is funny that all these benefits are being offered to groups who happen coincidentally entirely to consist of non-unionists and are being denied to the groups which entirely consist of trade unionists in a specific union".
I know that if one leaves the clause as it is, there is little chance that the unions will succeed with a defence of this kind—the 5 per cent. is always worth more than the 95 per cent. Nevertheless, it is a defence which they may put forward. It is something which will give them the possibility of making progress and is nothing to do with "principal purpose". I believe therefore that the noble Viscount should accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, another form of rejection. I believe this to be a wrecking amendment. That is another word that he can add to his list of rejections. To explain why we take that view, an employer may wish to alter his bargaining arrangements and, to achieve that effect, offer incentives to encourage employees to accept a new arrangement under which a certain trade union does not negotiate terms on their behalf. If he wishes to do that, in some circumstances he may well have to identify the group of employees in making the offer by reference to membership of that trade union. There is no reason why we should seek to prevent that. The employer should be free to make the offer and the employee should be free to decide whether or not to accept it.
I believe that we define perfectly adequately in the new clause what may constitute a class. The amendment introduces a new concept into that definition which will certainly undermine the purpose of the provision. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish to ensure that I have correctly understood the Minister's defence. When an employer finds it necessary, much though he may not wish it, to discriminate against a class of trade union members he may do so. Quite clearly, when he does so it is a breach of Section 146. I hope that I do not misunderstand the Minister. When he does so his very act of discrimination against the class is also an act which furthers a change in relationship to that class at work and therefore by itself justifies the breach under Section 146. Is it correct to say that all that the employer ever has to do is discriminate in respect of a class of trade union members in changing something in and about the area of whatever the relationship is? That is enough because he defends himself by doing it; the act of contravention is the act of defence. Is that right?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that I used the words "discriminate against". The noble Lord is trying to put words into my mouth. What the new clause now seeks to do is further a change in his relationship. That is not discriminating against a person. What we are trying to do is to determine who may be a member of a class. We say that the wording of the Bill is drawn sufficiently widely to make certain that if the employer seeks to change his relationship with a group or class of employee he can do so. I was not talking about "discriminating against" but about seeking to further a change in his relationship.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have to believe in something. I know that tomorrow the Official Report will record precisely what the noble Viscount said. But I should like to ask him again what he said. He said that he did not say "discriminate". What he was suggesting was that our amendment was not needed. Our amendment is not a wrecking amendment; it is a "blowing the gaff" or "out of the bag" amendment. I believe that we have had a "blowing the gaff" answer. I want to know the word used because I have got only the intention. I believe the Minister said that if the employer's purpose was to get rid of members of a particular union—one might not call that discrimination but in some way it would be a move against members of a particular trade union—he was perfectly entitled to classify them as a class. Because he classified them as a class he would be perfectly entitled to say that he wanted to change his relationship with that class. Once he did that he would come under (3) (a) and (3) (b) could not touch him. In effect, was that not what the Minister said? If not, what did he say?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, the words that I used are these. An employer may, as we have said, wish to alter his bargaining arrangements. He may, to help achieve that effect, offer incentives to encourage employees to accept a new arrangement where a certain trade union does not negotiate terms on their behalf. If he wishes to do this he may well, in some circumstances, have to identify that group of employees. That is what we are saying. He may have to identify in order to make certain that the tribunal knows that he is seeking to do it to a class.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the Minister finally resumes his seat, I should like to associate myself with the words that he has just used. Of course he did not say the word "discriminate". But what he has just said on the last amendment on Report shows how useful Report and Committee really are. On the last amendment on Report, we come to it. We agree that where the employer wishes to give incentives to employees, which would obviously further a change in relationships, he may well wish to identify among them a class by reference to their membership of a trade union—a given trade union—and not apply those offers to them. I used the word "discriminate" but it does not really matter. That fact complex is, at the moment as the law stands, a breach of Section 146. And not only because the Court of Appeal said so; indeed, it is way behind the Court of
98
Appeal. But after the Court of Appeal it is absolutely clear. If that is so then when the Act comes into force with the clause, as it obviously will, the employer, by doing precisely what the Minister has described, would commit an action which, as the law stands now and then, would be a breach of Section 146. That is clear. But he would also by the same action commit himself to a purpose which would change the relationships among the employees as to the incentives and with primary reference to that class. The very same action is therefore a contravention of Section 146 and a defence under the clause as it would stand with the amendments. Therefore, what we have been debating, it now turns out, is very easily cured by any employer who wishes to discriminate against trade union members.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I feel that this is a rather important point. I do not believe that what the noble Lord has said is in any way how I sought to answer the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. What he is doing is trying to put words into my mouth in identifying what I was suggesting was to define a class by a particular trade union —nothing to do with trade union membership or not. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, may laugh but what he is seeking to do is to put words into my mouth which I did not use. I should like to go on the record that what I was trying to do was to define a class and the words that I used I chose carefully. It was certainly not to discriminate against a trade unionist, either individually or in that connection collectively.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, a personal explanation is allowed. I did not wish to, and I did not, put words into the Minister's mouth. What I was doing was taking his fact situation and applying it to the clause, which he has not done.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I think that we should end now because the noble Viscount has gone so far under the water that if he stops there any longer he will bob up. I do not particularly want him to bob up. He is quite a long way down. I hope that the Trade Union Congress and our colleagues in another place will read with great care what the noble Viscount has said tonight because I think that he has given the game away. This was the blowing the gaff, out of the bag amendment. I was very pleased that we moved it and now I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause (Action short of dismissal: non-infringing actions)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I cannot let this clause leave the House on Report without making some comments for the record, which I do in support of Amendment No. 10. First, I should like to say a word or two about the procedures followed. I say to the noble Viscount that I understand that these were agreed through the usual channels. I am not complaining about that. But it is clear that many noble Lords are very dissatisfied with the way in which

99
this particular clause has been tackled. They feel, with some justification, that inadequate time has been provided. Clearly this is an important issue, but there has been little time for consultation with bodies outside this House and also for your Lordships, who have a particular interest in this subject, to study what the amendment is about.
The Court of Appeal decision has become available only very recently and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said earlier this afternoon, he and others have had very little time in which to study the important issues involved. Moreover, those of your Lordships who have put down amendments in the normal way for debate at Third Reading of this Bill are having to have that Third Reading put back to a time which is quite impossible. I am complaining, first, about the procedures which have been followed, bearing in mind and accepting fully that our Front Bench has some responsibility because the matter was discussed through the normal channels. However, it has turned out not to have been a very satisfactory procedure.
Secondly, I question the need for haste in this matter. As we have said repeatedly from this side of the House, the legislation in question has been in existence since 1975. Cases have been going through the courts which were decided very much in the terms of the recent Court of Appeal case. It seems to me that the Government decided that they did not like the Court of Appeal decision, but they did like the EAT decision. Therefore, at this very late stage of this important Bill we have an attempt to write into the legislation support for the EAT decision as against the Court of Appeal decision and the precedents on which its decision was based.
There has been the failure of the Government throughout the debate at both Committee and Report stages to accept even minor amendments submitted on this side of the House which were intended to make the purpose of the new legislation clearer. We have tried the kind of amendment to comply with what the Government have said; that they do not intend there to be discrimination against trade union membership. We have tried to clarify what that will mean in practice. We have had very unsatisfactory responses from the Government.
So we are left with an extraordinarily abstruse piece of wording in this legislation with which industrial tribunals and EATs will find great difficulty when they come to interpret it. Furthermore, as a number of noble Lords have already said, this legislation cuts deeply into the heart of Section 146 of the 1992 Act. That section of legislation was intended, and does, comply with the international obligations which the UK Government have accepted for generations. There is no indication—apart from the Minister's statement that there has been some internal legal advice—that there has been independent legal advice sought as to whether or not this clause breaches either ILO conventions, international obligations or the sections of the Treaty of Rome quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Furthermore, this is another part of the Bill which
100
tilts the balance decisively against employees and in favour of employers. It does so in a most blatant and obvious way. It legitimises actions by employers for the future which will enable them to discriminate against trade union members. The Minister says that there is no intention to discriminate against trade union members; that the aim is simply to ensure that an employer can alter his industrial relations arrangements and make different arrangements with his employees. But the amendments which we proposed, and which would have meant that the employer would have had to negotiate changes in the arrangements, have been rejected by the Government. They say that employers should not have to do that. They should be able to make such changes by diktat without consulting anybody, certainly not their employees. That is totally unacceptable.
For those reasons I very much regret that we have been unable, either at Committee or Report stages, to make any impact whatever on the Government's thinking with the amendments which have been so ably argued this evening by my two noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn. I very much regret that the Bill leaves this Report stage with the clause in it. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend speaks I should like to say two things in answer to the noble Baroness. First, the amendment—I said this earlier—does no more than restate the employer's right to seek to order his relations with his staff in the way considered most appropriate for the organisation concerned. Secondly, I congratulate my noble friend on resisting the arguments, put skilfully as always by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which were designed to exploit the amendment to the best advantage that they possibly could and to persuade him to say something he might later regret. I am happy to say that, having listened carefully to the debate, I am pretty certain that my noble friend did not put one foot wrong. He must be congratulated by all your Lordships, including those who strove to trip him up.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have now debated further amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite on Report. I have been unable to accept any of them, but they have offered the opportunity for further debate, and I hope and believe that the debate has provided an opportunity for me to explain further the intentions of the legislation and to offer reassurances as to the application of the new clause. I am grateful to my noble friend, not just for his words of support but for the support that he has given to the new clause. He and I understand the purpose of the clause. I understand also the reasons why noble Lords opposite seek to oppose it.
We believe that the new clause will play an important part in clarifying the conduct of industrial relations. Individual trade union members will continue to be protected in law. Employers will not be unreasonably restricted in conducting their business. I therefore commend the clause to the House and resist Amendment No. 10.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.38 p.m.
Clause 13 [Right not to be excluded or expelled]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 24, line 9, at end insert ("and the union has indicated that it is not able, or is no longer able, to act on his behalf.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return to the Bill as it left the House the last time we dealt with it. We deal with Clause 13, and we return to the notorious Bridlington clause. The amendment adds to the number of justified exclusions and expulsions on the face of the Bill, so that if a union has indicated that it is unable, or no longer able, to act on behalf of a member or a would-be member, that would, in effect, be a justified exclusion or expulsion. That would mean that unions could put a lawful rule into their rule book giving them the right to operate an enforceable membership requirement with some justification if they could show, as it were, that they were unable, or no longer able, to act on behalf of a member or a group of members or would-be members. It will be said, and we see no reason to deny it, that that would cover many of the so-called Bridlington decisions, although it would not necessarily cover them all.
The Government have rejected all our amendments designed to assist the continued operation of the dispute principles of the TUC. We do not therefore expect anything new from them tonight. The only new aspect is likely to be a different form of rejection which the Minister will find. He appears to be finding new forms of rejection at this stage of the Bill.
We have tabled the amendment because we wish to return to the Bridlington issue and also because at this stage we wish to point out that what the Government intend to do in Clause 13 is far wider than anything related to the Bridlington Rules, which relate largely to exclusions. In practice the Bridlington Rules are largely operated when unions go to the TUC because one union says that its members have been poached and recruited by another union. In effect, it is trying to get the union to agree that such recruitment is contrary to the Bridlington Rules.
The provisions in Clause 13 go much wider. The clause relates not only to exclusions but to entry and admissions. For the first time the Government are regulating in a narrow and precise way who should be allowed to join trade unions, the type of people who should be allowed to join which trade unions and the circumstances under which trade unions are allowed to say that they do not wish to recruit particular members of the workforce. During our debates we have said repeatedly that that is in sharp contrast with the way in which the Government rightly continue to allow voluntary associations and powerful, professional associations—for instance, veterinary surgeons, chartered surveyors, the Inns of Court, political parties, which may or may not operate quasi closed-shop practices, masonic lodges, the Institute of
102
Directors and so forth—not to have their entry qualifications regulated in the way that trade unions are having theirs regulated.
That is the central thrust of much of the Bill about which we are protesting as it applies to Clause 13. I shall argue subsequently that seven degrees of uniqueness are applied to trade unions under the Bill. There are seven ways in which trade unions are said to be unique; seven ways in which their rights and privileges must be undermined, altered and narrowed. One of the central and in some ways most fundamental of those restrictions lies on entry. That is undoubtedly contrary to ILO conventions and to all kinds of international standards. So far as I am aware, nothing remotely of the kind exists in any western country with developed trade unions. The Government are taking this action without any real justification except a general appeal to the uniqueness of British trade unions.
Even at this late stage will the Minister tell the House what it is about British trade unions that requires entry to them to be regulated by statute in this way? It will be no good telling us yet again, "Oh, they are different. They are not the same as masonic lodges, institutes, professional associations or clubs. They are different". The issue in dispute is why their difference, such as it is, means that it can be dealt with only by the Government regulating and restricting their autonomy in this way. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to say that I was rather mystified by this amendment because its effect is to place an additional and unnecessary hurdle in the way of a union which wishes to legitimately exclude an individual from membership.
Clause 13 gives individuals the right to join the union of their choice, with certain sensible exceptions. The amendment would have the effect that when relying on one of those legitimate exemptions in order to exclude an individual from membership—namely, that the union need not accept as members those who have no trade, occupation, or qualification in common with their membership—the union would in addition have to show that it had indicated to that member that it was not able to act on his behalf. Why put this extra legal barrier in the union's way? The provision protects unions from having to accept inappropriate individuals into membership. There is no reason in the context of the clause why the union should additionally have a statutory duty to indicate that it is unable to act on behalf of the individual, whatever that may be taken to mean.
However, I believe that the noble Lord indicated that the wording of the amendment was intended to stand alone, as an additional legitimate reason for exclusion under new Section 174. If that was to be the case, then noble Lords must realise that it would completely undermine the clause and would therefore be wholly unacceptable to the Government. Whatever its intention, such an amendment would have the effect that a union could exclude individuals on virtually any ground it chose, as long as it first said that it did not consider itself able to act for them.

103
Unions could, for example, act on arrangements such as the Bridlington principles with impunity. Union members' wishes could once again count for little or nothing. We cannot accept that.
The noble Lord asked me why it should not be for unions to decide what they have in their rules and why should the Government interfere. Union rules are certainly a matter for the unions themselves. However, those rules must not have the effect of threatening the legitimate freedoms and rights of trade union members. We have seen how the Bridlington principles take no account of the wishes of individuals, but simply bolster existing spheres of influence and avoid legitimate competition. And we have seen how individuals may be denied membership of a trade union which they may have every good reason for wishing to join because of such rules. The provision will ensure people are not prevented from joining the union of their choice except on reasonable grounds.
As I have said, we have already made provision for the legitimate reasons for which a union may wish to exclude an individual. This amendment adds nothing that is useful or relevant to the purposes of the clause, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not given me any answers. The Minister is quite right. We saw the amendment as adding to Section 174(2) (a) so that in future a union would have a perfectly lawful rule that it could exclude or not recruit individuals if it had indicated that it was unable, or was no longer able to act on their behalf. However, if the noble Viscount wished to smile on the amendment and wanted to say that it would be more effective if it stood on its own, that could be achieved even at this late stage. Therefore, the drafting of the amendment is not the critical issue.
The critical issue is that the noble Viscount does not like the amendment. We know that he does not like it. However, he has not given us any reasons. He has given the same general statements about unions being different from other organisations. We are still not told first, what that difference is and secondly, why that difference is of such a kind that it justifies the imposition of limitations on unions.
I can think of two reasons. The Minister could be saying that unions are so corrupt and so appalling in their internal administration that they must be regulated in that way. But he does not say that. If he did, we should ask him about the institutions which the Government have established to look into such matters which have no work to do. We should ask him about the CROTUM, if unions are so corrupt.
The Minister could be saying that not only are the unions corrupt, although he has no evidence with him this evening, but that they are also so dreadfully powerful that the state must pronounce upon their entry requirements. He does not say that. Indeed, in another place at other times government Ministers are always telling us how they have squashed trade unions and reduced them to size. Therefore, the Minister cannot say that they are corrupt; he does not say that.
104
He cannot say that they are all-powerful; he does not say that. However, he continues to stick to his arguments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 31, line 9, leave out ("falls") and insert ("and section 231A fall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3 and to the last amendment on the list, Amendment No. 28—the end is in sight. I do not do so because of the kind of reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, although they are connected with the matter. I support him totally, but I was not able to agree with the form of the last amendment. The Minister must take account of the fact that it seems to us that we are up against an immovable "no", whereas we vary a little in the matters that we put before him. We are not just a block; we are a set of splinters each of which is very sensitive to the argument.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which deal with a technical argument. I genuinely seek to have the Bill in some sensible form, not against but within the Government's policies; at least, I hope that my arguments will be understood as falling generally within them. Their policy is that all industrial action requires the support of a ballot which must now be a postal ballot. However, certain requirements will differ according to who appears in the court room to complain. In other words, the situation that noble Lords should posit is that of a complainant—or plaintiff in the High Court—and a union defendant or respondent where the union is saying that the action was supported by a ballot.
There is a whole series of requirements which I shall call the "ordinary requirements" for the ballot; that is, there must be a ballot taken of those entitled to vote, it must be conducted in secret, and so on. It would weary noble Lords if I were to read out those requirements. But I suggest that the ordinary requirements are very clearly found. The best place to find them is in paragraph 47 of Schedule 8 where they are set out in relation to a member of the union who, since 1988, has been able to bring an action whereby he complains that the industrial action to be called by the union does not have the support of a ballot. Therefore, the member, as the complainant, requires the ordinary hurdles to be surmounted.
However, if we go to the other end of the spectrum as set out in the Bill, there is now a superior set of hurdles that must be surmounted by the union as regards the employer. I cite the words contained in Clauses 17 and 20 in respect of Sections 226A and 234A of the 1992 Act, to found my argument on a clear source in the Bill. Those are the clauses and sections which require the need for the union to prove and show, as regards the employer—that is, the employer of anyone who is an employee who may be "induced to take part" in the industrial action—what I tend to call the "extra requirements". I make no point against them in that respect. First, there is the

105
requirement that notice must be given to the employer at least seven days before stating that there is to be a ballot. Secondly, the employer must be shown at least three days before a specimen ballot paper. Thirdly, within a reasonable time the union must notify the employer of the result of the ballot. Finally, not less than seven days before the action, a notice must be given to the employer concerning who is to take part, and so on. Those are the four extra hurdles. They appear to make the position difficult, but where the union is in court and it can mention the ordinary requirements, it will not succeed against the employer unless it can prove that it has surmounted the four extra hurdles; that is, the notice, the specimen ballot paper and the other hurdles.
In the past I have suggested that this was rather absurd. I have consulted with a number of people who have been more directly in the firing line on this matter in the past few days than was the case previously. In the past 10 days a number of solicitors have contacted me. They were mostly solicitors who advise trade unions. They have said this is an absurd procedure and that they will always advise unions to go through the four extra hurdles as they do not know who the plaintiff will be. They have no idea whether the plaintiff will be the employer in the High Court or the member bringing a right of action under Section 62.
In the past I have said that this division of requirements according to who pops up as plaintiff is rather a crazy way of doing things. The Government might just as well have said, "These are the requirements and you must observe them no matter who the plaintiff is". When I raised this matter before, the noble Viscount kindly wrote to me and confirmed that my understanding so far was correct. He suggested that that was what the Government wanted. In the short debate we had on this matter, the issue was left there. Therefore I must leave it there. I am not trying to reopen that debate. This is a somewhat technical matter and I apologise to your Lordships if I have taken a long time to explain it. However, I have avoided referring to some of my footnotes.
Previously a point has arisen—it arises now also —as to the third party plaintiff; that is to say, the plaintiff who is not the employer party in the dispute and is not a member of the union but who says, "You did not properly have the support of a ballot as far as I am concerned and therefore I can bring an action on the basis of an arguable tort". An action in tort in the High Court will lie. One would have thought that the union could then say, "Oh, but we have satisfied the ordinary hurdles. You are not the employer". I quite see that the purpose of the Bill is to give the employer extra rights. However, the union could say, "You are not the employer. We have held a ballot. All the people voting were entitled to vote and it was a secret ballot". The union could say, "We do not have to prove to you that we have given these notices to the employer because that is a requirement of the employer". That provision is stated quite clearly in Sections 226A and 234A of the Act.
So far, the union would be correct. However, if one looks at the sections I have referred to in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and if one looks in particular at Schedule
106
8 on page 114 of the Bill, one will see that there is one section which requires the support of a ballot which is not contained in the ordinary requirements. Up to now, one would have thought of that as falling only within the requirements as respects the employer. That provision falls within Section 231A.
Section 231A requires the union to notify the employer, or perhaps more accurately, the employers —this applies to any employer whose employees are to be induced in the action —of the result of the ballot. I do not suppose trade unions would have any particular objection to doing that. At the point of the ballot the difficulties are not at their most extreme. However, this is a requirement that could easily trip up the unions.
If there are to be dual requirements according to plaintiff, I urge the Government to reconsider this matter, even at this late stage and on the basis of this technicality which is the technical apparatus they have insisted upon; that is, a division of requirements between those of employers and those of others. The third party plaintiff may be a supplier. There are many examples in law reports of third party plaintiffs who may be customers or suppliers. It is not quite "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" but DOT may have a contractual right which has been infringed by the action. The union will say, "We have had a ballot" but DOT will say, "No you have not, because you have not satisfied Section 231A and told the employers—not DOT—what the result of the ballot was". That is a highly technical point which ought not to remain in the Bill in its present form.
I have genuinely tried to follow the debate so far and the Government's own intention. In moving the amendments I suggest that if there are to be two categories—employer and the rest—let there be two categories. However, surely there should not be a third category for which the ordinary requirements are, quite illogically, joined by the requirement to give the result of a ballot to an employer who is not even the plaintiff who appears in court.
I hope that the Government are at least able to consider the amendment at this late stage. If not, it will all come out in litigation. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the background to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 28. I recognise that they touch on themes similar to those considered in connection with Amendment No. 19, which the noble Lord moved at Report stage.
I perceive, however, that the intended changes to the provisions of Section 226 of the 1992 Act are both more precise than, and somewhat different from, those which were proposed by the noble Lord at Report stage. In summary, they would mean that if a union failed to satisfy the requirements of the new Section 231A—that is to say, it did not take steps to supply an employer with details of the ballot result—it would lose the protection of the statutory immunities only in respect of proceedings brought by the particular employer denied those details.

107
The requirements of the new Section 231A will not mean that a union must necessarily tell a particular employer the result of votes cast by that employer's particular employees. That would be the case if the ballot was a ballot of a single employer's workers but not if it was a multi-employer ballot. There is, of course, only one ballot result in either case. Moreover, to satisfy the requirements of Section 231A, the union needs to do no more than provide the same details of the ballot result to all employers whose workers took part in the ballot as it is already required to supply to its own members.
I can confirm that the provisions in the Bill will mean that, if any employer whose workers are given entitlement to vote in an industrial action ballot is denied the ballot result details which are to be provided to such employers under Section 231A, the ballot as a whole will not be capable of affording protection to the union against proceedings in tort. Therefore, any employer could bring proceedings against the union on the basis that the union had failed to provide the ballot result details to another employer.
I would accept that such proceedings would be rather unlikely. However, it is appropriate to apply the new ballot result detail requirements in this way, for reasons which I shall explain.
The ballot result details—in sharp contrast with the proposed new requirements for the provision of certain notices to employers—relate to the industrial action ballot as a whole. Such a ballot might well involve employees of more than one employer. So would the details which will, in future, have to be supplied to each employer.
I should add that when—by virtue of this Bill—industrial action ballots have to be conducted by fully postal voting it would not really be practicable for an employer to be informed of the result of the ballot among his own particular employees where they had voted as part of a multi-employer ballot.
Moreover, the current provisions of Section 231 of the 1992 Act apply in exactly the same way. Those provisions have been part of the law since 1984. They mean that, to obtain the protection of the law for its call for industrial action, a union must take steps to supply ballot result details to its members.
It is open to an employer to bring proceedings against the unlawful organisation of industrial action because a union has failed to carry out the steps which the present law requires in respect of the provision of ballot result details to members. It is not relevant, for these purposes, whether the members denied those details are employed by that particular employer.
We believe that it is right to adopt the same approach with the new requirements to notify ballot result details to employers.
I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned to determine who can bring which particular proceedings, and on what particular grounds. There is, of course, a simple enough answer to any union which wants to know what it must do to avoid risk of such
108
challenges. The answer is that it must comply with all the requirements of the law, and that if it does so it will not be at risk of a court order against it.
To spell this out, a union will need to provide all relevant employers with the notice required to satisfy the requirements of new Section 226A of the 1992 Act. Following the ballot, it will also have to take steps to provide relevant employers with details of the ballot result. As a matter of practice, of course, satisfaction of the second of these two elements will mean providing the very same ballot result details as the union would already provide to its own members.
It is quite correct that a union's failure to take the steps to provide either notice or ballot result details to an employer could provide the grounds for proceedings under the new citizen's right. However, that is quite justifiable. Considered from the perspective of the individual bringing such proceedings, what has happened in such a case? A union is organising industrial action which would deprive the individual of goods or services. The union's call for action is, however, actionable in tort because it does not satisfy the requirements to afford it the protection of the immunity. Therefore the union is acting unlawfully and the individual's deprivation stems from that act. In such circumstances it would be quite wrong to deny the individual the protection which the citizen's right is designed to secure.
The noble Lord seems to continue to view matters from a slightly mistaken perspective. He asks: what will a union have to do in order to protect itself from proceedings which might otherwise be brought by anybody? That may be a proper question from someone advising a union. However, it is not the right basis on which to construct an appropriate system of law. For that purpose it is right for the Government to ask themselves, as we have done, who should be able to bring proceedings for a failure to comply with a specific requirement? That is important because it will remain up to individuals to decide whether or not they wish to make use of the law to protect their interests as they see them in any given situation.
I understand the noble Lord's anxiety. However, I seek to allay his fears. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I understand what the Minister says. Indeed, he would not put words in my mouth. But I did not address the issue of whether the employer would know the result of his own employee's vote. Nor did I address the issue of what he calls the citizen's remedy under Clause 21. I was concerned only with Clauses 17 to 20.
I predicted the Minister might say that there was a simple enough answer; that the trade unions need not worry about all the different hurdles because they must comply with the law. I know that the Minister will not apply what I say to himself personally. It applies to the Bill. When one states that one must comply with the law, and the law does not apply equally to equal cases or set out duties and liabilities clearly, if at all, there is a usurpation of the normal rule of law, accepting the different ways in which people use that phrase.

109
I believe that the Government are saying, as practitioners such as trade union advisers, employers' advisers and many people interested in the legislation will say, that a union which holds a ballot, organising industrial action, must go through all the hurdles including the big four—notice to the employer; declaration of results, and so on. The noble Viscount nods his head. But one should not do that in a Bill which pretends, as it does, that the big four hurdles apply only to employers. Clause 17(1) (b) refers to,
"Where section 226A falls to be complied with in relation to the person's employer … by the employer … unless the trade union has complied with Section 226A".
That is the beginning of the notices. What is the point of the phrase "by the employer"? It is the drafting of the Mad Hatter. We all know that the provision applies to the union, no matter with whom it is concerned. If the four hurdles—the notices, the ballot paper, the declaration of result and so on—are not overcome, the union will lose.
This is the last time that we shall make the point. The Minister sometimes says to us, "You should have considered this from the point of view of advising the trade unions". I say to him that the Government should sometimes consider the Bill with a view to trade unions perhaps winning a case now and again, instead of the Government always drafting the legislation so that they cannot. One does not draft a Bill such as we have agreed this is, where a union must go through all four extra hurdles, and saying, first, that it does not apply to the members. The logic of the Bill is not the logic of the Minister. These four extra hurdles do not apply where a member of a trade union brings an action. Why not? The Minister has just said that it is absolutely vital. But if a member brings an action and the union can show that it has satisfied the ordinary hurdles, it does not have to show any notice to the employers, as I read the Bill. I hope that the Minister will correct me immediately if that is wrong, because people outside are scratching their heads.
When an employer turns up, the union has to satisfy all four hurdles. When a third party turns up —not another employer in the dispute but some other person, whether or not an employer—he can show an action if the union does not show that it has declared the result of a ballot to an employer to whom it has given no notice. It can fail to give notice but if the third party plaintiff turns up it still has a defence.
It is a quite absurd state of law-making. I feel rather sorry for the third party plaintiff. Why should he not have the advantage of what the union will have to do when it gives notice to the employer? The Bill has been changed as it progressed. Had this been another occasion I should wish to go through the various stages because the Bill has not been the same all along. What is now Schedule 8 was Schedule 7, but it used to he rather different. The Government have now left themselves, through insufficient time and consultation, with a Bill which is dilapidated law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 31, line 32, after ("describing (") insert ("by name or in any other manner").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. I believe the amendments may commend themselves to your Lordships as a means of putting it beyond doubt that a union may be able to satisfy the new notice requirements otherwise than by providing individual names to describe relevant employees. Indeed, the Government believe that the circumstances in which a union will only be able to satisfy the requirement by providing names will arise very infrequently—if ever.
The Government have never, of course, sought to argue that there was really any scope for such doubt, even without these changes. In explaining why we now propose them, I must, therefore, refer to certain amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
These government amendments have been prompted by Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 proposed by the noble Baroness. As I understand them, her amendments must be seeking to do exactly the same thing as would be achieved by the Government's. They acknowledge on the face of the Bill for the first time that the provision of individual names is one means of satisfying the notice requirements.
The Government's amendments would have exactly the same practical result as those tabled by the Opposition. Why then, do we prefer them? Frankly, the reason is our desire to act in accordance with the principles of good practice in drafting legislation.
It is clear enough that the government amendments are more concise than those of the Opposition. Our amendments do not involve adding any new subsections, and require fewer words. We must also aim to minimise the risk of confusion about the intended effects of the law. The government amendments, therefore, avoid the importation of the imprecise, undefined, concept of "as a matter of course". It is clear enough that, as the Opposition amendments stand, no one would really be any the wiser about the particular circumstances in which it would, or would not, be necessary for notice to be given in a form that included individual names.
As I have said at all the stages when your Lordships have considered the detail of the content of the proposed new notices to employers, we believe that employers should be entitled to know which of their workers are likely to be involved in either a ballot on industrial action, or in official industrial action.
In responding to Amendment No. 20 at Report stage I explained exactly why we believe employers should have that right. My remarks are recorded at col. 89 of Hansard for 26th April. Later, in the debate on Amendment No. 21, I pointed out that a situation where industrial action is in prospect creates very special circumstances. In such a situation the union will be seeking the special protection which the law may provide if it calls for industrial action. The point is that it is the union's choice whether to embark on the organisation of action. When it makes that choice and decides to seek the special protection of the law, it may well have to do things which it would not otherwise wish to do.
Since the union will be proposing to do something which is directly aimed at the relationship which exists between its members and their employer, it cannot be wrong to ignore the employer's rights. Those rights, it seems to us, must include the right to be able to know which employees may be voting in an industrial action ballot or are called on to take industrial action. If the Opposition amendments are to be taken as evidence that they now accept that it is right for the employers to know those details, that is very welcome.
The new notice requirements are both practicable and reasonable. They do not require a union to do more than it can do by way of telling an employer about its intentions. But they will provide important early warning to employers and help ensure that businesses and the public can be better protected against the effects of precipitate industrial action. These amendments are evidence of our willingness to respond to ideas for changes to the legislation which are compatible with its basic objectives. Since our understanding of the intended effects of the noble Baroness's amendment is that they would fall into that category, I am happy to offer these government amendments as a means of achieving the same result in a better way. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, during discussion of this Bill in Committee, and again on Report, we have expressed our deep concern that the Bill as currently drafted could involve a union in having to identify its members to an employer twice —once when seeking to ballot members and again when seeking to put into operation a majority decision to have a dispute when members would be balloted.
We have sought to meet the Government's case in our amendments on previous occasions by suggesting that categories of employees should be indicated. We have also suggested that numbers could be indicated. But on neither of those occasions were the Government prepared to accept our amendments.
I endeavoured at Report stage to protect confidentiality by proposing that the union should not be expected to give the employer names of members held in confidence. It is surely obvious that every union has in membership people who would prefer that their employer did not know that they are union members. For that reason, not all union members pay subscriptions by check-off, even when there is such an agreement with the company. Sometimes they are people who are in line for promotion. While they may wish to continue membership of the union, they may feel—possibly wrongly —that their chances of promotion could be diminished if their union commitment were known. It is a fact of industrial and commercial life that quite subtle forms of discrimination, which are hard to identify, sometimes take place. Moreover, if the names of individuals are known in advance of disputes the possibilities of intimidation are obvious.
During our debates on this question, and again tonight, the Minister has said that it would not normally be necessary to provide names, but only in
112
the most exceptional circumstances. Therefore we put down amendments this evening in a last attempt to try to ensure that an employer in a potential dispute situation could not assume that he had a right to be provided with names.
The Minister says that the amendments he proposes, Amendments Nos. 4 and 6, are attempts to meet the objections to which we have previously given voice. Unfortunately, from our standpoint, they fail to do so. What bothers us particularly is that they refer to,
"by name or in any other manner".
Noble Lords will note that "name" appears first. In other words, the employer would have every reason for assuming that,
"by name or in any other manner",
meant "by name".
I credit the Minister with an attempt to meet the points we have made. We have made them very strongly. They were made not only on this side of the House. Noble Lords on the other side have also been disturbed about the implications of the Bill unless amended. I am sure that the Government intended to make improvements in the direction that we sought. Unfortunately, they have failed to do so. In my view, the wording that they suggest is rather worse than what appears in the Bill unamended. To have inserted in the Bill "by name", as the first requirement, so to speak, will encourage employers to believe that as a matter of course they are entitled to be advised by name of the people who will be balloted and who later may be called out in dispute.
I appreciate the views put by the Minister in regard to our amendment. I would not claim that the wording is marvellous but we did try to meet the objections to previous amendments voiced by the Minister. We felt that we had devised a formulation which would mean that the employer did not assume as a matter of course or right that he was entitled to have names. With respect, I do not believe that the alternative wording suggested by the Minster in any way meets our objections. It is with great regret that we are unable to accept it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on these Benches we have maintained throughout the Bill's passage that the requirement that unions could be forced to give employers the names and addresses of members amounted to unreasonable breach of confidentiality. In Committee and on Report various unsuccessful attempts were made to find a formula acceptable to both the noble Viscount and noble Lords on this side of the House.
I suppose that we must acknowledge that the amendments in this grouping mark the end of this particular road. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I accept that in moving the amendment the noble Viscount has done what he can to meet our concern. I am only sorry that, as the noble Baroness said, he has not quite done so.
The noble Baroness acknowledged that she found some difficulty in framing her Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. But they are perhaps to be preferred to the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support my noble friend very strongly on this matter. I wish to say to the Minister that this point was widely discussed by those interested in the matter outside this House. It is a general opinion among lawyers that the amendment would confine the trade union and detract from the rights of employees rather than the opposite. It is too late to make the case again that this is an infringement of human rights, though I still believe it to be such. However, the manner in which this legislation has gone through also suggests that it is, as it were, claiming back territory that was given away in another place.
After all, in Clause 17 in its original form the union was required to state the identity of the relevant members. That was taken out of the Bill and it was then not very clear just what the union should do. In both the relevant clauses it should describe them so that the employer could ascertain them. There was not much elbow room there, one might think, but there was some.
Now, however, to insert the phrase that the union must describe its members—"finger them", as I once said in this House—
"by name or in any other manner"
clearly makes the requirement that name is the primary solution and the standard and that "in any other manner" on normal principles of interpretation must match up to naming the members involved. It is therefore a step back to what used to appear in Clause 17. I think it extremely unfortunate. It is not simply a technical matter. The noble Viscount may feel that it should make some small improvement. In fact it takes a colossal retrograde step from what was in the first draft of the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I merely wish to say to the noble Viscount that if he has really done it for us, perhaps for our sake he will take the amendment away and lose it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not have the support of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. When he spoke to me earlier today he said that he would have liked to support the amendment as he saw it as a genuine attempt by the Government to go down the road that we have discussed both in Committee and on Report. The noble Lord has his birthday today and I can understand why he may not be in his place.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 do no more than replicate, with drafting improvements, the effect of those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. However, from the tone of the debate I can see that the amendments are not attractive to noble Lords opposite. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4. It follows that as a matter of logic I shall have to resist Amendments Nos. 5 and 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Notice of industrial action for employers]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Industrial action affecting supply of goods or services to an individual]:
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 37, line 1, leave out from ("act") to ("is") in line 2 and insert ("to induce any person to take part, or to continue to take part, in industrial action").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. It is due to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, earlier in the Bill's consideration that these amendments have come about. I am grateful to him for enabling us to consider again certain aspects of the provisions in Section 235A which will, I believe, be improved by the amendments.
In particular, Amendment No. 37 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, during Committee, would have removed subsection (8) of Section 235A. Even though that amendment was not moved by the noble Lord, it prompted us to consider further the need for this subsection. That in turn led us to conclude that subsections (7), (8) and (9) of Section 235A were unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lords opposite will welcome the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand the main thrust of, first, Amendment No. 8 and then Amendment No. 9. However, I do not quite understand the deletions. My noble friends and I suggested the deletion of subsection (8), even though we were unable to remove it. However, I should like to probe the reasons for the deletions.
As I understand it the only reason for removing subsection (8) is that the same result is brought about by Section 245 of the consolidation Act 1992. That seems to be clear. However, can the noble Baroness say whether the equivalent provisions of subsection (7)—the definition of industrial action—and subsection (9)—defining contract of employment by the wider test of contract for services—apply to Section 235A? Perhaps the noble Baroness can give me the source for that. I could find some of it in the consolidation Act but not all. It may be quicker if the noble Baroness can tell me where to look for each word.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hope that I am able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. Amendment No. 8 will amend Section 235A(2) so that there can be no question that the rules which determine whether an inducement is actionable in tort or under Section 62 of the 1992 Act will determine whether proceedings can be brought under the new citizen's right. Subsection (7) can therefore be removed.
Once subsection (7) is removed there is no longer any need for subsections (8) and (9), which concern the interpretation of the term "contract of employment". We believe these subsections to be an unnecessary duplication of provisions elsewhere. The issue of what constitutes a contract of employment in connection with industrial action is already covered in existing provisions in the 1992 Act. In the case of proceedings in tort, it is covered in Section 245, and in the case of proceedings brought by a trade union

115
member it is covered by Section 62(7) of the 1992 Act. I hope that that clarifies for the noble Lord the reasoning behind the amendments.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No.9:
Page 37, leave out lines 38 to 49.
Clause 28: [Dismissal on ground of assertion of statutory right]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No.10:
Page 47, line 27, after ("(1)") insert ("(read with (2) and (3))").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos.11, 26 and 27. These small amendments to Clause 28 and Schedule 5 are purely drafting amendments to ensure that provisions are interpreted as intended.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 47, line 30, after ("(1)") insert ("(read with (2) and (3))").
10.30 p.m.
Clause 32 [Amendments of transfer of undertakings regulations]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No.12:
Page 51, line 11, after ("where") insert ("before the transfer —(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos.13 and 14. One of the things that has happened to the Bill (perhaps rather more than most) is that on its way through the various stages of the two Houses it has been buffeted by outside events, especially legal ones. One of those has been a decision of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg relating to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of' Employment) Regulations 1981—in particular Regulation 5 —which were an attempt to implement the 1977 directive on transfers of undertakings.
I have to explain my amendment with some background information. When the transfer of an undertaking occurred Regulation 5 appeared to say —as it appeared the directive said - that the contract of employment and rights and liabilities of employees were passed to the transferee from the transferor employer with the other incidence of the undertaking. Broadly speaking, that is still correct but in the case of Katsikas v. Konstantinidies, reported quite recently, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg decided that that was not wholly correct and the employee had what they called certain fundamental rights. That is an important stage in the judgment.
Among those fundamental rights was the right to decide by whom he or she would be employed. The employee could not be transferred necessarily under the directive as part of the property, as it were. However, the court insisted that the directive and Community law did not finally pronounce upon the matter. In an exercise of what is fashionably called subsidiarity the court referred the final word back to the national state system of law to determine the fate of the contract of employment. However, I do not think there is any question—although there has been and will be considerable discussion on it that the court looked at the matter in the context of workers' fundamental rights.
What happened was that I then moved an amendment. Much more important, the Government moved some amendments which are to be found on page 51 of the Bill. The Government followed the first precept of the court's judgment to the effect that the employee should have in the positive law of this country a right to object to being transferred. So far, no argument by anyone. The Government then went on to say that where an employee objects to the transfer of an undertaking in which he is employed, that operates in itself, ipso facto, as a termination of the contract of employment with the transferor and that he should not be treated thereafter for any purpose as having been dismissed by the transferor. So what in fact happens with the Government's solution to the Katsikas problem is that any employee who individually objects to being transferred with the undertaking finds that his or her contract of
118
employment blows up in his or her face and he or she is left with a right to object which in fact has destroyed any possible rights that he or she could have had either against the transferee or against the transferor.
I submit to the Government that that is not fair. I do not think it is very fair that in a transaction which is set afoot by the transferor employer—after all, it is his decision to transfer the undertaking—an employee who says "I don't want to go" should be left with nothing. The amendment does not go far in giving him or her anything but it does give the minimum. In other words, what we are adding in the necessary condition of the amendment on page 51, line 19, is the right to be paid a sum equal to the amount that the transferor would have had to pay if he had given proper notice to the employee. It gives nothing else—no redundancy pay and no other compensation for any other right. It is simply the right to be paid the money for the short notice period on which most workers work. We think that is perfectly reasonable.
Indeed, it is not just reasonable and fair. It is probably—indeed more than probably—the right answer in law as far as concerns the Katsikas judgment because it is almost unbelievable, and certainly in the jurisprudence of that particular court highly unlikely, that the European Court in Luxembourg wished to say that a worker had a fundamental right to object to the transfer; that the nation state law should then determine what was done with the contract of employment; but I cannot see that the court would then end with the third proposition that the member state could destroy the contract of employment because of the transfer which would destroy all fundamental rights with it. In other words, what the Government's solution does is allow the right to object but then invalidate it by the consequence which automatically follows.
It is my strong submission that that is not within the spirit of the European Court of Justice decision in Katsikas. Nor, I believe, would it be the decision of the court were the United Kingdom taken wearily yet again to the Luxembourg court by the Commission. It is not asking a lot that a worker who knows nothing perhaps—because the employer may be in breach of the obligation to consult—of the transaction of transferring the undertaking until it is afoot the next day should in any event be paid the amount which is equal to the money he would have accrued in lieu of notice. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we do not want to continue this debate. We want merely to state that we agree completely with what my noble friend has said. It seems to us that they would be empty rights indeed if the Bill were to stand as it is at the moment. We believe that that would undoubtedly be contrary to the spirit of the decision. We hope that the Government will show a little generosity tonight.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the situation where an employee does not wish to transfer to a new employer when the undertaking in which he works is transferred. It follows on from amendments tabled by both sides of your Lordships' House at Report stage

119
in reaction to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in what is generally known as the Katsikas case.
The Government's Amendment No. 74A, which your Lordships' House agreed to at Report stage, makes it clear that an individual has the right to inform either the old or the new employer that he objects to the transfer of his employment contract. That amendment provides that, when such an objection is made, the individual's contract terminates. The individual is not dismissed and he is not made redundant. His contract simply comes to an end.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has explained, the effect of Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 would be that an employee would have the right of objection to the transfer of his contract but the contract could only be considered to have terminated without there being a dismissal if the employer, not wishing the contract to be maintained by him, paid the employee a sum equivalent to pay in lieu of notice.
The Katsikas judgment states that a member state is entirely free to provide that,
"the contract of employment or the employment relationship may be considered as terminated … on the initiative of the employee".
There is nothing in the judgment to support the argument that the old employer should be obliged to give the employee notice, or payment in lieu of notice, in such circumstances. Nor do the Government believe that such a requirement would be appropriate.
A payment in lieu of notice is generally understood to mean a payment made by an employer who terminates an employee's contract of employment without notice. In a situation covered by the transfer of undertakings regulations, however, the employer is not terminating his employees' contracts, which continue unchanged with the new employer. It is the employee who objects to the transfer of his contract to a new employer under the regulations who terminates the contract, not his original employer. That being the case, the Government cannot accept that it would be right to require the original employer to give the employee notification of termination or payment in lieu of such notice.
The Government do not consider that such payments are necessary or desirable. If an employee believes that the change of employer is significant and is to his detriment, he can resign from his employment with the new employer and claim constructive unfair dismissal under general employment law. If he does not believe that he has grounds for doing that, but nevertheless does not wish to transfer, he can object and have his contract terminated. If he is particularly concerned about receiving a period of notice, there is nothing to stop him transferring to the new employer and immediately offering his resignation, although it would, of course, be for the employer to decide in such a situation whether the notice period needed to be worked.
The Government firmly believe that an employee who does not wish to transfer to a new employer has, as the result of the Government's Amendment No. 74A at Report, in combination with existing provisions, rights which are adequate and which
120
satisfy the requirement of the acquired rights directive. The amendments cannot be accepted and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister has not dealt at all with the morality of the situation. He seems to be suggesting that the undertaking which is transferring to some other holder owns the employee who becomes its chattel and that the employer can with him do what he likes. There is no defence which the employee can give, and there is no protection for him unless he is given the amount in lieu of notice which he would normally expect to get if he were dismissed by his employer at a moment's notice. That is what could happen.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Viscount does not seem to wish to reply to my noble friend. I do not believe that there is much more to be said. It is not true that if the employee crosses to the transferee employer he will necessarily be able to engineer constructive dismissal. It is not true that the transferor will necessarily do more in that respect. I shall look very carefully in Hansard, but I did not recognise the words that the Minister appeared to be quoting from the Katsikas case about termination of the agreement. The judgment states that the fate of the contract of employment rests with the member state's law.
The employee has a fundamental right to object to being employed by the transferee and that is what the Government have overlooked. Of course it is difficult to put that together with the position of the transferor who is transferring the undertaking. All we have asked is that the employer, who is the transferor, should pay what he would normally have to pay to someone whose employment he is ending. But that does not seem to be acceptable.
The Government's position appears to be, "Let them eat transfers". That is not satisfactory to us.
10.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not contents, 34.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.[Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Eatwell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blake, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harlech, L.

Caithness, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cox, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Henley, L.

121

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Long, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L. (Lord Privy Seal.]

Norrie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wynford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.52 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of National Council.
The Secretary of State shall appoint a National Council, consisting of suitably qualified persons, whose function shall be to monitor wages and conditions applying generally in industries formerly covered by Wages Councils, and to report to the Secretary of State on what steps, if any, are needed to provide protection for employees in those industries.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to our old friends the wages councils. As the old tunes from the Bill are played for the last time some of us feel like Count John McCormack on his seventeenth farewell tour. This time we are accepting the abolition of wages councils but are asking for a national council:
"consisting of suitably qualified persons, whose functions shall be to monitor wages and conditions applying generally in industries formerly covered by Wages Councils, and to report to the Secretary of State on what steps, if any, are needed to provide protection for employees in those industries".
We table the amendment in order to raise once again the astonishing way in which the Government have failed to advance any consistent case for their policy. It is noteworthy that my noble friend Lord Eatwell asked three questions during the various stages of the Bill. I calculate that he asked six times; twice on Second Reading, twice in Committee and twice on Report. My noble friend asked how many new jobs would come from abolition, how much wages must fall in order to obtain those new jobs and what would be the Exchequer costs of abolishing the wages councils. If we had more time, I should list what the Minister said at col. 509 on 1st March, at col. 777 on 30th March and at col. 896 on Report, and so on. He said that he did not have any reasons. His best reply was his first reply in which he said that if he were to deal in the details that we wanted, we should be there a lot longer. That was the best that he did. Therefore, we are forced to ask the Government how they can continue in that way with no further details and no further facts except their own prejudices.
Indeed, in the course of arguing with us, it seems to me that the Government have contradicted the very arguments with which they began. At one stage the noble Viscount told us that, whereas it was possible for him, for his friends and in particular for the former Secretary of State for Employment to calculate with great precision what the loss of jobs in the future might conceivably be if a Labour Government introduced a minimum wage programme—at one time he gave a figure of 1 million jobs, but that it is all in the future—it was quite unreasonable of us to ask him to tell us what would be the benefits and how many
122
jobs were to, accrue if we got rid of the existing set of institutions; namely, the wages councils. That is in spite of the fact that wages councils have been abolished in the past. Parts of wages councils' functions have been abolished in the past; for example, the youth rate and the ability of wages councils to give a range of rates. All those things have happened and are capable of study; and yet the Minister asks to believe that, whereas he can give us precise figures and give us a whole range of different studies to tell us what a set of proposals which a Labour government would like to introduce will do, he cannot tell us what will happen as a result of his own policies.
I suggest that the noble Viscount should make up his mind. It must surely be the case that any expected change as a result of this legislation must be as a result of an anticipated fall in wages. If there is to be no fall in wages as a result of the abolition of wages councils, there can be no fall in prices, no increase in demand and no employment gain. Anything which happens must happen as a result of a fall in wages, a fall in prices and an increase in employment.
Therefore, if the Government are so certain that that abolition must take place at this time, they must be able to estimate what they believe will happen to wages, prices and demand. Otherwise they are forced to assume, as we assume, that very little will happen to employment and not much will happen to prices but that there will be a significant number —not a large number but a significant number of people on the minimum wage who, when the minimum is taken away, will find, as happened after the abolition of previous wages councils, that their wages are falling without any observable benefits for anyone else.
If the Minister says that he knows all that, then he has nothing to fear from agreeing to the amendment because we are merely asking that the matter should be studied to find out which of us is right and which of us is wrong. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, it must now be acknowledged that the House has accepted the principle that wages councils are to be abolished and that attempts to limit the extent of abolition or to postpone its application have failed. However, on these Benches we continue to question the validity of the reasoning on which the Government have based their decision.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, withdrew an amendment calling for annual reports to be made by the Secretary of State following consultation with interested parties, the first to be presented 12 months after abolition on the pay and conditions of employees in industries formerly covered by wages councils. In his reply, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, objected and stated that consultation with, among others, trade unions—and bodies such as those concerned with low pay—meant that any subsequent report would be made against the background of opinion partly critical of the effects of abolition. Accordingly, under the present amendment, it is left to the Secretary of State to appoint to the

123
proposed "National Council", which would monitor wages and conditions in the affected industries, people whom he considers to be "suitably qualified".
In his reply to the earlier amendment, the Minister also said that its purpose could only be to establish a platform for further debate on wages councils after they had been abolished. But why should the Government be averse to further debate on the effects of abolition? If their claim that those effects will be beneficial for the economy and for employment prove to be justified, that will become apparent to everyone and the Government's view will be vindicated.
But let us suppose that the fears expressed by noble Lords on this side of the House prove to be well founded because the monitoring body finds that employees in industries formerly covered by wages councils are inadequately protected. The amendment does not call for restoration of the relevant wages councils; it calls only for advice to be given to the Secretary of State on what remedial action should be taken. That seems to me to be a most reasonable proposition and I support it.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the clause presently under discussion has been one of the most controversial in the Bill. It has excited great interest among a wide range of institutions and groups outside the House. Indeed, the concern has been so widespread that I think it not unreasonable to say that it has not been, and is not, a party-political matter. In all the discussions that we have had on the topic of wages councils, there has been a persistent theme: a fear expressed not only on this side but also on the other side of the House that the abolition of wages councils will result in a fall in wages, little if any increase in employment and a considerable bill for the Exchequer as declining family incomes require ever greater support in the form of welfare payments.
The noble Viscount sought to reassure your Lordships on those matters. But he has readily admitted that he was not prepared—indeed, he said that he was not able—to provide any quantitative assessment of the probable impact of the measures that he proposed. Both in Committee and on Report, this Chamber accepted the noble Viscount's assurances. The Government readily admit that the consequences of their actions are unknown. They hope that things will be all right, they are even confident that things will be all right; but they cannot present any evidence to show that things will be all right. In those circumstances, it would be irresponsible not to monitor the effects of abolition.
Let us remember that the abolition will affect the lives of 2.5 million of our fellow citizens, most of whom are women. Many of them, for a variety of reasons widely discussed in Committee and on Report, are highly vulnerable. Surely we owe it to them to monitor the impact of abolition and ensure that the Government's confidence is well founded and that the doubts that I and others have expressed were, fortunately, exaggerated.
The proposed national council would, if it proved successful, become a useful source of objective research and information on this contentious area. It
124
would clear away some of the disagreement and confusion which have all too often coloured our debates. There is also another reason why the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment. My noble friend Lady Lockwood has made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the abolition of wages councils is likely to contravene Articles 119 and 5 of the Treaty of Rome and Article 6 of the equal pay directive.
Acceptance of this amendment would, at the very least, be a demonstration of good faith by the Government that they had nothing to hide and a demonstration that they have faith in all those repeated assurances given by the noble Viscount that things would turn out all right. Indeed I would say that if the Government do not accept this amendment, they are seriously letting down the noble Viscount.
In case there should be any confusion I should make clear that a report made under the remit outlined in the amendment would break new ground. It would add to the material currently published in the new earnings survey, giving in particular a solid statistical insight into the wages and conditions in some of the more backward sectors of British industry. Of course by being confined to wages councils industries, this would be in some sense an arbitrary confinement but it would be a useful experiment and if the council works as well as we expect, its remit could be widened. It would be a valuable tool in the formation of future policy.
This amendment is therefore, I submit, an opportunity for the Government to show good faith; to show confidence in their own arguments; and to offer an opportunity to create a valuable resource in future policy making. I hope the Government will accept it as an entirely non-contentious amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wish briefly to support my noble friends' amendment. It is a modest amendment and, like many other speakers, I do not think it is an adequate substitute for the wages councils which will be abolished. However, it could enable effective monitoring of the situation and it could give the Government the chance to decide whether further measures were required.
I feel that the Minister has been far too cavalier in his dismissal of the effect on pay of the abolition of wages councils and the effect on women's pay in particular. I also feel that he has dismissed far too lightly European law and the implications for equal pay under European law. Indeed we may still see the Government challenged on the issue in the European Court of Justice. If I may say so, I also feel that the Minister has demonstrated his own lack of understanding of our own legislation. The equal pay legislation did not rely on just one remedy that women could invoke; namely, that they could take their individual cases to an industrial tribunal. There was a whole raft of measures that could be invoked such as collective agreements, job evaluation, raising women's pay to the lowest male level, wages councils, and later, after the legislation had been amended, equal value.
The best that the amendment that is moved this evening can do is to provide a pointer for the future. It might just get the Government off the hook if they

125
were challenged under Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome; namely, the article which requires member states to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the treaty obligations—the obligations in this case being those under Article 119 of the treaty and the equal pay directive. On those grounds alone I hope that the Government may be persuaded to support the amendment this evening.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Government do not accept the amendment, it will be interesting to hear their reasons. It is very late at night. I have already complained that the House has had insufficient time to discuss these amendments properly so I shall not delay the House for long. I shall not repeat the arguments which have already been used. However, there is one argument which perhaps might have some appeal to the Government because at the moment they are undertaking the most rigorous review of public expenditure we have ever known. We find that we shall be £50 billion in the red at the end of this year and that government spending, as a proportion of national income, is now more than 45 per cent. Therefore, the Government are worried about public expenditure.
One of the ways in which the Government can save public expenditure is if employers pay proper wages and the social security system does not have to be used to subsidise them. I suggest that setting up the proposed organisation would give the Government an early warning of trends showing that employers are depressing wages to a level that would have been unthinkable under the wages councils. Therefore, their own interests, the interests of public expenditure and the interests of us all as taxpayers combine to provide one very good reason for the Government to accept the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, thought it right to put down this further amendment comprising a new clause in relation to the provision in Clause 34. It follows closely an amendment examined in Committee and then withdrawn. In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, cast his remarks much wider than the amendment itself and then, at the very last minute, returned to it. But he did not really explain what the amendment would do.
I understand the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He has sought to oppose the abolition of wages councils throughout our discussions. I accept his position, but I fear that I cannot agree with him on that particular matter, but our paths will have to diverge at this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, began his speech with an interesting comment. He said that this is not a party matter. I rather agree. The Opposition have never said that they would reinstitute the wages councils and they have not done so now.
The new clause seeks to appoint a council of qualified people to report on any steps necessary to protect employees in industries formerly covered by wages councils. It accepts that the councils will be abolished but would immediately assemble a
126
collection of experts to recommend that they be replaced. The arguments deployed by noble Lords opposite have not remotely made a case. The amendment is wholly unacceptable.
I must also tell your Lordships that the proposed clause has grave technical deficiencies. It refers to industries formerly covered by wages councils. As drafted, it would cover both those industries subject to the remaining councils, which are abolished under this Bill, and many other industries at one time covered by wages councils. The "experts" would be obliged to examine the jute industry, paper bag manufacturing, all the industries covered by the II wages councils abolished by the last Labour Government and a host of other industries, some of which have not been subject to wage fixing by a council for well over fifty years. I wonder whether that is really what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, proposes.
The clause refers to conditions of employment but, other than a limit on deductions for accommodation, wages councils have no powers to fix such conditions. In fact, almost all the councils decide only a basic minimum rate of pay and a minimum overtime rate. It would make little sense to follow up the abolition of the councils by instituting inquiries into matters over which the councils themselves have no powers or influence.
Throughout our discussions, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has pursued the point that she believes that women would be adversely affected by the abolition of the wages councils. I commend her for her tenacity in that regard. We believe that the abolition of the councils will increase the flexibility of the labour market and improve job prospects for women. Despite the contorted arguments from the other side of the House for full-timers, differentials in wages council industries are more are less the same as the average for all workers. Women's rights to equal pay are backed by the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations and the Sex Discrimination Acts. That is the body of legislation which protects women at work—not the wages councils.
We have again heard a range of ingenious points from the Benches opposite. I do not believe that they add anything significant to the very thorough debates we had on the subject at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I do not therefore propose to take up the time of your Lordships' House in once again restating the overwhelming arguments which have been so decisively accepted at earlier stages.
The Government will continue to reduce the burdens on business through deregulation. The Government will continue to take the measures which are necessary to strengthen our economy and to increase employment opportunities. The amendment does not look forward; it looks only back. I ask the House to reject it.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have been seeking today to find names for the various replies from the other side. The response seems to me cheeky. It really is a cheek for the noble Viscount to say that he is

127
disappointed with us for putting down the amendment. We put it down partly because we wish him to answer questions. Yet again he has been asked the same question as he has now been asked seven times; and he does not provide a single answer. He simply makes assertions. He does not want to know; he does not wish to find out. He tell us that he knows—although he cannot measure the position and has no facts or figures—that when his Government abolish wages councils all kinds of benefits will flow. It reminds me of the famous remark of Mr. Heseltine when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment. When he disbanded a great research organisation he said, "We don't want research. It only narrows policy options". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: industrial tribunals]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 56, line 45, at end insert:
("(c) for cases involving allegations of discrimination in employment because an individual is diagnosed as HIV positive or with AIDS, enabling an industrial tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or on its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect for such period as the industrial tribunal may decide.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Report stage I tried to persuade the Minister to enlarge the clause which the Government introduced giving industrial tribunals and arbitration tribunals the opportunity of ensuring privacy in those cases involving sexual misconduct including cases where individuals were alleging discrimination in employment because they had been diagnosed as HIV positive or with AIDS. The Minister at that stage was not persuaded. However, since that time I have received a very interesting report from the National AIDS Trust. It is about HIV and AIDS in the workplace and examines cases of discrimination.
It is clear from the report that while there are many employers whose policy in regard to employees who are HIV positive or who have AIDS is above reproach, and sometimes very supportive, there are many others where quite the opposite is the case. The report lists a number of actual cases in which employees were dismissed as soon as the employer got to know of their condition. In some cases there has not been much that the employee could do because he or she did not satisfy the condition that there had to be at least two years' continuous employment. That happens apparently not infrequently.
However, in other cases employees who were dismissed felt unable to use the law because they were scared of publicity. I quote from one of the advisers who gave evidence to the National AIDS Trust who stated:
"The bottom line is unless you are prepared for the whole world to find out you've got AIDS there is nothing you can do. Your only legal remedy in many cases is to take your employer to an industrial tribunal. Industrial tribunals are not held in secret and if you go to a tribunal and allege that you were sacked because of AIDS you run the risk of that
128
appearing on the front page of your local paper and most people are just not prepared to run that risk and I can't say that I blame them. The majority of clients seeking advice wanted to avoid legal action because of the fear that such action would make their HIV status publicly known as shown in the response given when an individual who had suffered a breach of confidentiality in the workplace, when asked whether he had considered legal action said, 'Legal action? That's an even greater breach of confidentiality, isn't it?'."
As a result a number of organisations concerned with helping people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS have been asking the Government for legal changes which would allow HIV-related hearings to be held in camera so that confidentiality could be more easily protected. It is understood that the Government are not willing to do that, believing that a different treatment for people with HIV would further entrench prejudice against HIV-positive people.
However, the amendments we have put down this evening do not ask for that. Bearing in mind what the report which I have just quoted said about local publicity, they refer only to reporting restrictions. It would be up to the IT or the EAT to make a decision in that regard.
The Bill presents an opportunity to do something. Unless something is done, many vulnerable people will suffer discrimination in silence because they will continue to be too scared of publicity to attempt to secure a just settlement of their grievances. I trust, therefore, that this evening the Minister will be persuaded that we have a case and that, even if the wording is not acceptable, eventually something will be done to give protection to these very vulnerable people. Incidentally, I am speaking also to Amendment No. 17, which has been grouped with this one. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wish to support Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I declare an interest as chairman of Crusaid, the national charity which raises funds to care for men, women and children affected by HIV and AIDS. An important part of the charity is the work of our hardship fund which provides immediate practical assistance to those suffering real hardship because of their own infection or that of a loved one.
The hardships created by HIV and AIDS are real enough. They are compounded by ignorance and prejudice. Crusaid's hardship fund has repeated experience of people who have suffered in their employment because of discrimination against someone who is HIV positive. Publicity surrounding HIV infection then creates further discrimination in housing and for children at school. It is the responsibility of a humane society to protect the sick and vulnerable against such ignorant discrimination. These amendments will provide a modicum of protection and go some way to meeting the responsibility we all share.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It is well known that discrimination in respect of those who are HIV positive is a growing problem in our society. That is not least in respect of insurance requirements which

129
are met at every point. Anyone who has had contact with the problem knows very well that my noble friends have by no means overstated the case.
The amendments may be said to be modest—perhaps unduly so. They apply only in cases of discrimination, but they at least enable the industrial tribunal or EAT to make a special reporting order. One would have thought that, given the social problem and the suffering which is caused in regard to what my noble friend rightly called ignorant discrimination, there is enough for the Government to be with us in wishing to see some such amendment on the statute book.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I made clear at Report, Clauses 39 and 40 are intended to cover cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct. They were introduced following wide public consultation. That consultation related only to sexual cases and those consulted were not asked for their views on whether special protection should be extended to any other kind of case.
I listened carefully and I appreciate the real concern demonstrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in what she seeks to achieve through the amendments. I also listened carefully to the concerns that the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Wedderburn, expressed in support of the amendments. However, I have to say that the clauses involve a restriction of the important principle of open justice and as such they were only proposed after very careful consideration of all the issues involved. Noble Lords opposite propose once again, however, that the clauses should be extended significantly beyond what was first envisaged and what was covered in the public consultation. Such a move would involve a further erosion of the principle of open justice. It would also have a wide implication for a number of other areas. We have a responsibility to ensure that the principle of open justice is not restricted any more than is absolutely necessary. It is essential in weighing up the interests of individuals against this important principle that full account is taken of the views of all the parties who might be affected, and that all the implications of such a move are considered.
Noble Lords from all sides will thus, I am sure, appreciate that any move to introduce measures of the type proposed must not be undertaken lightly or before thorough consideration of all the issues involved has taken place in the light of public consultations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I was encouraged by what he had to say at the end of his remarks. Will he give an undertaking that the Government will engage in consultation on this matter; and that the consultation which he says is necessary before such a measure would be introduced will be undertaken in the near future so that appropriate legislation could then be brought forward?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would not seek to be of such assistance to the noble Lord as to give him an undertaking. But I am quite certain that, when matters such as these are considered again for this purpose, the remarks of noble Lords in this House will be taken into consideration.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister again felt unable to move in our direction on this important matter. He says that there is an important principle of open justice at stake here. We on this side of the House are in favour of open justice. But it can sometimes mean that individuals in a particularly vulnerable position, such as people with HIV or those who have AIDS, may not feel able to enforce rights that are theirs in legislation. That is desperately unfair.
All the organisations concerned with support for people who are HIV positive, or who have AIDS, have been pressing upon the Government that something should be done. I understand that the National AIDS Trust has been asking that this type of case should be heard in camera. The Government have said that they cannot accept that. They do not feel like moving as far as that. For that reason we put down amendments which were very modest and which only involved reporting restrictions.
However, I note that the Government have said that the next time matters like this are under consideration, the views expressed this evening by noble Lords who spoke in the debate and who have supported the amendments will be taken into account. I cannot do much more about the matter at this point, so I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. But I say to the Minister that those of us who feel concerned about these issues will watch very carefully to see what happens in the future, to see how the Government respond to the representations that are made by the specialist bodies working in these areas to help people in this unfortunate position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: Employment Appeal Tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Careers services]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 62, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert ("and for assisting persons aged up to 21 years who have ceased undergoing relevant education, or disabled persons who are within five years of having ceased to undergo relevant education, to obtain such employments. training and education.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at last we come to Clauses 44 and 45 which deal with the careers service. I should like to point out that this amendment is supported from all sides of the House. Unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are not able to he here tonight because of commitments which they undertook long before they knew the date of the Third Reading of this Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is, first, to increase the range of the duty for the Secretary of State to

131
include older teenagers within the labour market so that they get careers advice free; and secondly, to take account of the longer period of transition which people with disabilities require in respect of advice about their possible careers.
In exercising Section 9 powers for clients outside Section 8 duty, there will be powers permitting charging set out in Section 10(5). Our aim is to ensure that no older job-seeking teenager in the labour market will be charged for a service. It may well not be the Government's intention to charge such young people. The Bill as written provides that possibility, and we must not allow that to happen.
As we enter the era of contracts with fixed budgets to meet Section 8 duty, which will have been calculated on the basis of eligible service clients, we need to ensure that young people under 21 still within the labour market seeking jobs and those with disabilities within five years of leaving education are classed as eligible service clients for whom charging will not be lawful. We should ask for an explanation of that rather ugly phrase "eligible service clients", which I am told was invented by a Permanent Secretary. It would be rather nice to have an explanation of why those words are used.
Let us look carefully at what the Government currently propose. If funding is not available in a new careers service contract to assist, for example, an unemployed teenager who left education at age 16, the careers service contractor will not have the money to provide the service. It is as simple as that. If one contracts with a painter and on drawing up the contract it is agreed that he should paint five doors and six windows at an agreed price, one cannot therefore expect him to paint another window, a radiator and a skirting board without affecting either price or quality. In a commercial world one gets what one pays for.
So in this new commercial careers service the Government must have a duty and not simply a power to pay up front for a service to assist people at risk and in need. There must be no question whatever of any contractor being able to charge those seeking work who are older teenagers or disabled persons leaving education within five years of leaving.
I have been asked why we chose the age of 21. I should like to explain that a number of people aged 16 leave school and get out of what is called here "relevant education". They may take a job or possibly do nothing and be unemployed for a year or two and then decide they want to come back. Under the Bill as it stands there is no duty on the Secretary of State to provide free careers advice, which would be needed very badly just at that particular point. We all know that young people with disability take longer to develop and decide what they will do. They have to spend longer in the education system. They too need that longer time. That is why we went just beyond the end of teenage to age 21. I hope that that has explained the situation.
This is a very vulnerable group who need to have free advice. We very much hope that the Minister will be able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said most comprehensively. I added my name to these amendments partly because I am particularly interested in the welfare of young people in the transition from school to responsible jobs in later life. We know that even those who are not disabled are in very great difficulties. But for those who are disabled, every help should be given with a will by the Government. They cannot be expected to progress at the rate of those who are well. That is why it is necessary to put the provision of five years into the Bill.
At this stage I should like to say that I very much welcome the introduction of these two clauses into the Bill. It is an admirable initiative by the Government. I regard all these amendments as totally non-party and aimed solely at improving the purposes of these clauses. I believe that the amendments are worthy of being accepted by the Government on that basis.
Twenty-one is an age which is well recognised as being the threshold of adulthood. I would regard the extension of the provisions in Clause 44 to the older adolescents as being essential in the interests of their finding good and appropriate employment which will last them into adulthood and thus be of great benefit to the country in general. We now have far too many young people who are unemployed and without a hope of employment because they have not had proper career training or the advice which goes with it. I should have thought that that part of the amendment was totally uncontroversial and well worth consideration by the Government.
I have already spoken to the other part of the amendment relating to the disabled. It is self-evident. The Government already do a great deal for the disabled in other realms and could take this aspect into account in respect of career training. The period of five years is something which could easily be accepted and is in line with other policies for disabled people. I therefore warmly support the noble Baroness.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who have so ably made a case for it.
I want to make a point which fits in with the Government's concern of creating greater flexibility in labour markets. It must be remembered that young people at this time of their lives are likely to have limited financial resources. By definition they are out of work or disabled and trying to get into the labour market. In those circumstances they are likely to be considerably discouraged from seeking advice if they are charged for the advice service.
Because they do not have proper information, they will not operate efficiently in the labour market. Charging for advice will make the labour market less efficient. Therefore, in line with the Government's own prescriptions throughout the Bill, it is rational

133
that advice should be available freely to the people outlined in the amendment. It would make the labour market work better.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. Again, I do not wish to repeat the arguments already put forward, but there is perhaps one further argument that can be made.
At present there is a great deal of unemployment among the 16 to 21 year-olds. The great danger is that we lose touch with them. If that happens, many of them will sink into not necessarily a life of crime but into criminal activities through sheer boredom. It is therefore necessary to give them sufficient advice to which they have free access. If the Government take that on board, with the other arguments already adduced in favour of the amendment, they will be helping society in many ways. They will be helping our young people to lead useful lives in a difficult situation and, indeed, may be keeping them out of temptation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all that has been said on this issue this evening and on previous occasions. I do not believe that there is much between us. We are aware of the needs and dangers which the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Stoddart, identified and of the concerns identified by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. 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 relates to how that is to be done. As I Indicated at Report stage, there are attractions in what the noble Baroness proposes. We have fully considered the options but on balance feel that it is in the nature of careers services that such an arbitrary cut-off point is not desirable. Career services should, as far as possible, be responsive to and reflect individual needs and circumstances. Determining exactly who does and does not fall within the group in respect of whom there is a duty is also an issue under the current arrangements. The amount of assistance and the period for each individual varies. I believe that that is something on which we agree. Currently, that is clarified in the Secretary of State's guidance, and it will be in future. There are no plans to change the nature of the guidance in this respect. Clients covered by the Secretary of State's duty, and for whom the service must be available free of charge, will include those in relevant education as defined in Clause 44.
When speaking on this matter during Report stage the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, indicated that there was no definition of the client group for whom the Secretary of State would have a duty to secure services. That is not correct. They are clearly defined as people undergoing relevant education. "Relevant education" is given a specific meaning in Section 8(3). Section 8(l) also clearly states that there is a duty to secure services for those ceasing to undergo relevant education. There is no doubt about who is in, or who has ceased to undergo, relevant education. We have acknowledged that there is a need to clarify how long there is a duty to secure services for those who have left relevant education. Current and future guidance
134
will therefore include people who have recently left such education. In practice that will mean people aged under 21 who have left education, training or employment up to two years earlier and have not settled in suitable occupations. This means that youth training trainees will be covered.
I am sure that I like everyone else in your Lordships' House will agree that the position with respect to those with disabilities is particularly important. As I stated at Report stage, we recognise that for some young people in this category it may take a considerable time for them to establish themselves in the next step in their careers. Consequently, there is no fixed time limit in providing the service to such people. I understand the purpose of this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, but perhaps she does not realise it will mean that everyone aged 21 or over ceasing to undergo education will not be covered by the Secretary of State's duty to secure services. I do not believe that that is something she will welcome. It is an example of the difficulty that arises when an arbitrary age limit is stipulated. I hope the noble Baroness accepts that it is our intention by not limiting the duty by age to secure services which will be responsive to individual circumstances and that, as now, the careers service will be available to young people in youth training and the labour market who choose to make use of it for two or more years after leaving education. We will confirm that through the Secretary of State's guidance. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell said, it is important for the future of the labour market that these people should not be deterred from receiving advice. I stress that the contracts do not preclude flexible arrangements for services to older teenagers.
As I said in my opening remarks, I believe there is very little between us. We prefer not to draw the line at an arbitrary boundary. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I realise that the noble Baroness has tried very hard to reassure us but I must say that I am disappointed and I am not completely reassured. Guidance is not enough. We want this to be on the face of the Bill. The age group 16 to 21 is very vulnerable one. These people may have been out of education for some time. They will not just have left. There is no certainty that they will get the advice they need. The noble Baroness said that the Government would prefer not to draw the line. Under Section 9 the Secretary of State shall have power to secure the provision of relevant services. It is up to the Secretary of State. If he or she thinks that services are necessary after the age of 21, it could be put in the contract that they shall be given. We want to be absolutely secure about this vulnerable age group. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
11.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 29.

Division No. 4

135

CONTENTS

David, B. [Teller]

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Craigmyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V

Harlech, L.

Wynford, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.53 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 65, line 35, at end insert:
("(13) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the inspection of all services provided in accordance with this section, and shall appoint persons with knowledge and experience in the fields of industry, commerce, education, careers guidance and local government to a National Council which shall receive copies of all such inspection reports.
(14) The National Council, taking account of information presented on the performance of providers of services through inspection reports, shall advise the Secretary of State on all matters relevant to his duties and powers arising out of the arrangements and directions set out under this section.
(15) An Annual Report shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State detailing how he has discharged the duties and powers conferred upon him under this section in the preceding year, providing an outline of his proposed "guidance of a general character" for the coming year (including details of any payments which he has made or proposes to make), and incorporating a summary of the work of the National Council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to establish a mechanism for quality assurance: that is what we are after. The Secretary of State currently has an inspectorate for the careers service. While the Bill does not guarantee that that will continue, several references to inspections have been made by Ministers. The proposed subsection (13) will ensure that inspections take place. Recognising that the new inspectorate will have a more difficult role in the future because of the expected variety of providers, we need to look at ways in which the relationship between the Secretary of State and providers is changing.
Currently, the inspectorate reports to the Secretary of State on how LEAs are discharging their duty. In future, the responsibility for securing service delivery as well as for overseeing the quality of performance will be combined in the Secretary of State herself. In those circumstances, the inspectors will be looking at
136
the decisions and the actions which are the responsibility of their own Secretary of State. That is a fundamental change. We need to be able to ensure that the inspectors can report, fairly and fearlessly, to their employer about a service for which she is now taking direct responsibility.
It is no criticism of any Secretary of State to say that it is surely asking too much of any one person to accept both the responsibility for the shape of the service and its delivery, and, at the same time, to exercise impartial judgment about how that responsibility is working in practice. Therefore it is important that inspection reports should all be received by a knowledgeable and independent advisory national council.
It is not intended that the proposed national council should be an incestuous body involving merely the careers service providers and practitioners. No, rather it brings together the interests of individuals and of the country. It is therefore not the same as the present careers service consultative group which was established several years ago for the current arrangements which the Bill now seeks to replace.
The functions of the proposed national council will be strategic, unlike the role of the consultative group which will undoubtedly be operational in nature. On the proposed subsection (14), we need the national council, as has been emphasised already, not at an operational level but at a strategic level, to advise the Secretary of State from its independent and authoritative position on key issues concerning her duties and powers.
While we recognise the repeated and welcome statements by Ministers of separate ad hoc consultations with various individual interests, the explanation offered for the present and proposed consultative arrangements does not address the principal independent and advisory functions on policy issues that the national council alone would perform.
In presenting the case directly to the Secretary of State on 17th May, Sir Christopher Ball, director of learning at the Royal Society of Arts, explained clearly the current situation. All supporters of the proposed national council, from across the worlds of education, training, employment and industry, are agreed that it should be advisory in role. The RSA, the Institute of Careers Guidance, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Headteachers, the Association of Principals of Colleges, the National Association of Careers Teachers, and the training and enterprise council movement at large see the national council as a statutory body. We are aware that the CBI envisages a non-statutory national council—that is merely a difference of emphasis in establishing the council. There is no difference of opinion on its function. All are agreed that there should be a national council: that there is a need.
Ministers have referred repeatedly to the existence of the careers service consultative group. We understand from a letter from Sir Christopher Ball that arising out of his meeting with the Secretary of State just a week ago, she accepts that impending

137
legislation will inevitably require a review of the role, remit and membership of the consultative group. We agree with that.
The focus of the current consultative group is an appropriate and narrow one, specific to the careers service. The proposed national council has a wider strategic range, as I have said. It would encompass the principal functions of the careers service, together with careers education in schools and colleges and other forms of guidance for learning and work beyond education. The consultative group has its own proper, functional role with responsibility for issues of an operational nature. We have already accepted that written summaries of careers guidance will be dealt with in such a way; but the consultative group does not provide the broad strategic overview which the change in legislation requires if we are to maximise the contribution of high quality, impartial guidance, in achieving the national education and training targets.
We accept fully the continuing role of the consultative group, after appropriate review, in relation to operational matters affecting careers service contract delivery, but we need a national council. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, my noble friend Lady Seear is sorry that she cannot be here tonight. In her absence I am glad to support the amendment. When a similar amendment was moved in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that there was a lack of clarity as regards the role of a national advisory council. She asked whether its main purpose was to be quality assurance and inspection or whether it would be concerned with strategic planning. I hope that the amendment makes clear that the proposed council would not itself be responsible for inspection but, taking account of inspection arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State, it would advise him or her on all matters arising out of those arrangements.
Beyond that it is apparent that since the matter was previously discussed by your Lordships a strong consensus has emerged among reputable organisations not only for the establishment of an advisory council but on its principal function. That would include the definition of national quality standards, dissemination of examples of best practice and advice on policy issues. It would not usurp the operational functions of the careers service consultative group. However, in answer to an earlier question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, it would certainly concern itself with the provision of strategic leadership. Its members would not include careers service contractors as such but would include, among others, people with knowledge and experience of industry, commerce and education.
All that appears to be pretty clear cut. Like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I hope that on reflection the Secretary of State will not wish to be responsible for making careers service arrangements and for monitoring them without benefit of advice from an independent body such as that proposed in the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I too hope that the noble Baroness will receive the amendment sympathetically. I say that partly because of the comprehensive way in which the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved the amendment and also because of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I wish to emphasise that it is important that not merely the Secretary of State but Parliament and the rest of the country should have an audit of what is happening.
That proposal is new and needs to be assessed. The assessment should be from outside the Government. The body would not necessarily be hostile; its membership would be drawn from a wide variety of people who know what is happening and have expertise in this realm. The body would report to the Secretary of State, who would have to summarise its conclusions in an annual report to Parliament. She would also have the power to comment in that report. I do not see that the new initiative can succeed in obtaining the knowledgeable co-operation and consent of all those connected with the exercise, not least the employers in industry, unless a report of those who are monitoring what is happening is laid before Parliament and, therefore, laid before the public in general.
I have no more to say. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that, unless she keeps the general public with the Government in the policy which they are pursuing on this vital matter of bridging the gap between school and work, then the policy may well fail due to lack of communication.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I support my noble friend's call for an independent national council. In doing so, I stress that there will be a number of complementary measures involved in the process of monitoring the work of the inspectors: for example, the performance of the providers and the inspections; the views of both the consultative group and the national council; and the Government's action. In other words, it is envisaged that once the performance of the providers has been inspected and the views sought of the independent and authoritative national council on those inspections, and on the key operational concerns which will have been fed through from the consultative group to which my noble friend Lady David referred, it will fall to the Secretary of State to take whatever action is thought necessary and also to report to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to it as an audit. It is very important that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament. That would counter any impression that the new service will have minimal accountability and stability. It will provide a means for the Secretary of State to comment, on the one hand, on any problems, weaknesses or needs and, on the other, strengths and examples of good practice which need to be disseminated.
I must say that on this side of the House we have been rather puzzled by the Government's response to this matter so far. I pay tribute to the profession of careers officers because, on the whole, it has been exemplary. The profession has sought neither to fight the Bill by seeking to hold on to the status quo nor to

139
place obstacles in the way of the Government's plans. On the contrary, the profession has supported the central thrust of the Bill and has sought to enhance the new legislation and make it stronger despite the fact that no one has been able to tell us what is wrong with the current arrangements.
When one considers the fact that all the stakeholders, with their wide wealth of knowledge and expertise which they can separately and collectively bring, support the proposal why do the Government not show that they are listening? The profession wants to help. On this side of the House we too want to help to get things right. Surely when head teachers, college principals, TEC directors and the country's leading industrialists, through the CBI, are asking for the same thing, the Government should listen and take note.
I suggest to the Minister that as capable as are her officials and civil servants, they are not head teachers, college principals or the country's leading industrialists. But, with a body of such knowledge and opinion and expertise working with the officials and the Minister, that would be the way to get things right.
Therefore, I believe that we need this council. It would be very valuable. It would be a popular move and I am surprised that the Government are not anxious to take it. In short, it would be a means of helping to ensure that the new service is credible. It might even be a means of establishing what the Government aim to establish in the educational and training field; namely, a world-class service. I hope that the Minister will listen to what is said this evening.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I should also like to express my support for the amendment which, as I see it, is designed to be a non-contentious extension of a policy which the Government have already implemented elsewhere. I am sure we all agree that it is important that the quality of careers advice provided for the young people of this country should be of the very highest standard. We also agree that that cannot be assured by the operation of a market in advice. By its very nature, such a market is imperfect. Those seeking advice do not know what they should know and they do not realise that they have received bad advice until it is too late.
Therefore, it is agreed by everyone that it is imperative for the effective operation of careers advice that clear standards are set. Moreover, we all agree that those clear standards should be maintained by inspection. The amendment adds the provision that there should be a means of independently assuring the quality of inspection and of guiding the development of that inspection process as economic and social circumstances change.
I said just now that the Government had already used that device elsewhere. In the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Goverment thought it vital to place on the face of the Bill a means of providing independent quality assurance in the form of some of the responsibilities assigned to the further education funding council. The council proposed in the amendment would have a similar independent quality
140
assurance role. The Government accepted that that role was necessary in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Surely, they will accept that a similar role in like circumstances is necessary here.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as I previously declared in the House, I act as an adviser to NALGO. I was especially pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Lockwood pay tribute to the careers service. Indeed, throughout the debate on the careers service, those who work in it have been helpful in every way.
Many people cannot understand why the changes in the Bill are taking place. Nevertheless, they accept that that is government policy and that the Government intend—as do all governments - to have their way, even if it is late at night and, of course, after curtailed discussion. However, here we have an amendment which offers the Government the chance to help assuage the fears of those people who have been involved successfully in the service over a long period of time. They are worried about the future role of the service and what it will provide.
The amendment seeks the establishment of a council which would consist of people with the expertise to advise the Government on matters arising from the inspection service. There would be no great cost to the Government because the people involved would virtually be performing their duties on a voluntary basis; indeed, it would be an "expenses only" sort of council. Those who served on it would feel that they were carrying out a public service.
I understood from the Prime Minister that we had a listening government; that is, a government who want to listen to people. Here they have an opportunity to prove themselves. Here is an opportunity in this amendment for them to agree to appoint a council of experts and people who are close to, and know the needs of, industry and commerce—the Government, as well as we, are interested in that—to give them advice on the new careers service. I would have thought this, bearing in mind the expensive quangos set up to deal with various other matters, a cheap method of consulting people and listening to people that would be seized upon by the Government.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the views expressed not only from all sides of this House but, as my noble friend Lady David said, from outside the House too. I believe they would gain in respect, and perhaps even liking, if they gave the impression by accepting this amendment that they really did want to listen. The opportunity is given them through this amendment to form a council which would give them good service and good advice.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the services she has a duty to secure. She will have to ensure that through the quality assurance and inspection arrangements she can demonstrate that services are performing to

141
standard and fulfilling the duty she will have under the Act. There is no statutory duty to inspect the current arrangements and there need be none in the future.
The Secretary of State will judge quality with the advice of the careers service inspectorate and the careers service consultative group and has power to consult other appropriate bodies or individuals she may choose. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the quality will be judged against criteria and standards which will be published and which have been the subject of consultation. As I said on Report, the inspectorate includes staff with direct and recent experience of work in careers guidance and work in careers services.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, joined the noble Baroness, Lady David, in asking for a national council. We have listened to a range of voices on the subject of a national council, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Society of Arts, the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling, the Careers Service Heads of Service Group and the Institute of Careers Guidance. We have concluded that a statutory national council looking only after careers service matters would not be welcomed by the wider guidance community and those with an interest in careers guidance. On the other hand, a statutory national council which attempted to cover all guidance interests, including the careers service, would not be appropriate.
It would be difficult for one national body to give particular attention to the careers service which the duty on the Secretary of State will require and at the same time give attention to the wider field of careers guidance.
When speaking on this subject during the Report stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, reminded the House that the Secretary of State was meeting with Sir Christopher Ball, Tony Watts of the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling and Paul Chubb of the Institute of Careers Guidance. I am pleased to report that a most positive and constructive meeting has now taken place and the Secretary of State will write to Sir Christopher.
I join the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in paying tribute to the work of the careers service to date. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the country receives the best that the careers service offers. At its best it offers a very high standard indeed. However, we believe that we need to focus consultation specifically on the new arrangements and not try to encompass the broader range of interests that may be covered by a body of the kind proposed by Sir Christopher Ball. We plan to use the careers service consultative group which, by nature of its membership of TECs, gives a link to the business world. It will, as now, consult over the arrangements for careers services.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the question of reporting. As I said in Committee and at Report stage, 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. In addition, it has been the practice
142
of successive Secretaries of State to provide annual reports on the work of careers services. Those reports can be found in the Libraries of both Houses. I can assure your Lordships that such reports will continue to be published.
I can see nothing of value that will be added by imposing a duty on the Secretary of State, and I cannot support an amendment for a separate annual report specifically for the careers service.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that that is now the Government's position. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Government's position is quite clear, but it is the same as it has been all along. I was astounded by some of what the noble Baroness said. A good deal of it seemed nonsense.
It is extraordinary that, when all the people concerned in industry, education and the careers service itself believe that this would be a valuable contribution to the new situation, the Government can be so obstinate and continue to oppose the proposal. I suspect that it is the civil servants who are pushing them. Head teachers, college principals, TEC directors and the countries leading industrialists are all in favour, and they are not members of the consultative group, and the consultative group is not a statutory body.
I am very glad that tribute has been paid to the careers service. I believe that it is a marvellous service. I have had a great deal of experience of it in my time. It has behaved wonderfully during the course of the Bill. It has not made an undue fuss but has tried to obtain the best it can out of the Bill to help the service in the future.
Of course we want a proper report to Parliament, and I do not believe that merely to have a report from the Secretary of State would be adequate. Although it is so late and we have just had a Division, I feel that I must make the point that I feel strongly about the issue by pressing the amendment.
12.23 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 28.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V

Blatch, B.

Harlech, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Harmsworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Cox, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Howe, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

143

Mackay of Clashfern. L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ullswater. V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.31 p.m.
Clause 45 [Careers services: ancillary services]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 66, line 32, leave out from ("period") to ("relevant") in line 33 and insert ("during which that person continues to provide").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the two-year restriction on the supply of goods and services by local authorities. I moved a similar amendment at Report stage and raised a number of questions on which the Minister said that she would write to me. I received the Minister's letter early this evening and I thank her for it. However, it raises as many questions as it answers. For example, the first question that I asked was whether a local authority controlled company would be allowed after two years to make use of local authority goods and services. The Minister replied that a local authority controlled company could be designated as a public body for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
First, I wish to query the words "could be designated". Surely, we ought to say that such a company "would be designated" because there are remote county and rural areas where there might be no alternative services to those provided by the local authority. I believe that we must safeguard those areas and I suggest to the Minister that it should be that they "would be" automatically designated.
Further on that, I should like to probe a little as to which local authority companies would be included. I understand that in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 there are at least five interpretations of a local authority controlled company. First, there is a controlled company at arm's length. Secondly, there is a not controlled company at arm's length. Thirdly, there is a company with majority influence. Fourthly and fifthly, there are two minority interest types of company. That gives us a total of five. Will all the five types of company be in the same position, or will some of them he in a position where they could automatically continue to purchase local authority services?
Secondly, the Minister has given me a definite and affirmative view about premises. She says that premises are not affected by the two-year rule. That is welcome. Thirdly, I asked whether a local education authority and training and enterprise partnership would be subject to the same rules whether the LEA signs the contract or the TEC signs the contract. Here the Minister says that in essence I would be right and that they would be treated differently, depending on who signed the contract. So if one signed the contract then they would be subject to the two-year rule, but if the TEC signed the contract, then they would not be. The Minister goes on to say—and here I am very puzzled—that:
144
"It may depend on the nature of the partnership involved. We would advise potential providers to seek their own legal advice on this matter".
That is pretty outrageous. Here we have a new Bill going through Parliament and all the Government can do is to advise potential providers to seek their own legal advice. Surely the Government should be able to indicate whether or not LEA or TEC partnerships would be caught under this provision.
Fourthly, I ask the Minister whether a local authority would be able to do business with a careers service provider where the business derives from functions retained by the local authority. Again, the Minister tells me:
"This may be possible, but it will depend on the nature of the business which is proposed. It may depend on what is proposed and the arrangements the Secretary of State has with the provider".
Again, that is absolutely unsatisfactory. We ought to know what is meant by the provisions under this Bill, and the Minister appears unable to tell us.
My last question was whether it is accepted that there will be some risk to local taxpayers where the local authority is awarded the contract; and whether in such circumstances the Secretary of State will cover any deficit. The Minister says that the Secretary of State,
"will be exercising all reasonable care in the placing of contracts and issuing of directions. She will also be monitoring the arrangements to ensure that if there is a potential failure of either the contract or the directions she is able to remedy the situation or make alternative arrangements".
This will all be done at arm's length. But finally, in the last resort, the Minister will not be able to make specific provision to underwrite any deficits either on the part of the contractors or the directed authorities. So the Secretary of State will go so far but no further. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but it raises as many questions as I posed previously.
The real issue here is: why is there a difference in the way we are treating the careers service? For example, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there is no such provision on local government providing services. Under the 1992 Act colleges, which we might say are in a similar position to the careers service, can continue to buy local authority services—similarly, under the Education Bill that is going through this House at the present time. While on this side of the House we certainly regard the provisions in that Bill as unsatisfactory, nevertheless they provide for grant-maintained schools which will be designated as public authorities to continue to trade at the margins with the local authority.
Why is there that discrepancy and that discrimination against the careers service? Is it because the measures are coming from different departments and the Ministers in the departments have not been advised of the differences in the provisions? Or is it because the departments are not speaking to each other and sharing their views? The Minister needs to give many more answers on this question than she has given so far. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I tried to cover the points raised by the noble Baroness at Report stage. I shall now try to extend those answers.

145
First, perhaps I may say that this clause is to allow providers of careers services to be able to use local authorities' administrative, personnel and computer services for a transitional period to help them get established.
Having said that, I emphasise that local authorities exist primarily to perform their statutory functions and trading is not their primary function. The purpose is to extend. If indeed the local authority itself is a provider, there is no limitation on the provision of goods and services. There is a facility whereby it may be possible for such services to be provided to new careers services for a period longer than two years. But the careers services will be in a similar position to grant-maintained schools. I am informed that there is a two-year limit for grant-maintained schools.
Perhaps I may also answer the noble Baroness's query on controlled companies. The designation of a controlled company as a public body bears on the nature of the undertaking. That is determined by criteria established by the Department of the Environment. It means that local authority controlled companies can apply to be designated. As the nature of contracts must be between the parties concerned, it does not seem so unfair, as the noble Baroness would have it, that the potential providers should seek their own legal advice. It is not an area in which one can generalise.
As I said in my opening remarks, the aim of the clause is to allow the transitional period to the providers of careers services to enable them to use local authorities' administrative, personnel and computer services and where possible, as regards the question of premises, that purpose will be extended. But it will not allow the local education authority a licence to trade indefinitely.
I hope that the Government's position on this amendment, which has not changed, is clear.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not think that the Government's position is quite so clear as the Minister said. The one thing that is clear is that this clause, as the Minister said, is in order to enable new providers, as it were, to come on stream and for the local authority to continue to help them until such time as they no longer need the help of the local authority. That is rather unfair on local authorities who have provided a good service in the past.
The Minister said that the local authority is there to fulfil statutory functions. I thought that the local authority was there in order to provide the services that the local community required. I should have thought that in the context of the career services some of the provisions were necessary and it was necessary for the local authority to provide them.
Neither am I satisfied with the reply from the Minister on the different nature of companies. The nature of the undertaking dictates what category they conic into. We should have more clarification on that point. I am not in agreement with her when she says that providers should have to seek their own advice. Again, there should be much more clarity under the Bill.
146
However, we may have thrown a little more light on the situation in raising the matter again this evening. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Schedule 4 [Provisions substituted for sections 1 to 6 of 1978 Act]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 79, line 8, after ("may") insert ("if written consent has been previously signified by or on behalf of the employee and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 concerns a matter which was newly introduced into the Bill at Report stage. With few exceptions it affects the rights of all workers. When the Bill is enacted the right will apply to every worker who has worked for eight hours a week for one month.
It is agreed on all sides that the right is an important one. It is the right to have written particulars of the terms and conditions of the contract which will fulfil the objective of what is sometimes called "greater transparency", but which is perhaps more easily stated as making the employment terms clear both to the employer and employee and avoiding misunderstanding.
For 30 years we in this country have had such a right on the statute book. It was first enacted by the Conservative Government in 1963. I have no hesitation in saying that on this matter our system has been in advance of many systems on the Continent. The problem which has been thrown up at this last stage is whether the employee can be compelled to receive the written particulars by instalments.
I appreciate in everything that I say, that the Government have put into the Bill a requirement that in the instalments the most important terms are to be put together in what is called the "principal statement". Nevertheless, a large number of terms could be issued in bits and pieces which would make it extremely difficult for many employees to know precisely where they are.
My noble friends, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, queried the wisdom of what was being enacted. I stress that this is a provision which will apply to almost every employee in the land, and which we have had some three weeks —18days—to consider. Instalments are not required by Directive 533 of 1991. As I understand it, they were included by the Government after discussions with the CBI or, at any rate, with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Indeed, having studied the matter since the debate on Report, I doubt whether it is clear that the directive that Schedule 4 purports to implement really allows of instalments in the matter. This is a late stage at which to say that. I am driven to say it now because the matter was not raised before Report or while the Bill went through your Lordships' House and the other place after Guy Fawkes day 1992, when it was conceived.
The directive states in Article 3:
"The information referred to in Article 2(2)"—
those are the important matters—

147
"may be given to the employee, not later than two months after the commencement of employment, in the form of: (a) a written contract of employment; and/or (b) a letter of engagement; and/or (c) one or more other written documents, where one of these documents contains at least all the information referred to in Article 2(2) (a), (b), (c), (d), (h) and (i)".
which are, again, important matters. That article does not say that the two or more written documents can be given to the employee at different times. It seems that the Government have gone out on a limb. I know of no authority for the view that this is permitted under the article. Even if they had cleared the matter with the Commission it would still be possible for the court to take that view. We have seen already in the Katsikas case that the court has a clear concept of the fundamental rights of employees. It is quite possible that the court will take the view that the three choices of a written contract of employment, which is quite different from written particulars; a letter of engagement, which again is quite different from written particulars; or one or more other written documents, which are the written particulars, can necessarily be dribbled out to an employee on different occasions during the two months.
The Article 3(2) requirement for the employer to sweep up anything that has been omitted at the end of the two-month period by what is called a written declaration—which plays the role of sweeper in the directive's team—is not necessarily consistent with instalments. Indeed, it seems to say that where you have failed to give particulars on one occasion there must be a sweeping up at the end. That is not the Government's scheme of things by instalments. Nor is it possible to see why instalments are a good idea. Instalments of pieces of paper are more easily lost. They increase the amount of paper.
In discussions on this matter I have been presented with such a large number of doubtful situations that I ask the Government to allow the employee at least to have the right to consent or otherwise to instalments of this kind. I cite just one of the many possible situations. Take the case of an employee who is hired on 1st January for eight hours a week. On 5th January an instalment comes from the employer. (I pause to say that that relates to a contract already made which presumably the court will have to interpret.) The instalment says that the notice period is two weeks. At the end of the month a principal statement is issued, part of which incorporates a collective agreement which we hope, with the next amendments, will be accessible at the place of work. Those collective agreements state different terms as to notice of termination of the contract. The employee now wishes to give notice. How much notice should be give? That is not just the kind of problem that one puts into examination papers with the magic word "discuss" after it. It is a very real situation.
The answer is unclear. For example, it is not clear that the provisions of Section 4 relating to changes in the terms and conditions in the written particulars apply at all. This is not a change but an inconsistency. There is no internal reference in the two bits or pieces of the instalments. That is a very simple illustration. It
148
can get much worse if one posits a situation that an employer may I suppose find very convenient in a badly-run firm. I do not think that well-run firms will run into difficulties on this issue. It is the bad firm and bad personnel officer who will get into difficulties and start to give written particulars of employment, on which all rights depend on both sides, in five, 10 or more instalments and pieces of paper. That will be the ocean of paper which I have suggested on many occasions everyone wants to avoid. Looking again at the directive, I suspect that that situation is avoided by not allowing the procedure that the Government have adopted—a procedure which is highly unsatisfactory, especially from the point of view of the employee.
Therefore, I suggest that if the employer wants to do it—my amendment will not ban instalments in any way, though I think they are a bad idea—he should make it clear to the employee he has hired, admittedly on a piece of paper, though a small one, that he will give the employee instalments if he consents. If an employee wants his written particulars and rights set out down in a piece of paper that he can take home, no doubt with reference to other documents, he should have that right. I believe that after a period most personnel management officers will come to see that this is a more sensible way of doing things, with a few exceptions, in which cases they can take the consent of their workers.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we do not want to debate this matter at any length but we do want to say that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has a serious and significant point. Whether or not the Government want the solution advanced by my noble friend is another question. Perhaps they do. We think they should. But they should, whether they do or not, take on board the problem. This is another example of something which has somehow got into the Bill at the last minute. We do not know whether there have been full consultations. We do not know whether the TUC has been consulted. What we know is that the more we look at the way it seems to be going to work, the more worried we are.
The Bill, it is true, says that there will be a number of items in the employment particulars. They will be in the principal statement. But there will be many others—the scale of remuneration; the intervals of remuneration; the hours; sick pay; notice; the collective agreement details. All these points can be dribbled out, as my noble friend said, in certain subsequent instalments. Have the Government thought whether there is to be any limit to the number of instalments? How do they feel the various bits that are not in the principal statement should be dribbled out? It looks to us like a most unsatisfactory development. We believe that they ought to think again.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, rightly pointed out, the provisions enabling employers to provide the written statement in instalments were introduced the last time we debated this Bill on Report. We made the change to help employers administer the requirements. We were persuaded by the arguments of my

149
noble friend Lord Mottistone that the requirement to provide all the information in a single document was unnecessarily bureaucratic and would make the administration of the provisions more cumbersome and difficult than necessary.
We do not believe that this provision in any way detracts from the employee's right. In many cases it will enable individuals to receive information earlier than they would otherwise have done. The employer will not need to wait until he has assembled the full set of information before providing a new employee with any of it. In all cases, however—this is the limitation that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, looks to—all the information will have to be provided by the end of the two-month period.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raised the issue of the relationship with the directive. The EC directive clearly contemplates that the written statement may be given in the form of several separate documents. As I explained, it requires only that certain specified particulars be included in a single core document. The Government are fully committed to meeting their obligations under the directive. The provisions in the Bill will not only achieve that but in some respects will go further.
The noble Lord suggests that where an individual sees advantage in this he should be able to agree to it but in other cases it should not be imposed on him. The provisions have been criticised on occasions—and, indeed, again just now—for the amount of paperwork they may require. Here we have an amendment which seeks to add to it. Every new employee would be given the choice of receiving information as soon as it is available or waiting for perhaps two months until all the different items are ready and receiving them all together. Everyone who chose the former would have to write to his or her employer. Employers would not supply the information until they had written permission, and would have to keep records of who had written and who had not. I cannot agree that this elaborate procedure is necessary or helpful, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, if I took the precedent of my noble friends as to the importance of the matter I would test the feeling of the House. I shall not do so. The noble Baroness spoke of the directive allowing several documents, which is absolutely right. I do not think that she spoke of several documents on different occasions, which is not mentioned in the directive at all. However, whatever the directive says, the schedule is now a terrible mess. It changed in enormous proportions in some respects in the other place. The Government have never been clear as to exactly what they want, although, of course, they want to implement the directive. I now hear that they were persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. If he were in his place I would express a view as to what his persuasion amounted to, but as he is not, I shall let it pass. It is really not based on sensible management practice. I believe that managers, above all others, are going to have a terrible time with this legislation. It is a terrible mess. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 25:
Page 80, line 28, after ("or") insert (", subject to subsection (2A),").
Page 80, line 31, at end insert:
("(2A) A statement under section I may refer the employee to the provisions of a collective agreement under subsection (2) (b) if, and only if, it is an agreement which—

(a) the employee has reasonable opportunities of reading in the course of his employment, or

(b) is made reasonably accessible to him in some other way.").

Page 82, line 20, after ("or") insert (", subject to subsection (3A),").
Page 82, line 23, at end insert:
("(3A) A statement under subsection (1) may refer the employee to the provisions of a collective agreement under subsection (3) (b) if, and only if, it is an agreement which

(a) the employee has reasonable opportunities of reading in the course of his employment, or

(b) is made reasonably accessible to him in some other way.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am happy to bring forward this group of amendments, which fulfil a commitment made to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, at Report stage. The amendments provide that where, either in the written statement of employment particulars, or in a subsequent statement of change, details of notice entitlement are given by reference to a collective agreement, then that agreement must be one 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. These are modest changes which have the helpful effect of ensuring greater consistency in the provisions concerning the use of reference documents, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. At the last gasp we have an improvement to the Bill which I suppose testifies to something about our procedures. I am grateful.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Employment protection in health and safety cases]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 86, line 25, after ("(1)") insert ("(read with (2) and (3))").
Page 86, line 29, after ("(1)") insert ("(read with (2) and (3))").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. It is only a little over two months since the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships'

151
House, yet in that short time a number of significant changes have been made to the Bill, as well as many more smaller changes which will also improve it.
The Bill has grown by no fewer than eight clauses in your Lordships' House. A number of these new clauses were welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of this House. Clauses 39 and 40, for example, on which public consultation was held early in the year, and which will provide that individuals' identities may be protected in industrial tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal cases involving sexual misconduct, was welcomed by many noble Lords. I am pleased to say that these provisions were improved by the acceptance of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, one of which has the distinction of being accepted not only verbatim, but also sight unseen.
Clause 41 should also not go unmentioned at this point. The suggestion that there should be additional powers to restrain vexatious proceedings in tribunals was advocated with great enthusiasm and vigour by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. We were pleased to act on her suggestion in this area.
Your Lordships also accepted new Clause 38, providing that individuals, supported by proper legal advice, may opt out of their right to bring a particular case to an industrial tribunal once they have reached a settlement with their employer. I know that this subject had the support of many noble Lords, among them my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who has spoken so eloquently throughout our debates on behalf of employers in general and the CBI in particular.
Your Lordships have added a number of other important provisions to this Bill, which will improve the rights afforded to men and women at work. When this Bill becomes law all employees, regardless of their period of service or hours of work, will be protected against unfair dismissal for the assertion of a statutory right. Most employees will be entitled to receive an itemised pay statement. And employment protection legislation will be extended to the armed forces.
The improvements to the Bill made in your Lordships' House are not confined to those significant issues. Numerous smaller amendments have been accepted, which will improve the drafting and the sense of the Bill and make it ultimately a better piece of legislation. By my reckoning a total of 84 amendments have been made to the Bill since it entered this House. A significant number of those—some 20 amendments—were put forward by, or drafted at the instigation of, noble Lords on the Benches opposite or the Back Benches on this side of the House. Their variety and scope testifies to the close and careful scrutiny that your Lordships have given the Bill.
I would convince no one though were I to claim that as the Bill leaves this House, noble Lords are in agreement about all its merits. Parts of the Bill have been scrutinised closely, criticised, and debated vigorously, and that is as it should be, for these are matters of great importance. Only today we have debated the Government's new clause which amends
152
the law on action short of dismissal as set out in Section 146 of the 1992 Act. We are not in agreement across the House about the need for an amendment of this nature. The Government remain convinced that it is right to clarify the law in this area. It was right too, though, that the matter should be debated fully by your Lordships before entering onto the statute book.
The same is true of the abolition of the wages councils. The proposal has come under very close attention, as it should, for it is one of the greatest importance. The Government remain convinced that abolition will improve the operation of the labour market and assist in the creation of new jobs.
Many noble Lords—far too many to mention Individually—have assisted in our debates and deliberations on the Bill. I should like, however, to pay tribute to particular noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have made extensive contributions to our proceedings. On the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, have covered the full subject matter of the Bill with great diligence and determination. And if any of us thought that news of the resignation from the Front Bench opposite of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would mean that the House might lose his very close scrutiny of our proposals, we were soon proved wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have also contributed valuable insights and comments to all deliberations, in both cases from a position of deep knowledge and concern. On the Cross Benches the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in particular has also contributed valuable insight and knowledge to our discussion of employment rights. On this side of the House, I should like to pay particular tribute to the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen, which have elucidated and enlivened our debates. Finally, I should like to give special thanks to my noble friend Lady Denton, without whose unfailing and invaluable support my task would have been infinitely more difficult. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not certain that the House has ever considered the Third Reading of a Bill at one o'clock in the morning, but I suppose that we have to have records, and this must surely be nearly one of them. Late though it is, we feel that we must make a few swift points about the Bill.
The Bill is the most extensive and far-reaching of the eight sons of Frankenstein. It is not as fundamental as 1981; not as invasive of union autonomy as 1984; not, perhaps, as one-sided as 1986 so far as concerns the worker; but the biggest, covering the widest ground. The essential paradox of the Bill is that the bits the Government have been forced to do are the good bits of the Bill, and the bits that the Government have wanted to do are the bad bits of the Bill.
There is not much more to be said tonight about the good bits of the Bill. We tried to improve what was there on maternity relief; we tried to improve and include something on maternity pay; we tried to improve what was said about transfer and redundancy

153
rights; and we made a number of small advances. We would still argue that the good bits in the Bill are not good enough, and that in a number of cases it imperfectly implements EC directives. We would still argue that the Government will have trouble in the European Court with the good parts of the Bill.
So we turn to the bad parts of the Bill. We have tried to do something about Part I relating to trade unions. I shall deal with that in a moment. As regards Part II we have had arguments about wages councils. We debated that issue and I do not want to cover old ground. We tried to concentrate centrally on what the Government want to do to the careers service.
We were singularly unsuccessful. We made four basic criticisms of what the Government wanted to do about the careers service. First, their proposals were not based in any criticism of the existing set of arrangements. No one came along and told us, as they should have done, that the existing careers service was failing the nation. There were no criticisms; the Government just wanted to change the service. Secondly, the Government gave us no alternative structure, a set of improved objectives or a set of higher standards. We were merely told that persons of any other description would run the service in future.
Thirdly, we were never told who would be responsible for running and monitoring the service except the Secretary of State. Tonight we tried to improve that aspect of the Bill by proposing the introduction of a national council. We had tried before and we tried again. But the Government were not interested in who would be responsible for running and monitoring the service except the Secretary of State. Fourthly, we received no guarantee that there would be available as much money to run the service as there is now. No promises were made about the resourcing of the service. Therefore, we made no advances on what the Government intend to do about the careers service.
Finally, I turn to Part I relating to what the Government wish to do to trade unions. There are three points to stress. First, the Government wanted to come, after a whole series of previous sons of Frankenstein which seriously curtail the right to strike and the autonomy of trade union government, and have introduced all kinds of financial liability on to trade unions. We must point out that each time the Government come forward with another son of Frankenstein they do so on top of many other measures. I argue that with the single exception of 1982, this legislation is the most radical, far-reaching and least justifiable that the Government have introduced on the trade union movement. The Bill embodies numerous restrictions on the autonomy of trade unions of an unprecedented kind. They are unknown in other countries and in similar organisations.
I argue that there are seven major degrees of uniqueness which the Government ask us to accept about the trade union movement. First, that trade unions have no right to receive from the governing body of unions in amalgamation cases the kind of independence, responsibility and freedom which, for example, companies have. They have the strange affair
154
of the double envelope. Secondly, there are precise and comprehensive regulations about who unions can admit and expel. No similar restrictions are placed on professional associations and voluntary organisations of all kinds. Thirdly, trade unions have a legal duty to finger their members who may be contemplating a breach of contract. No similarity or parallel exists in any other organisation.
Fourthly, trade unions face the threat of injunctive action by third parties, including employers, who suffer no measurable damage whatever. There is no parallel with the kind of impost and responsibilities under that heading which are placed on British trade unions. Fifthly, they have limitations on their rights to collect subscriptions—subscription income by agency —which affects no other body of a similar kind. Sixthly, a system of automatic disqualifications and fixed penalties are imposed upon their officers. Finally, they must supply their members with details of their emoluments and officers' salaries, which does not appear in legislation affecting any other similar group.
Therefore, there are seven different forms of uniqueness. We have asked the Government over and over again at every stage of the Bill what it is about trade unions which makes them so unique that the seven different degrees of uniqueness are imposed upon them. Why are no such measures imposed upon companies, clubs, professional and voluntary organisations or on employers' associations? Why is trade unionism so unique that such provisions must be applied in this country which are not applied in other countries, not to Lloyds, not to clearing banks or political parties but only to trade unions?
The Government have given us a number of answers. The noble Viscount said on 16th March that unions and companies are two completely different beings. Therefore, the laws which govern them are two completely different laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said:
"Attempts to make comparisons between company law and trade union law are neither apt nor useful … unions and companies are different organisations, with a different legal status and different relationships with their members or shareholders—their subscriptions are membership payments and not investments".—[Official Report, 16/3/93; cols. 1421 and 1422.]
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who unfortunately is not in his place said:
"We are not concerned with joining a club. Generally the question is whether a club will accept the candidate. All I say is that it is wrong for the law to intervene and deny, in the case of a trade union, the right of an individual to join the one that he wishes to join".—[Official Report, 18/3/93; col. 1567.]
On Report the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that the law relating to trade unions and the law relating to companies is quite different, is quite distinct and needs to be treated differently.
We are never told what it is about trade unions which makes them so different. We are told only that they are different. I said before that either they are uniquely powerful, which is nonsense, or they are uniquely corrupt, which the Government do not suggest. Therefore, it must be that trade unions are

155
disliked by the Government. That unique dislike on the part of the Government is clearly embodied in the Bill and that is why we oppose it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said, it is a long time—I make it nearly three months—since the Bill received its Second Reading. On that occasion I said that although a case could be made out for some of the individual proposals in Part I—indeed, on a provision concerning the election of union executive committees my noble friends and I voted with the Government—in our view many of the proposals had more to do with persisting in a policy which although appropriate for the early 1980s today savoured too much of continuing to knock trade unions when they no longer offer any serious threat to the well-being of our society.
I said that some of the measures smacked of mean mindedness and would do nothing to encourage co-operation between management and employees which was so badly needed if economic recovery were to be achieved and sustained. That remains our view; for example, Clause 5 provides that voting papers for a union merger ballot, unlike that which happens in the case of companies, may not be accompanied by any other material; and Clause 7 phases out government funding of union ballots.
As the Bill has progressed through its various stages, we have come to feel that the Government are open to a more serious charge—namely, vindictiveness—even to the point as I said earlier today, of seeking to undermine what we see as the right of people to combine together and ultimately, if the need should arise, to withdraw their labour. That charge has been made particularly by my noble friend Lady Seear in relation to clauses in the Bill dealing with the organisation of industrial action.
That anxiety has been increased greatly by the manner in which the Government decided to introduce their amendment limiting the right of employees not to have action short of dismissal taken against them by employers to deter them from being union members.
The conflict between the freedom of the individual and orderly industrial relationships was evident in the debates on Clause 13 as to whether the right to join the union of one's choice was outweighed by the need to safeguard single union agreements. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, held that union membership was a matter for union members and union recognition a matter for employers. Our fears remain that, in practice, the two matters will prove to be inseparable and that inter-union disputes will multiply at the expense of employers and the economy.
It is significant that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, briefed by the CBI, who was most persistent in his efforts to mitigate the worst effects of the right to bring legal proceedings given under Clause 21 to individuals deprived of goods or services through unlawful action. We continue to fear that, in the highly charged atmosphere of major disputes,
156
attempts to engage in vexatious legislation may make the speedy resolution of disputes by management and unions more difficult.
At least until today, the most contentious clause of all has, of course, been Clause 34 which abolishes wages councils. The Government have given no satisfactory explanation as to why they made no reference to the matter in their election manifesto last year. They have produced no convincing evidence in support of their view that wages councils destroy jobs. Moreover, they had no answer to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Russell as to how they could logically claim that they believe in a free market and yet, at the same time, allow wages to fall while the state, in effect, subsidises those wages through increased expenditure on social security benefit. At the end of the debate on that subject on Report, I was left with a clear impression that the Government had won the vote but had lost the argument.
I believe that the Bill is out of keeping with the feelings of the British electorate. The Government's obsession with so-called trade union reform may even have contributed a little to the treatment meted out to them in the Newbury by-election and the county council elections two weeks ago. If so, I can only hope that they will, belatedly, learn a lesson for the future. They do not seem to have learned it yet.
However, I should like to end on a more harmonious note. Strong views were expressed on both sides of the House during the passage of the Bill. But, throughout, I have admired the composure, the courtesy and the even-tempered way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater,(ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton) steered the Bill through its various stages. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the valuable contributions that they, too, made to the debates. This is a civilised place, and I am glad to be a Member of it.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is a matter of very great regret that Clauses 44 and 45 which deal with the careers services appear at the end of such a very long Bill and that the debates concerning them have taken place on each occasion very late at night when only a handful of noble Lords have been present. Yet the future of the careers service has attracted as much concern and interest among the many employer and education organisations as any other part of this long and important Bill. To all intents and purposes, the new legislation appears rather obscure and innocuous. But what is clear from it is that, during the next few years, the existing careers services throughout Britain —that is, about 120 of them—will be involved in an enormous upheaval.
In implementing the new legislation, it appears that the Government are committed to experimenting with a range of new and untried organisations in the provision of the new careers services. That being the case, Members on this side of the House would urge Ministers to undertake any such experiments with very great care.

157
We fully accept that the world around us is changing fast and that there is a continual need to review all our systems and structures. Indeed, in a civilised society it is important that we do so. But as the legislation concerning the future of the careers service is implemented, we believe that there is a real possibility that things could go badly wrong. Far from seeing the raising of standards and high quality services everywhere—which the Government say they are seeking—we could so easily witness very much the opposite; for example, contracts being given to organisations without the skills, knowledge or professional background which are so vital to enable this important service to be effective.
Of course, the real losers in such a failed experiment would be the young people and others in the community needing to make use of the new services, not to mention the considerable consequences to the nation's economy at a time when improved standards are so badly needed in every quarter. We beg the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
As has already been said in this House and elsewhere, no one has been able to tell us what is wrong with the current arrangements and why it is not possible simply to repair any deficiencies and build on the solid foundation which has been established over 20 years or more.
In 1990 there was a much publicised Employment Department review of careers services in Britain, generally referred to as "The Bruce Review". Mr. Bruce's report was never published. Its findings and recommendations were withheld from public view. But it is widely believed that Mr. Bruce was rather impressed by what he found. Certainly there appears no evidence to show that he, or for that matter the public at large, has any significant grounds for harsh criticism of careers service provision as it currently stands.
Since the publication in 1991 of the Government's White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century, which in Chapter 7 set out its plans for the future of the careers service, the majority of careers services in Britain have voluntarily formed useful and effective partnerships with their local Training and Enterprise Councils, taking themselves closer to employers exactly as suggested by the Government in the White Paper. Very many of them have made significant improvements to their operation as a result of this development. We would urge the Government to look more closely at these partnerships and give them time to establish themselves fully. It would seem sensible to build on their success.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the staff of the existing careers services and the careers guidance profession itself. It is quite obvious to us all how positively they have responded to the central thrust of this Bill, in spite of the fact that their existing services as they have known them are under very great threat. I am glad that many noble Lords paid a tribute to them when we moved an amendment on the national council. Far from adopting an obstinate or negative stance, they accept that, amidst so much change in the worlds of education, training and
158
employment, they must change too. Their professional association, the Institute of Careers Guidance, has sought to focus its attention on the importance of securing the highest quality of provision while seeking to protect the interests of the individual consumer, which Ministers must agree is to the institute's very great credit. It is, of course, what their plea for a national council, supported by all the major employer and educational organisations, is all about. From all sides of the House there has been encouragement to the Government to establish by statute this national council in order to ensure that in Britain we shall truly have a world class careers service. That call has not been heeded.
We cannot begin to understand why, with all the problems that the Government have acquired for themselves in recent times, they choose not to listen when the community—in this case both the employer and the education community—speaks with one voice. It is crucial that representatives of the business and education sectors at the highest levels have a full involvement in the development of the new careers services. And what a powerful motivating factor the establishment of a national council would be to the profession! There is, of course, still time to respond. I ask the Ministers yet again to think about a national council as that concept is popular in so many quarters, though not at the moment with them.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what has been quite remarkable about this Bill is that it has been considered during the day and in the long watches of the night. It has been examined in great detail and many amendments have been tabled. The Government have listened but they have taken no notice and as far as I can see, after all the work that has been done by my noble friends, the Government have accepted one small amendment.
In his opening remarks the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, quite properly paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden and to my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn. He also paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, all of whom in their own way are experts on these matters of trade unions and labour relations. We have two academics, a full-time senior official and personnel directors. None has been listened to.
Wide experience and considerable expertise have been at the disposal of the Government throughout the consideration of the Bill. The Government came forward with the Bill and decided that they were right in everything they put forward. They ignored the experience that was available in this House. They failed to accept any reasonable amendment. That is shocking in a House which should pride itself on a certain amount of independence and real debate—not debate which has been finalised by severe whipping. I find it unfortunate and surprising that the expertise available has not been heeded.
I am a trade unionist of very long standing. I joined a trade union when I was 16, which is a long time ago. I have been involved in the trade union movement

159
from that time onwards one way or another. Bearing in mind the work that the trade union movement has done over a long period, sometimes not very well and sometimes badly, but generally with the best will in the world and with the aim of assisting its members, it is a great pity that to a certain extent the Government have slandered the movement. They have certainly been vindictive in many senses, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said.
What could the reason possibly be for insisting that trade unions, alone among all organisations, will be obliged under the Bill every three years to give authorisation to have subscriptions deducted from their members' wages? It is only a small point. But why on earth do the Government come forward with such a proposal unless it is vindictiveness or because they have some hidden motive? Why do the Government bring it forward in a Bill unless their design is to undermine the trade union movement?
I endorse everything that my noble friend Lady David said about the careers service. Here again is a case in point. Many ideas were put to the Government which would have improved upon what they themselves proposed. Again, there was no response. The Government were incapable of seeing that a great many people were trying to help. The ideas which came forward were rejected out of hand. It is very sad that when so much expertise has been available the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of it to improve the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish to make two points by way of postscript. I shall make no oration on seeing a Bill pass, which, in my view, is a very sad occasion. It is a Bill on which I hope another place will take a view in order to modify the two points which are wrong with it. At bottom the measure is a bad one. It is not even like a curate's egg. The good parts, when one finds them, are often defective. Although the Bill implements a number of Community instruments it is poor in its imagination. Authoritarian measures are frequently limited by a lack of imagination. The debate on the careers service illustrated that point.
Secondly, the Bill continues its attack upon workers' rights, their freedom of association, the autonomy of their organisations, and the organisation internally and externally in terms of membership and its defence of members against the employer in an action short of dismissal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, freedom of association is so dented that it appears that the Government wish to do away with trade unions. It hardly needs to be said that that fundamental right to withdraw labour and withdraw employment on some reasonable terms is now connected with a web of such restriction that the withdrawal of funds will attempt to wipe it out.
There is a report that when in 1924 the Italian Carta di Lavoro was going through the government that then existed, somebody said, "It's not so much the authoritarian nature of the measure. The real defeat is in watching the authorities enact it without understanding just how authoritarian it is".
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the Bill leaves this House, I should like to make a few comments.
When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, I said that it was a truly awful Bill and nothing that has happened since then in Committee or on Report has unfortunately changed my view. We have done our best from these Benches and with the support of noble Lords from other Benches to try to effect some amendment or to get the Government to change their mind. We have had little success on the main thrust of the Bill. I regret to say that, because the Bill which now leaves this House will do little to improve employment rights. On the contrary, many workers will find themselves worse off. In addition, their scope for collectively seeking improvements will have been disgracefully impaired by a Government who claim to offer choice but who do not do so unless one has enough money to make one's own choices anyway.
Further constraints have been imposed upon trade unions as though they were the main obstacles to employment protection rather than the reverse. The Bill's intention is to make it more difficult for unions to collect their subscriptions from members by imposing the requirement that check-off arrangements should be subjected to a three-yearly check. Quite clearly the Government's hope is that many employers will not wish to be bothered with this and will either refuse to embark upon such arrangements or will terminate agreements where they exist.
The Government not only wish to interfere with union cash flows, they also want unions to spend what money they have. They want unions to spend it on postal ballots even though it is acknowledged that workplace ballots have a higher participation rate. Those are no longer to be permitted. Instead much more costly postal ballots must be run and must be paid for wholly by the unions, since the arrangements whereby application may be made for public money are to be ended. Indeed, they are already being phased out. Therefore there will be no more public money for ballots about industrial disputes, for leadership elections, or on trade union mergers or amalgamations. In the latter case, just to make it as costly as possible, unions will not be able to include a recommendation with the ballot paper. They can make recommendations, of course, but in a separate envelope with separate stamps and, of course, at double the cost.
At Committee and on Report we have tried to make those provisions slightly less vindictively one sided, but unfortunately we have failed. I can only hope that, as often happens in human affairs, an unjust and inequitable policy will end up having the opposite effect from that intended. The Government plainly wish to marginalise the trade union movement. But the provisions about check-off will compel the unions to campaign for membership in a way that they may not have had to do before. That, combined with the effect of the Government's economic policies, may well result in unions emerging from this decade with rather more members and in a stronger position. I personally hope that that will be so.

161
The new provisions about industrial disputes take the Government very close to outlawing dispute action altogether, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said. Yet, of course, the right to withdraw labour is upheld in all democratic states and is enshrined in ILO conventions which the UK Government have ratified.
One of the most objectionable features of the Bill which we have repeatedly tried to amend without success is that which requires the union to identify twice to an employer the members of his workforce who are likely to be involved in a dispute. Again, I question the necessity for that provision in the Bill.
As if that were not enough, we have the clause which provides a right for members of the public to sue in a so-called unlawful dispute and also which provides material assistance via a new commissioner to enable them to do so. The clause aroused much opposition not only among trade unions. The CBI and the Institute of Personnel Management do not like it either.
Again, perfectly reasonable amendments designed to ensure that individuals should have to demonstrate at least an entitlement to the goods or services affected by a dispute were rejected, as was the proposition that people claiming legal assistance under the clause would have to satisfy the same criteria as those seeking legal aid in other more normal cases.
The Government have made it clear throughout that their philosophy is basically an anti-collective one. They are against collective bargaining; they believe in individuals bargaining for themselves. The Government's idea of protection for workers is protection against the very organisations that they have created themselves and have voluntarily chosen to join. Hence, it is an employee's right in the Bill not to be told what his union recommends about a proposed merger with another union. It is an employee's right not to be allowed to have deductions from his salary for union subscriptions to be made on a continuous basis, although it is all right for charitable donations and welfare clubs. It is an employee's right in the Bill to be put in a position where his name could be notified to an employer, when all that is being done is that he is being supplied with a ballot paper in a potential dispute.
However, perhaps the clause in this Bill which until this afternoon gave rise to the most debate and, indeed, dismay, is the clause which abolishes wages councils. The House will know that this aroused opposition from Peers in all parts of the House. We have sought to remove the clause from the Bill and, failing that, have asked that there should be a review before abolition. Sadly, we failed. We shall thus have 2.5 million workers, often the most vulnerable and poorly paid, without any kind of wage protection at all. There will be nothing to prevent employers from cutting wage rates that are already too low. In times of high unemployment, people are prepared to work for sweat shop rates, without creating too much fuss about it.
However, in the end we shall all pay for it. We shall pay as taxpayers, since the low wage rates will require to be supported by the social security system for which
162
we all pay as citizens. We shall pay because there will now be no incentive for such employers to improve production methods or to train, not while they have access to a pool of unskilled or semi-skilled labour, willing to work for peanuts. We shall pay morally, as a society, since it is not possible ultimately to create a caring society when the Government themselves encourage us, taking example from the legislation they promote, not to bother about those least able to look after themselves in an increasingly competitive and exploitative labour market place.
There were other aspects of the Bill which caused a great deal of debate. Many noble Lords were concerned about the proposals for the careers advisory service—rightly so. But again, the Government, as we have seen this evening, have not been willing to move at all in the direction of their well-informed critics who fear that what is intended will not produce an improved service but will open the way to wholesale privatisation of the service.
Finally, as if that were not enough, the Government have attempted this afternoon, at Third Reading, to introduce an amendment with far-reaching effects. It is true that we have had a Committee and Report stage on this vitally important new amendment, and we went through a process today which I think afforded very inadequate scrutiny of an important provision. Regrettably, we have not made any impression upon the Government's amendment.
Yet, as we have pointed out in discussion, the amendment—introduced simply because some employers want to induce people to give up the right to trade union representation, but find that they are hampered from so doing because of Section 146 of the 1992 Act—will have the effect of further isolating the UK from her EC neighbours. It is almost certainly a breach of ILO conventions, in my opinion, which specifically provide for freedom of association and the right not to be discriminated against in this way. It is a further demonstration (also in my opinion) of the Government's unremitting hostility to trade unions and the members whose interest they seek to protect.
The philosophy governing the Bill is clear. It is anti-collective. The Government want to individualise everything, even though most people who work for a living have little power on an individual basis and need the support of organisations they themselves have created. Fragmentation and individualisation of the workforce, exhortations and encouragement to employers not to recognise unions, or to cease to recognise them, all in my opinion have an underlying purpose; namely, to keep wage and salary rates as low as possible—unless of course the individuals concerned are one of the very small group of senior executives getting truly enormous salaries. The Prime Minister may express concern, but that does not seem to bother them very much.
I said at Second Reading that the Prime Minister, with his opposition to the social chapter and with this kind of legislation, is seeking to create "sweatshop Britain". In case some noble Lords may think that that is a bit strong, let me quote in support of my view from the Government's own publication intended to get investors to come to the UK. It is headed:

163
"Workforce—one of the country's most valuable resources".
Under the heading "labour costs", it declares that these are among the lowest in Europe. It states:
"Wages and salaries are markedly lower than those in the US, Japan, or many other countries within the European Community; and so too are the add-on costs of social security and other benefits"
The publication later states:
"There is no legal requirement for a company in Britain to recognise a union. Many companies … do not do so.
"Throughout Britain as a whole the number and percentage of employees who are members of trade unions has been falling since 1979".
So there is a reason why we have this kind of legislation. The Government are out to attract inward investment, not on the basis of a trained and highly educated workforce arising from excellent training schemes and high-tech productivity, but on the basis of low pay, little employee protection and unions enmeshed in complex legislation, with no procedures for resolving disputes, no union recognition, and lots of unemployment; so if people are dissatisfied they just have to put up with it. It is not, as a previous Conservative Prime Minister recently remarked on the radio, something to be proud of. But that is the Britain of this Conservative Government and that is why we have this extremely awful Bill. I am very sad indeed that it is leaving this House so little amended.
Finally, if I may add a personal note, I am grateful to the Minister personally for his continuing courtesy on all occasions. We have sometimes had very bitter disputes about the provisions of this Bill. Nevertheless, his courtesy has continued unfailingly. He has been extremely courteous and kind on all the occasions when it has been necessary to discuss the Bill outside the House and in the Chamber, and for that I thank him. But I certainly cannot thank him for the Bill.
1.45 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said at Second Reading that this Bill would fulfil the Government's continuing commitment to ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law covering industrial relations and employment matters, and one which meets the needs of a modern economy.
The Bill that leaves this House is improved in many ways upon the Bill that I described in those terms. It will provide individual employees and trade union members with improved protections; it will give
164
employers and the community important new rights; and it will greatly improve the operation of the labour market.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, described it as "far-reaching", and of course that is right. It is far-reaching. In his own style of debating he sought to persuade us that the Bill is yet another son of Frankenstein. I am afraid that I am not so familiar with these young men as the noble Lord is, and I certainly do not recognise the Bill in that colourful language.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made some constructive criticisms of the Bill, and I believe that we have listened to them very carefully. I know that he speaks from enduring concern about the relationships between employers and employees, and I know that he will pursue these matters in the same way in the future. I thank him for the generous remarks that he made concerning my noble friend and myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Stoddart, expressed their concerns about the careers service. We are seeking the best service. I believe that the steps that we are taking with this Bill are the right steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Government listened but took no notice. I have to disagree with the noble Lord. Yes, we have been helped greatly by the expertise that has been shown in all quarters of this House. I believe that we have listened to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, indicated that we sought to marginalise the trade unions. I do not believe that to be the case. However, I have to say that we are pursuing the freedom of the individual and individual choice. I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks to me personally.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, looking very mournful I think, said that this was a sad occasion. I have to ask him how that can be when the themes of the Bill are of central importance to the future economic growth of this country and the wellbeing of its citizens at work.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at nine minutes before two o'clock.

  WILTON PARK: PERFORMANCE AND KEY TARGETS
  WILTON PARK: PERFORMANCE AND KEY TARGETS
  IRAN: EXPLOSIVE SHELL SUPPLIES
  IRAN: EXPLOSIVE SHELL SUPPLIES
  UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS: UK FUNDING DEPARTMENT
  UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS: UK FUNDING DEPARTMENT
  UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS: FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS
  UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS: FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS
  HOUSE OF LORDS ATTENDANCE: STATISTICS
  HOUSE OF LORDS ATTENDANCE: STATISTICS
  NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT AIRPORTS
  NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT AIRPORTS
  DUTCH BANKS' ADVANCE-FEE LOANS: SUPERVISION
  DUTCH BANKS' ADVANCE-FEE LOANS: SUPERVISION
  RAIL PASSENGER NETWORK: FRANCHISING PROPOSALS
  RAIL PASSENGER NETWORK: FRANCHISING PROPOSALS
  RAIL NETWORK OPEN ACCESS START DATE
  RAIL NETWORK OPEN ACCESS START DATE
  RAILWAYS BILL, PART I: EXEMPTIONS
  RAILWAYS BILL, PART I: EXEMPTIONS
  MARINE EMERGENCIES ORGANISATION
  MARINE EMERGENCIES ORGANISATION
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT
  PRISON SERVICE: DIRECTOR GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  PRISON SERVICE: DIRECTOR GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: COST OF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
  UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: COST OF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE