Sitting of 6 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAY ERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAY ERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    EXETER CITY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Road Schemes
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the changes he proposes to make in the system whereby the economic benefit of road schemes is assessed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): One. We invited a number of experts and others to let us have their comments. I hope that those who intend to comment will do so by 21 April.
    Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new formula means that the added weight that road users attach to their leisure time means that more road schemes will be justified economically in the future? Does this not
    2
    demonstrate that the additional boost that the Government have already given to the roads programme to ease congestion is justified?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will recognise that the change in the value of non-work time does not automatically increase the budget for the Department of Transport. It is true that the proposed changes will strengthen the economic case for most planned road schemes and heighten the urgency of building them.
    Mr. Hickmet: Will these proposals prevent decisions such as that which resulted in the building of the Humber bridge? What will be done about the debt on that bridge? It is running at £250 million with the capital debt increasing by £22 million per annum. What will happen? Will the Government write off the debt?
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the possible election some time in the next year, my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the most expensive by-election promise in history — the 1966 Humber bridge proposal. I look forward to hearing the proposals of the Humber bridge board. As the Government acknowledged in their response to the Select Committee report, there is perhaps a different case with the Humber bridge than with other estuarial crossings.

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations he has had concerning the future of the merchant fleet.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): I and my Department have had numerous discussions with shipowners and seafarers, their representatives, and other interested parties about matters affecting the future of the United Kingdom shipping industry.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Minister had a chance to study the statement made in the 1987 shipping review by the general council, which predicted that the mainland United Kingdom fleet may be as low as 100 ships by 1995? Against that background, does the Minister not think that two matters need to be looked at : first, the tax regime that applies to shipping and the unfair effect that it has

    3
    compared with overseas competitors; and, secondly, the unfair competition that comes particularly from countries such as Korea, Taiwan and other Asian countries in terms of the subsidies that are given to their shipbuilding industries?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman will not need to be reminded that the tax question is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having said that, I take the hon. Gentleman's second point quite seriously. He will be aware that under the British presidency during the last six months of last year we were able to secure for the first time a package of measures in regard to European Community shipping, which includes our own. It is important to try to prevent unfair competitive practices of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is an important point.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend, who is already aware of the problems of the British dredging fleet, keep in mind the fact that we need a dredging fleet capability under United Kingdom control, not only to keep the shipping lanes open for civilian craft, but in particular for servicing naval dockyards?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. We are aware of the needs for shipping for military and civil re-supply in times of crisis or war, and to that extent we are concerned about particular kinds of vessel, including that to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Dixon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain is possibly the only maritime nation that does not have a maritime policy? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Ministry of Defence and produce a policy that will save not only the merchant fleet but the shipbuilding industry?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have a maritime policy. He is aware from his experience of the shipbuilding industry and the problems of oversupply, which are a consequence of excessive shipbuilding throughout the world, that most maritime nations have suffered — many even more than we have — from the radical decline in the shipping industry. To the extent that I have departmental responsibilities for these matters, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of and, I trust, will support, the initiatives that I announced in December last year, about which we are consulting and which I hope to bring before the House as soon as possible and as soon as legislation permits.
    Mr. Harris: I endorse what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said about possible solutions to the difficulties of the merchant fleet. Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider the report by his Department's working party on the registration of merchant ships, particularly the idea of splitting off the fishing fleet from that register so that the merchant fleet and the shipping fleet can benefit? May we have legislation before the general election?
    Mr. Moore: The other day my hon. Friend was given a relatively positive response by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this issue, which he has pursued persistently. My hon. Friend will know from that response that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are conscious of these needs and
    4
    wish to bring measures forward as soon as practicable. I know that concern about this important issue is felt on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Loyden: The Government have a policy on the maritime fleet, shipbuilding and the ancillary industries in general, but most people think that it is a policy of presiding over the decline of the British merchant fleet, with no efforts being made to begin the rejuvenation of our merchant fleet and coastal shipping and to make greater use of inland waterways. Those measures would be environmentally and economically advantageous.
    Mr. Moore: It will be of no use to our maritime interests if we ignore basic realities. We are living in a world in which there has been a pattern of massive world oversupply of shipping and shipbuilding. In a world recession there has been an enormous drop in oil carriage, two thirds of the decline having been in tanker tonnage. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the relevance of that. There has also been a radical change in our trading patterns with the EEC. In the face of all that, I know that the hon. Gentleman will support the measures that I announced last December and which I hope to introduce in the House in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that the difficulties already mentioned have been compounded by the imposition of light dues, which will have a heavy bearing on the merchant and fishing fleets? The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that we are well up with our competitors. Britain is one of the worst European nations in terms of backing the merchant service.
    Mr. Moore: I know that the right hon. Gentleman, as a fair man, would like me to correct the slightly unfortunate impression that he gave about light dues. Despite the unfortunate recent increases, they have decreased in real terms by 18 per cent. since the Conservative party took office in 1979. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that nearly 90 per cent. of the vessels that are charged those dues are foreign. I am, of course, aware that dues are also relevant to the problems of our port industry.
    Mr. Stott: The fact that 90 per cent. are foreign is a clear sign of the decline of the British fleet. Is the Secretary of State aware that he is showing all the hallmarks of his predecessors' complacency on this issue? If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he reads the debate on the Royal Navy and the contributions by his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who spelt out in graphic detail the problems that Britain is facing with the decline of our merchant fleet. Indeed, it is not just a decline; it is a massive haemorrhage. Unless the Government do something soon to stop that decline, within the next 10 years there will not be a British fleet. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not look at what the Irish Government have done with their fleet? What is he doing about the efficient ship programme? The Secretary of State sits in Cabinet beside the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so why does he not ask him to do something about benefits for our ship owners?
    Mr. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have read fully and thoroughly the debate in question and

    5
    I am not under any illusions about the difficulty facing our merchant marine, nor about the difficulties facing merchant marines throughout the world. Within that context, I know that the hon. Gentleman, who has understandable emotions about this subject, would not wish me to react Canute-like but would wish me to relate to the real problems that we face. The measures that I announced in December seek to address those problems and my statutory responsibility with regard to them.

    Local Authority Airports
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total of capital allocations to local authority airports since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since 1979 we have authorised local authorities to spend in excess of £220 million airport development. This compares with £16 million spent on capital investment at local authority airports during the period of the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he contrast the figure that he has quoted with the increase in the traffic at, for example, Bristol airport?
    Mr. Spicer: The figure for Bristol since 1979 is 79 per cent. I am sure that that is a very much higher rate of increase than the increase under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that expenditure on capital developments at regional airports would greatly assist the development of the depressed areas of our country?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend say how much of this investment has taken place at Manchester airport?
    Mr. Spicer: Between 1981 and 1986 the figure for Manchester airport was £80 million, which is an enormous figure.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for his confirmation that the creation of a plc for Hurn airport in my constituency will in no way change the planning aspects thereof. Will he please confirm that it is the Government's view that once these plcs have been set up the companies should no longer have the automatic right to get their sticky fingers on taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, as many of them have done in the past? Will he also confirm that county councillors who are directors of these companies will be required not to vote in county councils when these companies come along asking for money?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend's second point is about county councillors. Under the terms of the new Act any councillor or county councillor who is a member of the board of the company will not be allowed to vote on council airport matters. My hon. Friend asked about subsidies. It is our clear intention and desire that these airports should be privatised, but as long as they remain in local authority hands it will be for the local authorities to decide what subsidies to provide for their airports. The accounts will now clearly show the ratepayers what they are contributing towards their airports.
    Mr. Snape: Arising from the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the Minister's comprehensive reply, does the Minister agree that the economy of the west midlands might well be boosted in the context of capital allocations from central Government by the granting of gateway status to what is, after all, on his Department's own figures the fastest growing provincial airport in Britain?
    Mr. Spicer: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask about figures, and I was about to give him the figure of £63 million as the amount spent on Birmingham. That is also a case where we have spent massive sums—about four times as much as the Labour Government spent in total. The hon. Gentleman asked about gateway status. I imagine that he is talking about American carriers. If they wish to come forward to apply to enter Birmingham, of course we will listen to their requests very seriously.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend pay attention to those successful and profitable local authority airports, like Southend, that do not want any money at all? We have been trying to persuade the Government to persuade the German authorities to allow us to run one bus to connect Ostend with Frankfurt. We have been trying for two years and have not been able to persuade the Germans to agree to what we were told was agreed by the Common Market 15 years ago.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that Southend airport does not cost his ratepayers any money. It balances the books very largely because private companies come in and help with the management of that airport. My hon. Friend asks about the bus that the Germans will not allow. With the great encouragement of my hon. Friend, we have made many representations to the German Government and no doubt they will have heard what he has said in Parliament today.

    London (Bus Services)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of London Regional Transport about the quality of bus services.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman from time to time to discuss a range of issues, including quality of service. I last met Sir Keith Bright on 24 March in Camden for the launch of another innovative high frequency midibus service.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that our constituents are thoroughly fed up with the ever-worsening bus services in London? Does he agree that the threatened closure of Wandsworth, Hendon and Clapton bus garages and the threat of others to follow will make matters a great deal worse? Will he make representations to London Regional Transport and London Buses Ltd. to halt the closure of those garages?
    Mr. Mitchell: There has been no overall worsening of London Buses' performance, although engineers' industrial action at the end of 1986 caused temporary problems. Waiting times and the percentage of schedules operating this year are considerably better than they were in the early 1980s when the GLC was responsible for them.

    7
    As for garage closures, it is for the management of London Buses Ltd. to decide how many garages are needed to service its fleet.
    Mr. Chapman: If quality of service is to be measured by increased use and frequency of services, does my hon. Friend agree that since the demise of the GLC there has been an improvement in the quality of public transport throughout London? If quality is to be measured by comfort, does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve that is to increase capital investment, which was increased last year and is to be further increased this year?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about capital investment, which is running at £260 million for LRT this year and is expected to increase to £280 million next year. London Buses Ltd. expects the highest passenger mileage this year since 1978 and has introduced a number of frequent midibus services, of which the Camden Hoppa is the most recent, and these are well and truly welcomed by the travelling public.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister appreciate that large buses are appropriate for many routes, especially the No. 15 route, from which London Transport may remove the Routemasters? Is he aware that when I wrote to the chairman pressing him to retain these very popular platform buses and asking why he was trying to sell them to China he replied that conditions in China were less rigorous than those in London. As the chairman also said that customer service remained the chief objective, does the Minister agree that his answer in relation to the Routemasters was ridiculous, stupid and illogical?
    Mr. Mitchell: No, Sir, because platform buses have a greater accident problem with passengers getting on and off, and that must also be taken into account.

    A23 (Crawley)
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to upgrade the A23 south of Crawley.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Timing of existing schemes for the improvement of the A23 from the M23 at Pease Pottage to Handcross and from Warninglid flyover to Brighton will depend on the progress of the statutory procedures. I am considering the needs of the section between Handcross and Warninglid in the current review of the trunk road programme.
    The West Sussex county council is responsible for the A23 between Crawley and the M23 at Pease Pottage.
    Mr. Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is devoutly to be hoped that the statutory procedures will be hurried up in view of the great difficulties, which he has seen for himself, on the A23 at Pease Pottage and to the south? Will he ensure that as soon as it is convenient and legally possible to do so the important repairs and improvements to that stretch of road will be speedily and efficiently carried out?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend has a reputation for pressing for the traffic needs of his constituents and others to be met. We hope to consult the public on improvement options for Pease Pottage to Handcross this summer and to publish compulsory purchase orders this year for the Warninglid flyover to Brighton section.

    Kings Cross-Edinburgh Line
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to when British Rail expects to complete its assessment of the case for investment in the east coast route King's Cross-Edinburgh, and onward routes to Glasgow.
    Mr. David Mitchell: East coast mainline electrification was approved in 1984 and it is expected that the scheme will be completed on schedule in May 1991. BR is still at an early stage of assessing whether there is a case for electrifying any further route from Edinburgh to Glasgow.
    Mr. Dalyell: Before any conclusions are reached on the matter, could there be some opportunity for public discussion as to whether to electrify the Fauldhouse-Shotts route, or the Linlithgow-Polmont-Falkirk route? Are there not grave implications, one way or the other, for local services, which could be disrupted by long distance London-Glasgow traffic via Edinburgh?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly fair point — one which should certainly be considered. At the moment no proposals have been received from British Rail by Ministers, so we are not yet in a position to give the further examination that is needed. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman's point in mind and draw it to the attention of the board.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Minister noted the interesting suggestion, made a few days ago, that British Rail might well be divided into two, with the running of the trains left to a private company and British Rail left to run the tracks, the signalling and the stations? Does he think that if that were done it would, in any way, lead to the faster achievement of the objective of the hon. Member for Linlithgow?
    Mr. Mitchell: The concept of a track authority has been examined by different Governments and a number of experts. The case for moving in that way has not been made.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that British Rail plans to reroute all the Anglo-Scottish east coast sleeper services down the west coast from 1988, on the quaint assumption that it is better to arrive at Euston than King's Cross? Does he realise that that would deprive the Borders and Northumberland of sleeper services, and give passengers from Edinburgh a less smooth and comfortable ride than they now enjoy going down the east coast route?
    Mr. Mitchell: That question is entirely for the management of British Rail. It is the management that decides— [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members would like to fiddle with the railways and interfere with the management so that it cannot get on with its job. The routeing of sleeper trains is entirely a matter for British Rail management. Having said that, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of the chairman.
    Mr. Adley: When all is said and done, does my hon. Friend agree that the east coast main line electrification has been discussed for half a century, has now been authorised and is currently under construction? Disregarding all the excuses from the Opposition about why that was not done before, are the Government not

    9
    entitled to take some credit for having given the go-ahead for this and many other projects of railway improvement for which we have waited for a long time?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. I do not think that the House is fully apprised of how massive a modernisation of British Rail is now fully under way. Between 1974 and 1979 the Labour Government authorised three electrification schemes. We have authorised 19. Approvals were at the rate of £38 million per annum under the previous Government, compared to £69 million under this one, all sums adjusted to current year prices.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister take a look at his geography and recognise that the east coast line extends further than Edinburgh? Will he encourage British Rail, before it contemplates electrification of the line from Edinburgh to Glasgow, running from east to west, to plan now the electrification of the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Mitchell: Before the hon. Gentleman declares his interest in that particular matter, I wish to say that British Rail is alert to the opportunities for further electrification. It is considering a number of schemes, and it would be right and proper to see what it brings forward.

    Railways (Electrification)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any recent representations concerning the electrification of railway lines serving south Wales.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The Secretary of State has received no recent representations on that matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that if the Government are serious about the Channel tunnel project, let alone the future well-being of the Welsh economy, electrification should go ahead without any further delay, and coupled with that should be the development, not the closure, of the Severn tunnel junction?
    Mr. Mitchell: The form of locomotion that is used between Wales and the Channel tunnel does not necessarily have a direct bearing on the availability of services. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of Wales, which are considerable and well understood, will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Wigley: Is it not a disgrace that not a single mile of railway line in Wales is electrified? If the Government, as suggested by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) a few moments ago, take credit for the electrification of the east coast line, surely they must take responsibility for the failure to electrify the railways in Wales?
    Mr. Mitchell: There is no implicit failure on the part of British Rail if it has not discovered that it is possible to provide the most efficient, fast and punctual services in Wales by electrification. Modern diesel multiple units, such as the Sprinter train, can provide almost the same standard of service as electrification, and where the numbers travelling are lower and the frequencies fewer than in the intensively used parts of the system, it makes much better value for money for British Rail to provide diesel services.

    Infrastructure (Expenditure)
    Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the increase in capital spending on transport infrastructure in real terms since 1982.
    Mr. Moore: Capital spending on transport infrastructure is expected to show an increase of 16 per cent in real terms in 1987–88 over 1982–83.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that very important figure should be publicised, given the myths that are being perpetrated on the Opposition Benches about the extent of the Government's increase in infrastructure expenditure? Can my right hon. Friend tell us how that compares with the wasteful expenditure that one sometimes gets on things such as subsidies?
    Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. I recall so many times in the past his arguments for a better quality and increased pattern of capital expenditure by the state. On my right hon. Friend's specific point, as opposed to the 16 per cent. increase in transport infrastructure capital expenditure in real terms, subsidies are down by 31 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State agree that investment in freight facilities is an important part of the infrastructure, not least if we are to have an upturn in manufacturing industry, and also if the nations and regions of Britain are to benefit from the Channel tunnel? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify the closure in the past week of the Freightliner depots?
    Mr. Moore: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in the question that has not been asked because of the absence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He will recall that the changes that have been announced by Freightliner relate to the problem that it has had on constant losses on the domestic, not the international, side. We must rely on those who seek to manage that successful business to advise us on how they should invest in freight opportunities for the future. They have done that.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House what proportion of the transport infrastructure applies to the railway industry, which has constantly been attacked by the trade unions, yet under this Government has gone forward in real terms?
    Mr. Moore: Without notice I cannot give the precise proportion, but, just in case the Opposition would like me to give the precise figure for capital expenditure in regard to the question, although they will not appreciate the answer, the increase is 48 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Haynes: It is all right for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and brag about the increase for transport infrastructure, but is he aware that in the county of Nottingham we have an expanding industry in many places, particularly in my constituency, which is striving very hard in areas where the Government have closed down one or two pits? Several of those firms have a marvellous export record, but they cannot move the goods. Why not spend some money in my area for a change?
    Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind me reminding him of the way in which, under a

    11
    Labour Government, far more pits were closed than under this Government, but I understand his legitimate interest in the movement of goods in his area. I hope that he will remember what I have said so far in my answer to the question. In real terms there has been a major increase in all forms of infrastructure capital expenditure throughout the Government's period of office. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that expenditure, especially on British Rail and on local and national roads. I can give the hon. Gentleman detailed figures for his area in a letter that I shall be happy to send him after this Question Time.
    Mr. Coombs: When my right hon. Friend is looking at his capital programme for transport infrastructure, will he look again at the A417 and A4I9 route between Swindon and the M5 at Cheltenham? Does he accept that we now have a patchwork quilt of single and dual carriageway sections, which are dangerous to road safety and could be improved dramatically by the provision of dual carriageway throughout the length of the route? That would also help the economic needs of firms in my constituency.
    Mr. Moore: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for roads will consider my hon. Friend's question carefully. He will also direct my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that since 1979 capital expenditure on roads has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the allocation of that expenditure in 1986 differs from the allocation to various forms of transport in 1982?
    Mr. Moore: I should not like to give all the details without notice, but I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman drawing his attention to the variations, going back to 1979, if he wishes. However, that would not deny the basic, essential point that is made from the Dispatch Box time and again, that we have massively increased expenditure on transport capital infrastructure.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when he visited Eastbourne last year he came by train? If he made the journey by car, would he agree that extra capital expenditure is required to improve the A22 trunk road?
    Mr. Moore: Of course I went by train, because I knew that it was the proper way to travel on that route. However, I am also aware—because my hon. Friend has told me personally and at the last Question Time, the Minister with responsibility for roads — the road movement down to his constituency. I am sure that he will have heard the arguments again this time.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the privatisation of the National Bus Company.
    Mr. Moore: Eighteen of the National Bus Company's local operating subsidiaries have been sold to their managements. Twelve other subsidiaries have also been sold. I congratulate NBC on this excellent progress. I am particularly pleased that so many companies have been sold to their managements, and that in most of these cases employees are being given the opportunity to acquire shares in their businesses.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a bus company in my constituency, Eastern National, has been successfully sold to its management, and that following privatisation the number and standard of services provided by the company have improved dramatically, to the benefit of my constituents and consumer demand in the area?
    Mr. Moore: I am delighted to hear that. It reflects well on the Government's programme, which seeks to improve benefits to the consumer.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is continuing disquiet about the price obtained in the sale of National Bus Company subsidiaries? Is he further aware that his reticence in giving the figures is fuelling speculation that the companies are being sold off at grossly low prices and with great possible capital and investment opportunities? Will he now clear the air by telling us as soon as possible the price at which each subsidiary has been sold?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is normally very fair, and I hope that he will recognise that such comments are not normally made in public. On 26 November, in the bus deregulation debate, I said :
    "we need to protect confidentiality to ensure that the proper benefits go to the taxpayer".
    I explained the problem of trying to illustrate the figures, which might reduce the possibility of the public purse receiving the proper amount of funds from further similar sales, and I said :
    "the information must be regularly made available to the National Audit Office, and so to the PAC, which has arrangements for conserving public confidentiality". — [Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 282.]
    That is a means of ensuring that the House is aware through the proper route, without the state being denied the benefits of full and proper proceeds from future sales.

    Greater Manchester (Bus Services)
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from political parties on the effects of the introduction of competition into bus services in the Greater Manchester area.
    Mr. David Mitchell: None from political parties, but during the period following bus deregulation I received a number of representations about problems in Greater Manchester where the PTE failed to deliver the normal, smooth transition achieved in most other areas.
    Mr. Favell: If, as now seems to be extraordinarily unlikely, the Conservative party were not returned to office at the next general election, what would happen to free enterprise bus operators and to Stockport's Bee Line Buzz Company? My hon. Friend has already seen this busy little company and knows that it has stung the Greater Manchester Bus Company, which has fumbled and bungled for years, into action. Stockport is now all abuzz. What will happen to us if that untoward event were to happen?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have visited the Bee Line Buzz Company in south Manchester, where over 220 minibuses are operating at present. The whole place is a hive of activity. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the future of minibus activities in the 150 towns and villages

    13
    up and down the country where minibuses operate, including Manchester, because the Labour party's policy for transport statement says:
    "The first legislation to be introduced by a Labour Transport Secretary will include the repeal of the 1985 Transport Act".
    In that case, my hon. Friend has very good reason to be concerned, as have many other people who have benefited from the new services that have been introduced following the passing of the Act.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Wright Case (Appeal)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General what discussions he intends to have about the progress of Her Majesty's Government's appeal in the Wright case.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I have had discussions with my colleagues within Government and with counsel in the case and these discussions will continue during the preparation of the appeal. As Members of the House will know, the Government lodged their notice of appeal on 31 March.
    Mr. Adley: Speculation about some of the allegations of this obsessive, senile twerp range from "predictable" in the case of Walsall to "reasonable" in the case of Leeds, South, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the main issue is the bounden duty of somebody who has taken an oath of security to the Crown to honour those pledges of confidentiality? As the Opposition parties fall over themselves to criticise the Government for the course that they are following, will my right hon. and learned Friend take some comfort from the fact that most of our fellow citizens applaud the Government's firm, albeit uncomfortable, line?
    The Attorney-General: I think that it would be right if I did not comment on my hon. Friend's opening words. After that, he put his finger on exactly the point that the Government are seeking to make.
    Mr. Foot: Will the Attorney-General comment on the allegation that has also been raised in connection with this affair: that there were serious breaches of the law by agents of MI5? Will the Attorney-General now confirm that if the Government thought that it was a serious enough matter they could have an independent investigation into it, without having to wait until the end of the case?
    The Attorney-General: I shall make certain that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are made known to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because that is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Hickmet: Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek an undertaking from the office of the Leader of the Opposition that during the appeal his office, and those Opposition Members who behaved like that during the hearing at first instance, will not contact the office of Mr. Malcolm Turnbull? What steps does the Crown propose to take to ensure that Mr. Paul Greengrass is not present in court when hearings take place in camera, because he informed other journalists waiting outside the court about the proceedings inside the court, and it is strongly suspected that this information filtered back to this House
    14
    and that it was used by Opposition Members? What action will be taken to prevent a repetition of what happened last time?
    The Attorney-General: It is not for me to advise the Leader of the Opposition. It is up to his good sense as to how he behaves during the course of the appeal.
    As for Mr. Greengrass, that will be a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide, just as Mr. Justice Powell, against the Crown's wishes, allowed Mr. Greengrass to attend the hearings.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General recognise that all the legal ramifications and the rest will not stop Labour Members demanding that there should be a full judicial inquiry into the serious allegations that criminal and subversive elements in MI5 tried to destabilise an elected Government in the 1970s? Are not the Attorney-General and his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General not concerned at the way in which the Prime Minister has, over a number of years, seriously besmirched their office and used various ways to undermine the position of the Attorney-General?
    The Attorney-General: With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am satisfied, as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, that there has never been any case in which any improper influence was brought to bear by the Prime Minister upon our office. I want to make that absolutely clear.
    Mr. Winnick: The Solicitor-General's letter.
    The Attorney-General: That was written in the ordinary course of his duties.

    Bail Act 1976
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor has received any representations from the judiciary about the working of the Bail Act 1976: and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Lord Chancellor does not reveal confidential communications between judges and himself. The Lord Chancellor has, however, authorised me to say that he has not received any representations from the judiciary on this subject. The working of the Bail Act is a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind last Wednesday's vote on capital punishment, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is more important than ever that the circumstances under which Winston Silcott was released from gaol and subsequently murdered PC Blakelock must never be repeated? What assurance can he give the House that the matter is being looked into and that suitable action will be taken?
    The Solicitor-General: Everything practicable must be done to ensure that those circumstances — I am referring, of course, to the murder of the police constable by somebody who was on bail—are not repeated. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at the events that led to the grant of bail to Winston Silcott. The Government will consider whether there are any lessons to be learnt and will take into account the points made in the House since the case.
    Mr. John Morris: The Attorney-General is fond of telling the House about the importance of collective

    15
    responsibility. Which side are the Law Officers on? Are they on the side of the Lord Chancellor, or of the Home Secretary? In an outburst the other day the Lord Chancellor said that the Bail Act was not working and that he had prophesied that it would not do so. However, the Home Secretary had been saying how important it was to ensure that not too many people were kept in prison, that the courts are more reluctant now to let people out on bail and that one fifth of the people in prison have not yet been convicted. Will the Solicitor-General bring the importance of collective responsibility to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
    The Solicitor-General: The opening part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question owed more to careful preparation than good judgment. The Lord Chancellor has said—I have taken the trouble to see a transcript of the broadcast—that there might be a case for reviewing the operation of the Bail Act and, equally, it may be necessary to allow the Act to remain in force for rather longer before a clear picture will emerge. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying anything different. As I have just told the House, he is looking at the events leading up to the granting of bail to Winston Silcott, he will consider whether there are any lessons to be learnt and he will take into account all the points that have been made.

    Divorce (Child Custody)
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Attorney-General what information he has about the average time taken in settling disputes in divorce cases over the custody of children.
    The Solicitor-General: For an application estimated to last half a day, the average time between the issue of the application and the hearing is seven weeks. For an application estimated to last one day, the average is eight weeks. Expedition is possible in urgent cases on application to the court.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that with 160,000 children under 17 being involved in divorce cases annually, all too often it is they who are the innocent, inarticulate and often unrepresented parties who pay the price? Will he look at the Law Commission's recent working document, which suggests that disputes often take over six months to settle? That may be long for an adult, but it can be almost a lifetime for a child. Will he consider imposing a time limit in those cases?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend, who sits as a magistrate and knows a great deal about cases such as this, is absolutely right when she says that it is children who suffer as a result of delays. The Government will not reach a decision in advance of a final report from the Law Commission, and the commission itself is awaiting responses from the public and various organisations which have been consulted on its working paper.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Solicitor-General aware that one of the reasons for the delay in custody cases is the extreme difficulty of arranging conciliation appointments, because of the shortage of court welfare officers to carry out those appointments? Will he take steps to ensure that more court welfare officers are appointed quickly so that that part of the process can at least be dealt with?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that one of the factors causing delay between inception and determination of these cases is the need to get welfare reports. I shall draw the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to this point.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Law Commission expedites its recommendation, as this matter is causing considerable concern? What is the time scale likely to be before its deliberations come before him?
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that it is necessary that there is a considered final report from the Law Commission, but I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend would wish that to precede careful consideration of the responses to the consultation.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Solicitor-General aware—I am sure he is—that the answers that he is giving in response to this question are the reason why there is so much support for the family courts campaign? What is the Government's attitude to that campaign? Will we have a debate on family courts in Government time?
    The Solicitor-General: A family court would not of itself cure the problem of delay, but I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question—that the setting up of family courts would provide the opportunity for reviewing procedures. The Government are considering the position in the light of the responses to the consultation paper on family and domestic jurisdiction, which was published last year.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid (Environmental Factors)
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what account is taken of environmental factors in planning the overseas aid programme.
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the methods by which he takes into account, in project appraisal procedures, environmental considerations such as impact on soil erosion, deforestation and pollution in developing countries in receipt of United Kingdom aid.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Environmental concerns are at the forefront of our thinking. Our approach is set out in the booklet "The Environment and the British Air Programme", published to mark the European Year of the Environment. Copies are in the Library and have been widely circulated among Members.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I admire the publication that he mentioned. I am pleased that the Government are taking the environment issue so seriously. However, as 40 per cent. of our aid goes through multilateral agencies, will my hon. Friend ensure that those agencies consider environmental issues with the same seriousness?
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted to be able to assure my hon. Friend that this issue will be discussed at the spring meeting of the development committee of the World Bank

    17
    this week. I also intend to raise it at the European Community Development Council meeting in May, if not otherwise engaged.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the rain forest at the forefront of the Minister's thinking?
    Mr. Patten: Absolutely. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to what we say in the booklet that I mentioned on that subject, and in particular to our programme on the Korup forest.
    Mr. Hughes: Given the Minister's declared commitment to environmental programmes and policies and the fact that this is the European Year of the Environment, why was his Department's environmental unit abolished some years ago and merged into the natural resources section? Will he undertake to reconsider that this year, so that environmental matters can have the precedence in his Department that his statements imply they should have?
    Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have 23 professional natural resources advisers, backed up by 320 scientists and experts in our scientific units. We have two social development advisers, and we have recently appointed an environment adviser. We have quite enough professional advice, and more than many others.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that more scientific research is needed into forestry, so that reafforestation can take place more quickly and effectively?
    Mr. Patten: There is a strong argument for that. I am pleased that our aid to forestry has increased by 80 per cent. over the past four or five years, and also that our research programme related to environmental issues has increased.
    Mr. Corbyn: When the Minister attends the EEC meeting in May, will he ensure that no EEC funds or, if it is in his power to do so, no World Bank funds, are used to finance development projects in the Amazon rain forest that result in the destruction of the environment of the indigenous Indian community and cause serious soil pollution through deforestation?
    Mr. Patten: As I said earlier, if I am able to attend the Development Council meeting in May I shall raise the sort of matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because I wish environmental issues to be discussed at such meetings.

    Rotary International (Polio Campaign)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to assist with Rotary International's Polio Plus Campaign overseas.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have agreed to give £1 million to the campaign.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the Government's support for the splendid voluntary initiatives of Rotarians in this country and abroad. What steps are the Government taking elsewhere to eliminate childhood diseases in Africa and in primary health care generally?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an excellent campaign. The Rotarians are to be congratulated
    18
    on their initiative, and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to give the campaign maximum support in their constituencies.
    In addition to the support that we are giving to the campaign, I announced recently an increased contribution of £5 million to UNICEF, much of which will be used to help immunisation programmes in China, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

    Third World Debt
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any new initiatives with regard to the debt problems of Third-world countries.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We are already considering new initiatives and the next opportunity to take these further will be later this week at the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister make the best possible use of that opportunity to stress the urgency of the situation, which is illustrated by what is happening in Brazil, and the need for international action? Will he also note the all-party overseas development group's report on international debt, which will be published shortly after Easter?
    Mr. Patten: I regret Brazil's recent decision to suspend the payment of interest on commercial debt. It is a matter for the Brazilians to discuss directly with the banks, and I hope that negotiations will begin soon.
    On the more general issue of debt, particularly the debt owed by Africa's poorest countries, Britain has played a leading role in discussions about exceptional measures to deal with that problem. We expect further discussions at meetings of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development this week, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will attend. If there are further developments, no doubt he will inform the House. The details of any new measures will take some time to resolve.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: If additional money is made available to the African countries to which my hon. Friend referred, will it be in addition to the current budget, or will it come out of that budget and, therefore, deprive development projects and other schemes of necessary money?
    Mr. Patten: The details have not yet been resolved, but I assure my hon. Friend that new measures would not be at the expense of the existing aid programme.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister will be aware that it is indeed debt, rather than drought, deprivation or disease, that is affecting the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. May we be sure that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses these issues on Friday we shall not have a merely cosmetic response, but that the right hon. Gentleman will address the fact that we need to reschedule the debt of developing countries, to cap interest rate ceilings, especially for sub-Saharan African countries, and to fix their debt repayments as a given percentage of their export earnings? For sub-Saharan Africa we need, in particular, a write-down, if not a write-off, of a major share of that debt. May we have an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will address those issues rather than talk, talk and talk again about the problem?
    Mr. Patten: As ever, the Chancellor's response will be profound rather than superficial.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend reread the Pentateuch with regard to years of jubilee and debt remission and see whether it has any application to our present problems with the Third world?
    Mr. Patten: That point has already been made to me by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, though I am not sure that it would read the Pentateuch in exactly the same way as would my hon. Friend.

    Multilateral Organisations
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom aid goes through multilateral organisations other than the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Chris Patten: In 1985–86, 23 per cent.—that is £279 million— of the gross aid programme went to multilateral organisations other than the European Community.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that many Opposition Members would like to see that proportion increased, since it is very much in the interests of developing countries that, as far as possible, aid should be without the sort of strings that generally accompany it when it is provided on a national or multilateral basis through the EEC? Can he assure us that he is actively seeking to change that percentage in the right way?
    Mr. Patten: I find that for about 50 per cent. of the time I am criticised for our multilateral contributions going up too much, and the other 50 per cent. of the time I am criticised on the other flank with regard to our bilateral contributions. I believe that we have the balance about
    20
    right. I was particularly pleased recently that we were able to make a contribution of £524 million to the replenishment of the International Development Association. The hon. Gentleman will also know about our contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development special programme for Africa and to the UNICEF global immunisation programme, which I mentioned earlier.

    Africa
    Gristasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by the British Government to follow up the programme of action agreed at the United Nations special session on Africa last May.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Since the special session we have made new pledges of over £180 million in bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa, excluding emergency assistance. We have also supported the larger than expected replenishment of the International Development Association, up to half of which will go to Africa. I have also agreed to contribute to the IFAD special programme for sub-Saharan African countries.
    Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that African Governments are coming to their senses over the management of their economies? Has he discussed that with any African Governments recently?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, I am very pleased about the extent to which many aid recipients in Africa are embarking on structural adjustments and policy reform programmes. I was in Tanzania recently, where I pledged £25 million in support of policy reform, making a total of £50 million pledged in the past year.

Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fresh evidence of hon. Members making multiple share applications, will the Government now make a statement, and will the Attorney-General also make a statement on the attitude of the DPP? May we have confirmation that everyone is equal under the law?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, not a matter of order or for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  INFANT LIFE (PRESERVATION) AND PATERNAL RIGHTS
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels, supported by Sir John Biggs-Davison, presented a Bill to reduce the period of pregnancy which for the purposes of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is evidence that a woman is pregnant of a child capable of being born alive and to provide for the father of the unborn child to be consulted where a termination is intended: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 May and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft British Nuclear Fuels plc (Financial Limit) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

  Opposition Day
  [IITH ALLOTTED DAY]

  Social and Economic Policies
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move:
  That this House notes with concern the increasing divisions within British society; condemns the Government for the constant pursuit of policies which have widened these divisions; and loold forward to the time when a Government is elected which is committed to the creation of one nation.
  May I begin by expressing my personal regret that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the Social Democratic party, is not with us today.
  Dr. David Owen rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: May I express my gratitude for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has returned from what I understand was his mission to open Joanna Southcott's box, in order to predict more accurately the dates of flood, famine, pestilence and the end of the world. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no prediction to make about the second coming, as he believes that that has happened already. I shall now turn from the right hon. Member for Devonport to serious matters.
  This debate is about a divided nation and a Government with double standards, a Government who insist that the highest paid must be paid more to increase incentives, but insist equally that the lowest paid must be paid less to preserve jobs. This debate is about a Government who can afford to abandon the investment income surcharge, but who can afford an increase in pensions of only 80p. It is about a Government who claim to support the family and family values but who increase homelessness, force families into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and prevent husbands from coming to Britain to join their British wives because those husbands are black or Asian.
  The double standards of the Government are exemplified and demonstrated by the claims that they are making about the success of their economic policies. The Prime Minister says, and will repeat with increasing stridency in the weeks ahead, that Conservatism has produced prosperity.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hattersley: I expected that someone would say that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me, if that is true and we have the unique prosperity which the hon. Gentleman claims and about which he cheers, why we cannot afford to pay pensioner couples an additional £8 and a single pensioner £5 more, thus taking a major step towards returning pensions to the levels that they would have been had the Government not broken the link between increases in pensions and increases in earnings?
  If we are so prosperous, why can we not increase child benefit by £3 a week, thus increasing its purchasing power and helping the hardest-hit families? If the economy is so

  23
  buoyant, or our prosperity so certain and secure, why can we not provide a decent system of unemployment benefit for the 1·3 million men and women who have been out of work and on the dole for a year or more? There is now a greater number of long-term unemployed than the sum total of unemployed people in 1979. Why, if we are so prosperous a nation, do the Government make mean little cuts in maternity grant, death grant, housing benefit and mortgage relief for the unemployed?
  The Government claim that they have created an economic miracle and define "economic miracle" as an average rate of growth of less than 1·4 per cent. a year, yet they refuse point blank to provide help for the hard-pressed families, pensioners and the unemployed. Either the claims of economic success are bogus, or the Government simply do not care about pensioners, the unemployed and the sick and poor.
  Anyone who denies that the Tory party has cynically survived on double standards should answer two questions. What does the House imagine that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) would say to an unemployed man in his constituency who made six separate applications for supplementary benefit? Would he say that such a man had done nothing wrong, or would he excuse that man because he claimed that he did not under the rules? What would the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) say about a woman in his constituency——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The tradition is that we do not criticise hon. Members, except by motion.
  Mr. Hattersley: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, your final comments were inaudible because of objections from my hon. Friends——
  Mr. Speaker: I said except by motion.
  Mr. Hattersley: May I make two points? First, I notified each of the hon. Members that I intended to refer to them. Secondly, the notion that we do not criticise one another on matters such as this will come as a surprise to some of my hon. Friends. If you, Mr. Speaker, instruct me to abandon the points with regard to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn or the hon. Member for Ludlow, I shall do so, although I suspect that the country will not abide by your ruling and that we shall hear more about it in other places on other occasions.
  I turn from the double standards—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound by the rules of the House.
  Mr. Hattersley: I say to my hon. Friends that I shall abide by your ruling. The point has been made, and it will be made, made and made again outside the House.
  I turn from the double standards of the Tory party to the facts about the divided nation which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to pursue.
  Britain is a deeply divided society, and the gulf between the classes, regions and races has widened continually, consistently and comprehensively since 1979. It has not happened by chance or coincidence. The widening gulf between the rich and the rest, north and south, inner cities and outer suburbs, working and unemployed and black and white is the direct result — indeed, the intentional outcome—of government policy. That is the natural and
  24
  inevitable outcome of the new Conservatism. The philosophers of the new Right, for whom the Prime Minister has open and apparently unrestrained admiration, base their hope of progress on increasing inequality. It is clear that——
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am asked what is wrong with that. Will you allow me to criticise the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker? I shall probably refer to him precisely.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course.
  Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman and I were brought up in Sheffield during the 1950s and 1960s. He is saying that what has happened in Sheffield, among other places in the north, is the result of the Government's policies. Does he accept that what happened in Sheffield and other places throughout the north, north-west and north-east is the product of the decline that set in after the war, which had nothing to do with this Government, who have done a geat deal to sort out the problems and to restore economic prosperity to this country?
  Mr. Hattersley: I would not accept that for a second. The hon. Gentleman boasts, as he is entitled to do, because it is a matter of great credit that he was born and brought up in Sheffield, but I hope that he will join me in congratulating Sheffield city council, which is sometimes derided by Ministers as a loony left council, on the commendation that it has received from the Department of Education and Science for running one of the best education systems in Britain.
  I want to deal with the philosophy of the new Right and its tactics, which have been based and built on that philosophy. It is clear that Conservative tacticians believe that by neglecting the men and women whose votes they have already lost — the unemployed, the ethnic minorities and the one-parent families — they can concentrate resources on the purchase of votes in the prosperous south and in the prosperous suburbs. I believe that the modern Conservative party is profoundly wrong in that judgment and that its error of underestimating the British people was demonstrated in its Budget strategy. The Government had £6 million to spend, and they chose not to invest it on our future. All the evidence remains that it was not the Budget that the people needed and wanted.
  The Labour party and I believe that the lasting and real success of this country, whether it is to be measured by a reduction in the crime rate or by increases in national income, is dependent upon the creation of one nation in which every citizen feels part of the whole community, with a vested interest in society's success. A more equal society will be a more prosperous society and a more peaceful society. The vast majority of the people want to see the freer and fairer society against which the Tory Government have turned their face.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly, as in the terms of the motion, referred to one nation. Will he, in the forthcoming election, give Scotland and Wales the message that they are fighting for one nation?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will discover as my speech continues that I prudently make a point of not

  25
  referring to the regions, but refer to the nations and the regions. This is explicitly intended to meet the hon. Gentleman's point. If he wants me to elaborate, I shall do so. I agree with the point about the nationhood of Wales and Scotland. I deeply resent the idea that Wales and Scotland have been written off economically and socially by the Government. That is the view of many people who do not live in those two nations.
  The Conservative Central Office is wrong to believe that the haves have no concern for the welfare and prospects of the have-nots. The well-off, the well-housed and the well-educated realise that they have the strongest vested interest in living in a society which is not ravaged by poverty and unemployment and which does not deny a decent house to millions of its families, does not discriminate against the black and Asian British, does not deny full-time education to working-class teenagers and does not provide a declining level of medical care for those families who cannot afford private treatment. The British people have more compassion and more commonsense than the chairman of the Tory party realises.
  With the general election approaching, the more intelligent Conservatives will attempt to obscure the hard face of the real Tory party. Last Saturday the cosmetic treatment was applied by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Energy, both of whom spoke in Oxford about disadvantage and deprivation.
  My constituency is part of the inner city of Birmingham. let me tell those two right hon. Members what has happened since they joined the Government in terms of disadvatage and deprivation in the inner city that I know best. In my inner city ward, male unemployment is now almost 50 per cent. Improvement grants planned and promised by a Tory council cannot be financed. Career teachers in the secondary schools are being retrained to help young people face four or five continuous years on the dole. I hope that during the forthcoming election campaign the Prime Minister will come to Sparkbrook and express the Government's concern about the conditions in the inner cities. I can promise her a peaceful, but spontaneous, reception.
  Mr. John Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: T will, probably for the last time, but certainly to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that my constituency is also in the west midlands, not far from his. If things are as had as he says, why is the Conservative party leading so heavily in national polls, and even leading by several points in the west midlands?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman, who has spent so much of his time parading traditional values, ought to spend a moment thinking, not about opinion polls, but about the real lives of the real people that we are debating. Those people include the 50 per cent. of male unemployed in my constituency, in whose interest I deeply resent what is happening as a result of the Government's policies.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that while his party and the alliance parties understand the inner cities, which are, mainly, no-go areas for the Government, the difference is that the alliance parties also understand and represent the rural poverty which exists in those areas, from which the Labour party is now entirely excluded?
  Mr. Hattersley: I apologise to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) because his triviality has been matched by the triviality of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I intend to do what is expected of the Opposition and that is to talk about real people with real problems, and about the way in which those problems, have been intensified during the last nine years.
  The problem that we see in the inner cities is the most dramatic and desperate manifestation of our divided! society. A majority of the British people have a moral objection to these divisions in all their manifestations. I know that all those people pay a price for living in a divided nation, as the the most typical and terrifying example of the penalties demonstrates. In the last eight years there has been a crime explosion in Britain. Total crime has increased by 50 per cent., burglary by 60 per cent., violence against the person by 44 per cent., theft by 39 per cent., and criminal damage—the vandalism that defaces so much of our country — by 91 per cent. In every community there is a growing fear that the crime wave will engulf us all.
  While preaching a crusade against crime and making token attacks on its symptoms, the Government have fostered the conditions in which crime flourishes. The crime rate has escalated because of the great divide—the consumer boom and credit cards on one side, and unemployment on the other. That is not my judgment; it is the opinion expressed by Sir Kenneth Newman, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Between 1979 and 1986, the last year for which figures are available, gross earnings, that is to say the earnings before tax of the lowest paid 10 per cent. of the workers, increased by 80 per cent. Over the same period, the earnings of the most highly paid 10 per cent. rose by 180 per cent.
  The increase received by the lowest paid was exactly the same as the increase in the retail prices index, so, while the rich grew richer, the absolute best that can be said about the real earnings of the poor is that they stood still. Inflation, however, hits low-income families far harder than it hits those higher up the income scale. Indeed, a special inflation index has been constructed for the low-paid. This index rose by 86 per cent. in a period of seven years in which the pre-tax earnings of the low-paid rose by only 80 per cent. At a time when the City began to pay what the Chancellor himself has described as "telephone number salaries", when the Cabinet Secretary's salary was increased by 50 per cent. and when the chairman of British Telecom doubled his own salary to celebrate privatisation, the real value of the gross earnings of the lower paid actually fell.
  That was just the beginning. The gap that separates the income groups—the gulf between the rich and the rest--was actually widened by the tax structure. The Prime Minister always talks about income tax, conveniently ignoring national insurance contributions, which are also a direct tax. On an honest calculation, for a family with two children and one wage of half the national average the tax contribution has risen by 36 per cent., while for a similar family living on one wage of twice the national average the direct tax burden has fallen. Instead of reducing the discrepancy between the living standards of the rich and the rest, the tax system has accentuated it, and the richer the taxpayer, the greater the benefit. The taxpayer with five times average earnings has enjoyed a tax cut of 11·2 per cent., while the taxpayer with 20 times

  27
  average earnings has had a bonanza of 25 per cent. Moreover, that calculation of the burdens placed on lower income families and the benefits heaped on the rich does not even include the near doubling of VAT, a tax by which the least well off are hardest hit.
  The result of changes in gross earnings and tax rates has been, according to the Treasury's own figures, that the richest 10 per cent. have improved their standard of living seven times faster than the poorest 10 per cent. If the Government were re-elected the gap would widen still further, because the income tax cuts in the Budget would be wiped out by a massive increase in VAT. The tax cuts that help the rich will be maintained, but other increases will hit the rest.
  The Paymaster General may seek to justify a system that increases unemployment by more than 2 million and cuts the living standards of the lowest paid, while giving the largest tax reductions—£3·6 billion in a full year—to those who need them least. That £3·6 billion turns out to be just a little more than the amount that we discover today has been denied to pensioners by the break between their annual increases and the level of earnings. A pensioner couple should be receiving £11 per week more than they receive today. When pensioners wonder why the Government have denied them that £11, I hope that the message will go out to them from the Tory party that they should be consoled by the knowledge that their sacrifice has not been in vain, because it has made possible tax cuts of £50 per day for the very highest paid.
  In all these particulars, the Government can at least take credit for consistency. They have not only betrayed the old, who most need help. They have also betrayed the young, with an equal determination to assist the privileged few at the expense of the majority of pupils in our schools and sixth form colleges. The education budget allows £30 billion per year for the assisted places scheme in private schools—a subsidy of £30 million for children who are already advantaged and whose families already enjoy social and financial privilege.
  Meanwhile, state schools are short of books and equipment. Urgent repairs and renovations wait to be done. At the same time, city technology colleges are being established in the most prosperous areas and the inner cities are being neglected. These city technology colleges are, as the new director of the CBI described them a month ago, at best irrelevant. At worst, they are a stark example of the deliberate creation of divisions within society. Thus, we are to have a city technology college in Solihull, while five miles down the road in Sparkbrook valiant work is being done in huge classrooms, in buildings that should have been pulled down 10 to 15 years ago.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services seemed to scoff at me for representing the interests of my constituents. Let me tell him that the perspective of life in Great Britain is slightly different in Sparkbrook from that enjoyed in Sutton Coldfield. I propose, today and in other debates, to speak for the dispossessed, the disadvantaged, the underprivileged and all those who have been penalized——
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)rose——
  Mr. Hattlersley: I shall not give way immediately. I shall give the Secretary of State time in which the Paymaster General can tell him what to say.
  Mr. Fowler: I was objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Solihull. As he well knows, the area that is most improved and advantaged by the facility is Chelmsley Wood, which, of course, is part of Solihull. In the interests of honesty, the right hon. Gentleman should make that clear.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is not true. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I should abide by your ruling better by saying that the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake, or by saying that he invented his answer. The college in Solihull will help most the privileged children of privileged families. Down the road in Sparkbrook, Ladywood and Small Heath, or, for that matter, in inner cities all over the country, there are overcrowded classes, dilapidated buildings, shortage of teachers of English as a second language and of teachers dealing with remedial needs. At the same time——
  Mr. Roger King rose——
  Mr. Peter Lilley rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: —parents are increasingly being asked to pay for or contribute towards essential equipment for their children's education. I am sorry to enrage the Secretary of State's sensitivities, but paying for equipment is one thing in Sutton Coldfield and quite another—it is impossible—in Sparkbrook and areas like it.
  Children who live in underprivileged areas are those most in need of a regular school meal. In 1979 the law required every education authority to provide a midday meal up to a national standard of nutrition, at a national price of 25p. At that time two thirds of all school children had a school meal, but in 1980 the Tory Government abolished the obligation to provide such meals and removed the price limit from them. In areas under Tory-controlled authorities the average price rose from 25p to 67p.
  Inevitably, the number of children taking school meals declined from more than 66 per cent. to barely 50 per cent. The provision of free school meals for those in special need simply does not protect many of the children who most need a school meal. Indeed, all means-tested systems of welfare and benefits inevitably discriminate against the least self-confident, the least articulate and the least determined.
  All hon. Members must know from their constituency surgery work of the problems faced by applicants for discretionary grants, and of the confusion of tenants who are unable to calculate their full entitlement to housing benefit. They must know of the supplementary benefit recipient whose assessment has under-calculated his need. In my constituency surgery, an old, single, confused man —[Laughter] You can see, Mr. Speaker, why some hon. Members vote against televising the Chamber.
  I repeat that I have seen in my constituency surgery an old, single, confused man who was refused a bedding allowance because new regulations introduced by the Government required him first to prove that he had made three attempts to find furnished accommodation. That is a disgrace to a civilised country, and I have no doubt that the complications of the benefit regulations are intended to reduce the number of successful applicants. It is part of

  29
  the Government's campaign against so-called social security scroungers — a campaign which they have pursued with a determination which does not characterise the drive against wrongdoers in the City and in other parts of the community.
  That is another example of Government policy, of Tory conduct and the damage that it does to the welfare of the most underprivileged members of society, but the Government's neglect of the generality of families is equally blatant and undeniable. Increases in child benefit are the most direct and cheapest way of helping low and moderate-income families, but increases in child benefit have not kept pace with increases in the cost of living. Their real value has fallen during the past eight years. That leads me to ask the Paymaster General a direct question on the subject. I shall give way immediately if he wishes to reply. Does he believe that child benefit should at least maintain its real value? As he knows, it has lost value during the past eight years. Does he agree that, as a minimum,
  "it is therefore essential to put this benefit in some relationship to the index-linking and regular review procedure"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1975: c. 149.]
  The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I seem to remember speaking of voting for that during the period of hyper-inflation caused by the Labour Government, and I seem to remember the right hon. Gentleman voting against it.
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman believed it then, but he does not believe it now that his talents have been recognised and he has been elevated to the glory of special assistant to Lord Young. I believe it now, and I believe that it should be introduced in a way that protects families and concentrates resources on them. All the evidence confirms that the families most in need, the 4 million unemployed, pensioners and families on wages that hold them below the poverty line, suffer from multiple deprivation under the Government. All the deprivations — low income, reduced services, reduced benefits, deteriorating housing and increasingly inadequate medical care—come together.
  In Britain today, 800,000 families are in need of decent housing. Those families live in multiple occupation, in homes unfit for human habitation and in slums and tenements. The Building Employers Confederation reports an annual shortfall between demand and supply of 100,000 houses. That annual shortfall, like the total shortage, is the direct result of the Government's abandonment of public sector housebuilding. In 1978, 107,000 municipal houses were built in Britain. Last year the total was barely a quarter of that, at 31,000. Homelessness has doubled since the Government were elected, and let there be no doubt why that is: the Government have turned their back on those in greatest housing need. Meanwhile, the highest earners with the largest mortgages enjoy the highest tax relief on their investments and on their appreciating assets.
  The remedy for the housing crisis will come when we again begin to build public sector housing. That process will help in the general reduction of unemployment, which has been the prime cause of increased poverty during the past eight years. The indictment of the Government for the jobs that they have lost and the unemployment that they have caused demonstrates two distinct tragedies: first, the widening gulf between those who are at work and those
  30
  who are unemployed; and, secondly, the widening gulf between the nations and the regions of the United Kingdom.
  In East Anglia, employees in work have increased by 8·5 per cent. in eight years; in the south-east there has been a job loss of about 2 per cent.; but in Wales the total number of jobs has fallen by almost 17 per cent.; in the north-west by 15 per cent.; in the northern region by 14 per cent.; and in the west midlands by 10 per cent. Exactly the same pattern applies for the long-term unemployed. In the west midlands, almost a third of the unemployed have been without work for more than a year. In the north and north-west, it is almost as bad at 29 per cent. To the Government, Scotland, Wales, the north, the north-west and the industrial midlands are distant countries about which they know little—and care even less.
  A similar rule—neglect of those most in need—has applied to the provision of health care.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my borough, which is in an area of high unemployment, low wages and the rest, no council dwellings have been built since 1979, simply because of Government policy? Does he know that more than 1,000 pensioners with firm medical recommendations from community physicians are waiting for special old-age pensioners' bungalows? Most of those people will never be rehoused. That is the deplorable state of public sector housing in my borough.
  Mr. Hattersley: The tragedy of my hon. Friend's example is that it is not unique, but I do not diminish the importance of his point by saying that. Similar conditions apply throughout the country. They apply — this compounds the disgrace— in an economy that is soon to be projected as the most successful economy in Western Europe. Of course, that is untrue, and it undermines the Conservatives's claim to have anything resembling care and compassion for the people of the country.
  The report from the Health Education Council entitled "The Health Divide", which managed to escape from the clutches of its Tory chairman last week, confirms my point. The report's conclusions are simple and stark. The health of upper income families has improved much more rapidly than has the health of families on low incomes. In some cases, the health of poorer families has deteriorated. The health divide is also a life expectancy divide, for the risk of death from coronary heart disease decreased by 12 per cent. among the professional classes, but increased by 6 per cent. among manual workers.
  The report's conclusions have been challenged, but all the evidence supports the view that the report is correct. I offer four suggestions as to why it is wholly vindicated. First, it has been attacked by Woodrow Wyatt, the Plato of the News of the World When the Government are especially worried, they wheel out their most consistent toady to address the subject in the style and grammar of a Monday Club newsletter. Perhaps more important in terms of the report's credibility, "The Health Divide" does no more than confirm the class differences in health prospects and life expectancy which have already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. It was the message of the Black report, which the Government tried to suppress eight years ago. Last year, Social Trends recorded that variations in the standard mortality rate by

  31
  social classes were as high in recent years as they were 50 years ago. Only last August a survey of health prospects, led by the Lancet, concluded:
  "The social gap has widened. Widening in equalities between social groups are evident in mortality from lung cancer, coronary heart disease and cerebrovasculic disease."
  Some critics of the report have suggested that it does not show the neglect in health care provided for the low-paid, but simply demonstrates that the low-paid are inherently unhealthy and that they are increasing in numbers. To argue that case is not to refute the report, but to confirm its basic premise. Low-income families are at greater risk from illness. Unemployment has increased to almost 4 million. Families living on or below the supplementary benefit level have increased by 50 per cent. to nearly 9 million during the lifetime of the Government. The health care of those families in special need, who should have been compensated for their deprivation, has been scandalously neglected.
  I shall give one example—if pressed I shall gladly give more—of the coincidence between low employment and low subsistence levels and standards of health care. In Liverpool, over the past eight years, 22 per cent. of the total number of jobs has been lost. At the same time, in that area of unique deprivation, the Merseyside hospital authority has lost 16 per cent. of its hospital beds.
  The tragedy of that situation is that the deprivation is transmitted from generation to generation. That is the message of every survey ever conducted into deprivation in this country. That is why the National Childrens Bureau once wrote of children in the inner cities that they were "born to fail." That is the meaning of the cycle of deprivation, about which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) used to lecture us 10 years ago.
  By dividing the nation the Government are prejudicing the prospects and destroying the hopes of both deprived and dispossessed members of this generation, and are doing exactly the same damage to their children and grandchildren. It is above all that reason — the permanent damage that it has done, and is doing, to this country — that makes the Conservative party wholly unfit to govern.
  4.10 pm
  The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "notes" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "the Government's commitment to seeing all citizens of the United Kingdom share in the increased prosperity and improved public services resulting from the economic policies it is pursuing and applauds the Government's continuing commitment to the principles of one nation.".
  The speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was widely billed in some of this morning's newspapers as the relaunch of the Labour party in advance of the general election. If that is what was intended, it seems to me that the already melting number of Labour Members is a poor turnout for this great occasion.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am going, too.
  Mr. Clarke: This is an Opposition Supply day. I have no doubt that Opposition Members have made the same
  32
  decision as a high proportion of Members of the House — namely, that that story has all been heard before, and, as has just been revealed, the relaunch is a relaunch of all the same ideas and all the same policies, rehashed in the usual way.
  The first stage of the rocket got off to a bad start. Having arrived at the last moment, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to be a little flustered and breathless, no doubt having just had a good lunch in the City, which I do not begrudge him. Having failed to notice the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in his place only four seats away, the right hon. Gentleman threw away a good joke. I suspect that the failure to see the right hon. Member for Devonport was a Freudian slip; a case of wishful thinking in view of the present state of play in the opinion polls. I advise the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to get a little more used to that gap along the Front Bench because, from the Government Benches, it seems that the two right hon. Members will be changing seats after the election and that the right hon. Member for Devonport will speak from the Dispatch Box, while the Labour party will have moved below the Gangway. That will be the Labour party's fate if the attack on the Government's policy that the Opposition motion represents is pursued. It is fundamentally mistaken.
  I refer, first, to the allegations about the Government in the Opposition motion. The Government are committed to encouraging a society in which wealth is created, a society in which that wealth creation benefits all our citizens, and a society which offers equality of opportunity, above all, to all its citizens. Our concern is to ensure that our people are better off, that they all enjoy rising standards of living, a better quality and quantity of health, better quality education and better public services, all of which we are achieving.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Of course, that does not imply that what we are seeking to create is a uniform society in which there are no differences. To some extent, differences are bound to exist. Those differences will change, and always do change, in any society as the economy changes. It will always be the case, and always has been, that at any given moment some industries in some areas may prosper and develop more than elsewhere. Over any given period, earnings in some occupations will rise more than others because skills and talents in limited supply will be rewarded more highly. That is inevitable. It is part of the process of society in history.
  However, differences are not the same as divisions, and people who try to elevate the differences that exist into divisions within a society are doing that society a gross disservice. Socialists have always based their politics and their approach to politics on an emphasis on the divisions in society. It is in their interests to paint those divisions in exaggerated colours. They need to point to divisions in society as the justification for state activity to tax and spend on particular interests.
  Conservatives, on the other hand — members of the present Government—do not believe in huge inequalities in income or differences in lifestyle. As I have said, we believe, and we have always stated that we believe, in equality of opportunity. We believe in the stability of

  33
  society that the idea of "one nation"— a classic Tory philosophy—creates. As every trade unionist knows who has argued about differentials, as all trade unionists have at some time, differences of income have a purpose in society. They encourage people to develop the skills that are in demand. They provide incentives for people to advance, to lead and to change society for the better.
  Let me give an example. I find it odd that the party that talks with concern about the brain drain complains about all wider income differences. Surely we all recognise that a major response to such a problem is to raise the incomes of top scientists and, if possible, to reduce their tax rates. The Labour party says, "Give them more facilities, but bring back punitive tax rates." Would that stop the brain drain? I beg to differ. Our policy would produce bigger earnings differences, but it would also encourage scientists to work and create more wealth in our society, and that is beneficial for everyone.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: What about the nurses?
  Mr. Clarke: The nurses have had a bigger increase in their real living standards in recent years under the Government than they had under the Labour Government. Their living standards fell under the Labour Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I are back in harness again today, and we well remember the strike in the Health Service, supported by the Labour party, when the biggest objection that the Labour party and trade unions had to the settlement that we were endeavouring to make was that we were paying the nurses a bigger increase than was paid to people in the unions affiliated to the Labour party. That strike was extended by the Labour party because it did not want us to pay more to nurses than to the people in the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, to which the Labour party is so indebted. We set up the review body. We have given a real increase in living standards to nurses, and the Labour party tried to block every step along the way. I am talking about inequalities in income and the higher position of nurses in the earnings league table. That is a product of what we have done.
  The mistake that is made over and over again by the Opposition is to assume that any changes that widen differences, as long as they are not called differentials, are always harmful, but such changes can be beneficial to everyone in society—I stress, everyone—simply because total wealth and income are raised. If one uses incentives and rewards intelligently, everyone can share in that growth. Someone has to create wealth before the politicians fall to sharing that wealth out.
  I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook does not agree. It would be surprising if he did. We would not be on opposite sides of the House if we agreed. The right hon. Gentleman made it most clear in the postmortem of the Labour party's election defeat, when he went on a "Newsnight" special on 31 July 1983 and said :
  "We are not the party of equality of opportunity. That is a view of society of the Conservative party…We are the party of equalty of outcome".
  That was the main thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman said today. The result was that he made a great deal in his speech, when he got down to it, and spoke eloquently of the faster earnings growth of the better off in society. Obviously, he objected to that.
  34
  If we look at the percentage changes in real take-home pay while the Government have been in office, it is true that between 1978–79 and 1987–88 people on five times average earnings enjoyed real increases in pay greater than those on half average earnings. We took away all the higher, punitive rates; I do not deny that. As a result, those on five times average earnings received an increase in real take-home pay of 38 per cent., compared to an increase of 20 per cent. for those on half average earnings. People at every level of earnings received a remarkable increase in take-home pay.
  Perhaps single people on half average earnings would have preferred the position under Labour between 1973–74 and 1978–79, when they did better compared to those on five times average earnings. However, it is only a comparison between the two periods. Between 1973–74 and 1978–79 the low earners lost only I per cent. in real take-home pay, while those on five times the average lost 18·5 per cent. The Labour party was happier when its policies resulted in everyone becoming poorer in terms of take-home pay, but the very low-paid becoming poorer at a slower rate than the very highly paid.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made much of the fact that a higher proportion of earnings is paid in tax now than in 1979.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the figures that the Minister has quoted are correct, why do the Treasury tables published in the second week of January show that the lowest decile had increases of only 3·5 per cent. over the appropriate period? That does not even meet the increase in inflation as measured by the low-income inflation index.
  Mr. Clarke: The earnings of the lowest decile—that is those who at one time are in the lowest 10 per cent. of earnings; it is not the same people all the time— kept pace with inflation. I have the answer here, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who was making such convoluted comparisons that he had to read his text especially carefully when he came to his earnings and taxation figures. He is being highly selective. He knows perfectly well that a comparison of the period from 1973–74 to 1978–79 with that from 1979 to now shows that the entire population have received much larger increases in take-home pay recently than they did under Labour, and that significant sections of the population suffered actual decreases under Labour. Equal misery was the policy of the last Labour Government. People are now sharing in growing prosperity.
  Mr. Hattersley: I ask a simple question. Are the Treasury figures right, or wrong? During the Government's term of office, have average earnings in the lowest decile increased by 3·5 per cent.? That is a simple statistical question. Is the answer yes, or no? If it is yes, all that the Minister said a moment ago is nonsense.
  Mr. Clarke: The answer is yes, but all that I said a moment ago is not nonsense. Those people have received a real increase.
  Mr. Hattersley: An increase of 3·5 per cent. in eight years?
  Mr. Clarke: That is much better than what the Labour party achieved. The figures that I quoted for those on half average earnings and those on five times the average. and the figures for married and for single people across the incomes bracket, are vastly better in terms of take-home

  35
  pay than anything achieved during the years of total economic failure under the last Labour Government. The partial quotations given by the right hon. Gentleman cannot conceal that.
  The right hon. Gentleman also made much of the fact that a higher proportion of earnings is now paid in tax than in 1979, and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is anxious to repeat that allegation. I find complaints about the high level of tax a somewhat curious tactic for the Labour party to employ. One of the daftest moments that I recall in the Chamber during the past few months—indeed, one of the daftest moments for several years—was when the Leader of the Opposition attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Question Time for her policy of high taxation. Those who believe that the Labour party is criticising us for reducing taxation too much should note that on 12 February—it is at column 456 of the Official Report—the Leader of the Opposition called my right hon. Friend "high-taxer Thatcher". That contrasts rather with the reaction to the Budget by the Labour party and, indeed, the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
  The figures for take-home pay that I have just cited show that those in work are much better off now that they are paying a higher proportion of their higher incomes in taxation. The secret behind what we all realise is a great increase in living standards for those in work is that real earnings have risen substantially, whereas they did not rise before we began the economic revival. We have experienced such a significant rate of economic growth, and such a significant increase in real earnings, that people in work are very much better off. They can afford to pay more taxes, and those taxes are being used to provide better public services.
  When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was making his tax comparisons, he neglected, in his excitement, to mention that if the present tax system were the same as the system in 1979, people would be paying a much higher proportion of their incomes in tax.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister is rehearsing the passage, which I anticipated, about how well the economy is doing. Will he answer the question that I related to that? If we are doing so well, why can we not afford to pay pensioners an increase related to average earnings?
  Mr. Clarke: We have more than maintained the real value of the pension at a time when the number of pensioners has increased by 1 million, as we did throughout the economic recession that dogged the first two years of our period of office, when we were assigned to sort out the mess left behind. I shall return to the question of pensioners in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman will not then laugh at our record on pensions compared to that of his Government. Pensioners, along with the rest of society, have benefited considerably from the improved prosperity that we now enjoy.
  I have dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's points about incomes and tax. I do not believe that rising real incomes for those in work are the answer to everything. In my present job, I am acutely aware of the danger that increasing real incomes may go only to those in work and that growth in the economy may pass by the unemployed — especially the long-term unemployed. We cannot allow society to divide into a group of insiders becoming
  36
  better off in work, and a group of outsiders remaining in low incomes for long periods. Pay bargaining can easily reflect that, particularly the kind of pay bargaining often encouraged by the Labour party.
  The reason why academics often ask why pay restraint has taken a long time to be achieved, despite high unemployment, is that trade unions and employers have no interest in remembering the long-term unemployed when negotiating settlements" but that has been the whole point of our policies on employment, work experience and training for the last two or three years. We must ensure that the long-term unemployed—indeed, all unemployed people — do not become outsiders. We want to take them back into the main stream of the economy. The measures that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I keep pushing forward are intended to achieve that in a more purposeful way than has so far been attempted. We have also concentrated on regional differences and the inner cities in all our activities in the Department of Employment, the Manpower Services Commission and wide parts of the Government. We have an ambitious range of employment and training measures to ensure that the unemployed are drawn back into the labour market to enjoy the benefits already enjoyed by those in work.
  We are spending about £3 billion this year, and we are spending it where it is most needed. In the present financial year the Manpower Services Commission has spent roughly twice as much per head of the labour force in the areas—usually categorised as the north, hut to be found in various parts of the country—where the decline of traditional manufacturing industry has had the greatest effect on jobs, as it has spent elsewhere. We are targeting our policies to ensure that divisions in society are not created and to ensure that the more prosperous economy that we are producing provides benefits for those who might otherwise be excluded.
  Our spending has been concentrated on the young and the long-term unemployed. We know that every young person needs training, and a sound introduction to working life, as soon as he leaves school. That is what we offer through the YTS, on which every 16 and 17-year-old school leaver is now guaranteed a place, so that none of them need be unemployed any longer.
  Many of the long-term unemployed need personal help, and we provide that in our restart interviews, which are intended to help them return to the labour market. From now on we offer that help, on an individual and personal basis — man-to-man, woman-to-woman or woman-toman—every six months. In this way we shall be giving direct help to over 1 million people.
  The problems that many long-term unemployed face in terms of illiteracy, poor education and a real lack of skill are being tackled by the Government through the job training scheme and job clubs. People are being given motivation and skills to help them back to work. We are also finding new ways to tackle inner-city problems. In the inner-cities initiative we are combining the resources of central Government with the private sector, and with the talents of individual residents, to create opportunities for enterprise and employment in the rundown inner areas of some of our large cities.
  That package of measures cannot be challenged. Each of those policies, all of which are aimed at reducing the

  37
  divisions in our society and helping the disadvantaged, has been belittled and attacked by the Labour party, not least by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not making his "one nation" speech he is fond of attacking all those measures, and he tries to draw on his experience in his own constituency. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever lived in Sparkbrook. I lived for six years in what is now his Sparkbrook constituency. However, I am glad to say that the boundary commissioners did not include my ward in his Sparkbrook constituency, so I was never represented by him. I remember Sparkbrook in the 1960s. It was the first area in any city to which the phrase "inner-city policy" was applied. The Sparkbrook initiative goes back 20 years, when the right hon. Gentleman was first elected. Therefore, his claim that the deprivation in Sparkbrook has been created by Thatcherism and the Tory Government is a little wide of the mark to those who know the area that he represents.
  It is not true that every part of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is deprived. The areas that will be served by the city technology college are not so deprived as the prosperous bits of Moseley that fall inside his constituency. However, this is not the time to give the right hon. Gentleman an A to Z to Birmingham, in an effort to fend off those who are fighting to deselect him as the Member for Parliament for Sparkbrook. When he attacks job clubs and the restart programme, and when his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East ( Mr. Prescott) — who is not here today—calls the YTS a "skivvy" scheme and tries to undermine all that we are doing for the long-term unemployed, they do damage to the residents of Sparkbrook, and of Peckham, and to people in the north. After listening to today's speech by the right hon. Gentlman, it is clear that the Labour party has no alternative to offer those who find themselves in that position.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: If the Minister is so keen on the restart programme, will he remember that on Merseyside 28,175 people were interviewed under the Government scheme but that only 295 were placed in jobs? That is a 1 per cent. success rate in an area of massively high youth unemployment. Furthermore, youth unemployment is fuelling the drugs problem in that area.
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman tables a question about that matter—he may already have done so —I shall make yet another attempt to clarify that point, as I do for every Opposition Member. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred relates to those who have been directly placed in jobs after an interview. I have explained over and over again that that is no measure of those who find work after training, under the enterprise allowance scheme, and all the other opportunities that they are given. This is yet another example of a Labour Member of Parliament seeking to belittle a highly successful scheme, simply because Opposition Members are terrified that we shall be seen to be successful in reducing the number of long-term unemployed. Long-term unemployment is being reduced. In fact, as a result of all Government's policies it has been coming down for the past six months.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the Labour party wishes to have a debate about alienation, division and deprivation in our society. Will he tell the House why it is that alienation, poverty, unemployment and deprivation are far worse in Labour-controlled local authority areas than they are in the rest of the country?
  Mr. Clarke: It is partly because of the poverty in some of those areas, but in many of them it is due to the policies of Labour-controlled local authorities, not all of which are in London. They contribute to the problem and do nothing to try to eliminate it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  The Labour Government have nothing to contribute by way of an alternative to those schemes. We are giving training, work experience and opportunities to the young and the long-term unemployed. We are also tackling the inner-city problems. The right hon. Gentleman's solution to heal the divisions in our society is to tax the rich and to spend that money on the poor. That is a beguilingly straightforward solution.
  In a speech last year the right hon. Gentleman announced for the first time that the Labour party would use the £3·6 billion that it claimed, slightly erroneously, had been given in tax cuts to the most highly paid 5 per cent. in our country, to raise the level of state benefits for various groups of voters. As the two are sitting side by side today, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should check with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) what is the Labour party's policy, because it seems from the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that he would use some of the same money for a domestic insulation programme and for winter premiums to help to pay fuel bills. They ought to sort out the divisions in their own ranks and stop spending the same money twice—except that that would reveal that, between them, the Labour shadow Cabinet has pledged to increase public spending by about £34 billion, which would bankrupt the national economy.
  I was asked about pensioners. I am sure that everybody wants more money to be spent on pensioners. However. I am sure also that pensioners recognise that the country can spend money in this way only when it has earned it by creating more wealth. We have more than maintained the real value of the pension, although there are 1 million more pensioners and the country has been emerging from a recession.
  When the Opposition refer to the divisions in our society, they always forget to mention that between 1979 and 1985 the average net income for pensioners rose by 18 per cent.—an average annual rate of just under 3 per cent. That means that those above retirement age have, as a group, done well under this Government and that they can expect to continue to do well. [Interruption.] Of course the world is changing. I want to see good occupational pensions. The Labour party wants people to have just the state pension and state benefit. According to the Labour party, if it is not state benefit it does not count.
  As a group, pensioners have been growing more prosperous. A major reason for that is our pledge to keep inflation low. That is where the real weakness lies in the Opposition's policies. The ravages of inflation in the past

  39
  and the havoc that it created for so many vulnerable members of our society have been too easily forgotten by some members of the public. The Opposition seem to regard as a matter of no consequence the inevitable rise in inflation that would result from their spending policies. Inflation is one of the most divisive and unfair influences that any society can inflict upon itself.
  One key to an examination of inflation as a problem in any debate about the inequalities in our society is that inflation robs the weak and gives to the strong. It harms the saver; it does not harm the borrower. It harms the pensioner; it does not harm the high earner. It harms all those who are unable to adjust their incomes quickly to rising inflation. The yuppie with the big mortgage, the big overdraft and the high earnings will do well out of inflation, if he keeps his job.
  If one talks to many pensioners who are now in their 70s or 80s, one discovers how they were made poorer than they need have been by the hyper-inflation of the Lib-Lab Government of the 1970s, which robbed them of their savings and destroyed the value of the fixed occupational pensions which they had expected to enjoy. The inflation caused by the last Labour Government was one of the most divisive influences in our society and created more poverty than all their spending policies helped to cure. I see no reason why that should change.
  Mr. Jack Straw: I am glad that the Paymaster General has referred to inflation. Will he explain why Lloyds Bank Review, published this morning, considers that the Government's record on inflation, relative to other countries, is worse than that of the last Labour Government's? Will he also explain why, in his stupefyingly complacent speech, he has not once explained that the Government's unemployment record is the worst of all other major industrialised countries, bar one?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman does not often drop his voice at the end of a sentence, so I assume that there is some magic in the little phrase "compared with other countries." If he is trying to claim that the Government's record on inflation vis-a-vis the previous Labour Government's record, and that of the Lib-Lab Government, is poorer it is totally incredible. It is relative to other countries, so it may be that during the 1970s, if one looks at some of the wilder countries — perhaps Italy, Argentina, Uraguay and Brazil had fantastic inflation — the double-figure inflation of the Labour party can by comparison, be made to appear respectable. The fact is that we now have low single-figure inflation.
  Mr. Straw rose——
  Mr. Clarke: My point, which the hon. Gentleman does not like — hence he is trying to go back to weird international comparisons—is that if the Labour party's policies, as they would with £34 billion public expenditure, produce high inflation, that would impoverish pensioners, cause poverty and recreate divisions in society far beyond those that it is contriving to complain about today.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: How does the Paymaster General reconcile his statement of abhorrence of inflation with the fact that, since his Government came to office, we have seen the numbers of homeless inflated to 100,000, house prices in the inner city areas inflated out of reach of
  40
  ordinary people—it is £2·5 million in my constituency for a penthouse flat — and unemployment in the so-called targeted inner cities inflated to 30 per cent., as it is in constituencies such as mine? How is that reconcilable with his great virtuous principles about inflation?
  Mr. Clarke: We have had many debates about unemployment and the hon. Gentleman has attended many of them. We know that in 1979, 1980 and 1981 unemployment rose dreadfully under the impact of the oil price increase and world recession, and under the impact of the over-manning and inefficient state in which we inherited British industry, the level insupportable of subsidy that sustained that industry, and the fact that the country's economy was left at the end of the 1970s in a state in which it could not withstand international competition. He also knows that from 1981 we have steadily recovered, that since 1983 we have created over 1 million additional jobs and that unemployment is now coming down steadily. It came down by a record-breaking amount only last month. We are, as I explained earlier, seeking to extend that into the inner cities.
  The fundamental belief underlying Labour's programme on poverty and on jobs and the Liberal's policy on jobs, remains the belief that more public spending is the best way to create jobs and solve what they see as the ills of our society. That fundamental belief is fundamentally nonsense. It does not mean that one should never increase public spending. We have increased public spending on our public services where they require it. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook selected various services to try to disprove that.
  Mr. Raynsford rose——
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way shortly, but I have given way quite a lot.
  At the weekend, in one of the Sunday newspapers, I saw a specimen of one of the advertisements that the Labour party will put out to try to show that somehow, in the recovery of our economy, public services have been cut back. It was an advertisement about health care, so it took me back to the days when I worked for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Labour Health Service advertisement had a marvellous series of slogans stating that there were "Less beds", "Less staff" and "Less hospitals" and that the Tories could not care less. If the Labour party is to challenge educational standards, it should use the English language correctly. The word "fewer" would have been correct. Leaving that aside, I advise the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, in the launch, to stop relying on the old stuff from the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  With the statement "Less beds", the hon. Member for Oldham, West is still relying on the furniture as a measure of how the Health Service is performing. Presumably he arrives at "Less staff- by not counting those working for private contractors because they are not on the Health Service payroll. He refers to "Less hospitals". He still thinks that if one closes two old Victorian buildings and replaces them with one big modern hospital one is reducing the service. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services replies to the debate he will point out that during the past seven years we have put more money into the Health Service, employed more doctors and nurses, and most important, treated many more patients. That is the result of well

  41
  judged public spending. A key part of the Chancellor's Budget strategy this year was the great increase in public spending that we were able to announce, particularly on health and education. It was first announced in the autumn statement last year.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way? I did ask earlier.
  Mr. Clarke: I am sorry. but I shall not give way.
  The whole experience of the 1960s and 1970s should have taught us that public spending beyond what the economy can afford will not tackle the problems of either unemployment or low income. Indeed, the combination of higher interest rates due to more borrowing, and higher taxation and higher inflation, which will inevitably flow from the increase in public spending, will make people worse off and reduce jobs.
  Mr. Raynsford: I grant that in one area of policy there has been a significant increase in spending recently. We have seen it in expenditure on bed-and-breakfast hotels. Will the Paymaster General tell the House why it is better to spend more money on bed-and-breakfast squalor for homeless families than it would require to build brand new homes that would put people back to work while building them and provide people with better housing?
  Mr. Clarke: No one wants to see money spent on expensive bed-and-breakfast provision. If the Labour local authorities, particularly in London, could tackle the 110,000 empty houses in council ownership, we might make some progress in dealing with that problem as well.
  I was referring to the higher taxation and higher inflation that are likely to make people worse off and reduce jobs. I accept that both the Opposition parties have an answer of sorts to the inflationary problems that their policies would create. The Labour party has a particular problem because of its relationship with the unions. That is made worse by its clear commitment to repeal all our industrial relations legislation. If Labour were in office it would be easier to strike, easier to take secondary action, there would be no need for strike ballots, no restrictions on picketing, and so on. That will make it difficult in inflationary times, as the Labour party is putting up public spending and increasing taxation.
  That could make it impossible to achieve what David Currie and Maurice Peston said in their article in the New Statesman on "Labour's better way". As everybody knows, David Currie and Maurice Peston are the two professors of economics who are largely the authors of Labour's so-called jobs plan. They pointed out what they thought was essential. They said:
  "We must keep the inflation rate under control. That means a planned policy for incomes, not least in the private sector."
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would agree with that, except when he is on a Labour party platform, because in a post-mortem of Labour's last election defeat he described in Tribune on 29 July 1983 what was wrong with Labour's policy. He said:
  "our economic policy was deficient"—
  I do not see the difference between what it was then and what it is now
  "and…was made literally incredible to the public…We flinched from saying what every sensible person knew that to run the economy in the way which we hoped, which was to have a measure of planning, which would give expansion and full employment without inflation, we had to come to an agreement with the trade unions about incomes."
  42
  Presumably what happened was the great meeting last week, with terrific fanfares during the preliminaries of the relaunch. "The national economic assessment" was revealed by the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress as an anti-inflationary device. I have to read what it is called, because I remember it as the "social contracts" and I am sure that it is most familiar to members of the public by that name.
  The Liberals and the Social Democrats are also clearly pledged to go back to another old favourite in order to cure inflation, which also failed when excessive public spending and wage explosions last caused trouble. They are firmly committed to a statutory incomes policy based on a Government dictated "norm", with penalties for deviation. The present Government do not need the old-fashioned quack remedies of the Opposition, because we have cured the disease of inflation. We have increased public spending-- as we have--only after we have first achieved the growth in the economy to pay for it. At the moment inflation is in low single figures. Our unit wage costs are not going up any faster, at long last, than those of our competitors. Therefore, the Opposition do not need the social contract or statutory incomes policies to deal with present problems. They are having to advocate these things to protect themselves against the inevitable consequences of the other policies which the Labour and Liberal parties are advocating, which would bring back inflation, higher taxation and so on.
  To move on to what was most missing from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I point out that the clearest symbol of the difference in outlook between us and the Opposition lies in our attitudes to ownership. That has not been mentioned so far. The concept of ownership no longer features in Opposition speeches, but most members of the public think of ownership as much as incomes when they consider class and other divisions in our society. Socialists used to major on state ownership as a key feature of their egalitarian aims. Now, they have lost confidence in that completely. Our aim has been to spread owernership of houses, of shares, and of pensions as widely as possible. I suspect that the Opposition hankers after a rigid class system in which the mass of people still vote Socialist because they have no stake in anything.
  The way to reduce differences within our society and to widen the opportunities open to our citizens is to spread ownership as widely as possible—ownership in houses, shares and pensions. Some 2·5 million more households own their own homes than in 1979. The tenants' right to buy will ensure that this number continues to rise. Over 5 million more people own shares now than in 1979, with the increase in share ownership widely spread across social groups, and the most marked increase among the less well off. Now, about a fifth of the adult population own shares. Our continued programme of privatisation and the new personal equity plans will ensure that share ownership continues to increase. Personal pensions will add to this sense of ownership and opportunity. Personal pension plans will mean that individuals can have much more control over the way in which their own pension contributions are invested, and will widen their range of choice about both pensions and jobs.
  The Government are committed to helping all our citizens share in improved prospects, both in personal incomes and in public services. This can be achieved only through the ability of our economy to create wealth. It is economic growth which can enable us to enjoy higher

  43
  personal incomes which can both bear the weight of more spending on personal services and give us greater personal disposable income.
  Within the opportunities created by the sound economic growth that we are now enjoying, we are committed to doing everything that we can to help the unemployed into jobs, by raising their work experience, skill and motivation. We shall continue to target income support and benefits on the most vulnerable groups in our society. Above all, we are committed to popular capitalism. Spreading wealth more widely in houses, in shares and in pensions will both give people more control over their own lives and give them more opportunity and incentive.
  I believe that the strategy of faster economic growth, direct help to the unemployed, better public services, paid for by the wealth that our economy can create, and wider ownership are the best route to one nation. It is the greatest cynicism that the Opposition motion refers to "one nation" as though it is a concept suddenly discovered by them. I have always been a one-nation Tory, and I always will be. The Government, judged by any view of their record, are a one-nation Government. On that account, our amendment should be supported, and the motion rejected.
  4.53 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The Paymaster General is asking that we should agree that the House
  "notes the Government's commitment to seeing all citizens of the United Kingdom share in the increased prosperity and improved public services".
  The indictment of the Paymaster General and the Government is that all citizens have not shared equally in that increase in prosperity.
  Mr. Marlow: It does not say "equally".
  Dr. Owen: Exactly. The criticism is that they should have shared equally in it. The hon. Gentleman is open about the fact that his is not an egalitarian party. We are saying that people should have shared far more equally, and, in particular, those people in the direst poverty and those out of work should have been given a greater share of the nation's resources during that time.
  That is a major political division across the Floor of the House. It is reflected in the fact that over 60 per cent. of the people do not support the policies of the Government. Therefore, I shall have to direct quite a lot of my attention to persuading those 60 per cent. that the SDP-Liberal alliance has the best policies for achieving that objective, which is to ensure a fairer and more just society. Before I do that, let us deal with a few of the facts.
  Let us look at what has happened to incomes between 1976 and 1984. First, the poorest, the bottom 5 per cent. of households, have seen their share of total disposable income, after allowing for taxes and benefits, decline from 7 per cent. to just 6·7 per cent. At the other extreme, the richest one fifth improved their share from 38·1 per cent. to 39·7 per cent. Tax cuts, since the change of Government in 1979, have favoured the rich, and Conservative Members would say that that was deliberate. While income tax plus national insurance contributions as a proportion of gross income has increased for the vast
  44
  majority of earners between 1978–79 and 1986–87, it has decreased significantly for higher earners, and it is that imbalance that I shall attack.
  Let us deal, first, because the debate has not concentrated sufficiently on them, with those in poverty. Let us take those who, by any fair standard, are not well off—those living on supplementary benefit. Although it has increased and improved, any hon. Member who has tried living on supplementary benefit has come away saying that it is immensely hard to make ends meet.
  Official figures show that the numbers living on or near the poverty line, as assessed by supplementary benefit level, increased from 11·5 million in 1979 to 16·6 million in 1985. That is a staggering increase by any standard. Nobody would wish to deny that that is a substantial increase in the number of people who have been forced, through many circumstances, not least unemployment, to live on insufficient levels of income.
  With his customary courtesy, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has left the Chamber, so the view of inequality from Gayfere street, which we are used to hearing——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is tea time.
  Dr. Owen: That may be so. First of all, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cannot recognise me sitting in the Chamber. He then makes a rather well prepared joke somewhat ineffectively. It is customary to listen to the speeches made immediately before and after one's own, but let us leave that subject. However, I will not allow his absence to prevent me from examining in some detail the Labour party's proposals for dealing with poverty, and those of the alliance.
  It appears, from everything that the Paymaster General said, that he does not wish to defend the Government's record on poverty. The Secretary of State for Social Services, who will be replying to the debate, I believe, wanted to grapple with the problems of poverty and of the tax and benefits system in a much more imaginative way that he was allowed to do. He must know, looking and dealing with the anomalies of the system day by day, that the need is to integrate the tax and benefits systems. That was the judgment of a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Anthony Barber, now in the other place. That has been the judgment of most who have ever looked at the system. Everyone knows that if one is to integrate the two systems, there has to be an injection of new money to overcome the anomalies.
  The alliance believes that its policies for attacking poverty and the strategy that it has developed are far more effective in concentrating resources on those who most need them than anything that has been proposed by the Labour party. By going for selectivity rather than for universal benefits, we shall be able to target far more resources on the poor, yet cost the Exchequer less. Therefore, it is far more likely that our plan will be introduced. Our proposal does not stem from a vindictive or envious view of society. It has been deliberately aimed so that it will not hit hard or punish those people on above average earnings. It is notable that, in our alternative Budget, the only tax that would be increased is the tax on those people claiming mortgage interest tax relief over and above the standard rate of tax.
  There is only one way to deal with the present position, and that is to be selective and to consider the tax and

  45
  benefit systems overall. First of all, let us consider the cost of the Labour party's programme for dealing with poverty.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No. I want to develop my argument first.
  The cost of the Labour party's programme is £4·7 billion. Some £3·6 billion comes from the Labour party's decision to raise child benefit, to introduce a one-parent family benefit and to raise the pension for everyone and the winter premium. The remaining £1·1 billion comes from a national minimum wage of £80 a week. I believe that that figure has been conservatively estimated. It does not take account of the extraordinary effect that increasing the minimum wage will have on differentials when negotiators strive to maintain the differentials. The cost of the minimum wage is far more extravagant than has currently been thought through. What is more, it will not deal with the serious problem of the person on low wages with many children in the family.
  Let us consider the alliance strategy and compare it with Labour's. We thought that child benefit should go up by only £1 a week because that goes to everyone. We are also determined to make it available to unemployed families, thereby concentrating that addition on people who are already suffering. Therefore, as well as going to those in work, that benefit would go to unemployed families as a result of our new basic benefit reform. Therefore, unemployed families — the poorest in our society—under the alliance proposals will be £8·25 a week gross better off or £4·25 a week net with no change to free school meals or milk. That is far better than what the Labour party hopes to achieve.
  When we consider basic benefit, we will add £5 a week to the new family credit, replacing family income supplement which the Secretary of State will introduce in 1988, and income support replacing supplementary benefit, thus helping those in work and the unemployed. Basic benefit is withdrawn as income rises, so targeting resources where they are needed most. The effect is that families in work will be £6 a week better off with one child —£5 plus £1 child benefit increase. Unemployed families will be £9·25 a week better off with one child—£5 plus £4·25 child benefit. Those benefits are substantially better than those produced by the Labour party.
  The basic pension will increase under the alliance proposals by £2·30 a week for a single pensioner and by £3·65 a week for a couple. Again, pensioners with no other income, like others, will receive an extra £3·70 a week for a single person and £5·75 a week for a couple. That means in total that the poorer pensioners — I do not believe that we pay enough attention to those people living on the basic pension as we sometimes concentrate too much on those drawing supplementary benefit; the 2 million people between supplementary benefit and the basic pension have suffered the worst, in my view—will receive £6 a week under the alliance proposals for a single person and £9·40 a week for a married couple. Again, those proposals are far better than the Labour party's proposals.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No; I am trying to develop my argument.
  The fourth item that must be addressed is the question of the long-term unemployed. We still intend to give long-term supplementary benefit rates to long-term childless
  46
  couples and the unemployed. That will provide an extra £8·10 a week for a single person and £11·25 a week for a couple who have been out of work for 12 months or more. Most people have accepted that the long-term unemployed suffer seriously from poverty. We must have a mechanism to concentrate extra benefit on them.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No.
  The cost of those proposals is £2·2 billion over two years, less the saving for mortgage tax relief of £0·4 million. That is less than the cost of the Labour party's plan and it can be financed within the Budget strategy that the alliance identifies. That makes sense.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley rose——
  Dr. Owen: I believe that that makes sense, and it is far better in concrete and specific terms than anything that Labour has proposed.
  Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that exposition. That was the third or fourth statement of SDP plans and it is difficult to know which is being referred to or whether there is bound to be another when further anomalies have been found. On the first occasion, £600 million was added to the original plan to stop people——
  Dr. Owen: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is asking a question, and consequently I shall continue my speech.
  Mr. Meacher rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman had given way. Mr. Michael Meacher.
  Mr. Meacher: As the right hon. Gentleman raised five points, I shall ask him five questions.
  Dr. Owen: This is an intrusion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Having given way, the right hon. Gentleman must allow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to intervene. Mr. Michael Meacher—briefly, please.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he reaches his figure of £4·7 billion when there has been no negotiated figure for the national minimum wage? Secondly——
  Dr. Owen: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should have heard what I said. He must not persist. There is only one occupant of the Chair at a time in this place. The right hon. Gentleman must not persist. Mr. Michael Meacher—briefly, please.
  Mr. Meacher: Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that child benefit already goes to the unemployed? He does not appear to understand that basic point. Thirdly, if he proposes a basic benefit for combined supplementary benefit and family income supplement, how does he explain the fact that that will greatly worsen the poverty trap?
  Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we have a ruling from the Chair as to the length of time an intervention can be made in——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given a ruling. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not persist. He is only delaying his own speech and the proceedings. Mr. Michael Meacher, very briefly please.
  Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under his proposal the long-term unemployed would receive £8 and £11 while under our proposal there would be a 25 per cent. increase of £12 a week?
  Fifthly how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the cost will be as low as £2 billion when we believe it will be nearer to £3 billion or £4 billion?
  Dr. Owen: I hope that Mr. Speaker, when he looks at Hansard, will give some thought as to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dr. Owen rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has been a Member of this House and has held senior positions over a long period. I very much hope that he will respect the Chair and the rulings of the Chair. Mr. Winnick, on a point of order.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not the long-established custom of the House that when a right hon. or hon. Member gives way, if the hon. Member making the intervention carries on for too long it is the Chair's responsibility? It has happened time and again and the Chair has ruled accordingly. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour arrogant and totally unacceptable in this House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not ungrateful for the support that appears to be given to the Chair. However, I remind the right hon. Member for Devonport that I hope he is not reflecting on the conduct or rulings of the Chair. He has been a Member of the House long enough to know that he must not do that.
  Dr. Owen: I am certainly not reflecting on the conduct of the Chair.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no intention of attempting to wreck the right hon. Gentleman's speech; he is doing that on his own. However, when a challenge has clearly been made to your ruling, is not a withdrawal called for and should not an apology be given?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure that I should be grateful for the apparent help that is being offered to the Chair.
  Dr. Owen: I shall answer one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He asked about the costing of the programme. The costings of child benefit, one-parent benefit, pensions and the winter premium—£3·6 billion—were made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in a speech to the British Institute of Management. The £4·7 billion is achieved by adding the £1·1 billion figure for the minimum wage which was given in Hansard on 6 November and which I said was a conservative estimate which slightly underestimates the charge. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's question.
  48
  I return to other areas of inequality. I shall know not to give way to the hon. Member for Oldham, West in future.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No. I shall get on with my speech.
  The other question that needs to be raised is the burden of tax. The Paymaster General ingeniously argued that because wages had increased, it was not valid to examine the share of the tax burden of an increased wage. However, it is legitimate to raise that question when we constantly hear from the Prime Minister about how the Government are cutting taxes. In fact, that is not the case. A single nurse on £170 per week is paying £7 more in tax than in 1979 and her tax burden is up by 8 per cent. The average family man on £227 per week, with two children, is paying £20 per week more in tax—at constant prices—than in 1979 and his tax burden is up by 6 per cent.
  The family on half average earnings—£115 per week —has suffered a 33 per cent. increase in its direct tax burden alone since 1979. All these are Treasury figures set out in Hansard on 27 March this year. [Interruption.] No. The Government have produced these figures.
  The Prime Minister said on "Panorama" :
  "I feel we owe quite a debt to the people in the bottom half. We have taken in my view too high a proportion of their income in tax".
  With a large amount of money available to be given back in the Budget, one would have expected the Government to repay that debt, at least in part; but the debt is still unpaid. After this year's budget, a family of four on half of average earnings — £115 per week — will pay proportionately more than twice as much direct tax as it would have paid in 1978–79. Those are the facts.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No. I have given way quite enough, and after my recent experience I shall not give way again.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose——
  Dr. Owen: I have given the facts. If the Paymaster General wishes to question the Treasury figures that have been given in Hansard, he may do so.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for a long time and enjoyed himself, as it was perfectly legitimate for him to do.
  My next question——
  Mr. Lilley rose——
  Dr. Owen: No. I am not giving way.
  Mr. Lilley rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Dr. Owen: There are also inequalities in health, and again there is no thin ice, because the figures have largely been produced by the Government at the taxpayers' expense.
  The Government have a rather depressing record. The present Secretary of State was not involved, but when faced with statistics and facts in the report produced by Sir Douglas Black, the Government tried to avoid publishing them because they exposed inequalities in the NHS. There

  49
  was no reason to do that in 1980. The previous Government could have been blamed for some of the inequalities.
  The Government now seem to be upset about another report and are trying to avoid a wider public debate. We all ought to be worried about inequalities in the NHS and the evidence that there is a link between health and social class. There is always a time lag in statistics, but we have up-to-date figures showing that all-cause mortality between 1979 and 1983 fell for men and women and for manual and non-manual groups. However, mortality has declined more rapidly among non-manual groups.
  There is also a strong social class bias in education. Among all 16 to 19-year-olds, a total of 37 per cent.—[interruption.] These are the statistics produced by social class. The Government produced them and we must deal with them as we do as part of polling evidence. There is no point in backing away from them. The statistical office——
  Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman has now started answering questions from a sedentary position, could you persuade him to answer those from hon. Members who have been seeking to intervene in a formal manner?
  Dr. Owen rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the Chair. A point of order has been addressed to me.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was standing when he was dealing with these matters.
  Mr. Lilley: I was standing.
  Dr. Owen: A total of 37 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds were in full-time education in 1984, but the proportion was as high as 72 per cent. among those with fathers in the professions and as low as 27 per cent. for the sons and daughters of semi-skilled or unskilled workers. The salutary fact is that in 1984 just 1 per cent. of those accepted into British universities came from the unskilled social class, 6 per cent. were from the semi-skilled class and 70 per cent. were from the top two social classes. Those class figures in education and some of the figures in health are worse in this country than in many comparable nations. Conservative Members may not want to face the facts, but we have to ask how we can overcome some of these difficulties.
  We need to be able to direct resources to the areas most in need. The problem will not be dealt with by global increases to the NHS, though it is fair to point out that the Government, having had a reasonably good year in 1986–87, plan real-terms increases of only 1·5 per cent. in 1987–88, 1 per cent. in 1988–89 and 0·5 per cent. in 1989–90. It will be mighty difficult within those figures to continue the resource allocation working party's recommendation of concentrating aid within the overall NHS budget.
  We believe that it is extremely important to have an innovation fund for the NHS, building up over two to three years to £250 million. It would be specifically earmarked to deal with inequalities within the NHS.
  In education, we must encourage 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on for higher technical education. Too many leave because of financial pressures on their family budgets. These are facts. Conservative Members may not wish to face them, but if we are to grapple with the inequalities we
  50
  must develop a targeted strategy in which overall public expenditure is geared, as far as possible, to areas where the need is greatest.
  The same principle applies to unemployment, where there are considerable divisions. A total of 94 per cent. of the reduction of 1·6 million employees since 1974 has been in the northern half of the United Kingdom—the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands, the east midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We must try to deal with such problems.
  The development agency policies that have been pursued by successive Governments have been rather successful. The agencies have a good record in Scotland and Wales and many of us find it difficult to understand why the Government will not extend that concept to the hardest hit regions. The Government should be selective and obviously choose the north-east and the north-west, but there is also a strong case for concentrating on the problems in Cornwall and parts of Devon.
  What else could be done in giving selective help to those regions? Again, the alliance budget proposals came up with a policy proposal—welcomed by The Economist on 4 April—to create regional pay differentials and to give employers an incentive to curb the growth of unit costs and so boost employment. The alliance budget proposed a 25 per cent. cut in employers' national insurance contributions, which would apply only to assisted areas and unemployment black spots in the north and south. This cut in the tax on jobs will help companies to meet the cost of employing skilled employees and thus boost job mobility. There are those who would say that this would cause problems with the European Community, as the regional unemployment premium did, but, as part of the strategy, I envisage removing the national insurance contribution completely. If there is a phasing-in period, it will be within the rules.
  There are new policy initiatives in all these areas, which the Government can and should take. First, they should integrate the tax and benefit system and concentrate aid selectively on the area which is probably the most troubling of all—poverty among those on supplementary benefit, those on basic pensions, and on those people in the community—
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Dr. Owen: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  — who need some extra help and who have not participated in the overall rise in average earnings which has taken place over this period. All they have done has been held to take account of the rise in the cost of living. That means that a substantial number of people, who were either widowed in the war or who made considerable sacrifices in the war years, a re not benefiting from the overall improvement in prosperity in Britain. In our judgment, that is wrong. It can and should be put right, not by a global increase in pensions to everyone—rich and poor—but by concentrating on those who need it and would benefit most.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: We believe that in the National Health Service and the education budget there is a need to concentrate and target resources. That we shall do.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I should like to finish.
  Mr. Winnick: The Fuhrer does not give way.
  Dr. Owen: As to unemployment, there is a strong case for selectively gearing resources, by geography through special development agencies and reducing the national insurance contribution in regional areas. This has all been costed in the alliance budget proposals and it is all eminently fundable. It would not require a lot of extra civil servants to make these changes. They have been done before in other policy areas and they need to be done again. The Government are being complacent in thinking that the divisions in our society—the dissensions and considerable feelings of depression and demoralisation that exists in many parts of our inner cities, particularly, although not exclusively, in the north — can be left alone. There must be more detailed and specific policies in this sector. The total inability of Conservative Members even to contemplate new ideas is depressing and that inability is sadly also found on the Labour Benches.
  Ms. Clare Short rose——
  Dr. Owen: We are not arguing with the intentions of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, with whom I had some difficulty in his intervention, has a longstanding and genuine commitment to reducing inequality. I know that from my work with him in the Department of Health and Social Security. But, with respect to him, he still believes that we can afford to do this by universally applying benefits or by generalised increases in public expenditure. That cannot be done. Our experience with that expenditure is that it has not reduced inequalities. The intention can be there and the heart can be in the right place, but the hard-headed practical decisions have not matched the needs, and inequalities have increased. We believe that it is the task of any Government in this country to redress those inequalities and to ensure that the improved prosperity, which many of us hope will be sustained over the next few years, can be more fairly and evenly spread across the nation and heal some of the considerable divisions which exist in the United Kingdom.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has made a characteristic speech—characteristic in his contempt for the conventions of the House in refusing to give way on a number of occasions, characteristic in the largesse of his promises, which apparently are unclearly funded without any clear understanding of where the money would come from, and characteristic in the mutual incompatibility of some of the things that he was saying. For example, he made an allegation, which was also made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that the Government have increased taxes, yet we shall have to wait and see what will be added to the tax bill by these promises. We must listen very carefully to what the right hon. Member for Devonport said, this being the alliance social service policy mark 3 or 4 — I forget where we have got to. Mr. Dick Taverne could no doubt tell us.
  Mr. Roy Galley: Does my hon. Friend recall that the last time a Government were elected on promises of increasing benefits across the scale and increasing public expenditure in every direction, the result was bankruptcy
  52
  for the country, the decimation of pensioners' savings and the cutting of the health programme, particularly hospital building, by the biggest margin ever? Does my hon. Friend consider that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport should take that factor into account?
  Mr. Whitney: I hope that that record, like Calais on Queen Mary's heart, is engraved on the heart of the right hon. Member for Devonport.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport, like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, based much of his speech on the findings of the report of Sir Douglas Black and his colleagues, "Inequalities In Health", and the more recent report, "The Health Divide", which was published by the Health Education Council as its last act before it became the Health Education Authority.
  We should concentrate on the contents of those document. Those documents have been seized upon gleefully, not only by Opposition parties, as one would expect, but by the more unthinking parts of the press— which, sadly, is much of the press — and by assorted bishops and others who were anxious to cry wolf and havoc and suggest that this country is going downhill, that matters are getting worse and that the divides between north and south and between the classes are worsening.
  We must look at these studies more carefully than did the right hon. Members for Devonport and for Sparkbrook. We must look at what the studies have found, at those who wrote them and their motivations. It is clear that a common thread runs through them. One of those common threads is Professor Peter Townsend, who is a well-known visiting professor of sociology at Essex university and also a professor of Socialism. In social science, if a particular target is pursued, it is notoriously easy to find the data to reach it. The Black working group was forced to confess in paragraph 10 of its conclusions that it was
  "conscious of the difficulties in collecting and reporting occupational characteristics".
  In paragraph 8, it said :
  "We do not believe there to be any single and simple explanation of the complex data we have assembled."
  Those qualifications did not stop the authors happily leaping to broad, collectivist and Socialist conclusions, which are precisely the sorts of conclusions that they wanted to reach.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which he has prefaced by saying that the conclusions reached in that report are a result of the bigotry or political attitudes of its compiler. Aside from all these statistics, will he accept that there is genuine poverty and a genuine divide in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman come to south Wales, to a constituency such as mine, and see there people who are genuinely socially deprived?
  Mr. Whitney: I am coming to precisely that point. I am glad to rejoice, as I hope is the hon. Gentleman, that in the employment statistics Wales is now leading the country in finding new jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes as much comfort from that as do Conservative Members.
  These issues can be approached from a class bias, a fascination with a class division of society, which is basically a Marxist approach. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Member for Devonport suffers any longer from that infantile disorder, but perhaps the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not entirely shed those spots. Marxism

  53
  is entirely based on this class approach and is carefully reflected in the Black report, in "The Health Divide" and, sadly, in the fixation on equality which we heard in the speeches of the right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Devonport.
  The preface to "The Health Divide" by Dr. David Player fell into the same trap. I am particularly sad about that because during my brief time as a Health Minister I worked with Dr. David Player, for whom I have a high regard. He is deeply committed to solving health problems, but, sadly, he has been led to the inequality pitfall. He suggested that there must be a public debate on health inequality and said:
  "Such inequity is inexcusable in a democratic society".
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General has pointed out, we live in a world of inequalities. We may all be equal before God, and I hope that it is true to say that in this country we are equal before the law. In every other individual respect, however, we are unequal. These inequalities are found everywhere in the world.
  That is borne out by the evidence inherent in the Black report and "The Health Divide", as people would see if they looked carefully at them. In paragraphs 5.65 and 5.66 the authors of the Black report, perhaps against their natural instincts, say :
  "The second question, then, is whether the inequalities in health between social classes and regions, found in Britain, also exist elsewhere.
  Briefly, the evidence of section II—although disparate and not permitting comprehensive comparison — suggests that they do."
  The same point is made in "The Health Divide". In paragraph 5.5 in its conclusions the report states:
  "Certainly the U.K. is not alone in experiencing inequalities in health. Every country to a greater or lesser extent experiences differences in health between regional, social or income groups."
  It is clear that all societies have this problem and that it is by no means unique to this country, and certainly not under this Conservative Government.
  There is no doubt that the equality of health care in a country is relevant to this problem. Paragraph 1.2 of "The Health Divide" refers to the comments on social justice expressed at a World Health Organisation meeting and states:
  "In health care the principle of social justice 'leads to equal access to available care, equal treatment for equal cases and equal quality of care.'
  Although certain problems in our Health Service remain to be solved—that could not be gainsaid—incontrovertibly there is greater equality of health care in this country than in any other. Fortunately, the additional resources which the Government, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, have devoted to our Health Service have produced a level of care of which we continue to be proud.
  Inequality exists all over the world. The real concern should be with absolute levels. I am not interested in the gap between the best and the worst. Let us say that 20 per cent. of our population found some elixir that enabled them to live fit, healthy and disease-free to 100 and then they suddenly died peacefully and quickly in their sleep. Such a phenomenon would increase the gap which in statistical terms is bothering the right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Devonport. It does not bother me. I should be delighted about that but should be concerned with those at the lower end of the scale.
  54
  "The Health Divide", giving another example of inequalities, says in paragraph 6.4.1 on smoking habits that 17 per cent. of professional men were smokers whereas 49 per cent. of men in the unskilled manual category were smokers. That is a gap about which we might well be concerned. We might wish that the 17 per cent. of professional men was reduced to 15 per cent. or 10 per cent., but that is not the issue. It is that 49 per cent. of manual workers smoked. That is a legitimate scientific policy concern, but it is nothing to do with the sort of class warfare that the Opposition seek to wage.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport referred to differences in education. "The Health Divide" confirmed earlier findings in Britain that death rates decline with increased years of education, How do the Opposition egalitarians answer that? Do they wish to deny education to those who benefit? Of course not. They want to increase education.
  There are problems for Britain on an international scale. National statistics on coronary heart disease are much more worrying than they should be. The rate of improvement is not nearly as good as it should be—on that we can agree.
  So in absolute terms—and I return to the point that worries me — there are issues that concern us. Not surprisingly, The Guardian picked one up. On 26 March 1987, commenting on the Health Education Council's document, it said that a decline in overall death rates from heart disease was accompanied by
  "a one per cent. increase for less privileged classes."
  That is worrying. We can perhaps be complacent about those at the top end of the income scale. So long as the rate improves for those at the lower end, that is all right. but if it deteriorates we must worry.
  "The Health Divide" gives the explanation on page 2 in paragraph 3:
  "death rates among women from coronary heart disease and lung cancer …rose in manual groups over the 10 year period".
  My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security must address their minds to that. Those rates do not mean that those diseases are a function of poverty. Other reasons and issues are deliberately neglected by those who write these reports and those who pounce on them and seek to benefit politically from them.
  The Opposition will answer these points as they always do, saying, "It is all a matter of money, income levels and poverty." That does not bear one moment's examination. Statistics have been bandied about by both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Devonport talked about the change in incomes for the bottom 20 per cent. of the population, but, between 1979 and 1985, expenditure by those households, excluding the cost of housing increased in real terms by 12 per cent. No one would say that this is high, but by no stretch of the imagination does a 12 per cent. increase in expenditure mean an increase in poverty, as the right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Devonport would have us believe
  In real terms the income of the average man with two children who is on supplementary benefit and housing benefit, is higher than the income of the average man in manual work in 1948. No-one will say that that is a high level, but as someone with personal family knowledge of the income of a manual labourer in 1948, I can say that

  55
  that was not a subsistence level. Therefore, we have to look for other answers. These political, class answers are bogus. As soon as they are examined, they are seen to be false.
  In the raw material of these two reports that have excited the attention of the two right hon. Gentlemen, we can find pointers to where the answers lie. For example, paragraph 6.4.2. of "The Health Divide" says:
  "At a regional level the highest proportion of heavy drinkers was found in the North … and the lowest in East Anglia and the Outer South East of England".
  That finding is confirmed by the family expenditure survey which shows that the weekly expenditure on alcohol in the north is £8.08 and in the south-east it is £7.94. There is not a great difference there, but there is more spending in the famously under-privileged north than there is in the south.
  Alcohol is one factor in the health differences and exercise is another. Not much information is available about exercise but such as there is blows out of the water the thesis of the Opposition. Paragraph 6.4.4 of "The Health Divide" is headed: "Exercise in Leisure-time". It says that while there has been an increase in participation for all groups — I am glad to note that — nevertheless "the social gradient remained." It says that in walking and swimming:
  "the professional group had the highest participation rates and the unskilled manual the lowest."
  The same is true of tobacco. I have said that 17 per cent. of men in the professional classes smoke, while the figure for manual workers is 49 per cent. That, too, could be called a class division.
  If the Opposition looked seriously at the published data they could find a reasonable division. The family expenditure survey of 1985 shows that expenditure on tobacco by households in the north is £4·98 a week, while in the south-east it is £4 a week. That is a difference of nearly 20 per cent. I make no moral judgment on this. I am merely saying that these are the issues that sensible, responsible politicians should look at. The Health Education Council should be active on those issues. The council should he ashamed of such issues and these are the issues upon which we must work.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment said, the answer is not to impose on society the Socialism that everyone else has rejected, and seemingly only the few authors of these reports and a few left-behind diehards on the Opposition Benches still believe in. Socialism is now being rejected in China, in the Soviet Union and in Socialist Spain, and has been rejected in France. Only the little rump of Socialism in this House believes that the answer to Britain's problems lies in something called Socialism. The answer lies in making Britain more and more prosperous, and the way of prosperity is the way of greater health.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: If Socialism has been abolished in China, in the Soviet Union and in other countries the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) must be in favour of keeping the bomb in order to deter the Labour party, because there seems to be no other justification for keeping it. My constituents will be pleased to hear that the reason why they suffer, as the statistical evidence shows, greater ill health than people living in the south is that they do not swim enough. The Tory council closed the swimming baths and my constituents cannot
  56
  swim in the Mersey because it is an open sewer full of sewage, and the Government refused funds to clean it up. That is a political point as well.
  There is an elixir of life for many people. It is called money. The idea that a rich person cannot buy a better health service, a better environment, a better house that is not damp and alleviates suffering from overcrowding, and cannot avoid the other things that are injurious to health, is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman wants us to believe that the rich do not enjoy better health because of their money. In saying that he is rejecting not just the evidence from the Labour party, but the evidence of Government Departments and academics and all the research that has been done. The only difference between Karl Marx and Government Departments is that Government Departments recognise more degrees of class than Karl Marx recognised.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real problem, especially in the north, is the difference between the suburban areas and the areas in the depths of the inner cities? Does he agree that that is not reflected in this generic, general message of a north-south divide, but is a much more subtle problem?
  Mr. Roberts: The poor are poor in the south and the rich are rich in the north. I accept that. However, there are more rich people in the south and more poor people in the north. I accept that one cannot totally generalise, but that is the situation. There are higher levels of unemployment in the north, higher deprivation and, while many problems in the north also exist in the south, they do not exist to the same extent or in the same concentrations.
  This debate is about the growing social and economic inequalities in Britain, and nowhere are those inequalities more manifest than in Merseyside and in my constituency, part of which is almost identical to inner-city Liverpool. I warn Conservative Members that they cannot write off areas like Merseyside without consequences for the whole nation. In the end, the poverty, the high levels of unemployment, the deprivation and the crime, which is often a consequence of deprivation and of the high levels of unemployment, and the breakdown of law and order in inner cities on Merseyside and elsewhere will eventually affect the whole of our society.
  The whole nation, including the people in the prosperous south, will face the consequences of ghettoisation—I use that word advisedly—of areas like Merseyside. Ministers have said that there are not many votes for the Tories in those areas anyway. Therefore, they have decided to write them off, but not without a fanfare of policies that cost little in the run-up to a general election in order to pretend that they are worried about the inner cities.
  I want to deal with unemployment, job losses, low pay, crime and drugs, housing — especially in relation to house prices—and with whether the nation can afford to do anything about those problems, given the divide that exists between the north and the south. I shall deal briefly with each of those issues. The first issue is unemployment. I said :
  "My constituency has many problems. Their resolution will not be helped by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
  I said that, not in this year's Budget debate, but in my maiden speech on 12 June 1979 after the general election. I said then, and it seems that very little has changed :

  57
  "Nationally, there are about 1½ million people unemployed. The facts in Bootle and Merseyside are far more serious than the national figure indicates …There is a weak manufacturing sector in Bootle and on Merseyside. Unemployment among active males in the constituency is…12 per cent.". —[Official Report, 12 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 280.]
  I thought that the problems were bad in 1979, and I said that the Chancellor's speech would not help to deal with those problems and that nothing had changed, but things have changed dramatically. That figure of 12 per cent. unemployment in 1979 has increased to over 20 per cent. in 1987. In the Merseyside travel-to-work area, which includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral — parts of the last two areas are prosperous—registered male unemployment is 26 per cent. Registered female unemployment is 12·5 per cent. Many women do not bother to register because they receive no benefit if their husbands are in work. In Bootle the average unemployment level is 24 per cent., and male unemployment is a massive 30 per cent.
  Moreover, women are often the breadwinners —perhaps in the majority of households — with clerical jobs at Giro, which was created by a Labour Government, in the Civil Service and in mail order enterprises such as Vernon and Littlewood. If the women did not go out to earn pin money, as the Conservatives describe it, many families in my constituency could not manage to live on or just above the poverty line. In February 1987 the official Department of Employment list showed 10,579 unemployed in Bootle—an increase of 1 per cent. at a time when the Tories were claiming that the unemployment figures had begun to fall. The adjusted, indexed figure showed 12,066 or 24·6 per cent., unemployed in Bootle, representing an annual cost to the nation of £69 million or £724 per working person in unemployment and social security payments.
  The Government talk about the restart programme as their major initiative, but only 1 per cent. of those interviewed have been found jobs. When I pointed that out in an intervention, the Minister said that they were just the ones who were actually placed after interview, but that there must be others who had found jobs of their own accord as a result of the training schemes. Let the Minister come and tell that to the people of Bootle, who have only to look around to see how many young people are unemployed. The statistics also give the lie to the Minister's claims. Youth unemployment has never been so high, nor has the resulting sense of futility and hopelessness among young people and their parents.
  One of the causes has been the massive number of job losses under the last two Tory Governments. Between June 1978 and 1984 nearly 30 per cent. of employees in Knowsley and 22 per cent. in St. Helens are estimated to have lost their jobs. Even in Sefton, the district least affected by the recession, more than 10 per cent. of employees lost their jobs in that period. In numerical terms the loss was greatest in the city of Liverpool, where 46,700, or 15·8 per cent., of employees lost their jobs. The Conservatives try to make out that that is all to do with Derek Hatton, but it is to do with the way in which factories have closed and industry has deserted Merseyside, even Conservative-controlled areas such as Sefton.
  Many of those jobs will never be recovered unless the Government intervene in the workings of the economy. Large factories have closed down permanently and the
  58
  manufacturing base that remained has been gradually but finally destroyed by the Government. We have lost 4,600 jobs at British Leyland, 2,000 at United Biscuits, and 1,500 at Courtaulds — a profitable, strike-free factory which could not compete with cheap American imports of synthetic fibres and carpets because of high energy costs and interest rates. A further 900 jobs have been lost at Lucas Girling and 800 at Rockware Glass. The list goes on and on. I could refer also to GEC, Littlewood and Cammell Laird. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has had to get rid of registered dock workers because of the decline in manufacturing industry over which the Government have presided.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman blames the Conservative Government for the decline in manufacturing employment, but whom does he blame for the decline of 750,000 manufacturing jobs -— three quarters of them in the north—during the period of the Labour Government?
  Mr. Roberts: The Labour Government.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
  Mr. Roberts: If the Labour Government failed to prevent a decline in manufacturing, the Labour Government were to blame, but I wish that in the past seven years we had had the rates of decline that we had under the Labour Government rather than those that the Conservatives have brought about. I wish, too, that we had had the same level of public expenditure on housing and employment in the construction industry. I wish, too, that we had the levels of unemployment and of unemployment benefit and social security that we had under the Labour Government.
  No one is suggesting that the Labour Government were perfect, but compared with the present Government the Labour Ministers were angels, white as snow, in terms of their record on jobs and industry for Britain. It was not the Labour Government who abolished exchange controls. Since the Conservatives came to power, more than £96 billion has gone abroad, about £60 billion in portfolio investment and about £35 billion in direct investment. That would not have happened if exchange controls had remained.
  The growing social and economic inequalities on Merseyside are not illustrated only by unemployment. There is also a great deal of poverty among people who are in work. This is where the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) got it wrong when he called for selective rather than universal measures to deal with the problems. One cannot deal selectively with the problem of low pay, which affects 8 million people. On Merseyside, about 250,000 people are earning poverty wages and form a substantial proportion of the large number of Merseysiders living in poverty or on the margins of poverty. The Low Pay Unit figures suggest that some 346,000 people, or almost 23 per cent. of the population of Merseyside, are living on the official poverty line.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was vilified by the right hon. Member for Devonport for leaving the Chamber during the course of the second speech following his own, but I note that the right hon. Member for Devonport has done

  59
  exactly the same thing. He complained that such behavious was discourteous, but as soon as I started to refer to him he walked out. However, I do not particularly like drawing attention to such double standards, so I shall return to the figures.
  The 346,000 people on Merseyside estimated by the Low Pay Unit to be living on the poverty line include only those dependent on supplementary benefit. That figure takes no account of those ineligible for supplementary benefit, perhaps because they are in full-time work, although their total earnings may be equal to or often below the level of supplementary benefit. There is massive poverty in Bootle and on Merseyside among those in work as well as those out of work. Low pay is a major problem. The next Labour Government will deal with that problem. One of the instruments that will be used will be a statutory minimum wage. The extent of poverty and unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is no figment of a Socialist imagination. It is a statistical reality and shows how many people are seriously suffering and crying out for help.
  A major consequence of that situation in the past seven or eight years on Merseyside has been a massive increase in crime — in violence, burglary, fraud, theft and criminal damage. It is no accident that, since 1978, violence against the person has increased by 30 per cent. on Merseyside; that burglary has increased by 66 per cent.; that theft and the handling of stolen goods have increased by 20 per cent.; that fraud and forgery have risen by 98 per cent.; and criminal damage by 70 per cent. Crime on Merseyside has risen by 41 per cent., presided over by the so-called party of law and order. One crime is committed on Merseyside every 3·5 minutes.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is a good constituency Member and Socialist. Can he tell the House why levels of crime — particularly of violence — have increased by a far greater proportion in Labour-controlled areas than elsewhere in the country?
  Mr. Roberts: I do not know whether I am allowed to say that the man is mad. Somehow, the hon. Gentleman thinks that the reason why people are poor, badly housed and suffering deprivation is that they have Labour councils. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they have Labour councils because they are badly housed, are poor and are suffering deprivation, so they vote Labour. They recognise that that is the only way to change their circumstances. That is why Labour councillors represent people who are deprived, in difficulties, badly housed and unemployed in our community. The hon. Gentleman's tautology is nonsensical and he knows it.
  One crime is committed every 3·5 minutes on Merseyside. I know that Conservative Members—the Prime Minister is very good at it—say that, of course, crime has nothing to do with social conditions, bad housing, unemployment and deprivation. They make it seem a consequence of original sin, and they ignore the statistical correlation between increases in youth unemployment and increases in crime.
  Unlike Conservative Members, I know for a fact that severity of punishment is not the greatest deterrent to committing crime. The greatest deterrent is the certainty of detection, and, when one has been caught, the loss of one's self-respect, the respect of one's family and friends,
  60
  and one's job. If there is no job to lose there is no self-respect, because there is no hope for the future. People become easy prey for the hard drug pushers and have no logical reason not to go on and commit a crime. That is the sort of environment and society that the Conservative Government have created.
  Six years ago there was no heroin addiction on Merseyside. The pushers did not have a field day, because drug addiction did not exist there, but it has arrived under this Government, and there is a new generation of unemployed young people who are hooked on it in my constituency—the Thatcher generation.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Ridiculous.
  Mr. Roberts: Conservative Members can say "Ridiculous" as much as they like, but that is the heritage of young people in my constituency under this so-called Government of law and order.
  If that is not true, let the Government explain the 41 per cent. increase in crime that has taken place during the past seven years under the so-called Government of law and order. No doubt they will use law and order to whip up feelings again during the election campaign to get grubby, filthy votes, while they preside over the social consequences and unemployment that create the very crimes they claim to oppose.
  I am against crime. I want some hope for the young people of my constituency. I want hope through public expenditure, some Government intervention in the workings of the country's economy, some investment in Merseyside and the return of some jobs. I want a Government who care and will spend money, not on tax cuts for the rich, but on building decent council housing. That would deal with the homeless in my area and put unemployed building workers back to work.
  If ever we needed a classic example of the divide between the two nations—the rich in the south, in parts of London and elsewhere, and the poor in the north and in Merseyside — we have only to look at what is happening to house prices. Earlier, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that house prices had been inflated, that they had quadrupled, or even gone up sixfold, in London. The flat that I bought in London doubled in price in three years, and I benefited from that. It was in the east end of London, an area in which house prices are rocketing because of the activities of the London Docklands Development Corporation.
  Mr. Lilley: That shows the success of our inner-city policies.
  Mr. Roberts: The people who are in the deprived area of Tower Hamlets canot afford to buy houses there. No council houses are being built for them. That is the extent of the success of the policies of the hon. Gentleman's party.
  I have just come back from America, where I saw letting advertisements in the Herald Tribune. Those advertisements, which are aimed at the Americans, say that now is the time to buy in docklands. Rich Americans are investing in the Canary wharf development, but ordinary people cannot afford to buy houses there, and no houses are being built for rent. A Member of Parliament comes from Bootle and buys a flat because he needs one to do his job in the House and finds that it quadruples in

  61
  price during a five-year period. That is the position in London and the south, but it is not the position on Merseyside.
  House prices are falling on Merseyside. The Park lane estate of 140 dwellings was built in my constituency by Wimpey. The houses were for sale, some on the basis of equity sharing. The estate was built on land that was donated by the local authority, or sold cheaply. Thirty houses now stand empty, not because the people who owned them were made redundant and defaulted on their mortgages — although that was true of some of them, because of unemployment—but because they decided to jack it in and take the keys to the estate agents or building society because house prices were falling. Such people were not gaining any equity. The mortgage repayments were not worth repaying any more, because prices were falling and they could get somewhere cheaper by renting. Those houses were originally sold for £21,000 to £22,000. They are now selling for £18,000. Efforts are being made to sell the abandoned ones for £10,000 because they have been vandalised. The whole estate is in decline.
  The area that I am describing could not even be called an inner-city area. It is the kind of area which the Conservatives describe as one of hope. It was a partnership, build-for-sale scheme, which is declining because of unemployment and poverty in Merseyside. What a picture that presents, compared with that of the prosperous south, whose economy, they tell us, is overheated. If that is so, we have a nuclear winter in Merseyside.
  Mr. Whitney: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that he objects to the fact that people in the north, on Merseyside and in Bootle, have to devote a smaller proportion of their income to housing costs than do people in the south? That leaves them with a greater percentage of disposable income for other necessities and the pleasures of life. Docklands was laid waste largely because of the impact of trade unions, which were supported by his party. That area has now been brilliantly revitalised as an exciting, international area for investment from all over the world, which is creating jobs and prosperity. Does the hon. Gentleman object to that, too?
  Mr. Roberts: Only 8 per cent. of the jobs in docklands have gone to local people. That figure is, perhaps, an exaggeration. The people who work there do not live there. Most of them are rich people who have come from outside. With regard to housing policies, there is a market in fake rent books, which are being sold by caretakers in the area. In this way the rich can buy a rent book and pretend that they are tenants of the local authority to get a house for £44,000, which they can sell two months later for £100,000. The rich are corrupt, too. There have been examples of that in the Chamber. It is not only the poor who fiddle their social security. The rich become involved as well. If that is the kind of housing and job policy that the hon. Member for Wycombe advocates, I am happy to oppose it.
  I am also aware that we must provide houses everywhere for sale and for rent at a price that ordinary people can afford. That is not happening on Merseyside, because of poverty and unemployment, and it is not happening in the south, because people on average incomes cannot afford to buy houses, whose prices are
  62
  escalating dramatically and are being bought by people who do not even reside in Britain. Capitalism is losing its patriotism.
  Mr. Lilley: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman objects to rising house prices in the east end and to falling house prices on Merseyside. He also believes that crime is caused by poverty and by riches. Does he believe in Socialism, or in nihilism?
  Mr. Roberts: I do not object to the fact that house prices on Merseyside have fallen. I object to the cause of that fall in house prices—unemployment and poverty. If Merseyside was prospering, if there was high employment and no poverty and if house prices were steady or falling slightly, I would rejoice, but that is not the position. I object to the fact that houses are left empty because of poverty and unemployment. The Conservative party is supposed to be the party of owner-occupation, but people cannot buy houses in London and the south because prices are escalating so quickly. That shows our two-nation society. That shows the contrast that has been created by the Government.
  We will have a Labour Government, who will do something about unemployment——
  Mr. Marlow: Not this time.
  Mr. Roberts: We will get a Labour Government, whether on 7 May or not. The more you speak, the more likely we are to get one.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think you said anything, did you?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) realises that he made a slip of the tongue.
  Mr. Roberts: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sometimes it is difficult to resist the provocation.
  There will be a Labour Government, who will deal with the problems of unemployment by reflating the economy in a way that does not suck in imported goods. We shall enable areas such as Merseyside to benefit from private and public expenditure—the latter on hospitals, schools, social services, increasing the number of people in the caring professions and building council houses to solve the housing crisis in Bootle and Merseyside and to nut construction workers back to work.
  Of course, if we have a Labour Government, with a decisive overall majority, we must answer the question, "Can we afford it?" British people say, "We agree with the Labour party's policies, but can we afford them?" Let no Conservative Member tell us that we cannot afford our policies of providing jobs, homes, a decent environment and decent health services for our people, when £96 billion has gone abroad to be invested in jobs overseas since the Tories came to power. That is our money. We should not forget the £25 billion that has been invested overseas in portfolio investments.
  During their period of office the Tories have received £53 billion in North sea oil revenue, which has certainly not gone towards re-equipping and modernising British industry or investing in the British economy. Last year the Government received £11·5 billion from the North sea, yet they have cut public spending and denied the consequences. They pretend to have both policies at the same time — increasing expenditure on the Health Service and cutting public expenditure. They have cut

  63
  housing, education and science research. Public spending on housing has been cut by about 60 per cent. The social security budget has increased by 33·7 per cent. as unemployment has increased. The Government plan to raise £4·7 billion from selling public assets during the next 12 months, if there is no general election. Unemployment costs the Government £20 billion a year in higher benefits and lost taxes, yet they say that we cannot put the unemployed back to work because we cannot afford it. The increase in unemployment since 1979 has cost the Government £12·5 billion each year.
  We cannot afford not to put people back to work. We cannot afford not to have people creating goods and services and paying tax. We cannot afford to have so many people consuming without creating or producing. That is the Labour party's policy, which is sensible, logical and sound. The Government say that, to provide all those services, a Labour Government would have to borrow more. The average owner-occupied household knows the benefit of borrowing to provide capital assets. One borrows to buy or build a house, and as long as the money owed on the capital asset is less than the value of the asset, one is quids in.
  The Government are not borrowing to build capital assets in manufacturing industry, housing or hospitals. They are borrowing to pay the weekly food bills—the unemployment and social security bills. They have had a large public sector borrowing requirement since they came to power. Labour would borrow to implement its job creation and social policies, to create capital assets, to put Britain back to work and to get rid of the scourge of unemployment, crime and deprivation that exists in areas such as Merseyside.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is an insult because it is out of touch, because of the Labour party's record when it was in office and because it offers no realistic solutions to Britain's genuine problems. The motion is out of touch because, by any reckoning, the vast majority of people in Great Britain today are far better off than they were in 1979.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) quoted some figures, trying to show that the wealthiest 5 per cent. of the population had increased their share of the nation's wealth at the expense of the poorest 5 per cent. He failed to say that the figures also show that, including the effects of tax and benefits, there has been almost no change in the share of wealth of the top earners as against the share of the low earners. The right hon. Gentleman also quoted a recent health report, which said that inequalities in health had increased under the Government. He did not say that similar reports were issued under the Labour Government, saying that inequalities in health were increasing under the Labour Government.
  We could quote statistics until we were blue in the face, but the simple fact is that more people are better off under this Government than ever before. Even poorer people are substantially better off, as has been proved by the fact that last year there were far more live births than in the last year of the Labour Government.
  64
  Many Labour Members are sincere in their opposition to the Government and in their anxiety about what they see as the inequalities and problems of our society. But if they are genuinely sincere, they should also examine the record of the Labour party. In the 1960s, the Labour Government made 10,000 miners redundant in Amber Valley. Their redundancy pay and pension provision was a pittance. When miners are made redundant in Amber Valley today, they receive substantially better redundancy, pension and benefits provisions than was the case under the Labour Government. Is that divisive? What is divisive is the action of the Labour regime on Derbyshire county council——
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has put forward his general thesis and one respects it, and he has mentioned his consituency. But in fairness, and considering the matter objectively, does he agree that there is a problem in Hartlepool, where 13,900 people in that small constituency are in receipt of supplementary benefit, and consistently since 1983 10,000 people have been out of work? That alone costs £59 million. Does he agree that there must be a divide between the position in Hartlepool and the affluence in other parts of the country?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not deny that we have problems in our society. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the number of social security claimants is higher in his constituency now than it was in 1979. Part of the reason for that is that the levels at which social security benefits are attained now are more generous than they were in 1979, so, on the hon. Gentleman's own figures, it is arguable that people are better off as a result of the change.
  I also do not deny that unemployment is a severe problem in our society, but to claim that it is a problem unique to Great Britain or that it has been caused by the Government is false. There are many reasons for unemployment. One is that we have had substantial over manning in industry for many years. Another reason, which is often conveniently forgotten by Opposition Members, is that over the past five years there has been a net increase of well over 1 million people in the size of the work force. That is a substantial cause for unemployment. I wish that Opposition Members would not always try to blame every problem in society on the Government and remember that many of our problems, which are common to many developed countries, were inherited from the previous Labour Government.
  I should like to continue my thesis. What I consider to be genuinely divisive is the Left-wing regime that now rules in Derbyshire county council. Since 1981, when the current regime took over, Derbyshire has gone from being one of the lowest-rated counties in England and Wales to one of the highest-rated. It means that a pensioner in Amber Valley now pays about £3 a week more in rates than a pensioner living in a similar house in neighbouring Staffordshire, which is Labour-controlled, but is controlled by a relatively moderate Labour council, or neighbouring Leicestershire, which is Conservative-controlled. That extra £3 precept on the pensioner in Derbyshire, which is the equivalent of a £3 a week cut in pension, is due solely to the profligacy and overspending of Derbyshire county council. That is what I call divisive.
  The Opposition motion is also insulting because they offer no solution to the problems in our society. Making

  65
  the rich poorer does not make the poor richer. Opposition Members should remember that. The only way for everyone in our society to become better off is to ensure that our economy is successful. It is an unfortunate but proven fact that Labour policies are inimical to making our economy successful. One does not create wealth by making an enemy of enterprise, by blasting business men, or by pillorying profit, which is one of the favourite games of Opposition Members.
  One does not make a successful economy by savaging top industrial managers' high earnings. What is wrong with paying a high salary to a manager in a successful industry, whose success and hard work have ensured not only that British goods are sold at home and abroad, but the employment of people in that company? What is wrong with him keeping a reasonable proportion of his salary? One does not make a successful economy by taxing people, be they managers or scientists, at a top rate of 90 per cent., which happened under the previous Labour Government.
  I venture to suggest that that may have been one of the reasons why, under that Labour Government, there was a loss of 750,000 jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps that is also why 75 per cent. of those jobs were lost in the north. That was also divisive. Perhaps that is also the reason why manufacturing output in 1979 was lower than in 1974, which is something for which Opposition Members like to blame the Government. It might also be why, under that Labour Government, the ratio of imported goods to domestic goods tripled.
  Opposition Members have to learn that saying that one cares is not the same as creating the wealth to pay for that caring. Self-righteousness comes cheap. That is why the Labour party went into the 1974 general election promising the earth. That is why, in the subsequent two years, the Labour Government did their utmost to deliver the earth. That is why their overspending forced them, by 1977, to impose the most severe public spending cuts ever seen in this country, which cut into every area of public spending. including the Health Service, which is so dear to many of their hearts. That is when the most severe round of cuts since the founding of the NHS took place in the hospital building programme. That was divisive. It will not happen again.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: From speeches by Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), one got the impression that all was well, and that there were no divisions and no poverty. Conservative Members said that, simply because there were the same problems in the Third world, not only should they exist in this country but they should be acceptable.
  There is no doubt about the poverty and the divide in this country. Any reasonable person will accept that the case is proven, whatever parameters or socio-economic indicators one uses. The case that there is a division in society and that there are great gaps between those who have and those who have not can be easily proven. I accept that it is not necessarily a north-south divide. In fact, it is not. When last year I sat on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, I was appalled to see the statistics for areas such as Margate and Ramsgate, which have extremely high unemployment. I was interested to hear the arguments put to the Committee.
  66
  The divide is there. It is not geographical—it is not necessarily a north-south divide, but it is certainly between those who have and those who have not. In many inner cities in the south there are problems, but they exist to a greater extent in the peripheral areas of this country and of the European Community. The phenomenon has been exacerbated since we became a member of the EEC. The problem is not peculiar to this country; it also manifests itself in other European countries, such as Italy, Greece and the southern parts of France, which are away from the centre of the EEC. That is why I should like to draw to the attention of Conservative Members the severe problems faced by those who represent constituencies in the west and the north. There are problems with facilities and infrastructure.
  The erosion of our economic base has continued at a great pace since we have been in the EEC, but whereas in the other EEC countries Governments are doing something about it, this Government are not. In fact, they are not prepared to interfere with the market forces. They are prepared to let them be rampant.
  In many areas of Britain, the position has been aggravated by the rundown of old industries. Not only the old heavy industries but the smokestack industries have declined and added to unemployment. For example. in Wales there has been a severe decline in the coal industry, which has become much worse since the end of the miners' strike. Some 13,000 jobs have been lost in the coal industry since 1979. However, at the same time over, 100,000 jobs have been lost in Wales, so one cannot just say that the decline in industry and the increase in unemployment are due simply to the decline in the coal industry.
  We have also lost a tremendous number of other jobs. In manufacturing, for example, we have lost 113,000 jobs. In metal goods engineering, we have lost 52,000 jobs. So it is not just an industry that is in decline; it is a region that is in decline while the Government sit back and do nothing.
  The problem is multi-faceted. Unemployment is not the only problem in the poor areas. It is compounded by poor housing, or lack of housing, and it is added to by the inadequate health facilities. It is self-evident that greater demands are placed on the health services because of the multiple deprivations to which I have referred.
  Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only is unemployment falling faster in this country than in any other industrialised country in the world, but, within this country, it is falling fastest in Wales?
  Mr. Rogers: It is bound to fall fastest in Wales, because we are starting off with the worst possible conditions. If there is to be any improvement, it will be in areas such as Wales. Perhaps that is a tribute to our resourcefulness, and to the way in which people are prepared to overcome the problems with which they exist. However, it is not because of, but in spite of, the Government that people in Wales are fighting back.
  Mr. Whitney: Before we leave the subject of Wales, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he, too, rejoices in the success of Heartbeat Wales, which has been acknowledged all over the world?
  Mr. Rogers: I do indeed applaud the success of Heartbeat Wales. Again, that success is despite the lack of health resources in Wales. The hon. Member for

  67
  Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) earlier tried to analyse, in a rather ridiculous way, the reasons for poor health in this country. For example, he said that there was a lack of education, leading to an earlier death rate. That may well be true. He also talked about the greater incidence of heart disease being correlated with deprivation. That is true; I do not dispute it. But what he is really arguing, or would if he were honest in his argument, is that health is a function of wealth and privilege, because health can be bought in this country. That is why there are divisions between the rich and the poor, and that is why unemployed people are dying.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe talked about the higher incidence of heart disease among the working classes. That is because they cannot buy health, as his hon. Friends can in this part of the country. The hon. Gentleman came out with spurious arguments about participation levels. He said that the working class did not walk and swim as much as the middle class, who had a higher participation level. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would come to south Wales and talk to the miner who comes up from the pit, has a shower, goes home and says to the wife, "Excuse me, darling. I am going out for my daily jog." He has only walked six miles from the coal face back to pit bottom. He has only been flogging himself with 3 ft of headroom. No wonder he does not want to run up the mountain.
  The man who has been humping bricks all day —building private houses, of course; there are not many council houses being built now—will not say to his wife, "Excuse me, darling. I must go for a swim and get some exercise," when he has been flogging himself for six hours in physical exercise. What a daft parameter to use.
  The hon. Gentleman's analysis was worthy of Mickey Mouse. No wonder he was superseded by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). At least we know the hon. Lady's prescription for the health of the country, which is honestly based on prejudice and bigotry, whereas the hon. Gentleman's prescription was based on intellectual poverty and ignorance.
  In a recent debate the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) came up with a reason for the economic divide. He said that the people in the regions were pricing themselves out of work, and that one prescription that could be adopted by the Government was regional pay bargaining. He said that we should move away from national pay bargaining. If that is the answer to the regional disparities in this country, why is Wales not on a sweep of increased wealth and prosperity? Our average wage is about —42·32 below that in the south-east. The average wages in such areas as Wales and the north differ from the average wage in the south-east by about —40. However, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Conservative Members, we are pricing ourselves out of jobs.
  The Secretary of State for Wales and the Postmaster General—I mean the Paymaster General, but, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is only a postboy for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—have talked about the success of the Government's economic policies, and have said that under the present Government there is balanced economic growth throughout the country. I feel that Labour Members are entitled to ask where that economic growth
  68
  is. It is certainly not in my constituency, or in the region that contains it. Nor is it in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent the north-east, the north-west and Wales.
  My area has severe problems. We have the highest number of houses with no inside toilet facilities, and the highest number with no bath or shower. We also have the highest number of pensioners who lack those facilities. The perinatal mortality rate is the highest in Wales, and the unemployment rate is more than 20 per cent., with an extraordinarily high level of youth unemployment. There is a greater likelihood of children suffering from measles and whooping cough, and, not surprisingly, the area contains the highest percentage of permanently sick people in the United Kingdom. I am not proud of that record. It is not just a list, but a catalogue of deprivations.
  In a recent debate, I drew attention to the eternal wrangling about statistics. Figures are shouted back and forth, and arguments are based on them. Labour Members especially know that statistics do not adequately demonstrate the misery and poverty in many parts of the country. They do not adequately illustrate the struggles, difficulties and despair of pensioners, or the tragedy and pain of the young mother who loses a baby in the early days of its life because of the lack of facilities. They do not adequately show the disillusionment and despair of the young man who has never had a job and sees no likelihood of getting one.
  We see that deprivation in our constituencies; we do not need statistics to prove it to us. If Conservative Members scoff, it shows their ignorance and it shows the uncaring attitude of them and of the Government generally.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Roy Galley: This afternoon we have been subjected to a series of tirades that have suggested that the inequalties and problems that we face have arisen during the last eight years. It has been suggested that there is a simple solution to these problems. A constant theme that has run through the speeches of Opposition Members is that public spending is the solution to every conceivable problem.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: And how we share it out.
  Mr. Galley: Yes; how it is shared out is central to the debate.
  History has shown that on every occasion when public spending has been increased in line with the policies advocated by the Opposition parties, it has led to those at the lower end of the social and income scales suffering the most.
  There has been a Gadarene rush towards the suggestion that poverty and unemployment are the root causes of ill health and of the inequalities between one region and another, but that is not the whole story. We have to examine the evidence that has been advanced. Social groupings are based primarily on occupation. Some occupations, not surprisingly, are more dangerous and difficult than others. When statistics are based on those occupations, that becomes an almost self-fulfilling definition. It is also true that those who suffer from ill health will probably have difficulty in obtaining higher paid employment. That is also a self-fulfilling definition,

  69
  because it leads to more people entering the lower income social groupings. However, there are other much more important factors.
  There is far more cigarette smoking among the unskilled manual groups and the unemployed. Their consumption of alcohol is also much higher. The consumption of unhealthy foods is also higher and they do not take part in exercise to the same extent as do those in the higher income groups. All those factors have to be taken into account. Death from lung cancer is much greater among manual workers. Social groups 4 and 5 suffer far more from obesity and related health problems. Preventive health services, such as ante-natal and child health clinics, are used less by social groups 4 and 5. Therefore it is not just poverty and unemployment that cause those problems. It is a question of life-style, education and personal responsibility.
  There are also genetic factors that nobody can quantify, despite all the health data that have been published. Women live longer than men. Why that should be so has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Certain families have a history of longevity that is not shared by other families. Certain racial groups suffer from complaints that are endemic to them but not to other racial groups.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of interesting factors, one of which is the genetic factor. Will he try to explain to the House what genetic factors cause unemployment? Will he try to define the merit of the avoidable cost of unemployment and the merit of the acceptable cost of unemployment? What does he think will he needed in terms of a shift of resources and political will to achieve that end?
  Mr. Galley: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening carefully to my speech. I said that genetic factors and the other matters that I mentioned are all part of the story. I do not deny that unemployment and poverty are part of the picture. I shall deal with that point in due course.
  The provision of health services — clinics, nursing provision and the network of social and health services — is concentrated upon the socially and economically deprived areas. That is certainly true in my constituency. The figures suggest that the manual and unskilled groups consult their general practitioners more than the higher income groups. The manual and unskilled groups also use hospital services more than the higher income groups.
  Whatever the economic background of the area, general practitioner list sizes have been reduced throughout the country. There are more general practitioners to cope with patients. Furthermore, more people are being treated as in-patients, out-patients and day cases. That applies throughout the country; the picture does not vary either socially or regionally. The further north one goes, the higher are the mortality and morbidity rates. It is the Government's policy to transfer resources from London and the south-east to the midlands and the northern regions. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It is happening now. In my health authority area, we are nearer to our Health Service resource allocation targets now than we were eight years ago. Although we are part of the so-called deprived north, our resources have been increased. Our policy of transferring resources to the north is constantly being knocked by both Opposition parties. That policy was devised by the leader of the Social
  70
  Democratic party and it was implemented by the last Labour Government, yet the Opposition parties constantly knock that policy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would be fairer to the House if he remembered that the concept of transferring resources within the National Health Service was implemented at a time of real growth in the funds that were provided for the NHS. They kept pace with need and they exceeded that need. When there is insufficient growth in the NHS to meet increasing need, is it surprising that there is a diminution in the services that are provided and that those who suffer from the cuts in the inner cities, both in London and elsewhere, complain that the system is no longer fair? It was fair when it began, but in the context of today's economic policies it is no longer fair.
  Mr. Galley: That is an attempt to divert us from the truth. During the last eight years, NHS resources have grown by 25 per cent. The amount spent per head of population, at constant prices, has grown by 25 per cent. Operations are being performed now, such as hip replacements and coronary bypasses, that were hardly thought of 10 years ago. I accept that the resource demands are absolutely enormous, but we have consistently devoted more resources to the NHS to keep pace with the growing demands. I defy the hon. Gentleman to commit his party to providing additional resources and keeping the poorest sections of the population on an even keel in terms of income alone. The last time that there was irresponsible growth in social security, health and other expenditure, this country became bankrupt, our health services were cut dramatically, particularly the hospital building programme, and pensioners with small savings and low incomes were the worst hit.
  Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appropriate to point out that during the period of the last Labour Government waiting lists in the northern region increased, whereas under this Government they have been reduced, that in the north-western region waiting lists increased under the Labour Government, whereas since we have been in government they have been reduced, and that the same has happened in the Mersey district, the Yorkshire region, the Trent region, the west midlands region and elsewhere? One could go on. Waiting lists have been reduced under this Conservative Government, whereas under the last Labour Government they increased horrifically.
  Mr. Galley: My hon. Friend is quite right. By any measure of the quality of our NHS provision — the number of staff and the conditions under which they are working — there have been consistent improvements during the last eight years.
  It is also of critical importance that the health of our community is improving all the time. If we look at the morbidity and mortality rates for the whole population and for each group within the population, we see that they are improving—even even for social groups 4 and 5. The Opposition will try to suggest that that is not so, but the mortality and morbidity rates in social groups 4 and 5 are significantly better than they were.
  Let me deal in particular with a very important indicator of the health of the nation—the perinatal and the neonatal mortality figures. That indicator has

  71
  improved since 1980. It has improved to 10 perinatal deaths per 1,000 births and that improvement has affected every group. We can look at the figures in more detail. In social groups 1 and 2 there has been an improvement in the number of still births from 5·7 per 1,000 to 4·2. In social groups 4 and 5 there has been an improvement from 8·4 per 1,000 to 7·2. The improvement has gone across every group. In social groups 1 and 2 perinatal deaths have reduced from 10·7 per 1,000 to 7·8. In social groups 4 and 5 perinatal deaths have reduced from 15·5 per 1,000 to 12·3. Neonatal deaths in social groups I and 2 have reduced from 6·2 per 1,000 to 4·3 and from 8·9 per 1,000 to 6·5 in social groups 4 and 5. Every social group within our community has benefited from improved health. Some have improve more than others, but there has been consistent improvement throughout society.
  We have to accept that in some measure there may be effects from poverty and unemployment in certain parts of the country. We can look at that in the context of our health and regional policies. If we accept that argument as being a part, only a part, of the story we have to ask ourselves whose policies are best at coping with those problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a valid point. The areas of deprivation and difficulty in Britain are areas such as Merseyside, Tyneside, Teesside, south Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and parts of the west midlands. What are the characteristics of those areas? They are run and controlled by Labour authorities. I do not wish to be simplistic about that, but I know a little bit about Sheffield. All those areas have had rate increases over a good number of years that have been substantially greater that in other parts of the country. The result has been that industry has fled. It has certainly fled from Sheffield.
  Mr. Rogers rose——
  Mr. Galley: I must get on.
  Not only has industry fled but people, particularly when they are mobile, have said, "I am not going to continue to pay these rates. I shall live a few miles outside this city in a more pleasant environment. I will not give my rates to that city, which is taking far too much of my income." Therefore, there has been an inevitable concentration of deprived groups. Some authorities have said that they will do all sorts of things for particular ethnic groups, gays and lesbians. Therefore, people such as that will concentrate in those areas, and the deprivation becomes great. Many people have realised that business is moving out because of high rate increases.
  One might say, "It is not fair. In our area we have suffered greatly from unemployment because we worked in the great manufacturing industries. That was the basis of our economy and we have now suffered a major decline." Those industries are coal, shipbuilding, steel and vehicle manufacturing. Do those industries ring a bell? Is it not the case that they are all nationalised? Is it not the case that they have been heavily subsidised over a long period of time in order to ingrain their lack of competitiveness? Those are all important factors which underline the problems of unemployment and deprivation in those parts of the country.
  72
  Who will be able to solve the problems of unemployment? Are we to return to nationalisation and subsidisation, which have been a disaster for Sheffield, Merseyside, Tyneside and Teesside?
  Mr. Kevin Barron rose——
  Mr. Galley: It seems a creditable record, if not one of which we should be proud, that 1 million jobs have been created since 1983. That is an excellent response, given the background of the growth of our labour force, the technological change and all the other international problems with which we have had to cope. It is sterile for the Opposition to say that we must subsidise manufacturing industry in order to achieve economic regeneration in my constituency and other parts of the north.
  When I visit manufacturing firms in my constituency, I am told that their orders are better. On the latest survey, they are saying that orders are at their best level for 10 years. They say, "We may be taking on a few more employees but primarily we will be buying a better and more up-to-date computerised machine." The subsidy of manufacturing industry will not create additional employment. We have to create wealth by exports and use that wealth to create a whole range of jobs within our economy.
  It is sterile to say that we shall increase public expenditure and raise the numbers of those employed by local authorities. That will increase rates and taxes, which is precisely the reason for the decline of areas such as south Yorkshire, Merseyside and Manchester. It will reduce personal consumption and enterprise and it will make industry less competitive.
  The 1·1 million jobs that the Labour party says it will create are a mirage. There will simply be a transfer of jobs from the private sector to the public sector. It will strangle enterprise and at this point enterprise must not be strangled because the enterprise upon which the great economy of west Yorkshire and many other areas was based 100 years ago is beginning to revive and rejuvenate. That is happening in Halifax and other parts of west Yorkshire, and I am sure that it is happening in other parts of the country.
  As a Government we have reduced barriers to the expansion of business. We have increased the number of small businesses and the number of self-employed, and business is booming in many areas. The Halifax area has received £2 million in enterprise allowances and £3 million in small business improvement schemes and projects. Our record of creating new businesses and self-employment is second to none. The policies of high public spending, high rates and high borrowing that the Labour party wishes to introduce again in the north will stop all that revival in its tracks.
  Mr. Barron rose——
  Mr. Galley: It is not true that the aid given to the north has reduced significantly. It has been better targeted. So often we hear figures trotted out saying that the amount of aid has been reduced. If one looks at the total available from a variety of sources, certainly in my constituency, it has increased significantly. There is aid for research and development, environmental aid, regional aid and specific schemes. All that has increased during the period of this Government.
  The problems of the north stem from a lack of enterprise stifled by high rates and subsidised uncom-

  73
  petitive industries. Regeneration by enterprise is now working through local economies. Not only is it the case that that enterprise will be stifled and that the 1·1 million jobs are a mirage, but the policies of the Labour party — I should say the policies of the Opposition parties, because it will apply to the Liberal party—will increase unemployment throughout Britain. They will increase unemployment in Halifax and the north of England. They will make 50,000 people unemployed as a result of their policies on defence. They will make 150,000 people unemployed as a result of their policies on nuclear energy. They will make 100,000 people unemployed as a result of their policies on sanctions against South Africa. The policy of a minimum wage, espoused not by the SDP but by the Labour party, and increasing differentials in line with that, will make another 600,000 people unemployed. The reality is that the policies set out by the Labour party will increase unemployment by 1 million not reduce it.
  From the detail of what was said by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) it seems that the alliance will follow on roughly the same lines. There may not be quite so much inflation, taxation, borrowing or unemployment, but we will see very much the same sort of policy.
  We have seen here today. from both parties and particularly from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, a cry for higher taxation, higher spending, higher borrowing and—I noted carefully at the top of his list—higher immigration. They will not solve the inequalities of this nation but will bankrupt it. It is only by the growing prosperity and enterprise that is now gradually being shared by more and more communities that we shall succeed, and succeed we shall.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: When I listen to Conservative Members talking about these issues, I often wonder whether we are living in the same country. Whenever we speak about the problems of the National Health Service, unemployment or industry, we are showered with statistics that are supposed to demonstrate the opposite to what everybody knows to be the truth. I am driven to the simple, if not original, question, "If things are so good, how come things are so bad?" Everyone in the country knows what the situation is, regardless of any statistics that Conservative Members might mouth. They will not convince people of something that they know not to be true.
  I come hotfoot from the north of England and having lived there all my life, I know something about the region. Today, I was at the launch of the eighth state of the region report — for the first time, produced by the Northern Region Councils Association. The report covers recent changes in six key sectors —- the region's economy, labour supply and unemployment, social change, transport and communications, environment and housing and public sector investment.
  The report concludes that the north's economic position has worsened in the past year and that the north-south divide is becoming a matter of serious concern. Job losses from the region's traditional industries are still not being counter-balanced by the attraction of new industry, and the north continues to have the highest regional unemployment rate in Great Britain. Average weekly household incomes in the north are well below the national level, and the relative position is worsening. The region is
  74
  becoming increasingly dependent on social security payments. The share of regionally relevant public expenditure in the north is declining and not enough public investment is taking place to match the scale of the region's problems.
  Despite all these problems, during 1986 the region has again demonstrated its willingness and ability to help itself by the creation of the Northern Region Councils Association and the Northern Development Company. However, the problems are immense, and they are getting worse. Employment has continued to decline, with a further net loss of 3,000 jobs during the year. The north's traditional manufacturing industries continue to be the hardest hit. Major redundancies totalled more than 15,000 in the past year, of which 6,000 have been in coal mining. Growth in employment has been limited to the service sector, although this has been insufficient to replace employment losses elsewhere.
  The latest employment projections for the region suggest that the current trend of employment decline will continue over the next four years. Gross domestic product in the north declined sharply during 1984 relevant to the United Kingdom, and Government support for regional industrial policy has continued to deteriorate in 1985–86, despite the decline of the region's economy.
  One in five of the region's unemployed have now been out of work for more than three years. Youth unemployment has increased faster than the expansion of the youth training scheme. There is still a higher chance of becoming unemployed in the north than in any other region and one of the lowest chances of ceasing to be unemployed. The north has the lowest average weekly household income of all regions in Great Britain, and its relative position is worsening.
  The region's perinatal mortality rate, to which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) referred, increased in 1984, contrary to past trends, and the standardised mortality ratio continues to be the highest in England and Wales. A joint report by Bristol university and the Northern regional health authority, which has also been referred to, refers to inequalities of health in the northern region. I remind those hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this report that the Northern regional health authority, like others, is dominated by members appointed by the Government, so it could hardly be called a Socialist enclave. The main findings of the report demonstrate the strong link between the distribution of ill health and low income.
  The north's share of national expenditure on roads has been falling, particularly compared with the south-east. The deregulation of bus services, which came into operation in October 1986, has led to a service that has been described as being in a "shocking state" and "unreliable and irregular" by the Conservative Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant).
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Northern Development Company. Could he clarify what he and the company mean by the word "north", having regard to the fact that a Labour party briefing note refers to the north as
  "all areas outside the Southern triangle of the South East, the South West and East Anglia"?
  Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the north in those terms or in some other terms?
  Mr. Clelland: I am referring to the northern region as defined by the Department of the Environment, which we all understand as the northern region — not the north that some people seem to believe starts north of the Watford Gap. These statistics refer to those counties that comprise the northern region of England.
  That was a brief summary of the 1986 state of the region report, published this morning, which revealed that the north-south divide is still with us, and getting worse. As the report points out, the northern region has the highest unemployment rate in Britain at 17 per cent., which is 5 percentage points above the average for Great Britain. People in the area have the greatest likelihood of losing their jobs of any region in Great Britain, and it is the only region where the working population was actually smaller in 1984 than it was in 1974. Even worse, the number of people unemployed for over three years has doubled since 1983, to 43,000.
  Those are the facts. The statistics are drawn up not by the Northern Region Councils Association but by the Government. They are the statistics of decline and decay. However, none of them can convey the real total of human misery. One cannot convey the despair and disillusion of a 50-year-old who has been told that his useful working life is finished as a result of a series of graphs on an economist's wall.
  I have seen the reality of unemployment for myself. In the factory in which I worked for 22 years, I have seen grown men cry more tears than the Prime Minister could blink up in a lifetime. The frustration of a 19-year-old who has never worked and possibly never will cannot be conveyed by some fancy figures in the Gazette. Unemployment is not just a matter of economic statistics. It is a social condition and a state of mind. It is an individual blight and a family burden, as well as an economic loss to the whole community. Mass unemployment divides families and destroys lives. It brings bitterness as surely as it deepens despair. It is not only an economic catastrophe, but a human tragedy of immense proportions. We in the north are suffering the stark results of eight years of Conservative policy and prejudice.
  Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is addressing the points set out in the motion. A specific example of the divisions might be helpful. This is one example of many. In my constituency, only three or four weeks ago, I met a young girl, who has a baby. She was living in an overcrowded house, and her only entitlement resulted in a benefit of £15 for herself and £8 for her child. This evening some of us will be sitting down in the Dining Room and spending that much on a meal.
  Mr. Clelland: I note my hon. Friend's comments. There are many examples like the one that he underlined. Those examples counter earlier comments that people are now better off and that even those in the worst poverty are better off now then they have ever been. Hon. Members who believe that should face the problems and talk to people, like the girl my hon. Friend described, and try to convince them that they are better off now than they have ever been. Instead of the hope and harmony that the Prime Minister and her Government promised us back in 1979, they have delivered nothing but disillusionment and despair.
  Our young people are steeped in hopelessness, our old are left feeling neglected and uncared for, the unemployed
  76
  feel abandoned, the employed feel insecure, minorities are discriminated against and the majority live under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. If Conservative Members do not believe that people on the street are not worried about those things, they are out of touch with reality.
  What answers do the Government offer to tackle the root causes of those problems and divisions? They offer none. Even on law and order, the Government's central plank in the past two general election campaigns, the divisions are evident. Recent statistics show that in the Northumbria police force area, total crimes have risen by 68 per cent. since 1978, compared with the national average of 50 per cent. Violence against the person is up 57 per cent., compared with a national average of 44 per cent. Burglaries are up 83 per cent., compared with the national average of 66 per cent. Theft and the handling of stolen goods have risen 57 per cent., compared with the national average of 39 per cent. Criminal damage, including vandalism, is up 102 per cent., compared with the national average of 91 per cent.
  That last statistic is most revealing. It is the sort of crime generally committed by young people. It shows the deprivation and desperation into which young people have been driven by the Government. The only statistic that is out of line with the pattern is that for fraud and forgery. In the northern region that is down 7 per cent. compared with a 9 per cent. increase nationally. That may reveal that in the northern region most people do not have the finances to buy a single share in their own name, let alone multiple shares in the names of one or two other people.
  To resolve the problems, the Government have said that we need heavier penalties, weapons for the police and more spending. If that is so, why do those countries with the most heavily armed police forces suffer the highest crime rates? For every 1 per cent. increase in expenditure on the police force in this country over the past six years, why has there been a corresponding increase in crime? Why are the incidents of burglary on the poorest council estates four times higher than in middle class suburbia?
  The answer is that crime is not directly related to the strengths or weaknesses of the forces of law and order. It is not sufficiently deterred by short, sharp shock treatment or long, hard prison sentences. Crime is related to the social conditions in which we live. It is fed by poverty and jealousy. It is fostered by discrimination and frustration. It is fuelled by hopelessness and idleness. That is why in the north Labour councils have been tackling both the causes and the effects of social disorder.
  More police have been put back on the beat and even more have been requested. Our living environment has been improved, housing has been modernised, and there has been an increase of 66 per cent. in public housing renovation in the northern region compared with 12 per cent. nationally. There has also been a fall in the region of 60 per cent. in renovations in the private sector. Businesses have been helped by local authorities. Training and education have been provided for our young people. Much more needs be to done, remains to be done and certainly could be done if we had a Government who worked with the people instead of riding roughshod over them.
  However, our achievements are being made in the face of a Government who withdraw finance from those local authorities that they cannot convince, rate-cap those that they cannot financially blackmail and abolish those with which they politically disagree. Because they have no answers, the Government brand all those who try to find

  77
  solution as "Left-wing" —whatever that means in the Government's blinkered mind—or "soft on crime". That is not and never been true. Certainly, for my part, I abhor robbery of the homes of ordinary working people who have spent years and worked hard to build a home for their families, only to have it abused and vandalised and their possessions stolen. I detest violence, racism and hooliganism — and of course the perpetrators must be caught and punished. However, I have also always believed that rehabilitation is better than revenge and that prevention is better than cure. I have always believed that it is better to try to find answers to questions than to pretend that the questions do not exist.
  Those problems can be tackled and answers can be found. A Labour Government will quickly begin to resolve the problem that is central to current social conditions —unemployment. For example, councils will be allowed to build and modernise homes. New systems of exchange controls will be introduced so that the billions of pounds currently flowing overseas, more than £60 billion in the past six years, can be diverted into British industry. Billions of pounds currently planned to be spent on American nuclear weapons systems will be saved. Instead, the money will be spent on conventional weapons for the defence of our country. Those earning the highest salaries will have to pay more to help the poorest.
  All that, and more, will create work for our people. As more people find work and spending power increases, even more jobs will he created as demand for goods and services grows. That is not a dream or a false or impractical promise. It can be achieved if the Government have the will to do it. By that means, the frustration and hopelessness present in our country will begin to diminish. People will once more begin to have confidence and will be able to plan for the future.
  However, the Government have no answer to unemployment or law and order. The Tories have nothing to offer; nor do their new partners in the new Tory party, the SDP. We discovered that during my by-election campaign just over a year ago. Before that there was more chance of spotting Lord Lucan in Gateshead high street than a member of the SDP. However, during the campaign they came flocking in almost as if their ringmaster had discovered that there was a stop called Tyne Bridge on their new circus route. We even spotted some familiar faces among the visitors. We saw John Horam, the former hon. Member for Gateshead, West who, like so many others in the SDP, was merely pausing on his way to the Tory party, and William Rodgers, a former Member of Parliament for Stockton.
  Mr. Marlow: I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I believe that the Liberals and the SDP—I am afraid that there is only one of them present so the point is somewhat missed — are hoping for what they call a balanced Parliament. That means that the balance of power, as I understand it, would be held by the Liberals and the SDP in the next Parliament. I think that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) probably realises, as I realise, that if that were to happen, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and his party would actually coalesce with the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and his party would coalesce with the Labour party. What price an alliance in those circumstances?
  Mr. Clelland: I shall develop that point later in my argument. However, the hon. Gentleman has agreed that the SDP is much closer to the Conservative party than to the Labour party.
  Mr. Horam and Mr. Rodgers, to whom I have referred, and others in the SDP first won their seats in Parliament by standing as Labour candidates. They won easily because of the loyalty and, in many cases, the lifetime support for the Labour party of the experiences of people in the north of England. Hundreds of members and supporters tramped the streets for them in order to win for Labour. Having won their seats because they were Labour candidates, they decided to switch their allegiance and to betray their voters and supporters. They continued to collect their parliamentary salaries, and at no stage did they give any consideration to the fact that they had no support for their betrayal of their constituents. They were shown the way at the general election.
  People in the north have no time for treachery. That is why the flood of visitors to Tyneside to support their candidate in the Tyne Bridge by-election did not help them. They swarmed in across the north-south divide, from Maidstone and Margate, from Bromley and Basingstoke, from Portsmouth and Poole, with street maps and copies of the Geordie good food guide tucked under their arms. Of course, we did not mind them coming to Tyneside and spending their money in the wine bars and restaurants; any assistance to our local economy is welcome. However, we do not need to take lectures on politics from people whose life experience and interest is confined within the few weeks of a by-election campaign. They share neither our values nor our background, so how can they understand our problems or our hopes? They are not of us, so how can they hope to represent us?
  We need in power a party that broadly represents the views and aspirations of ordinary families. Only the Labour party offers the prospect of real hope, real harmony and real chances to the people of Britain—all of Britain.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn ( Mr. Kinnock), in his capacity as leader of the Labour party, in his speech to the Labour party conference in 1985, spoke of the "life opportunities" that had been extended to him by the Labour party and previous Labour Governments, and last year he appealed to the moral majority in our country. He spoke with a passion. a conviction and an understanding that can come only from the son of an ordinary working family. He expressed the feelings of the vast majority of people in this country, because, like him, wherever we live, we all owe everything to two groups of people—our parents, who struggled to ensure that we would have a better life than they had, and the Labour movement, which provided the opportunities to build that better life for ourselves and our children : the opportunity of education, the opportunity to have a decent home and, perhaps, one day even, yes, to own our own home, the chance of a decent job, a fair wage when in work, dignity when out of work and a secure retirement when the working life is over. For all of that we owe a debt of honour to those who fought and sacrificed before our time. They did not fight and they did not make sacrifices in order to build a society that could be so easily divided between north and south and between rich and poor. and we who follow them will not be diverted or subdued by temporary statistics.

  79
  The people of the north know, as, in their hearts, do the vast majority of our people, that the divisions in our country can be healed and that such a process is essential to the development of a civilised society. They also know that the Conservative party has neither the desire nor the philosophy to do it. The Government have surely demonstrated that fact, in crystal clarity, over the past eight years of conflict and division. The people also know that the alliance cannot do it. An alliance which is divided into two distinct political parties with two distinct political philosophies cannot hope to convince the nation that it will be a uniting force. In addition, the alliance does not possess a single policy for healing the divisions that it would not be willing to bargain away to win a seat in a coalition Cabinet.
  If our people genuinely want something effective done about unemployment, poverty, insecurity, conflict and divisions—as I believe they do—there is only one way to achieve it, and that is to elect a Labour Government. The people know it, and they will do it.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Roger King: I came down from the midlands this morning because I was confident that the debate would be controversial and far-ranging and that there would be a highly charged atmosphere in the House.
  I am disappointed, because although this is an Opposition day and they have devoted all of it to one debate, and they are obviously sincere about their motion, that sincerity is not shared by all Labour Members. As we look out across the empty Opposition Benches, we must wonder how determined the Opposition are to solve what they believe is a serious problem of a north-south divide.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, moved the motion in a way that made Rambling Sid Rumpole look positively specific, stayed to hear the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and then left the Chamber and has not been seen since. Again, we must wonder how sincere the Opposition are about the motion.
  This is an important time in our political history. The memoirs of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, are being published in the.Sunday Times. If we needed reminding of the divisions in our society, we see them line by line as the right hon. Gentleman recounts the story of that last Labour Government.
  Mr. Marlow: Not "that" last Labour Government; "the" last Labour Government.
  Mr. King: Yes, the last Labour Government and the winter of discontent. We can see what discontent and division really meant; the trade union movement argued with the elected Government, people could not agree and the whole nation suffered.
  That time is history now and about 6 million new voters will barely remember it, though they have history books and the Sunday Times to tell them what happened. I hope that they will read those memoirs carefully and learn from them. They show what happened when we had a Labour
  80
  Government who were bent on creating one nation but ended up causing divisions throughout society. Given Labour's record, we cannot take the motion seriously.
  I am also sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is absent, because I wish to refer to something that is being exported from London to Birmingham tomorrow. Two of Labour's prospective parliamentary candidates are coming to Birmingham to talk about black separatism in politics. We do not want that in Birmingham. We stand 100 per cent. behind the Labour party and its deputy leader in saying that we do not want that sort of thing exported from London to Birmingham. It is a sort of political apartheid and is racist in many ways. It must be, because that is what those prospective candidates stand for. How can we debate the motion before us when that sort of thing is being condoned by the Labour party because it does not have the guts to tell those people to desist from such goings on? I am convinced that the people of Birmingham, who will soon be voting in local elections, will inwardly digest what happens tomorrow and will learn from it.
  The nation has gone through a traumatic time as a result of the legacy of poor industrial relations, outmoded production equipment and the ravages of overseas competition. There was an easy solution. The Government could have kept open all the mines and the steelworks and said, "We shall go on making cars for which there are no buyers because the quality is no good and we shall keep all businesses open because we do not want any unemployment." But if we had had that sort of Socialist, planned society we should now be in a disastrous mess.
  It took guts and courage for the Government to say that they would not featherbed the future and take the easy option. The only way in which this country can survive post-Empire, post-Commonwealth, and standing alone as an island nation — admittedly, within the European Community, but, nevertheless, with a separate economic identity — is to make the right products of the right quality, with the highest productivity and efficiency, and to sell them on a discerning world market. In many industries we are at long last seeing the rewards of having embarked on that policy.
  Nobody seriously considers, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members, that we can take back all the people who have been shed from the coal mines, the steel industry, the railways and the other state undertakings and give them gainful employment. My constituency of Northfield includes Austin Rover's Longbridge factory, which used to employ 23,000 people, but now employs 12,500 people. Nobody is seriously suggesting that it should be committed to taking back another 10,000 people to provide them with work. Although the company is taking on about 1,000 people, our problem is that, in the next era of technology, machinery will be even more robotised and even more productively efficient and will require fewer people to make an ever greater quantity of manufactured goods. That is the challenge that we face. No one political creed will get us off that hook. We must tackle the problem bravely and take up the challenge that it offers in creating investment in our infrastructure, which will create wealth.
  Time and time again Opposition Members have been telling us how they will spend the country's wealth. They say that they will provide more schools, give higher pensions and higher this and that, but they do not say a word about how the wealth will be created. Conservative

  81
  members have been trying to explain for the last seven years or so that we must create the wealth before we spend it. The miracle is that we have managed to do both. We are now creating real wealth, by seven years of uninterrupted economic growth and many more to come. We have maintained the level of public investment within our public facilities, the National Health Service, education, pensions and so on and we have increased the benefits all round. That has come about because of our fiscal policies, which have given us good value for money.
  Mr. Leadbitter: It is important that, in a debate such as this, we follow each other and at least try to be objective. I find some difficulty in that. The hon. Gentleman gave us a list of how much more has been spent on pensions, and so on. I was rather puzzled when he was talking about the Labour programme to take certain measures in these sectors. He said that we were going to have some difficulty in finding the necessary resources and that, if we undertook those measures, we would be acting irresponsibly. To clear the matter up, and so that I may know whether I should follow my Labour party colleagues in the next few months, will the hon. Gentleman help me in my dilemma?
  Mr. King: I should be delighted to do so. No one has ever had such a wonderful opportunity to drum into people exactly what the Government have done. The Labour party has presented today, as in the past, its shopping list of what it wants to spend. At the last count, it simply said that it intended to spend £30 billion. I do not quote that figure to my constituents, because they do not believe that anybody could come up with such a figure, so I halve it to £15 billion to get it down to a credible level, but they are still amazed that any political party can commit itself to such expenditure before it has established how it will create it.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The figure of £30 billion was not mentioned by the Labour party. The figure was increased by the Conservative party from £28 billion. Even that is chickenfeed in terms of the £21 billion that it costs to keep people out of work.
  Mr. King: Taken over 10 years that might be a realistic figure, hut, taking it from year to year, the Labour party is not prepared for, and cannot commit itself to, the creation of all these extra jobs without a great deal of expenditure first in the hope that it can create them. If it sets out to pump £6 billion into the economy in the hope that it will save the same by a reduction in unemployment levels, it must still pay those on the unemployment queue while the jobs are theoretically being created. It is having to maintain its expenditure on unemployment at the same time as it is stepping up its expenditure on investment. That does not make economic sense, and I think that most people will accept that.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Only a few weeks ago, in the Budget, we found that billions of pounds were sloshing about in the Treasury and £6 billion was given away. If the £21 billion to keep nearly 3·5 million people out of work could be reduced to about £10 billion, and the remaining people brought into work, that would mean only a shift of resources. It would not involve spending an extra penny.
  Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has the level of money that was given away in the Budget —£6 billion—exactly right. I understand that a good
  82
  portion of that money was spent on the reduction of borrowing, which was immediately reflected by a reduction in interest charges and a reduction in mortgage costs, thus bringing down the cost of living for most people. The costs of production in industry were also brought down, as was inflation, thereby creating more jobs, which is welcome.
  We are poised before an era of substantial expansion in the motor industry, which will create many new opportunities. Ford, Vauxhall, and Peugeot Talbot are committed to making more cars in this country, and the cars that they make will use components sourced largely from this country.
  We do not hear too much about investment in the north-east, because it is difficult to reconcile that with some trade union thinking and the thinking of some of the other mainstream members of the Labour party. The introduction of Nissan into this country is one section of a substantial Japanese investment in manufacturing that is gaining pace over the length and breadth of this country. Telford has almost become a little Japan as a result of attracting thousands of job opportunities with Japanese companies. I have been to Nissan in Sunderland and it is gratifying to see people gainfully employed in producing products that will ensure the future of that area and give the workers job security. I accept that many Opposition Members deplore such investment coming from Japan because they believe that that is at the expense of our goods and products. I am from a Brummy car-making constituency, and we will build a better car than a Geordie ever will.
  Mr. Clelland: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about investment in the north-east by Nissan. Another Japanese company, Komatsu, has also invested in the north-east. However, that is not necessarily solely because of the Government's activities. Before the Tyne and Wear county council was abolished, it was principally responsible for Nissan coming to the area. It was certainly responsible for Komatsu coming to Tyne and Wear. Although this is welcome, there are problems. We have seen the example of Caterpillar in Glasgow. We need an indigenous industry in the area. These industries have created only 800 jobs, yet we have lost 15,000 through redundancies.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that Nissan and other Japanese companies have come to this country only because, after seven or eight years, we have created the right industrial climate in which they can invest. There is no getting away from that argument.
  Much of our education leaves much to be desired, which is why the Government have embarked on a major programme of educational reform, appraisal of the role of teachers and a decent pay scale for teachers, which I hope they will be ready to accept in the not too distant future. In Birmingham we have something that is dear to everyone who lives there—our King Edward foundation schools. Those schools fly in the face of Labour policy. There is a degree of selectivity about those who attend the four or five schools in the city. The local Labour party is dedicated to doing away with them, as is the national Labour party. Despite that, many Labour people who occupy positions of authority, and many people throughout industry, attended these schools, to the betterment of themselves, the city and the country.

  83
  Some selectivity is involved in those city schools, but they provide an opportunity for everyone. If a child is capable enough, he or she can go to one of these schools and receive special attention. Is it right to deny that opportunity to everyone because of a Socialistic ideal to eliminate all choice? I am sure that it is not, but the Labour party is keen to introduce that policy. In its misguided belief in eliminating choice, and therefore doing away with the so-called social divides, it will increase those divides. Those who want their children to have a special education will have to buy it in the market place, either in this country or abroad, as the Leader of the Opposition said, "when we have finished."
  Mr. Cash: Taking my hon. Friend's point a bit further, does he agree that if people are given the opportunity to have the highest quality education that is available through the system that he has described it will be possible for them to help others to get work? Their management skills will be much better. Therefore, everyone will benefit. My hon. Friend's point applies not only to the present generation but to future generations. Real leadership, management and skills are developed through the education system.
  Mr. King: That is right. My hon. Friend has put it succinctly.
  Throughout Birmingham and the midlands the position of the Health Service is encouraging. New hospitals are coming into commission at Telford and Redditch and many new projects are on the books or have been started, including the £27 million new hospital being built just outside my constituency. We welcome those developments. We should not necessarily look at the Health Service through waiting lists, although it is gratifying to note that they went up and up under Labour and have gone down and down under the Conservative Government. The benchmark for deciding how effective the NHS is must be the number of patients for whom it cares. There cannot be any other way of deciding how good a health service is. The efficiency of a factory is measured by what it produces. A great big factory can produce nothing. A poor factory can have incredibly high production. We should look at the Health Service in terms of the numbers treated in it. The numbers of in-patients and out-patients are at record high levels.
  Birmingham shares the housing problems which are manifest throughout Britain and which are largely the problems of local Labour authorities. We often wonder how the money is spent on housing repairs and home improvements. Substantial sums go into Birmingham's coffers, and almost all the money is spent, although usually the authority underspends by £2 million or £3 million. The authority keeps saying that it wants to build more houses, but, if we ever had the opportunity to do so, where would they be built? The city is hemmed in by greenbelt land and it will not be easy to find a satisfactory solution to that difficult problem.
  The housing problem is exacerbated by quite a big divide in terms of what personal conduct is socially responsible. I do not want to condemn anyone, but it seems to me—some of my colleagues have mentioned this recently—that too great a strain is placed on society by the one-parent family and that the right and expectation of a one-parent family to have a home have
  84
  been extended too far. The right of a young girl, as soon as she has left school, to become pregnant, put her name on the housing list and be given accommodation as soon as the council can provide it is causing untold problems throughout the housing structure of Birmingham and elsewhere. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is the law."] It is indeed the law, but I wonder whether there should be a change in our social outlook so that society says that our young people have certain responsibilities within the community.
  Single parents are an accepted fact. This is becoming a way of life in our cities, with all the social problems that it causes. I do not want laws that prevent or ban single-parent families or deprive them of their rights, but society should point out that those people have responsibilities to society generally to provide for their families as much as they can. Individuals should not just seek a commitment from the state and community from the moment they seek to become a family.
  Birmingham has suffered substantially from a lack of industrial expansion throughout the west midlands because of the rates levy inflicted by the local authority on industry and domestic householders. During the past two years there has been a rates increase of more than 60 per cent., which has played a major part in slowing the growth of industrial expansion. This expansion has been much lower that it would have been had the local authority adopted more prudent fiscal policies. The crippling local rate has had a dramatic effect on the retailing sector. More than anything else, this is reflected in vacant shop units throughout the city and the difficulties of regenerating much of the inner city. I am happy that some expansion is taking place. A convention centre, which includes a hotel complex, is being built for £120 million. This will guarantee a strong future over the next few years for Birmingham.
  We are confident that Birmingham can solve its problems satisfactorily. There is not necessarily a problem of Left versus Right. We have tried to maintain a consensus in politics, although that is not to say that we cannot and do not substantially criticise the present local Labour administration. We object to and strongly deplore any imported sectarianism. We want to be left to get on with our own thing and to be free from as much restriction as possible. Given the true Brummy values of thrift and efficiency, our city will prosper. Indeed, it is prospering. This will lead the city and the nation into a very prosperous next few years.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on the manner in which he delivered his copious speech without copious notes. He seemed to make his speech with his eye on the 7 May local election, and possibly a general election. I am sure that a young lady of 16 who is in some difficulty and is looking for some type of accommodation would not be especially impressed by the hon. Gentleman's unfeeling attitude. Although I fully accept that he believes in the Conservative values which he carefully articulated, a certain unfeeling and uncaring attitude came through, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to reflect on that between now and the general election. I am sure that the good workers in the Nissan factory on Tyneside would not agree with his remarks that the car manufacturers in Birmingham are as equal as the car manufacturers in the north-east.

  85
  I should like briefly to state the Labour party's attitude to Nissan and companies like it. Of course we accept Japanese investment in Britain. It is better that the Japanese should invest their capital here than export their unemployment. But their Nissan investment on Tyneside will not even touch the unemployment in Cleveland. About 4,000 jobs at Nissan have been created over four years, but about 50,000 people have lost their jobs since 1979.
  The hon. Member for Northfield was good enough to accept that the Government were responsible for unemployment. He said that no one could imagine that the work lost in the steel industry or in the coal mines could be made up. He said that the workers affected could not be taken back. It was significant that the hon. Gentleman accepted that in 1979 the Government had no confidence in the British people or British workers and were not prepared to defend our steel industry or coal mines. We have felt the consequences on Teesside where the work force in the steel industry has dropped from about 27,000 in 1979 to about 6,500 and it is still dropping. That has had serious consequences for the vitality of the commercial and industrial structure of our area. It is right to say that those jobs cannot he recreated immediately.
  Smith's dock is next door to my constituency, and when I made my maiden speech in 1983 I committed myself to preserving jobs there. Unfortunately, the Government continued their monetarist policy and their theorising on industrial policy and Smith's dock eventually closed. We hope that it will not be lost entirely.
  Many areas of Teesside have been converted into green field sites as a result of the Government's policies. As I said earlier, those policies show no confidence in the British work force, and certainly no confidence in Teesside. Nothing that we have heard in this debate shows that that attitude will change in the next few years.
  I detect a certain arrogance and overweening confidence on the Government Back Benches. I have always taken the view that pride comes before a fall, and it may well be that the fall will come earlier for the Government than they imagine.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bell: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I know that he represents a neighbouring constituency, but he has not followed the entire debate and it would be unfair of me to allow him to intervene. He may certainly try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I will not take any insults from the hon. Gentleman. He has just come into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is never in the Chamber when we deal with important matters. He was not here on Wednesday when we had an important debate. I will not accept sedentary interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
  The motion says :
  "this House notes with concern the increasing divisions within British society"
  No Conservative Member has said that he is opposed to that part of the motion. No Conservative Member has said that Government policies are not creating divisions in our society. The motion
  "condemns the Government for the constant pursuit of policies which have widened these divisions".
  86
  No Conservative Member has said that that is not the case. The Government's case is not that their policies widen the divisions, but that the divisions will be widened and that we will have to live with them.
  The motion also says that the House
  "looks forward to the time when a Government is elected which is committed to the creation of one nation."
  The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment said that he is a one-nation Tory. How can he create a one-nation state by following the divisive two-nation policies of the Right wing of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister? He was not able to tell us that; he simply used the phrase as his peroration. Nothing in the policies of the Government is likely to bring about one nation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) spoke about the state of the region report. His speech clearly showed the divide that exists between north and south, a divide that is being reinforced.
  On Saturday I was in Finchley, in the constituency of the Prime Minister. I met many people there who are concerned about unemployment. It is wrong to believe that those who are working are not concerned about the fate of those who are not. They have a genuine concern for the unemployed. It is ironic that in Finchley about 1,000 jobs will be lost between now and next May as a result of a factory closure. The seepage of job losses from the north to the south is continuing right up to the Prime Minister's constituency.
  I should like to speak about the inequalities that have been created in Middlesbrough by Government policies on housing. Notwithstanding that 80 per cent. of the proceeds of sales of council houses remain frozen in the bank, the district council has opened new housing developments in St. Hilda's and in the town centre. There have been major modernisation schemes at Netherfields and in Grove hill.
  We are aware that of the cuts in my constituency the cuts in housing have been deepest and, most important, have put a serious strain on the community. Not enough improvement grants are available for town centre development, and that problem has been made particularly acute because expectations were raised in the early 1980s about the availability of grants. Middlesbrough now faces the prospect of future housing clearance if the council cannot maintain the repair and improvement of our old homes.
  It is equally the case that not enough new houses are being built to meet the housing need. Not only is there a lengthy waiting list in Middlesbrough, but there is a net shortage of houses of all types to meet the projected housing need. The slow progress of improvement schemes also means that even in the 1980s some families are living in conditions more appropriate to the 1920s. We had hoped that those times were long past, but they are rapidly coming again for many of my constituents. Demand is increasing and homelessness is becoming a major problem. We need a rapid expansion of the housing programme to meet the needs facing us.
  From the Government we have seen a fundamental and long-drawn-out attack upon the lives of those in local communities all over Britain. Certainly that has been the case for my constituents. There has been an unprecedented turnaround in the relationship between central and local government since the Conservatives took office in 1979. That has been even more heightened since 1983. I shall give some examples from my constituency.

  87
  The capital controls have reduced our housing capital budget by more than 60 per cent. Revenue controls have restricted our expenditure and at the same time the burden of meeting that expenditure has been pushed on to the backs of ratepayers by changes in the rate support grant. The inner area programme that was originally intended to revitalise the inner area has been subjected to more and more Government control and restriction of the finance available. A task force has been imposed upon the town by the Paymaster General. It is run by civil servants and has no democratic input.
  We have also seen the emergence of an urban development corporation with what the Government would call significant resources of about £160 million. That has been announced well before a general election, but we will not see the colour of the money for many months—if we see the money at all. There will be no democratic accountability to local people and no genuine input from Teesside or from the Middlesbrough area. The county council and the district council have schemes similar to those that will be a part of the urban development corporation programme.
  The council's expenditure limit and rate in the pound have been limited by the rate-capping procedure. The Government propose to enforce privatisation policies regardless of the views of locally elected representatives and the views of the people that they serve. The latest idea is a poll tax. That will significantly alter the burden of rates by increasing the burden on the least well off.
  These major changes are not only an affront to local democracy and to the democratically expressed wishes of people in places such as Middlesbrough, but a dangerous trend towards centralising power in the hands of an authoritarian and inflexible Government. [Interruption.] They are also impracticable. This has been demonstrated by the complete shambles in which local financial arrangements have been placed by the Government's constant intervention. It is quite clear that it is impossible for central Government to run local communities, particularly when the Government are antagonistic to the views and needs of that community. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Langbaurgh seems particularly agitated. That is possibly because there is an election coming. His majority will disappear into thin air and he will lose his seat. He ought to spend his time in the House enjoying the atmosphere and the debates rather than indulging in sedentary interventions.
  Finally, I should like to speak about economic development and unemployment in my area and to deal briefly with the background to that unemployment.
  The present unemployment crisis is no accident of history, as the hon. Member for Northfield confirmed when he said that it was not Government policy to keep coal mines open or to fortify and encourage the steel industry with investment and Government orders. The present crisis is the creation of Tory policies which have severely cut public investment and privatised many public services. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) made an interesting speech in which he condemned the Labour party for its support of subsidies but then listed a host of subsidies that his constituency had received from the Government and of which he was apparently proud.
  The crisis of doom and gloom spread by the Government throughout the north of England and in
  88
  many ways throughout the country is nowhere more severely felt than in Middlesbrough. The latest unemployment figures are 29 per cent. for men and 14·8 per cent. for women, after excluding people over the age of 60, the long-term unemployed, people on youth training schemes and other short-term Government schemes; and the figures are even higher for young people and ethnic minorities.
  The Paymaster General and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) touched on certain aspects of economic policy and the Labour retrenchment of 1977. The reason for that retrenchment was the oil price rise of 1974. The Paymaster General said that the retrenchment in the economy which led to job losses between 1979 and 1981 was also caused by oil prices and in a sense he was right. Oil prices had risen and unemployment went up as well. But he did not say that in 1979 we had the medium-term financial strategy devised by the then Chancellor and by the then Financial Secretary, who is now Chancellor. Here I render homage to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who has sat through this debate as parliamentary private secretary to the present Chancellor.
  If some blame for the increase in unemployment between 1979 and 1981 attaches to oil prices, the medium-term financial strategy, the setting of unrealistic monetary targets, the high value of $2·50 set for the pound by the then Chancellor, the very high interest rates of 21 per cent. then prevailing and the high inflation rate given to us by the then Chancellor were the direct cause of a million job losses in manufacturing industry which have not been made up since 1983. The hon. Member for Northfield, in a slip of the tongue, referred to seven years continuous growth, but even the Chancellor would not go back any further than 1981.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bell: I have already said how pleased we are to see the hon. Gentleman here as parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can make his own speech. It will be interesting to hear his master's voice from the Back Benches.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bell: Unemployment——
  Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member repeatedly refers by name to another hon. Member who has been present throughout the debate but has not put in to speak, is it not customary to allow that hon. Member to intervene?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor, but it is the convention.
  Mr. Bell: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the convention. He has been kind enough to attribute near-miraculous powers to me, including events which occurred in the first Conservative Parliament when I was not even a Member of Parliament, let alone PPS to anyone. Since I have been a Member of the House, a million jobs have been created. I should like to be able to claim credit for that, but I think that the credit largely belongs to the Government.
  Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman has been here all the time, he must have been asleep for some of it. I did not

  89
  attribute to him the role of Chancellor or even Financial Secretary in 1979. His master's voice was Financial Secretary at the time and was responsible for the medium term financial strategy which has since been quietly jettisoned. If the Government had really created a million jobs since 1983, we should have applauded and welcomed that, but they have not created a million full-time jobs. They have created jobs which in the 1950s were part-time, pin-money, pirate jobs with low status and no security of tenure. If a million real jobs had been created, we should have welcomed that, but the Government's figure is not valid.
  In Middlesbrough, 11,900 able-bodied men and women are unemployed. That is 29 per cent. of the work force. I have already described the conditions that I found in Finchley at the weekend. The cost of unemployment in direct and indirect taxes forgone, in lost national insurance contributions and in benefit payments, now exceeds £21 billion per year, as the hon. Member for Northfield has said. That is the proportion of our national wealth that is systematically and deliberately poured down the drain by the Government year in, year out. It is an average of £6,557 per unemployed person nationally, or an annual cost of £67 million in Middlesbrough. While the Government create urban development corporations and think tanks and put £1 million into inner-area development, the cost to our town is £67 million or £599 per working person per year.
  That is the reality on Teesside of the divide that the Government have created in the past seven years and which will continue if the British people do not see through the Government's hard-faced attitude towards unemployed people. I do not believe for one moment that that will happen, because all the opinion polls show that the people of this country are most concerned about unemployment. For 70 per cent. of them it is the major issue. When the election comes, the British people in their wisdom and knowledge will take the first opportunity to turn the Government out and send them back to history where they belong.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I intend to be brief. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is no longer here as I must say how much I enjoyed his speech and how much we Conservatives look forward to his joining us after the election. It will not be in his present alliance with the boy David, as he affectionately describes his right hon. Friend, because the chance of their participating in political power in my political lifetime is certainly remote. We know that the right hon. Member for Devonport is very ambitious and he is not getting any younger, so there is only one way ahead for him—to join the Conservative party. It is my fervent hope, however—God willing, it will be granted —that when he does so he will not be drafted into an economic Department, as he got into a frightful mess in his speech today.
  The right hon. Gentleman first suggested that the benefits to those out of work should be increased significantly. One may take a view about that. He also intended to give benefits to the low-paid who were in work, but the benefit to be given to the latter was to be significantly less than that to be given to the former. We are all aware of the great quandary, conundrum and problem of the "why work" syndrome.
  90
  I was once doing some work with a company in Nottingham in the north midlands. I had a long discussion with a person there who was responsible for recruiting the people that one might call hewers of wood and drawers of water—the less highly paid employees of that company. He said that if he had men between the ages of 20 and 45 with family commitments and had offered four of them jobs, one of them would have turned it down on the grounds that he was better off staying at home, not working and drawing benefit. The right hon. Member for Devonport suggested that, instead of one out of four declining to take available work, he would prefer two of the four to do so. For that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman never has anything to do with an economic Department.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose——
  Mr. Marlow: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  We know that the Liberals and the SDP are very much in favour of an inflation tax. That means that there will be a law, and every company in the land will he permitted to pay a certain level of wage increases each year. If they want to pay a higher increase, the state will claw it back in increased taxation. The way in which the economy works is that, if a company is successful, it may want to increase its labour force by recruiting more labour. To do that, a company may wish to pay more wages. The policy of the right hon. Member for Devonport would ensure that those companies that were doing well would be penalised by being charged higher rates of tax than any other company in the region.
  If we want to increase the wealth of the community and the prosperity of the nation in order—as we all want to do — to care for those who are unfortunate in our society, that is not the way to do it.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is a little confused about one aspect. The alliance is grasping the nettle of reforming our tax and benefit proposals so that those who work will gain more than those who are out of work, unlike what happens under the present system. Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes the alliance proposals on that?
  Mr. Marlow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber to hear the speech made by the right hon. Member for Devonport. I know that there are frictions between the two parties. If he had listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman he would have heard him say what I said that he said: that more should be given to those out of work and less to those in work.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House a little further about one matter? He obviously has an insight into what the leader of the SDP will be doing after the election. How long after the election will the right hon. Member for Devonport join the Conservative ranks? That could be important, because when the Leader of the Opposition dishes out the portfolios after the election that, too, might coincide with the right hon. Gentleman receiving a portfolio.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and has a sense of humour. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr King) was speaking of "that last Labour Government," and I corrected that to "the last

  91
  Labour Government". I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), because I love him dearly. There will not be another Labour Government.
  So much for the Liberals and the SDP. I intend to be very brief. The motion on the Order Paper states:
  "That this House notes with concern the increasing divisions within British society".
  I understand that it was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a bit rich, is it not? It is a camouflage job. Here is the Labour party, complaining about divisions in society, and it is the self-same Labour party that is creating those divisions.
  There have been discussions in the House about what has been known as the north-south divide. Sophisticates and people who have studied the issue recently say that it is not a north-south divide, but an east-west one because more trade is moving to the east and less to the west. But even that is not true. If one looks at the statistics for unemployment, one must look elsewhere. As Opposition Members have said, the picture is patchy. An examination of the statistics shows that five of the 12 constituencies in England and Wales with the highest levels of unemployment—with almost a third of the total male population unemployed and drawing benefit—are here in London in the wealthy south-east, where there are piles of jobs, and where anyone can get work. In the south-east, the economy is booming, yet five out of the 12 constituencies are here.
  Where are those constituencies—Bow and Poplar, Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, Peckham, Southwark and Bermondsey and Vauxhall. What do those constituencies have in common apart from being in London? They all have Labour local authorities. If one takes the analysis further, one realises that it is not a north-south or east-west divide. The areas in which there are divisions, in which there is crime, unemployment and bad housing, are Labour areas
  Mr. Tony Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to conjecture, for the benefit of the House, why the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom is in Belfast?
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact. We know that the hon. Gentleman specialises in red herrings. His remarks have nothing to do with the issue. There are special circumstances in Belfast, one of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the violence between the two communities in Northern Ireland. That is one of the regional problems of Belfast — problems that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not do a great deal to put right.
  Where Socialism is rampant, business confidence is low. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, lives with his wife, Greenham Glenys, in Ealing. This year, the right hon. Gentleman's rates will go up by £21 a week. I dare say that in Ealing there are also small businesses trying to generate wealth and jobs to benefit the economy.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: There are not many left.
  Mr. Marlow: There will not be, after the increase in rates. Where there is Socialism, jobs are destroyed. It is not just a matter of high rates; it is a matter of local authorities mismanaging housing. It is an issue of local——
  Mr. Holt rose——
  Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way. On second thoughts, I shall.
  Mr. Holt: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who sat and heard the hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell) refuse to give way to me, on the basis that I had not been here earlier. I notice that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, having made his speech, has already gone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, however bad things are for the leader of the Labour party and his wife, they are not nearly as bad as for the people of Middlesbrough, who have the highest rates in the country?
  Mr. Marlow: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I take it that he lives under a Labour-controlled authority?
  Mr. Holt: Yes.
  Mr. Marlow: That is my thesis. Those five areas in London are run by Labour authorities, and have the highest levels of unemployment in the country. However, in London as a whole there are plenty of jobs. It is not only a matter of having destroyed jobs in those areas by high rates and socialist policies. Why do not the people in those constituencies move outside them—hop on a bus or a bicycle — to somewhere else in London? The jobs are available : why do not they take them? There are reasons for the fact that they will not take jobs outside the areas in which they live. They will not do so because of the slums in which they live, which have been mismanaged by Labour authorities——
  Mr. Caborn: What a load of rubbish.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that it is rubbish. One person in five in inner London does not pay his rent. There are arrears of one fifth of the rent roll in inner London. There are more empty houses in London because they are not properly managed. The housing situation in inner London is appalling. They are slums, run by Labour authorities.
  The position is worse than that, however. The education that is provided in inner London is also appalling. I understand that it costs as much for the Inner London education authority to provide secondary education in the public sector as it costs to provide it in the private sector. Yet the exam results in the public sector are appalling, just as the attitude of the children in those schools is appalling. They live in bad housing and they come out of school ill-educated — those of them who stay in school, because one third of 15-year-olds in the Inner London education authority area are absconding from school and playing truant on a daily basis.
  That is the attitude. That is how those children have been brought up. They do not look for work because they do not want work because the attitudes that they have been given under Socialism have turned them against work. They have been alienated. If one goes round setting up bent race relations industries and telling people that they are racially discriminated against, they will feel alienated and discriminated against. If one goes round setting up anti-police committees and telling people that the police are against them, they will be against the police.

  93
  If they are against the police, they will be more in favour of crime and they will be more violent. The children of Socialism are disrupting our inner city areas. Socialism is the problem.
  Socialism sows the seeds of spite, and it is not surprising that we have a harvest of grudge and dependence and attitudes that are not conducive to work. There are two classes in society — not upper class, middle class and working class, but the dependent classes and the independent classes. The Socialists in the Labour party want to make us all into dependent classes—dependent on the Government and the local authority for housing; dependent on the Government and the local authority for education; and dependent on the Government and the local authority for pensions and jobs. Through this dependence, Socialism gets its support and its voters. It wants clients who will vote for Socialism.
  If people get their own houses and if they have a choice over their own education, they will not vote Socialist any more. This is the problem for the Labour party. It is poised on the precipice of terminal decline, and the sooner it falls over, the better. Socialism preaches that we can have paradise without effort and that if we do not get paradise without effort, it is someone else's fault. As the song says in "Les Miserables", at the end of the day, you get nothing for nothing. It is a con trick of Socialism, which has destroyed many lives, that Socialists pretend to people that they can get something for nothing. They cannot. If one is looking round the country to where the deprivation is, where the unemployment is, where the problems of law and order are and where the bad education is, one sees that it is all in Socialist local authority areas. When it comes to the next election, the country will realise that if it wants deprivation, unemployment and degradation, it should vote Socialist.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that six hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and we have about an hour before the first Front Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye. The arithmetic is obvious.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because I wish to make a few points about the terrible problems in south Yorkshire and in my city of Sheffield. Not only many hon. Members, but many independent boldies, have made clear the divide between north and south. Despite what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, the realities shine through, and many people regard the problem as very serious. It is not just a matter of statistics. There is human misery in the north-south divide. I see that human misery in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment among under-25s in the United Kingdom. Underneath the effects that we can see in crime figures and muggings are serious problems of depression and of people looking inwards instead of helping society in other ways.
  One of the Government's worst actions has been their attack on local democracy, which has hamstrung many authorities which are trying genuinely to resolve some of the problems of unemployment and deprivation and the social problems which follow in the wake of massive unemployment. Local authorities are a major safety valve
  94
  in society. They have played a useful role, and the attack on them during the past seven years has been disgraceful. The con trick that the Government have tried to play—people are beginning to see through them—is to reduce local authority grants, with the result that authorities have had to decide whether to increase rates or to reduce the services that are needed by many people in their communities. In many areas, such as Sheffield, they have decided to increase rates, but it was not their choice. If they had the choice, they would still want a balance and a partnership between central and local government.
  The Church of England report entitled "Faith in the City" outlined the problems clearly——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
  Mr. Caborn: The Paymaster General shakes his head, but that report was well researched and well founded. Unfortunately, he and his colleagues decided to go in the opposite direction. That has had extremely serious consequences for many deprived areas.
  The press—there are not many of its representatives here this evening—and the Government have not given much praise to the report by Her Majesty's inspectors on the Sheffield local education authority. It says that it is in good shape. A press release from the Department of Education and Science dated 31 March states:
  "Education in Sheffield's schools and colleges demonstrates a range of good quality and generally satisfactory work and provides a sound basis for future development, says a report by Her Majesty's Inspectors published today. The report states that much of the work in primary schools was of a good standard. Particularly encouraging was the attention given to science, health education, home studies and environmental education. Outstanding work occurred most often in nursery and infant schools where language and mathematics were characterised by lively teaching and the excellent use of practical activities. In the secondary schools there was a great deal of sound and conscientious work. Some aspects were particularly strong, including geography, personal and social development, residential work experience and links with industry. Provision for non-advanced further education was wide-ranging, generally economical and by and large effective. In addition adult education and youth and community work are of an impressive quality.
  HMI state that Sheffield takes education seriously and there is a belief in the responsibilities and importance of education in improving and enhancing individual and social life. The authority has developed a wide range of well thought out policies in response to educational needs arising from local circumstances, although these have varied in their effectiveness. The most effective translation of policies into practice came about because of clear organisation, efficient and effective support, regular evaluation, and the open-mindedness to change direction once evaluation revealed that intentions were not being achieved in practice.
  The report notes that Sheffield is a high spending authority but is by no means extravagant. While some aspects of its spending (pupil costs, adult education and the youth service) are high, others (unit costs in further education, spending on books) are below national norms. Meeting the demands faced by the Authority will require continuing identification of priorities and a focus on …cost-effectiveness."
  The press release did not say that the inspectors found no evidence of political education being used as a vehicle for indoctrination, but pointed out that it was approached "fairly and openmindedly."
  The Government have decided to slash the expenditure levels by about £35 million, of which between £7 million and £8 million must be borne by the education service in Sheffield. HMI has produced a glowing report, which is probably one of the best by that inspectorate, not only

  95
  about the type of education, but about the effectiveness of spending on that education. Now we must slash that by some £7 million to £8 million.
  Let us compare that with the attacks by Conservative Members only a few weeks ago, when my local authority agreed to go into partnership with the private sector on building some 2,000 houses in Sheffield. It was called a novel method, but the private sector was involved, along with the municipal authorities. It was only at the 11th hour that we were able to sign the agreement. At 5 pm one evening we were told that because of the rent arrangements that the local authority had reached with the private financiers, the proposal would be valid only if signed before midnight. The dictatorial attitudes that prevail on the part of Conservative Members have to be seen to be believed. We were able to secure that financial agreement by 11·15 that night, however.
  Conservative Members cry out for the capital receipts to be used. Local authorities such as Sheffield want partnerships with the private sector to build houses that are sorely needed, yet because that does not comply with their diktats, the Government even squash such arrangements as well.
  Much has been said about the so-called loony Left councils, of which Sheffield is one. Independent reports and HMI reports say that it is the best authority. Even on the so-called misuse of rates, the most recent auditor said that if people look at Sheffield they will see the best use of public money there.
  If the Government continue to attack local Government, they will rue the day. Sheffield was criticised by the Government when it proposed an employment plan, which was supported across the community, to produce 25,000 jobs. When such things happen, private Members' Bills are introduced to rubbish such proposals. Everything that local government has stood for in my area of Sheffield, and which has been independently assessed, has turned out extremely well in terms of cost efficiency and the service that is given.
  The only thing that we have heard from the Government Benches is carping and moaning about local authorities and proposals that simply put more into the coffers of those who can well afford to provide the finance services themselves. They should be ashamed. We are talking about employment, education and social services in a major area of deprivation. If the Government can oppose such initiatives, it is nothing less than deplorable. It is they who are accelerating the north-south divide by the sectarian policies that they are putting into operation.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the Government had been fomenting inequality. The leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), joined in that charge. One would have thought that both right hon. Members would have learnt from their unhappy experience in government in the 1970s that the quest for equality, certainly the equality of outcome, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tells us his party believes in, is a process fraught with illusions and ironies.
  The Southampton manifesto of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook demonstrates that he has learnt nothing
  96
  and forgotten nothing. Therefore, it will be instructive and cast some light on the choice that will have to be made at the general election, between a reversion to Socialism and a continuation of Conservatism, if we pause and recollect momentarily what happened during the last period in which the Labour party, in government, sought to create equality.
  The prologue to that drama was spoken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in his address to the Labour party conference in 1973, when he said that it was the purpose of his party to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. But what then happened? Was that speech the launch of a crusade for social justice? Or was it a prelude to a period of government by a party that was inextricably beholden to class and sectional interests and could not resist the temptations of power and ideological self-gratification?
  The background to that Labour Government was the oil price rise of 1973. As Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made one profoundly mistaken and fateful judgment. He decided to boost public spending to offset the deflationary effects of the oil price rise. In 1974–75, public expenditure rose by 12·5 per cent. while public sector borrowing rose to 9 per cent. of GDP, and more subsequently. Ineluctably, inflation also rose, so that by August 1975 inflation was running at 27 per cent. per annum. Then, in a vain and counter-productive attempt to dampen down the inflationary consequences of their financial policies, the Labour Government sought to buy trade union co-operation through the social contract.
  Under the social contract, the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was abolished, legal immunities and privileges were heaped upon the trade unions, prices and rents were arbitrarily controlled, food prices were subsidised, vindictive levels of personal taxation were introduced and an expensive programme of nationalisation was embarked upon. The hope was to secure voluntary restraint in pay bargaining on the part of the trade union movement. But of course that restraint was not delivered. By August 1975 wage rises were at 30 per cent. year on year. Lord Barnett, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, subsequently wrote:
  "The only give and take in the contract was that the Government gave and the unions took."
  So it was that the Labour party, in its rhetoric and indeed in its tradition committed to equality and social justice, found itself practising policies of inflation and privilege. It would be the same if a Labour Government were returned to office in future. High inflation then led to injustice and widening inequality. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook rightly said that inflation hits the lowest paid the hardest. At the height of his greatness, the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in the previous Labour Government. The average rate of price increases in the lifetime of that Government was 15 per cent., so he should know.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No. We are short of time. I am sorry. Inflation, as it saps the profitability of companies, ineluctably also leads to that most offensive of inequalities, unemployment. Under the Labour Government, unemployment doubled. Other antagonisms and inequalities were sharpened, too. The great inequality was between

  97
  those who were members of trade unions, the privileged members of the big battalions, and the rest. As people elbowed to get hold of the best share they could get of the resources of depreciating money, the toughest grabbed the most, the weakest became unemployed and the pensioners were trampled underfoot.
  The rake's progress of our national economy was temporarily halted by the intervention of the International Monetary Fund. But as the Labour Government, for a while, sought to correct what had gone wrong, they found themselves creating inequalities in other ways. It was they, to use their own rhetoric, who embarked upon a "dismantling" of the welfare state. The truly "savage" cuts were those of 1977–78, when capital expenditure in the NHS was reduced by £100 million. Public spending on education fell in the three years after 1976£77, so that by 1979 less was being spent on education than in 1973.
  As soon as the bailiffs departed, the rake's progress was resumed, as the Labour Government took the easy but deceptive path of trying to inflate their way out of trouble. Once again borrowing rose, from 3·6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1977–78 to 5·3 per cent. of GDP in 1978–79. In the winter of 1978–79, which has gone into folk memory as the winter of discontent, the fabric of society was disintegrating fast. Flying pickets roamed the country, patients were denied supplies in hospitals at certain places, and in others the dead were not buried. Mr. Bill Dunn, leader of the striking ambulance men said:
  "If it means lives lost, that is how it must be."
  It was at that moment that the moral credentials of the Labour movement ran out.
  It is an irony too painful for the Labour party to contemplate that the pursuit of equality impoverishes, harshens and divides society. In truth, it merely displaces old inequalities and privileges with new ones. But the Labour party would do it all again. The policy manifesto now set forth by the right hon. Member for Sparkbook is littered with pledges to increase public spending —precise pledges where there is a possibility of buying the votes of a section of the population, otherwise vague pledges. At the same time we are asked to believe that the policies would reduce industrial costs. The right hon. Gentleman proposes a national minimum wage. I can think of no surer formula to increase unemployment. He also proposes a series of new institutions — a British investment bank and regional development agencies.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport—who, I was disappointed to learn this afternoon, has not abandoned the politics of jealousy—also littered his speech with a spuriously precise parade of statistics and new institutional devices. Opposition Members would have us believe, and they are trying to persuade the electorate, that simple solutions are available to complex problems, and that quick solutions to social problems are available at no serious cost to the taxpayer, or in terms of borrowing and interest rates. That is the stale, discredited, contradictory litany of the 1970s.
  The Conservative party believes in fairness, as opposed to the illusory equality of Socialism. We respect the individual. We believe that the role of the Government is to create a framework of fair opportunities, in which the individual, the family, the business and the community can realise their varied potentialities. We believe in a society in which excellence and effort are honoured, in the benign
  98
  inequality of leadership, and of achievement which benefits everyone. We believe that success is a contribution, not an exploitation.
  As the Government have set out to create that framework of opportunities, they have patiently and gradually stabilised our national finances. We know that one nation cannot be built on inflationary quicksands. Inflation hits the poor and the weak the hardest. It is now at its lowest level for 20 years, and, as a member of the Conservative party, I am proud of that.
  We are removing the legal immunities and privileges of the trade unions to secure a fair balance between unions and their members, between unions and management and between unions and society. We are bringing down the punitive rates of personal taxation, which discriminated so inequitably and destructively against people who have a creative contribution to make. Because we abhor unemployment, we are realistically and systematically tackling unemployment at its roots — inflation, the labour market, taxation and deregulation.
  Because we want improved public services for all. we are increasing spending on the Health Service, on education and training, on inner cities, on infrastructure, on law and order and on defence.
  Our policies are based on realism and humane values. and they are bearing fruit. We are entering our seventh year of economic growth at 3 per cent. per annum. Some 500 additional new businesses have been created every week in the past five years. There are 1 million more jobs than in 1983. Moreover, 65 per cent. of the population who are of working age are in work here, compared with 57 per cent. in Europe. The real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings, with two children, has gone up by 18 per cent. What good does it do to foment resentment and jealousy in that family with the thought that others may have done even better?
  The Government are enfranchising the people.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No, I will not.
  We are bringing about trade union democracy, the sale of council homes, wider share ownership, wider pension ownership and extended opportunity for parents to influence education. We are building a culture of responsibility in which people are increasingly willing to take responsibility for their own lives and for each other. The Labour party should understand that they will not tolerate irresponsibility on the part of the Government.
  In 1986 we experienced the lowest number of working days lost in 30 years, and the lowest number of strikes in 50 years. The old assumption that there must be a conflict between labour and capital is dead in this country. The modern electorate finds Labour's programme frankly reactionary. The rhetoric of division, sour comparison and jealous resentment is repellent to a people who have discovered a better equality in renewed national self-respect and a pride in independence and success.
  The Government are intelligently, decently and bravely pursuing the complex task of advancing economic prosperity, improving social welfare, extending the freedom of our citizens and nurturing the integrity of our nation. When the general election comes, the voters will not wish it otherwise.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Mathew Taylor: The theme of tonight's debate has been that our society needs to be a fair one that gives everyone equal rights and rewards, and in which responsibility and power are shared out evenly and widely. I wish to take the opportunity to correct an error that I have heard constantly in the debate. There has not been much progression in the debate, but perhaps we can get at least one point across.
  It is not simply a north-south divide. It is a divide between the rich and the poor, between the privileged and the under-privileged. The Government are doing nothing to tackle that divide. Only the alliance can make the bridge across every sector of the country, as can be seen by the wide distribution of our support.
  We hear so much about the north-south divide. It is only a few months since it was front-page news that the Labour party's £6 billion reflationary package would be sent to the north. I am not from the north. I represent a rural constituency in the south-west, but our problems are much like those anywhere else. They are the problems of the inner city, but they are also those of rurally deprived areas and of many individuals in all sorts of areas. They are the problems of the poor, the old, the young and the long-term unemployed, almost wherever they live.
  A feature of the south-west is that it combines a low wage area with a traditional seat of the rich and powerful. A recent report by the Child Poverty Action group, entitled "Poverty and Deprivation in the South West", makes the point very tellingly. On pay, it states that the south-west has
  "The highest percentage of full-time male employees earning less than £100 per week"
  in mainland Britain. At the same time, it has
  "The highest percentage (except for the South East) of households with incomes over £350 per week."
  On housing, it states that the area has
  "The lowest percentage of council houses."
  Yet it has
  "The highest…average new dwelling price."
  That is in an area where many people are homeless. On health, the report states that the south-west has
  "The lowest (female) age-adjusted mortality rates and the second lowest (male) age-adjusted mortality rates"
  But it has
  "The highest percentage of the population…insured for private medical treatment."
  On education, the report states that the area has
  "The highest pupil-teacher ratio in both state primary and state secondary schools."
  Yet it has
  "The lowest pupil-teaching ratio in private (non-maintained) schools."
  That is the record in the south-west. The poverty and deprivation about which we have heard are present with us too.
  We have the problems of the inner cities — for instance, in the St. Paul's district of Bristol. We have the problems of industrial decline in such areas as Plymouth. and particularly the problems of a declining semi-industrialised area full or rural poverty. I see that in my area, Cornwall.
  In the past few weeks, in my case work—I do not deny that I have not been doing it for long—I have seen a range of the problems that are brought to most Members of Parliament. One lady's council house is so damp that in the two weeks during which the council lent her a dehumidifier—it then had to take it to another house
  100
  elsewhere—23 pints of water were extracted from the walls. Because of the Goverment spending cuts on housing and the rate capping of local authority expenditure on housing, homeless people are offered the choice between nothing at all and a damp, cold caravan in the middle of winter, from which many people had to be moved into church halls when it snowed.
  Children are in portakabin classrooms that are so dangerous when the wind gets up that they have to stay at home. People in their 20s who have never had a job are coming to me in the last, desperate hope that I, as their new Member of Parliament, will be able to find work for them. Companies are pulling out of Truro and St. Austell. They were attracted there by grants a few years ago, but those grants are no longer available.
  Rural poverty is marked, as is other poverty, by low pay and inadequate benefits. In 1985 average gross earnings for Cornish people in full-time employment were just under £160 for men and £110 for women—about 20 per cent. lower than the national average—making it the lowest paid county for men on the mainland and the second lowest paid county for women.
  That is exacerbated by regional variations in educational provision, which might provide the means for people to overcome their difficulties. At its lowest level it would enable women to go to work, and it would also provide children with an early introduction to schooling. Yet Cornwall has only 1·5 day nursery places per 1,000 children under the age of five. It is the lowest county rate for England, Wales or Scotland.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House which party controls the county council in Cornwall?
  Mr. Taylor: There is no overall control of the county of Cornwall, although that might change in the near future.
  Despite the resource allocation working party, in 1984–85 the south-west was 4 per cent. below the Government's health target. Only Trent and Wessex were worse off. In Cornwall unskilled people will probably die before retirement age at twice the rate for professional people. This Government have spent more on health but they have consistently not provided the funds to meet the growing need. That is why the alliance has today launched a health package that guarantees that provision will be made to meet the growing calls on the NHS. It will also create a special innovation fund to tackle regional imbalances and difficulties.
  If Conservative Members do not agree with what we say about health, they should read the Health Education Council's report "The Health Divide", particularly the introduction by its director general, who has now been sacked. He says:
  "Such inequality is inexcusable in a democratic society which prides itself on being humane. To eliminate or even reduce it substantially would be a major contribution to the health of the people of this country."
  "The Health Divide" contains statistics that prove what the Opposition parties have been saying for years: that Britain is becoming increasingly a more unequal society under this Government.
  The alliance has led the opposition in this Parliament to the abolition of the Health Education Council. The alliance— alone, so far as I am aware, at present—is pledged to reconstituting an independent health authority body, free from Government control. I am afraid that

  101
  there must be substantial doubt about whether, in the absence of the recreation of that independent body, we can expect the new Health Education Authority to publish a follow-up document to "The Health Divide".
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) referred to the increasing number of patients who have been squeezed through National Health Service hospitals. He seemed to measure efficiency of treatment in the same way as factories are measured. It was one of the most inhumane statements that I have heard since I became a Member of Parliament. It means that patients are pushed out of beds before they are ready to leave hospital. This happens in hospitals in my constituency. We on this side of the House believe in a caring National Health Service. It should not be measured as though it were an inhumane machine—as a factory that spits out patients in the same way as matchsticks are spat out of a matchstick factory.
  As for housing, between 1981 and 1986 the number of homeless households accepted by the Plymouth city council — a rapidly growing town in the south-west —increased by 29·3 per cent. In the same period there was a net loss of 2,083 council houses in the city because sales were exceeding new building. Furthermore, council house receipts have been tied up by this Government. An ever-increasing number of homeless people are now competing for an ever-dwindling council housing stock. Costs in Cornwall are forced up even more, because increasingly the limited housing stock is becoming the property of those who own second homes. The number of unoccupied second residencies has already reached 11 per cent. in certain parts of the county. In other parts of the county, one in six of the houses that are bought are being used as second homes.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No, I must draw my speech to a close. I am afraid that I am running out of lime.
  In his recent Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer had £6 billion to spend or give away. Rather than invest that money in the policies that are contained in our policy documents, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) referred, he chose to line the pockets of those who are already in better paid employment. But that tactic for gaining votes has not worked. The reason is simple. The people of this country —whether in Truro or St. Austell, whether in the southwest or in the north, whether they are rich or poor—can see that this Government are mortgaging the short-term revenues from privatisation and North sea oil for a quick votes grab.
  Almost everybody in my area, and increasingly almost everybody in this nation, knows somebody who cannot find work. It may be that their children cannot find work, or that their parents cannot survive on an inadequate pension, or that they themselves cannot obtain hospital treatment inside a year and therefore are forced to pay for it privately, if they have the money with which to do so. All of them are finding that they are losing more than they have gained from this Government's policies.
  By means of genuine decentralization—giving people money with which to take control over their own lives and giving local people the backing that they need, in partnership with the private sector to move forward—we can reinvest in this country's future. We are at a turning
  102
  point. We can continue in our decline, continue to mortgage our future and allow the Health Service to crumble, and the sewerage system and roads to fall apart until we cannot afford to do anything about it, or we can act now, invest and take our country forward while we are able to do so. That is what the alliance is proposing to do.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I should like to emphasise a point that has been made more often by Conservative Members than by others, which is that there is not really a north-south divide in the sense in which it is generally put over by the Opposition parties. It is patchy and it would be better described in the round as being between inner-city areas and the residential and suburban areas throughout the country. Having said that, it is important to draw attention to those areas where there is heavy industrial production. I particularly mention my constituency of Stafford.
  In Stafford we have no grants to speak of and we have a relatively low unemployment rate of about 8·5 per cent. We are in the centre of the midlands between Telford, which is an enterprise zone, a prospective urban development agency to the south, and Stoke-on-Trent which receives a huge amount of Government rate support. Staffordshire as a whole receives the fourth highest amount of rate support of all the counties in England and Wales. We do not have many of the advantages of other industrial areas but Stafford is remarkably enterprising and successful in comparison with the rest of the country.
  I should like to illustrate a point that has not been made clearly during the debate. Rather than people talking about going from the north or the midlands to the south, I suggest that they should think seriously about coming from the south to the midlands. Of course, I should like them to come to my constituency. I say that because recently GEC closed down a works on the south coast for good sound commercial reasons and came up to Stafford. It found it particularly attractive to come to Stafford not only because it is a marvellous place but because the cost of living was markedly lower than where it came from.
  Reward Regional Surveys, situated in Stone on the borders of my constituency, is a nationally reputable body which produces surveys for the benefit of the Government and other statutory authorities. It has shown that it- one compared the amount spent by each income group, for example in the west midlands, and compared that with London commuters one would find that in the lowest group, group A, the London commuter requires £10,901 to achieve a standard of living that covers food, drink, tobacco, durable goods, other goods, services, fuel, transport, clothing, housing, savings, pensions and tax. In the west midlands the average requirement is £8,781 but in Stafford the average requirement is £7,630. My point is that with regard to the average within the regions, it is £1,000 cheaper a year to live in Stafford, which is a highly prosperous area, than it is to live in other parts of the west midlands and it is some £3,000 a year cheaper than it is to live in London.
  We are moving into a new era of speed of communication, new industries and new enterprises. I have just helped to form, and have raised £23,500 for, an enterprise agency in Stafford. When one has such enterprise and initiative in an area and it is well based, traditionally and historically, on industries and good

  103
  commerce, it is attractive for people to come to live there. Much of the moaning and groaning that we hear from other areas is based on a pessimistic approach to their local economy.
  On 26 March, in The Times, there was an article by Mr. Rodney Lord, in which he made it clear that there is a patchwork of areas within the country as a whole. Furthermore, these areas are extremely localised and one gets the greatest differential between concentrations of unemployment between different housing estates, not necessarily regionally. It happens within towns and cities.
  The west midlands area is getting better. The economy is improving. Stafford is a prime example of an area that is getting more and more prosperous and that recently was rated the 53rd most prosperous place in Britain—despite the fact that it has a significant amount of heavy engineering—with a strong and effective work force.
  9.5 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I represent a constituency with the fifth lowest unemployment in the country, but I speak as somebody who spent 15 years working in Brixton, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. I shall refer to the inequalities and deprivation about which I learned during those 15 years.
  There were inequalities between those who could and those who could not own their homes. There were inequalities that meant that anyone who had a rise in income had to leave, because he did not have the chance of buying his own house. There were those of parents who were unable to have any say or standing in their children's school and who were powerless and impotent while their children were taught meaningless racism and sexism rather than being prepared for the jobs of today and tomorrow. There were inequalities of pensioners without independent pensions and of individuals who had no stake in their own firm. Now I can speak after several years of Conservative Government, which have resulted in one in five of our adults being individual shareholders, of many nationalised industries being privatised and many employees being able to buy shares in their companies.
  Of course we all deplore the difficulties and disadvantages faced by those who live in areas of high unemployment. The situation is different in London, where within a close distance there are firms with jobs and organisations such as Sight and Sound offering high quality training places but who are unable to fill their vacancies, while in the areas referred to by some hon. Members, the prospects of employment are clearly much more remote.
  I also speak as a representative of a county that, through rate support grant and RAWP, is well aware of the many Government policies that may lead to less advantage to areas such as mine so that more resources can go to the north. The Manpower Services Commission spent £3 billion on special employment measures last year and is now regarded as the leader in European terms in providing training opportunities for the unemployed. It spent three times per head on individuals in the northern region what it spent on individuals in the south-east. That is right and proper, but to hear some hon. Members speaking this evening, one would have thought that the opposite was the case.
  104
  Above all, I speak for those young people who, for many years, have been leaving school at 16 because they were not academically minded, but for whom nothing has been provided. Now, we have a two-year youth training scheme, offering a real training opportunity ——
  Mr. Rogers: And no job.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make that cheap jibe. Remarks such as his do great damage to many young people in inner-city areas. The denigration of opportunities through cynicism, apathy and lethargy has exacerbated their difficulties.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: No, I shall follow the example of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) of not taking any interruptions, but not for the same reason; I am sorry.
  Too often, the education and job opportunity failures in inner cities are caused by low expectations. Remarks such as that by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and others denigrating the opportunities that are available, do so much damage.
  We now have job training schemes offering vocational training to prepare our young and older people for the jobs needed today and in the future. Last week, we had the White Paper on higher education showing that, by the end of the century, one in five of our school leavers should go on to higher education at 18. The young are our seedcorn. By the end of the century, about 70 per cent. of all jobs will require further qualifications and brainpower rather than muscle power. It is by realistic investment in the necessary training for the future that so much has been achieved.
  The other great inequality faced in the past was that between the lower income person at work and the low income individual on benefit. The Government have done more than any other to redress that imbalance. The point about the maternity grant or the funeral grant is that they will now at last be available to low-income people in work. The family credit will be extended to more families and available at better rates giving greater acknowledgement to adolescent children. That will help to redress a very unfair inequality that has been present for far too long.
  Populist gimmicks, such as free television licences for all pensioners, have no place in the policies that I believe should be used to redress inequalities. When it comes to proper investment in the Health Service and the education services and realistic training and employment measures, we have a great deal of which to be proud. The inequalities in this country are rather less than the regional inequalities in France and Germany. They are very much less than the regional inequalities in the Netherlands and Italy. I believe that the Government are rightly and properly addressing themselves to meeting the needs of regions that face disadvantage without resorting to the profligate indiscriminate policies that only result in higher inflation and, in the long run, to fewer opportunities and fewer real jobs.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is always a pleasure to follow the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She is very much the——
  Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us have been here throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has only just popped in.
  Mr. Banks: That was hardly a point of order. I have been sitting in the Chamber for some time. When I was not present, I was attending a Select Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not challenge in any way the absolute discretion of the Chair as to who should be called.
  Mr. Banks: I now have four minutes left.
  Before I was very rudely interrupted, I was saying that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West because she is very much the acceptable face of Tory extremism today. I agree with her in one respect —when she said that there is a low level of expectation in our inner cities. I have found that among the many poverties that we face in the borough that I have the privilege to represent—Newham in the east end of London — the greatest poverty is the poverty of expectation. They actually expect bugger-all and that is usually about what they receive.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not inflict such coarse expressions on the House again.
  Mr. Banks: I am frightfully sorry. I realise what a delicate lot we all are here.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made the sort of hustings speech that no doubt his constituents and the electors in the area will hear interminably in the weeks to come. He spelt out what he said was a success story. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone in their right mind could claim that we have an economic success story on our hands. Unemployment is up 300 per cent. since 1979 and that costs £20 billion a year. We have the highest level of unemployment among the seven main industrial countries. Manufacturing output is 6 per cent. lower than in 1979. Manufacturing investment is 24 per cent. down on the 1979 figure. There was a deficit of £5·4 billion in the balance of payments in manufactured goods in 1986, and that contrasts with a surplus in 1980 of £5 billion. Last year, the overall balance of payments deficit was £1·1 billion. That must be contrasted with the receipts of about £50 billion in North sea oil over the same period.
  Conservative members have said that we now have more money to spend. Yes, that may be so for some people. However, they are the richest people in society. The average family in this country is paying more tax now and will pay more tax than in 1979. We have the highest interest rates in Europe and the highest inflation rate among our major competitors.
  Frankly, if that is a success story, then God save us from failure. A third-rate Government are reducing us to a second-rate country. We are fast becomong a banana monarchy without even having the benefits of bananas. That is the present position. I really do not know how some hon. Members can claim that that is a wonderful success story. Those hon. Members should come to Newham and tell the 18,000 people on the dole that this is a great success story. Let them come to Newham and tell the 33,000 people receiving supplementary benefit that this is a great success story. No doubt those people will tell Tory Members what it really is.
  106
  Conservative Members do not know what it is like to be at the bottom end of society. They do not have the faintest idea and they do not care. The Government are evil, wicked and divisive. The sooner we get rid of them, the better it will be for the country.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: We have had, not least in the last few moments, a fascinating if somewhat tangential, debate. The Paymaster General in his usual rechauffé Cambridge Union knockabout which passes for a speech, talked about everything except poverty and inequality.
  With, no doubt, an eye to the election, the Paymaster General made a great deal of what he called the Government's fine record of economic growth, which he claimed would overcome inequalities and promote one nation. If that growth is so good, why are class divisions deeper today than at any time in our recent history?
  In fact, the Government's growth record is not so good It only started in 1982, and the Prime Minister sometimes talks as though she prefers to forget that she came to power in 1979. When the awful years of 1980 and 1981 are included, growth has been only 1·4 per cent. a year under this Government, which is well below the rate of our main competitors.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) used the debate to launch the fourth version of the SDP-Liberal social security plan. That was not surprising because the first three were successively sunk, as one anomaly after another was revealed.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not faced up to the fact that the central flaw in the selectivity that he now favours is that it requires yet more means testing, which always produces low take-up, and that inefficient delivery defeats the whole purpose of the excerise.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not answered some key questions. How are the 2 million pensioners who would receive a higher pension increase to be selected, when means testing always causes low take-up among the elderly? Is it not a £1 increase in child benefit rather minor? Is it only one third of what the Labour party proposes. Is it not astonishing that someone seeking to launch a political party's social security programme did not seem to understand that the key fact about child benefit is that it is paid to all families with children, whether those families are in or out of work, so that, uniquely, it does not worsen the poverty trap? That is why a mere £1 increase is so feeble.
  Why is the SDP's basic benefit any better than the supplementary benefit and family income supplement which it would replace, if it is to be means tested and have a tapered withdrawal of benefit as income rises, which will still aggravate the poverty trap?
  Is it not clear that the SDP proposal for an £8 or £11 per week benefit for the long-term childless unemployed is greatly inferior to the Labour party's initiative for a £12 increase in benefit for all long-term unemployed and not just the childless?
  Instead of any serious integrated reform of tax and benefits, we heard nothing about tax, but simply a muddled melee of increased means testing, which, at a cost of £2 billion, offers some of the worst value for money of any scheme that I have seen recently.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: It is interesting that the Tory party wishes to defend the SDP.
  Mr. Fowler: Would not the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the SDP carry a little more weight if he had not promised as long as two years ago to produce his own plans on supplementary benefit and the reform of social security? He has made successive promises that he is about to publish those plans. When will he publish them?
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has made a typically silly response. He knows perfectly well that the plan was reported publicly on 18 September. It is called "Social Security and Taxation" and is about both matters. It sets out a much better integration of the two than does the SDP plan, and if the Secretary of State does not have a copy I shall be glad to send him one. The right hon. Gentleman could learn a lot about social security from reading what we say.
  This debate is about the other Britain. Over the last eight years Tory policy has repeatedly and obsessively emphasised the rolling back of the frontiers of the state and the untrammelled play of free market forces. It has done so at a price and in a manner which has laid waste large tracts of Britain and devastated large sections of the population. In the name of incentives the Government have not only tolerated inequalities but set about widening them with aggressive relish. The recent Budget was only the latest manifestation of those values.
  The Bow Group ideal of one nation has vanished into history like a faded dream. Under this Prime Minister we have had, successively, three-nation Budgets — with nothing for the unemployed and pensioners, peanuts for the low-paid and a bonanza for the already prosperous and well-heeled. For the first time for half a century there is a swelling under-class of the dispossessed. Today there are 6 million people in the families of those who have been unemployed for more than half a year. There are a further 6 million who are low paid—they are paid below the minimum decency standard set by the Council of Europe. Another 5 million are pensioners living on supplementary benefit or have such exiguous incomes above the state subsistence line as to be permanently confined on the margins of poverty.
  That is a total of 17 million people—one third of the population, an army of the impoverished, which has more than doubled since 1979. Under the lead of this Prime Minister the numbers of long-term unemployed have quadrupled. According to a consistent standard, the numbers of low-paid workers have nearly doubled, and for the first time pensioners have been hammered in large numbers by housing benefit cuts.
  What is so harsh about this philosophy, and what is surely at the heart of the debate, is that under this Government success is all too often bought at the price of the disadvantage of others. Under this Prime Minister's scheme of things one man's incentive has become another's property trap. Large-scale tax relief measures in successive annual Budgets have concentrated on the richest in the population and been funded by equally large benefit cuts in successive social security Bills, which have been concentrated heavily on the poorest. Worse—we now know from the Health Education Council's report, "The Health Divide", which the Government did their best to suppress, that it is one thing to increase incentives for
  108
  the successful, but it is quite another to penalise the victims of unemployment and poverty with higher morbidity and even premature death.
  It is the morality of such a system which is so striking. How can the doubling of the numbers who live in poverty since 1979 to more than 10 million be justified while at the same time tax cuts are handed out to members of the Cabinet and those on £50,000 a year? Those tax cuts are now worth an extra £245 a week. How can it be justified, in the same year, to pay pensioners an extra 40p a week, while the Top Salaries Review Body awards top judges, civil servants and the military an extra £40 a week, and when the big bang is dishing out to young Tory acolytes in the City salaries which read more like telephone directory numbers?
  How can it be justified to offer the Prime Minister, who is buying a £500,000 mansion in Dulwich, an extra £35 a week in mortgage tax relief, when two months ago the same Government cut by half the mortgage payments to those on supplementary benefit who were unfortunate enough to be struggling to buy a house at the time that they became unemployed? That is bound to lead to widespread evictions and homelessness.
  How can it be justified to cut benefit for 80,000 young people through the iniquitous board-and-lodging regulations and to move them on from town to town every two, four or eight weeks in search of jobs that do not exist when, a week ago, Morgan Grenfell, the merchant bank disgraced by involvement in shady share dealings with Guinness, awarded the two top managers responsible £562,000 for walking through the door?
  Underlying the Thatcherite market system is a particularly cynical piece of real politics, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred£the high paid will not work unless they are given incentives; the low paid will not work unless they are penalised. The new general managers in the National Health Service require a bonus of £60 a week on top of £30,000 a year before they will give of their best while the ancillaries—the hospital cleaners and laundry workers on £60 a week in total have to have their wages and hours cut by privatisation before they can be made efficient.
  It is the sheer indifference towards what the Tory party no doubt in its heart despises as the helot class which to me is so ugly and harsh. One has to ask what right the Government have to force 10 million of our fellow citizens to live in poverty for years on end at a subsistence standard that one of them could not get by on even until the end of one week. One might ask also what right the Government have to keep forcing down even lower some of the lowest wages when Lord Gowrie resigned as Minister of State because he could not make ends meet on £33,000 a year — no doubt the most celebrated victim yet of the Government's low-pay policy.
  Above all, the central lesson is that this degree of inequality, this magnitude in the rise of poverty, is not an accident. It is not an inevitable result of economic expansion or a by-product of technological change. It is deliberately engineered on a scale unprecedented since the 1930s.
  Mr. Lilley rose——
  Mr. Meacher: Even I was stunned when I learned, in answer to a question which I tabled two months ago, that

  109
  top directors and executives in the biggest companies on more than £70,000 a year had each received tax handouts since 1979 worth an average £19,100 a year. At £370 a week extra in tax cuts, that is nearly three times the total weekly earnings after tax and national insurance of the average single man.
  It is not only tax cuts. Even more significant has been the spread of share option schemes among top earners. Under such a scheme, approved two months ago at Burton, 80 senior executives could be eligible for options worth up to eight times their total remuneration. Given that Burton's recently notorious chairman and chief executive was paid, or rather paid himself, £1 million a year, the embarrassed board, under pressure from shareholders, thought that decency dictated that he should receive a modest £2·5 million extra.
  Mr. Marlow rose——
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman will learn a lot more by listening than by intervening.
  For the privileged few, the Thatcherite regime has been a Croesus-like licence to print money. For such persons, this is not the Government of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand". This is the Government of Ivan Boesky —one can be greedy and still feel good about oneself. Who is holding the nation to ransom now? Not for a long time has the politics of greed and selfishness been so triumphantly in the ascendant.
  Mr. Marlow rose——
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way.
  Such things must be paid for. They are being paid for, largely by the pensioners. Each year the Government have increased the pension only in line with prices, not with earnings. Because of that, cumulatively over the last seven years they have done the pensioners out of more than £11 billion that they would have had under Labour's formula. In the course of the next year alone pensioners will lose £3·5 billion a year compared to what they would have had under Labour's formula.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Mr. Meacher: In order to assist the hon. Lady, who I am sure wants to know about this, I shall put it in terms of the individual pensioner. Over the years since 1979, a single pensioner has lost £9·90. Between 1974 and 1979, the pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms. Those were five Labour years. In eight Tory years the pension has increased in real terms by only 2·5 per cent.—only one eighth as much. So much for the Chancellor's £2·5 billion give-away Budget of three weeks ago. It was some giveaway. It has been paid for, and more, by the pensioner. Every penny of those extra tax reliefs is money that morally at least belongs to the pensioners.
  There is not only the pension cheat; there is the housing benefit fiddle. Just as the Government have not reduced tax for 95 per cent. of the population, because they put up insurance contributions and VAT by more, so they have not increased pensions for hundreds of thousands of pensioners because housing benefit has been cut by more than the pension has been increased. Today the pension is going up by 80p, but over 3 million pensioners are suffering cuts in housing benefit, including 1 million pensioners who will lose more than 80p.
  The date of 6 April is significant for another reason in the context of Britain's growing social and economic
  110
  inequalities. It is the one-year pre-anniversary of the coming into force of the Fowler Social Security Act. That day one year hence will see the beginning of further benefit cuts amounting to another £1 billion. On that day pensioners will face further and even bigger housing benefit cuts of nearly £500 million. Those are all Government figures. On that day the 10 million people on supplementary benefit will be subjected to the tender mercies of the social fund which, for the first time, will cash-limit the relief of poverty. By forcing people to repay loans out of future supplementary benefit payments, it will drive the hardest hit in our society deeper into poverty and debt.
  There could not be a more ignominious illustration than the Fowler Social Security Act that is soon to come into operation — no doubt after the election — of the Government's determination to squeeze the poor until the pips squeak. Perhaps I could change the metaphor. The trickle-down theory has been replaced by the trickle-up effect on an unprecedented scale.
  Widening inequalities is one thing. Generating ill health, or even premature death, is quite another. The explosive connection between these two things led to the Government going to such extraordinary lengths to suppress publication of the Health Education Council's devastating indictment called "The Health Divides'. All that the Government achieved was unerringly to demonstrate their guilt just as they have done on many similar occasions. Seven years ago they tried to suppress the Black report by refusing to publish the docment and by publishing only a limited number of cyclostyled typescripts. Last July, on a Friday after the House had risen for the summer recess, they published the poverty figures. They were three years out of date, but they still showed a near doubling of poverty since 1979.
  The publication of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report, "Occupational Mortality", was held back in July until hon. Members were safely out of Westminster. Even then a crucial section was missing from the main text. The key analysis of social class and health was relegated to the dark recesses of the microfiche table accompanying the report. The excuse given was technical difficulties, but the reality is that the Government wished to draw a veil over the worsening social conditions. At least the Government have a guilty conscience—some of us had begun to doubt it— but covering up the truth solves nothing. If the Prime Minister is so enamoured of Mr. Gorbachev and his new methods, let us have a little more glasnost in this country as regards uncomfortable facts.
  The evidence is overwhelming. Dr. McDowell, formerly of the OPCS, showed in a recent article in The Lancet that, despite a fall in overall mortality, health inequalities between manual and non-manual workers had recently widened for all causes of death. The article concludes that worsening unemployment and income inequalities are mainly responsible. The Townsend study "Inequalities in Health in the Northern Region" published last year found that wards with poorer health profiles closely mirrored those with high material deprivation.
  Now we have the HEC report which has reached clearly authoritative and damning conclusions. It notes that for diseases of poverty, such as cancer of the cervix and tuberculosis, there is no evidence of any reduction in class differentials in the past eight years. Indeed, it states:

  111
  "in some respects the health of the lower occupational classes has actually deteriorated against a background of general improvement in the population."
  It further states — the Government have repeatedly denied this—that
  "there is substantial evidence of unemployment causing a deterioration in mental health."
  It also highlights the north-south poverty divide by pointing out the sharp national and regional disparities in health. Death rates in the 1980s were highest in Scotland, next highest in the northern and north-western regions of England and lowest in the south-east and in East Anglia.
  No doubt that authoritative statement of the major role of unemployment, low pay and poverty in causing ill health and even premature death will be dismissed in some quarters. It will no doubt be dismissed by the junior Health Minister who likes to admonish northerners to stop eating pie and chips and to start eating pate and avocado pears and who wishes to make individuals responsible for society's inequalities. No doubt it will be dismissed by the kind of people who, when Archbishop Romero fed the hungry, described him as a saint, but when he asked why they were hungry described him as a Marxist. The Archbishop of Canterbury's commission on "Faith in the City" has already been called Marxist. No doubt it is just a matter of time before "The Health Divide" and the BMA, which supports it, are described as Marxist by the chairman of the Tory party. In fact, only the hard-line Right who dominate the present Government fail to see the connection between worsening health and the Government's ending of free school meals, doubling of poverty, tripling of homelessness, halving of regional grants, major cuts in rate support grant, decimation of the housing programme and virtual abandonment of housing repairs.
  No doubt there will be no decisive action from the Government on poverty, low pay, unemployment or health inequalities because those issues simply do not rate a high priority with the Prime Minister. The House will pardon me if her attitude reminds me of Tacitus's summary of Roman militarism, "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
  Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad to note that my hon. Friends understand Latin well. In translation, the quotation means, "They produce a wasteland and call it peace." That will be the Prime Minister's memorial. In 1979 she said that where there was discord she would bring peace, but where there was agreement she has brought conflict and confrontation endlessly. So far from healing the wounds in the interests of one nation, she has aggressively and ruthlessly pursued class divisions. Neither she, nor her party, is worthy to remain the Government of this country.
  9.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I want to say immediately that the allegation and charge made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the Government sought to suppress the HEC report is wholly untrue and completely without foundation.
  Before we accept lessons from the hon. Gentleman on social policy, the House might care to remember exactly
  112
  what he and the Labour Government achieved in office. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the DHSS between 1975 and late April 1976. At that time, inflation averaged almost 25 per cent., and rose to its post-war record of 26·9 per cent. That was the hon. Gentleman's achievement.
  The Christmas bonus for pensioners was suspended for the first time at Christmas 1975; and when the hon. Gentleman refers to pensioners and to today's uprating, I ask him to cast his mind back. The method of uprating pensions was changed at the uprating in 1976. As a result, there was a 6 per cent. cut in benefits for pensioners and for other beneficiaries. The cost of that cut, which was made by the last Labour Government, was—in current values — £1·2 billion. That is what the Labour Government did in power. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have a great deal about which to be modest in their record on social policy in Government, and I shall refer again to that in a moment.
  Two points are certain as a result of this debate. First, any incoming Labour Government would want to increase taxation, and that increase in taxation would affect millions of people in this country on middle and low incomes. The only question is by how much. Secondly, they say that they would increase public expenditure on the assumption that there would be an automatic increase in public services and improvement in the standard of living of groups such as the elderly in our society.
  Let us take that claim about the improvement in public services and apply it to the Health Service. Of course, we are in a position to judge and test such claims by comparing the performance of the Health Service under the Labour Government with performance under this Government. As it happens, we have today published a report by the statistical section of the DHSS and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which describes hospital activity between 1974 and 1984. And what does that report show?
  The figures show beyond doubt that health care has been improving much more quickly over the period of this Government than in the previous period. The best measure of treatment provided by the Health Service is the number of cases treated. The numbers of cases treated in the acute sector of NHS hospitals rose by 0·9 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1978. Between 1980 and 1984 that increase averaged 21 per cent. a year. If the year 1979 which included the winter of discontent—is included in the figures, the comparison is even more stark. The position is that under this Government patient care has improved at between two and three times the rate achieved by the last Labour Government.
  During the period, there has been a massive increase in care for elderly people. Since 1979, there has been a 37 per cent. increase in the number of over-75s treated. There were 16,000 more cataract operations, 17,000 more operations on the heart and circulatory system, and 14,000 more joint replacements —a 35 per cent. increase. The report shows a picture of a rapidly developing hospital service with more health care being provided than ever before.
  When the hon. Member for Oldham, West talks of waiting lists, let me say this: waiting lists are substantially below the lists left by the Labour Government, when no fewer than 750,000 people were waiting, while during the next 12 months a further 100,000 people will be given operations as a result of the waiting list initiative that I announced earlier this year. Above, all let us remember

  113
  that what adds to waiting lists is industrial action. What added to the waiting lists in 1982 was industrial action which the Labour party did nothing to dissuade or condemn.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Tell us about nurses' pay.
  Mr. Fowler: I should be glad to do so. Since 1979, nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms. That contrasts with a fall of 21 per cent. under the Labour Government.
  Labour Members talk about pensioners and their living standards. What is most extraordinary in their case is their total failure to see the impact of high inflation upon the living standards of pensioners in the middle and late 1970s. The inflation presided over by the Labour Government had not only disastrous effects on industry and business; it had a devasting social impact. It affected those who were least able to protect their interests — especially pensioners, who saw the value of their savings eroded.
  The hon. Gentleman gave some partial figures about pensioners' living standards. I shall give the figures from the 1985 family expenditure survey. The facts are that during the Labour Government's period of office from 1974 to 1979, they increased the basic pension in real terms. But their disastrous economic policies wrecked pensioners' other sources of income—their savings and the value of their occupational pensions. Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' total average net incomes increased by a mere 0·6 per cent. a year. Their income from savings fell steadily by 16 per cent. in real terms. Between 1979 and 1985, pensioners' total incomes increased by 2·7 per cent. a year in real terms—four and a half times as fast as under Labour and more than twice as fast as the growth in incomes of the population as a whole. Income from savings increased by no less than 52 per cent. during the same period.
  Those figures show the reality of what has happened to pensoners' incomes under this Government. The half of pensioners' incomes provided by retirement pension has been guaranteed by our policy. But, unlike Labour, we have not neglected the other half of their incomes. We have seen greater occupational pensions—on average, worth roughly the same amount at the state basic pension to those who receive them. We have seen a huge growth in real incomes from savings, and we have seen more pensioners receiving both additional types of income. Now 83 per cent. of newly retired couples have income from savings, compared with only 61 per cent. in 1974. 70 per cent. have occupational pensions, compared with only 52 per cent. in 1974. Because those changes benefit pensioners at all income levels, only a quarter of pensioners are now in the lowest income group in population, compared with 38 per cent. in 1979.
  Mr. Meacher: How can the Secretary of State seek to take credit for an increase in pensioners' incomes when it comes about largely from SERPS, which he has done his best to undermine and destroy, and also from occupational pension schemes, which he is doing his best to undermine by personal pensions?
  Mr. Fowler: That just establishes finally and conclusively for the House that the hon. Gentleman simply does not understand the position. What the hon. Gentleman said is completely silly, untrue, without foundation and completely in character.
  114
  The divisions are not increasing; they are being reduced. More people are getting independence in retirement. What they want is a Government who encourage that and who are able to control inflation.
  A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Britain's pensioners were the poor relations of Europe. Again, that is simply not true. This country spends more as a proportion of its gross domestic product on the support of the elderly than any other European Community country except Denmark and perhaps France. Those figures come from the European Statistical Office, and are on the best basis of comparison possible between different countries and different systems. They tell a completely different tale from the charge by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Pensioners are only part of the story. Some of the accusations that we have heard today about cuts and savings in social security benefits are, frankly, ludicrous. Total spending on social security benefits has risen under the Government——
  Mr. Meacher: As a result of higher unemployment.
  Mr. Fowler: I shall come to precisely that point.
  Total spending on social security benefits has risen from £16 billion to over £44 billion. The benefit uprating, which takes place today, will alone add £700 million to the bill. Even after allowing for inflation, there has been a real-terms increase of over 40 per cent., or £13 billion in current terms.
  Let me give the breakdown of that £13 billion. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that the increase in spending was due simply to larger numbers of unemployed people. No more than one third of that increase—just over £4 billion — is due to that factor, although I make no apology for that support going to the unemployed. But the main single reason for the higher spending is the real increases in the amounts of benefits paid. That accounts for some 45 per cent. of the total increase. Spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has grown by £2·5 billion. Spending on benefits for the elderly and on low-income working families has also risen.
  But the Government have clone more than just devote more resources to social security. We have recognised the challenges posed by an outdated and cumbersome social security system, and have directly faced those challenges. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) recognised that in his speech, although we shall have to cost carefully the forecasts that he made of his system. We are not that confident of his predictions at the moment.
  The debate has raised important issues, but the real questions that it raises are about not words but the actions and performance of Opposition Members when in government. They talk about the future of children, but what sort of future would our children have had in the country left by the previous Labour Government? The Opposition talk about the interests of the elderly, but what sort of life did elderly people have with the inflation experienced under that Labour Government? The Opposition talk about the Health Service. Indeed, they are putting up posters accusing the Government of achieving "Less staff", "Less beds" and "Less hospitals".
  Let us take them in turn. Overall, there has been a reduction in staff since 1982—although not on the 1979

  115
  figures—and the decrease was, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General said, in support and ancillary staff. At the same time, the front-line staff have increased. There are now 51,000 more nurses and midwives, 5,500 more hospital doctors and dentists and 6,000 more family doctors and dentists. We are running an effective health service with more staff devoted to direct patient care.
  The Opposition claim that there are "less beds". The total number of beds fell by about the same number in 1974–79 and in 1979–85, although the loss of acute beds was greater under the last Labour Government. However, doctors do not treat beds; they treat patients, and here the figures are absolutely clear. The Health Service is now treating 1 million more in-patient cases, 400,000 more day cases and 3 million more out-patients than in 1978–79.
  The Opposition say that there are "less hospitals". I find that the most extraordinary charge of all. Let us leave aside that we are in the middle of a record hospital building programme, or the Labour party's record in shutting old hospitals. Let us just remember that in 1976 and 1977 the last Labour Government carried out the biggest cuts in hospital building in the history of the Health Service. Up and down the country, hospital building programmes were cancelled. There was a 30 per cent. cut in the building programme.
  The reason for that goes to the heart of the debate. It was not that the last Labour Government wanted to make those cuts; they were forced to make them because of the collapse of their economic policies. If ever proof was needed of the connection between economic policy and successful social policy, that was it. The last Government had to cut, and what they cut most were capital programmes such as hospitals. It is the present Government who have restored the hospital building programme. Steadily, year by year, we have increased it. Parts of the country that had not had new hospital buildings since the war are now seeing them being erected. We now have a programme of 440 major schemes at a value of over £3 billion.
  When we are judging the policies of the Opposition, we should remember the Health Service that they left. The headlines in the months before the present Government were elected in 1979 were not about the success of health care, but about its collapse. They were about patients being refused admission, and pickets substituting their judgment for the judgment of doctors. There were headlines such as "1,100 hospitals under siege" in January 1979. That was the achievement of the last Labour Government — the Government of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and the Government of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), supported by the Liberal party.
  By all means let us debate the policies for better social provision, but let the public never forget which Government cut the hospital building programme and left record waiting lists. All that was achieved by the last Labour Government.
  That was not one nation; that was a divided nation —a nation at war with itself. It is clear from the debate, however, that the Opposition have not learnt a single
  116
  lesson from their failure. What is amazing is not the lack of public support for the Labour party but that 25 per cent. of the public are prepared to support it.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 244.

  Division No. 136]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Forrester, John

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ashton, Joe

  Freud, Clement

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  George, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barron, Kevin

  Gould, Bryan

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Gourlay, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hancock, Michael

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Blair, Anthony

  Haynes, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyes, Roland

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lambie, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Thomas

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clay, Robert

  Leighton, Ronald

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Donald

  Loyden, Edward

  Conlan, Bernard

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Craigen, J. M.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crowther, Stan

  McTaggart, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Martin, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dewar, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dormand, Jack

  Meacher, Michael

  Dubs, Alfred

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Michie, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Nellist, David

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  117

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Parry, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Patchett, Terry

  Snape, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Prescott, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Radice, Giles

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Randall, Stuart

  Stott, Roger

  Raynsford, Nick

  Strang, Gavin

  Redmond, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Taylor, Matthew

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Robertson, George

  Tinn, James

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Torney, Tom

  Rogers, Allan

  Wainwright, R.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wareing, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Ray Powell.

  Skinner, Dennis

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Conway, Derek

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Simon

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Couchman, James

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Crouch, David

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Dougias-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Tony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, William

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Farr, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Franks, Cecil

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bright, Graham

  Freeman, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Fry, Peter

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Galley, Roy

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Browne, John

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Gow, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Greenway, Harry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grist, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Ground, Patrick

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Grylls, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  118

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Harris, David

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Harvey, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hayes, J.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mudd, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Tony

  Henderson, Barry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hickmet, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hirst, Michael

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Holt, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Porter, Barry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Powley, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Irving, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jackson, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jessel, Toby

  Raffan, Keith

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Tim

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Silvester, Fred

  Lang, Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Spencer, Derek

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Squire, Robin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Jim

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stokes, John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thurnham, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maclean, David John

  Trippier, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Waller, Gary

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Madel, David

  Watts, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Maples, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Marlow, Antony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mellor, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Merchant, Piers

  Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. David Lightbown.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30(Questions on amendments)and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the Government's commitment to seeing all citizens of the United Kingdom share in the
  120
  increased prosperity and improved public services resulting from the economic policies it is pursuing and applauds the Government's continuing commitment to the principles of one nation.

  LegaBl Aid (Scotland)
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.
  With this it might be convenient to consider also the second Government motion,
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.
  and the following Opposition prayers :
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 365), dated 5th March 1987, a copy os which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 366), dated 5th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 381), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (S.1., 1987, No. 382), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Children) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 384), dated 7th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: Is that the will of the House? So be it.
  Mr. Lang: These regulations made under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 increase the financial limits for legal aid and advice and assistance which were in force under the Legal Aid (Scotland) .Act 1967. They come into operation on the day after they are made. I propose to make them as soon as they are approved by the House.
  The timing of the review of supplementary benefits has changed from November to April in two stages. The first was in July 1986, the second is today. The last legal aid uprating was on 25 November 1985 and the uprating provided for in these regulations combines the supplementary benefit changes since November 1985. The regulations increase the income and upper capital limits for civil legal aid and advice and assistance by an average of 3·1 per cent.
  The lower income limit for civil legal aid, that is the level below which no contribution from income is payable, is raised from £2,255 a year to £2,325. The upper income limit, that is, the level above which legal aid is not normally available is increased from £5,415 a year to £5,585. The upper capital limit above which legal aid is not normally available is increased from £4,710 to £4,850.
  As for advice and assistance, the upper income limit is raised from £114 to £118 a week and the capital limit from £800 to £825. The advice and assistance regulations also increase the lower income limit, below which no contribution is payable, from £54 a week to £56 and set out a revised table for contributions by applicants. The original intention was that the changes should coincide with the introduction of the new Scottish legal aid
  122
  arrangements, but now the changes will more or less coincide with the changes in the supplementary benefit arrangements.
  To turn to the regulations against which the Opposition have prayed, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain fairly briefly the purpose and effect of the various regulations. They are, of course, all concerned with the implementation of the new arrangements for legal aid, which, like these regulations, came into operation on 1 April. To a large extent the regulations reproduce the gist of regulations that were in operation before 1 April, although they incorporate some features of the schemes, under which the Law Society operated. One of the objectives was to incorporate in the regulations only those items which were necessary, on the basis that the Scottish Legal Aid Board should have a large degree of flexibility in the way in which it operates.
  Perhaps I might illustrate that by reference to the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987. For example., regulations 5 and 20 set out a few requirements in relation to the form of application for legal aid and for a review of the refusal of legal aid respectively but do not prescribe an application form. Moreover, they do not purport to lay down the procedure which the board should follow in considering applications or requests for review. In this matter they comply with the views expressed during the passage of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 that unnecessary constraints should not be placed on the operation of the board. The regulations also make some changes not arising directly from the new legislation, for example, in relation to property recovered and preserved and in the termination of legal aid, but, as I have indicated, most of the changes are to adapt the previous arrangements to the new situation where the board has assumed responsibility. The situations in which legal aid is available and the responsibilities and liabilities of the applicant, of his solicitor and of the board are restated or redefined.
  The advice and assistance regulations apply the same principle of translating the requisite parts of the previous regulations and the important elements of the legal advice and assistance scheme to meet the new situation. It has been necessary to add as appropriate provisions relating to assistance by way of representation. If hon. Members find it odd that these were not covered by the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which were approved by the House last month, this is simply because those regulations were subject to affirmative resolution procedure, whereas these are subject to negative procedure. They are appropriately included here since ABWOR is a particular form of advice and assistance.
  One of the objectives of the changes made by the Act and by the regulations is to make a clearer distinction between the circumstances in which advice and assistance on the one hand and legal aid on the other are made available. The Legal Aid Central Committee expressed the view that it would be of value to the oversight of the arrangements if information could be obtained about cases where advice and assistance were awarded and no account was submitted. This information would be more readily available under the new arrangements.
  The Legal Aid (Scotland) (Children) Regulations largely reproduce the existing arrangements, subject to a degree of clarification, substituting the board for the Law Society and its committees as appropriate. As hon.

  123
  Members will appreciate, most applications for legal aid arising out of children's hearings are dealt with by the sheriff and the board is generally involved in dealing only with the comparatively few applications relating to appeals to the Court of Session from decisions of the sheriff.
  Finally, I should mention the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations and the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations, which simply reproduce the existing fees for civil and criminal legal aid, changing references to the Law Society and the like to references to the board. If these regulations were not in force, it would not be possible to pay the legal profession for work on legal aid applications determined on or after 1 April. I assume that that is not the purpose of the Opposition.
  I should make it clear that the regulations do not fix new levels of fees. Offers have been made to the legal profession and it would clearly not be appropriate to discuss them in this context.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Why is it impossible to discuss the fees of solicitors and lawyers? We discuss the pay of nurses and teachers. Why can we not discuss legal fees?
  Mr. Lang: Because the regulations do not relate to the level of fees. They relate to the transition from arrangements handled by the Law Society to the new arrangements handled by the board.
  It has been difficult to anticipate which features of the new regulations are disliked by Opposition Members, but I shall do my best to answer any criticisms that they make.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the opportunity to look at the new system and the various statutory instruments before us. I should start by declaring an interest as a partner in a Scottish law firm that practises in various centres in the central belt of Scotland and has a not inconsiderable legal practice. I value my connection, but it is somewhat tenuous and technical these days.
  We have here a mass of paper, and the reason for it is the birth of SLAB — the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Many changes flow from that. I wish to raise a number of relevant points and I hope that the Minister will deal with them.
  The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations have made an unexpected appearance on the Floor of the House because of a little local difficulty in a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, over which I shall draw a veil. The regulations appear to include a standard and harmless uprating, but I am curious about how the uprating was decided. What criteria are applied?
  The limit above which civil legal aid will not be available is to be increased from £5,415 to £5,585—an increase of £170. I am not sure why that figure has been chosen and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what principles rule decision-making. Does it involve a GDP deflator, or an attempt to cover inflation? The increase looks to be a little less than the increase in inflation, but no doubt the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
  The limit below which no contribution is required for civil legal aid remains frozen. That has not been uprated, which no doubt is a welcome, if somewhat meagre, saving
  124
  from the point of view of the Treasury. Will the Minister say why that has not been uprated, as it will clearly affect some people?
  A number of other points arise with regard to civil legal aid. One matter that I ask the Minister to deal with in his summing-up is the main civil legal aid scheme. This point has been drawn to my attention, and it is one of a number on which the Minister must be briefed because they have been put to him forcefully by the Law Society and have been reflected on by a large number of hon. Members.
  As I understand it, civil legal aid, when granted under the new regulations, will run from the date of the grant, whereas previously, once civil legal aid was granted it was backdated to when the application was lodged. In other words, while the matter was being considered, if one was reasonably confident that legal aid would be granted, it was possible to prepare the case, knowing that once the legal aid certificate was safely in being one could charge for the work that had been done. Under the new regulations that will not be possible. I suspect that it will not save a substantial amount of money for the legal aid fund. No work will be done until the outcome of the legal aid application is known and the certificate has safely been granted. The result will be a significant and perhaps irritating delay in the processing of the matter. That is something on which the Minister could usefully comment.
  I shall leave civil legal aid matters and move on to a matter of considerable importance, the legal aid advice and assistance scheme. We are considering some uprating orders. They are comparatively unexceptionable and I do not make anything of them; for example, the increase from £114 to £118 on the upper income limit and a number of such minor adjustments.
  There are, however, some changes, to which the Minister referred, of a more substantive nature that appear to have been introduced. I have been approached by a solicitor who has a substantial practice in welfare law in Scotland. My attention has been drawn to regulation 15 of the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 1987. The Minister will recall that this deals with a situation in which property moneys have been preserved or have resulted from the advice and action taken under the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1986, which allow the fees of a solicitor to be recovered from those moneys or, more important, the exemptions that are allowed in that situation.
  I have been told by that solicitor, and I understand it to be true, that there are a number of exemptions that have, in effect, been withdrawn. One exemption that has been mentioned to me is that capital sums paid in lieu of element are not exempt, and there would therefore have to be a recovery of fees under the LAA (No. 3) Regulations scheme if that sum were to hand. Similarly, unemployment, sickness, maternity, invalidity and widow's benefit and industrial injuries benefit which I understand were previously exempt, will no longer be exempt. There are exemptions for redundancy payments and housing benefit. I do not want to enumerate and go down what is a lengthy list, but these are moneys which, if recovered or preserved as a result of a legal action under the LAA (No. 3) Regulations scheme, will now be liable to deduction of fees, which was not the situation under the previous arrangement.
  It sounds rather like a carping point, but the Minister will appreciate that, though the sums of money are often comparatively small, the people who are interested in

  125
  unemployment, sickness or widow's benefit are of modest means, and therefore this could be a matter of some importance to them. The psychological effect of having managed to win an entitlement, perhaps of a modest sum, and then discovering that almost the entire advantage has been eaten up in the payment of fees, seems to be something that should, if at all possible, be avoided. I invite the Minister to look at that situation.
  The advice and assistance scheme has been enormously enhanced by the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1987. This new scheme covers a criminal summary case in which a plea of guilty has been tendered. I understand that it is now impossible to get a full grant of legal aid for a plea of guilty and that legal aid becomes applicable only from the point at which a not guilty plea is recorded. No doubt the Minister will confirm that. Any representation in a case where a plea of guilty has been tendered and a person is appearing for sentence must be dealt with under the LAA3 scheme, which is affected by the regulations that we are considering.
  I do not want to go in great detail through the ABWOR regulations, but I remind the Minister of one key point. The criteria for representation under the LAA3 scheme where a plea of guilty has been tendered are, first, that the solicitor must be satisfied that it is likely that the court will impose a sentence that could deprive the applicant of his liberty or lead to the loss of his livelihood. There is a second category, with which I do not need to weary the House, where an applicant is infirm, where there is a language difficulty, where there is a problem about mental capacity or some such related feature. By far the most important criterion for represention is where it is likely that the court will impose a sentence that could deprive the applicant of his liberty.
  The trouble— this has been well canvassed—is that one is inviting the solicitor to battle on his client's behalf to save him from the possibility of a prison sentence while knowing that he has signed a certificate to get the applicant legal aid and that the applicant will end up in prison. That is rather extraordinary. Why has the Minister not been persuaded of the sensible provision that "may" should be substituted for "likely", so that the solicitor "may" be satisfied that the client may be sentenced to a period in custody? That important point will affect substantially the everyday operation of the courts. Therefore, it is right that it should be given an airing now.
  Under the ABWOR arrangements there is special provision for pleas as to the competency of a complaint. An additional criterion has been added:
  "it is reasonable in the particular circumstances that assistance by way of representation be made available".
  It is extraordinary that assistance should not be available where a plea of guilty is tendered. I can think of a number of situations where there is a pressing public interest and where it certainly is in the interests of justice that a person tendering a plea of guilty should receive representation, but that person will apparently be excluded because the solicitor cannot find it is in his conscience to sign the necessary certificate to the effect that a prison sentence is likely to be imposed.
  A person might be concerned about what to an ordinary mortal is a comparatively minor offence, but to an applicant for a civil servant's job a previous conviction would be a bar to employment, so that becomes a matter of great importance. It does not involve the applicant
  126
  losing his livelihood and therefore is not affected by the present criteria. His future livelihood may be affected, but that is not something that the solicitor can take into account. For example, a disabled person may be likely to lose his licence. That would fundamentally affect the quality of his life, but not his livelihood. Because he is disabled, does not work and his benefit position is not affected, he would not be covered by these criteria.
  One might get what, on the face of it, is a comparatively innocent breach of the peace, but one with which anyone who has practised in the courts is familiar and in which there are, for example, overtones of sexual harassment. There might be serious implications for the accused, but it could not be covered under the criteria laid down. It would be unfortunate if in such cases the solicitor had to have an elastic conscience and had to make a mockery of the criteria because they are so narrowly drawn, in order to do what was right by his client. That is an unsatisfactory situation in which to place solicitors, and one which the Minister should carefully consider.
  From my own experience I am aware of the real problem of the rather strange condition that representation under the legal aid and advice scheme is available only on behalf of an accused who has not previously tendered a plea of not guilty. This raises fundamental difficulties, and, if the Minister does not recognise them, the Solicitor-General certainly will. A situation may well arise in which someone pleads not guilty and then consults a lawyer. The lawyer may tell him, as perhaps he is duty bound to do. that he does not have a sustainable plea of not guilty and that he should not waste the court's time. He may advise him not to go through all the nonsense of a trial, when at the end of the day he does not have a fighting chance. He may advise him to plead now or perhaps to enter an adjusted and partial plea. The solicitor advises, the client takes the advice, and the result is that he is then denied any possibility of legal representation. That is because he has submitted an original plea of not guilty and cannot get representation under the regulations.
  A very common case in the district court in Glasgow is where the accused submits his plea of not guilty by letter, perhaps not really understanding the point at issue. He then takes legal advice and is told that in the interests of everyone he must change his plea. He does so, and immediately disqualifies himself from any from of representation, even if he meets the criteria which otherwise would have allowed him under ABWOR to have the services of a solicitor. That must be nonsense and that is a serious matter for people who might be at risk in the courts. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  There is a rumour that on occasions solicitors encourage their clients to maintain hopeless pleas of not guilty in order to be able to appear at trials and clock up fees. In my experience that is not a common form of malpractice. My experience is that most solicitors very properly look at the matter on its merits and advise a plea of guilty if that is right. This will be a considerable inhibition on the discretion of solicitors, because they will know that immediately they are putting themselves out of the game in terms of the client. This will mean that a large number of people will appear unrepresented in situations where they are at risk and where they clearly ought to have representation. That must be looked at most carefully.
  I shall comment briefly on the other matters, because I realise that I have taken much of the time of the House. There has been a great deal of angst and a great deal of

  127
  proper concern about the 14-day rule that is being imposed. The Minister knows that under section 8(1)(b) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987 there is a provision that any legal aid application must be lodged within 14 days of the plea of not guilty being tendered.
  I make the same point again. Many clients enter their own pleas. They go along and plead not guilty, or write in and plead not guilty. If it is Glasgow district court, they get a letter back saying that the trial will be held in seven months. That is the waiting time in the district court in Glasgow. The client says to himself, "That is fair, I have lots of time. I do not need to worry about that." After a few months the client realises that the trial is to take place in two or three months' time and goes along to see his solicitor. The first thing that he is told when he walks in is, "I am awfully sorry. Do not bother waiting around. Because you did not make an application within 14 days of submitting your plea of not guilty, you are no longer eligible for legal aid." That is irrespective of how pressing the accused's case may be, or the merits of his defence. That cannot be right.
  I have had some correspondence with Ministers about this. They suggested that there was no problem because before he tendered his plea the careful client would prepare his legal aid application. The Solicitor-General must know that clients on summary complaints in our lower courts do not do that kind of thing. They tender their pleas and then think about legal representation, when it is demonstrably too late.
  The legal aid application form runs to nine pages of questions in which complexity is piled upon complication. It is carefully drawn up, but the contrast with the previous form is striking. Even if there is consultation with the solicitor within the 14 days, there will be the greatest difficulty in getting the necessary information and the necessary financial evidence that has to be submitted with the application. The result will be that a large number of people who should be represented will be unrepresented. That is bad for the clients and, as I am sure the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) will agree, bad for the court.
  It will complicate the work of the court considerably if a large number of people who want to be represented have to appear unrepresented because they have missed the time limit. Stipendiaries and sheriffs all privately admit to hating above everything else cases in which the client is unrepresented, but in which important procedural and evidential points may be involved, so that they have to try to do the job of the defence as best they can within the limits of their role to try to ensure that justice is done. I believe that that situation will be infinitely more common as a result of the 14-day rule. The old scheme had a seven-day rule—seven days before the trial. That may be too tight a limit, and no respectable solicitor would want to leave it as late as that, but to take the limit right back to 14 days from the tendering of a not guilty plea is, in my view, a fundamental mistake and should be reconsidered.
  I shall deal with the other points in short order. The first relates to the duty solicitor having, at least in legal aid terms, a total monopoly of the custody court in the sheriff and district courts. I appreciate that that is tidy, and on the face of it may save a little money, because if everyone goes through the duty solicitor there is a fairly substantial
  128
  fee for the first client, followed by a small flat rate fee for the rest, until a cut-off point at which the cycle begins again. That is how I remember it, although it is some time since I had to fill in one of the green forms as a duty solicitor. If other solicitors come in for just one or two cases, on the face of it that may increase the cost.
  I do not go for the high-falutin arguments. I think that the Law Society's suggestion that this may be a breach of the European convention on human rights is probably pushing the boat out a bit too far, but in practical terms it is important that the client should have the solicitor of his choice. That solicitor may have seen the client in the cells the day before and may have turned out in the middle of the night for an identification parade—perhaps the Minister will tell us how that is to be paid for under the new scheme—but he will suddenly have to tell the client that he cannot appear for him in court. That will lead to frustration and will greatly puzzle and irritate the client.
  If the solicitor knows the client, he may even save money for the system because he will know all the circumstances. He will know about any other charges, whether the client is on bail for another offence, whether he is awaiting sentence on indictment and likely to go away for a long period, and because it is the duty of a solicitor to help the court, he will ensure that the court is properly informed of the circumstances. I believe that the result will be better, more expeditious justice, because the duty solicitor would take very much longer to establish those facts. In terms of efficiency, therefore there is a case for reconsidering that provision.
  The arguments that I have advanced will not surprise the Minister. I shall not take up all the other points made by interested parties outside the House, but I believe that those that I have mentioned are important and substantial, and I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a case for reconsidering the position at least in the not too distant future.
  I conclude on that note, as I recognise that others may wish to participate. I hope that the House will not feel that I have wearied it with irrelevant points, but that the matters that I have raised are of some substance. We are in the unfortunate but all too typical situation of having before us a series of provisions that we must either take or leave. We cannot amend, improve or tackle some of the points at issue. I accept the Minister's argument that we cannot reject the regulations because that would cause chaos in the system. That would be in no one's interests, and my hon. Friends and I are aware of that.
  Given the shotgun nature of the position, the Minister has a duty to accept that there should be positive monitoring of what is happening. He should, perhaps, return in three months' time—or six, if that is more reasonable — with amending legislation, if that proves necessary. Or, if he does not think that that is necessary, he should at least issue a report containing the statistical facts and explain how he believes that the difficulties—I believe that they are real—have been overcome. Some undertaking of that kind is essential, because without it we might do genuine damage to the new system.
  We did not oppose the setting up of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. We gave it a fair wind, and we are not trying to wreck it now. It has our good wishes, and I hope that it will be as effective as Ministers think it will be.
  We must not remove representation from people who genuinely need it because of the need to economise—in the accountancy sense—on what Ministers have always

  129
  assured us is a demand-led system. Proper representation is essential, and must not be prejudiced. It is an important foundation of our civil liberties, and I fear that on the edges, and in some significant areas, it will become more difficult for people who are at risk to obtain the sort of advice and help with which a reasonable and proper legal aid system should supply them.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I remember — when studying law — reading the judgments of a deceased senator of the college of justice who, on appeals, used to say, "There is nothing I could usefully add", and then speak on for five minutes to prove it.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has gone in considerable detail into the regulations and highlighted some of their shortcomings. I do not want to fall into the trap of repeating what he said. The uprating provisions in the financial conditions order are a source of concern. It appears that we are falling ever further behind the original intention of legal aid, which was introduced in 1949.
  Legal aid should enable people of moderate means to have access to the courts. Increasingly, it would appear that, because of the financial limits, one must either be at the poor end of the scale or have considerable resources of one's own. Over the years, that has meant that people have not felt as prepared to pursue legal remedies as they once were.
  Two criticisms of the regulations can be made. First, they will lead to further delays in the process of justice in Scotland. That is in no one's interests, and it was not Parliament's intention when the primary legislation was passed. The regulations that bar preparatory work pending a legal aid application apply only to the pursuer. The defender is allowed to carry out preparatory work. If no work is done until the legal aid application comes through, delays could result.
  Secondly, the 14-day rule, to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, entails the problem that it is not inconceivable that a solicitor acting for the accused might seek an adjournment of the pleading diet to allow proper preparation of the legal aid application before a plea is made, so the 14 days will not start to run. That, too, will add to the delays.
  The provision that one may not be able to claim representation if there has already been a not guilty plea could lead to people not changing their pleas in circumstances in which it would be in their own and in the court's interests to do so because that was the only way in which they could qualify for legal aid. All those problems will add to delay.
  There are, however, conditions which could make legal aid less available. The financial conditions impose a real limit on access to the courts. There are complaints about the ABWOR system. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) is not here, as he made ABWOR almost a term of art in Scots law after our many sittings in Committee.
  I do not believe that anybody intended the Act to restrict the availability of legal aid. Indeed, we were continuously assured by Ministers that it would make the system more efficient. The regulations have not lived up to that promise in many respects and they should be
  130
  monitored closely. If amending legislation, or regulations, to meet our reasonable criticisms is brought forward, we shall be only too pleased to support it.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Hugh Brown: I have no interest to declare in this subject, other than the fact that a goodly number of my constituents keep the legal profession in fairly comfortable circumstances.
  Having read the Law Society brief and heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, I agree that there seems to be concern about the 14-day rule. I confess that I have no great knowledge of this matter, and my constituents have not made representations about it, but it seems worth keeping an eye on.
  I am sure that the Minister will respond to the request for a review. If anything is wrong — the Government cannot have foreseen everything—I am sure that they will lay new regulations. That is a practical way in which to deal with the matter.
  The new system must be better than the old one. If anyone was unfortunate enough to have his application for legal aid go before a certain stipendiary magistrate in Glasgow, who has caused untold harm in the city——
  Mr. George Foulkes: Sheriff David Smith.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend can speak for Sheriff David Smith. I shall not name the individual. I do not like naming people. I have had to write to the Minister and the Solicitor-General for Scotland about him. This guy should have been removed quietly behind the scenes because of the damage that he has done to the fairness of the system in Glasgow.
  I have in mind genuine constituents who have never been in trouble before. One of the things that disturbs me is the number of young people on their first offence who plead guilty because they do not know the rules or simply because they give in. It is far too easy to say, "It is less bother. You do not get a fair crack of the whip. I might not get legal aid." Someone who is lucky enough to have a job might have to take time off. All the pressure is to plead guilty. That is not healthy.
  The board has been under much pressure to get the administration of the new system into gear. I wish it success, but I hope that some of the matters about which concern has been expressed will be monitored carefully and that, if necessary, the Minister will return with suitable amendments.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: There is hardly a Scottish Member of Parliament who has not sensed, during the past year or two, the growing difficulty of getting legal aid, especially for young people.
  The criterion of "not in the interests of justice" seems to have been pushed to its limit. It is a new phenomenon, but I have come across it time after time recently, so I am pleased in one sense about the shift. It was quite unjustified that one person should make such a decision. But recently —I am certainly encountering it now—the criterion that justice does not demand the giving of legal aid has been applied to extraordinary types of crime. That, together with the law's delays, which have been bad, have been inimical to the practice of justice in Scotland.

  131
  Young people are increasingly encouraged to plead guilty. Names have been mentioned, and we are all worried about "murmuring" judges. It seems that the worst possible crime in Scotland is to murmur a charge, but judges at various levels are human beings, and some very curious things have happened. I am not sure how the board will cope with some of the problems. I hope that the system will be reviewed over not too long a period to see how it is operating.
  I examine some of the fees being charged by senior counsel and solicitors, and some of the bad and dangerous decisions that have been made in the refusal of legal aid, and I come to one conclusion : sooner or later, we must move to a proper legal aid system, as we moved towards a proper National Health Service. I am not sure why the legal luminaries on the Conservative Benches are shaking their heads. We should consider some of the detailed forms that lawyers must fill in before they can be paid. The first copy per sheet costs 0·75p, with no more than 250 words per sheet. They have to be sure to mark the factor times 0·75p. There is the citation of witnesses, with each witness worth £3·30. For revising papers drawn up by counsel—for each five sheets or part thereof, £1·65. Those who find it easy to say to a young person "Plead guilty or I will not give legal aid on this occasion" are very good at working out the details of their own fees. We complain about the behaviour of young people, but look at the law and, as Shakespeare said, the law's delay and the proud man's contumely in the shape of some of our sheriffs.
  In Glasgow and Edinburgh, the poor souls get only £219·50 for a day in court, but if they went to Aberdeen, Inverness or Dumfries, they would receive £356·50 a day. I measure that against the pay received on a youth training scheme.
  Justice should be available to every man. We should not leave the decision to a sheriff, or a board, who may not have enough experience to make a decision. Those who read my piece last week in the Glasgow Herald will know that when I went through all the papers in the case of Paddy Meehan I found him irrefutably guilty, but he was innocent. I was one of those across whose desk the papers passed. Yet a sheriff could decide that there was no justification for granting legal aid in a similar case. The system must be changed.
  There is only one way to change the system. In the case of the law, the Government should reverse the mad rush into privatisation. We should have a national legal service, just as we have a national education service and a National Health Service, so that each person can obtain advice and be properly defended, without this highly demeaning process for the legal profession.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser)indicated assent.
  Mr. Buchan: The Solicitor-General is nodding. He has a reasonable salary and does not need to charge per sheet. I am in favour of paying reasonable salaries, and against the demeaning process of analysing sheet by sheet the cost of legal advice. It must stop, and the sooner it stops, the better for justice in Scotland.
  11 pm
  Mr. Lang: We have had a useful debate. Like the regulations, it has ranged fairly widely. I shall try to cover
  132
  as many of the points that have been raised as I can, so far as they are relevant to the debate, perhaps even one or two that may not be relevant to the regulations.
  I noted with interest the suggestion by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the Faculty of Advocates should operate a youth training scheme. He might like to raise that with it himself the next time he is in touch, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to do so.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised several points. In the context of the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, he asked how the limits were decided. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was also interested in that. The increases are related to increases in supplementary benefit. Since November 1985, they have averaged 3·1 per cent. The hon. Member for Garscadden will recall that social security benefits were raised in two stages, including July 1986, but the increase then would have been only 1·1 per cent., and it did not seem appropriate to make changes in the schedules at that time.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked why the supplementary benefit capital threshold had been left at£3,000. As it was not increased, the lower capital limit for civil legal aid was similarly not increased.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the level for those who qualified for legal aid, and managed to imply that a relatively limited number of people qualify. It is a substantial number—90 per cent. of those who qualify make no contribution. The maximum level at which free legal aid is permitted for a single person is £80·40 a week and can rise as high as £10,926 a year for a married couple with four children. The minimum level at which applicants become ineligible for legal aid would be £182·69 a week for a single person, which is quite a substantial figure, and could rise as high as £16,108 per annum for the married couple with four children.
  The system is demand-led, as the hon. Member for Garscadden conceded, and it has risen in cost from 1978–79 when it was £7·4 million to £38·5 million in 1985–86. The estimate for 1986–87 is £45·6 million and for 1987–88 it is £48 million. So that answers the charge, which, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he did not make, but which many others have made, that the purpose of the rearrangement of the system is to claw back and cut down on those eligible for legal aid and the amounts disbursed in legal aid—[Hots. MEMBERS: "That was not relevant."] It was relevant in the context of what was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It was the hon. Member for Garscadden who mentioned the term "demand-led", which made my comments relevant.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked why not pay legal aid from the date of application. That is not possible under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, which provides for a clear separation between advice and assistance and any legal aid that is given on the same matter. While that split is most important for criminal proceedings, where criminal legal aid is now being supplemented by the new form of advice and assistance, ABWOR, or assistance by way of representation, a clear division between advice and assistance and legal aid is also helpful for civil proceedings. Advice and assistance will now be separately accounted for, instead of the present practice under which accounts are often not rendered for advice and assistance because it has been subsumed into later legal aid. That will improve accountability and control. If the solicitor and the

  133
  applicant take action before hearing the outcome of the application, one or both may have to meet the costs if the application is refused. However, that does not differ from the present position. Provision is made for applications to be dealt with as a matter of special urgency where that can be justified.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister say whether, in cases where there is defended action and legal aid is sought by the defender, defences can be lodged and no doubt the case can be assisted pending an application for legal aid? Why cannot sauce for the defender goose be sauce for the gander pursuer?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new regulation 18A. He is probably referring to the representations made to us about defenders by the Law Society. But new regulation 18A is not confined to defenders, as the Law Society seems to suggest. For example, it covers the lodging of appearances and the sisting of an action while a legal aid application is determined. We have particularly in mind the interests of third parties other than defenders or pursuers. Pursuers would normally be covered, however, by regulation 18 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which covers applications for legal aid on matters of special urgency—for example, someone seeking an interdict.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised the question of deductions. I am not absolutely sure about which deductions he is concerned. Is it those that can be made in the calculation of disposable income?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry if I did not make my position clear. I understand that, under the LAA 3 scheme, if certain moneys were successfully recovered as a result of the legal process that was being funded the fees would not be deducted from them. I gave a number of instances— for example, benefits that are of particular significance in a welfare practice. Under the new regulations, I am told, these are not exempt, and the fees will therefore be clawed back from what is obtained.
  I invite the Minister to comment on that simple point. I think that it is in section 15 of the new regulations.
  Mr. Lang: I shall try to answer the question that I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking. If I do not cover it, perhaps he will pursue it with me at a later date.
  The exemption of awards of capital or property in matrimonial cases is being restricted to £2,500, partly to remove an anomaly between Scotland and England and Wales which has existed since 1976. Logically, there should be no exemption, as there is none in other cases. However, the limit of £2,500 provides an element of protection in divorce cases. But perhaps the hon. Member is not concerned about capital.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry; we are at cross purposes. I do not wish the Minister to misunderstand what I am saying.
  Let us say that a client comes to see me, as a solicitor, and it is an LAA3 case. As a result of my efforts, £200 or £300 worth of benefits that have been denied to that person are recovered. There are a number of categories of benefit—invalidity benefit, widows' pensions and so on —which at present would go to the client without my fees being recovered from that capital sum. Under the new system, there is no such exemption.
  The point has been put to me by a number of solicitors, and I invite the Minister to confirm that it is so. Perhaps the Minister will write to me.
  Mr. Lang: Perhaps I shall, but I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question now.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to schedule 3, concerning capital. No account is taken of a person's main home and its furnishings, his clothing or tools of trade. Deductions are made from his present capital for debts that he will have to meet in the next 12 months, although naturally debts due to him are taken into account.
  I could proceed to tell the hon. Gentleman at considerable length the deductions regarding an applicant's disposable income. Deductions are made for expenses—including the expenses of a business and, for an employed person, travelling expenses—for payments to a union or professional association and, if it is reasonable, for the cost of caring for a dependent child while the applicant is working away from home. There are a number of other factors that I could cite to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if he is not satisfied with the points that I have made, perhaps he would like to write to me when he has had an opportunity to read what I have already said in the Official Report.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a brief word about the criteria for an award of ABWOR. The Law Society had suggested that the use of the word "likely" was against the spirit of the Act. It is not; it is to be found on the face of the Act, in section 24(3). It has always been the intention, as was stated during the passage of the 1986 Act, that criteria for ABWOR for guilty pleas should be related to the relevant factors taken into account in assessing interests of justice in the case of not-guilty pleas.
  The criteria in the ABWOR regulations, which were approved by both Houses last month, are, accordingly, broadly similar to the factors set out in section 24(3)(a) and (c) of the 1986 Act. Section 24(3)(a) states that legal aid will be provided if
  "it is likely that the court would impose a sentence which would deprive the accused of his liberty or lead to his loss of his livelihood".
  It is quite wrong to suggest that the requirement is unfair and against the spirit of the Act.
  I had better move on from that point, as it is probably out of order in the context of the present debate.
  Mr. Dewar: What is or is not out of order is a matter for the Chair. We are considering the LAA3 scheme; a number of the orders relate to it. As for ABWOR, I should like the Minister to consider the point that it is very easy to imagine a number of cases where there would be a clear public interest in there being representation, but representation is excluded by the narrow nature of the criteria. I suggested a few of the criteria during the debate.
  The other devastating point that the Minister ought to deal with is that the client who puts in a plea of not guilty and then takes legal advice and recognises that he must plead guilty is automatically — never mind the circumstances, or the risk that he faces, or the effect on his livelihood—disbarred from any form of representation under the legal aid scheme. That cannot be right. The Minister is under a duty to say a few words about that.
  Mr. Lang:I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me that I have a duty not to do so, but I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have already debated upstairs the ABWOR regulations. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not present when we did so.
  Mr. Dewar: I was not on the Committee.
  Mr. Lang: The fact that the hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee did not prevent him from attending another Committee hearing the other morning, of which he was not a member. I have covered that point here and also in the debate upstairs on the regulations.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to a guilty plea being entered after a not guilty plea having been entered originally. Again I shall tempt the Chair by answering briefly that point, to which the hon. Member for Garscadden also referred. Assistance by way of representation is available only when the accused has not previously tendered a plea of not guilty. That does not mean that the accused will not be legally represented if he changes his plea to guilty. He must apply for legal aid within 14 days after he has pleaded not guilty. It would be unreasonable to provide that an accused should be able to obtain ABWOR after the Scottish Legal Aid Board had determined that he should not be awarded legal aid. That point is valid also in the context of the debate that was held upstairs.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way on that very important point?
  Mr. Lang: No, I do not think that I should give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have given way to him a number of times. I have already answered points that both of us know are out of order in the context of this debate, because they are not the subject of the regulations against which the hon. Gentleman has prayed.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister entitled to decide for himself and for hon. Members what is or is not in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am taking into account the mood of the House tonight.
  Mr. Lang: I fear that I am straining your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, close to its limit.
  The 14-day rule is also part of the criminal legal aid regulations against which the hon. Member for Garscadden has not prayed. I shall tempt your tolerance a little further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by referring briefly to it, since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) also referred to it. It is reasonable and sensible for there to be a date by which applications for legal aid have to be made that relates to the pleading diet rather than to the trial diet. To work backwards from the trial does not seem to be a sensible or a wise move. The suggestion that there should be a seven day limit from the trial seems to be taking it far too close to the date of the trial.
  We want to provide for the quicker and more efficient dispensation of justice. I have considered this matter carefully and have had meetings with the Law Society and the Glasgow Bar Association. We have considered their views, and by moving to a 14-day provision from the pleading diet we have to some extent met the case that they put to us. The Legal Aid Board and the Law Society have declared that they intend to make the new system work, and we shall watch it closely and make sure that it does work.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister will remember that I said that there would be difficulties if people, particularly in the lower courts, pleaded not guilty by letter. When they know that their trial date is seven months away it will be very difficult to persuade them to complete the legal aid preparations within 14 days. What would the Minister say
  136
  to a young man who might face a prison sentence in the impending trial who has missed out on the 14-day rule? If there were a substantial number of such cases, would the Minister be prepared to reconsider the matter?
  Mr. Lang: We shall keep a close watch on the situation and, naturally, if we were to feel that it was not working satisfactorily we should seek a way of making sure that it did. I am certain that as the hon. Gentleman considers it objectively and dispassionately he will realise that it is in the long-term interests of the accused and in the interest of quicker and more efficient dispatch of justice to have the application for legal aid handled at an earlier stage of the proceedings rather than at the last minute, which may be many months after the case originated. That cannot be a satisfactory long-term solution when we are trying to improve the dispatch of justice.
  I assure the House that the Government are aware that we are entering a new era with the establishment of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, though the regulations before us tonight do not make many significant changes in the present provisions. We and the board will be keeping a close watch on how the system works in practice. If adjustments in the regulations prove necessary in the light of experience we shall certainly be prepared to make them.
  I would not be willing to give a three-month commitment to carrying out a review or, indeed, any specific time commitment, but we shall certainly look closely at the operation of the arrangements and whenever it seems appropriate we shall be willing to consider any changes.
  I ask the House to reject the motion against the regulations, which are necessary for the operation of the new arrangements which came into force last week; but to approve the financial conditions regulations laid before it on 31 March.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.

  LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL Lords] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any amount payable by the Lord Advocate in respect of—

  (i)the remuneration or expenses of administration appointed under any such Act;

  (ii)any compensation payable under any such Act in respect of the serious default of a procurator fiscal or other person acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate in connection with the investigation of certain offences;

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate in consequence of any such Act; and

  137

  (c) any increase attributable to any such Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to any such Act in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 203 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1975. — [Mr. Lang.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

  LEGAL AID
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.).
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1987, dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
  That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1987, dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved. — [Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  Play Board
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbownj]
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin (Romney and Waterside): I must begin by apologising to the House for my appearance. I have already been hailed this evening by one colleague as an albino Adolf Hitler. I have just come out of hospital following an operation on my nose, and I pray to God that the bandage does not slip; otherwise there will be a premature conclusion to the Adjournment debate.
  The title of the debate is not strictly accurate. I now think that the future of the organisation and funding of children's play would have been more appropriate because it would be wrong to presuppose that Play Board, as it was constituted, was the best body for that purpose. For many years the National Playing Fields Association, under the directorship of Bob Satterthwaite, endeavoured to fulfil this function. But with mounting operating deficits, in spite of support from the voluntary service unit of the Home Office, NPFA had no alternative but to give notice in 1981 that the service would have to cease.
  As a consequence, NPFA launched its campaign -Time for Play" to persuade the Government to accept responsibility for children's play. On 20 October 1982, during an Adjournment debate on children's play, I asked the Government to act on the all-party call for the recognition of the importance of children's play and for designation of an existing Minister to add children's play to his other responsibilities and to assist in its promotion.
  On 22 April 1983 the Prime Minister said that she had asked the Minister with responsibility for sport to take special responsibility for co-ordinating children's play. She said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would continue to have responsibility for play activities organised through the education service and the Secretary of State for Social Services for play activities of local authorities' social services departments. She said:
  "I have decided upon these arrangements in view of the leading role of local authorities' recreation departments in providing out-of-school play facilities, and the extensive funding of play activities through the urban programme. But I am also well aware of the very important role played by voluntary organisations in developing children's play activities, and of the importance of play in enabling children to discover themselves and to develop their capacity for initiative and self-discipline." — [Official Report, 22 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 189.]
  The House will note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recognised that the importance of play to children goes far beyond physical recreation. It is a basic element in their health and development, not only physically but mentally, emotionally and socially.
  This debate is therefore about organisation of the leisure time or out-of-school play and recreational needs of children, mainly, although not exclusively, in the five to 16-years-old bracket. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), the previous Minister with responsibility for sport, moved with commendable speed following his appointment. Some might think that he moved a bit too fast. Although I appreciate the enormous number of organisations involved in children's play—more than 2,000—I wonder whether there was enough consultation. Within three months, Play Board appeared as a fait accompli. It was an

  139
  appointed voluntary board, which was formally launched on 19 July 1983, with a budget for that year of £600,000 and for the two following years of £700,000 per year.
  In passing, it may be worth reflecting that NPFA was unable to continue in business because it was short of only £150,000 the year before, so there was a big jump in expenditure.
  In addition, there was a provision that after the initial three-year period Play Board would have to find 25 per cent. of its own funding, I think that that was probably wrong, because Play Board's Government funding is core funding—that is, it is to cover central essential costs. Other sources of income are not readily tapped for what is perceived by donors as administration, even though the services provided through advice, research, information and so on are not administrative but functional elements for a total package geared to improving the quality and quantity of the provision for play.
  We should also put that £700,000 core funding into perspective. There cannot be any accurate figures for the total cost of children's play provision, but informed sources feel that it must run into tens of millions of pounds per annum.
  Another problem was that the provision of this core funding for only three years put stress on the staff due to uncertainty about the future, although additional core funding was found for one further year. I think that the then Minister sensed difficulties when, in 1983, in an interview in Play Times, he said :
  "This is not setting up another voluntary organisation. It is just providing a large umbrella for all the existing bodies, so that all the people who are members of these can form an amalgamation."
  He said that he attached the utmost importance to the Government not providing the structure of a Government departmental quango. Instead, he set up what is properly known as a "quango".
  Play Board was born of the voluntary sector. Its board of trustee directors reads like a "Who's Who" of those people with real experience of children's play from all its angles, but I wonder whether the balance on that original board was right. Whether it was right or wrong, we should pay credit to the work that it and its predecessors have done, and to Play Board's leaders, Raymond Clark and Ian Gibson.
  Play Board has certainly made progress, but somehow it has never managed to get its act together. Throughout 1986 it lacked a chief executive, and the Department of the Environment was absolutely right to review the future structure and role of Play Board following the submission of a corporate plan setting funding in excess of £1·3 million for an increased establishment. On 21 September 1986, the Department announced its intention that the function and role of Play Board should be merged with the Sports Council.
  Against this background urgent negotiations commenced, involving representatives of the Sports Council and Play Board. I do not think that there was any consultation with the voluntary sector. Provided that agreement could be reached on the future nature, scale, structure and responsibilities, the Sports Council could recommend to the Department funding for a further six
  140
  months to allow time for detailed arrangements to be sorted out. No agreement was reached, so on 31 March this year Play Board was wound up.
  What went wrong? The decision to allocate the responsibility for play to the Department of the Environment rather than the Department of Education and Science was understandable, but it may have been wrong. Many observers tend to associate children's play with sport and recreation. The reality is quite different. Play is different from sport. Much of the time spent in play is passive rather than active, informal rather than formal. It involves painting, music, reading, imagining and role-playing, and they are all as important to a child's development as playing a game with rules. The constitution of Play Board incorporated an elected body from the working area, the National Play Advisory Committee. I believe that that committee has become far too political, much to its detriment.
  What now? The NPAC has sought opinions from all local authorities, more than 200 national bodies and in excess of 2,000 voluntary organisations, about the Minister's proposals. Some 80 per cent. of the replies were against becoming part of the Sports Council's responsibility. It is important to understand that the "play field"—as I call it —is not involved in a rescue operation for Play Board. It accepts the DOE's diagnosis that Play Board has made mistakes, although those have not been quantified by the Department beyond the implied desire to achieve "results and value for money". The "play field" cannot accept the Department's proposal for a cure for those ills. The NPFA and the NPAC have stressed the need for an independent national organisation for play. There is major concern that the success of Play Board in creating a growing awareness of the importance of children's play will be lost within the monolithic structure of the Sports Council which has neither the will nor the expertise to make it work.
  The play world is united in its belief that the Sports Council is not the right vehicle for children's play. In addition, the National Out of School Alliance, Fair Play for Children, the National Play Bus Association, the Handicapped Adventure Playground Association and national Gingerbread have expressed their strong opposition to the proposed merger. Similar letters have been received from the National Association of Local Councils, the Association of County Councils, the Merseyside Council for Voluntary Service and many of the 56 affiliated county playing field associations.
  On 5 March 1987 the trustee directors of Play Board voted against the Minister's merger proposal. The Sports Council has, as yet, made no public statement about its intentions, although in the past it has consistently avoided involvement in children's play. I have recently heard reports that the regional councils for sports recreation have stated that play is the very last thing that they want. I appreciate that there is a need for action. However, I believe that the Minister is in danger of acting with undue haste.
  However, there is nothing like impending execution to concentrate the mind. On 18 March this year, the National Playing Fields Association, under the general directorship of Colin MacFadion and Sandy Gillmore's chairmanship, submitted proposals to the Minister for the future role and structure of an independent national organisation for children's play supported by the major national organisations involved in children's play. That provides a

  141
  realistic and cost-effective alternative for the greater benefit of our children. Those of us with an interest in children's play urge the Minister to consider that proposal. We firmly believe that it meets the criteria that the Minister requires while at the same time offering the independence that children's play needs and deserves.
  I am sure that the Minister will be aware from the more than 100 signatures that accompany early-day motion 690— which appears in my name — that many hon. Members also feel that he should take time, before coming to a quick conclusion, to give the proposals every consideration. The first Minister responsible for children's play succeeded in politicising it. The second is in danger of nationalising it. I, and the children for whom I speak, want to see it back in the independent sector.
  11.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I am, indeed, grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for coming here in some obvious physical adversity and raising this important issue, which gives me the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's strong commitment to help develop children's play. I say "help develop" because, contrary to the views of some, children's play, by its very nature, is not an activity over which the Government should, or could, have complete and direct control. Local authorities, together with the very many excellent voluntary bodies involved, are best placed to judge local needs and they. rightly, are the main providers of opportunities and facilities. Of course, parents must also take a large measure of responsibility for catering for children's play needs.
  What seems to have been brought into question— wrongly, I should stress — is the Government's recognition of the importance of children's play and of its separateness from sport. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government's commitment to children's play is, if anything, stronger now than it was in 1982–83 when my hon. Friend first drew our attention to the need for more Government action.
  As my hon. Friend has explained, that earlier debate led to Government support for a new voluntary organisation called Play Board to co-ordinate the efforts of the very many other voluntary organisations concerned with play, and to promote and develop better and more play facilities. Since 1983 Play Board has received £2·4 million from the Department of the Environment to cover its administrative costs — about £700,000 each year. In addition, over £6 million has been spent each year from our urban programme on play-related projects; the Department of Health and Social Security has spent £6·5 million between October 1983 and March 1987 on initiatives for the under fives, and together with the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS provides about £800,000 each year for other voluntary organisations involved with children's play.
  Mr. Colvin: I forgot to mention that NPFA's proposal will cost only £350,000 in the initial stages, which is half what Play Board cost last year.
  Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing us up to date, though I was aware of that information.
  The various contributions from Government Departments represent a considerable investment in, and
  142
  commitment to, children's play. However, it is plain from the contributions that we have read in newspapers and letters that many people believe there is a dastardly plot afoot to submerge the activity of play into sport and to deprive children's play of its separate identity and independence. That belief is misinformed, and has been heightened by some mischievous lobbying. Indeed, a recent, and well-circulated, letter from the National Play Advisory Committee was so blatantly emotive and outrageous—and possibly libelous—about my apparent lack of concern for children that I can only question the real motives behind it and the lobby that it has fuelled. My hon. Friend made one or two suggestions about the activities of some lobbies.
  Children's play is a separate activity from sport, and I have never argued or suggested otherwise. If anything, it is even more diverse and difficult to define than sport, but it is certainly just as important as sport to the overall development of children and requires expertise on advisory bodies. With four young children of my own, I need no persuading of play's importance in their lives.
  Let me also set the record straight about our aims for the future, and I welcome the support of my hon. Friend for these aims. I mentioned earlier, as did my hon. Friend, Play Board. We supported the setting up of Play Board in 1983, but we were not prepared to keep it or any other organisation afloat with public funds if it did not present value for money. That lack of value for money was identified during our review of Play Board in 1986—the year when Play Board told us that it would need £1·3 million, rather than £700,000, in future to cover its administrative costs.
  In my view, one of Play Board's main failings had been its inability to raise private sector funds for children's play —an aim that the organisation agreed to pursue right from the start. Let us look at the massive support other activities—such as sport and the arts—receive from the private sector. I wanted to ensure that children's play benefited in its own right from private sector investment too; but that was not happening. There is every reason to believe that it can happen. As a result, the Government did not decide to stop funding children's play, but we decided to look for another, and more cost-effective, way of achieving better benefits for children with the money that was earmarked for Play Board from this financial year onwards. These considerations had, and have, no implications whatsoever for the DHSS and DES substantial support for children's play, nor for the support that the activity receives from the Department of the Environment's urban programme.
  In September last year I proposed to Play Board that its role and functions be merged with those of the Sports Council. I stress again that our aim in so doing was not to submerge play into sport, but to bring to children's play the proven ability and experience of a major, well-recognised body to raise private sector funds for the benefit of play, and to deal effectively with local authorities and the voluntary sector.
  Both organisations agreed to enter into exploratory negotiations to identify a way forward, the aim being to work up a proposal that could be considered by Play Board's board and the full council, which includes the 10 regional sports council chairmen. Two key factors in the

  143
  subsequent discussions were, the possible future employment of Play Board's staff within the council, and the development of a structure that would maintain play's independence and separate identity.
  I know that this proposal caused concern among some of those involved with children's play, but it also received support, notably from the Association of District Councils, which is the major provider of play opportunities and facilities.
  Mr. Colvin: Mr. Ian Gibson, who is the chairman of Play Board, is a member of the Association of District Councils.
  Mr. Tracey: It is true that Mr. Ian Gibson is vice-chairman of the Association of District Councils. He is also the eminent leader of Portsmouth council. That does not mean that he controls the thoughts of the Association of District Councils. It is a body with a proven record for representing the interests of district councils, and I believe that it did so in this case.
  It was with great disappointment and astonishment that I learnt of Play Board's decision, on 5 March, to withdraw from the negotiations with the Sports Council and to liquidate the company, the more so because of the implications that those decisions had for Play Board's staff, who now face redundancy, and the consequences for the experience that they had gained, which could have been built on in the future.
  I know that many members and ex-members of Play Boards, including the chairman, two vice-chairmen, the
  144
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities' representative and a former member of the National Play Advisory Committee, regretted the decision. Nevertheless, their responsible and realistic attitude did not prevail and Play Board has now entered into liquidation.
  I know also, as my hon. Friend has explained, that other organisations concerned with children's play have their own views about how the future should shape up. I have seen the National Playing Fields Association's alternative proposals for the future, the National Play Advisory Committee's proposals and Fair Play for Children's alternative proposals, and I have heard from others who believe that they have the right ideas about the way forward. I am not questioning their genuine concern to ensure that greater benefits accrue to children's play from the arrangements that we adopt for the future, nor am I dismissing their ideas. I remain convinced that further discussions with the Sports Council hold the best prospect of identifying a mechanism for achieving greater benefits for children's play in a more cost-effective way. These discussions will include consultations with some other organisations at the appropriate time and they will certainly address the concern raised in the House.
  What I want to achieve above all is not another three difficult years during which a new mechanism, or even a new voluntary organisation, develops and tries to become established. I want to see the Department's, the Government's and the taxpayers' investment produce value for money and early benefits for children's play.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bail
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Attorney-General if he has any proposals for pre-trial hail applications to be heard in open court; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  No.

  Bail Act 1976
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the operation of the Bail Act 1976 by judges in cases where the police have been known to object to bail applications.

  The Solicitor-General
  None recently. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has received a small number of letters on the subject.

  Lord Rothschild
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Attorney-General when he now expects to reach a decision about the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

  The Attorney-General
  The police investigation remains incomplete and the Director of Public Prosecutions has as yet received no report.

  Wright Case (Appeal)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Attorney-General what information he has as to when the appeal by Her Majesty's Government in the Wright case is likely to be heard in Australia; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  It is expected the hearing will start on 6 July.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of measures to improve the efficiency of the Crown prosecution service since his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton on 19 February, Official Report, column 766.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service will seek constantly to achieve improvements in efficiency. Improved arrangements for management and forward planning are being introduced; staff numbers are being increased for 1987–88; and continuous programmes for recruitment training, the use of computers and other efficiency work are being carried out. Good progress is being made, but more lawyers have still to be recruited in London and some other areas.

  Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Attorney-General whether he took any steps to ensure that the local authority which launched an appeal fund following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster took account of his guidelines on disaster funds when framing its appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor on my behalf was in touch with the relevant local authority shortly after the accident and satisfied himself that my guidelines were being followed and offered any further guidance that the local authority might find helpful.

  Family Courts
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Attorney-General when he anticipates announcing further progress towards family courts.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Government are considering the responses to a consultation paper issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in May 1986 and the resource implications of the various proposals which have come forward. Good progress is being made, but I cannot say when consideration will he complete.

  Raymond Kingsland
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Attorney-General if papers relating to the alleged laundering of Mafia heroin profits by companies and bank accounts connected with Raymond Kingsland have been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with, and what advice was received from, the Data Protection Registrar in relation to his policy on taking out prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act in preference to under the Data Protection Act in cases involving abuse of the police national computer.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has had general policy discussions with the Data Protection Registrar, but none on the specific point raised by the hon. Member. The director considers each case on its own merits.

  Master Bickford Smith
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Attorney-General if he is now in a position to reply to the letter dated 23 November 1986 which he received from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch concerning the inquiry by the Lord Chancellor into Master Bickford Smith and others; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I hope to be in a position to reply to him shortly.

  Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Attorney-General (1) whether he will prosecute the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 for

  3
  obtaining property by deception by making multiple applications for British Telecom shares; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will prosecute the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) under section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 for obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception by making a multiple application for British Telecom shares; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the police are investigating certain allegations made against the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. They will report in due course to the Crown prosecution service.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Technical Assistance
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role and extent of technical assistance as part of the United Kingdom overseas aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Technical co-operation is an essential element in Britain's bilateral aid programme, providing recipient countries with training and expert advice in a wide range of disciplines which contribute to their development.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further plans to assist the debt programme of the poorest developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are already considering new initiatives and the next opportunity to take these further will be later this week at the spring meeting of the IMF and the World Bank.

  AIDS
  Mr. Stuart Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he has initiated to increase bilateral and multilateral assistance to combat the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome in developing countries, and especially in Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval, I have decided to give £3 million in the financial year 1987–88 to the World Health Organisation's special programme on AIDS. In addition, I have agreed to provide, over three years, about £1·6 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation to help it develop its capability to combat the disease.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase bilateral aid and assistance to countries on the United Nations list facing abnormal food shortages.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I announced last week some £11·3 million of emergency assistance to Mozambique, including up to 30,000 tonnes of food aid. I shall publish details of our aid to other countries on the list in the Official Report.

  Following is the information:
  4

  United Kingdom emergency and food aid in 1987 to countries facing abnormal food shortages

  Food aid £ million1

  Relief assistance £ million1

  Mozambique

  6·7

  3·9

  Sudan

  2·8

  2·0

  Bangladesh

  9·3

  —

  Nepal

  0·5

  —

  1 Estimated.

  Notes:

  (1) This table only includes allocations (and deliveries of food aid) made in the first three months of 1987.

  (2) Nepal has now been added to the FAD list of countries facing abnormal food shortages.

  Africa (Insect Pests)
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the role played by the Overseas Development Agency's scientific units in combating insect pests in Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes. In view of the importance I attach to promoting agricultural development in Africa, I have instructed the Tropical Development and Research Institute to increase its operations in that area. Project proposals estimated at some £7 million are now being prepared to tackle crop and storage pests, on which TDRI has much valuable expertise and experience.

  Nepal
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid given by his Department to Nepal.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  As I informed my hon. Friend on 18 March, our aid disbursements to Nepal in 1986 are provisionally estimated at £9·9 million.

  The level of aid reflects the close and friendly relations between our two countries. Our aid is devoted to basic infrastructure, health and education, and to rural development in the hill areas of Nepal, in support of the Nepalese Government's efforts to improve the living conditions of their people.

  Brazil
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of Brazil's suspension of debt interest payments on development programmes in that country.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Brazil has suspended payment of interest on its commercial loans. This move will have no effect on Britain's modest aid programme of technical assistance to that country. Other bilateral donors, and the international financial institutions, will be making their own assessments.

  Water Aid
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit projects sponsored by Water Aid; and if he will make a statement.
  5
  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am looking forward to visiting the London office of Water Aid on 19 May. I hope to have an opportunity to visit some of its projects in the future.

  Shatila and Bourj el Barajneh Refugee Camps
  Mr. Stuart Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are being taken by the Overseas Development Administration both on a bilateral basis and through the European Community to provide food, medical supplies and other relief to the Palestinian refugee camps of Shatila and Bourj el Barajneh in Lebanon; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On 27 March 1 announced new emergency aid for the Lebanon totalling £550,000. Of this £250,000 is being channelled through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in response to its appeal for food, medical and other relief supplies for the camps. The remaining £300,000 will he used by the International Committee of the Red Cross for its relief programme in Lebanon.

  The European Community contributes annually— about £22 million in 1986—to the education and feeding programmes of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which mainly benefit Palestinians in Lebanon. In addition, it has allocated this year 2·7 mecu—about £2 million — to various international agencies working in the area. About 20 per cent. of the Community programme is met from the British aid budget.

  Pakistan
  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level and nature of United Kingdom assistance to Pakistan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our gross bilateral aid to Pakistan in 1986 is povisionally estimated at £20·7 million, compared to £16·6 million in 1985. It is concentrated in the main sectors to which the Pakistan authorities give priority: irrigation and agriculture; power; education and health; and population. I shall be discussing the progress of the programme with Prime Minister Junejo tomorrow.

  We also provide substantial assistance to the Afghan refugees in Pakistan—over £40 million since the Soviet invasion. Following my visit to the camps last November, when I was able to see for myself the good use to which these funds are put, I plan to allocate £5 million more for support of the refugees this financial year.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of closures of British Coal workshops/ training establishments since 1979, giving in each case their geographical area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following are the closures of establishments since 1979:

  British coal area and workshops

  Industrial training centres

  Scotland

  Lugar

  Fordell

  6

  British coal area and workshops

  Industrial training centres

  New Battle

  Comrie

  Calder Head

  North East

  Whitburn

  Vane Tempest

  Tursdale

  Ashington

  North Yorkshire

  Monk Bretton

  Barnsley Main

  Allerton Bywater

  South Yorkshire

  Elsecar

  Bentley

  Birdwell

  Markham

  Carcroft

  Carcroft

  Fence

  Treeton

  Central

  Blackwell

  Annesley

  Ansley

  Swadlincote

  Bretby

  Western

  Walkden

  Valley

  Kirkless

  South Wales

  Tredegar

  Abernant

  Tondu

  Tondu

  Power Stations (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions his Department is having with British Coal over the price and terms of supply of coal to power stations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have had some discussions with officials from the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland about future international coal prices. The price and terms of supply of coal by British Coal to power stations in Northern Ireland are, however, commercial matters for negotiation between the corporation and Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Coal Industry (Pit Closures)
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of all pit closures which have occurred since 1979, giving in each case manpower levels at each pit concerned in the previous year, and giving an indication of its coalfield area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 March at columns 279–280. Since then Newstead colliery in Nottinghamshire has closed. I will ask the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member about manpower levels.

  Coal Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give details of all fatal accidents which have occurred in the coal industry for the year 1986–87, broken down according to coalfield areas;

  (2) if he will give details of all serious accidents which have occurred in the coal industry for the full year 1986–87 broken down according to coalfield areas.
  7
  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not yet available.

  British Coal (Manpower)
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give details of current manpower levels in British Coal by area, giving indications of categories of employment;

  (2) if he will give details of British Coal manpower levels by coalfield area for the full year 1986–87.

  Mr. David Hunt
  British Coal manpower by area for financial year 1986–87 is given below. A breakdown of manpower by category of employment is not available.

  British coal manpower on colliery books by area for financial year 1986–87

  Number

  Scottish

  4,524

  North East

  14,444

  North Yorkshire

  17,758

  South Yorkshire

  15,402

  North Derbyshire

  7,414

  Nottinghamshire

  20,594

  South Midlands inc. Kent

  7,431

  Western

  12,139

  South Wales

  10,238

  Total

  109,944

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when (a) Springfields, (b) Heysham A and B, (c) Hartlepool, (d) Wylfa, (e) Trawsfydd, (f) Oldbury, (g) Berkeley, (h) Hinkley Point A and B, (i) Winfrith, (j) Dungeness A and B, (k) Bradwell, (l) Sizewell and (m) Sellafield were connected to the national grid.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The CEGB, BNFL and the UKAEA as appropriate have advised me that the, first of the turbine generators at each station were synchronised to the grid on the following dates:

  Date

  Springfields

  1

  Heysham 1

  July 1983

  Heysham 2

  2

  Hartlepool

  August 1983

  Wylfa

  January 1971

  Trawsfyndd

  January 1965

  Oldbury

  November 1967

  Berkeley

  June 1962

  Hinkley Point A

  February 1965

  Hinkley Point B

  February 1976

  Winfrith

  December 1967

  Dungeness A

  September 1965

  Dungeness B

  April 1983

  Bradwell

  July 1962

  Sizewell

  January 1966

  Sellafield

  3

  1 The facilities at Springfields do not provide power to the grid.

  2 The reactors at Heysham 2 are undergoing engineering tests and no power has been provided to the grid.

  3 The Sellafield site includes the Calder Hall reactors the first of which provided electricity supplies to the grid in October 1956.

  Except for Winfrith, each of these stations has a number of turbines and these were synchronised to the grid at subsequent times.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Traffic Patrols
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average national reduction in the strength of police traffic patrols since 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 December 1985, 8,265 police officers were deployed on specialist traffic duties in police forces in England and Wales other than the Metropolitan police. On 31 December 1986 the equivalent figure was 8,357, an increase of just over 1 per cent. Similar figures are not yet available for the Metropolitan police.

  "Fresh Start"
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications for the probation service of the Prison Department's "Fresh Start" project.

  Mr. Mellor
  "Fresh Start" is a package of proposals designed to make fundamental changes in the working arrangements, organisation and pay systems for prison officers. It is too soon to say whether those proposals will have implications for the probation service but it is expected that, if there are any, they will be minor. They are, in any case, only likely to affect those probation officers working in prison service establishments. Review teams are visiting prison service establishments and will be drawing up recommendations for the operation of "Fresh Start" in each. Area chief probation officers will be given the opportunity to comment on their recommandations.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population of England and Wales at the latest date available.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 27 March 1987 the total prison population in England and Wales, including Immigration Act detainees, was 49,071.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the most recent date available, what was the certified normal accommodation and actual population of each of: Her Majesty's prison Bedford, Her Majesty's prison Birmingham, Her Majesty's prison Bristol, Her Majesty's prison Brixton, Her Majesty's prison Gloucester, Her Majesty's prison Leeds, Her Majesty's prison Lewes, Her Majesty's prison Lincoln, Her Majesty's prison Liverpool, Her Majesty's prison Manchester, Her Majesty's prison Nottingham, Her Majesty's prison Oxford, Her Majesty's prison Pentonville, Her Majesty's prison Reading and Her Majesty's prison Shrewsbury.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 27 March 1987 the certified normal accommodation of the establishments listed was as follows:

  Establishment

  Certified Normal Accommodation

  Population

  Bedford

  176

  305

  Birmingham

  573

  1,168

  Bristol

  552

  620

  9

  Establishment

  Certified Normal Accommodation

  Population

  Brixton

  725

  1,079

  Gloucester

  193

  311

  Leeds

  642

  1,312

  Lewes

  361

  568

  Lincoln

  359

  688

  Liverpool

  821

  1,307

  Manchcster

  968

  1,690

  Nottingham

  202

  294

  Oxford

  130

  253

  Pentonville

  834

  1,122

  Reading

  178

  332

  Shrewsbury

  169

  297

  On 31 December

  Authorised Police Establishment

  Police Strength

  Civilian Strength1

  Total Police and Civilian Manpower1

  1979

  1,182

  1,167

  312

  1,479

  1980

  1,182

  1,182

  336

  1,518

  1981

  1,182

  1,182

  334

  1,516

  1982

  1,182

  1,183

  332

  1,515

  1983

  1,183

  1,178

  335

  1,513

  1984

  1,183

  1,152

  333

  1,485

  1985

  1,183

  1,141

  309

  1,510

  1986

  1,183

  1,157

  318

  1,475

  On 28 February 1987

  1,183

  1,172

  313

  1,485

  Note

  1 Excluding traffic wardens and cadets.

  Including part-time civilian staff on a 2 for 1 basis.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Departmemt (1) how many live animals were used by Oxford university for experimental purposes under licences issued by his Department in 1985;

  (2) how many animals were used by the department of physiology at Oxford for experimental purposes under licences issued by his Department in 1985;

  (3) how many and which breeds of primates have been used in licensed experiments at Oxford university since 1985;

  (4) how many dogs were used in licensed experiments at Oxford university in 1985;

  (5) how many cats were used in licensed experiments at Oxford university in 1985;

  (6) how many animals were used in licensed experiments by the department of psychology in Oxford university in 1985;

  (7) how many primates have been used, in licensed experiments, by the department of psychology at Oxford university in 1985;

  (8) how many primates were used by Messrs. Heddon, Sloper, Hiorns and Powell of the department of human anatomy and bio-mathematics at Oxford university in licensed experiments during 1985;

  (9) in what year Messrs. Heddon and Powell were first licensed to undertake animal experiments at Oxford university;

  (10) how many cats Messrs. Heddon and Powell of the department of human anatomy have used in licensed experiments since 1976;

  Lincolnshire Police Authority
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the authorised establishment manpower figures for the Lincolnshire police authority for each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive;

  (2) what were the actual establishment manpower figures for the Lincolnshire police authority for each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  (11) how many primates have been used by the department of psychology of Oxford university in licensed experiments since 1976;

  (12) how many animals have been used by Professor Weiskrantz, professor of experimental psychology at Oxford university, in licensed experiments, since 1977;

  (13) how many animals have been used by Professor Alan Connery in licensed experiments in the Oxford experimental psychology department since 1977;

  (14) how many animals have been used by R. Passingham in licensed experiments in the department of experimental psychology since 1977;

  (15) how many animals have been used in experiments by David J. Price of the department of physiology at. Oxford university, under licence from the Home Department, since 1976;

  (16) how many primates have been used in animal experiments under licence by his Department by Professor Colin Blakemore since 1976.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose the identity of establishments or departments where licensed experimentation is conducted, or to give details of such experimentation by reference to individuals, departments or establishments.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people at Oxford university currently hold licences to carry out animal experiments under certificate A.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose information of this nature. The Certificate A was a feature of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which was repealed on 1 January this year.
  11
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many visits were paid by his Department's inspectors to the department of physiology at Oxford university between 1980 and 1987;

  (2) how many visits were paid by his Department's inspectors to the departments of anatomy, psychology, the Nuffield department of anaesthetics, Nuffield orthopaedic centre, physiology and John Radcliffe hospital in 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose information of this nature. However, all establishments where licensed experimentation is carried out are visited frequently by inspectors, usually unannounced.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider suspending Professor Blakemore's current licence to carry out animal experiments until the work is examined fully by the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. We are satisfied that Professor Blakemore's work should be allowed to continue.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Professor Colin Blakemore will be required to apply for a project licence for his work on primates and cats.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Project licence applications from persons working in universities and similar institutions are likely to be invited from October 1987 onwards.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received for project licences, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, since it came into force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Five hundred and sixty.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licence applications have been rejected since the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose this information.

  Video Recordings
  Mrs. Golding
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the statement made in the House on 31 March by the Minister of State about video recordings, Official Report, column 965, he will make a statement on his examination of the future use of video recordings in the legal system.

  Mr. Mellor
  As I said at column 967, my right hon. Friend proposes to make an announcement soon.

  Mr. Chan Hok Cheung
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will defer the deportation of Mr. Chan Hok Cheung from Belfast to Hong Kong so that he is available to give further assistance to Royal Ulster Constabulary officers making inquiries into serious allegations against a senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officer and so that Mr. Chan Hok Cheung is subject to normal procedures whereby a person is permitted to remain in the United Kingdom pending an application for judicial review of his/her case.

  Mr. Waddington
  Following Mr. Chan's successful application to the court on 2 April for leave to move for 12
  judicial review of the decision to remove him as an illegal entrant, removal directions have been suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings.

  Nurses (Visas)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been granted in the past 12 months to nurses intending to work in Newham; and how many are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information on students applying for entry clearance who wish to train as nurses is not separately available. Qualified nurses need a work permit from the Department of Employment, and I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General is replying to the hon. Gentleman's question about them.

  Deportation
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders have been served on Iranians requiring that they be sent back to Iran in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and in how many of these cases the deportees have been deported to Iran.

  Mr. Waddington
  Deportation orders do not specify the country to which the person deported is to be sent. The information available relates to orders made and orders enforced and to the nationality which will normally be the country of destination. The following table gives the numbers in each of the last three years.

  Deportation order and trade and orders enforced against Iranian nationals, 1984–86

  Year

  Orders made

  Orders enforced1

  1984

  123

  11

  1985

  56

  10

  1986

  22

  11

  1 Orders enforced in a particular year were not necessarily made in the same year.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances and for what reasons his Department would consult a High Court judge over an order that a judge had made on an application for care and control made by a man whom his Department was attempting to deport; and whether, in those circumstances, the man or his legal representatives would be given an opportunity to make representations.

  Mr. Waddington
  I am aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member refers and will write to him.

  Salvador Mendoza and Renaldo Blanco
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Salvador Mendoza and Renaldo Blanco, members of the El Salvador Human Rights Commission, were stopped and searched by immigration officials when they arrived from Ostend on 29 March.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information is not readily available and I will reply as soon as possible.

  Firearms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in the numbers of crimes and offences involving the use of firearms in the 10-year period ended 1965, and what were the total of convictions in courts for firearms offences of crimes and offences involving the use of firearms in the years 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1986 respectively.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 229]: The number of offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used is published annually in table 3.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Comparable figures are not available before 1969.

  It is not possible from central records of the results of court proceedings to identify all offences in which firearms were involved. The information available on findings of guilt for offences under the Firearms Act 1968 is shown in the table below: it relates only to cases in which this was the principal offence and excludes persons also found guilty of a more serious offence. Information on a similar basis is not available for earlier years.

  Persons found guilty of offences under the Firearms Act 1968

  England and Wales 1980, 1985

  Offence

  1980

  1985

  Possession of firearm with intent lo endanger life; use of firearms in resisting arrest

  65

  42

  Possession of a firearm at time of committing or with intent to commit an offence

  104

  101

  Possession of firearm without a certificate; trading in firearms without being registered; conversion of firearms; carrying loaded firearm in a public place etc.

  1,039

  875

  Non-possession of a certificate1 for a shotgun; trespassing with firearm on land; persons under 17 purchasing a firearm etc.

  5,490

  2,465

  6,698

  3,483

  1 Summary offences.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  GATT (Agriculture)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to be present at the GATT discussions relating to world agricultural problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Negotiation of international trade agreements is the responsibility of the European

  Net Capital Expenditure1 in manufacturing industry2 by standard region of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1985 at 1979 prices

  £ million

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  North

  613

  428

  284

  256

  279

  356

  403

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  625

  484

  360

  330

  354

  413

  435

  East Midlands

  478

  394

  316

  322

  323

  380

  435

  East Anglia

  210

  173

  133

  161

  161

  174

  193

  South East

  1,581

  1,357

  1,077

  1,040

  1,154

  1,373

  1,426

  South West

  377

  319

  272

  268

  308

  369

  384

  West Midlands

  705

  612

  423

  421

  425

  574

  571

  North West

  971

  864

  609

  566

  594

  666

  700

  14
  Community as a whole, represented by the Commission. My Department co-ordinates the United Kingdom input to that process. It will play a full part in preparing the Community position for the new round of GATT negotiations. These negotiations were launched in Uruguay in September 1986 at a meeting which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I both attended. The negotiations are to last four years. Among their most important tasks they will deal with the problems of international trade in agriculture, including the effects of all forms of direct and indirect subsidies. The negotiations are at an early stage, and no meetings in GATT at ministerial level are currently planned.

  A copy of the Uruguay declaration launching the new round of GATT negotiations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  AAH Holdings plc
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed merger by AAH Holdings plc of the jointly-owned company with British Coal, namely, British Fuels Ltd. and Redland's Cawoods companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 13 March that he had decided not to refer the setting up of a joint venture company— British Fuels Ltd — by Redland plc, AAH Holdings plc and British Coal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. His decision was in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish details of investments by manufacturing industry by regions (i) at constant prices and (ii) for each year in constant prices as a percentage of 1979 prices, for each year for 1979 using the latest estimates where appropriate.

  Mr. Butcher
  The requested information is show in the tables:
  15

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Wales

  471

  330

  295

  252

  251

  321

  360

  Scotland

  589

  568

  491

  404

  348

  425

  554

  Northern Ireland

  127

  125

  106

  92

  104

  126

  129

  United Kingdom

  6,750

  5,655

  4,367

  4,112

  4,299

  5,176

  5,590

  Net Capital Expenditure1 in manufacturing industry2 for each standard region of the United Kingdom as a percentage of net capital expenditure in the same region in 1979

  Percentage

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  North

  100

  70

  46

  42

  45

  58

  66

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100

  77

  58

  53

  57

  66

  70

  East Midlands

  100

  82

  66

  67

  67

  79

  91

  East Anglia

  100

  82

  63

  77

  76

  83

  92

  South East

  100

  86

  68

  66

  73

  87

  90

  South West

  100

  85

  72

  71

  82

  98

  102

  West Midlands

  100

  87

  60

  60

  60

  81

  81

  North West

  100

  89

  63

  58

  61

  69

  72

  Wales

  100

  70

  62

  53

  53

  68

  76

  Scotland

  100

  96

  83

  69

  59

  72

  94

  Northern Ireland

  100

  98

  84

  73

  82

  99

  102

  United Kingdom

  100

  84

  65

  61

  64

  77

  83

  1 Excluding expenditure on assets leased from the financial industries.

  2 Divisions 2–4, Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1980.

  Sources: Annual Census of Production and United Kingdom National Accounts.

  Steel
  Mr. Crowther
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions have taken place in the European Community Council of Ministers concerning reductions in steelmaking capacity in the independent sector.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  None—beyond those upon which I reported in the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 23 March 1987, at column 23.

  British Medical Data Systems Ltd.
  Mr. Straw
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approval has been given to British Medical Data Systems Ltd. for tendering for public sector contracts.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not keep a list of approved suppliers of services or goods. Suppliers are chosen from firms and organisations known to have appropriate capabilities.

  Rolls-Royce plc
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan on 16 February, Official Report, column 438, he will now state the total cost to the Government of the RB211–22B programme of Rolls-Royce plc and the total Government receipts from that programme.

  Mr. Pattie
  The total cost of the RB211–22B programme to Government was £537 million. Under the arrangements applying to the programme, the Government took all receipts for the first 555 engines, totalling £334 million. Commercial exploitation levies are payable on subsequent sales of engines and sales of spares. Total receipts to date are approximately £340 million.
  16

  London Greek Radio
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times London Greek Radio has been the subject of raids by officers of his Department since 1983; and how many other stations have been raided over the same period, and how often.

  Mr. Butcher
  The unlicensed broadcasting station London Greek Radio first came to the attention of my Department's Radio Investigation Service in March 1984. Since that time the RIS has taken action against the station on 80 occasions. During the same period the RIS acted 563 times against 171 other unlicensed stations.

  Airbus
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to increase the sum offered to British Aerospace for the A330-A340 Airbus Industries aircraft in view of the implications for jobs in Wolverhampton and elsewhere of the current level of finance offered.

  Mr. Pattie
  Discussions with British Aerospace about the question of launch aid for the Airbus A330-A340 project are continuing, and I am not able to comment at present on the proposals under discussion.

  Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first became aware of the multiple applications for BT shares in the names of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  On Wednesday of last week. The relevant papers have since been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the light of the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 591 of 1986, Her Majesty's Government will review their decision to license the export to South Africa of the Plessey AR3D military radar system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 650]: No.

WALES

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales from where the extra 20 million litres of milk quota allocated to Northern Ireland have come; and if he will make a statement.

  Number of People Unemployed for every Parliamentary constituency in Wales

  At January 1987

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Up to six months

  Over six months and up to one year

  Over one year and up to two years

  Over two years

  Total number of people unemployed

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,988

  755

  584

  1,069

  4,396

  Clwyd North West

  2,609

  930

  913

  1,233

  5,675

  Clwyd South West

  1,976

  668

  549

  851

  4,044

  Delyn

  2,216

  791

  851

  1,357

  5,215

  Wrexham

  2,231

  870

  630

  1,244

  4,975

  Carmarthen

  2,062

  788

  597

  837

  4,284

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  2,143

  728

  650

  846

  4,367

  Llanelli

  2,119

  846

  684

  1,154

  4,803

  Pembroke

  4,322

  894

  840

  1,325

  7,381

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,168

  801

  879

  1,617

  5,465

  Islwyn

  1,719

  639

  711

  889

  3,958

  Monmouth

  1,456

  613

  457

  818

  3,344

  Newport East

  2,025

  877

  818

  1,380

  5,100

  Newport West

  2,121

  926

  961

  1,570

  5,578

  Torfaen

  2,281

  765

  768

  1,413

  5,227

  Caernarfon

  2,086

  563

  584

  952

  4,185

  Conwy

  2,098

  682

  561

  816

  4,157

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  1,301

  373

  282

  360

  2,316

  Ynys Mon

  2,037

  830

  863

  1,278

  5,008

  Bridgend

  1,803

  699

  604

  832

  3,938

  Caerphilly

  2,149

  890

  924

  1,803

  5,766

  Cynon Valley

  1,794

  599

  724

  1,299

  4,416

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  1,898

  702

  691

  1,751

  5,042

  Ogmore

  1,873

  735

  857

  1,240

  4,705

  Pontypridd

  1,961

  734

  697

  1,323

  4,715

  Rhondda

  2,073

  737

  788

  1,592

  5,190

  Brecon and Radnor

  1,341

  464

  403

  518

  2,726

  Montgomery

  1,121

  377

  306

  386

  2,190

  Cardiff Central

  2,517

  1,140

  1,016

  1,709

  6,382

  Cardiff North

  1,198

  505

  361

  603

  2,667

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  2,063

  872

  891

  1,704

  5,530

  Cardiff West

  2,161

  952

  936

  1,887

  5,930

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,429

  860

  740

  1,159

  5,188

  Aberavon

  1,939

  609

  627

  935

  4,110

  Gower

  1,576

  650

  481

  807

  3,514

  Neath

  1,832

  759

  604

  854

  4,049

  Swansea East

  1,968

  839

  807

  1,895

  5,509

  Swansea West

  2,098

  881

  878

  1,964

  5,821

  Source: NOMIS.
  18
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 31 March by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at columns 445–446.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the numbers of those people unemployed for (a) less than six months, (b) between six months and one year, (c) between one year and two years and (d) over two years, and the total number of people unemployed, for every parliamentary constituency in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Further Education
  Mr. Grist
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what change there has been in the staff-student ratio in further education in Wales since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The student-staff ratio on maintained establishments of further and higher education is as follows:

  Student-staff ratio

  1979–80

  7·6:1

  1985–86

  8·8:1

  Percentage change

  +15·8

  Mr. Grist
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what change there has been in the subjects studied by students in advanced and non-advanced further education in Wales since 1979;

  Number of student enrolments outside the university sector

  Advanced Full-time equivalent

  Subject of study

  1979–80

  1985–86

  Percentage change

  Education1

  2,557

  2,686

  +5·0

  Medical, Health and Welfare

  410

  487

  +18·8

  Engineering and technology

  1,788

  3,074

  +71·9

  Agriculture, forestry, veterinary studies

  141

  117

  -17·0

  Science

  697

  1,415

  +103·0

  Social, administrative and business studies

  1,712

  3,009

  +75·8

  Professional and vocational subjects

  762

  700

  -8·1

  Language, literature and area studies

  61

  80

  +31·1

  Arts other than languages

  239

  999

  +318·0

  Music, drama, art and design

  651

  1,460

  +124·3

  1 Includes teacher training.

  Number of students enrolments outside the university sector

  Non-advanced Full-lime equivalent

  Subject of study

  1979–80

  1985–86

  Percentage change

  Education1

  190

  501

  +163·7

  Medical, Health and Welfare

  1,013

  1.118

  +10·4

  Engineering and technology

  6,920

  5,412

  -21·8

  Agriculture, forestry, veterinary studies

  868

  968

  +11·5

  Science

  373

  757

  +102·9

  Social, administrative and business studies

  3,071

  4,726

  +53·9

  Professional and vocational subjects

  2,723

  3,585

  +31·7

  Language, literature and area studies

  23

  51

  +121·7

  Music, drama, art and design

  912

  970

  +6·4

  Other

  8,707

  10,408

  +19·5

  1 Includes teacher training.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of primary school children in each of the local education authority areas speak Welsh as their principal language.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The percentages of pupils, aged five and over, in maintained primary schools and whose principal language is Welsh are given in the table. The figures as at September 1985 exclude pupils who are fluent in Welsh but whose home language is not Welsh.
  20
  (2) what change there has been in the numbers of students enrolled in part-time and full-time advanced and non-advanced further education courses in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The information is given in the following tables:

  Number of students enrolments outside the university sector

  Advanced

  Non-advanced

  Part-time1

  Full-time2

  Part-time1

  Full-time2

  1979–80

  5,644

  7,498

  46,017

  16,190

  1985–86

  7,048

  12,192

  45,645

  20,225

  Percentage change%

  +24·9

  +62·6

  -0·8

  +24·9

  1Including evening only modes of attendance.

  2Full-time, short full-time and sandwich modes of attendance.

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  4·9

  Dyfed

  20·6

  Gwent

  0·1

  Gwynedd

  41·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·6

  Powys

  5·7

  South Glamorgan

  1·0

  West Glamorgan

  2·7

  Food Aid
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation in Wales of the European Community food aid scheme for the needy and the elderly.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  In Wales, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, procurement of products and distribution to individuals was carried out under the auspices of certain recognised charitable organisations. The scheme, which ended in the United Kingdom on 31 March 1987, had to be introduced quickly and I appreciate the work done by the charities concerned in discharging this very considerable task for the benefit of the needy in Wales.

  Margam Mine
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give regional aid to the Margam new mine project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The Government consider that on the basis of six-day working the Margam project is sufficiently attractive to go ahead without Government grant. British Coal is aware that a coal mining project such as Margam would not be a qualifying process for the purpose of regional development grant. British Coal is also fully aware that under successive Governments regional selective assistance has not been available towards the mainstream activities of nationalised industries.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to introduce the new urban regeneration grant scheme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  I am pleased to say that we have today launched the urban regeneration grant scheme in Wales. This new grant mechanism is available to help bring forward significant new developments by the private sector on large sites in inner urban areas. The mechanism will work in broadly the same way as urban development grant, although URG does not need to be submitted through a local authority. Although approved URG projects may be relatively few in number, they will be an important adjunct to those existing funding sources which already contribute to the rejuvenation of the inner urban environment in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Publications
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's practice with regard to the balance between the provision of Government information and the presentation of party policy in official publications.

  The Prime Minister
  The conventions which successive Governments have applied to the use of public funds for publicity and advertising were set out in a note provided to the Widdicombe committee in April 1985. A copy of that note was placed in the Library of the House at the time.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Prime Minister if the remarks of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) in Exeter on 12 March, concerning Government moves for a 16 per cent. devaluation in the green pound represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's reaction to the Commission's proposal for a four percentage point devaluation of the green pound will be decided in the light of developments on the price fixing negotiations as a whole. We shall weigh carefully all the relevant considerations.

  Land Drainage
  Miss Maynard
  asked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government intend to issue the revised Department of the Environment/Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Welsh Office Agricultural Department land drainage and conservation guidance notes for water authorities, internal drainage boards, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission; and whether the revised guidelines will be addressed to local authorities in respect of their land drainage responsibilities under the Land Drainage Act 1976.

  The Prime Minister
  We plan to issue the revised guidelines in the summer. 'They will apply to local authorities, which are subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as a drainage authority in carrying out their functions under the Land Drainage Act 1976. Local authorities have been informed through their representative associations.

  Colonel Oliver North
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister if she or any Ministers had any postal, telephone, videolink or other written or verbal contact with Colonel Oliver North during (a) 1985 or (b)

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on Monday 30 March at column 340.

  Mr. William Casey (Meetings)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister what was discussed at her meetings with William Casey in London and Washington during 1986.

  The Prime Minister
  In the course of my official duties I meet senior members of the United States Administration from time to time to discuss matters of common concern. It is not my practice, any more than that of previous Governments, to disclose the details of any such discussions.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Prime Minister how much it cost to central funds to have copies of the Secretary of State for Social Services' speech to the 1986 Conservative party conference printed and circulated to administrators of family practitioner committees.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost was £35·22.
  23
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy that civil servants should not circulate within or outside their Departments copies of speeches made by Ministers to party conferences, following the circulation to administrators of family practitioner committees of the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services to the 1986 Conservative party conference.

  The Prime Minister
  It is a standing instruction that press releases of speeches made by Ministers in a party political context should be distributed to the media through the party machinery only. Any distribution of such speeches to other recipients is for decision having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. There could well be circumstances in which it was appropriate for a Department to make sure that officials concerned with a particular activity or service were informed of policy statements about that activity or service made by their Minister, even in the case of a statement made in a political context.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with Mr. Gorbachev on her recent visits to the Soviet Union on a comprehensive test ban treaty and verification procedures; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The matter was touched on only briefly. Verification procedures were not discussed in detail.

  Scottish and Border Television Companies
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Prime Minister for what purpose she proposes to meet producers and executives from Scottish and Border television companies.

  The Prime Minister
  I have invited news and current affairs executives from a number of broadcasting and newspaper interests in Scotland for a discussion about Scottish affairs as they see them.

  Soviet Union (Visit)
  Dr. M. S. Miller
  asked the Prime Minister what facilities were provided by Her Majesty's Government and the British embassy in Moscow to the British press and media party who travelled with her on her aircraft on her recent visit to the Soviet Union; what payment those journalists were expected to make; what facilities were provided to those British journalists who were excluded from the party travelling with her; what criteria were used in determining which members of the press and other media should accompany her on her aircraft; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The facilities provided for the media covering my visit to the Soviet Union were similar to those made for earlier official tours. All journalists, British and foreign, had equal access to briefing, telephone and telex facilities which were laid on by the Soviet authorities at the instigation of the British embassy in Moscow. Arrangements were similarly made for road and air travel inside the Soviet Union for all journalists who sought visas and accreditation with the Soviet Government through No. 10 Press Office. Limitations on seats restricted the number of media seats available on my plane to 24. In addition to the two still photographers 24
  selected by the Newspaper Publishers Association to provide a pool picture service to the press generally, seats were allocated to the first 22 members of the Parliamentary Lobby to apply for them. All journalists were responsible for their own transport, hotel, telephone and other communications and incidental costs.

  Central Scrutiny Programme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  asked the Prime Minister what topics were covered in the efficiency unit's central scrutiny programme in 1986–87.

  The Prime Minister
  A strong programme of efficiency scrutinies was carried out in association with Sir Robin Ibbs and the efficiency unit in the year ended 31 March 1987. Scrutinies in the programme were as follows:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Patterns of Attendance

  VAT Control Officers' Skills

  Ministry of Defence

  Administrative Movement in British Forces Germany

  Project Management

  Department of Education and Science

  Procedures under the Education Act for the

  Reorganisation of Schools in England

  Department of Energy

  Publications

  Department of the Environment

  Planning Enforcement Appeals

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas Information Services Funded by the FCO

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Liable Relative Procedures

  Competitive Tendering

  Home Office

  Probation Inspectorate

  Supervision of Charities

  Inland Revenue

  Leaflets and Booklets

  Taxation of Unemployment Benefit

  Northern Ireland

  Prison Maintenance

  Overseas Development Administration

  Identification, Design, Appraisal and Approval of Bi-lateral Aid Projects and Programmes

  Property Services Agency

  Professional Services in the PSA

  Project Management

  Scottish Office

  Sea Fisheries Protection

  Department of Trade and Industry

  National Measurement System

  Dissemination of Patent Information (jointly with Office of Arts and Libraries)

  Department of Transport

  Marine Survey Service

  Chief Highway Engineer's Directorate

  Welsh Office

  Community Care

  The scrutiny programme is a continuous one—some of the above scrutinies began late in the period and are still in progress.

  In addition the efficiency unit itself conducted a wide ranging scrutiny on improving management in the Civil Service.

  A number of other scrutinies were also conducted according to full scrutiny disciplines and with guidance from the efficiency unit. These were:

  Metropolitan Police Force

  The Metropolitan Police Band

  Police Overtime

  25
  In addition, the programme of second round scrutinies in the National Health Service is now nearing completion.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries there have been in each of the last 10 years into deaths caused by road accidents.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  Figures are not available for each of the last 10 years. However, as far as can be ascertained, the figures for the years 1985 and 1986 are 27 and 13 respectively. These figures include inquiries which were mandatory under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Children (Summary Prosecution)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if the Lord Advocate has issued directions to procurators fiscal regarding the summary prosecution of children under 16 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  Procurators fiscal have been issued with detailed directions from the Lord Advocate about the prosecution of children under 16 years of age, and these include directions about summary prosecution. They were issued most recently in 1984 but are currently under review.

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many children under 16 years of age were prosecuted under summary procedure in 1986.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  The provisional figure for the number of children under 16 years of age who were proceeded against in summary prosecutions in Scotland in 1986 is 443.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC (Developments)
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to publish the White Paper on developments in the European Community July-December 1986.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A White Paper — Cm. No. 122 — covering the period of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council was published on 6 April 1987 in accordance with normal Government practice. The White Paper highlights the many achievements of the Community during the United Kingdom presidency including substantial progress towards the completion of the Common Market and the removal of barriers to trade in goods and services; radical decisions on reform of the milk and beef sectors constituting the single largest measure of reform so far achieved of the CAP; a wide ranging action programme to help stimulate employment; and intensified co-operation against terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration; in external relations the maintenance and strengthening of the open trading system reflected in the launching of the new GATT round, implementaion of a new multi-fibre arrangement and the settlement of disputes with the United States; an agreement over continued access for New Zealand dairy products;26
  progress in normalisation of Community relations with Turkey; agreement to make food aid policy more responsive to the needs of recipient countries; and, in political co-operation, common positions vis-à-vis South Africa and Syria.

  Team Spirit Manoeuvres
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will have any representatives at the United States of America —South Korean Team Spirit manoeuvres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As I told the hon. Member on 14 April 1986, at column 245, our defence attaché at Seoul observes the team spirit exercises as part of his normal duties.

  South Korea (Military Observers)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to withdraw the British military observers from South Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no British military observers in Korea. Her Majesty's ambassador has a defence attaché, who is also Commander of the Commonwealth Liaison Mission to the United Nations; Command and Permanent Commonwealth member of the Military Armstice Commission. In addition to his staff, the United Kingdom provides a platoon on rotation from Hong Kong for the United Nations Honour Guard.

  Syria
  Dr. M. S. Miller
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether King Fahd brought with him any specific proposals from President Assad aimed at renewing or improving diplomatic ties with Syria.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Overseas Missions (Communications Officers)
  Mr. George Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hamilton of 18 March, Official Report, column 551, if he has any plans to reduce the number of communications officers in missions overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The staffing levels at all diplomatic service missions overseas are reviewed regularly by the diplomatic service inspectors. Decisions on the number of staff employed on communications duties are taken as part of that process taking all factors, including cost, workloads and changes in communications techniques into account.

ENVIRONMENT

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of a reasonable network of supplies of unleaded petrol.
  27
  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he will take to stimulate greater use of lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Department continues to promote unleaded petrol by measures designed to increase public awareness, to stimulate demand, and to ensure general availability by 1988. Unleaded petrol is already sold at over 200 stations throughout the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget has now removed the price barrier for the motorist. I expect this to stimulate both the use and the availability of unleaded petrol.

  Docklands Urban Development Area
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms have moved out of the docklands urban development area or have closed down since 1981; and how many people were employed in these firms.

  Mr. John Patten
  LDDC's records, based on statutorily recorded redundancies, show that 28 firms providing 1,783 jobs closed down between 1 April 1981 and 31 March 1987.

  An estimated 85 docklands firms have been relocated outside their area by the LDDC, generally within reasonable travel to work distance.

  Details of firms which have otherwise moved out of the area will be available after a further survey in the course of this year. This will, however, only cover the period between 1985 and 1987.

  Water Safety (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to whether the North West water authority has sufficient equipment to monitor the radioactivity level of water supplies from Wales being used by people in Cheshire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The North West water authority has sufficient monitoring equipment to measure the gross beta activity of the water supplied by the Huntington water treatment plant to Cheshire. The authority advises me that equipment to measure gamma activity is on order.

  Her Majesty's radiochemical inspectorate also carries out a national programme of radiochemical monitoring of drinking water sources. The Dee is one of the sources monitored.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of the houses and flats on London Docklands Development Corporation land which were sold between July and December 1986 were sold for more than £70,000;

  (2) what percentage of the houses and flats on London Docklands Development Corporation land which were sold between July and December 1986 were sold for more than £40,000;

  (3) whether he will take steps to ensure that the auditor's reports on the London Docklands Development Corporation of 1985–86 and for 1986–87 will be published;

  (4) what is the present average value of land held by the London Docklands Development Corporation for
  28
  purposes of (a) housing, (b) offices and (c) industry in each of (i) the enterprise zone, (ii) the Isle of Dogs outside the enterprise zone, (iii) Southwark and (iv) Newham.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 30 March 1987 at column 414.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations and individuals were consulted by the London Docklands Development Corporation in drawing up its proposals for the redevelopment of the Royal docks.

  Mr. John Patten
  The list of consultees is a lengthy one, and I will arrange for it to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 31 March to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), he will state how the London Docklands Development Corporation arrived at the figures of 48,000 jobs arising from the redevelopment of the Royal docks; and if he will provide an analysis by occupation of the 48,000 jobs.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 31 March concerning development strategy for the Royal docks, he will state the assumptions and calculations on which he expects 48,000 jobs to be located in the Royal docks area, together with his, or other, estimates of the broad categories of employment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The estimate of jobs provided in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was indicative of the scale of development likely to result from LDDC's broad development strategy. It is based upon the quantity of land available, its suitability for various types and densities of development, and the interest already shown by the private sector. The range of occupations represented in this total will depend upon the nature of the specific developments which eventually take place.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 31 March to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), regarding 7,000 homes in the London Docklands Development Corporation area, how many of the homes will be (a) for rent and (b) for sale; and what estimate he has made of the average sale price.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, pursuant to his answer of 31 March concerning development strategy for the Royal docks, he will give an estimate of the breakdown of the 7,000 dwellings into (i) freehold, (ii) private rented, (iii) housing association rented, (iv) housing association, low rent, (v) public rented and (vi) other tenures;

  (2) what investment in transport infrastructure other than the Beckton extension of the dockland light railway he expects to be necessary to serve the 7,000 additional dwellings and 48,000 jobs which he expects to see in the Royal docks development area;

  (3) what estimate he has made, pursuant to his answer of 31 March, Official Report, concerning development strategy for the Royal docks, of the effects of new retail facilities now authorised in the area of the Royal docks on the existing retail centres in east London and south Essex;
  29
  (4) what consideration he has given to the implications of, and what conclusion he has reached on, the location of his planned 7,000 additional dwellings and 48,000 jobs near the flightpath of the London city airport in the Royal docks; what consultations he or the London Docklands Development Corporation has had with the Civil Aviation Authority concerning safety aspects of these proposals; and what limitation, he expects to make on the height of buildings in the redevelopment area;

  (5) what consultations he has had with local authorities concerning additional health facilities in Newham consequent to his strategy to build a further 7,000 dwellings and locate 48,000 jobs in the redevelopment area of the Royal docks;

  (6) if he will tabulate in the Official Report the approximate areas of floor space he expects to be built in the Royal docks, Newham for each of (a) housing, (b) exhibition and sports, (c) commercial, (d) industrial and (e) retail purposes.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) indicated the type of development which would be carried out under the approved strategy. It is too early for detailed decisions.

  They will be taken in the light of the actual private sector development proposals which come forward.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what bodies or persons were invited to the presentation or press conference arranged by his Department to announce his approval for, and details of, the London Docklands Development Corporation's strategy of development for the Royal docks; and what steps he took to inform elected public representatives of his decisions.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his approval of the strategy known to the House in answer to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on 31 March. A press briefing was held subsequently.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library all information, including maps and diagrams, on his proposals and those of the London Docklands Development Corporation for his approved strategy for redevelopment of the Royal docks in Newham.

  Mr. John Patten
  Appropriate documents are being assembled and will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions were taken by the board of the London Docklands Development Corporation at its meeting on Thursday 26 March; and what opportunity will be given by them for applications to purchase land by developers who wish to implement the strategy he has recently approved for the Royal docks redevelopment area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The proceedings of the board of the London Docklands Development Corporation are confidential.

  No commitments for the sale of land in the Royal docks have been entered into for major sites and the LDDC can consider applications for purchase.

  Inner City Lighting (Exhibition)
  Sir George
  Young asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to inner city lighting to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Tracey
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 29 June to 3 July.

  Public Water Supplies (Nitrate Content)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 4 March, Official Report, column 639, if he will now make a further statement on his talks with the water authorities on reducing nitrate content in public water supplies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Progress is being made, but I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list by name and location in the west midlands those sites considered for the storage of low-level nuclear waste by means of shallow burial repository but not selected for geological drilling by UK NIREX Ltd.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the original 1,500 sites considered by his Department and by NIREX to be potentially suitable for shallow burial of low level waste were in Coventry and Warwickshire; and if he will list their locations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The selection of sites for geological investigation as a possible shallow burial repository for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste was a matter for UK NIREX Ltd. Neither the Government nor NIREX considers it would be appropriate to release details of all the sites considered before the four sites currently under investigation were selected.

  Miss Maynard
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any sites within the Sheffield, Brightside constituency and the adjoining constituencies are being considered as a possible repository for intermediate level nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This is a matter for UK NIREX Ltd. It is currently considering possible options for the disposal of intermediate level wastes, including deep burial in a repository on land, tunnelling beneath the seabed from the shore, and disposal into the seabed from a sea-based rig.

  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if any of the 1,500 sites investigated for low-level radioactive waste or for intermediate-level waste repositories are sited within Sandwell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers give today to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard).

  "Rural Enterprise and Development"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much it cost his Department to produce the pamphlet, "Rural Enterprise and Development"; how many copies have been printed and what were their production costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is not possible to identify, separately from their other work, the time spent by officials in preparing the pamphlet "Rural Enterprise and Development". Eight thousand copies were printed at an estimated total production cost of £25,853. The pamphlet was produced for sale to the public through Her Majesty's Stationery Office at a cost of £3·95 per copy.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he has taken to ascertain if there have been any changes in the value of Thamesmead since the district valuer's valuation on 31 March 1986;

  (2) what is the value placed on fixed plant, machinery and equipment. vehicles and mobile plant, stocks and stores and other corporeal moveable property held by the London residuary body for the purpose of Thamesmead.

  Mr. Chope
  We intend to publish an explanatory paper in due course showing how the financial terms for the transfer of Thamesmead have been arrived at.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if tenants and other residents of Thamesmead were told of the need for sales of properties at vacant possession during the consultation organised by his Department in September and October 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Residents of Thamesmead were told that tenants would retain security of tenure and the right to buy. The question of sales of vacant dwellings is a matter for management decision by Thamesmead Town Ltd.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he arrived at the sum of £2·5 million payable for Thamesmead Town Ltd. to the London residuary body; and how many vacant possession sales of property at Thamesmead it assumes.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) today.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 31 March concerning development strategy for the Royal docks, he will set out the calculations on which Her Majesty's Government based their judgment that the cost of £140 million of the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway can be funded from the sale of land currently owned by the London Dockland Development Corporation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The financial appraisals carried out by LDDC are subject to commercial confidentiality. They examine different options, assessing expected receipts 32
  from the sale of LDDC's land against the phased payments which would be required for the construction of the eastern extension. They demonstrate that the increased land values which should result from the proposed extension and other infrastructure works generate sufficient funds for the construction of the extension.

  Royal Docks
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 31 March concerning development strategy for the Royal docks, he will state the total cost to the London Docklands Development Corporation of land acquired for development in the Royal docks strategy area and the expected future sale value of such land on completion of his announced redevelopment and the purposes to which he expects the surplus funds to be devoted, other than the estimated £140 million cost of the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway.

  Mr. John Patten
  By 28 February 1987 the LDDC had paid out £18·7 million for land acquired in the Royals area. Final payments for some acquisitions have yet to be made. Payments have also been made for land statutorily vested in the corporation throughout its area, but these are not specifically attributed to particular areas. The expected future sale value of land is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  To the extent that further surplus funds are available, while precise purposes have not been decided, they will include other infrastructure.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total investment out of public funds in the Royal docks redevelopment area since the creation of the London Docklands Development Corporation; for what major purposes; at what sum for each such purpose; and what further sums of public money, together with the principal items, he expects to be invested in order to achieve his recently announced planning strategy for the area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total LDDC investment in the Royal docks area, including Beckton, between 1 July 1981 and 28 February 1987, excluding acquisition of land, is as follows:

  £ million

  Environmental improvement

  10·8

  Land reclamation and relocations

  3·8

  Roads and utilities

  21·5

  Other expenditure

  4·7

  40·8

  LDDC's strategy for the regeneration of the Royals area is estimated to cost £446 million at 1986–87 prices, including funding on the proposed eastern extension of the docklands light railway, new roads, utilities, reclamation and environment works.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made, in addition to the 48,000 jobs he envisages in the Royal docks redevelopment area, of additional jobs indirectly attributable to the scheme; and if he will state what occupations he expects them to be.
  33
  Mr. John Patten
  An estimated 14,000 jobs will be indrectly attributable to the scheme in the wider economy. It is not possible to state the likely range of occupations that they might include with any certainty.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following his recently announced strategy for the London docklands from Brunswick wharf to the proposed east London river crossing, he will now publish the report of his inspectors following the public inquiries into the compulsory purchase orders for the Royal docks and adjacent areas and the Leamouth area, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The inspector's report following the public inquiry into the London Docklands Development Corporation's east docklands compulsory purchase order will be published when the Secretary of State issues his decision on the order.

  Public Expenditure (Departmental Publications)
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available his Department's publications, "Grant Related Expenditure 1987–88" and "The Technical Handbook of Grant Related Expenditure 1987–88."

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has today placed copies of these documents in the Library of the House. Copies have also been sent to every local authority in England, and to the local authority associations.

  Cow Pasture Mine
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his consideration of the Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel's report on the Cow Pasture mine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have given careful consideration to the report of the Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel on Cow Pasture mine. I have also taken careful account of the views expressed by Sandwell MBC and other local authorities in the west midlands and of the representations made to me by hon. Members.

  Whilst I can understand Sandwell MBC's continuing desire for an engineering solution to remove the risk of subsidence from the Cow Pasture mine, I do not think that this would he an appropriate use of Government funds because of the uncertainty as to the extent and effects of any subsidence that may arise and the doubts expressed by the panel about the technical feasibility of the solutions considered, together with the high costs involved. I therefore accept the report's conclusions that the most sensible and cost-effective approach is a programme of monitoring and repair as and when necessary. Whilst this will not prevent subsidence occurring at the Cow Pasture mine, it will provide advance warning of the possibility of damage to property and of any necessary precautions to minmise the very small risk of personal injury. The Government will continue to fund the monitoring programme.

  Should subsidence occur damaged property will need to be repaired. I have given very careful consideration to how the costs of such damage might be met, particularly in view of the wider implications for other areas of limestone mines in the Black Country.

  I am not persuaded that a publicly-funded damage repair scheme is justified. The insurance industry already
  34
  provides protection in respect of subsidence damage under normal household building insurance contracts. It would be inappropriate for central Government to fund any such scheme. Government are already making a proper and significant contribution towards the solution of the problems arising from abandoned limestone mines in the Black Country by providing substantial resources for investigation, monitoring and remedial action where appropriate. The Government will continue to provide financial support for that work. £11·9 million has been allocated to date and a further £5·0 million earmarked for the 1987–88 financial year. A large number of mines have already been investigated in all four Black Country boroughs as well as in the Wrekin district of Shropshire. As a result of these investigations, important progress has been made. Substantial areas.—some 61 hectares—have now been removed from the consideration zones for limestone mines, either because the mines have been found to be totally collapsed and therefore not liable to further subsidence or because the limits of mining have been more accurately defined than was possible on the limited information available when the zones were established. Infilling operations have already been carried out on a trial basis at the Castlefields mine, Dudley, and are about to commence at the Littleton Street mine, Walsall. Infilling of part of the Castlefields mine underlying Birmingham road and the Dudley Town football club, and of part of the Lincoln Hill mine, Ironbridge will also commence shortly. Thus engineering solutions have been adopted where appropriate and this will continue to be the case. Additionally, some £1·7 million has been spent so far by the Government on related research to evaluate surface land use in the general economic and planning context of the Black Country, to develop new techniques of monitoring the mines and the ground movements arising from them, and to develop new methods of analysis to aid decision making.

  Private sector financial institutions have an essential role in ensuring that people living within the limestone consideration zones are not disadvantaged. To this end, the Government have consulted the Association of British Insurers, the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council. Insurance companies, representing the bulk of the household insurance market, have stated that they cannot give an unconditional guarantee that insurance cover will be provided or renewed because this depends on the circumstances of individual applications. However, they have confirmed that they will not discriminate solely on the grounds that property is in a limestone area. Insurers will continue to accept household business, including limestone subsidence, in affected areas provided there is no evidence of existing damage to the property involved. This means that each risk will be considered on its merits and that subsidence cover will be available at standard terms and conditions subject to normal underwriting considerations. These assurances should provide the necessary confidence to owner-occupiers and property investors within the Cow Pasture mine area and other consideration zones in the Black Country.

  Following on from this understanding with insurers. the Building Societies Association has stated, on the basis of its contacts with building societies operating in the limestone area, that it is not aware of any general bar against lending on properties in the area. Societies will consider mortgage applications on their merits in the same

  35
  way as they would for other areas. As far as new building is concerned, the NHBC has stated that, provided its normal requirements for mining areas are met, it will issue its normal 10-year warranty for major structural damage to houses erected by registered builders. These requirements would include the provision of a mining/geology report which establishes the design critieria for subsidence and the foundation details, with calculations and details of any specialist works necessary to cater for the subsidence levels predicted.

  These positive assurances are an indication of the responsible attitude being taken by the private sector and will do much to bolster confidence in the property market in the limestone areas. For their part, local authorities and statutory undertakers will need to act promptly and take any action necessary to maintain roads, public services and facilities in the event of any subsidence damage arising. They will also need to carry out any necessary environmental improvements and repairs to their own housing stock.

  In addition to the Government's existing commitments, there are other important Government measures which will assist in alleviating the situation in the Black Country limestone mines area generally. These are:

  i. The use of HIP resources to enable local authorities to carry out any repairs necessary following subsidence damage to their own housing stock. HIP allocations for 1987–88 have already been made; in making allocations for subsequent years, the Department will take into account any additional expenditure which may arise on essential remedial work on the local authority owned housing situated over these old mines.

  ii. Where owner-occupiers of houses suffer hardship because they cannot sell by reason of the risk of subsidence I will consider, in exceptional cases, granting consent to enable local authorities to acquire the property.

  iii. Continuing expert advice. I have asked the Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel to examine carefully the overall strategy for dealing with the limestone problem and, in particular, to devise a programme for the completion of investigatory works and the identification of necessary remedial action in the remaining areas affected.

  iv. The Black Country is one of the areas where the local authorities have been invited to put forward projects for urban development grant and the new urban regeneration grant introduced under part III of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 is also available there. These grants may be relevant where development is proposed on sites affected by limestone working.

  The limestone problem is a complex one and there is no single easy solution to it. We have developed the package of measures outlined above in response to the various elements of the problem. Continuing Government action, coupled with the assurances given by the insurance industry, building societies and the NH BC, and the local authorities' commitments, should go a long way towards restoring confidence in the local property market and to relieving the concern that has arisen due to a greater appreciation of the problems which might develop in areas affected by abandoned limestone mines.

  Dartmoor (Ring Road)
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the current transport difficulties experienced by rescue teams on Dartmoor, he will take steps to repair the ring road on Dartmoor near Okehampton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.
  36
  This road is understood to be a private road and is not the responsibility of the Department.

  Trees (Mechanical Flails)
  Mr. Harrison
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the environmental implications of the use of mechanical flails to cut down trees on railway embankments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  I have been asked to reply.

  One, in the last year, which I have drawn to the attention of British Rail.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will provide for each year since 1979 the numbers of people being unemployed on Merseyside, and the number of vacancies available at job centres.

  Mr. Lee
  The following is the available information. Unemployment on-flow statistics—which are also in the Library—are available only from October 1982.

  Numbers of people becoming unemployed claimants in the Merseyside Metropolitan Area

  Number

  1983

  147,277

  1984

  138,929

  1985

  144,326

  1986

  145,855

  Note:

  Figures only include computerised claims. The 1983 figure relates to jobcentres closely corresponding to the Merseyside Metropolitan area.

  Average numbers of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres covering the Merseyside Metropolitan Area

  Number

  1979

  2,937

  1980

  1,834

  1981

  2,203

  1982

  1,833

  1983

  2,499

  1984

  2,741

  1985

  2,836

  1986

  3,345

  Note:

  Figures for 1979–81 include a small number of vacancies for the Special Temporary Employment Programme, and from 1981 to 1983 vacancies on the Community Enterprise Programme. The 1981 figure includes temporary vacancies for work on the 1981 census.

  Mr. Blair
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish the total effect on the numbers on the unemployment register of those working in special employment and training measures, for each month from February 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Crowther
  asked the Paymaster General if he will state the number of those people unemployed for (a) less than six months, (b) between six months and one year, (c)

  37
  between one year and two years and (d) over two years and the total number of people unemployed for every constituency in Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending the hon. Member a computer printout showing the information requested, which is available in the Library. The information relates to numbers of claimants in the parliamentary constituencies of the Yorkshire and Humberside region who had been unemployed for the durations requested on 8 January 1987, the latest date for which an analysis of unemployment by duration is available.

  Job Splitting Scheme
  Mr. Macfarlane
  asked the Paymaster General whether he is proposing to make any further changes to the job splitting scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The job splitting scheme will continue with improvements designed to encourage changes in working patterns and to help in reducing unemployment. From 1 April the main changes are:

  to increase the grant available to employers from £840 to £1,000, payable in three installments of £500, £200, and £300;

  part-time employee places to be open to anyone claiming at an unemployment benefit office;

  to change the name of the scheme to jobshure, a title which more accurately reflects the principle behind the provision and the name most commonly used by the public when describing the job splitting scheme.

  New booklets giving details of the changes, together with a simplified application form, will be available from the employment measures units of the Department of Employment and jobcentres shortly.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Paymaster General what provision is made in Batley and Spen under the sheltered placement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  On 31 March 1987, two severely disabled people were employed under the sheltered placement scheme in Batley and Spen. The scheme is now well established nationally as a means of providing employment for severely disabled people in open conditions in a

  Work permits approved

  Work permits refused

  Applications under consideration

  1984 (1 April-31 December inclusive)

  10

  1

  —

  1985

  23

  —

  —

  1986

  20

  1

  —

  1987 (1 January-31 March inclusive)

  —

  1

  3

  Miss McInnes, Barnfinstown, Orkney
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Paymaster General for what reasons the Orkney office of his Department refused to grant Miss McInnes of Barnfinstown, Orkney, her request in February 1987 for information about job vacancies in Orkney; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Staff at Kirkwell jobcentre have no recollection of any request from Miss McInnes for 38
  wide range of jobs. I am glad that we have been able to find resources to enable the scheme to expand substantially in the financial year 1987–88.

  Jobcentres
  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Paymaster General how jobcentres define an unemployed building worker: and whether separate records are kept in jobcentres of (a) labourers and (b) craftsmen available for work.

  Mr. Lee
  Jobcentres define unemployed building workers as those unemployed jobseekers who use jobcentre services to seek work in construction and allied occupations. Individual records of unemployed building workers are held at the discretion of the local jobcentre manager in those areas where known labour skill shortages exist or where the unemployed job seeker has indicated that he is willing to move. Very many unemployed building workers who are actively seeking jobs both through jobcentres and in other ways are not registered. It would be unlikely that jobcentres would keep a register of unemployed and unskilled labourers as these jobs are generally filled very quickly by the jobcentre self-service section.

  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Paymaster General how many building trade craftsmen are at present registered with jobcentres; and if he will list them by geographical area and by skill or craft.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available centrally. It could be obtained only by asking all jobcentres to identify and count the number of registrations for building craftsmen from each jobcentre. This would involve disproportionate cost.

  Nurses (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Paymaster General how many work permits for nurses have been granted from applicants intending to work in Newham during each of the past five years; how many have been refused; and how many are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures prior to 1 April 1984 are not available except at disproportionate cost. The following information relates to the period 1 April 1984–31 March 1987:

  information about vacancies in Orkney. I have asked the jobcentre manager, Marion McLeod, to get in touch with Miss McInnes to discuss her requirements.

  Availability for Work Test
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General how many people have been interviewed under the new availability for work procedures; how many have had their claims for benefit stopped; how many appeals have been made; and how many have been successful.
  39
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Paymaster General how many people have been refused full or partial unemployment benefit as a result of information obtained by the new availability for work test in Leicester and the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to the hon. and learned Member as soon as possible.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General (1) what recent representations he has received concerning the future of the Construction Industry Training Board's involvement in the youth training scheme;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter which he has recently received from Mr. Derek Gaulter of the Construction Industry Training Board on the subject of the Construction Industry Training Board's involvement in the YTS; and if he will also arrange for his reply to that letter to be published;

  (3) how many trainees have so far been affected in each year by the involvement of the Construction Industry Training Board in the YTS;

  (4) how many trainees the Construction Industry Training Board has proposed to involve in future years on its YTS;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the record of the Construction Industry Training Board's past involvement in the YTS;

  (6) if he will make a statement on the placement record of youngsters who have taken part in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS;

  (7) how many individual construction companies have so far been involved in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS;

  (8) if he will give a regional breakdown for each of the years for which the scheme has existed of the number of youngsters taking part in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Open College
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the progress of the Open college.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced plans for the Open college on 18 July last year. Much progress has been made since then. The college has been set up as a company limited by guarantee and will shortly be registered as a charity. Mr. Michael Green, chairman of Carlton Communications plc, was named as chairman of the college, Sheila Innes, controller of BBC educational broadcasting, has been appointed as chief executive and other senior staff are now in post. Detailed consultations have been undertaken with representatives of all the main interested parties to advise the college on the course and student services it should develop.

  Preliminary market research has confirmed the general enthusiasm for the concept of the Open college and the outline of courses for the college's opening prospectus; more detailed research is now under way to help the college determine its future plans. The college has begun
  40
  to commission course material and will have available from this September a spread of courses aimed at improving working skills, using high quality broadcast and written materials to catch the attention of industry, of the general public and of potential sponsors. An agreement has been reached with Channel 4 for the commencement of Open college programmes from 21 September with, initially, one hour's programme each weekday for 30 weeks in the year up to August 1987. Discussions are under way with other broadcasters and the college hopes shortly to be able to announce programme plans on other channels.

  Extensive discussions are also under way with potential providers of services for Open college students, including further education colleges, private training organisations, companies and industry bodies and voluntary organisations in order that the college should have an effective and well motivated support network in place to give students and employers the local back-up which they need.

  One of our primary objectives has been to make the college self-supporting as soon as possible by generating sufficient income from sponsorship, sale of course materials and student fees to cover its expenditure. Given the development costs of open learning materials, this will involve an initial investment from Government. Detailed objectives for the college have now been agreed and I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to review progress against them. Accordingly, I have agreed to make up to £15 million available from within existing resources over three years to enable the college to prove its attractiveness to commercial sponsors and students and to become self-financing with that period.

  The objectives set for the college are demanding, but I am confident that with the support of industry and commerce and with the initial funding the Government are making available that they can be met and that the college can play a lasting and vital role in contributing to the training and upgrading of skills in the workplace.

  Work Force
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if any Manpower Services Commission officials are studying the United States experience of work force; and if any have paid visits to the United States.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 241]: Manpower Services Commission officials monitor labour market issues and developments in many other countries as a matter of course. In the past six months four MSC officials have paid visits to the United States on personal employment fellowships.

TRANSPORT

  London Roads
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the maintenance of London roads for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The national code of practice for routine maintenance on trunk roads has recently been amended to take into account the special needs in London. The major maintenance programme is also being kept under reivew to ensure a proper level of maintenance for trunk roads in London.

  Rail Freight (Scotland)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the policy of his Department towards expansion of the use of rail freight in Scotland.

  Mr. Moore
  The Government's objectives for BR endorse the long-standing policy that the rail freight business should act commercially in unsubsidised competition with other modes. The Channel tunnel will provide the best opportunity for many years for increasing rail freight in Scotland as elsewhere.

  Air Services
  Mr. Evans
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning present Government policy towards price fixing by airlines operating between European Community member states.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are determined to ensure that the competition rules of the treaty of Rome are applied to airline price fixing arrangements within the European Community. Good progress was made at the last Council of Ministers on proposals to make cheaper fares available.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require all provisional and full driving licences to bear the photograph of the holder in order to control driving licence abuse.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As my hon. Friend is aware, this has been considered on several occasions. The lack of evidence of any major driving licence abuse means that we could not justify the effective introduction of an identity card which would involve substantial cost.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with European Economic Community Transport Ministers concerning ferry safety.

  Mr. Moore
  At the Council of Transport Ministers held on 23 March 1 expressed my thanks to those involved in the rescue following the Zeebrugge disaster, and I undertook to keep the Commission and the Council informed of the results of our inquiries. I have also circulated to the Council a copy of a preliminary paper about the disaster which my Department submitted to the International Maritime Organisation.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has received any approaches seeking funding to research ferry safety.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Requests for the funding of research are received from different sources, including the Department's own professional staff. In many cases, the research is applicable to all types of ships including ro/ro ferries. Requests for research funding specifically applicable to ro/ro ferries since 1980 and the current positions on the projects are: assessment of toxic concentrations in car decks—completed; assymmetrical flooding of compartments—phase 1 completed, phase 242
  approved; safety assessment of ro/ro vessels — completed; Survivability of ro/ros—completed; centrifugel forces and wind forces on ro/ros—completed.

  Leighton-Linslade Bypass
  Mr. Madel
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further information as to the likely starting date for the construction of the Leighton-Linslade bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend's decision to confirm Bedfordshire county council's orders for the bypass is the subject of an application to the High Court by an objector to the scheme. Until this is determined no work can begin.

  Transport Ministers (Meeting)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers on 23 and 24 March.

  Mr. Moore
  Further useful progress was made on aviation. There is now unanimous agreement that unnecessarily restrictive fare conditions should be dropped. The Council also discussed a number of inland transport issues including road haulage liberalisation and transport infrastructure. I gave a full account of the outcome of the Council in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on 27 March.

  Pedestrian Casualties (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians were killed on roads in the city of Leicester during each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Twenty-one in 1983, 13 in 1984 and six in 1985.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Dixon
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an interim statement on the progress of National Bus Company sales.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Eighteen of the National Bus Company's bus and coach operating subsidiaries have been sold to their managements and three to outside purchasers. National Holidays and eight engineering subsidiaries have also been sold to outside purchasers.

  In most cases provision has been made for employees to be given the opportunity to acquire shares in the businesses. I look forward to approving further sales shortly.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any National Bus Company subsidiaries have been sold for less than the value of their assets.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  From the outset of the disposal programme it has been made clear that information on sale prices will remain confidential while sales are in progress. A report will be made to the House in due course on the aggregate proceeds of sale.

  Infrastructure (Expenditure)
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what increase in constant terms there has been in capital spending on transport infrastructure since 1982.

  Mr. Moore
  In constant terms, the increase in capital expenditure between 1982–83 and 1985–86, the latest year for which figures are available was 11 per cent.

  Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking the introduction of legislation to make compulsory the display in a motor vehicle of a certificate that the vehicle has third-party insurance cover.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Such display would not give conclusive evidence of insurance and in some circumstances could be positively misleading.

  M40 (Waterstock-Wendlebury)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates the start of the public inquiry on the Waterstock to Wendlebury section of the M40 extension.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Draft orders for this section of the M40 were published on 3 April. If, as seems likely, a public inquiry is needed, it could take place this autumn.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the level of research and development by the British Railways Board.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend and I have no current plans to raise this subject with the chairman.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects his Department's inspector of railways to report on the safety standards of the docklands light railway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A report to the Secretary of State will be made by the railway inspectorate soon after it has completed its inspection of the railway on 22 April.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that his Inspectorate of Railways will report on the fitness for public traffic of the London docklands light railway; and if he will make a statement concerning the recent accident during trials on the Isle of Dogs.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) earlier today. The recent accident at Island Gardens stations on the Isle of Dogs has been thoroughly investigated by the companies who are building the railway under contract. The railway inspectorate has been closely involved in this investigation. The contractors will be issuing a statement after some further tests have been carried out. I have no reason to believe that the railway will not be ready to open for public use by the summer, as planned.

  Dornoch Firth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further discussions his Department has had with British Rail concerning the Dornoch Firth rail bridge.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the Eurotunnel company to discuss the progress of the Channel tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Ministers are kept informed about Eurotunnel's progress. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have all visited Eurotunnel exhibitions, and later this week I shall be opening Transmanche Link's selection and training centre in Ashford.

  Freightliner
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further information he has received from British Rail concerning the future of Freightliner.

  Mr. Moore
  None.

  East Anglia (Airports)
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what investment has been approved for regional airports in East Anglia since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Investment of some £4 million has been approved for the development of Norwich and Southend Airports in the period. Further approvals are planned to enable Norwich airport to complete its terminal.

  Air Services
  Mr. Lilley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what prospects there are for liberalisation of air services within Europe following the European Community Council of Transport Ministers on 23–24 March.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At last week's Council of Transport Ministers real progress was made on the question of cheaper fares. The Council at last accepted our view that cheap "off-peak- fares should be available to everyone without absurdly restrictive conditions. The Council is also close to agreement on ways of introducing greater competition for business fares. The prospects of agreement, by the Commission's deadline of 30 June have thus clearly improved, although considerable work is still needed, particularly on the vital question of market access.

  Speed Humps
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the introduction of speed humps on appropriate roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local highway authorities may install road humps under the Highways (Road Hump) Regulations without reference to the Department. We do not keep central records of the numbers installed.

  London Underground (Tickets)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of London Regional Transport the possibility of selling Underground tickets other than at tube stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Travelcards and Capitalcards have for some time been on sale at selected newsagents, and travel agents, and at bus garages and British Rail Stations throughout London. This has been a welcome development for passengers. It is a matter for the Board and management of London Underground Ltd. to decide whether the range and number of retail outlets should be further extended.

  Travel Agents (Commissions)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from travel agents concerning the reduction in British Rail commissions.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received over 100 letters from travel agents on this matter.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Snape
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has discussed with Eurotunnel plc the use of section 8 grants as a method of increasing demand for international rail freight.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. I have not been asked for a meeting.

  Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report into the Zeebrugge ferry disaster.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The public inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise will open on Monday 27 April in Church house, Westminster before the hon. Mr. Justice Sheen and is expected to last for several weeks. It is not possible for me to say when the court will report but I have no doubt that it will do so without undue delay.

  Devon (Roads)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress on the building programme for the north Devon link road and when he expects stage 2A, Tiverton to South Molton, and stage 2B, South Molton to Barnstaple, to start and to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Work on stage 2A of the link Road started on 30 March and work on stage 2B will start later this year. Both stages are expected to be completed in summer 1989.

  Railways (Job Losses)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs have been cut by the British Railways Board since 1979.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The reduction in the board's staff between 31 December 1979 and 31 March 1986 is estimated at about 54,000, which is equivalent to some 22 46
  per cent. excluding jobs in the boards former hotels, ships and hovercraft activities which have been transferred to the private sector during that period.

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the electrification of the Bradford-Leeds railway.

  Mr David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 23 February 1987 at columns 19–20.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the cost during 1986 of maintaining the Woolwich ferry, the number of vehicles carried, an estimate of the number of passengers carried, and the average cost per crossings per vehicle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures for 1986–87 are distorted by strike action early in the year. The cost of operating the Woolwich ferry in 1986–87 is estimated to be £2·1 million. Estimates of typical yearly traffic are 1·05 million vehicles and 250,000 foot passsengers. Average cost per vehicle crossing is approximately £2.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the consultants' report on the future operation of the Woolwich ferry; what consultations he has undertaken about its recommendations; and when he plans to announce his decisions on the future level of ferry services.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultants have still to finalise their report. The London borough of Greenwich has failed to provide the input expected from it.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimate of the number of passengers being carried on the Woolwich ferry each week; and how this compares with the numbers for each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not collected on a regular basis. Spot surveys conducted by the London boroughs of Newham and Greenwich in 1983 and 1985 identified about 300 foot passengers daily using the ferry in each direction.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what opportunity he has provided for the Woolwich ferry work force to comment on the consultants' report on its future level of operation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for our agents, the London borough of Greenwich, to arrange at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his written answer of 30 March, Official Report, column 370, concerning consultants' proposals to change the hours of operation of the Woolwich free ferry, he will consult the London borough of Newham and representatives of users of the ferry, prior to making any decision on changed hours of operations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The London borough of Newham and road haulage interests have already been consulted. I shall take account of the needs of all users of the ferry in reaching my decisions.

  British Rail
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had discussions recently with the management of British Rail on dining car procedures and services on main line trains including Pullman services.

  Mr. Moore
  These are management matters for the Railways Board, but I would welcome the increased involvement of the private sector in managing food production and services for train catering under the board's new catering policies. Following successful trials on London — Manchester services, these new arrangements are being extended progressively to a wider range of inter city services, starting later this year on the west coast main line for which the board recently awarded contracts worth around £4 million per year to private caterers.

  Roads (Lighting)
  Mr. Mudd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence exists on the cost-effectiveness of the lighting of trunk roads and motorways; and if he will explain the method of cost-benefit analysis applied to assessing the cost-effectiveness of such lighting.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When new or improved lighting is proposed for a trunk road or motorway, a full cost benefit analysis is undertaken to demonstrate that it is worthwhile. The evidence for the expected benefits from the saving in accidents is derived from Transport and Road Research Laboratory studies, which support the claim of approximately 30 per cent. night-time accident savings for road lighting.

  The method for the analysis is set out in the departmental advice note TA 49/86, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Where lighting is replaced to a similar standard there is no likely improvement to the night accident situation —for example, where a lighting system at the end of its useful life is replaced. Then a cost effective approach is adopted to identify the least whole-life cost solution.

  Roads (Edgelines)
  Mr. Mudd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if any figures are available from highway authorities which have assessed the cost-effectiveness of edgelines for maintenance savings; and if he will consider collating centrally details published by highway authorities of all engineering improvements using road markings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department commissioned a study in 1980 on this subject but it was inconclusive. I am unaware of any such studies by other highway authorities.

  I am not prepared to consider centrally collating the information on road markings; this would be a major exercise and I am doubtful about the benefits to be gained from such an initiative.

  Traffic Statistics
  Mr. Mudd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of vehicles using the roads of England and Wales, as a proportion of the 24-hour traffic count, in hours of darkness, in proportion to the number of
  48
  accidents that occur during the same hours at night in two-lane roads; and if he will categorise these statistics by the type of accident.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The proportion of traffic in the hours of darkness varies with the type of road and with the time of year. Here is an illustrative example:

  Principal roads in non built-up areas:

  October: England and Wales

  Per cent.

  Estimated proportion of dark hours traffic Proportion of accidents occurring in darkness (1985):

  27

  Fatal

  43

  Serious

  32

  Slight

  27

  All

  29

  Road Safety
  Mr. Mudd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities, representing what percentage of the whole, have now set up road accident analysis and prevention units; if he will identify them; and what steps he is taking to encourage others to follow suit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Setting up accident analysis and prevention units is the responsibility of local highway authorities: they do not have to report to me. My understanding is that about one third of authorities have no such arrangements. I have asked the TRRL to make a survey later this summer. The Department published a new manual of advice in December 1986 and supports training courses run by RoSPA. I welcome the current encouragement of road casualty reduction measures being offered by the local authority associations.

  Freightliner Terminal (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the increase in road traffic that will result from the closure of the Freightliner terminal in Edinburgh; and what proportion of any such increase would be routed south via the A7, the A68 or the A1.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the effects of the closure of the Edinburgh terminal on individual roads. Lorry traffic in the United Kingdom is expected to increase by less than half a percent as the result of all Freightliners' decisions to rationalise their business.

  Traffic Flows (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the traffic flow figure for Holloway road and Archway road in the borough of Islington for January 1987, July 1986, January 1986, July 1985 and January 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Esitmates of weekday flows are shown on map 7 of the East London assessment study report. A copy was sent to the hon. Member on 12 December.

  There are no traffic counters on Holloway road or Archway road in Islington. Traffic counts for that corridor

  49
  are taken at Aylmer road and Great North road in Haringey. The available figures for those locations for the dates requested are:

  Aylmer Road

  Great North Road

  Month

  South

  North

  South

  North

  January 1985

  15,681

  —

  —

  —

  July 1985

  18,763

  17,454

  10,377

  15,701

  January 1986

  15,559

  15,181

  9,321

  10,116

  July 1986

  —

  —

  10,030

  11,031

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to alleviate the traffic problems of south Wales and the west of England following the difficulties experienced through the recent closure of the Severn bridge due to bad weather and the expected hold-ups and delays due to the replacement work on the bridge hangers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The complete closure of the Severn crossing is rare—it has happened twice since the crossing was opened in 1966. Hanger replacement and other strengthening works on the crossing have been planned in such a way as to keep all traffic lanes open all day during the summer and at all peak periods throughout the year. One lane in each direction will remain open at all times, except for four occasions in the early hours of Sunday mornings in the winter, when full closure of the crossing is planned. Plenty of advance notice will be given of the actual dates. Plans have been made for diverting traffic on these occasions.

  Air Service Agreements
  Mr. Robert Atkins
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had about air service agreements involving British and Hong Kong airlines and the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received a number of proposals for expanding air links between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China and also between Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. I shall be discussing these matters when I visit Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China in the weeks of 27 April and 4 May respectively.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the cost-benefit analysis formula for urban and rural major road building.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The formulae used in assessing major rural trunk roads are given in the COBA 9 and the QUADRO manuals which are published by the Department of Transport. For major urban road schemes there is no single set of formulae which adequately cope with all the circumstances and complexities of urban road appraisal. A more flexible approach, in line with the SACTRA recommendations, is used in urban road appraisal.

  I am placing copies of the COBA 9 and QUADRO manuals in the Library.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Sayeed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had, or intends to have, discussions with the United Kingdom's European partners on a common light fund paid for by a levy on each merchant ship calling at a Community port; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is unlikely that common funding could he negotiated. I do not think therefore such discussions would be fruitful.

  Designated Roads
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to review the designated road network and the associated procedures under which London boroughs notify his Department of traffic management proposals affecting designated roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Department of Transport circular No. 4–86 sets out the manner in which a London borough council should notify my Department of any proposals to use powers which would affect traffic or the use of parking places on a designated road. It states that the arrangements will be reviewed after a suitable period.

  I intend to review the extent of the designated road network and the associated procedures later in the year when the results of a full 12 months of their operation will be available.

  I shall consult local authorities and organisations concerned with the movement of traffic in London before making any changes.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many designated road proposals from London borough councils have been received which involve closure of a local road; and what were his decisions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received 21 proposals from London borough councils for traffic management schemes involving road closures aimed at removing through traffic from residential areas. I have approved eight schemes. I look forward to receiving further information on six schemes before I can take a decision. In seven cases I objected to the proposals because, although sympathising with the aims of the scheme, I considered that they would not facilitate the movement of traffic on the designated roads concerned. In all such cases I am always willing to consider sympathetically any other proposal which would not increase congestion on the designated roads in the area.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority about the overloading of the air traffic control system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety of air traffic control in the United Kingdom. I am advised by the authority that it would not allow the system to become overloaded and unsafe. If necessary, procedures would be introduced to control the flow of traffic at peak periods to prevent overloading.

  Train Timekeeping
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he has available on passenger train timekeeping.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The board now provides me with quarterly reports on punctuality for each of its passenger sectors. It will be publishing the results for 1986–87 in its annual report and accounts.

  Accident Black Spots
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many accident black spots have been identified in London by his Department; if he will list them by borough; and what estimate he has of the total costs of remedial work necessary to remove the need for such identification.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The London accident analysis unit, as the body responsible for processing and making available the accident data collected by the police, can provide the hon. Member with particular analysis of borough accidents he needs.

  The Department works closely with the unit to make London's trunk roads as safe as possible.

  We are expanding our programme of accident prevention schemes and our current studies are pinpointing locations where measures will be most effective. The kind of estimate the hon. Member seeks is not practicable.

  Cars (Lighting)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance and advertising has been issued by his Department on the introduction and proper use of dim-dip lighting.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None at present. I shall keep the matter under review and issue appropriate guidance if necessary. As the system does not demand any change in people's driving habits—they can use their sidelamps, automatically enhanced by dim-dip when the engine is running, or their headlamps as they choose in dull weather, twilight or in lit streets. Headlamps remain a legal obligation at night on an unlit road or in seriously reduced visibility.

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the electrification of the London to Cambridge railway line will be completed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The line between Bishops Stortford and Cambridge was energised in December of last year. A full electric service is due to be introduced on 11 May. A second electrified service from Kings Cross to Cambridge should be completed about a year from now.

  Traffic Management
  Mr. Silkin
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many environmental traffic management schemes which include or included a street closure have been submitted to his Department since April 1986; when his Department took power over designated and trunk roads
  52
  from the Greater London council; and how many such schemes have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected, showing to which of the London boroughs the acceptance or rejection refers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 March 1987, c. 429]: I have received 21 proposals from London borough councils for traffic management schemes involving road closures aimed at removing through traffic from residential areas. I have approved eight schemes. I look forward to receiving further information on six schemes before I can take a decision. In seven cases I objected to the proposals because, although sympathising with the aims of the scheme, I considered that they would not facilitate the movement of traffic on the designated roads concerned. In all such cases I am always willing to consider sympathetically any other proposal which would not increase congestion on the designated roads in the area.

SCOTLAND

  Heritage (Grants)
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations which are being granted financial assistance for 1987–88 under section 23 of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 and the amount of grant in each case.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Grants available under section 23 of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 are as follows:

  £

  Scottish Museums Council

  440,000

  Royal Society of Edinburgh

  273,000

  Royal Scottish Geographical Society

  3,000

  Cultural organisations formerly grant aided under the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations 1959

  National Youth Orchestra of Scotland

  23,000

  Scottish Youth Theatre

  39,500

  Scottish Community Drama Association

  24,000

  Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association

  5,000

  Scottish Council for Dance

  4,000

  An Comunn Gaidhealach

  35,000

  Sabhal Mor Ostaig

  40,000

  Comunn na Gaidhig

  45,000

  Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich

  32,000

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the successful applicants for grant assistance in 1987–88, under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Grants available under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 for the financial year ending 31 March 1988 are as follows:

  £

  National Library of Scotland

  4,132,000

  National Museums of Scotland

  5,017,000

  National Galleries of Scotland

  3,417,000

  Scottish Museums Council

  440,000

  Royal Society of Edinburgh

  273,000

  Royal Scottish Geographical Society

  3,000

  Cultural Organisations formerly grant-aided under the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations 1959

  National Youth Orchestra of Scotland

  23,000

  Scottish Youth Theatre

  39,500

  53

  £

  Scottish Community Drama Association

  24,000

  Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association

  5,000

  Scottish Council for Dance

  4,000

  An Comunn Gaidhealach

  35,000

  Sabhal Mor Ostaig

  40,000

  Comunn na Gaidhlig

  45,000

  Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich

  32,000

  "Rural Scotland"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it cost his Department to produce the document, "Rural Scotland"; how many copies have been printed and what were their production costs; and how many he expects to be issued to the public.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall reply to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are being placed on blood donors who have visited Africa and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  In order to reduce the chance of transmitting certain tropical diseases, such as malaria, potential donors who have visited certain parts of Africa are asked not to donate blood until 12 months after their return to the United Kingdom.

  In addition, as a precaution against the transmission of AIDS, potential donors are asked to not to give blood if they have visited certain parts of Africa since 1977 and in addition have had sexual relations with men or women living there.

  Abortions
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of National Health Service abortions performed in Scotland on women resident in each health board area in Scotland in 1984 and 1985.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The number of abortions performed in National Health Service hospitals in 1984 and 1985 on women resident in each health board area is set out in the table. The figures for the island health boards have been grouped together because of the small number of terminations performed.

  Health Board

  1984

  1985

  Argyll and Clyde

  545

  484

  Ayrshire and Arran

  638

  601

  Borders

  135

  135

  Dumfries and Galloway

  252

  233

  Fife

  696

  721

  Forth Valley

  414

  439

  Grampian

  1,098

  1,038

  Greater Glasgow

  1,469

  1,491

  Highland

  406

  401

  Lanarkshire

  663

  642

  Lothian

  1,628

  1,699

  Islands1

  81

  71

  Tayside

  898

  933

  Total

  8,923

  8,888

  1 Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles health boards.

  Forestry
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (l) what is the predicted average yield class of the forestry plantations established in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness in the last five years;

  (2) what response the Forestry Commission has made to the findings regarding the internal rates of return from various forestry plantations outlined in appendix 4 of the recent report by the National Audit Office on "Forestry Commission Objectives and Achievements"; and if he will make a statement.

  (3) if he will estimate the average windthrow hazard class of the land in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness approved for afforestation in the last five years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Motoring Offences (Deaths)
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in how many cases of disposal of charges relating to causing death by reckless driving in each of the last 10 years the sentences have been passed in the sheriff court and the High Court, respectively:

  (2) in how many cases in each of the last 10 years, in which a driver has been charged with careless driving, a death was involved in the charge;

  (3) how many motorists alleged to have caused death by reckless driving have been charged with that offence and how many with culpable homicide in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall reply to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Children (Summary Convictions)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many summary convictions there were, and what were the modes of disposal, of children under 16 years of age in 1986.

  Mr. Lang
  Provisional figures are given in the table.

  Children under 16 years of age with a charge proved in a summary court in Scotland, 1986

  Disposal

  Number of children

  Absolute discharge

  8

  Probation

  30

  Detention of child

  42

  Remit to children's hearing

  89

  Fine

  99

  Ordered to find caution

  1

  Admonished

  99

  Compensation order

  2

  All children with a charge proved in a summary court

  370

  Dr. John Forbes-Proctor (Patients)
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that those patients of Dr. John Forbes-Proctor of Tongue, Sutherland, who wish to register with another doctor are enabled to do so.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I understand that patients of Dr. Forbes-Proctor, who wished to register with another
  55
  doctor and who had not been able to do so, applied to Highland health board to be assigned to a neighbouring practice but that the board concluded that it was not possible to meet their request.

  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mrs. McCurley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the consultation exercise on tape recording of police interviews with suspects.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. I am most grateful for the very thorough responses which were received to the consultation paper on tape recording. All but one of the organisations responded and were clearly well aware of the importance of this development. The replies revealed a general consensus on most of the key issues. This showed the value of an extended experiment in providing sound experience to inform the next stage of policy development.

  Virtually all respondents supported the introduction of tape recording for CID interviews with suspects where the case was serious enough to be taken in the High Court or sheriff court (including serious cases heard in a district court before a stipendiary magistrate). The majority also shared my own longer term objective for the extention of tape recording to all police interviews. In the light of these replies, and following consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I am asking chief constables throughout Scotland to begin the necessary preliminary work on buildings, equipment and training with a view to a rolling programme of implementation beginning on 1 April 1988 and concluding two years later. This initial introduction of tape recording will apply only to CID interviews; any further extentions of tape recording will depend on the outcome of its use in CID interviews.

  There was some divergence of view on whether those aged under 16 should have their interviews recorded on tape. The majority argued powerfully that such persons were particularly in need of the protection afforded to a suspect by tape recording and commented on the inequity if such protection were to be denied to an individual purely on the basis of age. I have considered this matter very carefully and have decided to accept the majority of respondents' views, that tape recording should apply to all CID interviews, regardlss of the age of the suspect. Only those cases which are serious enough to warrant prosecution in at least the summary sheriff court will be affected by this decision but it represents a significant additional safeguard for the children concerned.

  My officials are already discussing with chief constables what resources are required to implement this development.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. John
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the change in real terms of the hill livestock compensatory allowance payable in the original less favoured areas and the new less favoured areas for the current year, based on the rates announced on 17 December 1986.

  Mr. Jopling
  The rates for the hill livestock compensatory allowances were increased for the 1986 year 56
  and held unchanged for the 1987 year. As a result the real value of the allowances in January 1987 was 4·2 per cent. above their value in January 1985; and their value in January 1986 was 8·3 per cent. above their value in January 1985.

  Land Drainage
  Miss Maynard
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether consideration of the responses to the consultation document on the financing and administration of land drainage, flood protection and coast protection in England and Wales has been completed; and whether he will make a statement as to the future financing and administration of land drainage.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Consideration of the responses to the Green Paper is complete, but I can make no comprehensive statement as yet. Some of the matters dealt with concern administrative and financial arrangements which cannot sensibly be recast until it is clear how flood defence and land drainage should be organised following privatisation of the water authorities.

  On other matters, action was announced on 5 February 1987 to introduce new arrangements to provide the water authorities with a firmer basis for planning their flood defence work. This was achieved through the replacement of the system of grants whose rates were recalculated annually by a scheme under which each water authority —or, as appropriate, local land drainage committee — qualified for one of four grant rates depending on its resources and flood defence requirements.

  The Green Paper also drew attention to the desirability of integrating the separate schemes that apply to sea defence and coast protection. There is no early prospect of being able to introduce the primary legislation that would be required for this.

  The Green Paper pointed also to the need for some changes in the administration of internal drainage boards. However, I think it desirable to consult further with the interests concerned before embarking on the necessary primary legislation. It would not he sensible to undertake such consultations too far in advance of the prospect of legislation. I will, however, issue a consultation paper as soon as this seems likely to be useful.

  "Farming UK"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much it cost his Department to produce the document "Farming UK"; how many copies have been printed and what were their production costs; and how many have been issued to the public.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The time spent by my officials in preparing "Farming UK" cannot be identified separately from their other work and so no estimate of overall cost is possible. Eight thousand copies of the document were printed at a production cost of £23,396. The document was produced for sale through Her Majesty's Stationery Office at £3.95 and is not being issued free to the public. I understand that because of the large number of sales outlets it would not be possible except at disproportionate cost to say exactly how many copies have so far been bought.

  Food Additives
  Mr. Freud
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require caterers to declare the presence of non-dairy whitener as a milk substitute;

  (2) whether he will seek to amend the law so that beverages containing tea powder and non-dairy whitener will cease to be able to be sold as tea; and what representations he has received regarding the sale of such a beverage as British Rail tea.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The labelling of food is already covered by the provisions of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984; regulations 28 and 29 relate to food sold at catering establishments. Section 6 of the Food Act 1984 makes a false or misleading description of food an offence. Enforcement is a matter for local authorities. I have had no representations about the beverages sold by British Rail.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Professor Colin Blakemore
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if Professor Colin Blakemore has received any support from the Medical Research Council since 1976.

  Mr. Walden
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary schools closed since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table shows, by local education authority, the number of primary and secondary schools approved for closure by me or my predecessors or determined by local education authorities, in the period from August 1980, when the Education Act 1980 came into force, to December 1986.

  School Closures

  (August 1980—December 1986)

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Avon

  16

  2

  18

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  1

  1

  Barnsley

  11

  —

  11

  Bedfordshire

  16

  1

  17

  Berkshire

  9

  8

  17

  Bexley

  2

  3

  5

  Birmingham

  14

  20

  34

  Bolton

  4

  6

  10

  Bradford

  8

  —

  8

  Brent

  1

  —

  1

  Bromley

  4

  4

  8

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  4

  19

  Bury

  3

  3

  6

  Calderdale

  4

  1

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  2

  23

  Cheshire

  24

  5

  29

  Cleveland

  15

  5

  20

  Cornwall

  12

  —

  12

  Coventry

  8

  2

  10

  Croydon

  1

  9

  10

  58

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Cumbria

  21

  3

  24

  Derbyshire

  16

  2

  18

  Devon

  7

  8

  15

  Doncaster

  7

  —

  7

  Dorset

  9

  3

  12

  Dudley

  8

  2

  10

  Durham

  14

  3

  17

  Ealing

  2

  3

  5

  East Sussex

  6

  —

  6

  Enfield

  1

  4

  5

  Essex

  18

  1

  19

  Gateshead

  2

  1

  3

  Gloucestershire

  14

  3

  17

  Hampshire

  39

  5

  44

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  2

  2

  Havering

  —

  1

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  25

  —

  25

  Hertfordshire

  16

  10

  26

  Hillingdon

  —

  2

  2

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  42

  4

  46

  ILEA

  9

  14

  23

  Isle of Wight

  2

  —

  2

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  11

  5

  16

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2

  1

  3

  Kirklees

  9

  1

  10

  Knowsley

  2

  14

  16

  Lancashire

  23

  6

  29

  Leeds

  5

  3

  8

  Leicestershire

  14

  2

  16

  Lincolnshire

  50

  1

  51

  Liverpool

  5

  31

  36

  Manchester

  26

  14

  40

  Merton

  1

  2

  3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  4

  7

  Newham

  1

  —

  1

  Norfolk

  57

  1

  58

  North Tyneside

  3

  1

  4

  North Yorkshire

  25

  8

  33

  Northamptonshire

  5

  —

  5

  Northumberland

  9

  2

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  6

  22

  Oldham

  7

  2

  9

  Oxfordshire

  16

  6

  22

  Redbridge

  2

  2

  4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2

  —

  2

  Rochdale

  2

  1

  3

  Rothcrham

  1

  2

  3

  Salford

  4

  3

  7

  Salop

  17

  1

  18

  Sandwell

  2

  2

  4

  Sefton

  6

  3

  9

  Sheffield

  13

  8

  21

  Solihull

  4

  4

  8

  Somerset

  8

  —

  8

  South Tyneside

  11

  3

  14

  Staffordshire

  35

  8

  43

  St. Helens

  5

  3

  8

  Stockport

  5

  2

  7

  Suffolk

  18

  —

  18

  Sunderland

  6

  5

  11

  Surrey

  18

  8

  26

  Sutton

  —

  2

  2

  Tameside

  2

  4

  6

  Trafford

  6

  —

  6

  Wakefield

  11

  1

  12

  Walsall

  3

  —

  3

  Waltham Forest

  1

  8

  9

  Warwickshire

  11

  2

  13

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  2

  Wigan

  8

  4

  12

  Wiltshire

  13

  —

  13

  Wirral

  9

  7

  16

  Wolverhampton

  4

  1

  5

  59
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing expenditure per pupil for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each local education authority for 1979, 1983 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is given in the following tables. Where n.a. appears in the 1985–86 column, it means that the Department has not yet received a report of the Authority's actual expenditure in that year.

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil

  Primary schools

  1979–80 £

  1983–84 £

  11985–86 £

  Barking

  495

  815

  915

  Barnet

  475

  830

  930

  Bexley

  420

  710

  815

  Brent

  590

  980

  n.a.

  Bromley

  435

  760

  855

  Croydon

  450

  745

  865

  Ealing

  555

  975

  1,050

  Enfield

  425

  705

  775

  Haringey

  605

  1,095

  1,160

  Harrow

  465

  760

  875

  Havering

  435

  740

  825

  Hillingdon

  460

  825

  895

  Hounslow

  500

  890

  965

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  450

  715

  825

  Merton

  520

  780

  n.a.

  Newham

  560

  950

  n.a.

  Redbridge

  435

  745

  835

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  480

  800

  900

  Sutton

  410

  680

  750

  Waltham Forest

  490

  875

  980

  ILEA

  695

  1,210

  n.a.

  Birmingham

  410

  665

  745

  Coventry

  440

  785

  850

  Dudley

  360

  650

  735

  Sandwell

  435

  765

  875

  Solihull

  385

  690

  755

  Walsall

  415

  785

  830

  Wolverhampton

  465

  815

  920

  Knowsley

  415

  770

  845

  Liverpool

  470

  830

  n.a.

  St. Helens

  385

  675

  770

  Sefton

  405

  685

  740

  Wirral

  400

  675

  720

  Bolton

  380

  640

  720

  Bury

  415

  645

  715

  Manchester

  520

  785

  905

  Oldham

  405

  700

  815

  Rochdale

  415

  705

  795

  Salford

  400

  725

  790

  Stockport

  375

  670

  740

  Tameside

  405

  715

  815

  Trafford

  400

  685

  735

  Wigan

  390

  690

  785

  Barnsley

  455

  795

  865

  Doncaster

  460

  785

  870

  Rotherham

  395

  700

  800

  Sheffield

  465

  880

  980

  Bradford

  455

  745

  850

  Calderdale

  410

  725

  800

  Kirklees

  390

  665

  785

  Leeds

  480

  720

  795

  Wakefield

  420

  765

  875

  Gateshead

  460

  805

  900

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  520

  875

  930

  North Tyneside

  460

  780

  900

  South Tyneside

  490

  815

  865

  Sunderland

  440

  700

  775

  Isles of Scilly

  630

  1,065

  1,210

  Avon

  420

  700

  780

  Befordshire

  470

  745

  815

  Berkshire

  400

  690

  790

  60

  Primary schools

  1979–80 £

  1983–84 £

  11985–86 £

  Buckinghamshire

  410

  665

  755

  Cambridgeshire

  400

  635

  730

  Cheshire

  400

  680

  760

  Cleveland

  430

  710

  795

  Cornwall

  370

  640

  710

  Cumbria

  405

  715

  775

  Derbyshire

  395

  690

  780

  Devon

  390

  645

  725

  Dorset

  400

  685

  770

  Durham

  440

  715

  825

  East Sussex

  415

  690

  760

  Essex

  380

  645

  730

  Gloucestershire

  400

  660

  740

  Hampshire

  380

  645

  730

  Hereford and Worcester

  385

  640

  745

  Hertfordshire

  440

  695

  780

  Humberside

  415

  775

  865

  Isle of Wight

  415

  695

  730

  Kent

  375

  620

  695

  Lancashire

  365

  635

  720

  Leicestershire

  400

  725

  805

  Lincolnshire

  385

  635

  720

  Norfolk

  410

  680

  760

  North Yorkshire

  420

  705

  775

  Northamptonshire

  380

  670

  740

  Northumberland

  420

  690

  755

  Nottinghamshire

  385

  760

  840

  Oxfordshire

  420

  730

  815

  Salop

  370

  675

  765

  Somerset

  370

  630

  700

  Staffordshire

  430

  755

  815

  Suffolk

  420

  700

  770

  Surrey

  400

  655

  730

  Warwickshire

  385

  670

  765

  West Sussex

  375

  610

  705

  Wiltshire

  390

  645

  745

  1 Provisional.

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil—Secondary schools

  1979–80 (£)

  1983–84 (£)

  11985–86 (£)

  Barking

  715

  1,090

  1,260

  Barnet

  690

  1,190

  1,330

  Bexley

  630

  1,030

  1,195

  Brent

  785

  1,365

  n.a.

  Bromley

  660

  1,090

  1,255

  Croydon

  670

  1,140

  1,355

  Ealing

  720

  1,220

  1,460

  Enfield

  605

  1,055

  1,245

  Haringey

  760

  1,475

  1,710

  Harrow

  745

  1,200

  1,340

  Havering

  670

  1,135

  1,325

  Hillindon

  665

  1,175

  1,315

  Hounslow

  685

  1,140

  1,405

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  630

  1,055

  1,325

  Merton

  660

  970

  n.a.

  Newham

  730

  1,340

  n.a.

  Redbridge

  660

  1,125

  1,290

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  630

  1,040

  1,200

  Sutton

  605

  1,000

  1,135

  Waltham Forest

  785

  1,305

  1,540

  ILEA

  925

  1,755

  n.a.

  Birmingham

  615

  980

  1,175

  Coventry

  630

  1,065

  1,310

  Dudley

  545

  935

  1,125

  Sandwell

  630

  1,045

  1,230

  Solihull

  570

  915

  1,115

  Walsall

  600

  1,055

  1,185

  Wolverhampton

  635

  1,070

  1,225

  Knowsley

  640

  1,140

  1,320

  Liverpool

  675

  1,105

  n.a.

  St Helens

  605

  990

  1,150

  Sefton

  590

  985

  1,125

  61

  1979–80 (£)

  1983–84 (£)

  11985–86 (£)

  Wirral

  580

  990

  1,125

  Bolton

  575

  965

  1,115

  Bury

  595

  1,010

  1,175

  Manchester

  770

  1,190

  1,425

  Oldham

  575

  925

  1,095

  Rochdale

  650

  1,115

  1,275

  Salford

  630

  1,025

  1,200

  Stockport

  560

  945

  1,115

  Tameside

  580

  975

  1,160

  Trafford

  550

  965

  1,140

  Wigan

  610

  1,045

  1,230

  Barnsley

  620

  990

  1,165

  Doncaster

  630

  995

  1,145

  Rotherham

  570

  925

  1,070

  Sheffield

  635

  1,115

  1,260

  Bradford

  540

  890

  1,085

  Calderdale

  565

  940

  1,110

  Kirklees

  540

  870

  1,055

  Leeds

  490

  920

  1,060

  Wakefield

  540

  915

  1,090

  Gateshead

  600

  975

  1,185

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  695

  1,195

  1,345

  North Tyneside

  610

  1,060

  1,295

  South Tyneside

  650

  1,050

  1,255

  Sunderland

  615

  970

  1,150

  Isles of Scilly

  920

  1,360

  1,875

  Avon

  580

  1,020

  1,160

  Bedfordshire

  610

  985

  1,140

  Berkshire

  575

  980

  1,150

  Buckinghamshire

  625

  1,010

  1,140

  Cambridgeshire

  590

  920

  1,040

  Cheshire

  580

  940

  1,090

  Cleveland

  610

  1,005

  1,175

  Cornwall

  555

  915

  1,045

  Cumbria

  585

  990

  1,095

  Derbyshire

  565

  950

  1,125

  Devon

  545

  925

  1,095

  Dorset

  560

  930

  1,030

  Durham

  570

  905

  1,095

  Pupil/Teacher Ratios1

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1979

  1983

  1986

  Barking

  22·3

  21·6

  21·1

  18·6

  15·9

  15·8

  Barnet

  21·5

  20·2

  20·1

  18·1

  14·6

  14·5

  Bexley

  25·1

  24·3

  23·3

  20·6

  16·8

  16·5

  Brent

  18·7

  18·4

  18·5

  16·0

  13·5

  12·0

  Bromley

  24·5

  23·4

  22·9

  20·0

  16·4

  16·2

  Croydon

  23·0

  22·0

  22·0

  19·2

  15·8

  15·2

  Ealing

  20·4

  19·0

  19·7

  18·3

  15·1

  14·6

  Enfield

  24·0

  22·4

  23·0

  19·9

  15·8

  15·3

  Haringey

  20·9

  19·0

  18·6

  18·3

  14·1

  12·6

  Harrow

  22·1

  20·8

  21·1

  18·7

  14·6

  14·6

  Havering

  23·6

  22·9

  22·6

  19·9

  15·7

  15·3

  Hillingdon

  23·0

  22·6

  22·5

  19·4

  16·1

  16·9

  Hounslow

  21·9

  20·1

  19·8

  18·5

  15·5

  15·2

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  22·1

  22·4

  22·1

  18·8

  16·4

  14·9

  Merton

  22·2

  22·4

  21·8

  19·1

  17·5

  17·0

  Newham

  21·4

  21·1

  20·4

  18·6

  15·1

  13·5

  Redbridge

  24·1

  23·5

  23·9

  20·2

  16·2

  15·9

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  22·2

  21·1

  20·8

  19·6

  16·5

  15·8

  Sutton

  24·0

  24·7

  24·9

  20·0

  17·1

  16·9

  Waltham Forest

  22·4

  21·1

  20·9

  18·1

  14·0

  13·6

  Inner London

  18·7

  17·4

  17·2

  16·7

  13·8

  12·8

  Birmingham

  23·9

  24·0

  22·7

  19·8

  17·4

  16·3

  Coventry

  22·7

  22·3

  22·1

  19·1

  16·6

  15·2

  Dudley

  25·5

  23·2

  22·8

  21·6

  16·5

  14·9

  Sandwell

  24·4

  22·7

  22·4

  19·7

  15·7

  14·9

  Solihull

  23·5

  23·0

  22·8

  19·5

  16·9

  16·1

  Walsall

  22·6

  20·8

  20·6

  18·9

  15·0

  14·6

  Wolverhampton

  21·1

  19·3

  19·3

  18·2

  15·2

  14·7

  Knowsley

  23·4

  22·1

  21·3

  19·4

  15·8

  14·5

  Liverpool

  21·1

  20·7

  20·6

  18·4

  16·6

  14·9

  62

  1979–80 (£)

  1983–84 (£)

  11985–86 (£)

  East Sussex

  600

  950

  1,085

  Essex

  570

  955

  1,115

  Gloucestershire

  555

  950

  1,095

  Hampshire

  565

  930

  1,065

  Hereford and Worcester

  560

  865

  1,060

  Hertfordshire

  650

  1,020

  1,180

  Humberside

  570

  975

  1,125

  Isle of Wight

  535

  895

  1,030

  Kent

  545

  895

  1,015

  Lancashire

  575

  940

  1,095

  Leicestershire

  585

  1,025

  1,205

  Lincolnshire

  580

  935

  1,025

  Norfolk

  575

  960

  1,095

  North Yorkshire

  590

  970

  1,110

  Northamptonshire

  570

  960

  1,110

  Northumberland

  570

  925

  1,075

  Nottinghamshire

  575

  1,030

  1,220

  Oxfordshire

  590

  1,010

  1,190

  Salop

  575

  965

  1,125

  Somerset

  530

  890

  1,040

  Staffordshire

  600

  970

  1,125

  Suffolk

  525

  915

  1,030

  Surrey

  590

  965

  1,110

  Warwickshire

  570

  930

  1,085

  West Sussex

  540

  900

  1,060

  Wiltshire

  560

  935

  1,055

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the pupil-teacher ratios for each local education authority for 1979, 1983 and 1986 for (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in 1979, 1983 and 1986 were as follows:
  63

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1979

  1983

  1986

  St. Helens

  23·8

  23·1

  22·2

  19·9

  15·8

  15·1

  Sefton

  23·6

  22·2

  23·3

  20·1

  16·7

  16·6

  Wirral

  24·2

  23·1

  23·6

  20·4

  16·2

  16·0

  Bolton

  25·2

  24·0

  23·8

  20·6

  16·2

  15·6

  Bury

  23·5

  23·0

  22·3

  19·8

  15·8

  15·2

  Manchester

  21·9

  22·6

  21·5

  18·0

  15·4

  13·8

  Oldham

  25·2

  23·6

  22·8

  21·3

  17·4

  16·4

  Rochdale

  22·9

  22·4

  22·2

  18·6

  15·0

  14·6

  Salford

  23·5

  21·5

  21·6

  19·3

  15·7

  15·0

  Stockport

  26·3

  23·5

  23·0

  21·4

  16·4

  16·0

  Tameside

  24·1

  23·2

  23·3

  20·1

  16·2

  15·8

  Trafford

  22·2

  23·0

  22·9

  19·1

  16·5

  16·3

  Wigan

  22·6

  21·3

  21·1

  19·0

  15·3

  15·0

  Barnsley

  23·6

  21·5

  21·6

  20·0

  16·7

  15·8

  Doncaster

  22·2

  21·3

  21·5

  19·3

  16·3

  16·5

  Rotherham

  24·0

  22·7

  21·3

  20·4

  17·0

  16·3

  Sheffield

  21·8

  20·7

  20·0

  19·1

  15·9

  15·1

  Bradford

  20·4

  20·3

  20·5

  18·7

  18·2

  16·4

  Calderdale

  23·7

  21·7

  21·8

  20·6

  17·2

  16·1

  Kirklees

  23·6

  22·1

  21·9

  20·5

  17·3

  16·3

  Leeds

  24·6

  23·0

  21·4

  20·3

  16·8

  16·0

  Wakefield

  23·3

  22·9

  21·4

  20·3

  17·8

  16·3

  Gateshead

  21·2

  19·3

  19·5

  18·8

  16·7

  15·2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  18·7

  18·2

  19·1

  16·4

  14·3

  14·5

  North Tyneside

  21·1

  20·1

  18·6

  17·9

  15·0

  13·8

  South Tyneside

  20·3

  19·9

  20·7

  18·0

  15·4

  14·4

  Sunderland

  23·5

  22·3

  22·0

  19·8

  16·3

  15·6

  Isles of Scilly

  15·3

  14·2

  12·3

  13·3

  11·5

  10·0

  Avon

  24·2

  23·9

  24·2

  20·1

  16·7

  16·6

  Bedfordshire

  21·6

  22·9

  22·5

  18·8

  17·6

  17·4

  Berkshire

  23·8

  22·9

  23·3

  19·9

  16·4

  16·0

  Buckinghamshire

  24·2

  24·1

  24·4

  20·8

  16·4

  16·2

  Cambridgeshire

  23·3

  23·6

  23·4

  19·7

  16·8

  16·7

  Cheshire

  23·5

  22·6

  22·7

  20·0

  16·8

  17·0

  Cleveland

  23·4

  21·8

  22·3

  20·3

  16·4

  15·9

  Cornwall

  24·2

  23·6

  23·5

  20·2

  16·9

  16·6

  Cumbria

  23·1

  21·5

  21·2

  19·5

  16·2

  15·5

  Derbyshire

  23·7

  22·3

  22·3

  20·4

  17·2

  16·2

  Devon

  24·3

  23·3

  23·6

  20·9

  17·0

  16·6

  Dorset

  23·7

  23·4

  23·4

  20·2

  17·1

  16·9

  Durham

  21·5

  21·7

  22·1

  19·1

  17·0

  16·7

  East Sussex

  23·4

  22·0

  22·9

  20·1

  17·3

  16·9

  Essex

  24·8

  24·1

  23·9

  20·9

  17·3

  17·0

  Gloucestershire

  23·4

  23·0

  22·9

  20·1

  17·1

  16·6

  Hampshire

  24·6

  24·0

  23·5

  20·4

  17·0

  16·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  24·2

  25·0

  24·0

  20·2

  18·0

  16·9

  Hertfordshire

  22·5

  22·4

  22·2

  18·8

  16·2

  15·9

  Humberside

  22·1

  20·9

  21·3

  19·0

  16·3

  15·9

  Isle of Wight

  23·9

  23·0

  23·9

  20·3

  18·1

  17·6

  Kent

  24·3

  23·9

  23·9

  20·6

  17·3

  16·8

  Lancashire

  24·7

  23·8

  23·7

  20·2

  16·6

  16·4

  Leicestershire

  23·3

  22·8

  23·1

  19·3

  16·3

  15·6

  Lincolnshire

  23·7

  24·8

  24·3

  20·2

  17·1

  16·9

  Norfolk

  22·8

  22·2

  22·3

  20·4

  16·7

  16·4

  North Yorkshire

  22·5

  22·0

  22·1

  19·5

  16·7

  16·5

  Northamptonshire

  24·4

  22·3

  22·2

  20·1

  16·7

  15·9

  Northumberland

  23·4

  23·0

  23·3

  19·5

  17·6

  16·5

  Nottinghamshire

  24·7

  21·6

  20·8

  20·3

  16·2

  15·4

  Oxfordshire

  24·2

  24·2

  23·3

  20·5

  17·4

  17·0

  Shropshire

  23·8

  21·9

  21·8

  19·9

  16·3

  15·8

  Somerset

  24·6

  24·6

  23·9

  21·3

  18·3

  17·4

  Staffordshire

  23·2

  22·0

  22·8

  19·8

  16·4

  16·5

  Suffolk

  23·4

  22·2

  22·4

  20·2

  17·2

  17·0

  Surrey

  21·9

  22·1

  21·8

  19·2

  16·4

  16·0

  Warwickshire

  23·1

  22·4

  22·4

  20·2

  17·1

  16·7

  West Sussex

  24·3

  23·3

  23·3

  20·9

  17·2

  16·7

  Wiltshire

  23·9

  23·7

  23·2

  20·6

  17·2

  17·2

  1 Within schools. Middle schools are included with primary and secondary schools as deemed.

  School Playing Fields (Sale)
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the number of schools which have sold playing fields following his Department's circular 909 (1981).
  64
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department does not collect information about the disposal of playing fields attached to schools and other educational establishments.

  Teachers' Dispute
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the total cost of resources available in schools but unused as a result of the teachers' strike, since the strike began.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available. In each of the last two weeks, between 1 and 2 per cent. of schools have been affected by strike action.

  Handicapped Pupils
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the numbers of ancillary staff provided in schools by local education authorities to look after the special needs of handicapped pupils for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is collected only for special schools. The numbers of full-time and part-time ancillary staff employed in maintained special schools in England in each year since 1981 are as follows:

  January each year

  Number of ancillary staff

  1981

  8,268

  1982

  8,036

  1983

  8,308

  1984

  8,693

  1985

  9,086

  1986

  110,577

  1 Child care staff in residential schools and non-teaching assistants

  GCSE
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 26 February, Official Report, column 351, the discussions which are being held with GCSE examining groups, local education authorities and teachers' associations have been concluded; and if additional expenditure for future funding of the GCSE directly has been specified.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The first round of discussions with the teachers' associations has now been completed. The information obtained from these, meetings with LEA officers, and monitoring exercises conducted by Her Majesty's Inspector is being analysed. There will be further discussions later in the year to update the information. At this stage it is too early to judge whether resources are needed additional to the substantial provisio for GCSE already made, as detailed in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 31 March at columns 447 and 448.

  School Governors (Annual Report)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the refusal of certain local education authorities to pay the incidental expenses, such as paper, typing and duplication, incurred by school governors in producing and distributing the annual report to parents.

  Mr. Dunn
  I have received one such representation, which is currently being investigated.

  Teachers (Cost)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the notional cost of a teacher on 1 September 1986; what is the current cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average cost of a teacher—salary including allowances, and employers national insurance and superannuation contributions — in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales on 1 September 1986 is estimated to be £13,240 per annum.

  The Government's pay proposals would increase that figure to £14,330 from 1 January 1987, and to £15"410 from 1 October 1987.

  Ealing (Schools)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will direct the Ealing education authority under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 to take steps to reopen borough schools; and it- he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The department has been monitoring the effects on educational provision in this area of the Ealing local education authority's dispute with NALGO. We understand that this dispute has now been settled and that the situation is returning to normal. Therefore the question of a direction does not arise.

  Incentive Allowances
  Mr. Hickmet
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will give local education authorities the relevant rules, or information from which they can draft such rules, for the allocation of incentive allowances amongst schools following the ending of the Burnham negotiations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will be issuing a paper about the new £500 incentive allowances before Easter.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the percentage of students in higher education who are living other than in the parental home in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other OECD countries.

  Mr. Walden
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 April 1987, c. 527]: Information is not available for the whole of higher education. In 1984–85, 92 per cent. of mandatory award-holders (excluding those with minimum awards for whom the information is not collected) from England and Wales studying in the United Kingdom, were living away from the parental home. The figure for Scotland for all mandatory award holders was 62 per cent. Comparable information is not available for OECD countries.

THE ARTS

  National Maritime Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts (1) why the office of the director of the National Maritime museum was redecorated twice in the last two years; and what was the cost of each redecoration:
  67
  (2) how many National Maritime museum posts, in which appointments and in which specialities, have been disbanded in the last two years;

  (3) how many National Maritime museum posts, in which appointments and in which specialities, are to be disbanded in the present year;

  (4) which National Maritime museum appointments, and in which specialities, navigation, charts, ship plans, are being abandoned and which amalgamated; and whether he will take steps to ensure that any such amalgamations do not damage the specialist work in the respective areas.

  Mr. Luce
  I am in touch with the director of the National Maritime museum and will write to hon. Member shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of raising the tax threshold to (a) supplementary benefit levels, (b) supplementary benefit levels, including housing costs and (c) family income supplement levels.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Broad estimates of the direct revenue effect—in a full year at 1987–88 levels of income —of changing tax thresholds are as follows:

  Taxpayers and income lax payable by range of total income1, 1987–88

  At basic rate

  At rates in excess over basic rate

  Total income1 Lower limit

  Number of tax units2 3

  Amount of tax4

  Number of tax units2

  Amount of tax

  Average rate of tax on all incomes

  Average tax on all incomes

  £ pa

  millions

  £ billion

  millions

  £ billion

  per cent.

  £ thousand

  2,425

  3·2

  0·9

  0

  0

  7·5

  280

  5,000

  3·2

  2·4

  0

  0

  12·5

  740

  7,000

  4·4

  5·2

  0

  0

  140

  1,200

  10,000

  5·3

  9·7

  0

  0

  15·0

  1,850

  15,000

  2·7

  7·5

  0

  0

  16·5

  2,800

  20,000

  1·6

  7·3

  0·6

  0·2

  19·5

  4,650

  30,000

  0·8

  7·6

  0·6

  2·9

  31·0

  14,150

  All ranges

  21·2

  40·6

  1·2

  3·1

  17·5

  2,080

  1 Total income for income tax purposes.

  2 Counting married couples as one and combining their incomes.

  3 Including taxpayers who also pay at higher rates.

  4 Includes tax at composite rate.

  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1987 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply of 28 April 1986 to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), Official Report, columns 326–8.
  68

  Yield/Cost

  (a) to supplementary benefit ordinary scale rates plus appropriate child additions

  Yield £6 billion

  (b) to supplementary benefit ordinary scale rates plus appropriate child additions and average housing costs

  Cost £2¼ billion

  (c) to family income supplement prescribed amounts for families with children and to levels increased by the same proportion for families without children

  Cost £6½ billion

  Detailed costs of the changes relating to supplementary benefit could be made only at disproportionate cost because entitlement to supplementary benefit depends upon a range of factors related to individual family circumstances. In the above costings, income tax reliefs other than personal allowances have been assumed to remain unchanged.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his forecast for 1987–88 of the amount of income tax payable by range of income on the same basis as that shown in table 5.11 of the latest edition of "Social Trends"; and if he will add a table for all indirect taxes, including rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates are given in the table below. They are based on a projection of the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable estimates by income range in respect of indirect taxes or rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 216]: The information is given in the table.
  69

  Gains from the Budget proposals for income tax allowances, rates, and thresholds compared with indexation by range of income

  1Range of gross income

  2Tax units as percentage of total liable to tax

  Reduction in income tax liability in 1987–88 from Budget proposals compared with indexation

  £ per year

  Per cent.

  Amount £ million

  As percentage of total Per cent.

  Under 5,000

  15

  60

  3

  5,000 to 7,500

  19

  220

  9

  7,500 to 10,000

  17

  310

  12

  10,000 to 12,500

  14

  360

  14

  12,500 to 15,000

  11

  330

  13

  15,000 to 20,000

  13

  530

  21

  20,000 to 30,000

  7

  490

  19

  30,000 to 50,000

  3

  200

  8

  Above 50,000

  1

  30

  1

  All

  100

  2,530

  100

  1 Income for income tax purposes

  2 That is counting married couples as one and combining their incomes.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost in lost tax revenue of an individual male and an individual female unemployed person in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to estimate the cost in lost tax revenue.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table for each year since 1971 showing the tax-free income for each of a one-, two-, three-and four-child family, including chidren aged between 11 years and 16 years and over 16 years, family income and supplementary beneft entitlement levels, including average housing costs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tables show break-even points measured as a percentage of family income supplement prescribed amounts and supplementary benefits ordinary scale rates — plus average housing costs. Break-even points are the levels of taxable income at which a net liability to tax arises after deducting receipt of child benefit from payment of income tax.

  Weekly break-even points as a percentage of FIS prescribed amounts in April of each year5

  1 earner couple

  with one child1

  with two children2

  with three children3

  with four children4

  1971–72

  85·1

  101·1

  117·9

  134·5

  1972–73

  93·4

  107·0

  122·0

  137·1

  1973–74

  89·3

  100·2

  112·5

  124·6

  1974–75

  98·8

  111·2

  124·6

  137·6

  1975–76

  91·9

  104·9

  117·6

  129·8

  1976–77

  84·6

  97·7

  110·2

  122·0

  1977–78

  89·0

  99·7

  110·3

  120·5

  1978–79

  95·2

  109·7

  121·3

  132·2

  1979–80

  110·1

  128·0

  143·2

  156·2

  1980–81

  99·1

  115·2

  129·2

  141·3

  1981–82

  86·1

  100·2

  111·8

  121·6

  1982–83

  88·2

  101·8

  113·0

  122·4

  1983–84

  89·7

  103·1

  114·1

  123·2

  1984–85

  96·8

  110·4

  121·5

  130·7

  1985–86

  99·4

  112·5

  123·2

  132·1

  1986–87

  97·1

  109·2

  118·0

  124·3

  1987–88

  99·1

  112·5

  122·3

  129·3

  70
  1 Aged under 11.

  2 Two children aged under 11.

  3 Two children aged under, one aged 11–15.

  4 Two children aged under 11, one aged 11–15, one aged 16.

  5For 1971–72, the FIS prescribed amounts relate to the introductory levels of FIS in August 1971.

  Weekly break-even points as a percentage of supplementary benefit ordinary scale rates (plus average housing costs) in April of each year.

  1 earner couple

  With one child1

  With two children2

  With three children3

  With four children4

  1971–72

  120·3

  139·0

  155·0

  163·2

  1972–73

  133·5

  147·2

  158·7

  161·7

  1973–74

  122·1

  133·7

  143·7

  145·5

  1974–75

  119·9

  132·3

  142·5

  144·7

  1975–76

  95·9

  107·8

  116·5

  118·6

  1976–77

  97·5

  110·0

  118·9

  120·9

  1977–78

  110·4

  118·5

  123·4

  122·0

  1978–79

  118·7

  130·8

  136·0

  133·9

  1979–80

  132·9

  147·5

  154·8

  152·4

  1980–81

  120·7

  133·4

  140·1

  138·0

  1981–82

  102·0

  116·1

  121·2

  121·8

  1982–83

  105·2

  119·3

  124·3

  124·7

  1983–84

  109·0

  123·0

  127·6

  127·7

  1984–85

  114·0

  128·2

  133·0

  133·1

  1985·865

  116·8

  130·5

  134·8

  134·5

  1986–875

  117·7

  131·5

  135·8

  135·5

  1987–885

  119·9

  135·3

  140·5

  140·9

  1 Aged under 11.

  2 Two children aged under 11.

  3 Two children aged under 11, one aged 11–15.

  4 Two children aged under 11, one aged 11–15, one aged 16

  5 Provisional.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) two-earner families with a wife's earnings election and (b) other higher-rate taxpayers by tax category, his estimate of the number and distribution of incomes, together with the average unearned income and average amount of mortgage interest relief in each income band in each category in the next financial year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 213]: Information is given in the tables. The estimates are based on a projection from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.
  71

  Distribution of total income, 1987–88 For Higher Rate Tax Payers1

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earnings

  Range of total income Lower limit

  Number of incomes

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2

  Number of incomes

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2

  £ pa)

  ('000s)

  (£)

  (£)

  ('000s)

  (£)

  (£)

  20,000

  65

  9,100

  610

  60

  5,300

  350

  25,000

  55

  9,600

  1,160

  100

  3,400

  950

  30,000

  25

  12,300

  1,390

  50

  4,600

  1,250

  35,000

  10

  13,000

  1,430

  35

  7,200

  1,400

  40,000

  20

  14,700

  1,220

  45

  7,300

  1,550

  50,000

  25

  34,700

  1,770

  55

  19,900

  1,750

  Two-earner married couples

  Without a wife's earnings election

  With a wife's earnings election

  Range of total income Lower limit

  Number of incomes

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2

  Number of incomes

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  (£)

  (£)

  ('000s)

  (£)

  (£)

  20,000

  55

  3,200

  300

  0

  0

  0

  25,000

  225

  2,300

  750

  50

  1,450

  300

  30,000

  90

  3,700

  1,200

  110

  1,800

  800

  35,000

  40

  5,300

  1,300

  70

  3,500

  950

  40,000

  30

  6,000

  1,500

  50

  4,100

  1,200

  50,000

  30

  14,200

  1,800

  50

  10,600

  1,550

  1 Includes some 130 thousand tax units that are taken out of higher-rate tax following the wife's earnings election.

  2 Average based on those having investment income or mortgage relief as appropriate.

  TUC and National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1978–79, an estimate for 1986–87 and a forecast for 1987–88 of the percentage of income paid in income tax and national insurance on the same basis as in table 5.12 of the latest edition of "Social Trends".

  Percentage of income paid in income tax and national insurance contributions1

  Half average earnings2

  Average earnings2

  Twice average earnings2

  Tax

  NIC

  Tax

  NIC

  Tax

  NIC

  Single Person

  1978–793

  15·8

  6·5

  24·4

  6·5

  28·7

  4·5

  1986–87

  14·6

  7·0

  21·8

  9·0

  25·4

  7·1

  1987–88

  13·9

  7·0

  20·3

  9·0

  23·7

  6·9

  Married couple*

  1978–793

  7·8

  6·5

  20·3

  6·5

  26·7

  4·5

  1986–87

  6·4

  7·0

  17·7

  9·0

  23·4

  7·1

  1987–88

  6·5

  7·0

  16·8

  9·0

  21·9

  6·9

  1 Employee's contributions. Assumes contributions at Class 1, contracted in standard rate.

  2 Earnings are average earnings for full-time adult male manual employees working a full week.

  3 Average earnings for 1978–79 are based on males aged 21 or over, and on males paid at adult rates for 1986–87 and 1987–88. Average earnings for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are estimated by assuming increases of 7½ and 6½ per cent, respectively on the previous years in line with the assumptions used by the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions (paragraph 3.02 autumn statement).

  4 Assuming no wife's earnings.

  72
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is contained in the table. As requested, the figures are on the same basis as those in table 5.12 of "Social Trends", No. 17, and therefore the estimates for 1978–79 are not strictly comparable with those for 1986–87 and 1987–88 because of the change in the definition of a manual worker (see footnote 3).

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Maples
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable income of a married man with two children and a wife who does not work at constant prices in 1978–79; and what is the predicted figure for 1986–87 (i) at half average earnings, (ii) at 75 per cent. average earnings, (iii) at 100 per cent. average earnings, (iv) at 150 per cent. average earnings and (v) at 200 per cent. average earnings.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is given in the table below. Average earnings are those for a man in full-time work paid at adult rates whose pay is not affected by absence. It has been assumed that the only tax relief or allowance available to the married couple is the married man's allowance. Net disposable income is taken to be gross income plus child benefit less income tax and national insurance contributions, assumed to be at the contracted-in rates.

  Net disposable income of a married man with two children and a wife who does not work (£ per week) Multiple of Average Earnings

  1978–79 £ per week

  1986–87 £ per week

  0·5

  At current prices

  45·27

  100·68

  At 1986–87 prices

  87·53

  100·68

  0·75

  At current prices

  59·41

  133·75

  At 1986–87 prices

  114·97

  133·75

  1

  At current prices

  73·45

  166·83

  At 1986–87 prices

  142·02

  166·83

  1·5

  At current prices

  102·77

  236·14

  At 1986–87 prices

  198·71

  236·14

  2

  At current prices

  133·86

  309·07

  At 1986–87 prices

  258·82

  309·07

  Benefits (Taxation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue yields in 1987–88 of the taxation of benefits other than unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue yield from the taxation of retirement pension, widows' benefits and invalid care allowance is estimated to be £1,500 million for 1987–88.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those with and those without investment income in 1985–86 the numbers in each income band benefiting from mortgage interest relief; and if he will provide an estimate for 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the tables. The estimates are based on projections of the 1983, 1984 and 1985 family expenditure surveys and are therefore provisional.
  74

  Tax units1 receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income—1985–86

  (thousands)

  Range of total income (£'000)

  Without investment income

  With investment income

  Total

  Under 4

  330

  360

  690

  4 to 5

  40

  70

  110

  5 to 6

  70

  140

  210

  6 to 7

  100

  220

  320

  7 to 8

  130

  310

  440

  8 to 9

  160

  420

  580

  9 to 10

  160

  470

  630

  10 to 12

  300

  950

  1,250

  12 to 15

  310

  1,180

  1,490

  15 to 20

  210

  1,130

  1,340

  20 to 25

  40

  390

  430

  25 to 30

  20

  210

  230

  Over 30

  20

  260

  280

  All

  1,890

  6,110

  8,000

  1 Single persons and married couples and including about 500,000 non-taxpaying units.

  Tax units1 receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income—1987–88

  (thousands)

  Range of total income (£'000)

  Without investment income

  With investment income

  Total2

  Under 4

  310

  340

  650

  4 to 5

  30

  70

  100

  5 to 6

  40

  100

  140

  6 to 7

  70

  140

  210

  7 to 8

  80

  190

  270

  8 to 9

  100

  270

  370

  9 to 10

  120

  360

  480

  10 to 12

  280

  870

  1,150

  12 to 15

  340

  1,260

  1,600

  15 to 20

  300

  1,600

  1,900

  20 to 25

  70

  660

  730

  25 to 30

  30

  300

  330

  Over 30

  30

  440

  470

  All

  1,800

  6,600

  8,400

  1 Single persons and married couples.

  2 Including about 500,000 non-taxpayers.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations about the administrative charges and fees levied by the managers of personal equity plan funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have received a small number of letters on this subject. Plan managers' charges can differ significantly, and potential investors would be well advised to shop around.

  Experimental Performance Bonus Scheme
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer., pursuant to the answer of 10 March, Official Report, column 142, if he will detail the terms and criteria for payments available under the experimental performance bonus scheme to Inland Revenue officers who are in direct contact with the public; how much has been actually paid out in 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There are no special terms or criteria for bonus payments to officers who are in direct
  75
  contact with the public. Most eligible staff have contacts with the public to some extent. I am arranging to place in the House of Commons Library a copy of a statement setting out details of the performance bonus scheme as operated in the Inland Revenue in 1986–87 across the whole field of eligible staff. The total amount paid out in awards in 1986–87 was £508,740.

  Students
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward legislation to remove the difference in tax treatment of students supported by grants and students supported by parental contribution while on higher education courses.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the normal way there is no difference in the tax treatment of students who receive grants either from their parents or from local authorities. Local authority maintenance grants to students are not liable to tax; nor are ordinary — non-covenanted —parental contributions to students' maintenance.

  If the parent makes his contribution in the form of payments under a deed of covenant, the tax position is that the parent normally obtains tax relief for the payments by deducting basic rate tax from them. The payments form part of the student's taxable income, and by setting his personal allowances against them he may be entitled to repayment of the tax deducted at source.

  European Commission (Infrastructure Strategy)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the European Commission medium term infrastructure strategy will include powers to enable the Commission to guarantee loans to major construction projects.

  Mr. Brooke
  A recent European Commission communication on the financing of major Community infrastructure projects includes a proposal on Community budget guarantees for loans from the European Investment Bank. No date has yet been set for a discussion on the communication.

  VAT
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate by how much the standard rate of value added tax could be reduced to produce the same revenue if all current zero rated and exempted items were liable.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on 23 January at column 707.

  Financial Services (VAT)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield in 1987–88 of extending value added tax to all financial services at present exempt under (a) European Economic Community rules and (b) otherwise; and if he will provide a breakdown by service.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the cost to the Exchequer of an increase of £100 in each of the allowances at the standard rate of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  VAT Inputs Frauds
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to give the latest information with regard to the precise or estimated amounts of value added tax inputs frauds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Forestry
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance was given to the National Audit Office by the Forestry Commission in compiling the details of expected internal rates of return for various types of forest plantation published as appendix 4 of the NAO report, "Review of Forestry Commission Objectives and Achievements"; and what economic model was used to calculate these returns.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, "Review of Forestry Commission objectives and achievements" (HC 75), to the Public Accounts Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, made clear that the Forestry Commission provided the National Audit Office with planting and restocking models representative of the current planting programme. Appendix 4 of the report summarises the returns likely to be achieved for typical plantations.

  Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update for 1987–88 the information on the extra revenue resulting from allowing all tax allowances and reliefs at the standard rate only, provided in his reply of 1 May 1986 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Official Report, column 479–80.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Central Office of Information (Survey Research)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the sum expended on survey research by the Central Office of Information in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing in the case of the wife's earnings election the estimated cost to the Exchequer in the next

  77
  financial year, together with tables showing (a) the estimated loss of tax in terms of each combined gross income band and (b) for (i) husbands and (ii) wives, the numbers assessed separately by range of income together with the gross amount of income and the gross amount of unearned income;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the next financial year information concerning wife's earned income allowance on the same basis as given in his reply of 24 July 1986, Official Report, at column 467.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his replies of 23 March 1987, c. 41 and 27 March 1987. c. 307]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the information on the wife's earnings election in column 467 of the Official Report of 24 July 1986.

  Estimates for 1987–88 of the numbers of elections, the direct revenue costs, and the levels of incomes expected are in the tables. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Table 1—Wife's earnings elections, 1987–88

  Range of joint total income (lower limit) (£ per annum)

  Elections (thousands)

  Direct revenue costs (£ million)

  20,000

  —

  —

  25,000

  50

  10

  30,000

  175

  125

  40,000

  55

  80

  50,000

  50

  185

  Total

  330

  400

  Table 2—Wife's earnings elections, 1987–88 by husband's income

  Range of husband's total income' (lower limit) (£ per annum)

  Elections

  Husband's income

  (thousands)

  Aggregate total income1 (£ million)

  Aggregate investment income (£ million)

  10,000

  10

  160

  15

  15,000

  80

  1,350

  75

  20,000

  160

  3,900

  270

  30,000

  60

  2,070

  220

  50,000

  20

  1,560

  230

  1 Total income is husband's earned income plus husband's investment income.

  Table 3—Wife's earnings elections, 1987–88 by wife's income

  Range of wife's total income1 (lower limit) (£ per annum)

  Elections

  Wife's income

  (thousands)

  Aggregate total income1 (£ million)

  Aggregate investment income (£ million)

  5,000

  100

  810

  15

  10,000

  140

  1,690

  45

  15,000

  50

  860

  55

  20,000

  30

  640

  60

  30,000

  10

  530

  55

  1 Total income is wife's earned income plus wife's investment income.

  Taxable Benefits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for 1987–88 of the taxable value of benefits subject to (i) special and (ii) general rules, together with the estimated revenue therefrom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 215]: Available information, based on projections from 1983–84, the latest year for which detailed data are available, is as follows:

  1987–88,

  Benefit provided by employer

  Taxable value

  Tax yield

  Cars and free fuel for private use

  1,300

  460

  Private medical insurance

  130

  50

  Other expense payments and benefits

  320

  120

  Total

  1,750

  630

  Married Man's Allowance
  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, in the light of the 1987 Budget, the information on the married man's allowance provided in his reply of 14 April 1986 to the hon. Member for Thurrock, Official Report, column 315.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 215]: The direct revenue cost of the married man's allowance in excess of the single person's allowance is estimated to be £4·6 billion in a full year at 1987–88 income levels of which £3·9 billion is attributable to those aged under 65. The extra relief is worth £7·11 per week in 1987–88 to a basic rate taxpayer not entitled to age allowance.

  Income Tax
  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1987–88 the information on real net earnings provided in his reply of 10 April 1986 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 215]: The infomation is as follows :

  Changes in real net earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57 = 100)

  Multiples of average earnings

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  1978–79

  124·9

  125·3

  132·8

  120·1

  108·3

  1987–88

  151·8

  154·9

  165·8

  166·0

  191·0

  Married

  1978–79

  126·8

  123·9

  132·4

  121·1

  109·0

  1987–88

  152·3

  151·8

  165·6

  165·7

  189·6

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Gardiner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the estimated receipts in 1986–87 and the forecast receipts in 1987–88 from excise duties on spirits, beer, wine, made wine, cider and perry, respectively; and if he will explain any differences or special factors.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 630]: The information is as follows:

  79

  1986–87 £ million1

  1987–88 £ million2

  Spirits

  1,500

  1,530

  Beer

  1,970

  2,010

  Wine

  640

  685

  Made wine

  60

  65

  Cider and Perry

  50

  55

  Total

  4,220

  4,345

  1 Latest estimates.

  2 Forecast.

  Companies (Depreciation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1957 the amount set aside by industrial and commercial companies out of profits for depreciation and the amount spent on new plant and equipment.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 395]: Information, taken from the DTI's analysis of the published accounts of industrial and commercial companies in Great Britain, on the amounts set aside for depreciation is given in the table below. There are a number of breaks in the series; the analysis has only covered the whole industrial and commercial company sector since 1977. The accounts used in the analysis are the consolidated annual accounts of industrial and commercial company groups, which may include financial and overseas subsidiaries, and the accounts of independent companies registered in Great Britain. Great Britain subsidiaries of companies registered in Northern Ireland or overseas are also included. Fuller notes on coverage are given in the references.

  Figures of gross domestic fixed capital formation in plant and machinery by industrial and commercial companies are given in the table below. These figures, which are mainly based on inquiries by the Business Statistics Office, include the purchase of new and secondhand assets whereas sales of plant and machinery are deducted. The figures relate to assets located in the United Kingdom and are published annually in the CSO Blue Book—table 10.3 of the 1986 edition. Figures are not available for years prior to 1965.

  Amounts set aside by industrial and commercial companies for depreciation

  £ million

  1957

  393

  1958

  443

  1959

  486

  1960

  560

  1961

  621

  1962

  683

  1963

  749

  1964

  905

  1965

  1,012

  1966

  1,097

  1967

  1,124

  1968

  1,254

  1969

  1,323

  1970

  1,431

  1971

  1,591

  1972

  1,754

  1973

  1,992

  1974

  2,222

  1975

  2,513

  1976

  2,896

  80

  £ million

  1977

  3,217

  New series:

  1977

  5,348

  1978

  6,525

  1979

  7,749

  1980

  8,967

  1981

  10,569

  1982

  10,600

  Large Companies only:

  1983

  9,245

  1984

  11,755

  1957–59:

  Quoted companies only.

  Source: Economic Trends No. 102 April 1962.

  1960–64:

  Quoted and unquoted. All public and some private companies with net assets of £500,000 or more or gross income of £50,000 or more in 1960.

  Source: Business Monitor 2nd and 4th Issues.

  1965–68:

  Based on all public and some private companies with net assets of £500,000 or more or gross income of £50,000 or more in 1964.

  Source: Business Monitor, Misc. 3, 2nd and 4th Issues.

  1969–74:

  Based on companies with net assets of £2 million or more or gross income of £200,000 or more in 1968.

  Source: Business Monitor, Misc. Annual MA3, 11th Issue.

  1975–77:

  Based on net assets of £5 million or more or gross income of £500,000 or more in 1973.

  Source: Business Monitor, MA3, 11th Issue.

  1977–84:

  Based on representative sample of all industrial and commercial companies. Figures for 1983–84 are preliminary estimates based on large companies only and include write-offs.

  Source: Business Monitor, MA3, 12th and 17th Issues.

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation in Plant and Machinery by Industrial and Commercial Companies

  £ million

  1965

  1,313

  1966

  1,392

  1967

  1,397

  1968

  1,545

  1969

  1,688

  1970

  1,957

  1971

  2,013

  1972

  1,980

  1973

  2,315

  1974

  2,899

  1975

  3,525

  1976

  4,446

  1977

  5,502

  1978

  6,839

  1979

  8,094

  1980

  8,507

  1981

  8,174

  1982

  8,825

  1983

  9,458

  1984

  11,244

  1985

  14,611

  1986

  15,632

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the same basis as table 5.1 in the 1986 edition of the United Kingdom national accounts, he will publish in the Official Report separate figures for North sea oil companies showing tax paid on profits due abroad and tax paid on other income.
  81
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 395]: I regret that this information is not available for all taxes.

  Double Taxation Relief

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect of an increase in the rate of corportion tax on double taxation relief on the overseas earnings of company profits; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the amount of double taxation relief in the latest year for which information is available, the amount of tax on which relief was given, and the change in relief consequent on a 1 per cent. increase in corporation tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 396–7]: An increase in the rate of corporation tax would increase the ceiling of United Kingdom tax against which double taxation relief could be claimed and would therefore, depending on the level of the overseas tax, entitle companies to a greater measure of relief.

  The latest year for which information is available on the amount of double taxation relief and foreign taxes paid is

  Females with investment income in 1986–87 by range of total income of female

  Single females

  Married females

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to £1,000 pa

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 but greater than £0 pa

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to £1,000 pa

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 but greater than £0 pa

  Total income lower limit

  Numbers

  Average investment income

  Numbers

  Average investment income

  Numbers

  Average investment income

  Numbers

  Average investment income

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  (£pa)

  2,000

  210

  1,950

  430

  300

  140

  2,060

  290

  240

  5,000

  250

  3,450

  220

  300

  110

  3,720

  220

  230

  10,000

  90

  6,600

  45

  300

  40

  4,360

  90

  260

  15,000

  50

  7,650

  10

  280

  20

  5,970

  15

  350

  20,000

  45

  21,500

  10

  200

  15

  18,300

  5

  290

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the distribution of gross unearned incomes, including tax credits, in the coming financial year by range of income in steps to £1,000 to £20,000 divided between elderly and other taxpayers and between single persons and one-earner and two-earner households.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 214]: The latest available estimates are given in the

  Distribution of investment income 1987–88

  Numbers

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged over 65

  Range of total investment income lower limit

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  (£pa)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  1,000

  320

  140

  330

  165

  100

  60

  2,000

  160

  60

  130

  75

  55

  50

  3,000

  60

  40

  90

  70

  35

  20

  4,000

  30

  20

  70

  40

  25

  30

  5,000

  35

  25

  35

  30

  15

  25

  6,000

  20

  10

  25

  30

  15

  5

  7,000

  10

  10

  25

  20

  5

  5

  8,000

  5

  5

  20

  15

  5

  5

  9,000

  10

  10

  15

  20

  5

  5

  82
  1983 and figures have already been provided to the hon. Member for that year in my reply of 23 March 1987, at column 43. No estimate is available of the effect of a one percentage point change in the main rate of corportion tax on the amount of relief which can be claimed.

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing by personal category and range of income the number of women with gross unearned income of £1,000 a year or more, and those with less, together with the average amount of unearned income in each category.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 41]: The estimates given in the table below are based on a projection from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and they are therefore provisional. Since the survey does not provide comprehensive coverage of investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied at source, the estimates for the ranges other than the higher income ranges are likely to be incomplete.

  table. They are based on a projection from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. Some income ranges have been combined in order to provide reliable estimates. Since the survey does not provide comprehensive coverage of investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied, the estimates for the ranges other than the higher income ranges are likely to be incomplete.
  83

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged over 65

  Range of total investment income lower limit

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  (£ pa)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  10,000

  10

  10

  25

  20

  10

  15

  12,000

  10

  10

  20

  15

  5

  10

  15,000

  10

  5

  15

  20

  10

  5

  20,000

  15

  10

  15

  25

  15

  10

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of his proposals relating to corporation tax on the capital gains of companies on life assurance companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 April 1987, c. 560]: The Budget proposals for changes in the taxation of companies' gains will apply to life assurance companies. For disposals made by life assurance companies on or after 17 March 1987, the rate of tax will be 35 per cent.

  The effects of this change on such companies will vary according to the level of chargeable gains realised and the basis on which tax provisions are attributed to policyholders. The proceeds on maturity or surrender of policies often reflect provision for future tax liabilities which may arise when the life company realises assets. The extent to which such provision is made varies widely and is entirely a matter for each company. Many make a heavily discounted provision, computed on the basis that chargeable gains are unlikely to be realised for many years.

  Moreover, substantial deductions *— for example, for management expenses — can be set against life companies' gains and a significant proportion of such tax as life companies pay on their gains is on gains reserved for shareholders and does not affect returns on policyholders' funds.

  There is no reason, therefore, why the change proposed need have a substantial general impact on policyholders' returns.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his forecast of the increase in revenue from corporation tax and advance corporation tax in the current year and in the next financial year; and if he will provide separate figures for (a) North sea oil and gas companies, (b) other industrial and commercial companies and (c) financial companies and institutions.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 395]: Information is in the following table. A reliable breakdown of tax receipts between industrial and commercial companies and financial institutions is not available for 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Receipts of corporation tax (CT)

  (£ million)

  All companies and financial institutions1 of which

  North sea

  Total CT

  ACT

  CT

  ACT Set-off2

  1985–86

  10,708

  3,808

  2,923

  1,092

  1986–873

  13,400

  4,400

  2,700

  1,100

  1987–884

  15,000

  4,700

  1,400

  800

  84
  1 Including North sea companies.

  2Liability to corporation tax arising in respect of North sea production may be satisfied by setting off ACT arising on dividends paid in previous periods in respect of both onshore and offshore activities. Dividends and ACT associated with North sea activities alone cannot be identified.

  3 Provisional outturn.

  44 Forecast.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield of an increase of 1 percentage point in the rate of corporation tax at the present rate of profitability, all other things remaining unchanged.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 395]: An increase of one percentage point in the 35 per cent. main rate of corporation tax would yield approximately £400 million in a full year at 1986–87 levels of income.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the rate of corporation tax in or equivalent company taxes in other industrial countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 395]: The information requested is given in the table, which covers EEC countries and major industrial OECD countries outside the EEC.

  Basic rate of central government corporation tax

  Rate percentage

  EEC

  Belgium

  43·0

  Denmark

  50·0

  France

  45·0

  Germany

  56·0

  Greece

  44·0

  Ireland

  50·0

  Italy

  36·0

  Luxembourg

  40·0

  Netherlands

  42·0

  Portugal

  45·0

  Spain

  35·0

  United Kingdom

  35·0

  OECD outside EEC

  Australia

  46·0

  Austria

  55·0

  Canada

  36·0

  Japan

  43·3

  Sweden

  52·0

  United States of America

  46·0

  Notes:

  1. The rates shown apply to undistributed profits. Lower rates apply to distributed profits in Germany, Austria and Japan. No tax is charged on distributed profits in Greece.

  2. There are lower rates for smaller companies in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Japan and the United States of America.
  85
  3. There are local income taxes on companies in Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Canada, Japan and the United States of America. These increase the tax burden on companies in these countries.

DEFENCE

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to award defence contracts to prime contractors who do not observe the code of practice for competitive subcontracting in their terms of payment to subcontractors.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 24 March 1987, at column 141. The code of practice is a guidance document and it would be inappropriate to make it mandatory, particularly as the relationship between contractors and their subcontractors is a matter for the parties themselves and one in which the MOD should not he directly involved. Having said that, I am very willing to look into any particular case of difficulty which my hon. Friend cares to draw to my attention.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify all contracts or agreements between his Department's Porton Down establishment and universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, has currently 76 research agreements with 36 institutions of higher education. It is not our policy to give details of these agreements.

  Weekly Temperatures
  Dame Judith Hart
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the weekly mean temperature for the weather stations of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and of the official meteorological record for Carnwater, for each week of January in each of the years 1982 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume the right hon. Member is referring to Carnwath. Tabulated data for Glasgow airport, Edinburgh airport and Carnwath for each week in the months of January from 1982 to 1987 inclusive are provided below:

  Weekly Mean Temperature °C)

  Week Monday to Sunday

  Carnwath

  Glasgow Airport

  Edinburgh Airport

  28 December 1981– 3 January 1982

  1·3

  3·0

  2·7

  4 January 1982– 10 January 1982

  -7·7

  -4·6

  -4·7

  11 January 1982– 17 January 1982

  -4·7

  -2·0

  -3·7

  18 January 1982– 24 January 1982

  4·6

  6·4

  5·4

  25 January 1982– 31 January 1982

  5·7

  7·3

  7·3

  27 December 1982– 2 January 1983

  4·5

  6·1

  5·9

  3 January 1983– 9 January 1983

  3·8

  5·2

  5·0

  Ministry of Defence

  Monday 6 April 1987
  86

  Weekly Mean Temperature (°C)

  Week Monday to Sunday

  Carnwath

  Glasgow Airport

  Edinburgh Airport

  10 January 1983– 16 January 1983

  5·3

  7·0

  7·0

  17 January 1983– 23 January 1983

  2·1

  4·9

  4·2

  24 January 1983– 30 January 1983

  4·4

  6·2

  5·9

  2 January 1984– 8 January 1984

  2·0

  4·0

  3·3

  9 January 1984– 15 January 1984

  1·7

  3·5

  3·5

  16 January 1984– 22 January 1984

  -3·9

  -1·1

  -0·8

  23 January 1984– 29 January 1984

  -1·0

  -0·0

  0·2

  30 January 1984– 5 February 1984

  1·2

  3·4

  3·4

  31 December 1984– 6 January 1985

  0·2

  1·5

  2·1

  7 January 1985– 13 January 1985

  -2·5

  -0·8

  -0·0

  14 January 1985– 20 January 1985

  -1·7

  0·5

  0·7

  21 January 1985– 27 January 1985

  -4·1

  -1·5

  -1·6

  28 January 1985– 3 February 1985

  4·6

  5·7

  5·4

  30 December 1985– 5 January 1986

  -1·8

  0·2

  0·4

  6 January 1986– 12 January 1986

  0·9

  2·4

  2·3

  13 January 1986– 19 January 1986

  2·0

  3·9

  3·3

  20 January 1986– 26 January 1986

  0·6

  2·4

  2·3

  27 January 1986– 2 February 1986

  0·6

  1·7

  1·9

  29 December 1986– 4 January 1987

  1·6

  2·9

  3·5

  5 January 1987–11 January 1987

  -2·7

  -0·6

  -1·2

  12 January 1987– 18 January 1987

  -2·7

  -1·2

  -1·3

  19 January 1987– 25 January 1987

  2·3

  4·5

  4·9

  26 January 1987 –1 February 1987

  -1·8

  -0·8

  0·5

  Ministry of Defence

  Monday 6 April 1987

  Mozambique
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel are currently based in Mozambique; if he will publish details of their duties; and what is the total cost to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are no United Kingdom military personnel currently based in Mozambique. However, at the request of the Government of Mozambique, and with the agreement of the Zimbabwean Government, the British military advisory and training team in Zimbabwe is providing a limited programme of training to members of the Mozambican army.

  "20 Questions on Defence"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost his Department to produce the leaflet, "20 Questions on Defence"; how many copies have been printed; what were their production costs; and how many copies have been issued to the public.

  Mr. Stanley
  I will answer shortly.

  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the evidence on which he bases the second sentence in the 13th section of his Department's leaflet "20 Questions on Defence", dealing with cruise missiles.

  Mr. Stanley
  The unclassified evidence for this statement is set out in the course of paragraphs 3 to 18 of Defence open government document 87/1 "Trident and the Alternative". The unclassified evidence is in turn based on a recent classified updating by the Department's senior civilian and service staffs of material in Defence open government documents 80/23 and 82/1.

  "Trident and the Alternatives"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost his Department to produce the document "Trident and the Alternatives"; how many copies have been printed; what were their production costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I will answer shortly.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the supply to the Indonesian armed forces of 5 Battery Command post processor computer software systems, manufactured by British Aerospace; on what date the end-user certificates were issued; what discussions his Department has had to ensure such equipment is not destined for military use in East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Battery Command post processor is a part of the British Aerospace Rapier low level air defence system, and acts as an aid to the Battery commander to enable him to site his fire units in the most effective position. The BCPP is a non-critical part of the Rapier system, and has no use outside the context of Rapier.

  I understand that Rapier is not intended to be based in East Timor—in any event, as an air defence system, it would have no role in the current internal security difficulties in that state.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1987, Official Report, column 602, why the savings made in his budget during 1986–87 are not expected for 1987–88; what criteria he uses for the selection of priorities; what assessment he has made of the implications for progress towards the Government's energy efficiency targets of the reduction in the budget for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will answer shortly.

  Nuclear Waste (Gillingham)
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet considered the several representations made by the hon. Members for Gillingham and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) regarding the storage of additional nuclear waste at Ministry of Defence, Gillingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have carefully considered the proposal to transport nuclear material to MOD Gillingham for temporary storage. I have concluded that alternative arrangements can be made which do not involve the storage of any further material in MOD Gillingham. I can assure my right hon. friend, therefore, that no nuclear material will be transported to MOD Gillingham for storage.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the changes in the total number of Soviet troops deployed in Eastern Europe since 1979.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 March 1987, c. 454]: The total number of Soviet ground forces deployed in Eastern Europe has since 1979 been consistently above 500,000. At the beginning of 1979, this represented 31 motor rifle and tank divisions but, following the withdrawal that year of one motor rifle division from the German Democratic Republic to the Soviet Union, the total number of divisions has since remained constant at 30. The considerable qualitative improvement in Soviet ground and air forces in Eastern Europe over this period are referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of annex A of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986".

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy on the future role of dual-capable United States Air Force F-111 aircraft based in Britain in the light of the proposal by the commander-in-chief of the United States Strategic Air Command that these aircraft should be converted to carry air-launched cruise missiles in the event of all intermediate range nuclear force missiles being removed from Europe;

  (2) what consideration is being given by his Department to the role of nuclear-armed air-launched cruise or standoff missiles in the event of the complete removal of intermediate range nuclear force missiles from Europe.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 March 1987, c. 453–54]: The implications of removing LR I N F. missiles from Europe for the remaining theatre nuclear stockpile are under review in NATO. No conclusions have yet been reached.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Burnley General Hospital
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects phase III of Burnley general hospital to be fully operational.
  89
  Mr. Newton
  The first patients were admitted to phase III of Burnley general hospital in December 1986. The hospital will be fully operational in the next few months.

  Benefits
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the number of people estimated to be eligible for housing benefit who do not claim it in both certificated and standard cases.

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he can now provide the latest estimates for the take up of family income supplement and housing benefit broken down by numbers entitled to claim, proportion receiving benefit and estimated amount of unclaimed benefit per annum and per week.

  Mr. Lyell
  Updated estimates of the take-up of family income supplement and new estimates of the take-up of housing benefit, are expected to be published shortly.

  Mr. Raynsford
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the extent of losses affecting recipients of housing benefit as a result of changes to the scheme effective from April in the current year and the proposed change to the scheme in April 1988.

  Mr. Lyell
  The effects of this April's changes to the housing benefit scheme were outlined during my right hon. Friend's uprating statement on 22 October 1986 at columns 1174–75, and have since been amplified in a number of written answers to hon. Members. The effects of next April's changes were extensively illustrated in the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security", Cmnd. 9691, and also amplified in a number of subsequent written answers, but cannot be finally judged until the various benefit rates are set later this year.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims arc outstanding for social security benefits at the Dundee local offices of his Department; and if he will disaggregate the claims per benefit.

  Mr. Lyell
  The table sets out the information requested about outstanding claims to social security benefits. Figures are for 10 March 1987:

  Number

  Dundee East

  Sickness/invalidity benefit

  51

  Maternity allowance

  29

  Retirement pension

  119

  Severe disablement allowance

  38

  Supplementary benefit

  119

  Dundee West

  Sickness/invalidity benefit

  89

  Maternity allowance

  32

  Retirement pension

  98

  Severe disablement allowance

  25

  Supplementary benefit

  155

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit in (a) Dundee, (h) Aberdeen, (c) Glasgow and (d) Edinburgh in 1979; and what are the latest available figures.

  Mr. Lyell
  Dundee is covered by two of the Department's offices, Aberdeen by two, Glasgow by 13 90
  and Edinburgh by five but their boundaries are riot conterminous with those of the cities. The numbers of people receiving supplementary benefit from offices in those cities on 20 February 1979 and 10 February 1987 —the latest date for which information is available—are shown in the table.

  20 February 1979

  10 February 1987

  Dundee

  16,074

  22,995

  Aberdeen

  12,211

  19,612

  Glasgow

  77,527

  147,935

  Edinburgh

  30,035

  55,589

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the operation of the housing benefit system where changes in benefit take place on the death of a spouse and the difficulties which may arise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lyell
  We are not aware of any particular difficulties which arise when a spouse dies and no alterations are planned in this area of the housing benefit scheme. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would like to put the details in a letter to me.

  AIDS
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional funds are being made available to the Brighton health authority for coping with the problems of AIDS victims and for improving and upgrading the hospital ward used for treating them.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to make enquiries directly to the South East Thames regional health authority.

  Care in the Community Programme
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of' State for Social Services how many hospitals have been (a) closed arid (b) partially closed; and how many beds are affected under the care in the community programme in each of the following categories: (i) mentally ill, (ii) mentally handicapped and (iii) elderly.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available in exactly the form requested. The table gives figures for approvals, following public consultation, of hospital closures given since the beginning of 1983, the year in which the Department's "Care in the Community Initiative" was launched. Records are not held centrally of the dates on which closures so approved are implemented; actual closures since 1983 have included some approved before then and some of the approvals recorded in the table may not yet have been implemented. There are a number of reasons why hospital beds are closed and not all of the approvals recorded in the table were consequent upon the development of community based facilities. Indeed, in many cases in the geriatric and psychiatric services, beds in new units are replacing those closed.
  91

  Number of hospitals

  Number of beds affected in these hospitals

  (a) Approvals for total closure given since 1 January 1983

  Mental illness

  14

  2,199

  Mental handicap

  16

  912

  Geriatric

  35

  2,852

  Other hospitals in which there were mental illness, mental handicap or geriatric beds

  13

  1,135

  (b) Approvals for partial closure given since 1 January 1983

  Mental illness

  6

  354

  Mental handicap

  3

  196

  Geriatric

  1

  80

  Other hospitals in which there were mental illness, mental handicap or geriatric beds

  5

  254

  Hospital Waiting Lists (East Berkshire)
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are on the waiting list for inpatient treatment for each specialty in each hospital in east Berkshire; and what were the comparable figures in January 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he seeks in precisely the form requested. The information available centrally is given in the table. For current information the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the East Berkshire district health authority.

  NHS hospitals in East Berkshire district health authority

  Hospital/specialty

  Number1

  Wexham Park, Slough

  General surgery

  795

  Ear, nose and throat

  1,141

  Traumatic and orthopaedic

  312

  Plastic surgery

  1,695

  Oral surgery

  309

  Gynaecology

  430

  Total

  4,682

  King Edward VII, Windsor

  General surgery

  396

  Ophthalmology

  825

  Oral surgery

  182

  Gynaecology

  232

  Total

  1,635

  Heatherwood, Ascot

  General surgery

  410

  Traumatic and orthopaedic

  270

  Gynaecology

  409

  Total

  1,089

  Church Hill House, Bracknell

  Mental handicap

  8

  Total

  8

  Farnham Park Rehabilitation Centre, Slough

  Rehabilitation (Physical Medicine)

  117

  Total

  117

  1 Cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 December 1985.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his policy on the 1987 recommendations of the review board for nurses' and midwives' remuneration.

  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made by the pay review board dealing with nurses' pay.

  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the pay review body for nursing and midwifery and health visitors.

  Mr. Newton
  The Pay Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine will submit its report for 1987 to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for consideration in due course.

  As has been the case with all Governments since the review body system was established, review body reports are implemented except where there are clear and compelling reasons not to do so.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each district health authority in England the total number of beds in institutions registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1984 for 1984 and 1985; and what percentage change this represents.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total number of beds in institutions registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 19841

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Total beds

  Percentage change

  1984

  1985

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Hartlepool

  12

  45

  275·0

  North Tees

  36

  44

  22·2

  South Tees

  99

  123

  24·2

  East Cumbria

  102

  98

  -3·9

  South Cumbria

  151

  172

  13·9

  West Cumbria

  30

  30

  0·0

  Darlington

  264

  322

  22·0

  Durham

  39

  35

  -10·3

  North West Durham

  0

  0

  —

  South West Durham

  0

  20

  —

  Northumberland

  70

  68

  -2·9

  Gateshead

  40

  40

  0·0

  Newcastle

  79

  118

  49·4

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  —

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  —

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  —

  RHA Total

  922

  1,115

  20·9

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Hull

  91

  129

  41·8

  East Yorkshire

  53

  75

  41·5

  Grimsby

  33

  60

  81·8

  Scunthorpe

  67

  72

  7·5

  Northallerton

  125

  161

  28·8

  York

  328

  438

  33·5

  93

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Total beds

  Percentage change

  1984

  1985

  Scarborough

  176

  306

  73·9

  Harrogate

  655

  807

  23·2

  Bradford

  196

  252

  28·6

  Airedale

  302

  462

  53·0

  Calderdale

  168

  272

  61·9

  Huddersfield

  36

  69

  91·7

  Dewsbury

  23

  28

  21·7

  Leeds Western

  186

  202

  8·6

  Leeds Eastern

  375

  391

  4·3

  Wakefield

  0

  25

  —

  Pontefract

  0

  0

  —

  RHA Total

  2,814

  3,749

  33·2

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  North Derbyshire

  109

  110

  0·9

  Southern Derbyshire

  271

  374

  38·0

  Leicestershire

  507

  599

  18·1

  North Lincolnshire

  472

  642

  36·0

  South Lincolnshire

  112

  158

  41·1

  Bassetlaw

  0

  23

  —

  Central Nottinghamshire

  88

  166

  88·6

  Nottingham

  636

  857

  34·7

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  —

  Doncaster

  102

  144

  41·2

  Rotherham

  35

  38

  8·6

  Sheffield

  264

  326

  23·5

  RHA Total

  2,596

  3,437

  32·4

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Cambridge

  150

  234

  56·0

  Peterborough

  55

  85

  54·5

  West Suffolk

  160

  174

  8·8

  East Suffolk

  162

  203

  25·3

  Norwich

  332

  392

  18·1

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  49

  49

  0·0

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  80

  115

  43·8

  Huntingdon

  33

  54

  63·6

  RHA Total

  1,021

  1,306

  27·9

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  North Bedfordshire

  129

  177

  37·2

  South Bedfordshire

  22

  22

  0·0

  North Hertfordshire

  161

  188

  16·8

  East Hertfordshire

  174

  174

  0·0

  North West Hertfordshire

  97

  131

  35·1

  South West Hertfordshire

  153

  153

  0·0

  Barnet

  357

  361

  1·1

  Harrow

  122

  122

  0·0

  Hillingdon

  132

  135

  2·3

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  136

  136

  0·0

  Ealing

  288

  292

  1·4

  Brent

  66

  66

  0·0

  Paddington and North Kensington

  45

  42

  -6·7

  Riverside2

  653

  713

  9·2

  RHA Total

  2,535

  2,712

  7·0

  94

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Total beds

  Percentage change

  1984

  1985

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Basildon and Thurrock

  0

  0

  Mid Essex

  169

  182

  7·7

  North East Essex

  243

  325

  33·7

  West Essex

  152

  163

  7·2

  Southend

  263

  322

  22·4

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  213

  215

  0·9

  Hampstead

  241

  241

  0·0

  Bloomsbury

  1,271

  1,175

  -7·6

  Islington

  0

  30

  —

  City and Hackney

  112

  108

  -3·6

  Newham

  0

  0

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  14

  —

  Enfield

  161

  157

  -2·5

  Haringey

  195

  185

  -5·1

  Redbridge

  107

  120

  12·1

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  —

  RHA Total

  3,127

  3,237

  3·5

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton

  1,233

  1,352

  9·7

  Eastbourne

  1,065

  1,134

  6·5

  Hastings

  951

  965

  1·5

  South East Kent

  386

  454

  17·6

  Canterbury and Thanet

  501

  583

  16·4

  Dartford and Gravesham

  50

  76

  52·0

  Maidstone

  253

  256

  1·2

  Medway

  65

  65

  0·0

  Tunbridge Wells

  681

  739

  8·5

  Bexley

  57

  100

  75·4

  Greenwich

  40

  40

  0·0

  Bromley

  491

  501

  2·0

  West Lambeth

  47

  64

  36·2

  Camberwell

  19

  19

  0·0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  210

  250

  19·0

  RHA Total

  6,049

  6,598

  9·1

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  North West Surrey

  264

  312

  18·2

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  182

  342

  87·9

  South West Surrey

  697

  717

  2·9

  Mid Surrey

  234

  399

  70·5

  East Surrey

  434

  504

  16·1

  Chichester

  524

  591

  12·8

  Mid Downs

  499

  594

  19·0

  Worthing

  890

  995

  11·8

  Croydon

  467

  561

  20·1

  Kingston and Esher

  145

  187

  29·0

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  427

  458

  7·3

  Wandsworth

  0

  302

  —

  Merton and Sutton

  530

  561

  5·8

  RHA Total

  5,293

  6,523

  23·2

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  East Dorset

  1,258

  1,584

  25·9

  West Dorset

  158

  181

  14·6

  95

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Total beds

  Percentage change

  1984

  1985

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  575

  652

  13·4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  427

  444

  4·0

  Winchester

  248

  319

  28·6

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  115

  120

  4·3

  Salisbury

  253

  266

  5·1

  Swindon

  120

  124

  3·3

  Bath

  460

  506

  10·0

  Isle of Wight

  158

  162

  2·5

  RHA Total

  3,772

  4,358

  15·5

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  East Berkshire

  486

  587

  20·8

  West Berkshire

  177

  304

  71·8

  Aylesbury Vale

  116

  171

  47·4

  Wycombe

  304

  299

  -1·6

  Milton Keynes

  94

  114

  21·3

  Kettering

  0

  12

  —

  Northampton

  694

  642

  -7·5

  Oxfordshire

  443

  589

  33·0

  RHA Total

  2,314

  2,718

  17·5

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol and Weston

  769

  1,043

  35·6

  Frenchay

  117

  117

  0·0

  Southmead

  299

  460

  53·8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  592

  680

  14·9

  Exeter

  509

  591

  16·1

  North Devon

  259

  286

  10·4

  Plymouth

  522

  777

  48·9

  Torbay

  577

  659

  14·2

  Cheltenham

  293

  336

  14·7

  Gloucester

  215

  309

  43·7

  Somerset

  275

  416

  51·3

  RHA Total

  4,427

  5,674

  28·2

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  70

  86

  22·9

  Herefordshire

  132

  161

  22·0

  Kidderminster and District

  112

  130

  16·1

  Worcester and District

  498

  638

  28·1

  Shropshire

  93

  134

  44·1

  Mid Staffordshire

  208

  294

  41·3

  North Staffordshire

  126

  145

  15·1

  South East Staffordshire

  81

  144

  77·8

  Rugby

  18

  28

  55·6

  North Warwickshire

  82

  113

  37·8

  South Warwickshire

  462

  472

  2·2

  Central Birmingham

  287

  270

  -5·9

  East Birmingham

  86

  106

  23·3

  North Birmingham

  187

  188

  0·5

  South Birmingham

  79

  109

  38·0

  West Birmingham

  53

  53

  0·0

  Coventry

  22

  22

  0·0

  Dudley

  21

  21

  0·0

  Sandwell

  30

  51

  70·0

  96

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Total beds

  Percentage change

  1984

  1985

  Solihull

  84

  84

  0·0

  Walsall

  0

  41

  —

  Wolverhampton

  145

  153

  5·5

  RHA Total

  2,876

  3,443

  19·7

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Chester

  91

  146

  60·4

  Crewe

  85

  100

  17·6

  Halton

  0

  0

  —

  Macclesfield

  285

  359

  26·0

  Warrington

  0

  8

  —

  Liverpool

  254

  365

  43·7

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  225

  226

  0·4

  Southport and Formby

  647

  733

  13·3

  South Sefton

  200

  226

  13·0

  Wirral

  662

  838

  26·6

  RHA Total

  2,449

  3,001

  22·5

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Lancaster

  98

  108

  10·2

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  370

  506

  36·8

  Preston

  124

  80

  -35·5

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  147

  147

  0·0

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  87

  108

  24·1

  West Lancashire

  18

  18

  0·0

  Chorley and South Ribble

  252

  321

  27·4

  Bolton

  100

  134

  34·0

  Bury

  86

  105

  22·1

  North Manchester

  52

  51

  -1·9

  Central Manchester

  0

  0

  —

  South Manchester

  170

  214

  25·9

  Oldham

  8

  8

  0·0

  Rochdale

  201

  203

  1·0

  Salford

  56

  78

  39·3

  Stockport

  756

  821

  8·6

  Tameside and Glossop

  0

  0

  —

  Trafford

  168

  188

  11·9

  Wigan

  10

  24

  140·0

  RHA Total

  2,703

  3,114

  15·2

  1 Formerly institutions registered under section 3 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975, as amended.

  2 Formerly Hammersmith & Fulham and Victoria Health Authorities.

  Maternity Payments
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has received in the last six months condemning the reductions in maternity benefits introduced in the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Lyell
  We have received approximately 240 letters concerning the new maternity benefit arrangements during the last six months. Precise information about the number of these letters which condemn reductions in maternity benefits is not available.
  97
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 11 February at column 274.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Leicester claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at the Department's four Leicester local offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows:

  Number

  Leicester (Burley's Way)

  1,775

  Leicester (Lower Hill Street)

  2,099

  Leicester (Norton Street)

  2,581

  Leicester (Yeoman Street)

  3,022

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Langbaurgh constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) on 12 February at column 357.

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Sunderland, North constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Sunderland, North constituency is covered by the Department's offices at Sunderland, South and Sunderland, North although their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The number of claims received for maternity grant in the two local offices in the 1986 calendar year was as follows:

  Number

  Sunderland South

  1,442

  Sunderland North

  2,097

  Number of deaths from twenty major causes of death in the United Kingdom, by sex, all ages, 1985

  ICD1 number

  Cause of Death

  Number of deaths

  Males

  410–414

  Ischaemic heart disease

  104,467

  430–438

  Cerebrovascular disease

  31,597

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasm of respiratory and intrathoracic organs

  30,790

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasm of digestive organs and peritoneum

  24,130

  390–405,415–429,440–459

  Other diseases of the circulatory system

  23,217

  490–496

  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and allied conditions

  22,971

  480–486

  Pneumonia

  12,670

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasm of genitourinary organs

  12,668

  520–579

  Diseases of the digestive system

  8,722

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for outstanding claims for social security benefits in Scotland; and what is the average waiting time by type of benefit.

  Mr. Lyell
  The average time taken by local offices in Scotland to deal with claims to social security benefits is shown in the table. Figures are for the four weeks ending 10 March 1987.

  Benefit

  Number of days

  Supplementary benefit

  4

  Sickness/Invalidity benefit

  8

  Maternity Allowance

  10

  Retirement Pension

  22

  Runaway Children
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the action taken by Her Majesty's Government on the problem of runaway children since the statement to the House by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), on 27 March 1986, Official Report, columns 1137–42.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has continued to provide some professional and revenue support to the Central London Teenage Project, a safe house run by the Children's Society, which offers short-term accommodation, care and counselling to young people who run away to London. A £20,000 grant was paid in 1986–87 and a grant of the same level has been approved for 1987–88.

  The White Paper on The Law on Child Care arid Family Services, Cm. 62, proposes that certain specified organisations who look after children who have run away should, in defined circumstances, be exempt from liability for an offence of detaining or harbouring a child.

  Death (Causes)
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the 20 major causes of death in the United Kingdom for the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows, separately for males arid females, in descending order of magnitude, the 20 major causes of death in the United Kingdom in 1985. The list of causes is that used in compiling statistics for the Chief Medical Officer's annual report "On the State of the Public Health for the year 1985".
  99

  ICD1 number

  Cause of Death

  Number of deaths

  190–199

  Malignant of other and unspecified sites

  7,232

  320–389

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  5,989

  E800–E807, E830–E949, E960–E999

  Other causes of injury and poisoning

  5,957

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  5,270

  290–319

  Mental disorders

  4,520

  240–279

  Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases and immunity disorders

  4,355

  580–629

  Diseases of the genitourinary system

  4,245

  E810–E829

  Road vehicle accidents

  4,044

  E950–E959

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury

  3·421

  460–478, 487, 500–519

  Other diseases of the respiratory system

  3,263

  740–759

  Congenital anomalies

  1,687

  Females

  410–414

  Ischaemic heart disease

  82,131

  430–438

  Cerebrovascular disease

  52,068

  390–405, 415–429, 440–459

  Other diseases of the circulatory system

  33,924

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasm of digestive organs and peritoneum

  22,300

  480–486

  Pneumonia

  20,792

  170–175

  Malignant neoplasm of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast

  16,298

  520–579

  Diseases of the digestive system

  11,884

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasm of respiratary and intrathoracic organs

  11,689

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasm of genitourinary organs

  11,396

  490–496

  Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and allied conditions

  11,255

  290–319

  Mental disorders

  8,469

  190–199

  Malignant of other and unspecified sites

  7,549

  320–389

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  6,401

  240–279

  Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases and immunity disorders

  6·285

  E800–E807, E830–E949, E960–E999

  Other causes of injury and poisoning

  5,730

  580–629

  Diseases of the genitourinary system

  4,968

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  4,873

  710–739

  Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue

  4,388

  460–478, 487, 500–519

  Other diseases of the respiratory system

  3,323

  780–799

  Symptons, signs and ill-defined conditions

  1,824

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  Mrs. Edith Bird
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will investigate the reasons why Mrs. Edith Bird of 14 Birkholme Drive, Meir Heath, Stoke on Trent, has not received her £10 Christmas bonus.

  Mr. Lyell
  The local office's records show that proper arrangements had been made for Mrs. Bird to receive the Christmas bonus during week commencing 1 December 1986. Subsequent investigations have failed to establish why she did not receive it at the proper time and a girocheque for £10 has now been sent to her.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many deaths occurred in the United Kingdom as a result of food poisoning in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and how many of them are attributed to the presence of salmonella in poultry.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the number of deaths registered with an underlying cause as food poisoning, (excluding typhoid and paratyphoid fever which are caused by forms of salmonella bacteria, and toxic effect of noxious substances eaten as food), in the United Kingdom for each of the latest available five years.
  100

  Numbers of deaths with underlying cause as food as food poisoning, excluding typhoid and paratyphoid fever, and toxic substance take as food.

  Person, all ages 1981–85 United Kingdom

  Cause

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  ICD(9)1OO3

  Other salmonella infections

  43

  74

  54

  62

  53

  1CD(9)1005

  Other food poisoning (bacterial)

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  It is not possible from the registration of these deaths to identify specifically the source of the infection.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (Contraventions)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of alleged breach by local authorities of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are currently under investigation by his Department, how long each case has been under investigation; and when a decision will be made as to whether any of the cases currently under investigation constituted default by the local authority.

  Mr. Major
  Six cases of alleged breach of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are currently outstanding. In three cases investigations have been under way for seven months, in one case for one year and four months, in one case for one year and five months,
  101
  and in one case for two years and seven months. Decisions as to whether any of the cases constitute default by local authority will be made as soon as possible.

  RAWP Formula (Teaching Hospitals)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the purpose of review of the resources allocation working party formula with respect to teaching authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The review of the resource allocation working party formula was established to explore the scope for improving the way in which the formula estimates relative need for health services across the country. The allowance made in the formula for the additional service costs of teaching hospitals — the service increment for teaching — was among the issues identified for examination.

  The NHS Management Board's initial Report on the Review concluded that there was scope for improvement in a number of aspects of the formula, but a further programme of analysis and research was required. This work is now under way, and includes an attempt to estimate all the elements in the additional costs of teaching hospitals in providing health services, including case mix and the service implications of teaching and research and development. Full details are set out in the report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much additional money has been made available to individual health authorities following his recent announcement concerning breast and cervical cancer screenings; and if he will give details by authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  Funds will be provided for a national breast cancer screening service to be established in England over the next three years on the basis of centres each serving a population of approximately half a million. It is for regional health authorities to decide in which districts the centres should be located and how the special allocations provided to establish them should be deployed. In 1987–88 each Region will be allocated £356,000 to cover the capital and revenue costs of establishing its first centre.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1979 the total amount spent by his Department on (a) research into and (b) the treatment of leukaemia.

  Mr. Newton
  Since 1975 the Department has directly funded a rolling programme of research at the Childhood Cancer Research Group, Oxford which includes research into leukaemia; total expenditure from 1979–80 to 1986–87 was about £1·16 million (1986–87 prices). In addition three further studies have been funded since 1983 arising from the Report on the investigation of the possible increased incidence of Leukaemia in West Cumbria at a total cost of about £158,000. The main Government agency for the promotion of medical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  The Department of Health and Social Security has since 1986 allocated an additional £385,000 per annum to
  102
  health authorities providing nursing support for the MRC's trials of intensive chemotherapy for childhood leukaemia.

  National Health Service expenditure is not analysed in such a way as to enable spending on the treatment of leukaemia to be separately identified.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving the number of people on the in-patient waiting list in September 1986 as a percentage of the number of acute in-patient deaths-discharges in the latest year for which figures are available for each district health authority, also giving each district health authority's national ranking by this criterion;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving for each district health authority the percentage rise or fall in the hospital waiting lists between September 1982 and September 1986, also giving each district health authority's national ranking by this criterion;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving for each district health authority the percentage rise or fall in the hospital waiting lists between September 1985 and September 1986, also giving each district health authority's national ranking by this criterion.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give by health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority the number of beds in 1978 and 1987;

  (2) if he will list the number of patients given treatment annually since 1978 in each health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list by health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority those proposing reductions in non-emergency general medical and general surgical facilities;

  (2) what has been the growth in capital allocations for each health authority district in the West Midlands regional health authority since 1978.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may therefore wish to write to the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority who may be able to help him.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what he estimates to be the impact upon medical services in Shropshire if the proposal to close six wards at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital is implemented; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the district health authority areas within the West Midlands regional health authority in which the general surgical waiting list is expected by the relevant health authority to double over the next three years.

  Mr. Newton
  As my hon. Friend is aware, Shropshire health authority is considering a number of options to
  103
  enable it to stay broadly within its cash limits, taking account of the important service developments due to take place in the county during the next few years. In reaching a decision about its spending, Shropshire health authority will, I am sure, consider carefully the impact on services including waiting lists. It is currently discussing with the West Midlands regional health authority how it can best deploy its share of the waiting list fund announced by my right hon. Friend in November 1986.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will state the waiting lists in each health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority;

  (2) if he will list by health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority the current waiting lists for treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  For the latest centrally available information I refer my hon. Friend to hospital in-patient waiting list, England at 30 September 1986, national, regional and district summaries, copies of which have been placed in the Library. For current figures he may wish to write to the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the annual expenditure of the West Midlands regional health authority since 1978.

  Mr. Newton
  Following are the total expenditure figures recorded in the annual financial accounts of the West Midlands regional health authority and those of district health authorities (area health authorities prior to 1982–83) within that region:

  Hospital and community health services

  £ million

  1978–79

  460·7

  1979–80

  571·4

  1980–81

  742·0

  1981–82

  817·3

  1982–83

  868·6

  1983–84

  927·7

  1984–85

  1,005·8

  1985–86

  1,092·1

  Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded although the figures for the years 1978–79 to 1984–85 include a small element representing family practitioner committees' administration expenses.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the members of the Shropshire health authority, the date of their appointment and projected termination date;

  (2) if he will list the members of the West Midlands regional health authority, the date of their appointment and projected termination date.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information about members of Shropshire health authority is not held centrally. They are appointed by West Midlands regional health authority and the appropriate local authorities. The hon. Member may therefore wish to seek this information from the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority. The information requested about members of the regional health authority is as follows:104

  Date first appointed

  Date appointment due to expire

  Mr. J. G. Ackers (Chairman)

  1 August 1982

  31 July 1990

  Cllr. F. A. Betteridge

  1 October 1980

  30 September 1988

  Ms. M. E. Bielawski

  19 March 1987

  30 September 1990

  Mrs. M. A. Blackhouse

  13 June 1982

  30 September 1988

  Mrs. M. J. T. Hadley, OBE

  1 October 1984

  30 September 1988

  Mr. G. Holroyde

  1 October 1986

  30 September 1990

  Cllr. D. G. Lloyd, MBE

  1 October 1984

  30 September 1988

  Mr. J. Mottram

  2 June 1986

  30 September 1988

  Mr. A. D. Owen

  1 October 1982

  30 September 1990

  Mr. A. J. Parkinson

  1 October 1974

  30 September 1988

  Dr. R. Pomeroy

  1 October 1984

  30 September 1988

  Prof. N. K. Shinton

  1 October 1978

  30 September 1990

  Mr. S. B. Shuttleworth

  1 October 1980

  30 September 1988

  Mr. B. Stoten

  1 October 1986

  30 September 1990

  Mr. A. G. Ward, JP

  1 October 1974

  30 September 1990

  Mr. E. M. Worley, JP

  1 October 1982

  30 September 1990

  Lady Jean Young, JP

  1 October 1984

  30 September 1988

  There is currently one vacant place on West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the additional resources allocated to the West Midlands regional health authority for reduction of waiting lists; what steps he has taken to monitor its equitable distribution to the district health authorities within the region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  West Midlands regional health authority is to receive £2·88 million from the first year's allocation of the waiting list fund. Full details of the projects to be supported in all regions have been placed in the Library. The projects supported were submitted to the Department by the Region on behalf of its Districts and took account of the magnitute of the problems, the likely impact of the projects and the extent to which the districts were already making effective use of existing resources.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the growth in population to date, and projected population growth, for each health authority district within the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The mid-year population estimates for 1981 and 1985 and the change between those years for each of the district health authorities within West Midlands regional health authority are shown in table 1. These data were published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its Monitor reference PP 186/2, a copy of which is available in the Library. The projected population change between 1985 and 1995 is shown in Table 2. The projections for 1995 were prepared by OPCS from a 1981 base and the data can only represent a view of the most likely way forward at the time of preparation.

  Table 1

  Mid year population estimates

  Persons (thousands)

  Change 1981–85

  Area

  1981

  1985

  Per cent.

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  155·9

  162·7

  4·4

  Herefordshire

  149·7

  152·7

  2·0

  Kidderminster and District

  99·8

  101·1

  1·3

  Worcester and District

  231·0

  234·3

  1·4

  Shropshire

  380·6

  390·3

  2·5

  Mid Staffordshire

  299·8

  306·1

  2·1

  North Staffordshire

  468·6

  463·0

  -1·2

  South East Staffordshire

  250·4

  251·3

  0·4

  Rugby

  87·5

  85·6

  -2·2

  North Warwickshire

  173·9

  172·7

  -0·7

  105

  Persons (thousands)

  Change 1981–85

  Area

  1981

  1985

  Per cent.

  South Warwickshire

  215·8

  221·4

  2·6

  Central Birmingham

  185·4

  179·9

  -3·0

  East Birmingham

  203·8

  201·7

  -1·0

  North Birmingham

  167·6

  163·4

  -2·5

  South Birmingham

  255·2

  249·1

  -2·4

  West Birmingham

  208·8

  213·4

  2·2

  Coventry

  319·4

  312·2

  -2·3

  Dudley

  300·8

  300·8

  0·0

  Sandwell

  309·8

  303·3

  -2·1

  Solihull

  198·1

  201·9

  1·9

  Walsall

  267·7

  262·9

  -1·8

  Wolverhampton

  256·6

  253·2

  -1·3

  Table 2

  Mid year population estimates and 1981-based projections

  Persons (thousands)

  Change 1985–95

  DHA

  1985

  1995

  Per cent.

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  162·7

  177·3

  9·0

  Herefordshire

  152·7

  160·5

  5·1

  Kidderminster and District

  101·1

  104·3

  3·2

  Worcester and District

  234·3

  259·7

  10·8

  Shropshire

  390·3

  410·1

  5·1

  Mid Staffordshire

  306·1

  337·7

  10·3

  North Staffordshire

  463·0

  458·2

  -1·0

  South East Staffordshire

  251·3

  269·6

  7·3

  Rugby

  85·6

  92·0

  7·5

  North Warwickshire

  172·7

  184·7

  6·9

  South Warwickshire

  221·4

  226·6

  2·3

  Central Birmingham

  179·9

  168·6

  -6·3

  East Birmingham

  201·7

  190·9

  -5·4

  North Birmingham

  163·4

  168·2

  2·9

  South Birmingham

  249·1

  250·7

  0·6

  West Birmingham

  213·4

  212·5

  -0·4

  Coventry

  312·2

  307·5

  -1·5

  Dudley

  300·8

  307·9

  2·4

  Sandwell

  303·3

  303·1

  -0·1

  Solihull

  201·9

  196·9

  -2·5

  Walsall

  262·9

  260·2

  -1·0

  Wolverhampton

  253·2

  251·6

  -0·6

  Shropshire Health Authority>
  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the annual expenditure of Shropshire health authority from 1978.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is the information:

  Revenue Expenditure £ million

  Capital Expenditure £ million

  1978–79

  29·1

  1·0

  1979–80

  35·1

  1·5

  1980–81

  44·5

  1·5

  1981–82

  48·9

  2·8

  1982–83

  52·3

  3·7

  1983–84

  55·0

  2·6

  1984–85

  58·7

  3·2

  1985–86

  61·3

  10·3

  Notes:

  1. The figures for revenue expenditure are those shown in the annual financial accounts of the health authority. Those for capital expenditure also include expenditure specifically on behalf of Shropshire shown in the annual accounts of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority.

  2. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded although the figures for the years 1978–79 to 1984–85 include a small element representing family practitioner committee administration expenses.

  Hospital Radio Stations (Public Service Tapes)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the public service message tapes distributed by his Department to hospital radio stations were last reviewed; what plans he has for preparing new tapes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The last tape distributed by the Department to hospital radio stations was produced at the end of 1984 and withdrawn a year ago. Proposals for further tapes are being considered.

  NHS (Private Medicine)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what scale of charges health authorities were expected up to 31 March 1987 to levy on hospital equipment borrowed from National Health Service hospitals; and what charges they were expected to levy for clerical or administrative work on private patients carried out by hospital staff.

  Mrs. Currie
  Administrative costs were included in the calculation of the National Health Services private patient charges which applied up to 31 March 1987. There is no set scale of charges for hospital equipment borrowed from the NHS. Where they exist such arrangements have been arrived at locally and often involved reciprocal exchanges of equipment.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Freud
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the highest 10 payments of arrears of invalid care allowance paid by his Department in the last six months.

  Mr. Major
  The 10 largest payments of arrears of invalid care allowance made in the last six months were each for £2,717·75.

  District Health Authorities (Patients)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek to amend the law so that district health authorities retain legal responsibility for the patients referred by them to non-National Health Service centres with whom they have contractual arrangements.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. A patient treated under contractual arrangements remains a National Health Service patient and the health authority retains responsibility for ensuring that the treatment needed is received.

  NHS (Annual Report)
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much it cost his Department to produce the document, "The Health Service in England Annual Report 1985–86"; how many copies have been printed and what were their production costs; and what were the comparable figures for the reports of each of the two previous years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The printing costs and the number of copies printed for each of the three Health Service annual reports are set out in the table. The costs quoted included materials. The full printing costs, and distribution costs of sale copies, were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  107
  with recovery in the usual way from the proceeds of sales. It would not be possible to calculate the Departmental costs of preparation, promotion and distribution without disproportionate cost.

  Annual Reports

  1984

  1985

  1985–86

  Cost of Printing

  £9,300

  £8,500

  £15,000

  Number of copies

  3,830

  4,000

  4,200

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions are being placed on blood donors who have visited Africa and for what reasons: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Potential donors who have visited certain parts of Africa are asked not to donate blood until an appropriate time after their return to the United Kingdom. This precaution is taken to reduce the chance of transmitting certain tropical diseases such as malaria.

  As a precaution against the transmission of the AIDS virus potential donors are asked not to give blood if they have visited certain parts of Africa and have also had sex with men or women living there.

  Social Security (Expenditure)
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown of the rise in real expenditure on social security between 1978–79 and 1986–87 in the same form as the table in the Government's "Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90" II, Cm. 56, page 248, paragraph 39.

  Mr. Major
  Over the period 1978–79 to 1986–87 the social security programme increased by £12½ billion (at 1986–87 prices) or by 39 per cent. in real terms. The main reasons for the increase were:

  (i) £4¾ billion due to real increases in the average amounts of benefit paid (whether due to changes in the basic rate of benefit or other factors);

  (ii) £2 billion due to increased numbers of retirement pensioners:

  (iii) £1¾ billion due to increased numbers receiving disability benefits;

  (iv) £4¼ billion due to increased numbers of unemployed people receiving benefit;

  (v) £1 billion due to increased numbers of single parents receiving benefit:

  (vi) £ ½ billion reflecting the increased costs of administering a larger number of claims for benefits;

  offset by reductions of:

  (vii) £1¼ billion reflecting the introduction of statutory sick pay and a decrease in the incidence of short term sickness;

  (viii) £½ billion from reductions in the numbers of widows and children.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table which provides the same information on supplementary benefit single payments for the same time period for each year since 1979 as that provided in his reply of 17 March to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) Official Report, columns 479–80.

  Mr. Major
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Abortions
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of legal abortions performed in England and Wales from 1981 to 1986 (a) between 13 and 16 weeks gestation inclusive and (b) by main procedure cross tabulated by category of premises.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is published in "Abortion Statistics: series AB" (1981–1985) nos. 8–12,(a) Table 9, (b) for residents only Table 14. Copies of these volumes may be found in the Library.

  It should be noted that the correct figures of table 9 of the 1981 volume can be found in the 1982 volume.

  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of legal abortions performed in England and Wales on women resident in each health and social services board area in Northern Ireland in 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the numbers of qualified social workers employed by local authority social services departments and health authorities in England in 1959, 1969, and in each year between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on the number of qualified social workers is not collected centrally. Numbers of field social workers, qualified and unqualified, employed by local authority social services departments in England, expressed as whole-time equivalents, in each year between 1979 and 1985 (the latest year for which figures are available) are given in the table. The figures include hospital based social workers. Social services departments did not come into existence until 1 April 1971 and comparable figures for 1959 and 1969 are not available. From a sample survey completed in 1986 by the local government training board it is estimated that about 85 per cent. of all field social workers in Great Britain hold a qualification approved by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Field social workers of social services departments expressed as whole-time equivalents, 1979–85, England

  As at 30 September

  Thousands

  1979

  22·7

  1980

  23·0

  1981

  23·0

  1982

  23·0

  1983

  23·7

  1984

  24·3

  19851

  24·8

  1 Provisional

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the budget expenditure of local authority social services departments in 1959, 1969 and in each year between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  Gross current expenditure by English local authority social services departments for each of the
  109
  years 1978–79 to 1986–87 is shown in the table at cash and at 1986–87 prices. Revaluation to 1986–87 prices has been carried out by reference to the Gross Domestic Product deflator. Social services departments as such did not exist prior to 1 April 1971 so it is not possible to give comparable expenditure figures for years before then.

  Gross current expenditure (£ million)

  Cash

  1986–87 prices

  1978–79

  1,263

  2,459

  1979–80

  1,537

  2,561

  1980–81

  1,893

  2,658

  1981–82

  2,098

  2,683

  1982–83

  2,304

  2,747

  1983–84

  2,486

  2,838

  1984–85

  2,638

  2,886

  1985–861

  2,795

  2,879

  1986·872

  3,131

  3,131

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimate based on local authority budgets.

  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary, of State for Social Services what were the total staff numbers of local authority social services departments in 1959, 1969, and in each year between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The total numbers of staff of local authority social services departments, expressed as whole-time equivalents, in each year between 1979 and 1985 (the latest year for which figures are available) are given in the table. Social services departments did not come into existence until 1 April 1971 and comparable figures for 1959 and 1969 are not available.

  Staff of social services departments, expressed as whole-time equivalents 1979–85, England

  As at 30 September

  Thousands1

  1979

  193·6

  1980

  199·0

  1981

  201·0

  1982

  203·4

  1983

  210·0

  1984

  212·9

  19852

  217·0

  1 Some figures include estimates from information for earlier years.

  2 Provisional.

  Newham General Hospital
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many times, and on what dates, in the past six months the accident and emergency department at Newham general hospital has been partially or entirely closed; and what were the reasons given in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  This is essentially a local matter and the hon. Member may care to approach the chairman of the Newham health authority.

  Death Grant
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many death grant payments were made in the London borough of Southwark in each of the last three years; and how many of those who received the payments will be eligible for the new means tested death grant;
  110
  (2) what information he has as to what percentage of the residents of the London borough of Southwark will be eligible for the new means tested death grant.

  Mr. Major
  I shall let the hon. Member have replies as soon as possible.

  Health Authorities (Beds)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will request health authorities to cease the practice of double use of beds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The way in which health authorities plan the use of their beds is a matter for them, but they must ensure that intensive use of beds does not adversely affect the quality of care provided for the patients concerned.

  Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the number of unfilled vacancies in nursing in each of the four London regional health authorities and the number of such vacancies in each district of the North East Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Units (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the names of those accident and emergency units in each of the four London health regions that were closed for any parts of March 1987 together with the period or periods of closure and the respective reasons.

  Mrs. Currie
  Provision of accident and emergency services is a matter for the relevant health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the four Thames regional health authorities for information on the local position in their regions during March 1987

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to make any changes in the level of funding for kidney and other transplants.

  Mrs. Currie
  Funding levels for kidney transplantation are for health authorities to determine within their overall cash allocations. The protected funding in 1986–87 for heart and liver transplantation, which falls within the supra-regional services arrangements, was £5·023 million. An additional £2·315 million, a real term increase in total revenue funding of 44 per cent., has been allocated to these services in 1987–88.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy concerning the availability of attendance allowance for people using self-care renal dialysis units in hospital.

  Mr. Major
  I am pleased to announce that we intend to make attendance allowance available to people using self-care dialysis units on hospital sites on the same basis as is available to those who dialyse at home.
  111
  At present there are only a small number of such self-care units, in hospitals in the Wessex Region, where they are perceived to be an acceptable and economical way of enabling people with kidney failure to dialyse just as they would in their own homes, with assistance from another person who is not employed by the hospital. At present these people are denied attendance allowance.

  We think it is wrong that the attendance allowance regulations should inhibit what some doctors believe to be a helpful extension in the availability of renal dialysis, unforeseen when the regulations were drafted. We shall therefore bring forward an amendment to the regulations following formal consultation with the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Basildon Hospital
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the funding of Basildon hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the North East Thames regional health authority has agreed to provide £2·1 million commencing in 1987–88 for the centralisation of maternity, gynaecology, and neo-natal inpatient services at Basildon hospital.

  The funding of services at Basildon hospital is a matter for Basildon and Thurrock health authority. I was pleased to meet recently a delegation from the authority, led by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), informing me of its plans to improve services in Basildon and Thurrock. My hon. Friend may wish to write to that authority about any other matter concerning the services provided there.

  Novopen
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make the disposable needle used in Novopen available free for diabetics on prescription through general practitioners.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so at the present time. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 26 March at column 258.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will place in the Library tables showing total revenue expenditure and capital expenditure in each health district from 1982–83 (a) in cash terms, (b) 1982–83 prices, using the gross domestic product deflator and (c) at 1982–83 prices, using the National Health Service pay and prices/National Health Service capital deflator;

  (2) whether he will place in the Library tables showing total revenue expenditure and capital expenditure in each National Health Service region in each year from 1974–75 (a) in cash terms, (b) at 1974–75 prices using gross domestic product deflator and (c) at 1974–75 prices using National Health Service pay and prices/National Health Service capital deflator.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 February 1987, c. 139]: Tables showing regional health authority expenditure for the years 1974–75 to 1984–85 and district health authority expenditure for the years 1982–83 to 1984–85
  112
  were placed in the Library as stated in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member on 13 January 1986 at column 507. The cash figures in these tables were adjusted to 1983–84 prices using the gross domestic product deflator and the regional figures were also adjusted to a 1983–84 base by reference to centrally assessed movements in NHS pay and prices for revenue and in construction prices for capital. The cost of recalculating the regional figures to a 1974–75 base and the district figures to a 1982–83 base would be disproportionate but tables have now been placed in the Library showing regional and district figures for 1985–86 in the same form as those given previously.

  As stated in my predecessor's reply, it is inappropriate to revalue district health authority expenditure by reference to centrally assessed movements in NHS pay and prices, because the composition of that expenditure can differ substantially from the national average. Capital expenditure on major schemes is charged to regional health authority accounts and to that extent comparisons cannot usefully be drawn between district health authority capital expenditure figures.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to answer the questions about National Health Service expenditure to which a holding reply was given on 9 February, Official Report, column 139.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what arrangements he has made to ensure his Freephone DHSS service can promote the work of local neighbourhood energy action projects by way of local referrals;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that those claiming severe weather payments can also claim single payments for draughtproofing where the work can be done by local neighbourhood energy action groups.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 March 1987, c. 624–25]: People who ring the Department's freephone service are informed of the availability of single payments for draughtproofing materials where appropriate. In addition two leaflets (SB16 and SB17) refer to the availability of such single payments. One of these, entitled -Help with Heating Costs" specifically mentions the work of voluntary organisations in this area.

  Whilst there are at present no special arrangements to promote the work of local neighbourhood energy action groups, officials are, in consultation with national charities looking at what might be done in this respect.

  GPs (Retirement Payments)
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing what payments a general practitioner in the National Health Service receives on retirement, assuming that his length of service was 30 and 40 years, respectively, and that he earned average general practitioner's earnings.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 March 1987, c. 480–81]: The superannuation benefits of general medical practitioners are assessed as a proportion of total superannuable earnings throughout their careers. The earnings for each financial year are uprated by percentages

  113
  reflecting the pay increases agreed following the recommendations of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration over the years of the practitioner's service. This "dynamising" process converts the practitioner's career remuneration to a monetary value equivalent to remuneration levels current at the end of his or her service. The retirement benefits payable are a pension, assessed as 1·4 per cent. of the practitioner's dynamised career earnings, and a tax free lump sum of up to three times the pension.

  The following table shows the retirement benefits of a married male practitioner based upon the intended average net income recommended by the review body each year since 1971–72, and equivalent figures back to 1948. Since no practitioner has yet served 40 years in the National Health Service scheme, a maximum of 39 years has been used. Column A shows the benefits which would accrue to a practitioner who opted to purchase credit for his service prior to 24 March 1972. Colum B represents a practitioner who did not so opt.

  A

  B

  With 30 years' service £

  With 39 years' service £

  With 30 years' service £

  With 39 years' service £

  Annual pension

  10,343

  13,453

  10,343

  13,453

  Lump sum retiring allowance

  31,029

  40,359

  20,677

  23,787

  Amnesia
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will encourage local authority social service departments to provide funds for the rehabilitation of sufferers from severe amnesia;

  (2) whether any residential accommodation is provided by the National Health Service for those suffering from severe amnesia;

  (3) if he will request the National Health Service regions to assess the adequacy of their provision for those suffering from severe amnesia; and if he will encourage the establishment of regional centres;

  (4) what information he has on (a) the number of cases of severe amnesia that occur annually and (b) the National Health Service provision for such cases.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 April 1987, c. 619]: Severe amnesia can be a symptom of a range of medical conditions, including head injury and Alzheimer's disease. The National Health Service organises its services to treat medical conditions rather than specific symptoms. There is, therefore, no special provision, nor have we any plans to provide any, for treating severe amnesia or accommodating patients with this condition separately. Patients may be treated in a number of settings such as neurological, mental illness or geriatric units. Similar considerations apply to the provision of social services to people suffering from severe amnesia by local authorities. We do not collect statistics from either health or local authorities on severe amnesia.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourist Board
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grant aid and other assistance the
  114
  Northern Ireland Tourist Board receives from public funds; and what are the subventions comparable with those made to the tourist boards in Great Britain.

  Mr. Viggers
  In the financial year 1986–87 the Northern Ireland Tourist Board received grant-in-aid of £2·65 million from the Department of Economic Development. I understand that in the same year the following provision out of public funds was made to the other Tourist Boards in the United Kingdom.

  Grant-in-Aid £ million

  Development of Tourism Act 1969 £ million

  Total £ million

  English Tourist Board

  10·76

  9·5

  20·26

  Scottish Tourist Board

  6·25

  2·83

  9·08

  Welsh Tourist Board

  5·35

  2·54

  7·89

  In comparing these figures it should be noted that in Northern Ireland schemes for grant aid to the private sector for the provision of approved tourist accommodation and to the public sector for the provision of approved tourist amenities are administered directly by the Department of Economic Development, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom the tourist boards administer such schemes under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The amount spent by the Department of Economic Development on such schemes in 1986–87 was £2·99 million.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there has been any consideration given to amending the five-year residence requirement for supplementary benefit in the light of judgments concerning access to state-provided assistance for citizens of European Community member states.

  Mr. Needham
  The question is currently being considered.

  Mr. Chan Hok Cheung
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about how many times Mr. Chan Hok Cheung has been interviewed by Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in connection with the inquiry pending which an officer was suspended on 18 March; and for what further assistance Mr. Chan is required by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Scott
  The extent, direction and control of the investigation and any subsequent proceedings is a matter for the Chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I understand that Mr. Chan has been interviewed by officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the criteria for evaluating forecasts of the price of coal and the price of lignite for the next 30 years, in considering the construction of a new power station in Northern Ireland.
  115
  Mr. Viggers
  In evaluating forecasts of the price of coal and lignite my officials will be seeking the least cost source of secure supply taking due account of the forecast of variations in that cost. The forecast of the price of coal will be related to the price of internationally traded coal. The forecast of prices of lignite will be based on terms of supply offered by prospective miners.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the current price of lignite and the terms of supply which are currently being offered in his discussions with British Petroleum Coal.

  Mr. Viggers
  No. While the Department of Economic Development has been kept informed of negotiations on price and terms of supply between BP Coal Limited and NIE and the groups putting forward proposals to building a lignite-fired power station, these negotiations are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state in the Official Report the cost to public funds to date of examining (a) coal or dual oil/coal-fired plant at Kilroot, (b) interconnection with Scotland, and (c) lignite-fired power station options for new generating capacity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The various future generation proposals were submitted to the Department of Economic Development on 19 November 1987. Since that time the cost to public funds of evaluating these options has amounted to approximately £305,000.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he or any of his Ministers have to visit power stations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  None at present.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he, or any of his Ministers, visited the lignite excavation site at Crumlin, Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Visits were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler). Minister of State, on 22 August 1984, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), Minister of State, on 6 November 1984.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings, and on what dates, have been held during the last 12 months with British Petroleum Coal to discuss the price and terms of supply of lignite to power stations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Officials have held 12 meetings with BP Coal Ltd. on the following dates when the price and terms of supply of lignite to a power station were among the matters discussed.

  30 May 1986

  3 July 1986

  22 August 1986

  23 September 1986

  21 October 1986

  30 October 1986

  12 December 1986

  6 February 1987

  23 February 1987

  16 March 1987

  26 March 1987

  30 March 1987

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings, and on what dates, have been
  116
  held during the last 12 months with Northern Ireland Electricity to discuss future generating capacity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Nine, on the following dates:

  8 April 1986

  14 May 1986

  17 June 1986

  6 August 1986

  20 August 1986

  29 October 1986

  5 November 1986

  4 February 1987

  26 March 1987

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings, and on what dates, have been held during the last 12 months with the Antrim Power Company to discuss future generating capacity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  There have been 17, on the following dates:

  19 May 1986

  12 June 1986

  26 June 1986

  28 August 1986

  12 September 1986

  3 October 1986

  14 October 1986

  28 October 1986

  26 November 1986

  13 January 1987

  14 January 1987

  15 January 1987

  16 January 1987

  6 February 1987

  16 March 1987

  19 March 1987

  20 March 1987

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings, and on what dates, have been held during the last 12 months with British Coal to discuss the price and terms of supply of coal to power stations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The price and terms of supply of coal to power stations are matters for which Northern Ireland Electricity has responsibility and upon which they directly negotiate with British Coal. However, officials of the Department of Economic Development have had one meeting, on 24 February 1987, with British Coal to seek their views on the long-term forecast price of coal and to discuss their future contractual arrangements with Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost to public funds of the construction of a lignite-fuelled power station, the completion of a dual-fired Kilroot phase II, the construction of a new coal fired power station, the construction of an interconnector with Scotland and the reintroduction of the interconnector with the Irish Republic, respectively.

  Mr. Viggers
  Northern Ireland Electricity has submitted estimated costs for; the construction of a lignite-fuelled power station, the completion of a dual-fired Kilroot phase II and the construction of an interconnector with Scotland. Two private sector consortia have also submitted proposals for the construction of a lignite-fuelled power station. Officials are now assessing the estimates received for these options and it would be
  117
  improper to disclose the cost involved while this assessment is continuing. A proposal for a new coal-fired power station has not been received and therefore no cost estimate is available. The Department of Economic Development does not have a current estimate of the cost of re-establishing the interconnector with the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the trades unions on the construction of a lignite-fuelled power station in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have not as yet had any specific discussions with trade union representatives on this subject but plan to meet representatives from the Federation of Union Supplying Electricity and the Electrical Power Engineers Association in the near future.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report which power stations, and on what dates, he has visited in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  I visited the Kilroot power station on 18 March 1987.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likely environmental impact of the construction of a lignite-fuelled power station in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Officials in the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) have discussed the environmental implications of a lignite-fired station. However, a full assessment of the likely environmental impact of such a station would depend upon is location and detailed plans.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure the development and maintenance of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Northern Ireland Electricity has advised the Department of Economic Development that additional generating capacity will be required by the mid-1990s. The Department is currently evaluating a number of future generation options and a decision will be taken on these as soon as possible to ensure the development and maintenance of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The then Secretary of State made a statement on this subject on 22 May 1985 at columns 418–19. The Department of Ecomomic Development is currently evaluating a number of future generation options and no decision has yet been taken on future generation strategy in Northern Ireland.

  Lignite
  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been carried out into the amount of reserves of lignite in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Under a prospecting licence granted by the Department of Economic Development originally in 1978 a subsidiary of Burnett & Hallamshire plc established that there were significant reserves of lignite near Crumlin.118
  In 1983, the Department commissioned a programme of shallow drilling and discovered further substantial reserves of lignite in East Tyrone, and around Ballymoney. Exploration work, including further drilling, to determine the size of these reserves has been carried out under licence during 1986 by BP Coal Ltd Meekatharra Minerals (NI) Ltd and subsidiary companies of Anglo United.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has of the total cost to date of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's legal actions before (a) industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland and (b) the European Court in respect of the actions of those full-time and part-time reserve women police officers who received compensatory awards for discrimination; and whether any further liability to public funds may be expected to arise.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost of the compensation agreed to date has been £236,920. Further claims have been made and if these are ruled admissible by the president of the industrial tribunal they may result in an increase to this figure. I have nothing to add on legal costs to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 2 April at column 612.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the allocation of funds to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital works to existing dwellings as at 1 April 1986;

  (2) what was the outturn figure for capital works carried out to existing dwellings owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as at 31 March 1987;

  (3) what was the funding allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital works to existing dwellings in the south region as at 1 April 1986;

  (4) what was the outturn figure for capital works to existing dwellings in the south region of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as at 31 March 1986;

  (5) if the normal accounting procedures of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive were implemented in relation to a payment from the Masonic Housing Associaton an respect of a housing development in Donaghadee; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what was the approved budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald between 1983 and 1985;

  (7) how great was the loss to public funds deriving from overspending of the approved budget during 1983 to 1985 at the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald;

  (8) what was the period of the delay in a payment from the Masonic Housing Association to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for a housing development in Donaghadee established by a local government audit; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) what increased funding was requested by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital expenditure to existing dwellings at the last autumn review; and what increase was allocated;

  (10) what increased funding was requested by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the south region at the last autumn review; and what increase was allocated;
  119
  (11) by how much the approved budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald for 1983 to 1985 was exceeded.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chairman that the information is not readily available; I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Special Category Status
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the order of the High Court in Belfast in December 1986 to provide information relating to the introduction and withdrawal of special category status.

  Mr. Scott
  The order was made in connection with an application brought by a prisoner for judicial review of a prison adjudication. The action is in its preliminary stages and has not yet come to trial; it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Farmers
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the approximate number of Northern Ireland farmers and the value of monetary compensation amounts payments owed them in connection with cattle purchases in the Irish Republic; for how long these payments have been outstanding; what representations have been made to the Irish authorities; with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 647]: Information from the authorities in the Republic of Ireland is that at the end of February around £1 million was outstanding in relation to MCA payments on cattle imported from the Republic of Ireland. It is understood that almost 200 Northern Ireland importers are affected. A number of these payments have been outstanding for six months. Meetings have been held between United Kingdom officials and those of the Irish Department of Agriculture as a result of which urgent action is being taken by the latter to clear the outstanding payments.

  It is hoped that claimants will be paid more promptly in future.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
Lord Stafford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bus Service Deregulation
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence they have of innovation in the provision of bus services as a result of deregulation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, as a result of deregulation about 200 new operators have entered the market. Over 150 towns and cities now have minibus services, and taxi operators are running some 55 local regular services. In addition, 56 innovative projects have been funded by the Development Commission under the rural transport development fund.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. What has been the result since 26th January when the transitional period ended and the public feared massive cuts? What will be the prospects in the future now that competition is going ahead?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the end of the transitional period in January, there were over 50 additional services registered, so the fears of those who thought that there would be massive cuts were quite wrong. As regards new competition, particularly in the minibus sector, there are several examples. For instance, in Manchester, following the introduction by a private company of a new minibus service with 200 vehicles, the established local operator was stimulated into responding with his own minibus service. Therefore, there are clear signs of the success of competition.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that bus users in the metropolitan areas are of the opinion that there has been a deterioration in services since deregulation? While it does well for him to quote additional buses and companies, will he tell your Lordships' House of any material gain to the consumer and the traveller as opposed to the bus operator?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. The figures that I gave in the original Answer show that competition is working to promote new services which are there at the response of the customer. Therefore, for the first time in many years the market is responding to the needs of the customer rather than to those of the bus operator.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the minibuses in London have been of great benefit to many people? However, will he say something about the situation in Glasgow and Edinburgh?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. I do not have specific information about minibus services in Glasgow or Edinburgh. However, I am aware that in Glasgow there has been keen competition among the operators which has resulted after a certain amount of difficulty initially in an increased service all round.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I invite the Minister to go to Lancashire to see how the operators are discontinuing the half-fare services for children? They are now charging children the full price rather than the half-fare that they enjoyed previously.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, whether or not I accept the noble Lord's invitation to go to Lancashire, it is a fact that local authorities have saved over £40 million in subsidy since the deregulation of bus services. It is for local authorities to decide how to spend their money. If this has happened in the noble Lord's area, it is a matter that should be taken up with the local authority. It certainly has the money to spend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, apart from the saving in subsidy, will my noble friend say what has been the saving to public funds from the standing down of much of the licensing system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot do so without notice. I have already quoted the saving to local authorities in the form of subsidies. However, despite the savings, we have increased the amounts made available for safety checks by 22 per cent.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, has the Minister any figures for the services lost in the country nationwide, and has he any figures to show whether the average fares have dropped?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have no figures, but in general terms the average fares are broadly unchanged. As regards services, there has been a considerable change round as markets adapt to take care of the needs of the customer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both the frequency and reliability of Brighton bus services have much improved since deregulation? I now feel thoroughly justified in the time that I spent on the Bill deregulating them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend. I am sure that the experience is shared in many other parts of the country.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in regard to innovation, which is what this Question is about, is my noble friend aware that the exclusion of buses with fewer than 12 seats from the benefit of value added tax zero-rating is a restraint on innovation? Is he also aware that

789
projects like Lincoln Limousines, which Ministers have described as being a very good example, are suffering from having to put their fares up by 15 per cent? Does he agree that it would be a good idea for all local bus services to be zero-rated?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that it may seem anomalous for larger coaches and buses to be zero-rated while a local service operating with a vehicle carrying fewer than 12 passengers, such as mentioned by my noble friend, must bear VAT. However, VAT does not lend itself to fine tuning, and the present dividing line has the advantage of being simple and clear in its applications. To replace it by some more sensitive definition of socially valuable services would, I fear, result in a far more bureaucratic system.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many minibuses have facilities for the disabled?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is still early to make final decisions on the efficiency or otherwise of the Bill. The Minister must also be aware hat a great deal of shaking down has still to be done. He suggested that the situation concerning Strathclyde, for instance, had now settled down. However, this morning's Glasgow Herald states that there will be yet more alterations to services as from next Sunday, and that more than 200 routes have already been abandoned or changed by some nine operators since the bus war began. I hope that the Minister will in time give a full report to the House as regards the bus situation so that we can debate the matter fully. A great many problems still arise—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the work for local authorities as regards tendering for new services is becoming very time-consuming and expensive? That is where at least part of the £40 million of which he spoke so happily is going.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I still think that there will be considerable net savings. If the local authorities must spend more on the tendering proposals in the initial period, they will have plenty of money to spend later. Regarding a report of progress so far, your Lordships will be aware that a preliminary report has been published and a copy was placed in the Library a little while ago. A further report following the ending of the transitional period is expected to be published in the summer.

Rolls-Royce Financial Report
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain why, in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 16th February 1987 (H.C. Deb. col. 438) they stated, in relation to the Rolls-Royce RB 211–22B programme, that they "took all receipts for the first 555 engines totalling £330 million", whereas in reply to a question by Lord Bruce of Donington on 10th April 1986 (H.L. Deb. cols. 404/405) the receipts of the Government covering the identical item were stated to be "£30 million".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the figure of £330 million relating to receipts for the RB211–22B programme was given in reply to both the Written Questions referred to, but this was incorrectly printed as £30 million in the Official Report of your Lordships' House (col. 405, 10th April 1986). I much regret that this error was not corrected. The figure of £330 million is a rounded figure; the precise figure is £334 million.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Will he bear in mind that when I was in another place it was the practice of the Ministry to compare the Answer of the Minister the following day, with that which appeared in the Official Report, and for any printer's error to be corrected in the bound volume? There the figure still appears as £30 million. Will the noble Lord also bear in mind that the sudden accounting restoration of £300 million is rather greater than the debt of £283 million, which the Government evidently propose to write off the books of this highly successfully nationalised company? Will the Minister further bear in mind that the extra figure of £4 million on top of £300 million sounds rather strange as a rounded-up figure?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have apologised for my department not correcting the error. Perhaps I may add that the noble Lord had a copy of the Written Answer. No doubt he also compared it with that printed in Hansard on that day. There is no question of any restoration.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has my noble friend any idea why the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not point out that fact to him before the printed edition was published?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that my noble friend might address his question to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in view of the large amount of money received by Rolls-Royce for engines, now admitted by the Minister, will he agree that there is a strong case for continuing with government control of Rolls-Royce?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the company has made splendid advances since 1971. As the noble Lord opposite knows, it is our general policy to return businesses of this nature to the private sector as soon as possible, and that is what we propose to do.

London Scientific Services: Staffing Level
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether past and projected reductions in staff of the London Scientific Services are acceptable and accord with their undertaking on the Local Government Bill 1985 to safeguard scientific and technical support services and ensure that valuable expertise should not and must not be lost. (H.L. Debates, 15th April 1985).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have not departed from the commitments given during the passage of the Local Government Act 1985 that the valuable expertise provided by the London Scientific Services should be maintained. I understand that consultations are taking place with present and prospective clients for the services. These will provide a basis for the future level of staffing.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. In considering the future of the London Scientific Services and the likely demand for the services, can he say to what extent the London Residuary Body has been able to take into account the probable value of these services to local authorities, other than London boroughs and successor bodies? Can the Minister confirm that such options are not ruled out by the terms of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I most certainly can. Under the provisions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, the London Scientific Services may offer their services to any other public authorities.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in our debate on 15th April 1985, at col. 515, the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, with his great experience of what happens in London, said that the period laid down for the transfer of certain responsibilities was much too short? Is not that now becoming apparent in the fact that we started postabolition with 152 people in place and the present proposals mean, I understand, a reduction to 110? Is not all this rather too hurried? Would it not be better to make up the shortfall from the London Residuary Body's revenue income for another year and so allow time to sort out this centre of excellence by the best possible means?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, nobody has suggested that the final resting place, as it were, for the London Scientific Services has to be found with any great speed, although, of course, I recognise, as will the House, that residuary bodies themselves are, by definition, temporary phenomena. So far as the level of staffing goes, this stood at 162 on abolition and 145 on 2nd March this year. According to an assessment based on the likely level of demand for services prepared by consultants for the London Residuary Board, the likelihood is that during the course of the year it will fall to 117.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the London Scientific Services are both responsible for the day-to-day needs of the different successor bodies and also for the strategic planning of London's needs? How can London-wide issues be discussed and be seen to be monitored when the successor bodies—the London boroughs—are understandably only concerned with their own local needs? Did the Minister himself not read out the number to which the staff is now being reduced? How, then, can the strategic work be undertaken?
Is the noble Lord further aware that many of us from all parts of the House who were involved in the debates during the passing of the abolition Bill did not press our amendments and accepted the assurances of both the Leader of the House and the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that these services would not suffer and that they would be able completely to fulfil their functions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Baroness. My understanding is that the London Scientific Services provide now that they have always done, a consultation service. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, this can be done now, as in the past, for any local authority body who so desires.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that there was more to the scientific services group than mere consultation with the London districts, the London metropolitan boroughs? Indeed, investigations were carried out on a global London basis—if that is the right way of putting it—on matters of noise pollution and air pollution. They were not restricted to one particular borough. This was done not merely on the basis of consultation but actually looking at London as a whole. Is the Minister, in the reply he has just given, saying that that is no longer the case?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the London Scientific Services were, before abolition, employed by the Greater London Council. And the Greater London Council purported to be a London-wide body. Many noble Lords would dispute that "purportion", if there is such a word.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister forgive me if I repeat a question I asked in the House last week? Has the work of the residuary body and of the boroughs been monitored over the past 12 months, and are there reports available that we might see?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I recognise that I gave a rather off-the-cuff answer to my noble friend last week. I have since confirmed that the London Residuary Body is required under the Local Government Act 1985 to publish an annual report on the discharge of its functions. My right honourable friend is required to lay such reports before the House. The annual report and accounts for 1985–86 were laid before your Lordships on 18th November last.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord's statement that the services have not yet found a final resting place has no special significance. Would he repeat the assurance given by the noble Viscount in the relevant debate on the Local Government Act that the services would be sustained in full after abolition? The noble Lord has given no such assurance. What he has given us is a feeling of discomfort that the number of staff is being reduced. Can he say how he expects the services to be sustained not only in London but also outside London with a much reduced staff?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House said during the Second Reading on 15th April 1985 at col. 587:
"We agree that valuable expertise should not and must not be lost".
That was the starting point for this particular Question. On 21st May 1985, at col. 224, my noble friend Lord Elton, replying to a debate, said:
"I have given an assurance that we shall safeguard scientific and technical support services through any potential difficulties in the transitional period, if necessary by ensuring that the residuary bodies actually take on the staff and the property on a temporary basis themselves".
This, as we all know, has in fact happened. As regards staff numbers, these will go up and down depending on the demand for the services.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31st March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Some of your Lordships may be surprised, thinking that they recognise these two Motions. No one is more surprised than I. In speaking to them the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench asked me a question. He asked whether there was anything significant in the fact that the Scottish regulations were laid to start on 1st April. In all innocence I said that there was not. But the noble and learned Lord spoke more truth than I think either of us knew. He is evidently endowed with that gift of second sight for which his fellow countrymen are famous.
In fact it proved necessary to amend the commencement date, and so on 31st March the draft regulations
794
were withdrawn and re-laid. Unfortunately, it was too late for the Motion on the Order Paper, which referred to the regulations being laid on 11th March, to be amended to refer to the substituted regulations laid on 31st March. Now I am asking your Lordships to agree to the regulations in the form in which they now appear in order to prevent a subsequent oral Question, with the exception of the fact that the word "March" in the first of the two Motions is misprinted. Having said that, I think we have fully debated the subject already, and with a suitable degree of apology I beg to move the first of the Motions standing in my name on the Order paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31st March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord introduced these regulations he said that in a sense this is an annual event. It has proved to be a non-event. I noticed the marked contrast that whereas the Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) Order came into force on the 1st April 1987, in regard to the orders relating to England and Wales—wisely—there was no indication as to when these would come into force. I ventured to ask whether there was any significance, any sort of superstition or whatever it might be, in this matter. I have looked into the matter rather more carefully, with the assistance of your Lordships' Library. Chambers Book of Days 1886 casts a great flood of light upon all this. It reads:
"The 1st April, of all days in the year, enjoys a character of its own in as far as it, and it alone, is consecrated to practical joking. On this day it becomes the business of a vast number of people, especially the younger sort, to practise innocent impostures upon their unsuspicious neighbours by way of making them what in France are called 'poissons d'Avril'—with us, April fools. Thus a crew of giggling servant maids will get hold of some simple swain and send him to a bookseller's shop for The History of Eve's Grandmother or to a chemist for a pennyworth of pigeon's milk.
But, my Lords—and this is the point—the plot thickens in the case of Scotland.
"What compound is to simple addition"
—in the case of Scotland, April fooling is far more complex.
"In the northern part of the island, they are not content to make a neighbour believe some single piece of absurdity"—
as proved to be the case here.
"There, the object being, we shall say, to befool simple Andrew Thomson, Wag No. 1, sends him away with a letter to a friend two miles off, professedly asking for some useful information but in reality containing only the words, 'This is the first day of April: hunt the gowk another mile'. Wag No. 2, catching up the idea of his correspondent, tells Andrew with a grave face that it is not in his power, etc. but that if he will go with another note to such a person he will get what is wanted. Off Andrew trudges to Wag No. 3.
The Scots employ the term `gowk' (which is properly a cuckoo) to expose a fool in general, but more especially an April fool, and among them the practice above is called 'hunting the gowk'.
My Lords, who was hunting the gowk when we discussed this matter at the stage of introducing the regulations? It was not, I trust, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The House is entitled to know what went wrong. What went wrong was not in your Lordships' House, I suspect, but in another place. What did go wrong? I think we are entitled to know.
The House may also like to know whether any action has been taken by reason of this unfortunate

795
error. Between the 1st April and the 6th April—today—has any legal expenditure been incurred, and is the noble and learned Lord seeking a Bill of indemnity and oblivion for this misfortune? How is the matter to be dealt with? This is absolutely fascinating, and it is of course of the gravest possible importance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am afraid that what went wrong is lost in the impenetrable jungles of the Scottish Office; but I shall seek to pursue this "gowk" still further. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord, putting the reply, so far as is necessary, in the Library—no doubt decorated with the arms of the Venus de Milo!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I venture to think that this is a far too important piece of history for it to be left to mere correspondence between the noble and learned Lord and myself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31st March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31st March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Banking Bill
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [The Board of Banking Supervision]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("ex officio") and insert ("independent")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 2 since the two amendments go together. When this Bill was in your Lordships' Committee we had a fairly detailed discussion about the Board of Banking Supervision, which is the object of Clause 2. It seemed to us at the time that certain difficulties were involved in the formulation of subsection (5) of the clause relating to the circumstances in which the independent members of the board shall be entitled to place before the Chancellor the reasons for their advice once the ex-officio members have given written notice to the Chancellor that it has been decided that the advice of the independent members should not be followed.
I raised in Committee a number of problems of procedure in deciding whether the advice of independent members was, or was not, followed. I did not
796
mean at all to indicate that we were opposed to the principle of the board or indeed opposed to the existence of independent members or to the majority being independent members. We support the general principle. We have to recognise however that this was not in the 1979 Banking Act. It is a new feature and for that reason alone deserves our particular scrutiny.
We all hope that disagreement between the independent members of the board and the ex-officio members will be very rare. Indeed, it would be surprising if it were a day-to-day occurrence. We must assume that the independent members, in disagreeing with the ex-officio members, will do so on a particularly serious matter and that if the matter is of minor importance there will be some way in which the independent members and the ex-officio members can come together and decide what is the middle way where two views have diverged. We are dealing here with the problem of what happens on the rare occasion of disagreement between the independent members and the ex-officio members on a serious matter.
The Bill as drafted is a compromise reached as a result of debates in another place, as the noble Lord told us in Committee. I am bound to say that we are not very happy with the compromise, as the Bill lays on the ex-officio members the duty to give written notice to the Chancellor when and if they decide to ignore the advice of the independent members.
In Committee, we had some discussion about the nature of the talks that might take place within the board. We ventilated the problem that there might be different pieces of advice offered by different independent members; that there might be a majority of independent members thinking one way but a minority of independent members thinking another way; that the process of decision as to whether advice was followed was rather a difficult one. But the most important problem we raised—and this is the problem to which I return—was the circumstances under which the independent members of the board have the right to direct access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is, if I may draw a comparison, rather the same as non-executive members of a board of directors of a company. There will be times—indeed there are times—when non-executive directors have direct access to shareholders. They can have that access by means of public correspondence or by means of expressing an opinion at a general meeting of shareholders. The same rights do not seem to be given to the independent members of the Board of Banking Supervision and our amendment seeks to address this very important point.
In our view, it should be the independent members who collectively decide whether their advice has not been followed—not the ex-officio members, but the independent members. If they do decide, which, as I emphasise, we hope would be a rare event and on a serious matter, it should be their privilege at that point to have direct access to the Chancellor.
This seems to us to be a much better formulation than the formulation at present in the Bill, and it gives the independent members not only the power that they need to make sure that the board performs its functions in a proper, sensible and supportive way, but also the visibility that is required if the board is to be

797
seen by the outside world to be an independent entity, which is what we want it to be. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, these amendments affect subsection (5) of Clause 2. This is an important part of the arrangements for the Board of Banking Supervision. It will be the duty of the independent members of the board under subsection (3) to initiate the discussion as well as to provide advice at the request of the Bank. The scope of this remit extends across the whole range of transactions exercised by the Bank under this legislation, including individual cases as well as more general policy issues.
The Government attach very great importance to the role of the independent members of the board and this is reflected in the safeguard provided by subsection (5). The subsection requires that, in the event that it is not decided to follow the advice of the independent members on any matter, the ex-officio members—that is, the Bank of England members—are required to give written notice of that fact to the Chancellor. The subsection goes further and provides that in such a case there is an explicit right to go to the Chancellor and explain the reasons for their advice.
It is very much to be expected that the board will operate smoothly through discussion and agreement and I am sure that that will be the case. But it is nevertheless right that the Bill should provide for difficult cases where disputes or irreconcilable differences may arise, and that is fully catered for in the provisions that I have described. These arrangements have been carefully thought through.
I have also looked carefully at the proposed amendments. What is proposed is that the obligation—and it should be noted that this is a statutory obligation—to give notice to the Chancellor when the independent advice is not to be followed should fall on the independent members rather than on the Bank of England, as presently provided.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the subject for debate, but nevertheless I fear that I do not agree that the proposed changes would be preferable. The independent members must give the advice that they see fit. If the Bank of England believes that it should not follow that advice, it is surely right and proper that the obligation to notify the Chancellor of this difference should fall on the ex-officio Bank of England members.
On top of this, there would seem to me to be practical difficulties in the alternative which brings me to the second amendment. This amendment would provide that the notice should be given not at the time of the decision but when the independent members believe that their advice is not being followed. In my view, this would create an unnecessary vagueness which is avoided by retaining the present provision placing a clear obligation on the Bank of England to notify its decision. Clearly the Bank is in the best position to know whether the advice is to be followed and knows it at the time of decision rather than later.
I am sure it is not suggested that the Bank of England will fail to discharge its statutory obligation to
798
notify these cases, and the independent members' right to approach the Chancellor is clearly spelled out. It is also the case that the Bank is the responsible executive body under the legislation and that the board's role is advisory. The existing arrangements properly reflect this. That being so, there is every reason to retain the provisions as they are and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in the light of what I have just said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his full reply. I agreed with two-thirds of what he said. His introduction to the subsection and his stressing the importance of the independent members—all that I agreed with and I think that the Opposition would certainly go along with that. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I started to disagree when he said that the provision for the independent members to express their view was fully catered for. That was his expression. We do not believe that it is fully catered for.
Furthermore, I did not agree with him when he said that there would be practical difficulties in the arrangement that we propose. We see no practical difficulties in this arrangement. Clearly the independent members would have to act as a group. We have not tried to amend the Bill to allow one or other of the independent members to make representations to the Chancellor. The independent members would have to act as a group. The procedure would be perfectly simple. After discussion in the board, the independent members would get together and decide that their advice was not being followed by the ex-officio members. They would then notify the Bank, presumably out of courtesy, that that was what they were going to do and they would have the right of direct access to the Chancellor.
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the arguments of the Secretary of State. I believe that this is a fundamental point in the Bill and that our amendments would fundamentally improve the Board of Banking Supervision. I am afraid that I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment and I shall seek the opinion of the House.
3.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISON NO. 1

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Basnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Birk, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blyton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Grimond, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Heycock, L.

Chandos, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kearton, L.

799

Kilbracken, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Peston, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Rea, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alport, L

Kemsley, V.

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bauer, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Byron, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Molson, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denning, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Derwent, L.

Richardson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dudley, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy,. Ly.

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Effingham, E.

Shannon, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Erne, E.

Strathspey, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sudeley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Terrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Teviot, L.

Gainford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Todd, L.

Gridley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.26 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Board of Banking Supervision]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 80, line 29, at end insert ("provided always that there shall be a majority of independent members on the Board.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Schedule 1 reflects discussion which took place in Committee. It picks up an assurance that the Secretary of State gave us at that time that it was the intention of the Government to maintain the majority of indepen-
800
dent members on the Board of Banking Supervision. It seems to us that, if the Government expressed such an intention in firm terms, then that is something that should be on the face of the Bill. The words may not be perfect and the Government may wish to redraft the amendment. However, it seems to us an important principle which should be in the Bill itself and I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it has always been the intention of the Government that independent members should be in a majority on the board. That is also accepted by the Bank of England. The provision of paragraph (3) of Schedule 1 gives a necessary degree of flexibility to change the total number of board members, should that be desirable, in future and subject to the base line of six independent and three ex-officio members. However, this flexibility is not intended to undermine the policy of retaining a majority of independent members and I am therefore happy to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, which puts the matter on a more formal basis.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "deposit"]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("or an authorised institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one-all, so far! I beg to move Amendment No. 4. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for accepting Amendment No. 3. This amendment is not intended as anything other than a probing amendment. We are still somewhat unhappy with the definitions of "deposits" under Clause 5 of the Bill as drafted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, accepted in Committee that this was an extremely complex clause and one which needed a good deal of sorting out and understanding. I am not sure whether our understanding is as full as it should be.
I refer particularly to deposits which are normally regarded as deposits but which are not regarded as deposits in the ambit of this clause. In other words, I refer to the exemption given under Clause 5(3)(a), and in particular to those deposits being exempt, including sums paid by an authorised institution. If a deposit made by a bank—which is what we mean when we are talking about an authorised institution—is exempt from Clause 5 of the Bill, it is by definition exempt from Clause 6.
Whatever other clauses of the Bill may say, because other clauses redefine deposits for different purposes, authorised institutions that make deposits will be exempt (they shall not be called deposits) and those institutions—and there are a number—which may or may not be authorised, that accept and indeed live off, if I may use that expression, wholesale market deposits from authorised institutions would not be required, as I understand it, to be authorised as deposit-taking businesses under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to write to me after our discussion on this matter in Committee and said in his letter that a number of institutions would be exempt from authorisation under these arrangements because they

801
were wholly financed through wholesale money market deposits. Perhaps I may quote from his letter:
"These institutions do not raise money from small depositors. They are funded by professional lenders who benefit from the flexibility and competitiveness of a wholesale market and who do not need the protection of the Act".
Clearly, a number of institutions will be on the margin. Some institutions will accept deposits from private policies, if I may use that expression, or from non-authorised institutions. I am curious to know from the noble Lord how far these institutions, which I regard as being at the margin, will have to be authorised under the legislation if they take one deposit or a small number of deposits, as defined by Clause 5, on a regular basis. Even though the bulk of their financing may come from the wholesale market, are they still caught by the Bill?
Is there any threshold? May they take just one deposit if they take on a regular basis? What kind of institutions are we talking about? Are we talking about finance houses which finance themselves largely from the wholesale market? Are we talking then about finance houses, now that the limit of authorisation has been extended down to the 20 per cent, relationship? Your Lordships did that in Committee. Are we talking about finance houses that may be 21 per cent, owned by an authorised institution? How does all this fit in? Any help the noble Lord can give me on this will go some way to assuaging my concern about the definition of "deposit" under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I had indeed assumed that this was a probing amendment to follow up the questions raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about companies financed by wholesale moneys. As he said, I wrote to him about the subject and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library.
The amendment is inappropriate. It implies that any loans from authorised institutions should be deposits as defined and that any business which borrows from banks other than very infrequently and which is financed to a material extent from such loans should be treated as carrying on deposit-taking business and is thus required to be authorised or exempted under the Bill. The prohibition would catch most businesses in the country, but more importantly banks as lenders do not need the protection of the Bill. They are sophisticated lenders.
Any business of deposit-taking where the proceeds are lent to others requires authorisation unless the deposits are accepted very infrequently. The cost of becoming authorised, staying under the Bank's supervision, fulfilling capital requirements and filling in the necessary returns suggests that there is a minimum level for viability. Companies which lend and finance by wholesale market borrowing would, for instance, include leasing companies and some finance companies. The Government do not consider that they should be authorised under the Bill.
Banks are sophisticated lenders and do not need protection in respect of their lending to such businesses. In any event the authorities have a degree of indirect influence over such businesses by their
802
supervision of the banks, which provide their funding. If prudential or systematic concerns were to arise the Government would consider using their order-making power under Clause 7 to bring such business within the scope of the Bill's control.
I hope that I have been able to assist the noble Lord by providing some information. It is a complicated clause as he said earlier. In the light of what I have said to him, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pursuing the discussion which we had in Committee and about which he wrote to me. I am still not entirely happy that the definition is fully clear cut and that everybody will understand it. However, I accept that to try to change the clause at this stage would throw the Bill into some confusion. I do not intend to press the amendment. Nevertheless I think it only fair to say that I still have certain concerns about the definition of "deposit" and the way it carries through into Clause 6 and into deposit-taking businesses. I am comforted by what the noble Lord has said in referring me to Clause 7, which gives the Treasury power to amend the meaning of "deposit". I suspect that we shall have to see how the Bill when enacted operates and then, if necessary, the Treasury may have to step in and redefine "deposit" in the appropriate manner. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Meaning of "deposit-taking business"]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 17, after ("occasions") insert ("or a particular series of occasions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when discussing Clause 6 in Committee we had an exchange on the subject of sterling debt securities and sterling commercial paper. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to write to me and enclose a copy of the order which was issued under the Banking Act and which he said, as I understood him, would be reissued as an order under the Bill when enacted. My difficulty is whether commercial paper or debt securities in currencies other than sterling are covered by this provision.
Clearly they are not under the statutory instrument which the noble Lord sent me. That refers specifically to sterling commercial paper and sterling debt. It is quite a common feature that companies can raise, through the mechanism of commercial paper, currencies other than sterling. For instance, dollar commercial paper is now quite a common feature of the market.
It seemed to me that to have an amendment of the kind I have drafted—and I do not pretend for a moment that it is perfect—would allow companies and institutions to issue these securities, or this commercial paper or notes, or whatever instrument it may be, on a tap basis as it were. There is no one particular occasion. There may be a series of occasions of which companies may wish to take advantage in releasing on to the market their securities, their notes

803
or paper, or whatever other instrument it may be. It was with those two objects in mind that I tabled this amendment. I do not think we have thought our way through this problem—atleast, I have not. I shall be grateful for any help the noble Lord can give me. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for tabling this amendment and I think I may be able to be of some help to him. The noble Lord says that this may not be the definitive amendment that he would like to see, so perhaps I may make one or two points and see whether we can make progress.
This amendment would seriously undermine the protection given to depositors. As the Bill is framed, it lays down a wide prohibition on the acceptance of deposits without authorisation, though it permits a business to accept deposits if they are accepted only on particular occasions. The term "particular occasions", as Clause 6(4) makes clear, means occasions which have characteristics which distinguish each from the other. The Bill therefore allows businesses to raise deposit-type finance through the occasional debenture or loan stock issue to the public. The issues would take place on particular occasions because they would be infrequent and each have unique and distinctive terms, different interest rates, maturity, purpose, and so on.
However, if a company wished to raise finance involving the acceptance of deposits more frequently, it would either have to be authorised under the Bill or ensure that it would benefit under exempt transactions regulations made under the Bill. Such exemption regulations have been made under the existing Act for sterling corporate bonds and for commercial paper. Such exemptions are granted on the basis that there are safeguards to protect the public; for example, that there are disclosure requirements and minimum denominations for deposit so that the small man would not be exposed to the risk of loss. These exemption regulations will be continued under the Bill.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is that it would allow a person to accept deposits on a regular basis without being authorised under the Bill or otherwise subject to safeguards. The phrase "particular series of occasions" could, it appears, cover a large number of occasions. Thus it would appear, for example, that a person could accept deposits from the public, say, every Tuesday, as a particular series of occasions and not be subject to the Bill's controls. That, I believe, would expose the public to unacceptable risks in this respect.
If there is a concern that at some future time businesses were not getting sufficient access to non-bank loan finance the appropriate course would be to make further exempt transactions; but only if suitable safeguards can be established as they have been with the regulations under the 1979 Act. The point I made on the previous amendment about Clause 7 would also apply here.
I hope I have been able to be of some assistance to the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I certainly should like to read what he said and consider the point further.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. However, I still have the two problems. I accept that under Clause 7 the Treasury "may" make an order varying the exemption provisions. Companies do issue notes, securities and commercial paper on a tap basis and they will continue to do so. We hope they will, because they benefit from that and it is not something which should be stopped. Therefore, just one occasion does not seem to me to cover that important activity.
The second problem that I still have relates to foreign currencies. New York is a major market for commercial paper for British companies and it would be sad, to say the least, if they were in any way prevented from carrying on that business, or the Treasury had to make a new order in some way in order to exempt this type of transaction.
Those are the two questions I had in mind in tabling this amendment and perhaps the noble Lord, with the leave of the House, may be able to help me further.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may come back on that point. Regarding the noble Lord's point about foreign currency transactions, I understand that it has not been necessary, for example, to make an exemption for dollar securities under the 1979 Act because deposits are not accepted in the United Kingdom. This is not seen as a risk to depositors; only professionals lend in the currency markets. If attempts were made to solicit deposits from small depositors in currency by United Kingdom borrowers, the power to control, or even ban, advertising for such deposits would apply.
I recognise that this is a complicated matter so I should be happy to consider further what the noble Lord has said and perhaps table an amendment at the next stage of the Bill if we have not covered the entire area that the noble Lord wished to cover today.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the request to the noble Lord to reconsider the matter as he has already promised to do. Since the 1979 Act the markets have developed in a way that makes it difficult to suggest that even a dollar paper is not offered within the United Kingdom or in areas or time zones around the United Kingdom that would make it possible for investors, albeit large investors, to be able to buy such paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Objection by direction of the Treasury]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 18, line 4, after ("controller") insert—
("(i) the interests of the United Kingdom, or of any substantial part thereof, would be damaged; or
(ii) without prejudice to the generality of (i) above,").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, and again in Committee, I asked your Lordships and the Government to consider the anxiety which many people feel, not all of them bankers, about one striking

805
absence in the Bill. It is the apparent absence of any power of the Bank of England or even the Treasury itself to prevent the takeover of a major British authorised institution by a foreign institution on the ground that such an acquisition would be against the national interest.
My concern may be clearer if I abandon the language of the law and stop talking about major authorised institutions and simply refer to our biggest banks, the clearing banks or, to be understood by all and sundry, the high street banks—because they are my primary concern. There are in the Bill, or elsewhere, powers to take over on three distinct grounds. First, there are powers of objection on prudential grounds—for example, the reason that the bidder is not a fit and proper person—and that I expect and would not want otherwise.
In Committee my noble friend made some play with the second ground for prohibiting an acquisition. He pointed to the power to prohibit an acquisition by foreign persons or institutions on the ground that our people and institutions cannot buy into their system on the same terms as they can buy into ours. That is what my noble friend termed the requirement for reciprocity. It lies in the Financial Services Act and is now being put severely to the test.
In this context, I ask my noble friend whether the reciprocity provision in Section 183 of the Financial Services Act is sufficiently clear in allowing action to be taken against an overseas bank if there is insufficient reciprocity in one of the other financial fields—either investment or insurance business—and vice versa. I understand that that is the intention of the provision, but can my noble friend assure me that it is also its effect? It will be interesting to see whether the demonstration of a lack of reciprocity proves to be such a simple matter, even in the case of Japan, as has been supposed.
However, I repeat that that is not the case in which I am primarily interested. The eruption of the Japanese difficulty, which does not arise from banking, has served only to cloud the issue. If it proves that there is no reciprocity with Japan there will be a defence against a Japanese takeover for as long as it lasts. But Her Majesty's Government are doing everything they possibly can to persuade the Japanese to abandon discrimination and adopt reciprocity as soon as possible. If they succeed—we all hope they will succeed soon—Her Majesty's Government will then be in honour bound positively to welcome the Japanese into our high streets. If my noble friend is intending to sit on that particular branch, he had better take note that his colleagues in the other place are sawing away at it for all they are worth.
This is a side issue. It is not worth my noble friend's while to sit on that branch at all. There is reciprocity, unless I am very much mistaken, with plenty of other countries—Hong Kong, the United States, and Germany, just for a start. Institutions from those countries and many more beside are entirely unfettered by the reciprocity requirements in the Financial Services Act. Within those countries, and others, which satisfy the requirements, there are a great many institutions which are unquestionably "fit
806
and proper persons" to be bankers in this country. Many of them certainly have the means and some may soon have the motive to get into banking in the British high street. Clearly, no British Government could watch contentedly while that went on.
However, what powers would exist to intervene? I come here to the third power referred to by my noble friend in Committee. It was on this power—referral by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—that he placed the greatest weight. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that both he and I referred to the attempted takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland by the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and Standard Chartered. My noble friend directed attention to that case because it had been referred by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the day to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Although, for reasons which I made clear, I hope, to the Committee, I do not altogether like the idea of handing this very important aspect of banking control to a non-banking department of state, I withdrew my amendment in order to study the report of the commission further. I wished to see if I could draw from it the comfort which my noble friend led me to expect to find there. It is true that the report adduces the national interest as one of the principal grounds for its decision to recommend against the proposed acquisition. It says in paragraph 12.39:
"We find not only the adverse effects on Scotland mentioned in paragraph 12.38, but also that transfer of ultimate control of a significant part of the clearing bank system outside the United Kingdom would have the adverse effect of opening up possibilities of divergence of interest which would not otherwise arise".
We can all agree with that language. It is exactly the point I am making. If matters rested there, I might bicker with my noble friend over the location of this power in the DTI rather than the Treasury or the Bank. But I would be reassured that it existed and that it would be used. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has the power to refer foreign bids to take over high street banks to the MMC, and the MMC has actually used the power to recommend against such a bid on precisely the grounds I am advancing. But the defensive machinery rests not with the Secretary of State but with the MMC. It can work only if engaged by the Secretary of State referring the case.
Matters did not rest there. The report was published in January, 1982, and on 5th July, 1984 the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement in the form of a Written Answer on mergers policy. The relevant part of it appears in col. 213 of the Official Report for that day and reads:
"Apart from market share and assets tests in Section 64, the Fair Trading Act lays down no statutory criteria for references to the MMC. I regard mergers policy as an important part of the Government's general policy of promoting competition within the economy in the interests of the customer and of efficiency and hence of growth and jobs. Accordingly my policy has been and will continue to be to make references primarily on competition grounds. In evaluating the competitive situation in individual cases I shall have regard to the international context; to the extent of competition in the home market from non-United Kingdom sources and to the competitive position of United Kingdom companies in overseas markets".
In that passage, the whole weight of government policy is leaned upon protecting competition. The only reference to the international dimension is in the

807
context of competition and there is no allusion to the national interest as anything but competition. He who runs may read that statement but he can read it only as meaning that in future competition will normally be the sole ground for referral.
That was the last definitive statement on government policy on this matter that there has been. The only public statement since then referring to this policy which I have been able to find, is the statement by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, given in a Written Answer on 5th June, 1986, at col. 615, to the effect that both mergers policy and restrictive trade practices were up for review. They may be under review; but as yet they have yet not been changed.
My right honourable friend's statement of July, 1984, is still therefore the Government's current published policy. It is not enough for my noble friend to tell us, as he did in Committee, that our concern will be put before our mutual and right honourable friend, nor to tell us, as in the letter he was kind enough to write to me and copy to your Lordships' Library, that our right honourable friend had given an assurance that there was no reason why that review would result in any weakening of the broad public interest criterion contained in the Fair Trading Act. For, unless I have got it wrong, it is not the Secretary of State who applies the criterion. It is applied by the commission once he has referred the case to it. The latest statement of policy is that he is not likely to refer the case to it at all.
Can my noble friend therefore please put on record what is current policy on referrals, pending the completion of the review that is now under way? Will he make his assurance specific to the banking sector? Does the Government's policy now extend to the referral of bids for British institutions from foreign-based bidders on grounds of national interest when the circumstances justify it? I am not asking my noble friend categorically to say that every such bid will be referred. That would be foolish. I merely want an assurance that it is part of the policy to refer cases where appropriate.
It is not mere chauvinism which makes the foreign takeover of our high street banks repugnant to us, although that has electoral connotations, no doubt. There is the very practical question of what the takeover of such an influential part of our monetary system would do to the Bank of England and to the Government's control of the economy. The discreet guidance which the Bank of England gives to the clearers is heeded by them because they are British institutions owned predominantly by British shareholders with a very real interest in the health and security of the British economy. Their interest is the national interest. But that system of management will not work when the controlling interest diverges from the national interest. It will diverge when ownership goes out of the country, and, as I hope I have shown, there is nothing in the Bill to stop it doing so. There is certainly nothing in the Bill to give us a new system when it does.
Failing a full and quotable assurance on this policy, it seems to me that my amendment which puts the explicit discretion directly in the hands of the principal
808
department of state involved in this field offers the only safe way forward. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it may be convenient for the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 7 in the names of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and myself. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has set out. Many of them were set out by both of us at the Committee stage of the Bill. But the noble Lord has brought forward some new developments since then which are very interesting.
I do not feel there is a great deal of difference between our two positions. We both believe there should be some provision in this Bill which protects the national interest specifically in respect of what we call important authorised institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, seeks an assurance from the Secretary of State on the operation of competition policy. No doubt the Secretary of State will decide whether or not he gives such an assurance. My problem is slightly different. I think the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is an unhappy forum to decide issues of this nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, brought forward the correct argument, which was used in the case of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank's attempted acquisition, that control of the major clearing banks would give a foreign bank considerable influence on the operation of our monetary policy. I think that was a point brought out by the noble Lord to which we would agree. We think that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is therefore an unhappy body to push this—it is a bit of a fudge frankly—just because it happens to be there.
We are much more worried about the review of competition policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred and which the Secretary of State mentioned during the second day in Committee, when he said, referring to that review:
"One thing I can assure the Committee is that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take these points on board. I cannot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I can say that the position of the banks and the banking system as a whole will be taken into account during the course of the current review of these matters".—[Official Report, 23/3/87; col. 31.]
That is fine as far as it goes, but "taken into account" does not give us an assurance of the type that we are requesting.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can take into account all sorts of things in his review of competition policy. Certainly he is entitled to do so and quite rightly should do so; but we are looking for a much stronger assurance that clearing banks, which are major financial institutions, will be protected if it is against the national interest for them to be taken over by foreign institutions. Our view on this matter is perfectly clear. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is not the right forum. We are wholly uncertain about the result of the competition review. Therefore we believe that there should be something on the face of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, it is too early for me to say that I support the amendment that has

809
been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but I have much sympathy with the views that he has expressed. I look forward with great interest to the reply that will eventually be given by the Secretary of State on this matter, in the light of which we can decide what, if anything, we wish to do.
Of course, nowadays we live in a world in which banking is highly internationalised and cross-shareholdings in banks are growing all the time. There is no way of stopping that so far as I can see. Nevertheless, I believe that we should have adequate protection against the taking over of our large deposit banks by foreign institutions. If those banks were eventually to be assimilated by banks of a similar character within the European Community, as the Community moves closer together as a single market, maybe eventually that would become acceptable. It is too early for that to be acceptable now and in my view it would not be at all acceptable for that assimilation to take place with banks in more distant countries.
Can one really envisage a situation in which all the British clearing banks are owned by the Japanese and half of the principal Japanese banks are owned by the British? It may be very international but it seems to me that it is not very sensible. The deposit banks have a special position. They are quite unlike the rest of the banking organisations. They hold the deposits of the people of this country, and it is important that we should enable such institutions to remain in British hands for the comfort of their British depositors. Of course they hold other deposits as well—more so as banking becomes more international—but I believe that competition is not an adequate criterion for judging whether foreign takeovers should be allowed. Reciprocity is not an adequate criterion because, as I say, reciprocity would be met if British banks were owned by the Japanese and Japanese banks were owned by the British, but that would not seem to me to make a lot of sense.
Also, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am not very happy about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is true that about 15 years ago when they considered the potential union of Barclays Bank and Lloyds Bank, which was one that those two banks would have undertaken in agreement, it was not acceptable. At that time I was rather inclined to think that the larger bank that would have resulted would have been a more adequate competitor for other large banks in Japan, America and throughout the world. However, in the end in that case the Monopolies and Mergers Commission came to the right answer.
I am very much less happy about the answer to which the commission eventually came about the affair of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland. There it showed itself to be singularly lacking in enlightenment. I should much have preferred to have seen that decision taken by people who were closely connected with the financial affairs of our country.
That is all I have to say at this point. I await with interest the reply by the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the spirit of this amendment and at the outset should very
810
much like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the exchange of correspondence on the subject of overseas bank takeovers since the Committee stage of the Bill. I wholly agree with, and indeed could not do otherwise than accept, the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, who has confirmed that the concern is with the deposit banks—the high street banks. That is where throughout my personal concern has been.
At Committee stage Amendment No. 50 to Clause 22 was moved by my noble friend Lord Elton. It evoked the ministerial response (to be found at col. 29 of the Official Report, Vol. 486, No. 60) that for Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 "public interest" was adequate to cover both domestic and overseas takeover bids.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said today that the commission is an unhappy forum. The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, with his vast experience, said that in this sphere competition was not the effective yardstick. Those are not his words but that is the sense of his most interesting and authoritative speech. Therefore the MMC is not wholly acceptable to many noble Lords in this House. It remains an open question but a question on which the door to argument in this Bill is now closed.
At Committee stage I expressed my views, for what they were worth, which probably was not much, and there is no object in repeating them. We now know that my right honourable friend will be looking into the delay factor in the review of the MMC procedure. We understand that according to the view of the Government the expertise of the MMC is such as not to warrant any new special provisions for bank mergers. However, that tentative view was expressed before my noble friend the Minister had the advantage of hearing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien.
This amendment to Clause 23, which deals with the direction to be given by the Treasury, affords some sort of compensatory safeguard as regards:
"the interests of the United Kingdom, or of any substantial part thereof,
irrespective of the question of "fit and proper person" and irrespective of the question of "reciprocity" which arises under the Financial Services Act. I respectfully suggest that it is important, because in this Bill no standard whatsoever is laid down for any reference to the MMC and surely in a matter of such importance it must be right to lay down some standard; even if those standards—and I freely accept the argument—are not justiciable in the form in which this amendment is cast. That perhaps does not matter.
Your Lordships may well think that it is of importance that the standards should be laid down, and on record and that there should be a policy on record. I hope my noble friend the Minister, having heard what has been said, might think it right to give some form of assurance.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I should like to repeat the support that I gave to the amendment in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, has already expressed the problem succinctly; that is, that reciprocity and competition, either individually or

811
together, cannot be enough in considering the question of the takeover by a foreign bank of one of our major banks. On that basis, therefore, the question of the Secretary of State's decision to refer any such merger becomes critical.
I should like to add only one further point to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said on this question. In the two years following the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Royal Bank of Scotland bids, I believe that both the Prime Minister and the current Governor of the Bank of England, who did not hold office at the time of the bid, expressed the view that the decision of the commission was wrong and that the decision should have been made purely on competition grounds.
If this is a fair representation of the way that the Government are thinking and the way in which they will apply their thinking in the course of the review of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's activities and the Restrictive Practices Court, the concerns of your Lordships' House are all the more valid. Although a review of competition policy that did not delete the national interest aspect might leave the banks adequately protected at this stage, it seems to me necessary and important insurance for the Bill to include adequate protection specifically for our largest banks. There is little to lose.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, expressed surprise in Committee that I felt I could read the mind of the authorities in other countries, and I certainly cannot. However, I think that reserve powers of this sort would not and should not be taken as a step by this country towards greater protectionism in financial services.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I declare an interest as an independent director of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I should like to support the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do so, I hope, with all due diffidence. As chairman of one of the national broadcasting authorities, I do not normally intervene in your Lordships' debates, and I have not taken part in any of the earlier discussions on the Bill.
There is perhaps one aspect of the Independent Broadcasting Authority that is relevant to your Lordships' consideration in this matter. Under the broadcasting Acts the ownership and control of any commercial broadcasting station is considered sufficiently important to the national interest to make non-EC ownership illegal. If it is against the national interest for Radio Clyde or Thames Television to be under foreign control, I should have thought that the national interest in maintaining national control of the great clearing banks of the country was even greater.
Britain, unlike for example the United States, has a fairly centralised clearing bank system with only a handful of clearing banks working in close collaboration with the Bank of England. It is a confidential and sensitive relationship built up over a long period of time. By and large I think that it works very well. It is hard to believe that it would not be changed for the worse if a clearing bank in foreign ownership were to have access to these deliberations.
812
The relationship between the clearing banks and the Bank of England lies at the very heart of the nation's financial and monetary strategy. It is very hard to conceive that if, for example, a major Japanese bank, or for that matter the other banks that could be thought of in other parts of the world, were to have access to the heart of the financial system, that would not do great damage to the mutual trust on which it has been based. It is, for example, very hard to see the Japanese offering equal reciprocity on their side.
If it is conceded that the national interest is involved in a foreign takeover of a British clearing bank, the question is how the nation's interest should best be determined. It seems to me, with respect, that the Government and the Treasury cannot avoid the responsibility of making that necessary judgment. It is for that reason that I support either the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I certainly do not believe, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the reciprocity formula is a sufficient safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, explored the alternative route by way of a judgment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We all await with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, may tell us about further government consideration of that aspect. I can only say to your Lordships as a director of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has been mentioned frequently in the discussions, that we have been over this course and are much aware of the hazards and uncertainties that are involved in it. It lasted in our case I think for very nearly a year. These hazards and uncertainties the noble Lord, Lord Young, must accept—until he speaks—have grown greater rather than less since the royal bank inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted the statement in another place of the Secretary of State responsible on 5th July 1984.I noticed that on Second Reading of the Bill in another place the Minister winding up referred to this situation. On 28th November 1986 he said at col. 583:
"Trade Ministers are conducting a review of the policy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It has concentrated heavily on domestic competition, but other factors could be taken into account".
That itself is a singularly unsatisfactory basis for the present legislation to become an Act.
The public interest involved in a British clearing bank coming under foreign control goes a great deal deeper and wider than simply considerations of competition policy. It is not just a matter of competitiveness either in the domestic or in the international market but of the national interest in safeguarding the means of control of our national banking system with all that that implies, above all for the ordinary depositors in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, so clearly stated.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I support the amendment and the new clause from a position slightly different from that of most previous speakers. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, speaks with direct knowledge of Scottish banking. As I read it, the amendment would not only apply to potential takeovers by foreign banks. It would not be necessary

813
to prove that those were against the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. The amendment specifically provides:
"or of any substantial part thereof.
I welcome that, because I wish to speak from Scotland's point of view, although no doubt what I say will be relevant to England and Wales and, for all I know, Northern Ireland.
When the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation proposed a takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland, it was the preferred candidate in Scotland. I think I am right when I say that most people in Scotland would have welcomed a takeover by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank rather than one by its rivals, because the impression was given that it would allow the Royal Bank of Scotland more independence. The question of independence is of great importance in Scotland. Scotland has suffered continually since the first world war from the takeover of major independent companies in all parts of the economy. That is still going on today.
That means that there is not only a direct loss of employment, there is a serious loss of top-level employment. A serious social loss is caused by the removal from Scotland of its ablest and most ambitious people. I beg your Lordships as I have before—as have so many other people—to take that point into account. If one or both of the only remaining truly independent banks in Scotland were taken over by a major London bank, that would be extremely serious for Scotland.
As I understand it, at present there is nothing to prevent that happening so long as some competition remains. Like other noble Lords, I believe that this is not solely a question of competition and that it should not be left to the MMC. I candidly do not know whether the Treasury is the right body to deal with it. Neither do I know whether it is sufficient to speak of interests—without defining them—
"of the United Kingdom, or of any substantial part thereof".
I am convinced that the Bill should contain a provision for taking into account considerations other than competition; for instance, considerations of the effect on a substantial part of the United Kingdom and the general social effect of takeovers. In parenthesis, I say that that does not apply only to banking. As has been mentioned before, in some ways banks are asking for protection which should be given to all major companies. This is a Banking Bill and something in it along the lines of the amendment would be useful.
When the noble Lord, Lord Elton, moved his amendment he asked for an answer with regard to the Government's proposals. As I understood it, he referred largely to their proposals for controlling the intervention of foreign banks. I hope that when the Government reply they will pay some attention to the possibility of British banks interfering in this field because, as I said, in Scotland that too is a serious matter. Some people in Scotland think that it might be better to have a greater degree of independence under a foreign bank than complete control by a bank based on London.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as I did on Second Reading. I am not sure whether my interest is in favour or against the amendment. It is against the amendment, I suppose, speaking as chairman of a large clearing bank. I should not wish to see my shareholders denied the opportunity of the most attractive bid which might be presented to them, although I believe that they would suffer from the lack of management skills that they now enjoy if that circumstance should arise.
For the amendment, however, I feel strongly that the public interest requires that one or more of the larger High Street deposit banks should not come into foreign ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, knows this better than anyone, but I believe that the influence that is exercised through the Government, the Bank of England and the clearing banks provides a powerful economic lever. It is one which I believe has been used for the benefit of this country's economy for a long time. That relationship would be completely destroyed, if sitting around the governor's table were the chairmen of Hong Kong, Japanese or German institutions. That would change the situation dramatically in a way which I believe would be against the public interest.
We have been referred to the fact that safeguards exist. I was overseas when the Bill was in Committee; but I read the Official Report in which my noble friend Lord Young referred to some of the safeguards which would prevent that fate befalling British banks. My noble friend Lord Elton has responded effectively to them. Fit and proper persons, banking prudence, and so on, are essential ingredients for anyone running a major bank.
With regard to reciprocity, I have just returned from Japan. There I inquired carefully under what circumstances a British bank would be prevented from bidding for or acquiring a Japanese bank. My noble friend will no doubt be able to confirm this, but the answer was that there is nothing legally to prevent it from so doing. In practice of course the PE ratio and the price of Japanese banks are such as to put them right out of the reach of any British bank. The bureaucracy which applies would no doubt also bar us from so doing.
I do not believe that technically there is anything in the reciprocity point which would enable the Government, under the Bill as now drafted, to say, "You cannot bid for and acquire a British bank". The same applies to places like Hong Kong where there is vast wealth and future money coming through from China, and so forth. I do not know that my noble friend would necessarily think that such takeovers would make for the most stable British banking system.
With regard to the Community, reciprocity is presumably written into all Community legislation and understandings, and yet in practice we know that it would be extremely difficult for a British bank to acquire, for example, a French bank. I do not believe that the reciprocity provisions provide the safeguard which I believe is highly desirable.
We therefore fall back on the MMC. My noble friend Lord Elton has effectively referred to the

815
weaknesses in that system. I am advised that the decision which applied in the Royal Bank of Scotland case could not be supported today under the present competition policy that was stated by Mr. Tebbit when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5th July 1984 and to which my noble friend has referred.
My noble friend will no doubt rightly say that in that policy statement Mr. Tebbit said:
"Accordingly my policy has been and will continue to be to make references primarily on competition grounds"—[Official Report Commons, 5/7/84; col. 213.]
My noble friend will be entitled to say that does not exclude references being made on other grounds. Perhaps there have been some since that statement.
But the whole balance is such that it would be difficult to justify making a reference on purely national-interest grounds even though it may appear right and proper that that should be so.
There is the further complication that the policy stated in July 1984 is now under review. We do not know what will come out at the end of that review. Is the whole future of the banking system and the economy's essential economic levers to depend on something, which is under review, which has not yet come out of the machine and about which we do not yet know?
I hope that if my noble friend does not accept the amendment, he can give the assurance for which my noble friend Lord Elton has asked, so that we can be clear that the Government's policy would be to refer to the MMC any reference that included the acquisition or possible acquisition of one of the economy's major economic levers; namely, one of the clearing banks.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are occasions when sitting on the Front Bench of your Lordships' House appears a somewhat cold and lonely place, although I must confess that this afternoon I am kept warm by the strength of the arguments that I wish to outline.
We conducted a substantial debate on this issue during the Committee stage. It has also been the subject of extensive debate in another place. But it is an important subject and I therefore make no apology for stating again in some detail—in reply to many points made by noble Lords today—why the Government consider that it is neither necessary nor desirable for the Bill to be amended, either in the way proposed by my noble friend or that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
The case argued in favour of amendment is, first, that the acquisition of a major controlling shareholder in an important British banking institution could raise questions of whether it would be in the general public or national interest for such an acquisition to proceed especially if the acquisition were mounted from overseas. Secondly, it is argued that there should be statutory procedures for consideration of the public interest in such cases. It is then concluded that the Bill should be amended to give the Government power to object to certain bank takeovers on grounds of public interest.
816
I have no difficulty with the premises of these arguments, only with the conclusion. The question has been looked at most carefully by the Government both before and during the proceedings on the Bill, and in the light of representations that we have received, including those from noble Lords. It is fully accepted that public interest factors could arise as a result of takeover proposals in the banking sector. This is not a unique case. I am sure that noble Lords would accept that public interest factors could also arise in other sectors including other financial services, the service sector more generally or in manufacturing, chemicals, foods and so on. Therefore, although banking is a very important area, there is no monopoly on public interest considerations arising in the context of changes of control.
The second premise is that since the public interest can be a relevant factor in takeovers, then there should be a statutory procedure for the consideration of these issues and powers available to the Government to prevent a takeover that will be contrary to public interest. It is indeed right that there should be such powers. However, in the Government's view, these are already provided for by the statutory procedures for bids to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. These procedures apply to banks just as they do to companies and any other sector. We believe that it would be unnecessary and confusing to introduce further statutory provisions for banks and wrong to single out for special treatment a particular group of institutions.
I am aware that a number of noble Lords are familiar with the procedure for references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope, however, that I may be forgiven for saying something further on the main points. A reference may be made when any merger situation which qualifies for investigation arises. If such a reference is made, the commission is required to report on whether the takeover may be expected to operate against the public interest. If that is indeed the finding, then powers are available to the Government to prevent or, if necessary, to remedy the situation. This includes powers to order divestment of shareholdings.
I was asked during our debate in Committee how the public interest was defined in this context. I fear that a complete and definitive interpretation is something that neither I, nor I imagine other noble Lords, would care to undertake. However, I can say that the construction is a wide one and not restricted solely to matters of competition policy. In my view there are clear advantages in its being kept in this general form. Certainly the phrase is common in "statute. I point out that the relevant section of the legislation obliges the commission to take into account all matters which appear to it to be relevant in considering the public interest. I am not in any doubt that the phrase covers the concerns for the United Kingdom's national or public interest that have been raised in this debate.
The Government's view—and it follows from what I have said—is that these procedures deal adequately with the concerns expressed about bank takeovers. If further evidence were required, then I draw attention to the case of the proposed acquisition of the Royal

817
Bank of Scotland by Hongkong and Shanghai. This is a case directly relevant to our debate and sets an important precedent. The proposed acquisition was found to be against the public interest. An important part of this conclusion was—I quote from the conclusions of the commission's 1982 report—that,
"transfer of ultimate control of a significant part of the clearing bank system outside the United Kingdom would have the adverse effect of opening up possibilities of divergence of interest which would not otherwise arise".
It seems clear that the matters about which concern has been expressed can be and have been, taken into account under the existing procedures. It is in the nature of these matters that the Government must avoid any commitments that a particular hypothetical case or class of cases will, or will not, be referred, or what the outcome should be. Nevertheless, my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already said in another place—and I agree with him—that it is difficult to imagine that any foreign bid for a major British bank would not raise issues of public interest at least as great as those in the case to which I have already referred. These public interest factors have been taken into account in the past and I would hope, and certainly expect, that they will be taken into account in the future.
This, then, is the situation under the present legislation. I hope that what I have said has given assurances to noble Lords. Your Lordships will, however, be aware that the Government are currently undertaking a thorough review of the existing procedures covering both policy under the existing law and the statutory provisions themselves. I can therefore appreciate the concern that has been expressed, both in another place, during the course of our earlier debates and today about the continuation of the public interest criteria. It was, however, for this very reason that my honourable friend the Economic Secretary put on the record in another place an assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is no reason why the review will result in any weakening of the broad public interest criterion contained in the existing legislation.
I hope that this assurance also gives comfort to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and to other noble Lords who have expressed concern on this point. My noble friend Lord Boardman drew attention to the statement made by my right honourable friend Norman Tebbit in 1984 when he was Secretary, of State for Trade and Industry. He said that the policy
"has been and will continue to be to make references primarily on competition grounds". [Official Report, Commons, 5/7/84; col. 213.]
That of course, is the situation today subject to the conclusions of the current review. I think that it is entirely to be expected that questions of competition will be the dominant reason for referrals rather than the wider public interest issues which we have been discussing. But the policy statement of 1984 does not in any way rule out references on general grounds of public interest including the fact that the proposed acquisition is by an overseas company. This is a matter that has been made clear on a number of subsequent occasions.
818
Perhaps I may refer to a speech last November by my honourable friend Michael Howard who said:
"But Norman Tebbit never said that references would be made only on competition grounds and there have been a small number of exceptional cases in which mergers have been referred because they were thought to raise other public interest issues".
There have been a number of other cases subsequent to the 1984 statement where references have been made on grounds other than competition or where competition was only one of several factors. Such grounds included the special nature of a particular industry. While I cannot say that the acquisition of a British bank would automatically be referred, there is no doubt that both the statutory framework and the current policy towards references allow full scope for referral and consideration of proposed acquisitions of general public interest grounds. As my honourable friend Ian Stewart has already said, it is almost impossible to conceive that an overseas bid for a United Kingdom clearing bank would not be referred.
I hope that this restores confidence in the Government's position, and I refer here in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who has written to me on the matter. I have also, as I undertook to do in our earlier debate, drawn the debate of your Lordships to the attention of my right honourable friend who has the prime responsibility for this review. I know that he will also take into account the various points that have been made today.
Finally the matter of reciprocity was raised: the statutory provisions, including those in the Bill, designed to encourage the opening up of overseas financial markets to British firms. This is an additional factor. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission procedures do not deal explicitly with reciprocity. The provisions of the Financial Services Act expanded by the provisions of this Bill provide the necessary reserve powers.
On the question of takeovers, the Bill provides a power for the Government to object to any proposed acquisition of control where the result of the acquisition proceedings would be controlled by an institution whose country of origin did not meet this test. This is an additional important safeguard. But I am aware that my noble friend Lord Elton asked whether the provisions in Section 183 of the Financial Services Act are sufficiently clear in allowing action to be taken against overseas banks if the reciprocity in one of the other financial fields is there.
The intention is that the power should be usable in this way. Whether the drafting is adequately clear is very much a matter of detailed legal interpretation. Nevertheless it is an important issue and Clause 23 works by reference to the section of the Financial Services Act to which my noble friend referred. I shall therefore ensure that the matter is thoroughly looked into and if necessary we can return to this matter at Third Reading.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked whether the Government more than the MMC should have the actual decision. Indeed this is not a point—as I think I have already said—that relates only to banks. One could argue the same for any sector where there might be a special interest on the part of the Government or in any other way. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I believe found this a very attractive

819
proposition. But this is surely down the slippery path at the end of which all takeovers would be inhibited, and if we were not careful we should find that the entire market would start to become complacent and sink into decay. The approach suggested by the Government is to take the matter to an independent body, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to investigate.
There are advantages in such an approach and there is no case that we can see for special procedures for banks. Reference has been made to the delay in obtaining the decision from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the case of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Is there any thought that it would be any quicker from government? Indeed there is great advantage of an outside body. Of course there is no question that regional factors will be taken into account. Again I refer particularly to the Royal Bank of Scotland where the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred specifically to Scottish interests. I hope that that is a matter that will always be taken into account in considering the national interest as a whole.
Finally, in addition to the arguments that have already been made against the need to introduce new powers to prevent takeovers of British banks on grounds of national interest, we ought to take into account the circumstances of the day and the current climate of international trading relations. There are obvious tensions at the present time. There are increasing anxieties about protectionism and specific difficulties involving the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan.
Given that in the Government's stated view adequate statutory procedures already exist for consideration of the national interest aspect of bank takeovers generally, and given the provisions already in the Bill dealing with reciprocity, it would not be at all clear what purpose was to be solved by the proposed new powers. I fear that they would only create unnecessary doubt and suspicion in the minds of our overseas trading partners at a particularly difficult moment.
I briefly summarise by saying that the question is essentially one of means rather than ends. The Government's view is that adequate means are available for the scrutiny of bank takeovers affecting the public interest and that no compelling case has been made for new and special statutory procedures for banks. I therefore invite my noble friend and noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend to say, three-quarters of the way through his answer, that he would look at this again and that there was still a chance that something might be done from the Government Bench?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. I was referring to a specific matter raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. I was confirming the effect of Section 183 of the Financial Services Act but not referring to the general position.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in that case I do not think that the answer my noble friend has given is
820
good enough in all the circumstances. The matter ought to be looked at again even at this late stage. He has repeated the arguments which were used in another place and which he earlier in these proceedings put in front of the House. In his opening he said that the considered view was that such a provision was neither necessary nor desirable.
Even conceding the point that, as he views the situation and the possible problems of the future, it may not be necessary because all the powers are there, is it not a case in this instance, when dealing with the important banking section of this nation's interests, that a belt and braces approach is more than justified, even though it may not be necessary in the strict terms as interpreted? Why not let it be seen that the message from Parliament, so far as the statute which other people will have to work, is that we want this looked at with all the special care that the extra words of the amendment would put in?
As regards this being desirable, I was a little put off—I wanted to support my noble friend at this stage: I do not know that we want any votes against this—when he said that he did not think there was all that much difference between other manufacturing industries and banks. If it is done for this, one might well be opening the law to the other. There is a difference between separate industries and the banking industry. Other industries are confined to their articles of association covering individual businesses, but the tentacles of banking go into all sorts of businesses. I should have thought that to suggest that one of the reasons for not introducing these extra words is that it may interfere with other separate industries is a weak point which makes one rather suspicious.
As regards being desirable and the reciprocity issue, those of us who have watched what has happened in Europe are not terribly impressed with what flows from the supposed reciprocity. One could not have a tougher agreement than the Treaty of Rome. One could not have anything to cover the supposed affinity of all the nations involved, which should be as one. We have far too many examples, even under the protection of the Treaty of Rome, where self-interest takes priority over supposed adherence to the spirit of the partnership. This is particularly so in the field of banking. When I was sitting in the European Parliament I remember we had to make a detailed investigation of the sort of response we were getting from the insurance sector. We found that in Germany the idea of widening it in the interests of the good partner was not on.
My noble friend pointed out the dangers of giving the impression that we are all becoming protectionists. I agree with that and I do not think we want to risk doing that if we can possibly avoid it. But with one or two of the clashes in other fields which are going on at the minute, I should like the message to go out to many countries of the world that, while we do not want to have to hide behind protectionism because of the dangers that would flow, we are prepared to do so if the interests of this nation are involved.
In many parts of the world people think we are so tied to the free trade ethos that there is no question ever of our deviating from it. Therefore, from the point of view of the general impression, I should think

821
that it may be helpful in fields other than banking. Banking is different and should be judged to be different from any ordinary manufacturing industry or any other industry. Even though in the view of my noble friend and the Government generally it is not absolutely necessary, the belts and braces approach sometimes is more than worth while. I should have thought that that may be so in this case.
I still hope that even at this late stage my noble friend will say that the Government will reconsider the matter with a view to coming a little nearer to my noble friend's amendment than the answer that has just been given seemed to imply.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and I believe that what he says is so important that I should reply.
This afternoon I have endeavoured to assure your Lordships' House that we have the means to ensure that these circumstances do not come about. However, this is the top of a very slippery slope down which we can fall and hurt ourselves. I remind your Lordships' House that, first, a bank is not inherently different from any other company. Indeed, in the way the world is changing, financial services companies are appearing to be more like banks than banks themselves and it becomes extremely difficult to tell the difference.
Secondly, the net overseas investments of the United Kingdom today total £ 110 billion and are exceeded only by those of Japan. I remind all in your Lordships' House that we have more investments and employ more people in the United States of America than Americans own and employ in this country. That applies in many countries of the world. If we start to introduce measures which are as obviously protectionist as this one, I suspect that we shall not be protecting ourselves but will begin to set in train a series of measures from which we shall suffer.
I have endeavoured to assure all in your Lordships' House that we have the means to ensure that that does not come about. I ask your Lordships not to go along with these amendments because in the end I do not think that they will give us a whit more protection but they may harm us considerably.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he tell us why, if he thinks that banks are no different from other companies, we are seeking to produce a new Banking Act when there is in existence a Companies Act?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was being asked to give an assurance that the banks are so different in this field that they demand special protection. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that over the last few years financial services companies have become almost indistinguishable from banks.
We hope that the Bill will become an Act and that it will last for many years to come. In the fast-changing world of financial services I do not see how, once we start to widen the net, we can say for one moment that
822
banks are unique. That is the slope about which I was warning your Lordships.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few moments in this debate in which I have not yet spoken. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has the matter just about right in what is a desperately difficult argument.
During much of my life I have watched various Secretaries of State struggling for acceptance of the same attitudes towards financial services as we enjoy under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. One of the main complaints, not just of banking but of the wider fields of financial services, is that we could not obtain that treatment ourselves. When one is dealing with that matter one wants to approach with the very greatest caution special legislation with faintly protective overtones on any one of our particular activities.
I accept that this argument is much more about means than ends. The amendment as argued by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, or by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, is practically non-protectionist. When argued—and I say this with great respect—by my noble friend Lord Grimond, (who would almost prefer a Japanese bank to anything from London) it becomes a powerful protective weapon for a particular end. If the amendment were passed it is absolutely certain that it would be widely misunderstood.
Against that background I accept what the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, said. He is as well aware of these problems as we are. We all accept his point that to have half the Japanese banks in our hands and all our banks in theirs makes no sense whatever. Nobody seriously imagines that the Government will get into that position. However, we can safeguard our position rather well without passing special legislation with very protective overtones about banks at this time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will be indulgent to my noble friend once more, because it will save a good deal of time if I can ask him one specific question again before I embark on my reply. I asked him previously whether the Government's policy now extends to the referral of bids for British institutions from foreign-based bidders on the grounds of national interest when the circumstances justify it.
My shorthand is not good but every time my noble friend came to that point there was some saving clause like "difficult to imagine", "not reasonable to expect" or "primarily". I am asking for a simple statement of whether that is the Government's policy. That is what this debate is all about.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I can strain the leave of the House, I can at least reply in the shortest possible way to my noble friend Lord Elton by saying yes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am deeply obliged to my noble friend because he has saved me a long and sometimes painful speech. When I came in I sat behind him thinking that I might have the advantage of looking over his shoulder and being in a position of strength. I then found myself between the upper and

823
the nether millstone, so I approach my case now with less confidence than I did before.
The fact is—and I hope that I made it clear—that I am resigned with as much regret as was so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to the commitment of this safeguard of British interests to a free and independent body which is instituted by a different department of state. I do not wish to make a song and dance about that but merely to say that that is a position which I have conceded because we are here to achieve an agreement as best we can.
I therefore wanted to be assured that that machinery would work. We both quoted from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which demonstrated that when it dealt with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation it was definitely within its remit to look after the national interest. There have been subsequent events, which I shall not relate again, that threw that into doubt. My noble friend has now put it firmly on the record that where it is appropriate so to do the Secretary of State will refer a takeover bid from a board or wherever to the commission for its advice and decision.
That was the minimum assurance I could accept but I have been given it and therefore, although I looked forward to an extension of this debate with excitement, I also did so with regret. I am very glad therefore to be able to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Objection to a person becoming a shareholder controller. If it appears to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

(a) that there is a serious and immediate probability of a person becoming a shareholder controller of an important authorised institution; and

(b) that that person becoming such a shareholder controller would be contrary to the interests of any substantial part of the United Kingdom,

he may by order specify the institution and—

(i) prohibit that person from becoming such a shareholder controller, and

(ii) prohibit or restrict the doing of things which in his opinion would constitute or lead to it;

and may make such incidental or supplementary provision in the order as appears to him to be necessary or expedient.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to this debate. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 7 and I do not intend to pursue my remarks very far. I am afraid that I still hold the view that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the wrong forum in which to hold this debate. I do not believe that your Lordships have got any further as a result of the Secretary of State's statement because the competition review that is under way at the moment could produce quite a different result and we do not know what that will be.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I do not feel inclined to withdraw my amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISON NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blyton, L.

Nicol, B.

Bottomley, L.

Northfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Chandos, V.

Phillips, B.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Heycock, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kearton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boardman, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Caccia, L.

Kemsley, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carnock, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Layton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

De Freyne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

Denning, L.

Margadale, L.

Derwent, L.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Melville, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Erne, E.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nathan, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

825

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathspey, L.

Portland, D.

Sudeley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Terrington, L.

Reay, L.

Teviot, L.

Reigate, L.

Teynham, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Todd, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shannon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Sharpies, B.

Young, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ypres, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 34 [Unsolicited calls]:
5.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 27, line 27, at end insert ("or any communication which contravenes regulations made under the Financial Services Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and myself in the words as appear on the Marshalled List.
The amendment concerns unsolicited calls, about which your Lordships had a discussion when the Bill was in Committee. At that time I raised the problem of the client who goes along to see his bank manager and in an unsolicited manner the bank manager asks for a deposit, or whatever it might be. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, to write to me about that matter and he was kind enough to do so. I should like to quote the relevant paragraph in full. He writes:
"But with regard to your particular example, our view is that it would not be an unsolicited call within the meaning of the clause if the bank manager, approached by a customer to discuss one subject, broadens the scope of the conversation to embrace other financial topics".
Your Lordships have had frequent and lengthy discussions on the subject of polarisation. As I understand it, the Government's view on polarisation—which is also the view of the Opposition—is that there should be a clear distinction between those who are offering their own products under the Financial Services Act and those who are offering advice on other people's products. As we know, that has caused a good deal of trouble in the banking community because we have had discussions not only at the Committee and Report stages when the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, but have since had an Unstarred Question on polarisation which revealed a certain amount of disquiet.
It seems to me that the paragraph in the noble Lord's letter raises the possibility that a bank manager may broaden the scope of the conversation to embrace other financial topics. If he does so, he may well find himself in contravention of regulations made under the Financial Services Act. In other words, he may well find himself in the polarisation net.
The problem might rest there were it not for the fact that, as I understand it, contravention of regulations under the Financial Services Act is not a criminal offence whereas contravention of any order made by
826
the Treasury under this clause would be a criminal offence, and probably for good reason. But there seems to be an oddity which is inconsistent with the Government's view on the Financial Services Act and its operation. I believe that an amendment such as the one I have tabled, or a similar amendment, would remove that oddity and make sure that the banking community knew exactly where they were. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this subject, and I confirm to him that it would not be an unsolicited call if a bank manager, approached by a customer to discuss a subject, broadened the scope of the conversation to embrace other financial topics. Since the definition of a "cold call" is the same in the Financial Services Act, the situation would be the same under that Act.
I am advised that this amendment is unnecessary because the similar prohibition on unsolicited calls in the Financial Services Act, which is contained in Section 56, defines "unsolicited call" in identical terms to subsection (4) of this clause. Therefore, if the call is of a type that would, if it related to investment agreements, be contrary to Section 56 of the Financial Services Act but is concerned with the making of deposits, it would be contrary to regulations made under this clause.
I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that sharp operators should not be able to evade the prohibition on cold calling, but I am satisfied that there is no gap between the two provisions. I hope that that goes some way towards satisfying the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the point but the noble Lord did not seem to answer the question I was putting. I understand that the definition of "unsolicited call" in this Bill is exactly the same as the definition of "unsolicited call" in the Financial Services Act. I was not making the point that there was any difference. I accepted that in Committee.
The problem I wish to put is that of the bank manager who may be making an unsolicited call—or may not, according to the wording of the noble Lord's letter—under this Bill. He may get away with it, as it were, under the Bill, but he would not get away with it under the SIB regulations, which are derived regulations from the Financial Services Act, because he would be contravening those regulations. This is the heart of the polarisation dispute.
If I may repeat myself, the problem is that any event under Clause 34 of the Bill as drafted is a criminal offence but offences against—if I may put it this way—polarisation under the Financial Services Act are not criminal offences. There seems to be an oddity there. I am sorry to repeat my original introduction to the amendment but I do not think that the noble Lord addressed himself to that problem.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if his exact point was not answered. I should like to look into this more carefully and write to him on the subject. The noble Lord can then perhaps decide what to do at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 35 [Fraudulent inducement to make deposit:]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 27, line 35, after ("is") insert ("materially").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again arises from a passage in the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, following our Committee stage discussions. The House will be aware that we had quite long discussions about the position of somebody who recklessly—let us leave the word there—makes a statement about somebody else and that somebody else happens to be a bank manager and, as a result, the bank manager cuts the facility available to a third party. I do not want to go over the whole story as I related it in Committee. That would waste your Lordships' time. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, replying to me, explained—if I may quote from his letter again—that it would be a criminal offence if there were a reckless statement of the kind I have described. But he went on:
"The Bill affords some protection in this area. But, of course, the clause only deals with cases where the information is materially false, misleading or deceptive and when the person providing it does so knowingly or recklessly,"
The noble Lord underlines the word "materially".
I accept that there is a passage in the Bill which refers to misleading information. But as I read Clause 35 it does not say "materially false." Clause 35(l)(a) refers to making,
"a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive, or dishonestly conceals any material facts".
But paragraph (b) does not use the word "material" and simply refers to,
"a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive".
The purpose of this amendment is to line up the two paragraphs of Clause 35(1) and to make sure that a reckless statement has to be materially false, in the words of the noble Lord's letter to me. This seems to me to be a sensible amendment. I think that the noble Lord was right to put it in his letter, and I should like to see it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his amendment. In my letter I reassured the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no risk of immaterial actions being subject to prosecution. This is partly, of course, because the prosecuting authorities would not bring such prosecutions. But it is also the case that the element of materiality will come into the second part of the test; namely, whether the person making the statement has done so for the purpose of inducing another person to make a deposit, or whether the person making the statement is reckless as to whether this might be the effect. A wholly immaterial statement is unlikely to satisfy a court that this part of the test has been met.
828
For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary in order to achieve the desired effect. I am also advised that the amendment could have a damaging effect in that the test is identical to that contained in Section 47 of the Financial Services Act. It would be unhelpful to introduce a disparity between the two similar provisions since this would cast doubt on the meaning of the provisions in existing legislation and so put their effectiveness in doubt.
I can assure the noble Lord that I have taken legal advice on this point, and there really would be a danger of undermining provisions which are important and clearly expressed both in the Bill and in the Financial Services Act. I hope that this puts the case satisfactorily to the noble Lord. Indeed, I used the word "Materially" in my letter to him, but I think that this was in an attempt to explain the position to him rather than using language that would be of a more legal nature.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He seemed to me to be relying on the courts to determine materiality under Clause 35(l)(b) and since the courts are clearly instructed on material facts under Clause 35(1)(a) there seems to me to be a dissonance, if I can put it that way, between the two subsections. Nevertheless, I accept that this is repeating the language of the Financial Services Act and obviously that is not something one would wish to disturb. The noble Lord might like to bear in mind of course that "recklessly" is a word which gave us a great deal of trouble in connection with that Act and "recklessly" in Scottish courts, so I am advised by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna, has a meaning rather different from its meaning in the courts of England and Wales. That was a debate we had in connection with the Financial Services Act but I see that it has not had much impact on the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Reports of large exposures:]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause
("Reports of large exposures
—(1) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a transaction entered into by an institution relates to a person if it is—

(i) a transaction under which that person incurs an obligation to the institution or as a result of which he may incur such an obligation;

(ii) a transaction under which the institution will incur, or as a result of which it may incure, an obligation in the event of that person defaulting on an obligation to a third party; or

(iii) a transaction under which the institution acquires or incurs an obligation to acquire, or as a result of which it may incur an obligation to acquire, an asset the value of which depends wholly or mainly on that person performing his obligations or otherwise on his financial soundness;

and the risk of loss attributable to a transaction is, in a case within paragraph (i) or (ii) above, the risk of the person concerned defaulting on the obligation there mentioned and, in a case within paragraph (iii) above the risk of the person concerned defaulting on the obligations there mentioned or of a deterioration in his financial soundness.

829

(b) "foreign country lending" means lending by an authorised institution to any country or territory outside the United Kingdom whether entered into directly with the Government or administration of that country or territory or indirectly with any banking institution or agency which exercises in such country or territory functions corresponding to those of the Bank and which assume an obligation in respect of such foreign country lending or with any person or persons corporate or non-corporate in such country or territory for which the government or administration thereof directly or indirectly assumes full or partial liability therefor or provides financial facilities therefor.

(c) "foreign country borrower" means any government or administration, banking institution or agency or other person or persons corporate or non-corporate in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom which incurs an obligation to an authorised institution in respect of foreign country lending.

(d) "foreign loan transaction" means any transaction as denned in paragraph (a) of this subsection in respect of foreign country lending by an authorised institution with a foreign country borrower.

(2) An authorised institution, other than one whose principal place of business is outside the United Kingdom, shall make a report to the Bank, if—

(a) it has entered into a transaction or transactions, relating to any one person as a result of which it is exposed to the risk of incurring losses in excess of 10 per cent, of its available capital resources; or

(b) it proposes to enter into a transaction or transactions relating to any one person which, either alone or together with a previous transaction or previous transactions entered into by it in relation to that person, would result in its being exposed to the risk of incurring losses in excess of 25 per cent, of those resources.

(3) Subsection (2) aboves applies also where the transaction or transactions relate to different persons if they are connected in such a way that the financial soundness of any of them may affect the financial soundness of the other or others or the same factors may affect the financial soundness of both or all of them.
(4) If an authorised institution to which subsection (2) above applies has one or more subsidiaries which are not authorised institutions the Bank may by notice in writing to that institution direct that that subsection shall apply to it as if the transactions and available capital resources of the subsidiary or subsidiaries, or such of them as are specified in the notice, were included in those of the institution.
(5) The reports required to be made by an institution under subsection (2) above—

(a) in a case within paragraph (a) of that subsection shall be made in respect of such period or periods and in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection at such time before the transaction or transactions are entered into, as may be specified by notice in writing given to the institution by the Bank; and those reports shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the Bank may reasonably require.

(b) in a case of any foreign loan transaction by an institution with a foreign country borrower shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the Bank shall after consultation with the Treasury reasonably require including information in respect of the total level of exposure of the institution concerned to foreign country borrowers generally and the participation of the institution concerned with other authorised institutions in foreign country lending.

(6) The Bank shall, after consultation with the Treasury, formulate a policy on foreign country lending and shall issue instructions to every authorised institution required to report to the Bank under the provisions of subsection (2) above in any case in which such institution is exposed to either of the risks mentioned in the subsection and such instructions may—

(i) include measures to secure the prudent level of provisions to safeguard the interests of depositors;

(ii) specify the circumstances in which further foreign country lending and further foreign loan transactions may be made by an institution exposed to the said risks; and

(iii) specify such other matters as the Bank may reasonably see fit.

830
(7) Any question whether an institution is or would be exposed to risk as mentioned in subsection (2) above (or in that subsection as extended by subsection (3)) shall be determined in accordance with principles published by the Bank or notified by it to the institution concerned; and those principles may in particular make provision for determining the amount at risk in particular circumstances or the extent to which any such amount is to be taken into account for the purposes of this section.
(8) For the purposes of this section the available capital resources of an institution (or in a case within subsection (4) above, of an institution and its relevant subsidiary or subsidiaries) and the value of those resources at any time shall be determined by the Bank and notified by it to the institution by notice in writing; and any such determination which may be varied from time to time shall be made by the Bank after consultation with the institution concerned and in accordance with principles published by the Bank.
(9) The principles referred to in subsections (7) and (8) above may make different provision for different cases and those referred to in subsection (7) may, in particular, exclude from consideration, either wholly or in part, risks resulting from transactions of a particular description or entered into in particular circumstances or with persons of particular descriptions.
(10) An institution which fails to make a report as required by this section shall be guilty of an offence; but where an institution shows that at the time when a report was required to be made it did not know that the facts were such as to require the making of the report it shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of its failure to make a report at that time but shall be guilty of an offence unless it makes the report within 7 days of becoming aware of those facts.
(11) An institution guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fifth level on the standard scale.
(12) The Treasury may after consultation with the Bank by order—

(a) amend subsection (2) above so as to substitute for either of the percentages for the time being specified in that subsection such other percentage as may be specified in the order;

(b) make provision, whether by amending subsection (1) above or otherwise, with respect to the transactions and risks to be taken into account for the purposes of this section

but any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(13) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to "one person" include references to a partnership.")
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will observe that the amendment I seek to move today follows very closely the amendment which was considered in some detail by your Lordships at the Committee stage. It is of course concerned with the broad national interest, and I use the term "national interest" in the same sense as it is used in the Industry Act, as distinct from the term "public interest", which has a slightly narrower connotation: otherwise the words would not have been used in the Industry Act in the wider sense of the term.
At the conclusion of the debate on the amendment that took place in your Lordships' Committee on 23rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said (at col. 61 of the Official Report:)
"The Bill already contains all the necessary powers for the Bank to obtain that information statutorily, if powers were needed, and for the Bank to require prudential corrective action to be taken if that also were necessary".
Armed with that indication, I looked again diligently at the text of the Bill and I found it would be necessary to clarify the position beyond all doubt. It did not seem to me that Clause 38 as it stood gave the Bank specific powers to intervene in the case where British banks were over-exposed in terms of the indebtedness of foreign countries to the United Kingdom. Nor did it

831
seem to me that there were sufficient powers within the Bill to make it quite clear that in the circumstances of foreign exposure there was any power, or need, for the Bank of England to consult the Treasury on questions of policy.
It is for this reason that the new amendment, which is in effect a redraft of Clause 38, seeks to incorporate in one clause, and in a consistent manner, the principles that I endeavoured to lay before your Lordships on the last occasion. I am bound to say that they were based upon the supposition that the interests of the developing countries, which owe the world banking system vast sums of money, are very closely bound up with our own. I endeavoured to explain on the last occasion, and I shall not elaborate further, that if there were to be any large-scale default, or perhaps even a smaller-scale default, on the part of countries that were indebted to us on quite a large scale, it would have a very damaging effect upon the whole of the banking system, including the banking system of the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, was kind enough to remind the Committee of the effect of the collapse of Credit Anstalt before the war. We have to look at this problem from two points of view. The first is the possible collapse of or severe damage to, the banking system, with all that that would involve not only for the people of the United Kingdom but for people elsewhere. We also have to consider the developing countries themselves. If in our desire to avoid default purely from interested motives—and not even that, but on what we may broadly conceive to be the stability of the banking system—we still neglect the fate of the developing countries, that too could ultimately redound on our economies in the Western world and in the United Kingdom and have just as disastrous an effect in the long term.
Therefore this new clause is moved with a view, first of all, to giving the Bank of England the right to obtain information from the authorised institutions for banks that are heavily involved in regard to debts from foreign countries. Secondly, there is the need to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the determination of the policy that ought to be pursued. The Bank determines the policy after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should have thought, broadly speaking, that that was something which we ought to consider in the national interest. I shall not weary your Lordships by citing the same figures, or anything like them, that I cited on the last occasion when I revealed the extent of certain exposure by British banks expressed as a ratio of their capital resources. Suffice it to say that we ought to be aware of the enormousness of the problem globally.
The global indebtedness of 109 developing countries as at the end of 1986 was 775.6 billion, of which 383 billion was owed by a very limited number of countries, mainly in South America. Some of your Lordships may have had the opportunity of reading the Financial Times on 6th March. It is there revealed how the trend is developing.
The amount of indebtedness is progressively increasing, for the simple reason that the new credits
832
that were accorded to these countries in 1986 amounted to 75.7 billion, whereas the debt-servicing for the same year was 148.7 billion. That left them with a net worsening of 73.6 billion. That means under the current arrangements, with the desire of these countries—mainly, but not exclusively, in South America—to avoid default by securing roll-overs or new credits to pay off current interest at current interest rates, and bearing in mind that much of the old loans still remaining outstanding were taken at very high interest rates indeed (much higher even than the high rates which exist now) they are, literally speaking, on a treadmill.
There have been a number of developments during the past few months. For example, the Philippines are making certain plans for converting what is possibly only a few hundred millions of debt into equity. In regard to Mexico, AMEX has agreed to convert 100 million of its debt into equity. In the case of Brazil, the Bank of Montreal has agreed to convert 100 million of its debt into equity. This is an extremely important development—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, perhaps it would help if the noble Lord would say whether the figures he is quoting are billions of pounds sterling or—as is more usual in such matters—billions of US dollars.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I mean billions of dollars. The dollars are clearly set out. I sincerely hope that I have not misled your Lordships by quoting these figures without the prefix "dollar". Possibly I was harking back to the day when the dollar looked the pound in the face and the value of one dollar was one pound. But that was some two years ago. Matters have progressed since that time, and the last time I saw the table of current rates the rate was 1.62 dollars to the pound. Your Lordships may make your own conversions with your pocket calculators.
There have been other ways by which countries have sought to get out of their difficulties. There has been rescheduling. In the case of the Philippines, some 13.2 billion dollars have recently been rescheduled. But I am given to understand, and I am subject to correction by those in British banking circles who are more familiar with the present circumstances than I am—and I count among that number the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Boardman—that according to a Financial Times report, British banks have so far declined to reschedule the Mexican debts. In the case of Brazil, there are also measures to endeavour to secure a reduction of interest and rescheduling. In the case of Chile, better interest rates have been obtained. In the case of Brazil, regrettably, its debts have now been downgraded. That has had repercussions not only in British banks but in United States banks. They therefore have to put a different figure on them in their balance sheets, as I indicated in the speech that I was able to make to your Lordships at Committee stage. In the case of Ecuador, my latest information is that it defaulted or has indicated a cancellation, but I am open to correction on that point.

833
Those are the developments that have taken place and the question is whether they are matters of which the country as a whole, represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England, should take some account and should together determine a coherent policy towards this problem. We have the question of long-term rescheduling to consider as distinct from what is very often short-term rescheduling. We have the question of the alternative of conversion of debt into equity. This may present very considerable difficulties concerning the ownership and the nature of the various enterprises that incurred the original indebtedness. Certainly we may have to consider drastic reductions in the rate of interest that is charged to the developing countries. This may well have to be done as an alternative to allowing the position to worsen.
In the course of the Committee stage on the same kind of clause, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, without in any way lacking compassion, quite legitimately mentioned that of course the countries themselves incurred the debts originally, and, therefore, they could hardly complain if the debts ought to be repaid on the proper terms. I sympathise with that straightforward business view.
But your Lordships are no doubt aware, particularly in the years in which very large sums of indebtedness occurred following the recycling of OPEC money, that many of the countries involved had those in power who were not there by the elected will of their peoples. It was indebtedness that was incurred for the purchase of armaments, for the prestige of the rulers of those countries. It can hardly be said, in the case of quite a number of these countries, that we ought to visit the sins of their rulers upon their own heads.
This is not the occasion for me to reiterate to your Lordships some of the hardships that are at present being endured by the peoples of these unhappy countries whose lot has been worsened to the point of misery, to the point of death, to the point of desolation by the absolute necessity to devote so much of their present productive resources in terms of exports to the settlement, first, of the interest on their outstanding loans and, secondly, of the principle.
It would not be appropriate for me to reiterate those hardships, but I would respectfully draw your Lordships' attention to the words that fell from the lips of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on the last occasion, when he gave a very accurate account—as I endeavoured to do—of some of the misery and hardship that the present position is occasioning.
This is not in itself a clause that is designed to bring any relief to these unhappy peoples in quite considerable sections of the world. It is, however, a clause that enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England for the time being to play their full parts, both nationally and internationally, in seeking to pursue policies and in procuring the carrying out of those policies by the other authorised institutions which, however gradually they may work and however possibly unbusinesslike they may appear within the narrow concept of immediate interest, may serve to bring some relief to the peoples of these
834
countries. We can always be insular, but there is a saying which I commend to your Lordships,
"Ask not ye for whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee".
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, I too believe that the national interest of this country is essentially bound up with the national interests of the developing world, just as theirs is with ours. There is a global interdependency. Again like my noble friend, I have failed to find after listening to the debate on a similar amendment at Committee stage the powers which the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggested were in the Bill—powers for the Bank to demand the kind of information and make the kind of reports which are contained within this amendment.
More than that, I was shocked by what appeared to me to be the complacency of the noble Lord, Lord Young, at Committee stage when he first said, at col. 60 of the Official Report of 23rd March,
"The Government maintain a keen interest in the resolution of the third world debt problem".
The third world does not require a keen interest from the Government. It needs action and it is action which this amendment is proposing to take. The noble Lord, Lord Young, went on to say,
"All the prophesies of doom and gloom which we have heard on occasion in your Lordships' House have happily so far not come to pass".
They may not have done so for the noble Lord, Lord Young; they have done so for millions of people throughout the world. They have also done so for an important number of British people who have suffered as an indirect consequence.
I wish to concentrate for a moment or two on subsection (6) of the amendment on page 5. The first sentence reads,
"The Bank shall, after consultation with the Treasury, formulate a policy on foreign country lending".
It seems to me that that is the very least that this country and this Government can do in the face of a crisis which threatens not just the lives—and it has already exterminated millions of lives of people in the third world—but also the future of the people of this country and of the developed world.
It is appropriate that this debate should take place in the same week as the biannual meeting of the IMF and of the World Bank. The attitude of those international organisations, governed by their members, including the British Government, has shown a lack of understanding, a lack of forethought and a lack of perception about what is happening to the economy of the world which threatens all of us. It is no exaggeration to say that we are seeing and shall see this week at the World Bank meeting the beginning of an economic war between the developed and the developing countries. That economic war is breaking out because the commercial banks have taken some note of the dangers that have become apparent over the past five years. They have therefore taken precautions against them and increased their reserves against default. They are beginning to take a tougher line towards the developing world.

835
However, the developing world has also had its experience of the past five years. That experience has shown it that even the desperation of default can be more productive for its people than continuing to pay the kind of interest rates and the return of principal which has been the cause of so much impoverishment, starvation and death in the third world over the last five or six years.
Perhaps your Lordships have read or heard on the External Services of the BBC of the event which took place on 20th February of this year. I think that it is worthwhile to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House that on the evening of 20th February President José Sarney of Brazil said on the radio to his people,
"Good evening, Brazilians. I want to announce that the country is suspending the interest payments on its foreign debt".
He continued,
"In the past five years Brazil has paid US $55.8 billion in debt interest alone… we cannot pay the debt with the people's hunger".
Perhaps even more significantly, he then added,
"Our debt paid with misery would certainly be paid with democracy instead".
That bears out, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said in his speech, that much of third world debt was incurred by authoritarian, dictatorial, militarist regimes and spent on arms, instruments of torture and prestige projects. Today, their successors in democratic government are in danger because of the compulsion to pay so much of their national product, as my noble friend has said, in exports which can then be appropriated by the banks at the expense of the hunger of their own people.
To continue the Brazilian story, two days later on 22nd February, the Brazilian Finance Minister, Dilson Funaro, whom some noble Lords will have met when he visited London, told questioners in Washington,
"Brazil is not in crisis. It does not need monitoring. It has the third largest trade surplus in the world and a lower public sector deficit than most of its creditors".
The problem is that out of the expected trade surplus of something like 7 billion United States dollars this year, Brazil would have to pay over 5 billion United States dollars in interest payments alone.
That is the hottest example of what is happening so far as international debt in the third world is concerned. However, if we expand that to the whole of the third world, last year the total third world debt reached the figure of 775 billion United States dollars. In that figure there is concealed an even greater menace, because that figure of 775 billion United States dollars in 1986 was only some 429.6 billion United States dollars six years ago in 1980. What has been happening during that ensuing six years? Has the third world wildly borrowed to increase indebtedness? My Lords, no. During that six years, the developing countries paid back 658 billion United States dollars in principal and interest. They paid that back—more than their original debt—and yet at the end of the six-year period their indebtedness was still greater.
In other words, the more you pay, the more you owe. I suggest that there are two principal reasons for this. The first is the floating interest rates which can be changed unilaterally and have been changed unilaterally by the creditors. Noble Lords in the
836
banking world will know that those interest rates are tied to the London inter-bank offered rate. The changes in interest rates are tied to that rate and are not controlled at all by the debtor nations, the third world nations. The second reason is the variable exchange rates. Between 1985 and 1986 the indebtedness of the developing countries increased by some 40 billion United States dollars simply through the revaluation of their currencies.
To return to the original theme, nobody would underestimate the misery that this is bringing to some half of the world's population but what is too often neglected is that that misery has an effect within this country. This kind of debt is a danger to the depositors in British commercial banks. We know that with regard to the Brazilian debt, both Lloyds and the Midland have been exposed by recent events. It goes further than that. Because the developing countries are having to pay back to the developed world so much of their own production in interest and principal, because Africa is exporting capital to Europe, because Latin America is exporting capital to Europe and the United States, so the economic development and the purchasing power of hundreds of millions of people in the world is being strangled.
I remind noble Lords, as I have reminded them so many times in the past few years, of Bathgate and Leeds, of the example of British Leyland, which had to close down those plants because the Nigerians for whom its lorry products were manufactured could no longer afford to buy them. Admittedly, that had something to do with oil, but it has a great deal more to do with the rising debt of the Nigerian nation. I unhesitatingly commend this amendment both for its national interest and for its international interest and I suggest that the two are identical.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wish to intervene only very briefly to make two points. First, the premise of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the welfare of the developed world depends on the welfare of the underdeveloped world, or the less developed world as it is now called, is well taken. Secondly, on the other hand, history seems to show that using regulation of the private sector financially to act as an instrument of government policy is ineffective and actually destroy's the effectiveness of the private sector. As I said at Committee stage—and I shall not detain your Lordships long by repeating it now—it seems to me that support for the developing world is deserved from the developed world but it should be done government to government and the private sector should be left to function in the most efficient manner it can. That usually is the best thing to do.
My noble friend will make a longer speech than I, but I want it to be clearly understood that we on this side resist the proposal of the noble Lord opposite not because we do not wish the third world to flourish but because we do and we think there is a better way of achieving it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that this amendment relates to the Bank and that the Bank is a national institution under the control of the Government by virtue of the Bank of England Act

837
1946? This gives the Government powers of general direction over the activities of the Bank and Her Majesty's Government are shareholders of the Bank of England?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the provisions in the noble Lord's amendment filter down in a manner which we could dissect at leisure if we were in Committee. I addressed myself simply to the bold principle which I think is important. It is Report stage and I have not the right to speak further.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, as I said at the Committee stage, it is with regret that I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I should like to emphasise that the desperate poverty and deprivation prevailing in many countries of the third world to which British banks are lenders give rise to legitimate and acute concern about the effects of the burden of foreign debt on the economies of those countries. But if this amendment is well intentioned, it is 1 fear also contradictory and potentially counterproductive.
It is contradictory because it seems to seek to increase the security of banks' depositors through the monitoring and control of sovereign exposure on the part of those banks at the same time as setting in place a mechanism for co-ordinating potential concessionary action by those banks towards developing countries. My understanding of the Bill and of existing reporting practice of banks to the Bank of England is that adequate safeguards for the protection of depositors from excessive exposure to sovereign governments seems to be provided.
As for the alleviation of hardship in debtor countries, I am deeply sceptical that an expanded government or central bank role would actually improve matters. As I said at Committee stage, the supranational agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank, have often pursued tougher policies towards their customer countries than the commercial banks. For this reason I suspect that government intervention in this area would not necessarily be helpful.
Increased aid and support for the developing world is vitally necessary, and my noble friends and allies on these Benches have long supported such substantial increases, but that is the way to alleviate in the short term the suffering in the developing world, with expanded liberalised world trade the way in the long term.
6 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we debated at length at Committee stage the provisions of this amendment concerned with foreign country lending and to that extent there is little more to add. The issues are important and I understand the strong feelings on them. However, I shall endeavour to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that his amendment is unnecessary for the Bill already meets the major part of his concern.
The proposed clause would add to the existing Clause 38 provisions to deal with two aspects of
838
lending to foreign governments, their agencies and central banks: first, notification to the supervisors of the amount of such lending and, secondly, the control of the loans requiring the Bank in consultation with the Treasury to formulate a policy on such lending for each institution. In moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does, I presume, consider that the powers given to the supervisors elsewhere in the Bill are inadequate to deal with these questions. In my view, this is just not so.
Perhaps I may first correct a statement by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, at an earlier stage of the Bill. On re-reading the account of the debate in Committee on the then amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, designed to achieve a result similar to today's amendment, I note that he said that Clause 38 as it now stands in the Bill applies only to individuals. That is not so. I can put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, at rest. The term "person" applies not only to natural persons, such as Members of your Lordships' House if I may make so bold, but also to artificial ones as well; and under Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978,
" 'person' includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporated
I am advised that the term thus applies to governments, both central and local, to their agencies and to banks, whether central or commercial.
I am also advised that the definition of connected borrowers—as in Clause 38(2) of the Bill and in subsection (3) of the noble Lord's amended version of the clause—is sufficiently wide as to enable the Bank to require lending to a particular overseas country's public sector borrowers and its central bank to be regarded as a single risk and to be reported as such. I can further reassure the noble Lord. The Bank, in preparing for the introduction of the Bill, has recently issued a policy document stating that it will require lending to individual overseas sovereign borrowers to be reported under the 10 per cent, and under the 25 per cent, provisions of the clause as now in the Bill.
It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Bank of England to be under a specific statutory duty to consult the Treasury on a matter of provisions for individual banks. The Bank is, of course, the authority given statutory responsibility for these aspects of supervision. No doubt if the Government of the day were to issue a statement of national policy that affected the Bank's overseas lending, the Bank of England would need to take account of that in the application of its supervisory judgments about particular banks' individual lending. However, it must be remembered that the Bank of England's responsibility under the Bill is the protection of depositors and generally for the stability of the banking system itself.
Although the problems of some other countries are tragic, the Bill is not the vehicle to provide the solutions to those particular authorities. That does not mean that the Bill as it now stands is not relevant to foreign country lending. I assure the House that the proper, prudential control of lending by the banks—not, I stress, by the authorities—is a key priority for supervisors.

839
The Bank of England's consultative papers state that each institution must set out its own policy for large exposures, including exposures to individual borrowers and also to overseas countries. These policies must be discussed with the supervisors and the change notified. If a particular institution's lending, including its proposed lending and that to overseas countries, were to be imprudent to the extent of seriously threatening to impair the institution's capital, the Bill already provides adequate powers in Clauses 11 and 12 for the Bank to revoke the authorisation or to impose conditions designed to prevent any repetition of imprudence. Similarly, paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 requires institutions to make adequate provisions for bad or doubtful debts. A failure to do so also triggers the Bank's powers of intervention in Clauses 11 and 12.
The new clause would seek to introduce into the Bill a national economic perspective and a measure of central planning. However, this Bill is about the protection of depositors and the Government cannot accept such an alien provision as that set out in the new clause. The matter was debated at length in Committee and in another place, but the Bill was not altered. I do not think that it would be right to do so now. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I was not aware that I had interpreted the word "person", referred to in the original text of Clause 48, in any other way than already applies under the Interpretation Act. I am well aware that the term "person" includes a body corporate but I have taken legal advice on the term "person" in the light of the Interpretation Act. I am advised that the term does not include a foreign government. If the noble Lord has any information to the contrary, I should be greatly obliged to hear it because, as he knows, I am keenly interested in these matters.
The noble Lord rejects the amendment on the ground that it introduces an alien element into the Bill—the consideration of national economic policy. In the broadest sense I agree with him that it does; and in my view it should. I can, of course, understand the Alliance wishing to dissociate itself from any such concept. We note the attitude of the Alliance with great interest and will give it considerable publicity.
On that basis, and regretting that I cannot meet the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Young, I must test the view of the House on this amendment.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Blease, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Blyton, L.

Carter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

840

David, B. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Arran, E.

Lawrence, L.

Bauer, L.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lothian, M.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Bramall, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Melville, V.

Butterworth L

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Molson, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Denning, L.

St. Davids, V.

Derwent, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sherfield, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Teynham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster B.

Windlesham, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ypres, E.

Killearn, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
Clause 39 [Power to obtain information and require production of documents:]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 30, line 49, at end insert ("or, for the purposes of subsection (10) of this section, on a significant shareholder")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were in Committee it became clear in our exchanges that,

841
while there would be a whole battery of powers available to the Bank to prevent an undesirable person becoming a controller-shareholder by acquiring 15 per cent, of the shares in an authorised institution, it will have no powers whatever either to stop such a person's approach from the 5 per cent, level before he gets there or to advertise its opposition to the idea of his becoming a controller-shareholder before he actually arrives at the 15 per cent, acquisition point.
The amendment which I tabled at Committee would have given the Bank at 5 per cent, just one of the powers now proposed for it at 15 per cent. That was the power of disenfranchisement. I did not argue that that power was appropriate. I argued only that some means of alerting the market to the fact that a 5 per cent, significant shareholder was not the sort of person who ought to be permitted to become a 15 per cent, controller-shareholder would make sense and was desirable.
I invited her Majesty's Government to devise their own amendment for this purpose. In the event, my noble friend the Secretary of State told me that it did not make sense and was not desirable. In arguing the case against me my noble friend laid great weight upon the investigative powers already available to the Bank and upon the fiercely discouraging effect they would have upon such a bidder. If we have to be satisfied with that, we need to be certain that these investigative powers are complete and that they can be applied to the undesirable shareholder (that is, the one on his way from 5 to 15 per cent.) and that they can be applied to him in person even when he is not a significant shareholder.
The doubt arises—and I referred to this at an earlier stage—because, although Clause 39 (10) refers to the exercise of the powers of Clause 39 against a significant shareholder, the heading of the clause at subsection (1), where the powers actually reside, refers only to the service,
"in writing … on an authorised institution".
There is therefore a reasonable doubt as to whether the powers can be used when the 14.95 per cent, shareholder is not an authorised institution.
My noble friend will probably argue either that Parliamentary Counsel assures him that he was right last time and I was wrong or, less probably, that I was right last time and he was wrong. But in either case it ought to be clear from the face of the Bill what the meaning is. I hope that he will accept my amendment or something like it for that purpose, if not now then later. The principal point, however, is for him to make the position clear. I beg to move.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, I agree with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage and I accept and endorse the thought behind the amendment now. It seems to me still that if an unsuitable shareholder has been identified at 5 per cent., to have no powers to deter him until he gets to a controlling position at 15 per cent, is a loophole which ought to be closed.
I know the Government say that the Bank of England has very strong informal powers to deter people, but it seems to me that once something is put
842
in a statute which apparently gives liberty up to 15 per cent., it is that much more difficult for the Bank of England to exercise such powers. Therefore, I hope that the Government can come up with something which will bridge the gap between 5 per cent, and 15 per cent.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining his amendment. His concern is understandable and it is important that these provisions should work properly and indeed that the Bank should be allowed to obtain information from all relevant persons.
I have therefore taken legal advice on this point and Parliamentary Counsel has also been consulted. I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary because subsection (10) as currently drafted already allows the Bank to serve a notice directly on a significant shareholder, just as subsection (6) and (7) allow the Bank to serve a notice directly on holding companies, subsidiaries or other similar related bodies of an institution. I hope that this assurance will satisfy my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should perhaps have expressed the reluctance with which I withdrew to this position at the end of the Committee stage, because your Lordships will know that my concern was the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien. It was that there was a logically indefensible inconsistency between saying that all the powers available to the Bank should be deployed at 15 per cent, and none of them at 14.95 per cent. My noble friend then led me to suppose that the effects of the investigative powers applied by the Bank would be such as to deter the approach of the unacceptable bidder to 15 per cent. I noticed with regret that there was no such reiteration in the speech that he has just made. He may have the leave of the House if he wishes to elaborate on his remarks, and I hope that perhaps he will.
As to the substance of the amendment, as I said, I see that the Bill can be read in the way in which my noble friend has read it; no doubt he will see that it can be read in the way in which I read it. I had hoped that my noble friend, seeing that there was a doubt in the matter would resolve it by changing the drafting slightly so that it was no longer in doubt. It is no longer in doubt to parliamentary counsel; it ought not to be in doubt to members of the legal profession generally because they draw their fees—do they not?—from resolving such doubts. They draw their fees from practitioners in the field and eventually from the depositors through the Bank rate which the noble Lord's Bill is designed to protect. So I think that I am within the Long Title.
Before I seek leave to withdraw this amendment, I shall give my noble friend an opportunity to return to the question of how frightening to the potential shareholder will be the investigative powers and in fact how it is that they will signal to the market that it need not back this horse because it will not run beyond the 15 furlong mark. I shall sit down to see if my noble friend gets up.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I did not reiterate the arguments that I put forward at Committee stage because I thought that they were self-evident. There are two particular hurdles to cross; namely, the 5 per cent, and the 15 per cent. Wherever we set those hurdles they have to be passed because there have to be demarcation stages.
The Bank itself has significant powers at 15 per cent. The concern of your Lordships' House was that when people came over 5 per cent., there might well be some shareholders about whom the Bank could not find sufficient information because they might consist of a fairly anonymous shareholding. We have taken legal advice—and as a one time solicitor I cannot have a word said against legal advice—and parliamentary counsel has also been consulted (although all Members of your Lordships' House will know that neither of them are necessarily infallible). To the best of our knowledge today the Bank can serve the notice directly on a significant shareholder himself and thereby obtain the information which will be relevant to the Bank in forming a judgment should that significant shareholder seek to pass the 15 per cent, hurdle. Disapproval would be communicated to that significant shareholder. I suspect that we shall find that this measure will work as well as any in order to discourage some shareholders from going further.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend assures us that when the Bank may "exercise the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (3) above" in relation to any person, even though those powers relate to the serving on an authorised institution only, in fact the meaning of the Act is that they may be served on a person. I am glad that we have that on the record. I am modestly grateful for the other remarks he has made but not very. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Audited accounts to be open to inspection:]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of an institution incorporated in the United Kingdom the accounts referred to in subsection (1) above include the auditors' report on the accounts and, in the case of any other institution whose accounts are audited, the report of the auditors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, voiced his concern that Clause 45 should make it explicit that a copy of the auditors' report should be kept at each branch of a bank as well as a copy of the audited accounts. The amendment meets the noble Lord's concern and I am grateful to him for having raised the point.
The amendment puts beyond doubt that for United Kingdom incorporated companies the company's audited accounts should include the auditors' report. In the case of any other institutions which have audited accounts, it also provides that the branches should keep a copy of the auditors' report. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for
844
having put forward this amendment. I sincerely hope that on this occasion the Government's agreement with my suggestion will be a useful prelude to the next amendment which I shall have the honour of submitting to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Communication by auditor etc., with the Bank:]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 38, leave out line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise in advance to your Lordships for introducing an amendment which, on the face of it, is highly technical. Amendments that are concerned with the accountancy profession are not capable of being enunciated in your Lordships' House in stirring or emotional terms. They affect strict legalities, and it is in that sense that I intend to move the two amendments that are designed to amend Clause 47 of the Bill.
As your Lordships will recall, Clause 47 deals with the duties of an auditor and his responsibilities. It also deals with the position in tort of a person appointed to make a report under Clauses 8(5) or39(1)(b) of the Bill. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 47 in order that the position of an auditor as distinct from that of a reporting accountant should be made absolutely clear. Therefore it seeks to delete paragraph (a) which refers to an auditor of an authorised institution, so that the new subsection (1) then reads:
"No duty to which a person appointed to make a report under section 8(5) or 39(l)(i>) above may be subject shall be regarded as contravened by reason of his communicating in good faith to the Bank, whether or not in response to a request made by it, any information or opinion on a matter to which this section applies and which is relevant to any function of the Bank under this Act".
Then there will be a new subsection reading:
"Any information or opinion communicated by an auditor to the Bank either on his own initiative or at the request of the Bank shall be protected by qualified privilege".
The purpose is to differentiate sharply between the liability of an auditor who has a direct, close and contractual responsibility to his client, which is the authorised institution, for any information that he gives outside his duties to that client (the bank)—to ensure that he is protected by qualified privilege—and the actions of an accountant who reports to the Bank under the other clauses that are mentioned—Clause 6 for example. Clause 8(5) deals with authorisations and says:
"Any information or statement to be provided to the Bank under this section shall be in such form as the Bank may specify; and the Bank may by written notice require the applicant or any such person as is mentioned in subsection (3) above to provide a report by an accountant or other qualified person approved by the Bank on such aspects of that information as may be specified by the Bank.".
That clause, which is quite properly applicable to an accountant or other qualified person, denotes a person who is under a responsibility to the Bank, rather than to the institution on whom he is reporting. Therefore, the protection of his action in good faith may be perfectly valid and is left undisturbed.
Then we come to the position under Clause 39(1)(b), referred to in Clause 47, which states:
"The Bank may by notice in writing served on an authorised institution … require the institution to provide the Bank with a report by an acountant or other person with relevant professional skill on, or on any aspect of, any matter about which the Bank has required or could require the institution to provide information under paragraph (a) above.".
This is a report by an accountant or other qualified person. It is not specifically the auditor of the institution.
I must here declare an interest. Although I am not at present an auditor to a prospective authorised institution, it is possible—thus I have a potential interest—that on some future occasion I might be appointed a reporting accountant to an institution. Let me from my experience in connection with the appointments of reporting accountants by banks inform your Lordships how it is done.
A bank, not on matters connected with any affairs discussed in the Bill, often requires an investigation to be made into a company to which it has lent money. That company may already have auditors. True enough, the Bank gives it the requisite information, including the accounts and so on. Often and quite properly, however, the bank, without wishing to cast any reflection on the auditors of the company, requires the appointment of an independent reporting accountant. That accountant, whoever it may be, is appointed by the bank although ultimately paid by the client. There is no question regarding to whom the independent accountant reports; it is direct to the bank. That is why I wish to make the position of the auditor quite clear.
The auditor is in a separate and distinct position. He is in a position of trust as between himself and his client. It may be desirable in the public interest—and, indeed, it is so incorporated in the Bill—for the auditor to give certain information to the bank as may be required by the bank. If that information is given, it is my submission that it should be under conditions of qualified privilege. Indeed, if I may refer your Lordships to the Government's own White Paper, Cmnd. 9695 of December 1985, Annex 4, paragraph A,
"The basis of the relationship between the supervisors and the auditors",
one sees under sub-paragraph (ii) that the exchange of relevant information is protected by qualified privilege. Exactly the same sentiment is set out on page 18 at 8.2 (v):
"qualified privilege shall attach to communications between auditors and supervisors".
That is all that this part of the Bill seeks to do.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Is the noble Lord saying that qualified privilege should be given only when the bank asks the auditor a question, or does it apply when the auditor voluntarily gives the information?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, at Annex 4 to Cmnd. 9695 there is set out guidance on the disclosure of information by auditors to the supervisors. This is envisaged in several circumstances. The information may be asked for by the supervisors of the auditors;
846
alternatively, the auditors may voluntarily provide it to the supervisors under circumstances of a meeting called between the client bank and the auditors, or even in bilateral exchanges between the supervisors and the auditors. In general, therefore, any disclosures made by the auditors to the supervisors in conformity with the intention in the document should be subject to qualified privilege.
There is a danger that the position of accountants as auditors in consideration of their specific confidentiality with their clients becomes confused when an accountant is acting in a totally different capacity and is responsible finally to someone else. There must, I fear, be some distress that the Government have not seen fit to make the distinction.
Let us imagine circumstances in which there are trilateral exchanges among the supervisors, the auditors and the authorised institution's management. There is the auditor sitting with his client on the one hand and the bank supervisors on the other, and there may be discussion of a variety of matters. Indeed, they are all set out in the Government's White Paper. I ask your Lordships to envisage that an auditor says something or reveals information that his client does not like, and it is said in front of him; or that he omits to say something that his client thinks he ought to have said. What are the consequences? I will tell your Lordships one consequence that is most distinctly possible.
If the authorised institution on whose behalf the auditor is acting dislikes it, it can get on to its solicitor under conditions of complete, unqualified privilege and tell him to write the complaint to the auditor. In extreme circumstances it may even authorise the issue of a writ concerning which the auditor knows nothing. What are the consequences? I sincerely hope that the Government have considered them.
The moment that an auditor receives a letter of mild complaint from the solicitor of the authorised institution or even a verbal indication from the client that he regards the auditor as being negligent in saying something that he has said or in omitting to say something, under his own contract of insurance, a contract of uberrima fides, he is bound to tell the insurance company that is covering him for professional indemnity. He must do that immediately. If he does not do it and a case is subsequently brought, he is likely to be held liable.
The immediate impact upon the firm of auditors is simple. The moment the insurance company is notified of the risk—and it is only a risk, a suggestion—the whole of the firm's cover for professional indemnity purposes is immediately reviewed. In some cases the rates of insurance—this has been the case in regard to quite a number of firms of practising auditors in the United Kingdom— covering the whole of the practice have been considerably increased as a result of just the hint of one complaint which has to be notified to the insurance company. In some cases insurance companies have been reluctant to give any cover whatsoever.
Professional indemnity cover for accountants, including some of the most reputable firms in the United Kingdom, are at such levels as to amount to between 10 per cent, and 15 per cent, of their gross

847
turnover. In some cases, insurance cannot be obtained. As a result, the reputation of the accountant put into the intolerable position of being unprotected by qualified privilege will undoubtedly suffer at the hands of the client who has his own friends and associates.
My complaint—I admit straightaway that it is a professional complaint—is that auditors have not been treated in the way it was envisaged they should be treated in the Government's paper. What seems to us to be happening is an extension of the audit function to include systems of internal control as distinct from an examination of accounting records or even accounting control. The auditor is now being put into the position of being the long stop at the end of the line. The Bank's supervisors can fail. The Johnson Matthey case indicated the frailty of some of the Bank's administration at that time. Managers can fail without any risk of suffering in the same way that professional accountants suffer, or would suffer, in fields where they are responsible.
Auditors as such are not responsible for the management of companies. They are not responsible for the organisational control, as distinct from the accounting records control, of any company or institution, and they should not be made so responsible. They have been put into an intolerable position.
At one time, we always said, "Watchdogs, not bloodhounds, are we." That was the code under which the accountancy profession and those involved in auditing operated for a long time. We accept, and the internal regulations of the Institute of Chartered Accountants accept, that there are certain public responsibilities we must fulfil from time to time. They are clearly laid down in the by-laws of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. We have one of the most strict, if not the strictest, codes of conduct of any of the professions in the United Kingdom, certainly much stricter than those of some professions which I could name but will not do so.
Under this clause, we shall become state sniffer dogs, as distinct from watchdogs fulfilling our normal and proper function as auditors. I know that when the noble Lord replies he will say that the professional bodies have, broadly speaking, agreed with the Government's approach to this matter. They may well have done so. I may have a degree of professional astringency which does not commend itself to the organised profession or certain sections of it. All professional bodies like to live on amiable terms, as far as possible, with governments. They like to be able to live alongside them. It is of course true that in the accountancy profession many large firms are to some extent subject to DTI patronage. Some firms are engaged by audit commissions and by the Public Accounts Committee. In broad general terms, therefore, it is desirable that the profession should remain on amiable terms with the Government.
I am concerned here with the principle. To me, the principle is clear. Notwithstanding the fact that the organised profession may go along with the Government's existing wording, my view and that of many independent professional colleagues is that there should be qualified privilege under the conditions I have described. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m
Lord Denning: My Lords, this amendment is unnecessary. The words "qualified privilege" are a technical term in the law of libel. Whenever a master is asked for a confidential reference on his servant, whatever he says in answer to the question is protected by qualified privilege. He is liable only if he is activated by malice. All the instances given by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are clearly protected by qualified privilege. If we put something into the Bill, we may cast doubt on the extent of our law on qualified privilege. The amendment is unnecessary. The profession is already adequately protected by the law on qualified privilege.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the amendment opens the door pretty wide. The amendment states:
"Any information or opinion communicated"
shall have qualified privilege. I might agree if it were confined to "any information". But I do not like "opinion" being included, whether it relates to a professional accountant or anyone else. If the amendment were confined to "any information", I should not have taken such an immediate objection to it. I do not think we should agree to "information or opinion". We already have the protection which is needed in our normal law.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I wonder whether what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said does not also apply to professional advisers, including accountants, who are asked questions by inspectors of taxes about their clients' financial affairs. There must be a time when a professional adviser has some protection in the face of what is an overwhelming demand made, for instance, by an inspector of taxes in respect of a taxpayer for whom the professional adviser acts as a chartered accountant.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for explaining the purpose of his amendments. I am even more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for confirming the position, as I understand it, that qualified privilege is a common law privilege, which need not be conferred by any Bill, available to an accountant, auditor, or any other relevant person who acts in good faith when making the communication. It applies only to defamation, and therefore the amendment narrows an auditor's protection. It does not extend the protection.
It may assist your Lordships if I briefly summarise the purpose of Clause 47. This is an important provision designed to ensure that when an auditor or reporting accountant is required to report to the supervisors on any matter, or when he or she feels that there are matters which should be drawn to the attention of supervisors, they should not be constrained from doing so by any obligation of confidence or loyalty which they might otherwise have owed to the bank concerned or to any other party.
It is clearly desirable, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, that auditors who come across matters which should be placed before the Bank should feel able to do so freely and without fear of legal action. The noble

849
Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will know from my recent letter to him that the clause has been the subject of extensive discussions with the profession and follows the same formula as the Financial Services Act. The effect of the amendment would be to remove from an auditor of an. authorised institution this protection from breach of duty and to replace it with the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the communication by an auditor to the Bank of information or of opinion.
I am advised that qualified privilege exists only in relation to the law of defamation. Its effect is to provide a person acting in good faith with protection if he or she makes a statement about another which turns out to be untrue and defamatory. It applies only in certain limited circumstances. Basically a communication is privileged when the person making it is under some form of duty to make it to the recipient; and the recipient is similarly under a duty to receive it. I am advised, therefore, that it is highly likely that at common law the defence of qualified privilege would exist in any event to protect an auditor or one of the other persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) from an action for defamation brought by an institution, provided that he has acted in good faith. However, qualified privilege is not a defence to an action for breach of duty. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, were to be accepted it might result in the anomalous position of an auditor being able to rely on qualified privilege to defend him from an action for defamation but not being able to defend himself for an action for breach of duty, for example, of confidentiality brought in respect of the very selfsame communication.
Having heard my explanation—which I fear was necessarily somewhat legalistic—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will be reassured and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I can set his mind immediately at rest by saying that I do not intend to divide the House on this. I shall have to study the reply that he has given, to which I hope the widest publicity will be given in the professional press. That will enable some more detailed examination to be made of the statements that he has made. Unhappily I am not a lawyer, but my own view, for what it is worth, is that the present position, even under this Bill, would expose the auditor to action where a breach of strict confidentiality takes place outside the terms of his own professional engagement and code of conduct.
The noble Lord may say that good faith may be a good defence. Actions of this kind very often take two years to reach the Queen's Bench. I do not know what will happen to the auditor's accountants' indemnity policy during those two years with this kind of action hanging over him. I should like to have the opportunity of studying the matter further. I should like the opportunity for the profession to pay very careful attention to what the noble Lord has said. It may be necesary for me to return to the matter again at a later stage. However, that will depend on what happens as a result of any further inquiries that I may
850
think it proper to make. I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Liability of institutions in respect of compensation payments:]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 50, line 29, at end insert ("and").
Page 50, line 31, leave out from ("deposit") to ("where") in line 3 on page 51 and insert ("shall be reduced by an amount equal to that payment.
(5)").
Page 51, line 7, leave out ("under subsection (5)") and insert ("by virtue of subsection (4)(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships' House I shall move Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. It has been drawn to the Government's attention that the references in Part II of the Bill to duties on administrators imply that they would be under a statutory duty to make payments and consequently could be made personally liable. It was not the Government's intention to indicate that when an administrator is appointed the obligations of a company are formally transferred to the administrator, thus giving him a personal liability. The Bill is therefore defective in referring to obligations on administrators when they are in fact on the institution itself. These amendments remedy this point. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we accept the explanations given by the noble Lord.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to put these three amendments, Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 87 [Disclosure of information obtained under other Acts:]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 68, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 13 and insert ("Any information which has been lawfully disclosed to the Bank").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is a technical drafting amendment to provide that any information which has been lawfully disclosed to the Bank of England may be disclosed on to the Board of Banking Supervision to enable or assist it in carrying out its functions under the Bill. It is necessary because information may have been disclosed to the Bank perfectly properly and lawfully but not by virtue of any enactment. The amendment therefore removes this unnecessary rigidity in the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 20:
Before Clause 88, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of Financial Services Act 1986.
—(1) The Financial Services Act 1986 shall have effect in relation to an authorised institution within the meaning of this Act with the following modifications.
(2) For the purposes of section 27 (grant and refusal of authorisation), section 28 (withdrawal and suspension of authorisation) and Rules made under section 49 (financial resources rules) of that Act, the Secretary of State may delegate to the Bank the task of financial monitoring necessary to satisfy him that an authorised institution is and continues to be a fit and proper person.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Bank may in relation to an authorised institution which is an overseas institution rely on co-operation with the relevant supervisory authority in the institution's country of origin to carry out financial monitoring on its behalf if the Bank is satisfied as to the nature and scope of the supervision exercised by that authority.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I return to an issue which I raised in Committee. The area that was giving great concern to the banking community was the area in which the provisions of both the Financial Services Act and this Bill would bear on the same authorised institutions. The amendment that I have addressed to this matter was designed to ensure a reasonable distribution of responsibilities among the supervisory bodies and to avoid an unreasonable imposition of reporting duties on the banks. It fell to be discussed on our second Committee day, which was Monday 23rd March.
It was necessary to raise the matter with your Lordships because everybody was then in the dark because no official proposals were available for general discussion. As the matters involved were detailed and technical, the Committee agreed to my suggestion that, once I had put the thrust of my concern on the record, the matter should be carried forward by correspondence and meetings rather than on the floor of the Committee. The length of the subsequent letter of my noble friend made me realise how wise that decision was, and I acknowledge gratefully the care he put into it. The position has also been helpfully advanced by the publication two days after our discussion in Committee of the draft of a memorandum of understanding between the Bank of England and the Securities Association on their proposed arrangements to make this dual regulation effective.
I am grateful also for that progress. It has enabled me to narrow considerably the matters that need the attention of your Lordships. There are three. All of them will fall eventually to be decided by the regulatory authorities. But I make no apology for taxing the Secretary of State, or my noble friend, with them now because the passage of this Bill provides the only opportunity for parliamentary intervention and it is normal, established and indeed essential practice for your Lordships to satisfy yourselves as to how a body proposes to use the powers that the House gives it before those powers are delivered.
The first matter is the proposal that we believe to be current to hypothecate a bank's capital in order to establish the permitted scale of its investment business. I ought perhaps to explain that "hypothecation"—or "dotation" as some call it—of capital means the earmarking of a proportion of the whole of
852
the resource so that it relates to a particular function for the purposes of a particular calculation. It is the opposite of the "non-hypothecation" which some of your Lordships have come across in local government finance.
There are two objections to hypothecation in banking, and two queries. The first objection is that orthodox banking philosophy regards the diversification of risk as a source of strength rather than weakness. It is proper, therefore, for the whole of a bank's capital and activity—and not just a part thereof—to be considered when deciding the appropriate scale of any activity. If a part of the capital is now to be set aside to justify investment business, I must ask my noble friend this question: will it be ignored or will it be taken account of for assessing the permitted extent of its other activities? We need an answer, and the right one, before the Bill is passed.
The second objection arises from a couple of sentences in the letter under cover of which the draft memorandum of understanding between the Bank and the Securities Association was issued on 25th March. They read as follows:
"I must emphasise that these arrangements are designed only for UK registered companies. The treatment of UK branches of foreign banks which may wish to apply for membership of the Securities Association has still to be resolved.".
This passage makes it clear that the draft applies only to UK registered companies and that no means of dealing with branches of foreign banks operating in the United Kingdom has yet been agreed on. In fact it is not at all clear that any such means is yet in sight. Whether or not the final decision is to rely on the equivalents of the Bank of England in the foreign banks' own countries, it seems very unlikely indeed that those institutions will use the system of hypothecation now apparently intended for fixing the scale of their British competitors.
Simple arithmetic suggests that hypothecation will result in a reduction of the permitted level of business of those to whom it is applied. At present it appears that it will be applied to British banks and not to those foreign competitors banks which choose to act through branches rather than through their subsidiaries. This must be very unfair to our own folk and clearly contrary to our present intentions. Will my noble friend therefore please assure us that no such handicap will be imposed on British banks by according them treatment which differs from that accorded to their foreign competitors?
My third matter of concern is of slightly less importance, but it is of some significance none the less. There is in the draft memorandum that I have already referred to a proposal that banks should be required to file a return of their securities position every other week. We must all be in favour of close supervision, but I ask my noble friend whether he thinks that this incessant questioning is as appropriate to banks as it is to the other wards and charges of TSA and, if not, that it should be modified. I await my noble friend's reply with very great interest. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton in moving this amendment seeks certain assurances from me. He was good enough to write to

853
me in advance so that I should be better able to respond to him today. I am grateful, for these are somewhat complex matters. My noble friend was concerned to establish the position under the Financial Services Act for banks which also undertake investment business and so require authorisation under that Act as well as under this Bill.
I should first make one matter quite clear. The regime for the authorisation of investment business under the Financial Services Act is not yet in place. The agency—the Securities and Investments Board—to which it is proposed that the functions of the Secretary of State will be transferred has not yet been designated. My noble friend has said that this is the only parliamentary opportunity available to him to influence the matters which concern him. However, I can assure him that that is not the case. The Securities and Investments Board is to be designated by order: an order which requires an affirmative resolution of each House. Linked to that order, moreover, will be the draft rule book of the agency. It will be open to the noble Lord at that stage again to raise such matters as may concern him. The Securities and Investments Board accepts that its rules—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me? When he says "the agency" does he mean the Securities Agency, the TSA? Is he telling me that the proposals which are now referred to are very much in the air and that the SIB will have to generate a set of rules which will be put before Parliament before they are enforced by the TSA? Is that the position?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend Lord Elton. The agency I was referring to is the Securities and Investments Board. As I said that board will, it is hoped, be the agency to be designated by order. That will require an affirmative resolution. As I said, the draft rule book of that agency will be linked to that order.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know this is not Committee stage and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. The matters I referred to in my speech and of which I gave notice related to the draft memorandum of agreement between the Bank of England and the TSA, which is on paper and from which I have quoted. I think it would be as well if my noble friend proceeded with his speech as he intended and we may get to the bit of it in which I am particularly interested later.
In the meantime if there is a difficulty my noble friend will have heard more of it from another quarter.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it would be helpful if I carried on with making the case because I am coming to a number of these points.
The Securities and Investments Board accepts that its rules concerning financial adequacy and the related reporting requirements may need further revision to attune them to the special needs of banks. They were formulated with investment business in mind. The board has power under the Financial Services Act to modify its rules in relation to particular categories of business. I understand that the board is considering modifications for banks taking into account the
854
supervision of the Bank of England to which they are already subject. The agency is statutorily required to publish any significantly different rules for consultation.
The second point I should make also relates to the Financial Services Act. That Act already contains powers of delegation of monitoring by the SIB and by SROs to, for example, the Bank of England, which are capable of similar effect to those in the amendment before us. I should refer my noble friend Lord Elton to Schedule 7, paragraph 3(1) of the Financial Services Act, which provides that the agency, the SIB, must have a satisfactory system for enabling it to determine whether persons regulated by it are complying with the rules.
Paragraph 3(2) then further provides that this requirement can be satisfied by other persons carrying out those operations on behalf of the agency. There is a similar provision in Schedule 2, paragraph 4 in regard to self-regulating organisations. As powers of delegation of monitoring already exist, it is clear that the matters which my noble friend has raised are matters for the regulatory authorities operating under the Financial Services Act to take forward in conjunction, for example, with the Bank of England operating under this Bill where banks are concerned. The noble Lord will therefore understand if I am unable to give him the categorical assurances that he seeks. These are matters which must be left to the regulatory authorities. I can however offer him my understanding of how it is intended that the legislation would operate.
My noble friend has referred to the difficulties which may be presented for banks subject to dual authorisation if they find themselves apparently forced to divide their capital among the needs of different regulators. In this respect the noble Lord referred to a recent draft agreement between the Bank of England and the Securities Association, a candidate to be a self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act. The agreement envisages the Bank undertaking on behalf of the association the task of monitoring the securities positions and financial resources of banks which are also members of the association. This monitoring would be based on a common approach to the measurement of risk and of capital adequacy for securities business. The Bank of England, it is suggested, should agree with each bank a capital limit for its securities business; a limit which would be reviewed at regular, perhaps quarterly, intervals. If a bank subsequently exceeded the previously fixed limit then the two regulators would agree on the corrective action to be taken by the institution.
The crucial point to recognise about the operation of this agreement is that it does not provide for the legal hypothecation of a bank's capital to meet particular risks. It proposes rather that where supervisors share responsibility for the operation of a single entity, that entity should in effect, for balance sheet planning purposes, allocate capital to its different activities. I would regard such forward planning as no more than is to be expected from any prudently run business. It certainly is wholly consistent with the principle that a diversified bank is less risky than one with all its eggs in one basket.

855
The capital limit referred to in the agreement therefore relates to the mechanism by which the Bank of England will be able to monitor the risks in the securities business of a bank on a similar basis to that which the securities regulator will be monitoring the business of a firm wholly engaged in investment activity.
If the monitoring reveals that the limit has been exceeded, the Bank of England must have ultimate regard to the totality of risks—banking risks and securities risks—of the institution in relation to its total capital before deciding on whether its powers of intervention have been triggered. The financial services regulator will be in the same position. Most likely the corrective action to be taken where the guidelines show that the securities business has outstripped the capital limit agreed will involve no more than a recalculation of the capital notionally supporting the investment side of the business.
The draft agreement is offered to the banks for consultation as a means by which they may avoid having to submit to a regular, detailed supervision by two authorities. It does not relieve them or the authorities of the statutory obligations associated with operating under the two statutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, may fear that banks will be unable both to have their cake and to eat it. He has suggested that a bank's capital should be able to support any and every activity which it may undertake. I fear that I cannot go the whole way with him. I fully accept that one must look at a balance sheet in the round. But when measuring how stretched a bank's capital is, capital taken to be supporting one risk cannot be deemed to be available to support another. On that basis the proposed monitoring arrangements appear sensible.
My noble friend's second major point related to how overseas banks carrying on investment business in this country are to be regulated. He notes that no proposals have yet been published for dealing with this. Again I must stress that these are matters to be dealt with by the regulators under the powers conferred on them by the legislation.
The comments of my noble friend lead to the proposition that overseas incorporated banks and perhaps overseas incorporated securities businesses will operate here on a lighter rein than UK firms because it will not be possible or practicable to agree similar monitoring arrangements with the overseas supervisors as are in prospect between the Bank of England and the Securities Association.
At this stage it would be premature to reach such a conclusion. Level playing fields are a desirable aim and supervision which bears unevenly operates against that aim. However, the harmonisation of regulatory requirements across international boundaries is a matter which we must leave, with our encouragement, to the supervisors to take forward. I am sure that the Securities and Investments Board is well seized of this. Your Lordships' House will also be well aware of the significant step taken in this respect by the Bank of England and the United States banking supervisory authorities which was announced in January.
I should not wish to predict how quickly such arrangements can be applied to other countries or to
856
securities business, but the way forward has been shown. However, I can offer my noble friend one significant reassurance. Before an investment business can be authorised under the Financial Services Act, it must comply with the financial resources rules eventually to be made by the Securities and Investments Board or meet appropriately similar requirements of another supervisor. Therefore, before an overseas incorporated bank can be authorised, the supervision of the overseas bank must be deemed adequate by the Securities and Investments Board. How the board is to be satisfied on this matter is something which only it can comment upon, but I am advised that the SIB is in close consultation with the Bank of England on this point.
My noble friend asked me a third question about the frequency of monitoring. I must say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. It is a matter for the regulators but it seems improbable that they would seek more information than they would deem necessary in order to discharge their functions properly. However, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that I have gone as far as I can in seeking to meet his concerns. The fact is that the matters which he has raised are for the regulators and not for the Government. Therefore, I hope that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I recognise the difficulties of my noble friend because he is speaking on behalf of another government department and that government department is not in charge of this area of policy anyway because it is delegated to a third government department. Therefore, there must be some reluctance for him to make any commitment whatever on policy, although it is perfectly respectable for him to say that all this will be for the regulators and they are not yet in position.
However, I am not at all clear that I received an answer to my question as to whether the hypothecation—what he called the notional relation—of part of a bank's capital to one of its activities would be deducted from the rest of its capital for deciding the extent of its other activities. Indeed, if I understood him aright, he finished up by saying that capital allocated to support one activity cannot be deemed to be available to support another. That seems to me to smack of heresy in banking terms and I shall have to read carefully what he said.
As to the other matters, I hope that he will take on board the fact that there is genuine concern among the sector which is to be regulated by this machinery that the regulation should not be unnecessarily onerous where it applies to banks simply because that is the way in which other sectors of the market are regulated. I hope that he will be able to transmit that message, however indirectly, down the wire to the people concerned with establishing the system.
I was also concerned to hear my noble friend clearly not undertake that the field on which the game is played will be level, or, if it slopes, that it will slope in favour of our own side. My concern, as I hope I made clear, is that the application of the existing proposal to foreign banks may have the effect of tilting the gound against British banks.

857
However it is late, your Lordships are getting hungry—all except the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and I shall therefore insert the normal saving sentence into my speech, which is that I shall read this with great concern in case I need to come back to it at Third Reading. I shall now leave your Lordships to get on with other business. I conclude by thanking my noble friend, and through him my noble friend the Secretary of State, for the voluminous and courteous correspondence that we have conducted between the stages of the Bill and also for a very helpful meeting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Justice Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill
7.17 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to close a loophole in our immigration control. The problem has arisen from people coming here without the documents they need to establish their position and then resisting return by claiming asylum. In the three months to the end of February, over 800 people applied for asylum at our ports. Our system of" immigration control was under serious threat and quick action had to be taken. This Bill is the result.
The Bill is therefore aimed directly at preventing the exploitation of our immigration control. While its cause was the extensive use of asylum claims at our ports, it is emphatically not aimed at reducing the Government's commitment to the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Our commitment remains as firm as ever.
The single purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people do not travel here without the documents they need to identify themselves and without the visas the nationals of some countries must have under the immigration rules. These requirements have been agreed by Parliament and apply to would-be asylum-seekers as to everyone else. It is essential that they should be enforced if we are to maintain a consistent and coherent immigration control in the interests of everyone in this country, not least our hard pressed inner city areas. As recent months have shown, if we allow people to flout the visa or other requirements, our control will quickly be overwhelmed and everyone will suffer.
We are not alone in facing such problems. Many other countries throughout the world are also facing enormous pressures from people, particularly from the third world, who are seeking a better life elsewhere and have the means to achieve their objectives. The consequences of greater mobility and readier access to air travel have been felt throughout the Western world
858
and have required these countries to examine searchingly their rules and procedures in response.
It was against this background that Parliament last year approved an extension of the visa requirement to five countries in the Indian sub-continent and West Africa. In the first eight months of last year, some 8,500 people from these five countries were refused entry at Heathrow and Gatwick, nearly 50 per cent, more than in the same period the year before. And in the next six weeks the ports came under increasing pressure from people with no claim to come to this country hoping to secure a foothold here before the visa deadline.
The new visa arrangements represented a considerable improvement for the great majority of people wishing to come here. The arrangements in Ghana and the Indian sub-continent have been operating for six months, and over 90 per cent, of applications are dealt with the day they are received. There are efficient and effective arrangements to help those who find they need a visa in an emergency. Posts have duty officers available seven days a week to issue emergency visas; so there is no reason at all why anyone with legitimate grounds for travelling to this country cannot get a visa. The visa arrangements have reduced the pressure at the ports, and have gone a long way to restore the effectiveness of the immigration controls.
However, in recent months we faced a new threat; that of an increasing number of people who need visas but who are simply ignoring the requirements. Instead, they travel here, often without any documents at all, and then hope to be allowed to stay by claiming asylum when they arive. The 800 or so applications for asylum made at the ports in the three months to the end of February represented nearly twice as many as for the whole of 1984. Nearly 500 of these were from Sri Lanka. In December and January some 370 Sri Lankans arrived without valid visas and claimed asylum. This was more than half the total number of Sri Lankans who applied and were granted visas in Colombo in those two months.
The problem is not confined to this country. In February this year, Canada introduced new measures to control asylum abuse. The problems for West Germany are well known: last year nearly 100,000 people applied there for asylum. The French Government announced last August that they would be looking afresh at their regulations because of the problems that an influx of asylum-seekers was causing. In October last year Denmark enacted urgent legislation to refuse access to the asylum procedure for those who came from a safe third country. Sweden has done the same. The Belgian Parliament is currently considering legislation to tighten the arrangements for asylum-seekers, and only yesterday the Swiss people approved by a large majority proposals for tightening up asylum application procedures in order to reduce the increasing influx of people seeking refuge there. Since January this year the number seeking asylum in Switzerland has been more than double the figure for the same period last year.
A number of these and other countries have concluded that charges on carriers should form part of their response. So there is legislation specifically to allow for charges to be made on carriers bringing in

859
undocumented people in Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia, as well as in West Germany and Denmark. The Belgian Parliament has such legislation before it at present and I understand that the Dutch propose to bring forward similar legislation later this year.
The Government have approached this problem in close co-operation with our Community partners. Following work started under our presidency, the Belgian presidency will be presenting shortly to Ministers the recommendations of a working group on asylum and travel document abuse. I understand that the report makes reference to member countries introducing a charge on carriers for carrying undocumented passengers, on much the lines of the Bill at present before your Lordships. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to discuss the report with other members of the Community this month. But the discussions so far have all recognised that it is for individual countries to take the action that they consider necessary to protect their immigration control. The proposals in this Bill are therefore very much in line with the way in which other countries and the Community as a whole are moving.
Just as this Bill is not unique internationally, neither does it break wholly new ground in the legislation of this country. Under the Immigration Act 1971 carriers are already responsible for detention and maintenance costs of most people refused entry. And they must also pay removal costs if directions for removal are given within two months of refusal of entry. The present Bill simply builds on those requirements. It ensures that the problem of undocumented passengers is effectively stopped before it starts.
I should like to move now to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 enables a charge of £1,000 to be made for each passenger who requires leave to enter the United Kingdom, and who arrives at the immigration control without a valid passport or other acceptable travel document, and without a valid visa where one is required under the immigration rules. The level of the charge may be varied by order, subject to negative resolution.
Clause 1 also provides that no liability will be incurred if the carrier can show that at the time of embarkation the passenger produced the necessary valid documents; and it specifies that any document should be regarded as genuine unless its falsity was reasonably apparent. This is nothing new: it is the same test as is already in the Immigration Act in relation to carriers' liabilities for maintenance and custody costs.
Clause 2 extends the Act to the whole of the United Kingdom and provides for liability to the charge to start from 5th March, 1987.
The Bill is deliberately short and simple. We recognise, of course, that it will involve carriers in additional work, but that should not be over-exaggerated. It applies only to those requiring leave to enter the United Kingdom; not British citizens, not others with the right of abode, not other European Community nationals coming here under the treaty. The Bill does not in any way expect carriers or their employees to act as immigration officers, either by
860
making decisions about entry or by using the skills of immigration officers in assessing a passenger's intentions or detailed documentation.
The Bill does not expect carriers to spot clever forgeries, or to have an expert knowledge of the immigration rules. It simply expects them to check that a passport looks like a passport, that it is valid and contains a convincing photograph, and that the passenger has what looks like a valid visa if he needs one. There is no requirement to check other forms of entry clearance. Carriers already undertake these simple checks before carrying people to an increasing number of other countries throughout the world. Given the problems that we have found in recent months, it is reasonable to expect them to do the same for us.
Of course there may be cases where a carrier is in technical breach of the provision but where it would not be sensible to impose a charge on him. The Bill allows for this. The Secretary of State can decide in any particular case not to press for a charge. It would not be sensible to try to identify in advance all the sorts of case where this might apply, but I can assure your Lordships that discretion will be used reasonably and with good judgment.
The aim of the Bill is, of course, to make it much more difficult for people to come to this country without the proper documents. And it is intended to stop abuse of asylum procedures by preventing people travelling here without valid documents and then claiming asylum before they can be returned. We cannot afford to ignore such abuse, nor the concerted efforts of an increasing number of people to circumvent our immigration controls. Many of these people had been the victims of racketeers, who grew rich on the misguided hopes of people wishing to leave their own country for a better future elsewhere.
The need for this legislation was pointed up by the arrival on 13th February of 64 Tamil asylum-seekers who were refused entry. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has referred these cases to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and will make his decisions on the individual cases in the light of all the relevant facts. Your Lordships will appreciate that I can make no comment on these cases today.
It might be for the convenience of your Lordships, however, if I said something about our arrangements for referral to the UKIAS and about the general issue of appeal rights for asylum-seekers. The Government have considered ways to solve the problem of giving asylum-seekers access to a second opinion while avoiding the risks of exploitation by people claiming asylum simply to gain a foothold here. It has proved impossible to devise an appeal procedure which does not give such a person an opportunity for delaying his departure. This delay can often in effect decide the issue since the longer someone is here the more difficult it becomes for him to be removed. Appeals procedures take time: if they are rushed or skimped, they will carry little conviction. But the reality is that those who are able to play for time can win a foothold here, whatever the merits of the case. It is this potential for abuse which has made it impossible sensibly to give a formal right of appeal to asylum applicants refused at the ports.

861
As your Lordships know, part of our response to this problem since 1983 has been a limited arrangement involving reference of asylum-seekers to UKIAS. My noble friend the Minister of State explained in his Statement on 3rd March in your Lordships' House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intended to enter into discussions with UKIAS about how the present arrangements should be revised. These discussions would also involve the United Kingdom representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
We have not yet had an opportunity to embark on these discussions. They need to be held carefully, and there is, I am sure, no advantage to anyone in discussions being rushed or ill-considered. But I can assure your Lordships that it is not the Government's intention to abolish the referral system or greatly to reduce its scope. The Government's objectives are to adapt the system to meet the new problems and the new situations that have emerged.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that Mr. Barry Stoyle, the head of the UKIAS refugee unit, wrote to the Home Office stating that his staff were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to take representations from asylum seekers at the ports of entry? How can the Minister claim that unacceptable delays arose from that procedure when the UKIAS has always dealt with matters extremely promptly and without any criticism from the department?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall try to answer detailed points put to me by noble Lords in this debate when I come to wind up our discussions today.
As I said, the Government's objectives are to adapt the system to meet the new problems and the new situations that have emerged. The discussions would clearly need to take into account the impact of this Bill on the number of asylum applications made at the ports. But I hope it might prove possible to devise an arrangement in consultation with UKIAS that would enable cases of port asylum applications to be referred to it, and if necessary dealt with quickly. That indication will, I hope, help your Lordships in considering the wider issues surrounding this Bill.
We recognise also the concern that has been expressed about the effect of this Bill on the position of genuine refugees. But I have to say that Mr. Levin's comments in today's Times, by reaching inflamatory heights unusual even for him, have done nothing to assist your Lordships' considerations. He has shown little understanding of the problem of refugees today and no grasp of the essentials of the operation of this country's immigration control. This Government are not about to renege on our commitments under the UN convention to share with others in offering help to genuine refugees. This country has a fine reputation for offering a home to refugees and I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue with that tradition.
But Mr. Levin, and perhaps others, have dangerously confused the genuine refugee with the many others who would like to come here. An immigration control which allows the one to claim to be the other is no form of immigration control at all and does no service to genuine refugees. It is nonsense
862
to suggest, as does Mr. Levin, that someone's whole need for asylum should be based on whether or not they can have a valid passport. Mr. Levin has totally failed to keep up with the current situation as it affects refugees. For him nothing has changed in the past 50 years but the depth of the glow he gives to a misremembered past.
The facts today are different. The reality is that this country is not the natural place of immediate refuge for today's refugees—that is a simple matter of geography. But as I shall show, genuine refugees who come here can obtain valid travel documents; and they can make proper arrangements for their travel. This country's reputation has been earned, not out of chaos at our ports, nor the ready acceptance of anyone who can contrive to arrive here, but out of responsible and careful programmes for helping in some of the main crisis areas of recent years. We shall continue with that tradition.
Almost all the major intakes of refugees to the United Kingdom since the UN convention came into effect have been carefully planned in advance. Refugees from Hungary in the 1950s, from Czechoslovakia in the 1960s, from Chile in the 1970s, and from Vietnam in the 1980s, have all come here under agreed arrangements and with the documents they needed for their journeys. They have been major beneficiaries of the UN convention and of the orderly programmes we have introduced. They would not have been affected in any way by this Bill.
The fact is that until recent years over 90 per cent, of all applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were made by people who were already in this country on a genuine and properly documented basis, but who were unwilling to return to their own countries because of a change in circumstances there. They too will not be affected in any way by this legislation.
A very much smaller number of people find temporary refuge in other countries and apply at British posts abroad to come here as refugees. All such applications are referred to the refugee section of the Home Office before a decision is made. People may be admitted if their claim to asylum is well-founded and if we are satisfied that it is right for us to accept responsibility for them. They will not be affected in any way by this legislation since they would be issued with the necessary papers to travel here before they embark.
The same is true of groups for whom special arrangements are made for them to leave the country—for example, 4,000 Chileans in the 1970s, and more recently, Vietnamese refugees who have close relatives here. We have also made special provisions for Sri Lankan Tamils. They may obtain a visa in Colombo if they are suffering severe hardship and have ties with this country. Again none of those groups will be affected in any way by the Bill.
The same is true also of refugees from eastern European countries, who travel here under agreed arrangements and with the documents they need. They too would not be affected in any way by this Bill.
I do not deny that the Bill may affect some people who would like to come here but for whom this country is not the proper country of refuge. There are undoubtedly large numbers of people all over the world who flee their home country because of this

863
situation—people, for example, fleeing from the war in Afghanistan, or from El Salvador, or from Iran or Iraq, or from any other area where there is conflict. But that is not to say that they must come here. Nor is it to say they are refugees within the term of the UN convention. This country cannot be regarded as the only and right refuge for anyone in the world who wishes to leave his home country. In most cases, safe refuge can be found in a neighbouring country. From there, those with a claim to come here can make application to obtain the documents they need.
Our ports cannot therefore be the main places for large numbers of undocumented people to make claims for asylum. Yet the number of asylum applications at our ports has risen markedly from about 400 in 1984 to over 1,800 in 1985. In these years very few were granted refugee status. It is quite possible that some of those who were accepted as refugees did not have the documents that this legislation would require them to have. But it does not follow from that that this was the right and only country of refuge for them, or that they could not, if they had wished, have obtained the proper documents before they came here. And it certainly does not follow that we should leave such a large loophole in our immigration control just so as to preserve the options for a very few.
There may of course be exceptional cases where a genuine refugee is simply unable to get the proper documents before he travels and this country is the right and only practicable haven for him. Such desperate cases are likely to be really very rare; but of course if the person were carried and had to be brought here the Home Secretary would naturally consider carefully whether or not to use discretion not to charge the carrier.
That brings me to considering the effect of this Bill on the carriers themselves. I was glad to see the sensible and responsive approach that airline companies in particular have made to the new legislation. I recognise, however, that ferry companies have expressed considerable concern about the practical affects on their operations. The Government recognise that concern; but we are convinced that the practical problems can be overcome once the Bill has been properly understood and if any problems are tackled with a measure of goodwill and determination. And it is in our view essential to cover shipping if this legislation is to work effectively and if it is not just to lead to a transfer of pressure from our airports to our seaports.
Every major country in the world which has introduced carrier sanctions, (including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and West Germany) has reached the same conclusion and included shipping in its provisions. The Belgian legislation currently under consideration also includes shipping, and we understand that the Dutch proposals are likely to do so as well,
It would be still less sensible for this country to exclude shipping from the arrangements since shipping is responsible for 30 per cent, of the passenger traffic into this country. To exclude this large number of people would leave a huge gap in the arrangements. It would mean in practice that anyone who managed
864
to get himself to a seaport or to get to Europe and travel to a Channel port could seek to come to this country without documents.
Your Lordships may have seen reports that the ferry operators have been told that French law does not allow carriers to check the identity of their passengers on French territory. That is not my understanding of the position. We have had authoritative advice from the head of Air and Border Police Headquarters for France that it is indeed possible under French law for a passenger to be required by the conditions of sale of his ticket to present to the carrier in France the travel documents required to allow entry to the United Kingdom. I believe this substantially deals with the application of the French law and removes that particular problem.
We are not yet at the stage in the Community where our control arrangements are fully harmonised and, like our other partners, we need therefore to maintain our immigration controls for travel from within the Community. Indeed it would be unfair to expect our partners to face the full brunt of pressure from undocumented passengers wanting to get to the United Kingdom, given the heavy pressures which many of them already face.
Nor would it be prudent to exempt travel by air or ship from the Republic of Ireland or other parts of the common travel area. We do not know where the pressure will next come from and it is only responsible to ensure we have available the powers necessary to respond. But we recognise the problem of travel from the common travel area and can assure your Lordships, as we have today assured Sealink, that we shall operate the powers sensibly and with discretion. In present circumstances we would not normally expect to impose a charge on a carrier for travel from within the common travel area.
We accept that the effect of the provisions may well cause the ferry operators additional work. But we believe that the problem is not nearly as great as they fear. Eighty per cent, of the people arriving here on the ferries are either British citizens, other people with right of abode or European Community nationals exercising their right of free movement under the treaty. None of them is even covered by this legislation since none requires leave to enter this country. The great majority of such people will therefore require only the briefest of checks to see that they appear not to be affected by the legislation. Of the remaining 20 per cent., all the carrier needs to do is to ensure that they have what looks like a valid passport and a valid visa where this is necessary. Carriers do not have to decide whether a person is entitled to settlement. They only have to see that the visa which a visa national requires is in the passport.
We are of course very ready to offer carriers, both shipping and airlines, all the help they need to operate these provisions. The immigration service has already had extensive contacts with airlines and shipping companies and their representatives and has made it clear that it is ready at all times to provide guidance and assistance. A video, slides and other material have been prepared both about our documentary requirements and what to look out for. We shall continue to do all we can to help the carriers to understand and

865
deal with the Bill's provisions. I hope that the ferry operators will come to see the need for this legislation and that they will react positively to it, as the airline carriers already have.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the requirements approved by Parliament are adhered to. We should be failing in our duty if we were simply to ignore the abuse of our immigration control that has been so evident at the ports in the last few moths. We need to act quickly to respond to the problem and to ensure that the control operates as Parliament intended.
The proposals in this Bill are already proving their worth. In the three months prior to the introduction of the provisions on 5th March there was an average of 60 asylum-seekers a week at our ports. Since 5th March this has dropped to an average of 15 a week. The Bill is therefore already proving to be a good solution to a real problem. It is in short a simple, effective and necessary provision which deserves the support of this House. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Beaverbwok.)
7.44 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will have sympathy with the Minister, who has been dealing with the very materialistic subject of banking in assisting his noble friend and now has to move to a humanitarian subject when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I congratulate him on the clarity with which he denned the objects of the Bill, but he will not be surprised, having regard to the debate that took place on the Statement which was repeated in this House when the Bill's purpose was announced, if I tell him in forthright terms that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as wanting in mercy and understanding, contrary to our best traditions, ill thought-out and conceived in an unnecessary panic.
I think we have to get our perspective right. The noble Lord the Minister was very frank and he said that this Bill had been thought of by virtue of the numbers of refugees clamouring at the gates of this country and of many other countries—what a comment, I say in parenthesis, upon the state of the world; not upon the conscience of the refugees but upon the conscience of the world, and of the free world, in endeavouring to assist the victims of tyranny.
The Minister said that a great number had come without proper papers over the past few months. He included in a very dramatic way the story of the 64 Tamils who arrived in February. He said their cases were being given consideration and that it would not be proper, while the matters were being considered by the Minister, and also by UKIAS, for him to make any comment. I must make a comment, and it is a perfectly proper one. The Minister of State in another place on 17th February, as recorded in the Official Report at cols. 669 and 770, explained that the 64 Tamils came here and they were manifestly bogus: I quote his words. They are not refugees, he said equally definitely; and if he had had his way they would have been sent back immediately without any review of their cases at all.
866
By the grace of providence and in accordance with the great traditions of this country and of our law, there was a remedy against that hasty and inhuman action: that was the remedy of judicial review. Our judges decided that the Minister had not behaved properly in this matter and had not abided by procedures. Are the Government now endeavouring to alter those procedures so that there will not be a chance again of a Minister being corrected on judicial review? If I may, I will go into that matter a little later.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to our great tradition in dealing with refugees from persecution. He was right to do so, because in the last part of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century until very recently our head was held high among the nations of the world because of the way in which we opened our gates to those who needed it because of the persecution they suffered, for one reason or another, in their own countries.
But is there a situation like that now which we ought to be considering? I looked at the last figures that were published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and your Lordships may like to hear what those figures are. For the first six months of 1986, Britain took just over 1,000. There were 80,000 admitted into the whole of Western Europe. Denmark took over 3,000—three times more than we did. Germany took 42,000. I mention these figures not because I feel that there ought not to be immigration control. We on this side have always said that, unfortunately, we have to agree to immigration control for many reasons. But do not let us think—because it would be hypocritical—that we are dealing in latter years with figures which show that we in this country have been much more generous than other countries in Western Europe. We have not, and I have produced the figures to show it.
I find myself in a great difficulty in this respect. Nobody on any side of this House would for one moment want to protect in any sort of way from fines, and from any other punishment that can reasonably be accorded, those carriers who profit from misery—not one of us. Not one of us would want to try to persuade this House to allow into our immigration control numbers those who are bogus refugees. That is not in any way an argument that I want to put to your Lordships tonight. I am pleading for the genuine refugee and I am saying to this House that this Bill makes the task of the genuine refugee, in all his misery, a great deal harder than he ought to be asked to bear. That is my case.
The Minister posed a question to the House as to whether we would not agree that refugees from persecution can perfectly easily obtain genuine passports and genuine documents. He implied by that that there should be no difficulty whatsoever, whether it was in Eastern Europe, whether it was some tyrannical regime under which the unfortunate refugee lived.
There was a different answer in the other place and the Minister must have missed it. At col. 783 of the Official Report of the other place of 16th March 1987, one of his honourable friends asked this question of the Minister. Mr. Andrew Rowe, the honourable Member for Mid-Kent asked:

867
"It would be of great help if my right hon. and learned Friend could assure me that if a refugee from Soviet Russia arrives with forged papers—often that is the only way that a refugee can arrive—those papers will not be an automatic reason for refusal of asylum".
The Minister of State replied:
"I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking".
That reply meant that there was an acknowledgment that it was very often impossible to get out if you did not have a forged passport, and very often extremely difficult to get other papers that might be necessary.
That immediately poses the question which I ask of the Minister: if there are so many countries, certainly behind the Iron Curtain, where it would be impossible to get out without forged papers, who is going to take the genuine refugee? How is he to get to these shores? If a carrier is in the slightest doubt about the penalties that are brought upon him by this Bill, what carrier will take even the person about whom he is in the slightest degree doubtful? He has to know, his employees have to know—and they may be in many countries of the world—which countries demand visas and in what circumstances.
The noble Lord the Minister knows as well as I do that our own arrangements in regard to visas are highly complex. We have all sorts of British nationals now. Some of them have a right of residence, some of them have not. There are other people with British ancestry who may or may not need visas and those complex regulations will obviously mean—and I ask the noble Lord the Minister to be sincere in giving his answer—that we are trying to keep the number of people genuinely seeking asylum to an absolute minimum and we are doing it by this Bill.
If there were good faith in the Government, I would ask for agreement to the following proposals. First, there was the recommendation of the home affairs sub-committee—the sub-committee that deals with refugees and so on—that there should be a right of appeal. They said that for a proposed immigrant who came to this country pleading that he was a refugee there should be a right of appeal against refusal. The answer of the Government was that that would not be necessary because there were safeguards. The safeguards were, first, that there would be the review by the UKIAS; and, secondly, there would be the right of representation by a Member of Parliament which would stop the enforced exit of that applicant for our mercy, pending consideration of his case, or there would be a judicial review.
At least two of those safeguards will be weakened, if not cancelled completely, and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was endeavouring to put to the noble Lord the Minister, it looks as though the UKIAS, which has been ready to assist refugees every day and at all hours of the day, has also been ready for these consultations with the Home Office. Why have the consultations not been started? The only excuse was that they had to be considered consultations. Why have they not been started, so that the House could be told quite frankly on the Second Reading of this Bill in the Upper House, after it had passed through the Commons, that consultations have started and are going well and that offers have been made to the UKIAS in this connection?
868
Will the Minister now state that there will be the right of appeal, provided an appeal can be speedily arranged, so that the hopeful immigrant may have that right? Will the Minister assure the House that within the immigration regulations there will be, at our various posts throughout the world, facilities given for applications to be made for refugee status? Will that be done within the immigration rules or will the provision still apply that you cannot ask to be admitted as a refugee until you get to these shores?
That brings with it the vicious circle—and I call it that because it is one—that you cannot get to these shores unless you have papers and a carrier who is prepared to take you in spite of all the risks that your papers, as a result of not being complete, will get him a fine. In regard to the carriers, will the Government show fairness by saying that there is a right of appeal, so far as the carriers are concerned, against the liability of a fine? Are they going to agree at Committee stage to various amendments that must be put forward in order to give the carrier proper protection?
If there is sincerity in all this, the Government will answer hopefully when the Minister comes to reply. But the House cannot be happy with this Bill. It is not in accordance with our glorious history.
8 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his concluding remarks and in almost everything else he said. It is a sad day for the refugee community of the world and for the traditions of Great Britain, as it is for the Community of Europe, on whose example we are now attempting to proceed. The Minister has repeated some of the arguments given by the Secretary of State in another place, relying very heavily on the fact that other countries have introduced legislation such as this and maintaining that, if we do not do the same, then, in effect, we will have to take into our immigration control procedures the huge numbers of people he alleges are now flooding into Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere.
Coupled with the fines levied on the carriers, there has been the diminution of the rights of appeal of applicants for asylum coming to these shores. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to answer the questions that I shall put to him. If the procedures for reference to UKIAS have been working perfectly satisfactorily over the years—and we have no reason to suppose that they have not—why enter into these discussions to water them down, even though I am delighted to have the assurance that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is involved in the discussions?
The Minister probably does not remember this, but some years ago when Mr. Jean Heidler was the UNHCR representative here, he tried to persuade the Home Office and some of us interested in these questions, that there should be formal statutory rights of appeal as there were at that time, for example, in Canada and certain other countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, it was because the Government persuaded us that other methods were available in this country that we did not pursue the suggestion. Because we had the UKIAS refugee unit, which acts on behalf of refugees with such great

869
assiduity; because its officers were available at all hours of the day and night to take into their care the applicants arriving at ports outside normal office hours; and because we had the system of representations by Members of Parliament which has been progressively watered down since then, we did not need formal statutory rights of appeal.
I can understand the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State that if we did this, we would encourage a lot of other people not even remotely qualified to use an application for asylum as a means of delaying their departure who would go into the appeal system if they had that right. I agree that there would then be the danger that people who had been here for some months might be more difficult to remove to the country from which they came.
The Secretary of State also claimed, and the Minister repeated this evening, that until recently 90 per cent, of asylum applications were submitted by people who had already entered the country on a genuine, legitimate and properly documented basis, whereas now the majority of applicants apply at ports of entry. If a right of appeal were extended to those claimants, it is argued that there would be a big increase in totally unfounded applications. It would also mean, where asylum was ultimately refused, that a state from which the applicant had come might refuse to accept him back because of the lapse of time.
However, the Secretary of State said, and the Minister repeated, that genuine refugees could still come here in three ways. They could apply from British posts outside their home country if they had strong ties with Great Britain. A Tamil from Sri Lanka could apply at Madras or one of the posts on the Indian sub-continent or an Iraqi Kurd could apply from Iran. They could travel under special arrangements such as have been made from time to time in the case of Vietnamese or Chileans, which the Minister mentioned. They could arrive finally as individuals, like Anatoly Shcharansky or Irina Ratushinskaya. Both of those persons were in possession of valid passports.
At this stage, I should like to thank the Minister and through him the Minister of State for the arrangements made in the case of some persons who are viciously persecuted in the Soviet Union and who, although not refugees because they are still in the country of origin, nevertheless deserve the sympathy of the outside world and should be given the hospitality of a free country in which to exercise their proper rights and to develop their own and their family's personalities. I am particularly grateful to the Home Office and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the assistance which they have given me in pursuing my invitation to the family of Lyudmila Yevsukova, whose father spent some considerable time in a psychiatric institution. When released, he had to be supported because he was too weak to stand by himself. Lyudmila's brother is still in a prison camp in Siberia where he was sent for refusal to accept military service. I sincerely hope that as a result of the British Embassy in Moscow indicating to Lyudmila and her family that they would be likely to receive visas if they were to apply, we may now be able to persuade the Soviet authorities to grant
870
them a passport so they can leave and take up my invitation to come here and stay with me.
I return to the argument of the Secretary of State. The fact that other countries have passed legislation on these lines and that we are now doing so means that what we are entering into is a game of pass the parcel with people's lives. We are vying with other European and North American countries to exclude genuine refugees who manage to reach our ports of entry without proper documentation, as many of them do. I suggest the right answer would be to initiate discussions with other Community countries to see what measures could be taken in a properly co-ordinated manner to see that genuine asylum-seekers are identified and to ensure that the burden of looking after them is shared among the Twelve.
I was sorry to note that the discussions actually being held, to which the Minister referred this evening, concern only the introduction of carrier liability penalties throughout the Community and do not include any positive measures to assist refugees. I appeal to the Government to see whether we cannot evolve some positive as well as negative responses at Community level. I suggest to the Minister—and I should like his reaction—that the agenda for discussions with our partners in the Community might include improved aid to the main receiving states in other continents, such as Pakistan and Sudan, to help them cope with their refugee problems and better financial help from Community resources to member states which admit refugees. If there is a disparity of burden in this regard, then the Community should be the proper vehicle for taking care of it.
I noticed the Government Whip on the Front Bench shaking his head when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out that we were not as forthcoming in this regard as some other states in Europe; he mentioned Germany and Denmark in particular. These are matters of fact which are easily ascertained. If the Germans and Danes have received more refugees than we have, surely they should be helped from Community funds. On the other hand, if Britain has been as generous as the noble Lord thinks, we ought to have something out of the kitty. This matter could be properly discussed with our partners.
I accept that in previous years most applicants were people who had entered legitimately for some other purpose—for example, as students—but I would point out that technically asylum-seekers who came in as visitors or students and then declared themselves were in breach of the rules because they had omitted to disclose material facts to an immigration officer when examined at the port of entry. However, there were always some who claimed asylum at the ports, and most of those would not have had proper documentation.
I looked back at the figures of my own cases for the year 1983. Mr. David Waddington wrote to me on 2nd August of that year setting out the basis on which reference is made to the UKIAS refugee unit. In that year 30 cases were taken up with me, of which at least five—I say at least five because I am going by the fact that those five had port references on them—were port applications. I did not pursue 11 cases, which left 19 which I took up with the Minister. At least three of

871
those 19 were port cases, which is a higher proportion than the Minister quoted, and all three were subsequently granted either asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Although the scale of the problem has no doubt increased markedly, the need to test claims made at the ports of entry has been there for many years. Indeed, that was the reason why the Minister wrote his letter in August 1983.
But let us consider the idea that refugees ought to arrive with proper documentation. The Secretary of State quoted only two very eminent Soviet dissidents, leaving one to infer, I suppose, that genuine refugees from other countries were also able to come here with their own national passports.
Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to the case of Abedon Tekle and Russi Ogbazghi, citizens of Ethiopia, who applied for asylum at the British Embassy in Prague and were told by the embassy, in refusing, that because they had no right to apply for asylum from outside the United Kingdom their appeal was bound to fail. Nevertheless, they submitted an appeal and in its decision the tribunal found—and I quote tribunal decision TH 127056/84(4417) 1986, March 11th:
"We do not consider that paragraph 73 of HC169 has any ambiguity in its restrictions of political asylum to those making their case when 'seeking entry at a port'. This Rule does not extend to applications at Embassies abroad".
Thus apart from the exceptional cases about which we know of the Tamils and Kurds, whose applications may be considered by posts abroad if they have family connections here, nobody who escapes from a tyrannical regime can apply to come to Britain from a neighbouring state. If on the other hand the application is made from the person's own country, it is also bound to fail, because that person is not a refugee within the meaning of the convention being still inside his own country.
Suppose the asylum-seeker gets a passport and comes here ostensibly as a visitor. Then according to the Home Office his possession of valid documentation indicates that his claim must be spurious. I refer to the case of Mohammed Mahmud Idris, a citizen of Ethiopia, his wife and three small children, in which the Home Office statement to the adjudicator claimed—and I quote reference J187312:
"He had never suffered persecution or harassment and had been able to revalidate his passport without any problem. Similarly, his family living in Ethiopia did not appear to have suffered persecution or harassment for the past 20 years. Taking these factors into account, the Secretary of State was not satisfied",
and so on. These factors included his possession of a valid passport, which was held against him before the tribunal.
On the other hand, if a person gets a passport by some irregular means, he is caught by another decision of an adjudicator, Mr. W. J. Coley, who ruled in the case of Miss Yemisrach Asfew—and this is reference TH17051/86:
"If she or her father bribed to obtain her passport… this would seem to be a breach of the general law, which is not a factor in political asylum applications".
It seems to me, therefore, that we are left with only a handful of Soviet dissidents, and the groups which were allowed in under special programmes, and last of which as mentioned by the Minister, was the
872
Vietnamese boat people. That programme was initiated about eight years ago—I know the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—and I am not aware of any new ones which have been initiated since then. It is now being suggested that the remaining Vietnamese in the camps in Hong Kong who await resettlement should be returned to Vietnam. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw that suggestion in an article in the Guardian, but while Britain retains nominal control of Hong Kong we are responsible for the safety and welfare of those people. I should be grateful if when he comes to reply he will give an assurance that we would not in any circumstances agree to a proposal that the Vietnamese refugees who are now in the camps in Hong Kong should be returned to their original country of origin. In fact I should like an undertaking from him that we shall have resettled the few thousand who are still in the camps before the handover of power to the People's Republic of China.
As far as we are concerned the convention will become a dead letter, because carriers are not going to incur the risk of £1,000 fines by accepting even those with manifestly genuine claims if they do not have proper documentation. If the passenger has no visa, the carrier would be put in the impossible position of having to evaluate the claim for asylum, and of course no airline would ask junior counter staff to do that. We have to assume that not only will this Bill become law but that the drawbridge is being pulled up all over Europe. In these circumstances, the best that can be hoped for is that some common effort might be made to alleviate the plight of refugees elsewhere, as I suggested earlier.
Are the Government prepared not only to boost their miserably small contribution to refugee programmes elsewhere but to take the initiative in organising resettlement in third countries of those at risk where they are in collaboration with our European partners? In 1986 we gave £500,000 to a special appeal by the UNHCR for the camps in Sudan, which amounted to 50p per person. What are we prepared to do about improved facilities for the education of children and young people from the camps in third countries? Have we asked the Egyptians, for instance, whether if the money was provided more places could be found at their universities and colleges for students from the camps in Sudan, Pakistan or Somalia?
What contingency plans do we have for groups of people whose problems have so far been ignored by the world community? There are some 900,000 Kurds and Iranians in Turkey, a country which is not a signatory of the convention and is locked in armed conflict with its own Kurdish population. What is to be done when the Iran-Iraq war comes to an end and there is a day of reckoning for the groups in each country which supported the other? What assistance are we offering to the 35,000 refugees from the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the Tripura state of India?
Unfortunately, the number of countries where people have a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion is not diminishing, and the number of people involved is probably greater than ever. The United Nations has not been effective in countering the gross violations of human rights which cause people to leave their

873
countries. I am afraid that Britain has not raised her voice against the two powers whose conduct prompted most of the 800 arrivals here from December 1986 to February 1987—Sri Lanka and Ethiopia.
In the case of Sri Lanka, while President Jayawardene has expressed his willingness in principle to negotiate a political solution of the ethnic conflict, his forces in the north and east have behaved with extreme cruelty, murdering, raping and mutilating thousands of innocent civilians. The Derg in Ethiopia, supported by the armed might of the Soviet Union, has been engaged in a bitter and ruthless military operation against the people of Eritrea, and against its own subject peoples within the country. Yet these countries are under no pressure from the United Kingdom, in the United Nations or elsewhere, to desist from the policies which force people to seek refuge abroad.
It is not surprising that so many thousands have fled Sri Lanka and that hundreds of thousands have fled Eritrea and Ethiopia. Nor is it surprising that some of those people should seek to enter European countries, given that the alternative is to spend many years rotting in the camps of Sudan, Somalia or South India, as the case may be. They may have no rights to do so under the convention if they had already been admitted to one of those countries, or even if they had transitted one of them. I am not sure of the legal position in the case of India, which is not a signatory to the convention. To wash our hands of the whole problem, as the Government are doing apparently along with the rest of the first world is not in accordance with our great tradition of hospitality and support for the oppressed.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise to enforce briefly what has been said so ably and comprehensively by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury. Indeed, they have covered between them so much ground in such great detail, including several points I wanted to make myself, that there seems little more for subsequent speakers to say.
Like both noble Lords, I consider this Bill to be unnecessary, unjust and contary to our great humanitarian traditions. It is of course greatly to be regretted that we fall so badly behind the United States of America, Canada, West Germany and other countries in the number of refugees we admit. My noble friend Lord Chitnis will enlarge upon that.
Speaking personally, I have in mind one particular case which was typical of many. It occurred about four or five years ago. I served for two years in Uganda and I was appalled by the sufferings of the people which greatly increased, of course, after Amin took over on 25 th January 1971. This particular case concerned a Ugandan who, under appalling persecution, fled from his country. Somehow he managed, without a visa, to get onto an aeroplane. I suppose he must have bribed the airline to take him. It was Uganda Airlines which was of course ready to accept bribes.
He arrived in this country in a state of great distress, as one can imagine. The Heathrow authorities did what they could. They got in touch with me. I saw him
874
and I tried to persuade the authorities to let him in. They said, "No, it is quite impossible. He must go back." I then said, "Whatever happens, do not send him back to Uganda because if you do he will almost certainly be killed." I had heard that several other Ugandans who had arrived in similar circumstances had been killed on their return.
The Heathrow authorities, in consultation with the Home Office, arranged for this man to be accepted in Zambia, which one would consider splendid. However, they overlooked one important fact. The plane from Heathrow to Zambia called at Entebbe in Uganda. They presumably assumed that he would be all right. However, the authorities at Entebbe dragged him from the plane and imprisoned him. He would almost certainly have died in prison or been executed if he had not, by a miracle, escaped. That is the sort of situation which has been occurring.
If we give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading—as presumably we shall—and restrict the number of asylum seekers, surely as a corollary to this we must improve the arrangements for their reception, subsequent settlement and integration into this country. I give a few examples. In the first place, the Home Office acknowledges that it takes on average 53 weeks to deal with an asylum application. That figure was given to me by the British Refugee Council. However, many people have to wait for as long as 18 months and in some cases more than two years before their applications are processed. That is surely unacceptable, bearing in mind the stress that such waiting causes on top of the sufferings most of these refugees will have endured before reaching Britain.
In addition, as I am sure your Lordships know, many asylum seekers are being held in crowded and uncomfortable detention centres for long periods after their arrival. As refugees are, by definition, fleeing from persecution, the flight from their own country has been in most cases hasty and unplanned so they arrive here without adequate clothing. Moreover, they are totally unfamiliar with our way of life, our language, and so on.
The main burden of such cases falls on the Department of Health and Social Security which, it is accepted, generally copes as well as it can. I have seen instances of this myself. However—and this is a most important point—neither the system nor its individual members of staff are equipped to deal with the special needs of refugees. To take one example, medical and psychiatric care are both very important—particularly the latter—in view of the refugees' sufferings before arrival here. Those sufferings of course frequently include torture. As our medical services are geared to meet the needs of the majority they do not pay sufficient attention to the culturally diverse approaches to healing. There are also language difficulties and perhaps racism to contend with.
I give your Lordships an example: a Ugandan refugee who entered the country legally and to whom I gave asylum arrived in this country about two years ago having lost all his near relations, including both parents. I need not describe the state of mind of that man. The DHSS did what it could for him—all credit to the department—but he would have been almost unable to cope with the problems of obtaining supplementary benefit, rent allowance, and so on,

875
without my help and despite the support he received from the British Refugee Council. I should add that he was also, quite unnecessarily, given a rough passage by the Metropolitan Police, who confiscated his watch for no apparent reason and failed to return it to him.
There is, of course, a big contrast between those refugees—we should say asylum-seekers—who come to this country and who have to fend for themselves and those who are lucky enough to be accepted under the auspices of the Ockenden Venture, Refugee Aid, and so on. I could give several such cases because I know a number of people at Ockenden. Most of these people have come over under arrangements made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
When I initiated the debate on refugees in your Lordships' House two years ago I described the care and compassion shown to refugees, mainly from Vietnam and Eritrea, at the Ockenden Venture homes at Haslemere. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is closely connected with that magnificent institution, if one can call it that. After only six months or so such refugees begin to feel at home. An immense amont of care is taken over their welfare. They are allowed to pursue their own cultural pursuits, but every effort is made to integrate them into the local population. They go to local schools and pick up English in a very short time. In my view, those arrangements are wholly admirable. The great pity is that such arrangements cannot be extended to other refugees.
To conclude, whatever our policy in regard to asylum: seekers, we must at the same time give greater care, thought and a larger sum of voted money for arrangements for the reception and aftercare of such people.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the principle of this Bill as the only reasonable, appropriate means with which to deal with the conduct of the unscrupulous characters condemned so rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, three speeches have been made and, with respect to the noble Lords who have made them, I hope to show that they are wide of the point owing to genuine misconception. I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me for a moment while I seek to explain why I think so. This is purely a personal assessment.
The object of this Bill, which, let us not forget, builds on existing requirements as to carriers' sanctions, is to curb abuse where those who need visas for entry as immigrants ignore the requirements, arrive without any documents or with fake documents and then claim asylum as refugees under the convention. The qualification "refugees under the convention" is of crucial consequence because it is very strictly interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the convention.
Let us not pretend that this has not now become an international problem of considerable magnitude which has already attracted many governments both in the European Community and elsewhere throughout the world, as my noble friend the Minister mentioned. Perhaps it was the 64 Tamils who drove the last nail into the coffin of abuse. So be it. The case
876
is sub judice, as I understand it, and I have nothing more to say about it here.
I should like to try to deal with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not in his place, and, as I understand it, by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Although I could understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I did not agree with it. But I could not understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, save that he adopted the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and therefore I shall try to deal with both together.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that this carriers' Bill was contrary to mercy and understanding; contrary to our traditions. I do not know how that can be said. The 1971 Immigration Act came into force and stood for many years under a Labour adminstration. I think that, as the noble Lord accepts, the broad system of immigration and refugee status has never been called in question under either administration. With respect, I do not understand how the noble Lord could say that this carriers' Bill, which is built on to existing requirements, if I have it right, is not in accordance with our glorious history.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, will give way, since he mentioned my name in the argument. Perhaps he did not understand me, but would he deal with the point which I make? I was concerned with the genuine refugee who could not obtain a proper passport or proper papers. Would the noble Lord not agree that the cautious carrier would say if there was the slightest degree of doubt, "I am not taking you"?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord but I cannot deal with all his telling points at once. I have that one on my note to be dealt with later. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am dealing with the point he took about 10 minutes over before the one he mentioned. I therefore cannot see how the noble Lord can say that this carriers' sanction built on to an existing carriers' sanction is not in accordance with our glorious history. I know perfectly well that this is an emotive subject and I shall not add to the emotive content although I care very much about it, as do all noble Lords in this House, no more and no less than I. However, I think one must keep one's feet on the ground and look at the Bill as it stands in its context.
We should realise that the existing system, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not under question, as I understand it. There are no intentions to revise it and I shall come to this later. One must regard this Bill quite objectively as an adjunct to an existing sytem which has worked fairly well—no system ever works perfectly—under both administrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave a most interesting dissertation upon the refugee problem from which I personally benefited. He said it was ignored by the Western world and a series of specific assurances was sought, a series of undertakings and special cases was sought. My noble friend the Minister would have to tell us what we must ask the Egyptians, what about Iran, what about Iraq, what about Chittagong. With

877
no disrespect to the noble Lord, I found it virtually impossible to follow the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned when he sought assurances, we are not discussing the system as it is but the adjunct to the system. What Chittagong, the Egyptians, Iran and Iraq have to do with the imposition of this carriers' Bill on the system totally defeats me.
At all events, I hope your Lordships will not yield to the blandishments of Bernard Levin in The Times today to which my noble friend the Minister referred. He urged your Lordships to take this Bill away and cut its throat. First, it would be a breach of constitutional convention not to afford a Bill which comes from another place a Second Reading, certainly a Bill of this importance. Secondly, his attack upon the Bill as dishonest and cowardly, as blurring the distinction between an immigrant and a refugee is fundamentally flawed. As in the case of all four of his criticisms, his argument betrays a misunderstanding as to how our system on immigration and asylum works.
The magnitude of this misconception precludes any objective analysis as to the incidence upon our system of the provisions in this Bill and it is this matter which is before your Lordships. If the question—and this is the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is whether this Bill could adversely affect any immigrant or refugee who in good faith seeks entry into the United Kingdom, my answer is no, it does not. It does not make it harder. That is the sole ground of the noble Lord's case and that is where we join issue. If the question is whether certain additional administrative costs will be incurred by the carriers, the answer is yes; but this is wholly justified and entirely reasonable, even if reflected in some slight increment in fares.
There is no doubt that this Bill is not only relevant but requisite. Assertions to the contrary by the British Refugee Council, Sealink, United Kingdom Limited, noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and others, betray a defect in the reasoning process not only as to how the system works but as to the incidence of the provisions of this Bill upon the system. There is no time in which to explain the system but it works under the split administration. Certainly as regards immigration it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act and rules as a matter of discretion and subject to control as regards approach by the courts under judicial review. As far as I am aware there is no question of altering that procedure.
As regards asylum, this arises under convention as recognised in the immigration rules. Here again the question of approach is of consequence. In a very recent case the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House said that if the Secretary of State asked himself the right question—that is, whether as a matter of degree the danger of persecution is sufficiently substantial as to involve a potential breach of article 33 of the convention—then the courts would not interfere with the way in which he uses his discretion. Again there is no question of altering that situation.
As to the provisions of the Bill, it is fair to assert that anyone who in good faith seeks entry into the United
878
Kingdom as an immigrant or as a refugee will have some document that satisfactorily establishes his identity, nationality or citizenship under Clause l(l)(a). The broad drafting of that clause seems to me to be wide enough to include even a stateless person and there is always the discretion of the Secretary of State. If the person is not a refugee seeking asylum under the convention but is an immigrant—a matter on which the carrier may make simple inquiry before the passenger boards the ship or aircraft, or even when on board—he must also have a valid visa for entry under Clause l(l)(b). The duty on the carrier is one of inquiry and the production of documents which, if he performs it, absolves the carrier from liability under Clause 1(2). I do not take the point that carriers will be reluctant to carry such passengers.
I think that the provisions of Clause 1(2) afford a safeguard and there is the additional safeguard to the carrier under Clause 1(4). How else may this evil traffic, this lucrative trade that feeds on faint hope and false promises, which at times—and all too often—is fed by the spectre of persecution, to be curbed?
It is all too apparent, as envisaged by Clause 1(2) that £1,000 may not be an adequate deterrent. I quote from page 2 of an undated Sealink document that was addressed to me; it is signed by Maureen Tomison, Group Director, Communications:
"Having listened very carefully to all the reassurances from the Minister and his officials, we are led to the conclusion that the ferry companies would find it cheaper, more competitive"—
that is nice, is it not?—
"and much easier to ignore the legislation and pay the fines".
That is a fine kettle of fish.
In conclusion, the principle of this Bill, which has already attracted the attention of other governments as an adjunct to their domestic régimes on immigration and asylum, could well be reflected in a directive of the Council of Ministers in implementation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in order to harmonise the disparity that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or perhaps in a wider Council of Europe convention or even a United Nations convention.
In its true perspective this is not a national but an international problem which can be resolved only by the reciprocity accorded by convention and comity. No state can accommodate all immigrants or all refugees who seek entry, and the unscrupulous carriers who traffic in human misery, transporting such people for gain, but for this Bill will continue to select and exploit entry into the United Kingdom. Why?—because the advantages of our welfare state bolster the extra profit on the travel fee.
As I see it, pending resolution of such abuse by comity or by convention, this Bill is a requisite adjunct to our domestic system, affording an essential safeguard for our national interests. We must remember that the safeguard is subject to the superimposition of the jurisdiction of the Court and the Commission of Human Rights and that in these cases the United Kingdom Government always follow the decision of the Court. For example the Amerkane case No. 5961/72 is of particular importance on asylum, the question of asylum which is being considered by your Lordships' House tonight.

879
I apologise for making the longest speech that I have ever made in your Lordships' House. I think I can say no more.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, ended with an apology. I think I must start with an apology to him and perhaps to your Lordships' House because I fear that I suffer from the same defect in the reasoning process of which he accused the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster.
When I became chairman of the British Refugee Council a few months ago I thought that one of my first actions might be to read the basic text on which the post-war world's attempts to solve the refugee problem are founded. The Minister started by referring to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and Stateless Persons. It says precisely—and it is what the British Government of the day quite voluntarily agreed to—that the:
"grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and … a satisfactory solution of a problem … cannot therefore be achieved without international co-operation".
The final act of the conference which produced the convention went on to recommend that:
"Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international co-operation".
That is what Britain agreed to, and voluntarily agreed to. Even today Britain sits on the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees charged with the implementation of the convention. However, it seems to me to be quite clear that, despite the assurance of the Minister of State in the other place—and indeed the Minister here tonight—Her Majesty's Government are determined to honour their obligations under that convention, the Government do not want to live up to its requirements.
There is as evidence of this, first, the tone of the Minister's speech tonight. There is the introduction a few months ago of the visa requirements for certain countries. There is the alarming increase in the number of asylum seekers in detention over the past year. Then there is this Bill. It seems to me that, if the Government wanted to renounce their obligations, it would have been more straightforward, particularly for a Government like this one who have tried to teach the British people, as they say, to face up to unpleasant realities, to do so directly and to renounce the convention rather than introduce little Bills and little measures whittling away at their obligations. They can do so. Article 44 of the convention says that any contracting state may denounce the convention at any time by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Thus the Government are entitled to renounce or denounce the convention.
There is, however, just one snag, I think. Other countries that are trying to do their best to cope with the worldwide problem of 30 million refugees—who will not go away, whatever the British Government say or do—might find it rather puzzling if Britain were to do so. After all, Britain is one of the richest countries in the world. I listened to the Chancellor in his Budget speech quoting Britain as currently having the longest
880
period of steady growth since the war. In any case, I need not labour the point. If Britain is not a prosperous country, if the economy is not healthy, no doubt the noble Minister will correct me.
Britain is not one of the most densely populated of the countries that have been receiving refugees. Leaving aside the rather obvious case of Hong Kong, West Germany, for example, which has a greater population density than this country, has taken more refugees than Britain. Indeed, in terms of numbers, Britain is not as other speakers have said, the country that has taken in most refugees in the recent past, whether in the developed or developing areas. To listen to the Minister, one would have thought that this country was being swamped by large numbers of people seeking asylum.
If I may add to the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the past five years Pakistan has received 2,702,500 refugees, to the extent that one person out of every 32 in Pakistan is a refugee. In the same period West Germany has taken in 50,050, whereas the United Kingdom—and I count in this refugees and those who have leave to remain—has taken in 15,000. I realise that these figures exclude the Indo-Chinese quota, but West Germany has taken more than twice as many of them as Britain has—27,500 as against 13,000.
Interestingly, I think, this is what gives the lie to the Government's argument that it is not wrong to introduce a carrier's liability because so many other countries—the United States and so forth—have introduced it. What the Government fail to recognise is that those countries have done far more to take in refugees than Britain has. Whereas it may be possible for a country that has been seen to be doing its bit in this matter to introduce such legislation, it is certainly not right for this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what the noble Lord is really saying is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in implementing the convention on refugees is wrong, but that surely is not the issue in debate upon the Bill. As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government conform to the convention. Putting aside whether Her Majesty's Government do or do not, will not the noble Lord agree that it is manifestly apparent that the abuse of any domestic regime is unacceptable in the same way that this has been recognised in four other states of the European Community and throughout the world?
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the noble Lord's point. I suspect that, in so far as I do, I was coming on to that and the particular point of the Bill in what I am about to say.
All I was trying to do earlier was to point out that, despite this being a rich country, despite having the space, relative to the other countries that have taken in refugees, and despite not having done its share in trying to cope with the international problems of refugees, Britain appears to want to stop genuine refugees coming into the country—because that will be the effect of the Bill.
The Bill is not particularly to stop the bogus refugees, it is not particularly aimed at the

881
racketeers—and, remember, it is the racketeers who are the real criminals in this, not the innocent airlines, which may be duped. The bogus refugees could have been stopped without the Bill.
What the Bill will do is to make it difficult, almost impossible, for genuine refugees to come to the country. What I should like the Government to do in winding-up is to spell out precisely what refugees the Government will accept in the country, and how they expect them to get here when the Bill becomes law.
I am absolutely certain that we need a better answer than, "It can only be those refugees who have the proper papers", when, frankly, this regulation has been dreamed up in an office by someone who has no idea of the number of people who flee in terror for their lives. Secondly, we certainly need a better answer than, "Refugees can apply for permission to enter the country when they reach the first country of arrival".
On 27th March, 17 days ago, a woman from Sri Lanka with two children aged 2½ and 1½ turned up at Dubai airport. Today, 6th April, she is still in the transit lounge of the airport, from which she has not been allowed out. She has a husband living in this country as a legal resident. When she got to Dubai she did exactly what the British Government say people should do: she asked the British Embassy in Dubai for papers allowing her to come to this country. She was told that she could not have them and that she must go to Colombo and reapply there. It was not until there was intervention by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there was a stay of execution on returning this lady to Sri Lanka. The United Arab Emirates gave her until the end of today to get this matter sorted out. Her papers are still in London, so far as I know. Apart from anything else that the Government may say about the principles behind the Bill and so on, it would be nice to know before we leave here tonight that the woman and her two children trapped in a transit lounge at Dubai as a result of the actions or, rather, the inactions of the British Government are being taken care of.
In general, only when there is reassurance that the Government intend to continue to help genuine refugees as much as they can will opposition to Bills such as this be wrong. As it stands, and leaving aside the detailed practical objections to the Bill, it is sad and unjustifiable because of the hardship that it will cause genuine refugees.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sorry to hear all these criticisms of the Government. If I may say so, I think that the Government have produced a good Bill to deal with a most difficult situation. I would support all that the Minister has said today for all these reasons. I speak from some experience. When I was Master of the Rolls, for some 12 years on Mondays we had three or four immigration applications before us, so I have followed the law on this matter all the way through.
Those people from far-off countries living in deplorable conditions with no social security and no employment look at the lovely land of England where there are human rights, security, social security and unemployment benefits, and say, "Oh, that is the place to go to". Then the racketeers come in: "If you pay us
882
£10,000,—each of you—we shall see you into England". That is what they did.
Your Lordships may not remember but in 1974 we had the important case Ex pane Azam. It is reported in 1974 Appeal Cases at page 18. We then learned of the Bhagwan Gap which the racketeers had discovered, and which was declared to be legal by the House of Lords. It was a large gap and many people entered through it. It lasted from 1962 until March 1968. The racketeers seized hold of it. They brought plane loads of people from India or Pakistan into Holland or France. They would then say, "Follow us to that port, and we will get you a little boat. We will take you across the sea and land you." They did. They landed them on the seashore with no one to look after them. Those people were found afterwards with their trousers wet and so forth. In that way, they avoided all our controls.
Those people immediately went to their relatives or other people in Wolverhampton or wherever it was. They settled down and could not be found. The racketeers had found a gap in our immigration controls and were bringing those unfortunate people in in that way. That gap had to be stopped and it was stopped.
We now have another gap. The racketeers have found it. When there is a country like Sri Lanka in which there is civil strife, people say, "We are being oppressed." The racketeers say, "Those of you who have it, pay us enough money. For £10,000 we will look after you." Again with their aeroplanes they come over. The racketeers tell the people to claim political asylum. That is the new gap.
The figures that the Minister gave showed how the numbers soared when the gap was found. With the help of the racketeers, people were seeking to get through the political-asylum gap. That is the trouble. That is the mischief which the Government had suddenly to face. How was it to be dealt with? In the boat cases, it was said that the people who had the boats were as guilty as the people whom they carried. They carried them into England. Equally—I would not call them conspirators—the people who are bringing them into the country are turning a blind eye to what is happening. In other words, I am accusing the racketeers. I do not mind that, but this country must protect itself from people who abuse our system and our country in that way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord, who advised so many in the courts over which he presided, and when he was an esteemed member of the Bar, advise the carriers, even if they thought that the person was a genuine refugee from persecution who did not have papers the absence of which he could explain, to run the risk of a fine of £1,000? That is the issue in this legislation.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I would let the carrier deal with the matter when told about it. It may be a proper case. He can say, "I do not mind taking your case over and putting it before the Home Secretary." That is the way to deal with such a case.
My next point relates to appeals. It must be recognised that in all these cases the decision is not a legal one. It is an administrative, executive decision in

883
which, by law, the discretion lies with the Home Secretary. I shall read two extracts. The first one comes from the case of Azam. I shall read my judgment from page 34:
"In the circumstances Parliament, as I read the Act, has decided that illegal entrants can be sent back. It has entrusted this decision to the Home Secretary, and not to the courts. It has left it to his discretion. It is better left there because, after all, the matter is one of policy which the courts cannot handle. The Home Secretary can take into account all the circumstances. He has to weigh in the balance on the one hand the length of time the man has been here, and his conduct while here: and, on the other hand, the effect on our society if he and others like him are allowed to stay. This is not a justiciable matter for the courts. It is an administrative matter for the Secretary of State."
That is what I ventured to say in 1974.
At the beginning of this year, the House of Lords had to reconsider the question of asylum. It was a case involving three people who came to this country and received leave to enter as vistors, students, businessmen or something else. After they had obtained entry, they changed their minds and said that they wanted political asylum. They admitted that they had told a lie in the first instance to get in. The House of Lords said that they could not stay after having got in in that way. I shall refer again to the courts' attitude to appeals.
At page 623 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said:
"The Act of 1971 does not allow the courts of this country to participate in the decision-making or appellate processes which control and regulate the right to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. This also is not surprising. Applications for leave to enter and remain do not in general raise justiciable issues. Decisions under the Act are administrative and discretionary rather than judicial and imperative. Such decisions may involve the immigration authorities in pursuing inquiries abroad, in consulting official and unofficial organisations and in making value judgments.".
In other words, the courts are again stressing that they cannot consider this very important area. It is a matter that the Home Secretary and his advisers consider after full inquiries. That is why there should be no appeal. It may be desirable to have a reference—that is to be considered—after the first refusal, but that is another matter altogether. I would suggest that giving a right of appeal would mean not only many delays but, furthermore, it would not be the right way to deal with the matter.
I say that in support of the Government's Bill. Is this not the right way to deal with it, as they have said? Any person who comes with the proper documents—with his entry clearance, his visa in his passport, and the like—of course enters. But if he does not have the proper documents, what is to be done? At the moment the one sanction is that the airline or ship must see whether or not he has his proper documents. If he has his proper documents, all well and good. If he does not have the proper documents and they still let him in they have to pay £1,000.
My noble friend raises the point about the airline saying, "This is a refugee". If he were allowed in in those circumstances, there would be no demand for the £1,000. The matter would be overlooked or excused. This is being tested apparently in other countries. The one way to put a stop to all these people coming in claiming refugee status is to let the carrier make his own check. If the people have the proper
884
documents let them come in; if not, refuse them for the time being. I support the Government completely in this Bill.
9.12 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, in this House there is a very narrow line between courtesy and hypocrisy. I think that I should be crossing that line in the wrong direction if I were to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Bill, because frankly I wish that he had not. However, I recognise that he is acting under orders, being grossly overworked and only doing his duty as he sees it. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will accept that there is nothing personal about my ingratitude. When I first saw the Bill I immediately recalled the famous hackneyed phrase of Thomas Hobbes about the life of early man, because it fits the Bill exactly. It is poor, nasty, brutish and short. A more perfect example of the maxim—if there is such a maxim—"legislate in haste, repent at leisure", could hardly be found.
Let us look at this haste. Here is some remarkable chronology. It was on 1st March that the Prime Minister first mentioned that there might possibly be sanctions levied against airlines. On 3rd March came the Home Secretary's Statement in which he outlined plans to fine airlines, to dispense with referrals, to limit the rights of Members of Parliament to prevent explusions and indeed to implement quick deportations. On 4th March the Bill had its First Reading in the House of Commons, by which time it became apparent that it referred not only to airlines but to ships. This led to an agonised cry from the ferry operators. We have recently and tragically been reminded that the master of a ferry has no idea who is on his ship and who is not. In spite of what the Minister said, I have a letter from the French authorities at Calais—le police de l'air et des frontierŕes —which says very clearly that it would be illegal for any checks to take place on French soil.
Boats coming from Ireland are even more difficult because one does not need a passport. In the words of the late Cole Porter, all that you need is just a ticket. How will these controls be exercised on the shipping lines with Ireland? The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Waddington, has sought to reassure the shipping lines. He says that the Home Office will use discretion in imposing fines on ferry operators. What is this? Is this a nod and a wink? Is it a question of, "All right, we won't really do it"? Is this what we have sunk to in our legislation?
I was going to quote that paragraph which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, quoted but I shall not as he has already done so. Ferries are not my main concern, though I think they may turn out to be the Government's concern. I have already spoken about the obvious haste with which this Bill was cobbled together and the presumably unforeseen effect that it will have upon ferries. In spite of these imperfections I think it is possible to discern the intentions which lie behind the Bill. It is extremely important to distinguish between its intentions and its effects. If I have correctly understood the Bill's intentions as opposed to its effects, I have no objection to them. It is, is it not, a distressing fact, a very unappealing facet of our human nature, that wherever there is enough human misery to create a market there will be human vultures battening on it to make a profit?

885
The unfortunate Tamils, from whose plight this Bill directly descends, had paid huge sums of money to one of these racketeers. If the Bill were an effective way of putting that gentleman and his colleagues out of business, surely we should all applaud it. But this is where the distinction between the Bill's intentions and its effects becomes important. Who, after all, are the victims of these racketeers? To listen to Home Office Ministers one almost has the impression that it is we who are the victims. They are exploiting not the would-be asylum-seeker fleeing from God knows what. Oh no, they are exploiting our super-generous immigration provisions.
This is accompanied by much talk, which I personally find most distasteful, about "bogus" refugees. The fact that someone has fallen into the hands of a racketeer does not make him bogus any more than the fact that his papers may not come up to the exacting and bureaucratic standards of an immigration officer. Yet these allegedly bogus asylum-seekers are presented to us almost as if they were accomplices rather than the victims of a racketeer.
To see this question in this extraordinary crooked and twisted way seems to me to require some kind of intellectual squint which I find quite inexplicable. The definition of a refugee in the 1951 convention is very narrowly drawn. It is possible to be in a pretty desperate predicament without qualifying for full refugee status. In most such cases it has been our practice to grant what is called exceptional leave to remain. But what would be the effect of this Bill if we permitted it unamended to become law?
Let me read the first paragraph of a memorandum from the highly respected British Refugee Council, with which I am proud to be associated in a minor capacity and of which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, is such a very able and distinguished chairman. In measured and sober terms the first paragraph reads as follows:
"The Bill is bound to make it more difficult for refugees fleeing persecution, torture and death to arrange their flight from danger and present their case for refugee status in Britain. In some cases, it could result in individuals being returned to face death or torture in their countries of origin who would otherwise have reached this country and been granted refugee status. The Bill does not recognise the essentially unplanned circumstances of most refugees' flight".
I repeat that last sentence. It:
"does not recognise the essentially unplanned circumstances of most refugees' flight".
Indeed, it does not. What would probably happen would be this. The refugee would arrive somehow in this country. If his papers are not in order, and they probably will not be, then without any referral to the UK Immigrants Advisory Service, without any MP being able to intervene and with no access to any judicial review, on the word of an immigration officer alone he would be on the next plane back to whence he came and may God have mercy on his soul.
There are many details that I could discuss but there will be later stages and I do not wish to prolong this debate further. In conclusion, we shall of course give the Bill, disastrously ill-considered as it is, its Second Reading but only because of the miserable toothless way in which convention obliges us to behave in this House.
886
However, if the Bill eventually leaves this House in the same deplorable form in which it reached us, if we fail to ensure as a minimum that any deserving potential refugee will still have a fair opportunity to state his case for remaining in this once hospitable country, we shall have lowered the House in the opinion of the nation and of the watching world.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we have had a full and careful debate on this Bill this evening. I have listened closely to all that your Lordships have said. Many interesting and valuable points have been made, and I shall hope to respond to as many as possible. But, fundamentally, I believe that none has undermined the clear argument I put to your Lordships earlier: the Bill is needed to maintain immigration control arrangements already approved by this House.
I fully understand the concern expressed by many of your Lordships this evening about the flight of refugees from oppression. The Government share that concern. We are fully committed to our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. This country is justly proud of our long tradition of accepting refugees from persecution. We shall continue to honour that tradition. I hope there will always be a welcome here for genuine refugees, and that we shall continue to extend our hospitality to them.
But that is not the same as saying that we must open our doors to anyone at all who wishes to come here to improve his lot. Successive governments have never thought it right to take that position, and neither do we. If there is a gap in the effectiveness of the immigration control, a responsible government must act to close it. That is what we have sought to do under this Bill. We must prevent large numbers of people who need visas arriving here without them and resisting return by claiming asylum. It cannot be right to let that continue in the face of Parliament's clear approval of the visa requirements.
I emphasise that this is not a problem faced by just this country: nor is it one where we are alone in introducing charges on carriers. Like other countries in Europe, we must protect a humane and open system for asylum from abuse, since this must stretch the hospitality and welcome of those already living here. The Bill needs to be seen in that wider context.
I turn now to some of the principal points which have been made about the effect of the Bill on genuine refugees. In doing so I ask noble Lords to recognise the real situation as it affects refugees and the role of this country and to put aside some of the more imaginative hypotheses which can be constructed. This country is not normally the first port of call for refugees fleeing from oppression in their home country. That is not a matter of humanity, but of geography. This country is a place of refuge for people unwittingly caught here by a change in circumstances at home. And it can continue to make a contribution to wider programmes. But that contribution is under threat from the type of abuse which is now apparent throughout Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the problems for genuine refugees. But the fact that people claim asylum does not make them genuine refugees.

887
After all, most genuine refugees find safety in neighbouring countries rather than by making elaborate arrangements to travel halfway round the world. It is in the interests of the genuine asylum claimant to retain whatever papers he has, even forgeries, to assist in establishing his claim.
Of the very substantial increase in the number of applications for asylum at our ports of entry since 1985, only in a tiny proportion has refugee status been granted. It is of course possible that the measures in the Bill will make it more difficult for that tiny proportion to seek asylum here as opposed to a neighbouring country. However, that cannot be an argument against having sensible requirements and against charging airlines who do not observe them. Unless we can achieve some order in our refugee programme, it will become increasingly difficult to help the genuine refugees.
The noble Lord also mentioned the matter of a right of appeal for people who arrive here and are refused. That question was examined most carefully at the time of the sub-committee on race relations of the immigration inquiry into refugees in 1984 and 1985. The sub-committee recognised that there was a danger of an appeal system stimulating bogus applications. We could not accept the sub-committee's recommendation for an accelerated appeal system because we remained of the view that even if one were possible—and no comparable system appears to be operating successfully elsewhere—there remained a very real risk that such a system would have been abused. That view was taken in the light of experience of other countries in 1985. Nothing that has happened since has given any cause to change our view. Our original refusal to introduce special appeal rights for asylum seekers must stand, reinforced by more recent developments. I was most grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, he will remember that I quoted the safeguards that the Home Office then put forward as being a proper substitute for any right of appeal. Is he prepared to say to the House that the safeguards that the Government then mentioned will still be applicable?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the safeguards to which the noble Lord refers have been satisfactory. There appears to be operating at the moment when we consider the case of the 64 Tamils who arrived at London Airport—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for one moment so that I can follow the point? The Minister is therefore saying on behalf of the Government that the safeguards which have operated safely and well up till now will still be maintained.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that it might be better if I return to that point in one moment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister accept that under this legislation it is likely that those Tamils
888
would not have arrived at London Airport at all because of the pressure on the airline not to carry them here?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that it is always dangerous to take a specific example to make a broader point. The problem of the Tamils at Heathrow Airport is still going on while their cases are being reviewed.
Perhaps I may return to the safeguards in a moment. I wanted to make a further point to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because he mentioned that the complexity of our visa requirements is causing difficulties. I believe that our visa requirements are clear and simple. If the nationality given in the passenger's passport is one of the visa nationalities set out in the immigration rules, then that passenger needs a visa. The carrier does not need to inquire into the purpose of the passenger's journey, and certainly does not need to consider the complexities of the nationality law.
I shall now return to the point about the safeguards and the referral system. As I have said, we have not yet had time to embark on discussions with UKIAS as to what form the relationship with them will take.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister consider it profoundly unsatisfactory that we are expected to pass the Bill in two seconds, and the Minister tells us, for reasons which may be perfectly genuine, that the discussions with UKIAS have not yet begun? The House is not going to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on whatever conclusions are reached. Does not the noble Lord consider that quite wrong? What opportunity does Parliament have of approving whatever arrangements are ultimately made?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I understand it we are debating tonight on the Second Reading a Bill that relates to the charges on carriers. We are not having a general debate on the system for dealing with refugees.
I should like to give a fuller answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this point. The system was established in 1983 with the UKIAS in circumstances very different from those we have experienced over the past two years, and particularly over the past three months; and our objective in discussing the matter of UKIAS will be a modification of the system to meet the new problems that have emerged. In doing so, we shall obviously need to take into account the effect of this Bill on the number of asylum applications made at our ports. I very much hope that it will prove possible to devise arrangements in consultation with UKIAS which will enable cases of port asylum applications to be referred to them if necessary within short deadlines.
While I am on the subject of UKIAS, I should like to respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up half way through my opening speech this evening; that of the availability of the UKIAS staff. We do not doubt their availability but the fact is that considerations on individual cases often take time. We hope we can devise a quicker process in some cases. But that is one of the subjects that we hope will be the subject of discussion with UKIAS. I welcome Lord Avebury's indication of UKIAS's attitude to establishing a speedy referral system.

889
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up the subject of the agenda on discussions with our European Community partners. I think that the best that I can say tonight is that I shall bring this to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I hope that I shall be able to give him an answer at a future time.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point about applications abroad to come here as a refugee. Very often where a would-be refugee has left his country of nationality he can, in that second country, apply at our nearest post to be allowed to come here as a refugee. He would be interviewed by the post which would then refer the application to the refugee section of the immigration and nationality department. Such an application would be sympathetically considered if it was judged that the applicant met the criteria for recognition as a refugee and that the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country of refuge. Particular regard would be paid to the strength of the applicant's ties with the United Kingdom and any other countries.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I apologise for interrupting him once again. I quoted the case of the Eritrean who applied at our consulate in Prague and who was told by the official to whom he spoke there that his appeal was bound to fail because of the application of the rules. Indeed, when it went to the tribunal they quoted a particular rule which meant that an application made for asylum in a third country was not to be entertained. Is the noble Lord now saying that there will be, as a corollary of these measures, an amendment of that particular rule?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would not expect me to comment in detail on these individual cases tonight. These arrangements have nothing to do with this Bill, but in wishing to be as helpful as possible I have answered, perhaps in part, the noble Lord's point by giving him the arrangements that are currently in force. I can assure your Lordships that the visa application system already caters for asylum-seekers and that asylum applications at our posts abroad are referred to the refugee section of the Home Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up the question of Vietnamese refugees. I have noted most carefully the points he made about these refugees. The Government have already made an important contribution to this problem. We have accepted around 20,000 such refugees since 1975 and we are continuing our commitments to accept Vietnamese refugees under family reunion and rescue arrangements. I can tell your Lordships, however, that the Government hope shortly to make an announcement about our policy which I believe will be helpful in clarifying our proposals for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked me whether this country could not make a greater contribution to the world's problem of international refugees. It is for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to have a central role in identifying problems and in co-ordinating the action, approaching possible resettlement countries as necessary. The answer must lie in careful preparation and planning and not in a chaotic scramble which
890
threatens to overwhelm the immigration controls of many Western countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, asked about a case in Dubai. I answer him by saying that we agreed to consider any visa applications made by six Sri Lankan Tamils in Dubai. I understand that visa application forms have been lodged and that further information about the circumstances of this case is to be supplied by the United Nations high commissioner. As soon as that is received we shall consider urgently whether they should be granted visas to come here. However, I point out that those concerned could have applied in Colombo for visas to come here. We have a special provision for Sri Lankan Tamils to be given visas if they are suffering severe hardship and have family ties here.
I turn now to other points that have been raised. I ask your Lordships to recognise that the effectiveness of this Bill lies in its simplicity and its capacity to block loopholes and potential loopholes in our immigration controls. I believe that its comprehensiveness and simplicity are of central importance. I know that some of your Lordships are concerned about particular hard cases. We cannot reasonably or sensibly legislate for them all. Indeed, to do so would considerably weaken the Bill. But where genuine hard cases arise where it would clearly not be sensible to impose a charge, I can assure your Lordships that a charge will not be imposed. The Secretary of State will operate his discretion sensibly and will be able to deal practicably and reasonably with some at least of the concerns expressed by your Lordships this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the matter of airline appeals. We do not think it proper to provide a statutory right of appeal against the imposition of charges. If this were to replicate the immigration appeals procedure, it would necessitate unwieldy and expensive machinery. The powers are permissive rather than mandatory and the intention is that they should be applied sensibly and sympathetically.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked about the position of the common travel area, and in particular Southern Ireland. Very few people coming to the United Kingdom from other parts of the common travel area require leave to enter the United Kingdom. The imposition of charges places new burdens on carriers from within the common travel area. That is undoubted, but it is consistent with their present obligations that the new provisions should apply to them as they do to other carriers. To exclude travel from within the common travel area from these provisions would leave a very large loophole in the arrangements.
In conclusion, we cannot allow our immigration controls and our asylum procedures to be undermined by people who need visas to enter this country, but who come here without documents and then resist immediate return by seeking asylum. We must get back to an organised and orderly system for immigration and asylum, rather than the disorganisation and disorder which we have witnessed in the past few months. We must also take action to stop our ports being overwhelmed by people deliberately coming here without the right or indeed any documents whatsoever. The Government believe that

891
this Bill represents a simple and sensible way of achieving these objectives. I invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  NCC PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
  NCC PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
  SSSIs: COLLECTION OF DATA
  SSSIs: COLLECTION OF DATA
  WATER AUTHORITIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
  WATER AUTHORITIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE: DOE PUBLICATIONS
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE: DOE PUBLICATIONS
  EC: DEVELOPMENTS UNDER UK PRESIDENCY
  EC: DEVELOPMENTS UNDER UK PRESIDENCY
  NURSES: UNEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
  NURSES: UNEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP FEES 1987–88
  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP FEES 1987–88
  THE OPEN COLLEGE
  THE OPEN COLLEGE