Sitting of 10 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Banks (Interest Rates)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gerald Malone.]
  9.35 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in this House the problems that arise for those who borrow money from banks when the banks are not required to inform them of the rates of interest that will be charged.
  Today, there are millions of people with bank accounts. That number is growing, largely because of the repeal of the Truck Acts and the removal of the requirement that a manual worker can be paid other than in cash only with his or her written consent.
  There were times when bank accounts were the preserve of the wealthy and the elite — those times have gone. There were times perhaps when bank borrowers did not need to be protected because they were on equal terms with those from whom they borrowed—likewise, those times have gone.
  The sad legal position is that, although most other borrowers are protected because the Consumer Credit Act 1974 laid down requirements governing the form and content of regulated agreements which, in effect, required borrowers — whether from banks, building societies, moneylenders or anyone else who lends in the course of business — to be told how much interest is being charged, unfortunately an exception applies to current account overdrafts. I believe that that wide exception was wrongly introduced by the Director General of Fair Trading. How are the banks dealing with this problem? What can be done to put matters right, not least in a debate in which legislation cannot be recommended?
  I start with the importance of this matter to ordinary folk. There is a wonderful story that I hope will appeal to the Minister about an occasion in the early 1970s when merchant banks were collapsing largely as a result of major loans to those who should not have received them. One bank that did not succumb was Lazard Freres and apparently Lord Cowdray asked Lord Poole, then chairman of that bank, how it was that he had avoided making those unsatisfactory loans. Lord Poole replied, "I only lend money to people who have been to Eton."
  I am sure that that would appeal enormously to the Minister, who I believe had the good fortune to have such an education, but it is an education which I believe has been denied to almost all of my 63,000 constituents and their children. Therefore, they would not have obtained a loan from Lazard Freres. However, even if the Minister had received an overdraft, for which I am sure he would qualify, I doubt whether he would know how much interest he would be charged.
  572
  This morning I spoke to a most distinguished financial journalist. I asked him, "Do you have an overdraft?" He said, "Yes, I have always had an overdraft." I asked, "How much interest are you being charged on your overdraft?" He said, "I don't know. Somewhere I have a letter from the bank showing the percentage that I am being charged above base rate, but I don't know what it is." If that applies to a distinguished financial journalist, whom I shall not name unless under the greatest provocation from him, how much more does it apply to the ordinary bank borrower?
  I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in your position you would not need an overdraft. I hope not. I cannot claim to be in the same position. I am sure that the Minister has many overdrafts. If he has, I venture to hope that with his distinguished schooling, which I have now laid bare for the House, he would know how to handle that overdraft, what he is being charged and that if he shopped around in the market place, he could probably knock down the interest rate to the lowest available to him. For a Minister educated at Eton, I think that it would be a very low rate of interest. If it were the Government, I should take a different view.
  However, the ordinary bank borrower is not in that happy position. He is not used to handling complicated transactions. He does not know the questions to ask. If you, Mr. Speaker, do not know what questions to ask, you will not get the answers that one should and that the banks would be prepared to give.
  I am reminded of the wonderful remark by a judge recently in court when somebody was talking about the average person. He said, "We should bear it in mind that about 50 per cent. of the population is below average intelligence." That was a monumental thought. The fact is that even if one is above average intelligence, which one would presume for anyone who obtains admittance to Eton. never mind getting out of it without having been expelled. that is likely to mean that one does not know what the banks will do and how one is likely to be ripped off if one does not know one's rights.
  With ordinary authorised overdrafts, most people believe that there is a standard charge. Where there is not, most people believe that there is no point in asking for a lower rate, whereas if they asked, they would get it. Most people do not know that the banks are under no obligation to tell them what they are charging and that if they ask, they could get a reduction.
  The matter gets worse when the banks produce what they choose to call unauthorised overdrafts. One can get an unauthorised overdraft by the simple process of overdrawing more than one should, probably inadvertently. Then the whole overdraft becomes unauthorised. Certainly, the part of the overdraft that is over the top would, but I suspect that it would be the lot. If one's overdraft comes to the end of its term and one does not renew it, and the bank writes and believes that one has not replied, the bank will treat the overdraft as unauthorised. At that stage, I regret to say that one can be charged almost anything that the bank manager wants to charge.
  I have asked about that at various clearing banks and should like to inform the House of the replies that I have received. For example, Lloyds bank explained the situation as follows :
  "Interest rates for borrowing without arrangement will vary depending on our Manager's knowledge of the customer and his assessment of the risk. Unarranged overdrafts are

  573
  costly to us in administration and Managers have discretion to charge interest up to a maximum rate of 2 per cent. per month".
  To most people of average intelligence, that would work out at 24 per cent. per annum, but it does not. The figure that I was given was APR 26·8 per cent. People may think that that means that in the month of April the charge is 26·8 per cent., but APR means something different.
  I am pleased to say that a further journalist, a very intelligent man, whom I met this morning—but not a financial journalist—did not know what an APR was, and he had a degree. That makes it difficult for those who have neither an education at Eton nor a degree to understand, even when they are told what the position is. It gets worse. The banks tell me that they advertise. I salute the Royal Bank of Scotland for this. Apart from conveying to me the compliments of the season, the bank said that it was actively considering wider advertisement of the interest rates payable on unauthorised borrowing. In effect, as some banks do, the Royal Bank of Scotland will put on the bank's walls notices saying how the rates are charged, and it may do so in the national press.
  I venture to suggest that those without adequate knowledge and perhaps even without a degree in economics, or those who are non-financial journalists, would not understand the advertisements either. If the advertisements start talking about standard rates and APR, that is beyond the ken of the ordinary average person whom I am seeking to protect—my constituents who are being ripped off by banks charging them exorbitant rates up to 26·8 per cent. per annum without telling them what the charge will be. In many cases people do not know that with the law in the ludicrous state that it is in, in the absence of agreements to the contrary, overdrafts are repayable on demand. The demand is often made in ways that ruin business.
  The small business of a constituent of mine was ruined recently by precisely that method. I wrote to the banking ombudsman in the hope that he would be able to help. I received a courteous reply, enclosing a copy of his annual report for 1985–86, which contains a paragraph headed, "Disclosure of the cost of borrowing." It contains the words
  "While not the subject of any large number of complaints in our first nine months".
  I emphasise that people do not complain, because they do not know. One complains only if one realises that one has a right and if one believes that one is not getting it. People have no idea that they are being ripped off and that the banks are charging them higher rates than even moneylenders would be expected to charge.
  The report continues:
  "several correspondents have complained that insufficient information is offered by banks. This subject has been covered by the National Consumer Council, and in their report on 'Banking Services and the Consumer' they recommended that banks 'should give their customers better information about the costs of overdraft'."
  Indeed. At a time when computers are used to tell us what we owe, surely those same computers should be brought into action to tell us what we are being charged on that which we owe.
  The report states :
  "The lack of information can cause confusion,"—
  indeed it can—
  574
  "For example, one bank customer complained to the Ombudsman that his bank statement on his loan account made him an offer of personal loans at a 'new lower APR'."
  Here we are again. The report continues:
  "The bank intended to convey only that personal loans were on offer at a lower rate than previously applied to that type of loan. But the complainant naturally assumed it referred to his existing overdraft, and was justifiably annoyed to discover that the 'new lower APR' was actually higher than the rate he was paying!"
  So on the one hand the bank was saying that it would provide a lower rate and at the same time it was charging the man at a higher rate.
  The ombudsman goes on to say :
  "We recognise the difficulties of informing customers of the APR on overdrafts when the amount outstanding and the interest rate, may vary from day to day, and when the date of repayment is undefined. Nevertheless, we suggest that banks should give some indication of the interest rate charged on an overdraft — even if only that it is at a certain percentage above base rate."
  Thus, the first request that I make to the Minister is that he informs the banks that the Government are concerned, and recognise that ordinary people, and some extraordinary people, even financial journalists, cannot understand the implications of bank borrowing and the interest rate, and that the banks should now give an indication of the interest rate charged on an overdraft.
  I took the matter up with the Government and received a courteous reply from the Department of Trade and Industry from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister responsible for corporate and consumer affairs, who is now, I believe, re-arranging the banks in Japan. I drew his attention to matters occuring here and he replied that the exemption for banks and overdrafts from the unusual rules
  "reflects the fact that overdrafts are in general…a flexible and informal facility which offers considerable benefits to bank customers, in particular the ability to overdraw without a prior arrangement."
  The Minister stated later in his letter :
  "it would not be obviously unreasonable for banks to provide information, retrospectively, on the rate of interest that has been charged in respect of an overdraft."
  The Minister has agreed, by saying, with his usual hyperbole, "not obviously unreasonable", that banks should provide information. I believe that it would be entirely reasonable and right that the Government should lean on the banks, as only the Government can, to provide that information when that information could and should be given.
  If the Government do not give the information to the banks that people are concerned, if the banks do not give information to their borrowers and if the present situation remains, in some future debate when it is within the rules of order, I shall seek to introduce legislation. Meanwhile, I refer yet again to the third port of call— that most distinguished Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, with whom I have had correspondence on this matter—who said in a letter that he
  "would prefer that consumers make better use of the Quotations regulations"
  although he is not proposing at the moment to remove the exemption for banks.
  At the end of his letter, Sir Gordon Borrie states:
  "This is an area that my Office will continue to monitor, particularly since building societies are now able to provide current account overdrafts and to benefit from the Determination."
  In other words, the determination that there should be an exemption for overdrafts obtainable from banks, has now

  575
  been extended to other lenders to whom it was not originally intended to apply — in other words, to building societies. As the number of moneylenders— by whatever name — grows, so the exemption extends its scope and as it extends, so the Government should move in to narrow that scope.
  The law in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives the Director General of Fair Trading the power that he has exercised. He has exercised it in the belief that in so doing he would be helping the consumer to obtain overdrafts under a system that he believed should be flexible. The system is not working properly. It is not protecting individuals.
  There used to be a saying: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." Few of my constituents are not borrowers. Anyone who owns his own house, borrows. People with mortgages and bank overdrafts are borrowers. People who use credit cards and those who borrow privately, as many are forced to when they are short of money, are borrowers and affected by that area of law. People are therefore outside that worthy old proverb. It cannot be avoided. Therefore, in the old days the Government were free to stand by and allow people to deal with each other, business man to business man, Lord Poole to Eton graduates. Today, ordinary people require protection from the law.
  When the overdraft comes to an end and the time for the advance comes to be repaid, banks should do far more than at present to inform people. It is not enough, for example, for a bank to write a letter to a customer saying, "Your limit was agreed for the year ending on such a date; do you wish it to be renewed?" If the bank receives no reply, it should not treat the matter as an unauthorised overdraft and charge up to 26·8 per cent. interest without even informing the customer that the rate is to shoot up in that totally unconscionable way.
  Nor is it enough, in my view, for ordinary people to be protected by the law as it stands without Government intervention to warn them about the end of overdrafts. People do not generally realise the power that lies in the hands of the bank manager where an overdraft, in the absense of agreement to the contrary, is repayable on demand. Happily, most bank managers exercise their great power with discretion most of the time. However, there are exceptions, and when the exception arises, the law protects the bank, not the individual. The Government protect the bank and not the individual.
  Before the Minister leaves for his well-earned Easter recess, I want him to look at this problem with some care from the point of view of ordinary borrowers who do not understand the law, who do not know what banks can do to them or what interest they are being charged. I want him to consider the problem with regard to those who do not know that they can shop around for lower interest rates and get them and who do not understand that, even if there is an advertisement advertising a standard rate, that will not protect them.
  Those people will not know their rights. It is the Government's duty to inform them of their rights. It is also the Government's duty to require the banks to behave decently, honourably and well towards the ordinary borrower. If that does not work, it will be the duty of the House to ensure that the Director General of Fair Trading removes the exemption for banks. If he does not do that, the law should be changed.
  9.56 am
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I must admit that I have some sympathy with the case that has been argued by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), in spite of the intermittent undertones of the class war with which he laced his discourse. Even Etonians suffer from time to time from the bad manners, incompetence and arrogance of banks. Perhaps Lord Poole's restriction was unduly restrictive. I would have preferred to stand it on its head; had I been in his position, I would have lent freely other than to those who had been to Harrow.
  We must all remember that, although there may be an element of, as the hon. and learned Gentleman termed it, "rip-off — I would not echo that — or financial inconvenience attached to those who make feckless use of intermittent overdraft facilities that are not clearly or closely agreed, the alternative might be that the cheque was returned without being met. People would have to ask themselves whether they would welcome a position in which banks returned cheques more often and caused the embarrasment and dislocation that might arise as a result.
  In general, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is desirable that all those who borrow money should be fully aware of the cost of any credit that is made available. That is one of the main purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It requires, among several other things, that the annual percentage rate of charge — the APR — should be given in most credit arrangements and advertisements. That is intended to ensure that not only is the customer aware of the cost of the credit agreement, but that he has a means of comparison between one source of credit and another. That is the shopping around which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was desirable. I agree with him.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that those provisions of the Consumer Credit Act do not apply to bank overdrafts. Overdrafts are not totally exempt from the Act, but section 74 provides that agreements which permit a consumer to overdraw on a bank account may be exempt from Part V of the Act, where the Director General of Fair Trading so determines. The exemption means that the lender need not comply with most of the documentation requirements of the Act, although other important provisions of the Act, such as the right to early termination, rebate and protection against extortionate credit, are still available to the borrower. Of course, advertisements by banks will have to quote the APR.
  Section 74 provides that the Director General may exempt such agreements subject to such conditions as he sees fit to impose, but only if he believes that it would not be against the interest of debtors for him to do so. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the original exemption in the Act was slightly narrower than at present, in that exemption would not have applied when any term of the agreement was expressed in writing. It was the Labour Government in the Banking Act 1979 who broadened the scope of the exemption by repealing this requirement, in recognition of the need to provide lenders with a clear and unambiguous exemption.
  In November 1983, the Director General issued a determination which exempted bank overdrafts from part V. The view taken by Parliament in providing for this exemption and, no doubt, the view taken by the Director General in granting such an exemption was that, far from

  577
  harming consumers, it would be to their advantage. That is because a bank overdraft is a flexible and informal facility which offers considerable benefits to the customer, especially the ability to overdraw without prior arrangement with the bank. The House will be aware that, typically, a personal overdraft represents an anticipation of salary by a customer and lasts—or so he hopes—for only a very short time, often no more than a day or two.
  That has not applied to any of my overdrafts; perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman shares that experience, but ideally, the overdraft lasts for no more than a day or two until the next pay cheque is received. Of course, sometimes the customer, unless he keeps a very close track of his affairs—I suspect that this applies to most hon. Members—may be unaware that an overdraft has been created until he receives his next bank statement. Indeed, someone who shares my apprehension at my bank statement, and flinches to such an extent that he does not open it, may be unaware of the overdraft until much later.
  Mr. Janner: The Minister should give it to his wife.
  Mr. Clark: That is exactly the solution that I adopted some years ago, but it is sometimes easier to resist the reproaches of one's bank manager than the wrath of one's spouse.
  Notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe that it would be wrong to remove the exemption and thus require banks to document all overdrafts in line with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act. To start with, it would impose extra costs on the banks, for which the customer would no doubt pay, in the end, through higher charges. More importantly, it could seriously inhibit the present flexible arrangements which offer considerable benefits to bank customers.
  That is the convenience which many people, sometimes unwittingly, enjoy when they issue a cheque, not knowing precisely how much money is in the account, but confident —or, at any rate, optimistic—that the bank will meet it. If those flexible arrangements suffered from administrative intrusion, there would be a danger that they would contract.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that all his constituents were borrowers—
  Mr. Janner: No.
  Mr. Clark: In that case, I apologise to the good burghers of Leicester.
  Mr. Janner: The majority of them.
  Mr. Clark: The majority of his constituents are borrowers. I do not know whether they would thank him if, being random, casual borrowers, they discovered that, due to his powerful advocacy, arrangements were put in place which greatly restricted the facility with which they could borrow. If a bank had to comply with all the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act every time an overdraft was entered into, it would involve the drawing up of a written agreement that would have to be sent to the customer for signature and returned to the bank.
  As all of us would agree, the issuing of a cheque is often spontaneous. It must then go through a process which, regrettably, seems to take a short time, and if this procedure was followed, there would be a somewhat accelerated process in which the bank would have to
  578
  contact the customer and quickly draw him into a written agreement before it met the cheque. The only alternative might be not to meet the chewue, which would create embarrassment and inconvenience to the customer and to the person to whom he had issued the cheque, who could be another constituent of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Given the way in which the existing arrangements operate, such a procedure would not be practicable, since a customer may often be unaware that a transaction gives rise to an overdraft, and there is no contact between a bank and the customer, or it is difficult to make contact, which would cause delays. The result would be that banks might decide to cease to make overdraft facilities so widely available. In some circumstances, they might decide to refuse to honour cheques. I am sure that the majority of bank customers would not want that.
  None the less, I do not suggest that the present provisions should be regarded as set in concrete. My Department has been reviewing the working of the Consumer Credit Act, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs will wish to consider whether section 74 is working as intended, taking into account the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, similar comments that were made by hon. Members during the passage of the Banking Bill and the views of the banking ombudsman in his first annual report.
  My Department already has it in mind to make one change to the treatment of overdrafts under the Consumer Credit Act. It will affect the treatment not of the inadvertent overdraft, but of those overdrafts which are agreed in advance between a bank and a customer. In that case, the overdraft is more akin to a bank loan, which would be fully regulated by the Act. We agree that it is reasonable that customers who enter into such agreements should be fully informed of the main terms of the agreement, including the cost of credit. That is why we are prepared to agree to provisions in the consumer credit directive, which was formally adopted on 22 December last year, which will require information in respect of such agreements, including the cost of credit, to be notified in writing to consumers. It is likely that the requirements will be effected by a variation in the terms of the Director General's determination; my Department and the Office of Fair Trading are currently considering that. [Interruption.]
  I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate his assent, as I consider this a sensible move. He says that it is a start. Whether it will be possible to go all the way in the direction for which he argues — and whether that would even be desirable—I cannot say at this stage. However, to do as much as we propose will bring the arrangements into line with the aims of the Consumer Credit Act.
  I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that helpful. However, for the reasons that I have given at length, I cannot consider amending section 74 of the Act to remove the present exemption, or indeed asking the Director General of Fair Trading significantly to alter the scope of the exemption available under his determination. There are strong arguments, which I have outlined, in support of the present arrangements; nor is my Department aware of serious consumer disadvantages in relation to overdrafts.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman cited a number of cases, but he was not particularly specific. As I do not have

  579
  the advantage of having engaged in correspondence with him or of having seen copies of his correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I do not know the extent to which he has illustrated his arguments with particular cases of hardship or—as he seemed to imply—the exploitation of those who unwittingly become involved in over-extended commitments. The more of such material that can be produced, the more momentum there will be behind the arguments.
  I accept that it might not be unreasonable for banks to provide retrospectively some information on the rate of interest applying to an overdraft. I understand that, at present, information on the rate of interest charged by a bank is displayed in its branches, and that it is also made available to individual customers on request. It is possible that, following the report of the banking ombudsman, the banks will see fit to go further, and perhaps to provide information on the rate of interest applying to an overdraft in regular statements.
  I should regard that as a very welcome development, and I shall ask my officials to discuss the possibility with the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers. Certainly some foreign banks operate the practice. I do not know whether any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents have hank accounts in Switzerland, but it is possible that some of his clients do. If so, they will know that Swiss banks display on a daily basis the level of interest charged and the amount involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman can draw from that whatever inference he chooses.
  The scope of the exemption granted by the Director General of Fair Trading under section 74 of the Act is very much a matter for him to decide. I know that he has been approached by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he is considering, together with the office of the banking ombudsman, whether there is a case for revising the determination that he granted in 1983. It is open to the Director General to vary the terms of his determination, perhaps to require certain minimum information to be provided to customers, and my Department will be keeping in close touch with his office. We share the objective of ensuring that the provisions of the Act operate in a way that is ultimately beneficial to consumers, while also recognising the risk that detailed regulation may be counter-productive.
  Mr. Janner: Let me first thank the Minister for his statement, and for the two positive steps that it takes in the direction that I have recommended. Meanwhile, will he be good enough to tell the banks that the Government will keep a keen and beady eye on the advertising of interest rates and the way in which it is done, to ensure that the meaning of such advertising is clear?
  Mr. Clark: No doubt the banks will read the Official Report carefully and draw the conclusions that they consider appropriate.

  Highway Code
  10.15 am
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport a matter which is fairly simple on the surface, and which I hope will be susceptible of a simple solution.
  No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you are fully familiar with the highway code. You will, therefore, know that if you read it carefully you will find a reference to the need for motor insurance—although it is the only reference that I have been able to detect. It appears on page 66, in fairly small print, and forms part of the advice to drivers of motor vehicles that, before driving, they should ensure that
  "your use of the vehicle is properly insured and that there are no restrictions in the relevant insurance policy…which would make your use of the vehicle illegal".
  I want to ask my hon. Friend whether "properly insured" in this context really means what it says. His defence will rightly be that "properly" in such a context means that the legal requirements are satisfied. Most of us know that, provided that a driver has a third party policy, generally speaking he can drive legally on the open road. He will not be covered as fully as he might be if he had a comprehensive policy, but those policies are rather more expensive to take out, because they provide much wider cover. The difference between third party and comprehensive policies is well known, and motorists of all ages are probably well equipped to make the appropriate choice according to their needs and means. However, I doubt whether many motorists realise that comprehensive insurance is not quite what it says.
  Many of us are now aware of a scheme run by the Motor Insurers Bureau whereby, in the event of an accident causing injury which results from the action of a driver who is negligent but who is not insured, an additional element of cover is provided over and above what the motorist may have taken out for himself. However, the position on which I want to focus my remarks is that in which the driver is insured but is not negligent. That was brought to my attention recently by a constituency case; I followed it up, and it has led on to others.
  Let me briefly give some details of that first case. On 4 March last year, a constituent of mine, Miss Samantha Tremayne, had her R registration Cavalier written off in an accident. She was not in the car at the time; it was parked outside her home in Station road, West Byfleet, when another driver—also a constituent of mine—drove her car into it after suffering a sudden stroke. She was taken to hospital, where she had another more serious stroke, and later, most unfortunately, died.
  The driver's insurance company refused to accept liability for the accident, on the ground that no negligence had been involved and that there had been no reason to suspect that the unfortunate lady might suffer a stroke. The case went slightly further: the driver's executors were advised that to meet a claim for Miss Tremayne against the estate might prejudice their own claim against the insurance company. My constituent, who was covered only by third party insurance, was thus left facing a loss of about £600. Her solicitors were quite unable to persuade the other insurance company to meet the loss. Miss Tremayne summarised it to me in a letter in which she said:

  581
  "I have been told by a solicitor that I have no legal claim to the Insurance Company, because in their eyes, it is classed as an 'act of God."'
  I heard about the case in October 1986 and contacted Lloyd's about it, but without any success. I was told that if Miss Tremayne had taken out comprehensive cover, she could have had her claim met, probably by her own insurance company under an indemnity. A letter to me from Mr. Presland, a Lloyd's consumer inquiries officer, contains this sentence:
  "Regrettably Miss Tremayne chose to take only restricted insurance cover in her own right and to rely upon her common law rights of recovery for recompense in respect of damage sustained to her vehicle as a result of the negligence of another. Had she taken out Comprehensive cover, she could of course have sought recompense from the insurer on an indemnity basis."
  The consumer inquiries officer said that the case did not involve Lloyd's, and that Lloyd's did not think that the insurance company had acted unreasonably or unfairly in refusing to meet the claim.
  The point about having a comprehensive policy is relevant. It is also relevant that such a policy would have cost this young lady, a 19-year-old office worker, about £300 a year. She felt, understandably, that that was more than she could possibly afford. In the end, she was lucky. The executors of the other driver agreed to make an ex-gratia payment from the deceased's estate, but Miss Tremayne still felt that her experience revealed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I was glad to take it up on her behalf with Ministers.
  In their replies to my letters, both the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Minister expressed their sympathy, but they said that there was nothing that they felt could or should be done. In particular, they both resisted any suggestion that the law of liability should be amended to provide a no-fault scheme for compensation in cases of personal injury or property damage.
  I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I sought to pursue the need for legislation for such a scheme. I realise that there are good reasons why it may not be so desirable as it appears to be on the surface, but it is right that I should try to press the matter further, if only to alert more people to the kind of risks that they may run.
  My constituent also says :
  "How can it be fair to a person, for their car to be parked outside their own house and written off, to then find there is no legal claim—surely this cannot be right."
  Miss Tremayne is not alone in feeling that way. Having taken certain steps to interest the local press in the case, I received a letter from a gentleman who lives not far away in Weybridge, who told me of an incident that he described as follows :
  "My son's car was damaged while parked, when an unfortunate man died at the wheel of his car, crashing through my front fence and coming to rest in my garden. Due to the bad publicity in a Sunday newspaper the Insurance Co. eventually paid up, although previous to this a solicitor could not help."
  That is another way of dealing with the problem. I was glad to learn that that case had ended so well, although I was interested to hear that it had happened in 1973. As my hon. Friend the Minister must therefore be aware, this is a long-standing problem.
  Closer to home—indeed, only last week after I had asked for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment— I was extremely interested to receive a
  582
  letter from an engineering company in my constituency telling me of a very similar case that it had recently experienced. The managing director of the company has been kind enough to send me copies of two letters on the subject. The first is a letter from the insurance company to the solicitors. It says:
  "we have now received our Engineer's report following the inspection of your vehicle and note that it has unfortunately been rendered beyond economic repair. Our Engineer has placed a pre-accident value of £325 and £335, with a salvage that should realise between £25 and £30. However, the accident circumstances were that our Insured suffered a blackout and thus collided into the rear of your vehicle. We have since been advised that our Insured driver…has undergone a series of tests and was found to be suffering from a brain tumour, and is undergoing surgery. The circumstances are such that our Insured was unaware of his illness prior to the accident, and therefore you will appreciate that we are unable to accept responsibility, in view of the fact that our Insured has not acted negligently."
  That letter prompted a fairly pointed response from the engineering company, which the managing director has copied to me. It says :
  "we have taken the trouble to take legal advice ourselves, and the advice that we have received confirms the insurers' position…However, we were under the mistaken impression that we were paying a large amount of money to Blue Chip Insurers for comprehensive cover under any circumstances. A glance at our records will show that this particular policy has been very profitable to the insurance company and they could well afford to meet this claim in full and still show a handsome profit over the years. The third party is a seventeen year old toolmaker apprentice who is being forced to take a taxi to work because there is no other form of public transport available and he does not have the money to repair his vehicle."
  That is quite as bad a case as the one that I originally quoted. In some respects it is rather worse. The case has not been resolved, although I very much hope that it will be resolved, either as a result of my reference to it today or as a result of correspondence that has already been embarked on between those concerned.
  I suspect that there are a great many such cases but that they may not all have come to light. Perhaps this debate will have the effect of bringing more of them to light. If it does, I welcome it.
  I have further evidence to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. By chance, I have heard of another case. A man and his wife were driving along the motorway in April 1986 when the car that was overtaking them suffered a burst tyre, collided with their car and turned it completely over. They ended up on the hard shoulder, mercifully uninjured, although they were severely shaken. Their car was virtually a write-off. They had only third party fire and theft cover. The insurers of the other party said that their driver had not been negligent and that they were under no obligation to meet the costs of the accident and the writing off of the car.
  None of the cases that I have quoted involved injury. My hon. Friend may tell me that had injury resulted from any of these incidents, the position might have been different. Of course, it might have been different for a variety of reasons. The accident victimes might have had cover against personal injury. The Motor Insurers Bureau, or Lloyd's, might have taken a different view. The case might have been pursued in court on the grounds that, although negligence was denied there must have been negligence.
  When discussing this matter with friends in the legal profession, I heard of a case some years ago in which a

  583
  milkman on his early morning round drove in the dark into a tree that had been blown across the road. He was quite severely injured. After a great deal of diligence on the part of the legal experts, his counsel was able to establish in court that the owner of the tree was negligent, in that he had not inspected the tree in question regularly enough to be sure that it would not fall across the road.
  In cases of that kind there is a great deal at stake. Personal injury accidents can result, rightly, in substantial damages. In many cases the threat of legal action is probably sufficient to result in a settlement out of court. However, in cases where the sums involved are relatively . small — for example, under £1,000—very few people would be advised to incur the expense of going to law. In most cases, if not in all, it has to he written off as sheer bad luck. The unfortunate victim is left wiser but sadder and knows, as a result of his own bitter experience, what he ought to have been aware of and what he should have been told at a much earlier stage.
  As I have said, I am not arguing the case for a no-fault compensation scheme. However, I know that there is some consultation at Government level about the adequacy of our existing insurance arrangements. In fact, I have been fortunate enough to obtain a copy of a Department of Transport press notice, No. 451 of 10 October 1984. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be instantly familiar with it because it releases comments made by him about the extension of compulsory motor insurance to liability for property damage. I remind my hon. Friend that on that occasion he said :
  "My Department is canvassing opinion on changes to extend our compulsory insurance laws to include liability for property damage, in response to an EC Directive which aims to achieve a measure of harmonisation of motor insurance laws throughout the Community. The Directive must be implemented by the end of 1988, but I want to secure improvements to our domestic motor insurance arrangements well before then. I look forward to the proposed extension of compulsory insurance and of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement with the Motor Insurers' Bureau. I want to ensure that accident victims can generally expect to be compensated for damage to their property—including, of course, their vehicles—caused by negligent drivers, even where the driver responsible is uninsured."
  I return to a point that I made earlier. I want to ensure that accident victims can generally expect to be compensated for damage to their property and vehicles caused by drivers who are not negligent but whose insurance companies say that they are not prepared to accept liability for the accident, retreating behind the act of God defence.
  My first request is that my hon. Friend should enter into further discussions on that in the near future with the insurance industry. However, until those discussions bear fruit, as I hope they might, I should like to ask him one other thing. Will he take some action to ensure that drivers are warned of the risks that they may quite inadvertently run, especially young drivers, who the insurance companies think are the worst risks and who are thus faced with the highest premiums? They should be able to make an informed judgment about whether it is worth taking out comprehensive rather than third party cover. The insurance companies that provide cover, especially for young motorists, might turn their attention to doing something to fill that gap.
  This problem should be known to people. I may not be right, but it seems that the highway code is the right place in which to put such a warning. I realise that a new edition
  584
  of the highway code has just been published and that it would be expensive to demand that it be reprinted. However, on another occasion, I might have a go at the Minister about the curious omission from the highway code of any advice and guidance about driving in the dark. That has surprised me now that I have studied the code as carefully as I have as, I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you always do. However, if the highway code is not the right place for a warning, may I ask that a warning should still be given and that the drivers should be allowed to make the choice in an informed state of mind, rather than in total ignorance.
  If, at the end of the day, public pressure builds up to a point where the insurance company are obliged, or think it right, to revise the forms of cover that they offer, that would not be a bad thing. However, it is a bad thing that in such cases anyone can take refuge in legal technicalities, when the right answer is a change of attitude.
  10.34 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has given the House a valuable opportunity to consider a subject which. as he has said, causes a good deal of understandable concern to the unfortunate few who find themselves in similar circumstances to his constituent, and to the other cases that he mentioned. Mercifully, I am informed that there are few such cases. However, my hon. Friend mentioned and has written to us about, several of them. We would welcome details of the third case that he mentioned, relating to the engineering firm because, from what he said, that case seemed to involve comprehensive insurance and damage to the insurer's own vehicle, which damage should, perhaps, have been covered. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us further details about that.
  Mr. Onslow: I shall be glad to do that. Part of the problem is that the victim of the accident was riding a small motor cycle and was run into from behind by a large truck. The truck did not suffer any damage. However, even if the truck had been damaged, I am not sure that my hon. Friend would be right in thinking that that carried a contingent liability to pay for the damage to the motor cycle.
  My hon. Friend said that there are few such accidents. If he has evidence to that effect, I hope that he will let the House have it now. However, if he does not have any real evidence about how many such accidents occur, I hope that he will undertake to ensure that some steps are taken to establish the facts. I suspect that if, in a short time in my constituency, I can find two cases within 12 months, there must be about 1,000 cases at any one time in the country.
  Mr. Spicer: As my hon. Friend has already said, one of the benefits of this debate is that it may well raise the level of public knowledge about such matters. At the moment, all I can say is that we are informed that motor accidents in which nobody has been negligent are rare. However, as he has implied, there is no reliable record of their number. We have to go on the fact that the Association of British Insurers, which draws on the experience of most motor insurers in the United Kingdom, has confirmed that cases in which there is no negligence are rarely brought to its

  585
  attention. I repeat that it may well be that, as a result of this valuable airing of the subject that my hon. Friend has initiated, we may receive better information on the subject.
  It goes without saying that, like my hon. Friend, I have great sympathy for people who find themselves in the unenviable position of having suffered injury, or had their property damaged in an accident, and have nowhere to turn to for compensation. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an aspect of the law of liability, which is not widely known. Some people may, as a result of the debate, be in a position to take out their own insurance to protect themselves against the monetary consequences of such an accident.
  The principle from which the problem arises goes beyond motor insurance, which is my Department's responsibility. The law of civil liability relates to accidents of all sorts, and is primarily a matter for the Lord Chancellor. It may help if I take a few moments to outline the legal position.
  It is a fundamental principle of British law that payment of compensation following an accident depends on proof of negligence by the person claimed to be responsible. There is no automatic right to compensation simply on the grounds that the victim of the circumstance was himself or herself free from any blame. Whether the allegedly responsible person has third party insurance does not affect this over-riding principle. Either he is responsible for the accident or he is not. If he is, he is liable to compensate the person who has suffered loss. He may do so from his own pocket, or call upon his insurance, where he has it.
  That is not confined to accidents involving motor vehicles. Where injury or damage is caused in other ways, say a tile falling from a roof, the same principle applies. To sum up, whatever the insurance position, the victim has no legal right to compensation until negligence has been established. When we extend compulsory insurance to property the principle about negligence will be unaffected. Indeed, it is unaffected by the present compulsory legislation with respect to injury.
  That brings me to the specific area of difficulty that my hon. Friend has identified. His constituent was involved in an accident in which her parked car was written off when another car ran into it. Fortunately, she was not injured. So far as I am aware, there was no suggestion that my hon. Friend's constituent was in any way at fault.
  Mr. Onslow indicated assent.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend confirms that. But there was equally no suggestion of negligence by the other driver involved : she suffered an unpredictable stroke at the wheel. The accident was classed as what is sometimes known as an "act of God", and so my hon. Friend's constituent received no compensation for the loss of her car from the other driver's insurer.
  I readily sympathise with the apparent injustice which my hon. Friend's constituent sees in her situation, and I can understand the feeling that insurance companies should be required to pay in such cases regardless of any proof of negligence. After all, as my hon. Friend said, they look big enough to bear such a burden without really noticing it. But this supposes a direct relationship between
  586
  the victim of the circumstance and someone else's insurer. Such a connection does not exist unless it is established through the someone else being at fault for the accident.
  An insurer and his policyholder are parties to a private contract under which the insurer, in return for the premium, undertakes to meet the policyholder's liabilities under civil law. In the sort of case my hon. Friend has described, no such liability arises, the contract places no obligations on the insurer, and there is no basis for a connection between the insurer and the person who has suffered damage.
  I recognise that my hon. Friend's purpose in raising this subject today is not to suggest that insurers behave improperly under the law as it stands, or in relation to their contractual position. Rather he is suggesting that either the law should be changed — that was implicit in his opening remarks—or, at least, that road users should be warned of some of the pitfalls which exist for accident victims. I shall return to that point.
  So far as changes in the law are concerned, I can understand from the blameless victim's point of view the attraction of a system that would avoid the sometimes uncertain process of proving negligence. But this would be a major departure from a long established principle, which could not be considered in isolation from the repercussions for other types of accidents. My hon. Friend specifically said that he was not arguing for a no-fault scheme, but it is worth dwelling for a moment on the proposals which have existed for such a scheme.
  The House will recall that this question of paying compensation without establishing negligence was among those covered in 1978 by the royal commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson. The royal commission had in mind a central compensation fund, financed from a levy on the price of fuel. Accident victims could be compensated from this fund according to the extent of their injuries without taking negligence into account. The need to prove negligence following a road accident would be removed, at least for the initial entitlement to compensation.
  The royal commission's proposals were not designed to cater specifically for the sort of case that has led to this debate today. They dealt with injury, not damage to property. But they are highly relevant to my hon. Friend's concerns in that they reflected the commission's more general criticisms of the law which requires proof of negligence as a basis for the payment of compensation.
  Even if such compensation arrangements were restricted to road accidents they would have involved considerable costs. The Department of Health and Social Security estimated that about 1,000 staff, including 200 doctors, would be needed for the full implementation of such a no-fault scheme — and that is only for motor accidents.
  Groups representing the disabled made the point forcefully that the proposed scheme would effectively discriminate between those killed and injured on the roads and other accident victims. Extending the scope of the system further to accommodate cases of property damage would exacerbate those particular problems, and the discrimination which disabled groups have seen would be implicit.
  Mr. Onslow: A reason why I said specifically that I was not arguing for a no-fault compensation scheme was that

  587
  when my hon. Friend wrote to me he set out the line of argument that he has just deployed in the House. It may help him to know of a further and even more powerful persuader in the form of the Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote on the same subject. He said that if a no-fault compensation scheme were introduced here
  "it would certainly lead to vastly increased premiums, and questions like contributory negligence and causation would inevitably arise."
  That would open the way for additional man hours in the legal system, so clearly we need a better, simpler solution which does not involve a great deal of litigation.
  Mr. Spicer: It is always useful to hear the Lord Chancellor's wisdom. The way he spares the use of legal time, in this instance as in others, is commendable. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend raised the subject I felt that it was worth reminding ourselves about the possibility of such a scheme and of its disadvantages.
  My hon. Friend suggested that road users should at least be warned of the difficulties that they could face in an accident which is nobody's fault. In particular, he suggested that the highway code could integrate such a warning, and in many respects that suggestion is attractive. As he said, the highway code is widely available and is directed not only at drivers, but a complete range of road users. The section entiled "The law's demands" already gives advice on insurance cover required by law, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the highway code focuses on the legal requirement for insurance.
  However, my hon. Friend has said that the advice should go rather further than simply pointing out the legal requirement, and that is where we get into some difficulties on this method of advertising the problem. The highway code reminds motorists of the general need for insurance as well as for licensing, testing, taxation and so on. Insurance is part of the range of legal requirements that it puts into the small print. However, it is not designed to give detailed advice on these matters. It is a code of behaviour, rather than a do-it-yourself legal guide.
  My hon. Friend will know that a revised version of the highway code has just been published. The amendments are almost all about improving safety, and my hon. Friend has given some advice to the House, which I will pass on to my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for roads. The code covers a number of new aspects of driving such as drinking and driving, car telephones, child restraints and so on. However, motorists need much more specific advice on insurance than that which a code of behaviour can give. They must have advice that takes into account individual circumstances and requirements. The insurance companies are willing to give such advice and it is part of their business to do so.
  This debate will have helped to reinforce the need for motorists to think carefully about precise insurance needs and to ask themselves whether there are gaps in those needs. One of them may be the problem, raised by my hon. Friend today of whether there is any negligence involved. Even bearing in mind that the majority of the country reads Hansard the day after our debates, my hon. Friend will accept that not all motorists will, tomorrow morning, have the benefit of studying his advice. Therefore, there is a case for the Government giving wider publicity to the problem.
  Today I have asked the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea to consider including with the vehicle licensing reminders advice on the considerations that
  588
  drivers need to take into account when buying insurance. By this means, we can provide a great majority of drivers with basic advice on which to base their decisions on whether to purchase insurance to protect their own interests should they be involved in the kind of accident about which we have heard today, and the circumstances that might apply.
  Mr. Onslow: That last point is a welcome development, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend could not do slightly more than send a reminder out with the motor vehicle licence renewal form. By the time one comes to renew a vehicle licence, one will have been driving for 12 months and if one is driving a car that one does not own, one will never see the form.
  Having hastily fished my driving licence out of my pocket and seen that it still has a few years to run, I will not recommend that the advice that my hon. Friend so wisely decided to make available should be sent with driving licence renewal forms. However, we could append such advice to the driver licence application forms in the first place. As soon as a driver applies for his first licence, he will be made aware of insurance. That is the moment when he first goes on the road and when he is first at risk, and it would seem sensible to give him all the information then and not a year later, when he comes for renewal of his provisional licence or upgrades it for a full licence. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with the DVLC about that possibility.
  I suspect that one of the reasons why the instance of this type of problem is thought to be rare is that people do not press the point with the insurance companies, and the police never get to know about the accident figures because non-injury accidents do not figure in police statistics. A sampling exercise would be justifed, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to pursue that matter as well.
  Mr. Spicer: Those are useful suggestions, and I will consider the sampling exercise point. I am not sure how one would set about that, given, as I understand it, the small base from which one would be working. One would have to carry out a large exercise to pick up any focus on the small amount of data that would he forthcoming.
  I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion about including this advice on the licence application form. There are two considerations that have come to me about that, off the top of my head. The first is that with the age-to-70 licence, a vast number of people would already have got through the net of my hon. Friend's suggestion and will continue to remain outside it because they will not be applying for a licence renewal until they are 70. To meet my hon. Friend's point, we must do something with greater urgency than that suggestion would imply.
  Secondly, there is the problem, which has been a running theme throughout the debate, of knowing where to stop with the detail of advice. One could end up by suggesting particular insurance companies that are better than others, and that is clearly not the role that the Government would wish to undertake. On the application form point, the question is how much further one could go than the highway code in saying tht one must he insured. I will consider that point because at the moment we are working out a form of words with Swansea that would be appropriate to carry out what my hon. Friend

  589
  has been suggesting in warning people about this problem. When we have the form of words, it might be used for other purposes.
  I thank my hon. Friend for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important subject. Although I have not been able to meet one of his precise suggestions —that we should devote space to matters of insurance and liability in the highway code — I have been encouraged by my hon. Friend to give the matter more publicity. My intention is that the message that we shall put out will emphasise the importance of drivers' decisions on insurance and their implications. As my hon. Friend has said, it is manifestly in the interest of motorists to be sure that they understand the cover that they are buying or have bought. The debate has served a valuable purpose in pointing out that fact.

  Police (Agents Provocateurs)
  11 am
  Mr. J. Enoch-Powell: I wish to use the opportunity that has fallen to my lot to place on record on the Floor of the House—which I consider to be the only proper manner in which to do so — a matter of great public interest and importance, which is of considerable relevance to the rule of law, and to ascertain the public position on the matter that is taken up by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government. I am grateful for the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  I can put the matter on the record by rehearsing a number of communications that have passed between myself and the Home Secretary in recent months. The issue goes back to 6 November last year when, in a written question, I asked the Home Secretary
  "if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to the circumstances in which on or before October 1985 two detective constables represented themselves as having murdered the late Airey Neave."
  The Minister replied :
  "The right hon. Member's question relates to criminal proceedings now before the courts. It would not be right to comment."—[Official Report, 6 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 532.]
  Therefore, it was not until 21 January that I sought that comment again. I asked whether, the case having been concluded, the Home Secretary would answer my question. I was told :
  "I understand that, as part of an operation which led to the conviction of two men for conspiracy to murder, two detectives represented themselves as members of a terrorist organisation. I am informed that the Police made an apology in court for any distress caused to the family of the late Mr. Airey Neave." —[Official Report, 21 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 559.]
  That seemed to me to disclose such a strange situation that I wrote to the Home Secretary on 23 January, thanking him for his answer to my written question about the story concocted by police agents provocateurs. I continued :
  "What I fail to understand and what seems to me to be worthy of investigation is the reason why they chose to claim that particular murder by way of self-advertisement. It may possibly have been because no one has yet been made amenable for that murder : but as you will know the possible political links of it have aroused interest."
  The substantive part of the Home Secretary's reply on 10 March was :
  "You ask why the two police officers chose to claim responsibility for that particular murder while representing themselves as members of a terrorist organisation. I understand from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire that this choice was not the result of a considered decision by either the officers themselves or their superiors directing the investigation. Rather, at a meeting between the detectives and one of the men later convicted of conspiracy to murder Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, one of the officers spontaneously claimed to have been involved in the murder of Airey Neave, as part of his attempt to portray himself as an IRA assassin. That this was a role-acting response, rather than a planned statement, by the officer, explains why he attributed Airey Neave's death to the IRA, when in fact it was the INLA who claim responsibility for it."
  Two matters appear to arise out of those exchanges between myself and the Home Secretary. The first is the use of police agents provocateurs and whether, in the Government's view, it is an appropriate procedure that police officers should present themselves to a member of the public as belonging to a terrorist organisation and

  591
  offer to undertake a murder on his or her behalf. That seems to overstep the line that divides the function of an agent provocateur from other investigative activities. It seems to me that for a police officer to act in a way that a member of the public might act and thus place himself in the way of detecting criminal actions or intentions is one thing, but for a police officer to offer to carry out a crime and to advertise himself as a specialist in that type of crime oversteps the line between innocent investigation and the function of agent provocateur, which I have always supposed, perhaps innocently, lay outside the scope of the British police.
  I understand that the Home Office is not directly responsible, in the full sense, for provincial police forces; but its advice and opinion have a deep influence, and we should be told the view of the Home Office on the use of police officers as agents provocateurs.
  The second question follows from the first. If the use of agents provocateurs is regarded as an appropriate resource of police forces— I hope that that will not be the Minister's reply—at what level should responsibility for that activity be taken? The Home Secretary has told me that in this case the superior officers under whose instructions the operation was carried out had not specified the details and maintained no control over the manner in which it was carried out by the detectives.
  If the use of agents provocateurs is to be authorised, the authorisation should be given only at a high level of responsibility in police forces, and full control over so alarming an operation should be maintained by those who cover it with their orders and their responsibilities.
  There are two questions. The first is the general question of the use of agents provocateurs by the police, which needs to be cleared up by a comprehensive statement. The second question, which falls within the first, is whether, supposing such operations are countenanced, the responsibility for them and for the detailed way in which they are carried out should be visibly lodged at a high level in the police force concerned.
  I hope that, as I drew the attention of the Under-Secretary to my correspondence with the Home Secretary, he was able to be adequately briefed on the two questions that I have put to him. There is no point in my detaining the House further. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with both points.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have no wish to rain on the parade of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), so I shall be brief.
  If the police were not allowed to fulfil a function as agents provocateurs, few of the recent cases of substantial drugs offences and widespread counterfeiting of international currency could have been brought before the courts.
  As the law is, there is nothing improper about police being used as agents provocateurs in the English jurisdiction, although there is something improper about their being used as agents provocateurs in the American jurisdiction. It is no defence for an accused person to say that he would not have committed the offence but for the use of an agent provocateur. The only point at which the fact that an agent provocateur was employed can be used in favour of the defendant is in mitigation of the gravity of an offence if he is convicted.
  However, in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I should say that the use of an agent
  592
  provocateur causes grave concern to juries, lawyers and, I suspect, to the police themselves. There is something un-British about using that device. In my experience, juries rarely convict on the evidence of agents provocateurs unless that evidence is substantiated by strong corroborative evidence. The right hon. Member for South Down is right to say that such evidence should never be used except with the authority of senior police officers who are capable of making precisely the right assessment as to its need. In my recent experience, that requirement has been fulfilled in the British courts and has resulted in a substantial gain to the public, in as much as dangerous criminals and others who have committed serious crimes have been brought to book by its use.
  11.10 am
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I wish only to ask a question, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will include a reply to it when he answers the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). As a friend, and as the deputy of Airey Neave when he was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, I wish to ask what progress has been made in apprehending his murderers. Will my hon. Friend , speaking for the Home Office, give me an assurance that the police forces of the United Kingdom will make it a matter of honour to continue with, and not relax, their investigations until those murderers have been brought to justice?
  11.11 am
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I apologise for coming in slightly late. I congratulate the right hon.. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on making a most important point. I have been involved in two cases in the past, both of which concerned agents provocateurs, and in which charges might not have been laid if the police had not acted in that capacity.
  The first involved one of our own hon. Members some time ago, and had to do with homosexual activity. I believe that if an agent provocateur had not been involved in that incident there would have been no charge, investigation or inquiry. If that person had not been approached by the police in the first place, I am not sure whether any offence would have been committed. That concerns me greatly.
  The police have a good record of high detection rates, but to create the circumstances in which an offence could be committed and then to charge one of our own Members seems a strange way to behave.
  The second case concerned one of my constituents—a Sikh who was recently involved in a Sikh trial in the Birmingham crown court in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi attempted assassination plot. In that case, which has been right through the courts, a young informer approached a couple of people in the case and suggested—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand that the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is subject to appeal, and may therefore be subject to the sub judice rule of the House.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I am not aware of any appeal—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case—I see that the Under-Secretary of State is nodding his assent—it would appear, with great respect,

  593
  from the reply that was given to me by the Home Secretary, that that matter is now outside the sub judice rule. I apologise for making that point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether the advice that has been tendered to me on the latest state of play in the case can be confirmed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My information is that the matter is subject to appeal. That is my understanding, and if I am wrong, I apologise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can the Minister advise me whether an appeal has been lodged?
  Mr. Hogg: I cannot give the date of the notice of appeal, but I understand that an appeal has been lodged.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been confirmed that an appeal has been lodged, so the case is subject to the sub judice rule of the House.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I was not aware of that. What I am trying to say is that, if someone approaches a person and asks him to take part in an activity, he is creating an atmosphere in which an offence can take place at a later date. My concern is that, if that person had not been so approached, no offence would have been committed. I appreciate that all the police want to do is catch as many criminals as they can. I salute the Leicestershire police force—or any other—for its rigour in bringing cases before the courts. I am concerned only that in certain circumstances the police seem to be creating trouble for people in cases such as those that I have described. The police should return to the business of detection, rather than seeking potential villains by becoming villains themselves— albeit temporarily—in the hope that they can bring charges against people in the future.
  Of course I acknowledge what was said by my best hon. Friend the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in view of his experience as a leading Queen's counsel; but I am fearful about the role of the agent provocateur. The police should continue with their normal commitments, such as the detection of crime, and not seek ways of catching potential villains. The law is there to be obeyed. A number of Conservative Back Benchers rebelled over the clause concerning agents provocateurs during the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The police should be allowed to get on with their normal, honourable job, without going into muddy waters.
  11 .18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for having raised a matter of considerable importance. I shall try to clarify the distinctions between the obtaining of evidence and the action of an agent provocateur. A number of the speeches that have been made — although not the speech of the right hon. Gentleman — have elided the difference. There is a distinction between the role of agent provocateur and the obtaining of evidence. I shall deal with that matter when I comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
  594
  It might be helpful if I begin by defining the rules that govern police conduct in this area before I turn to the particular case and the questions that were raised by the right hon. Member for South Down. It is important that the House knows what an agent provocateur is. It is perhaps most authoritatively defined by the Royal Commission on police powers in 1928, which stated that an agent provocateur is a person who entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed, and then proceeds or informs against him in respect of such an offence.
  The critical element is that of enticement or incitement. Merely to report on the criminal activities of another is not to act as an agent provocateur. I see that the right hon. Member for South Down agrees with me. The essential element is the act of enticement or inducement.
  The use of agents provocateurs is unlawful. That was stated most authoritatively by the then Lord Chief Justice in the case of Brannan v. Peek in 1948. Because it is important, it might be helpful to state that authoritative definition of the law :
  He said:
  "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that unless an Act of Parliament provides that for the purpose of detecting offences police officers or others may be sent into premises to commit offences therein—and I do not think any Act does so provide—it is wholly wrong to allow a practice of that sort to take place…If the police authorities have reason to believe that offences are being committed in public houses"—
  that was the issue at the time—
  "it is right that they should cause watch to be kept by detective officers, but it is not right that they should instruct, allow, or permit a detective officer or constable in plain clothes to commit an offence so that they can say that another person in that house committed an offence."
  That case involved illegal betting in a public house, which police officers kept under surveillance. They suspected what was going on and one of them went into the premises and laid a bet. The state of the common law is that which was laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in 1948, and it has received a powerful echo and reinforcement by Home Office guidelines, which have always made it clear that behaving as agents provocateurs is not permitted for members of police forces. Indeed, it is not permitted for their informants either. The relevant guidance is to be found in the Home Office circular to the police on crime and kindred matters, a copy of which is to be found in the Library. The relevant paragraph states:
  "No member of a police force and no public informant should counsel or procure the commission of a crime."
  As I have already stressed, that prohibition applies to police officers and to informants who provide police officers with information. The guidance continues:
  "The informant should always be instructed that he must on no account act as agent provocateur, whether by suggesting to others that they should commit offences or encouraging them to do so, and that if he is found to have done so he will himself be liable to prosecution."
  That is about as comprehensive a statement of the legal position as could be given. I suspect that it is a statement of the law that would satisfy the right hon. Member for South Down and be supported by my hon. Friends who are sitting below the gangway.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is the first time that I have heard the definition to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I find it fascinating. It would seem that a police office is allowed to join an organisation that might be provocative, be it on the Right or the Left,

  595
  and be accepted as a member of it. Apparently that is perfectly all right, but it is not allowed for him to say, for example, "Next week we shall throw some petrol bombs". If the officer did that he would be acting wrongfully. What is his role if he joins an organisation and becomes involved in informing on people who belong to it? Is that allowable under the law?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue and I am not sidetracking when I say that I shall respond to his intervention later. There is a distinction which I shall try to set out in practice.
  It is proper for police officers to infiltrate criminal or terrorist organisations. In the ordinary course of that infiltration they must show some enthusiasm for what is going on in the organisation otherwise the infiltration would prove impossible. However, they must not incite or encourage the commission of offences by others. I accept at once that the distinction is sometimes a narrow one and that it is not always easy to adhere to it. On the whole, however, I believe that the police are adhering to it. This is a matter which I should like to return to in the course of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the practical difficulties that arise in instances where the police have to infiltrate criminal or terrorist organisations.
  If the police or their informants are to penetrate organisations, they must get inside them. It would not be possible for police officers to obtain the information that we would wish them to secure if they did not, in the course of making acquaintance with the members of the organisation, show some enthusiasm for the terrorist or criminal conspiracy, or the purpose which its members might have in mind. That is a practical difficulty.
  Anyone who acts as an agent provocateur must be alert to the distinction which is reflected in the guidelines and in the judgment to which I have drawn the attention of the House, which I have tried to amplify in my remarks.
  To what extent are agents provocateurs used? It is difficult to give a categorical and certain reply to that question, but I can say that since 1969–70 few allegations have been made of the use of agents provocateurs as I determine the term. I have taken the liberty of asking Home Office officials whether they know of such complaints. This is not an authoritative statement, but no one has any recollection of such a complaint. I have made inquiries of the Police Complaints Authority—again, I do not pretend that this is an authoritative answer—and it has no recollection of a complaint being made about the use of an agent provocateur in the sense that I use that term, which is that there must be incitement or encouragement by a police officer or an informant for others to commit a crime. On the whole, the police are adhering strictly to the requirements of the law and the guidance to which I have drawn attention. I cannot be more authoritative than that because there is no material to justify a positive assertion. The approach that I have outlined was accepted in 1969 by the central conference of chief constables and is widely acknowledged and understood.
  Mr. Heffer: Were not some complaints made about agents provocateurs during the miners' dispute? I understand that claims were made that certain people who were throwing stones were not miners and were not known to anyone else. These people seemed to disappear into the crowd and then to disappear altogether. Some miners'
  596
  officials have said that they were known later to be people connected with the police or associated with them in some way.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman refreshes my memory. I accept that those allegations were made during the miners' strike. I am speaking generally — I have not researched this issue—and I believe that I am right in saying that there was no convincing evidence that the persons against whom the complaints were made were police officers. I am dealing now with a rather different situation, which is whether there are complaints about individuals who are certainly police officers in cases that can be identified. The hon. Gentleman is referring to accusations which probably can never be pinned on persons who can be identified conclusively as police officers. However, he has refreshed my memory of the complaints which were made during the miners' strike and I am grateful to him for doing that.
  In the case referred to the right hon. Member for South Down and touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East the police force concerned was the Leicestershire constabulary. The instructions that are contained in the Home Office guidelines are reflected in the general orders of that constabulary, as they are in the majority of forces of which I am aware. The case arose from the events which surrounded the visit of the Indian Prime Minister in October 1985. I think that all hon. Members will be aware that the events led to the trial of three Sikhs at Birmingham Crown court. Two of the defendants have been convicted and, as I have indicated, I understand that they have appealed to the Court of Appeal, which means that I must be rather guarded in what I say. I hope that the House will forgive me for taking that approach.
  A number of complaints arose, some of which were fully investigated at the time by the trial judge and a number of which have been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members. It has been suggested that the trial of the three sikhs was politically inspired. My information, I must admit, is derived primarily from the chief constable of Leicestershire who was the officer ultimately responsible for the operations. I am assured that there is no truth in the suggestion that this trial or the inquiries that preceded it were in any way politically inspired.
  I shall deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. The information which came to the police officers concerning what the Sikhs had in mind came via an informant who was approached by the gentlemen concerned. Once the information had been received by the police, they had to put a full inquiry in hand. The fact that it might in some way have been stimulated by the police officers was given considerable consideration by the trial judge, Mr. Justice McCullough, who commented that the information received by the police was of a kind that clearly justified and, indeed, required full investigation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East is trying to suggest that the police were in some way creating an offence, I must say to him as positively and emphatically as I can that there is no truth whatsoever in such an allegation. The police were responding to information. They then put in police officers who then heard evidence. But there is no truth in the suggestion that they were creating an offence that would otherwise not have been created.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I was trying to make the point that the Leicestershire constabulary used a petty convicted criminal as a sort of informant. He was the person who was put in at the beginning to meet the Sikhs and to record comments such as, "How would you like to dispose of Mr. Gandhi?" That apparently is how it was done. It is all on file. Those people met in a pub in my constituency. From that point, as my hon. Friend the Minister correctly said, the police were then put in. A full meeting took place at the Post House hotel in Leicestershire. My concern is with what happened then. I am saying that, if those police had not become involved at that point, I suspect that no offences would have occurred.
  Mr. Hogg: I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend. A serious conspiracy, which could have had tragic results, was going on. Because the police intervened when they did, no tragedy ensued, and those defendants have been convicted and sent to prison. The idea that the police were in some way manufacturing an offence which would not otherwise have occurred is an illusion. It is wrong. It is a mistake. It is an error. I am trying to persuade my hon. Friend that that is the case. He can intervene as often as he likes, but I must say—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister will not act as an agent provocateur. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) may not intervene as often as he wishes.
  Mr. Hogg: I am trying to express emphatically that I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I think that I have done that. I would perhaps strain the patience of the House if I continued along that line.
  The right hon. Member for South Down asked who controls the operation of the agents provocateurs.
  Mr. J. Enoch PowellBefore the Minister comes to that, I should like to put one point to him. If one individual says to another, "I am a very talented professional murderer. I have carried out a number of successful murders" is that not prima facie an enticement to the other person to employ him on that job? What is the meaning, otherwise, of such a conversation?
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is focusing on the real problem that arises. In trying to identify whether a person is an agent provocateur, the question is whether that person is inciting or inducing the commission of a crime. One must judge each case on its facts. For example, if I represented myself as a member of the IRA and sought out custom to kill, clearly I would be acting as an agent provocateur. On the other hand, if I were aware that some people wanted to kill and were putting in hand a conspiracy to kill and I went to them and represented my skills as a killer, there would be no inducement or incitement. I am not trying to dodge the issue or to be over-dogmatic. But there is a very narrow line. We must judge each case on its facts. We must look at the facts of each case bearing in mind the broad policy distinction.
  Mr. Lawrence: If I may say so with the greatest respect, there is a danger of being confused about the law concerning the use of agents provocateurs. My hon. Friend began by saying that the concept of agent provocateur was contrary to the law. He cited Lord Chief Justice Goddard in Brannan v. Peek, a case in 1948. But, as I understand the law, that is not so. A number of judgments disapprove of agents provocateurs, but if the
  598
  activity of an agent provocateur were contrary to the law, it would be a defence to say, "I would not have committed this offence but for being induced to do so by an agent provocateur", which it is not. Furthermore, it might be within the discretion of the judge to exclude such evidence, which he is unable to do, according to the law. Is this not the position? Agents provocateurs are not contrary to the law.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Briefly.
  Mr. Lawrence: Although it is an activity that is disapproved of, it is perfectly lawful for an agent provocateur to act in a way that induces someone to commit a crime that he would not otherwise have committed and, in due course, that person may be properly convicted if that was evidence given against him. The only way in which it may help the defence is, after conviction and to mitigate the extent of the crime, to say, "I was induced to do that by the activity of an agent provocateur". But is it not sometimes difficult for that defence in mitigation to be effectively advanced? A professional criminal must often be taken to know that he might be tricked into—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member knows that he can speak only once on the motion before the House.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Much depends on the definition we give to the expression "agent provocateur". I agree that, if we over-refine it, we get ourselves into difficulty. But I remind my hon. and learned Friend of the Home Office guidance which points to the true position. It states :
  "The informant should always be instructed that he must on no account act as agent provocateur, whether by suggesting to others that they should commit offences or encouraging them to do so, and that if he is found to have done so he will himself be liable to prosecution."
  A necessary element in being an agent provocateur is that the person should himself commit a substantive offence which is part of the conspiracy. If one accepts that definition of the agent provocateur, which is the one I am putting to the House, the activity is unlawful. However, if one accepts a wider definition of the meaning of the phrase "agent provocateur" then one may come to a different conclusion. I am inviting the House to take the narrow definition that I have placed before it. It is for that reason that I cannot agree with the proposition put to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  The right hon. Member for South Down raised the particular issue of control, but he premised that by the assumption that we were using agents provocateurs as part of police procedure. I have explained to him, and I hope that I have satisfied him, that that is not part of police practice. Therefore, the second part of his question does not arise in that we are not using agents provocateurs nor did we use them in the case to which he referred. Therefore, the question of control does not arise.
  I shall turn to a matter of great distress to a number of people, particularly Lady Airey of Abingdon and that is what was said by one of the officers, Constable Tom B —that is how he was described in the trial—to the effect that he had been part of the murder gang that killed the former hon. Member, Airey Neave. The police, the chief constable and everybody involved are deeply sorry for the

  599
  distress that may have been caused to Lady Airey of Abingdon. What was said was in no sense preplanned. It was said by an officer at the time in order to try to cloak himself with credibility in the context of what he was trying to discover. It was not a planned statement and it was not in any way part of the operation. It was a statement that he made on the spur of the moment and he very much regrets the distress that he caused. However, I hope that the House will not be too critical of the officer, bearing in mind his dangerous and exposed position. Perhaps it is right that I should mention to the House that the learned Judge Mr. Justice McCullough at the end of the trial went on to say :
  "I wish to commend Dectective Constable Tom B and Detective Constable Ian S, both of whom did an extremely good and difficult job and they deserve and get the commendation of the court."
  I feel that that is a point that the House would like to take into account when considering what the officers said at the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) raised an important point regarding the inquiries into the murder of our former colleague, Airey Neave. The facts are known to the House. On 30 March 1979 a small explosive device attached to the car detonated and he was killed. The Irish National Liberation Army claimed responsibility for the murder and its claim has been accepted as valid. That claim was reiterated in a television interview in July 1979 by a masked person who was claiming to speak on behalf of the INLA. I very much regret to say that nobody has been charged in connection with the murder and it would be misleading for me to say that I have any information to suggest that a charge is likely to be made in the immediate or near future. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, I very much hope that the police will devote all their efforts to arresting those people. I would very much like to see them before a British court and I hope that one day that happens.
  Other questions have been raised. However, all I can do is reiterate to the right hon. Member for South Down that it is not part of police practice to use agents provocateurs. I do not believe that it happened in this case. What was done was the gathering of information and I think, taking a broad view of what happened, that it was a good thing that the police did receive the information that they did and, as a result, it may well be that a serious crime was averted.

  Rate Support Grant (Bedfordshire)
  11.44 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to take this opportunity to bring before the House the situation that is now facing my constituents and other residents and businesses in Bedfordshire following the steep rate increase that has been levied upon us in the past few days. I should say at the outset how delighted I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) in the Chamber I hope that he may catch your eye a little later, M r. Deputy Speaker. We are here with the full support of our hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) and our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell). I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is in the Chamber. My other two hon. Friends have pressing constituency engagements.
  Normally a constituency Member will rise with some pride to represent his constituents' interests and that of his county. I was born in Bedfordshire. I was educated there and spent the majority of my working life there. I have lived in the county all my life. However, it is with a sense of shame that I rise today because of what has happened in my county over the past few years and particularly over the past few months.
  We are now represented by the Labour and alliance parties, by men and women who are not fit for office They have shown a total irresponsibility in the way in which they have treated the county's affairs, they have abused the privileged system in which they find themselves and have acted with no thought for others. Indeed, in Bedfordshire with the way in which the political wind is blowing in the Labour and alliance parties, we may well find that we might begin—in fact we are already beginning — to suffer the extraordinary systems and policies that have been followed by what is popularly known as the loony Left. I think that my hon. Friends will agree that it may not be too long before we see the red flag flying over county hall in Bedford. For a county with a proud record of achievement and of looking after its residents and businesses, that is a disgrace. Therefore, we thought it fit to bring the matter before the. House this morning.
  We have suffered the highest rate increase of any shire county in the country—21·3 per cent. For the domestic ratepayer that means an additional 23·4 per cent. That comes on top of a rate increase last year of 18·4 per cent. In other words, in real terms, including inflation, my constituents are facing a rate increase of nearly 50 per cent. over two years. That is a record of which we are not proud and one that the House should look at in relation to other rate increases that have taken place in surrounding counties.
  During the various Budget deliberations that took place, my own group on the council proposed an increase of 10·7 per cent. That is rather higher than many of us would like to see but it would have been a standstill budget that retained services and would have meant that the people of Bedfordshire would not have had quite such a levy to bear. The Labour group proposed 23·8 per cent. and the alliance group 23 per cent. The two groups came together, I believe in a private house not far from where I live, and cobbled together an agreement that has meant

  601
  this massive swingeing increase. It was, of course, passed by those two groups in the face of the fiercest opposition from the Conservative group.
  At this point I should like to pay tribute to Councillor Philip Hendry, leader of the Conservative group on the Bedfordshire county council, who has done a splendid job over the past few years trying to keep our affairs in order.
  After the budget had been agreed there was a split among the Liberal members, which may be enlarged upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West. However, the alliance leader, Mrs. Janice Lennon, who I believe is a prospective parliamentary candidate for Bedfordshire, North, said,
  "I support this budget totally."
  Therefore this budget, which to the outside observer would be considered a Labour budget, has full alliance support and never let it be said otherwise.
  The record of spending in Bedfordshire is not good. That record goes back to pre-1977 days when the Labour council was in office spending money like water and using resources that it did not have. That council left as a legacy to the incoming Conservative group in 1977 a debt charge that, in effect, made Bedfordshire, at that time, the highest spending county. Between 1977 and 1986 the then Conservative-controlled council tried desperately, in the face of fierce opposition from the other parties, to rein Bedfordshire's spending. The Conservative group pulled Bedfordshire back from being first in the league of high spenders to being about 10th or 11th in the league in 1986.
  Recent Audit Commission reports for 1984–85 and 1985–86 confirm that, in seven services out of eight, the county council of Bedfordshire was spending more than the others of the family of five —my hon. Friend the Minister will know what I mean by that. On education, social services, police, fire, libraries and highways and other services Bedfordshire was overspending against the other counties. It was only in the matter of refuse disposal, which used the county's resources, that it was at any advantage.
  In 1985–86 the council's spending on education was 15 per cent. more than the family average — that is the latest figure available from the Audit Commission. The county was spending 14 per cent. more than the family average on social services. Overall there was an overspend of 11 per cent. If the children of Bedfordshire were receiving a better education than the children of other counties perhaps my complaint would not be so loud. If our schools were in better order than other counties perhaps I would have some support for that spending spree. If the old people and those in residential care were better off than those in other counties and were receiving better care perhaps one might be able to say that such expenditure was justified. However, when that money is being spent and the services are still not up to the family average I believe that we have cause to complain.
  Within the past few months we have learnt, as a result of a survey carried out by the university of Sheffield on O- level results, that Bedfordshire comes 87th out of the 91 local education authorities. The county council has overspent every single year, but it has not given the ratepayers value for money.
  Indeed, since 1985 when the Conservatives lost control at the election, the county council has seen fit to spend money on what many would describe as spurious
  602
  objectives. For example, Bedfordshire has become a nuclear-free zone. Some £50,000 was spent to achieve that end. I should like to say in passing that I am delighted to note that the Conservative group of the council has put down a motion for the next council meeting congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her talks in Moscow. I hope that those talks will make the people of Bedfordshire sleep more easily in their beds and I hope that those talks will do away with the necessity of the nonsense of the nuclear-free zone in Bedfordshire.
  The council has also spent money on anti-South African activities. It has spent money to support the anti-apartheid movement and on distributing literature to local district and parish councils. It has spent money to try to encourage African National Congress speakers to come to Bedfordshire. It has spent money encouraging the Bedfordshire youth orchestra, of whom we are very proud, to play, as described by the council. "anti-racist tunes". That represents money and time that should have been spent in other ways. If the councillors were spending the money wisely perhaps the luxury of worrying about people some 6,000 miles away would be justified. However, that money has not been spent wisely. Moreover, I have not been able to discover, at any time, exactly how much money has been spent.
  Even the education department at county hall is now dictating what type of films should be shown in schools. I am indebted to my friend councillor Philip Hendry who informed me that, only last week, two films were to be shown to the children at a local school in the Bedford constituency. One was a pro-CND film and the other was a NATO film. The former film, the CND film, was the only film that was allowed to be shown by the school.
  In the past few weeks the council has produced various forms of literature that are published under the names of the three leaders. However, as a result of the majority verdict, the Labour and alliance leaders outvote the Conservative leader every time. However, the literature is still produced as if it comes from the county council. Needless to say, the literature is full of untruths. I go so far as to say that much of it is downright lies. Nowhere does it give credence to the policy that the council has followed. Indeed, most of it is anti-Government and misleading to the electorate of Bedfordshire.
  The great cry all the time from the Labour and alliance groups is on the basis that the blame for the rate support grant cuts that we have experienced lies entirely with the Government. In none of the literature is the truth explained.
  The truth is simply this. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Minister for the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West on 1 April, when he said :
  "Bedfordshire county council's grant entitlement for 1987–88 amounts to £3·72 million at the level of expenditure we estimate it has budgeted for. This is £8·2 million less than it would have received if it spent at the settlement spending assumption — that is a 5·25 per cent. increase on current expenditure—and £9·9 million less than if it had increased expenditure in line with inflation. These entitlements and Bedfordshire's budget include the estimated effects of the teachers' pay deal."—[Official Report, 1 April, 1987: Vol. 113, c. 549.]
  In other words, the overspend that those two groups have made their policy in Bedfordshire has meant that for every pound that they overspend, a further 73p has to be found from the ratepayers. How they have the gall to

  603
  blame the Government for such an overspend when they have deliberately gone out of their way to increase expenditure by some 12 per cent., one begins to wonder.
  The most tragic thing about the rate increase is its effect upon the people of Bedfordshire. I know that my hon. Friends will support me in that, from the correspondence and literature that they have received from constituents. For example, pensioners, who at all times are on a tight budget, but many of whom have prudently saved and live in their own homes, are now faced with a massive increase of 23 per cent. Those on low incomes who have saved hard to buy their own homes, particularly first-time buyers, now find a tremendous burden put upon them, over which they have no control.
  Perhaps most telling of all is the fact that businesses in Bedfordshire are bound to suffer. I am indebted to Luton chamber of commerce, which covers the whole county, for giving me various figures for the businesses that will be affected by the rate increases. The chairman of the rates committee told me that at the committee's most recent meeting the members sat in horrified silence to hear the size of the rise that they faced, whith which they and their businesses would have to cope.
  A consultation process was put into being by the Government in 1983, so that certain sections of the community could have a say or express an opinion on what the rates should be. That process has broken down completely in Bedfordshire. There was short notice of consultation. People were informed on the Friday of a meeting the following Tuesday. At that time, the proposed rate increase was about 16·7 per cent. The chamber of commerce is bitter that the protests that it made went unheard by the Labour and Liberal groups. Indeed, those groups do not seem to have any idea of the effect that their rate increase will have on commerce in the county.
  New firms are bound to be discouraged. In particular, we in the south of the county are trying to encourage new businesses into an area where we have an excellent railway and road system, an international airport, offices and premises at cheap rents, and a pleasant environment. Those businesses will be discouraged because of the proposed rate increase.
  Ironically, on local radio this morning, I heard the prospective Labour candidate for Luton, South say that he was concerned that the rate of unemployment in the Luton area was now above the national level, so there must be urgent talks about what to do about that. That was said by someone with a great responsibility for his party and those whom he hopes to represent in the area. It is nonsense for him and others to talk about loss of jobs at the same time as handing out such a rate increase to local businesses. Vauxhall Motors, the largest employer in my constituency faced a rate increase of more than £2 million. I can tell the work force that if the wage increase that they are looking forward to this year is cut, they must look to the Labour and alliance councillors to discover where some of the money that might have gone into their pockets has gone.
  Only last week I had a meeting with small shopkeepers in one part of Luton. Three or four of them said quite emphatically that this would probably be the last 12 months that they will be in business because they cannot cope with such a rate increase. The only way in which they can hope to save any money is by laying people off or sacking them. In other words, there will be a direct loss of jobs as a result of what has happened.
  604
  I have no doubt that the villains of the piece of this particular sorry tale are those members of the alliance party within the county. We expect Labour councils to act irresponsibly, to spend money that they do not have arid not to consider the welfare or well-being of their constituents. We perhaps do not expect that from the. alliance. Bedfordshire has shown without any doubt that the alliance councillors are as much villains of the piece as their Socialist counterparts. They went along with the budget and are completely oblivious of the misery and devastation that the budget will cause to my constituents and others throughout the county. The blame must lie with those alliance councillors. The only hope is that when the Government are returned after a general election —probably within the next few weeks—we might through the new community charge and rating system be able to bring some relief to those particularly hard-pressed ratepayers. Those ratepayers must remember where the blame lies in this sorry tale.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) for allowing me to intervene for a few minutes in the debate. I congratulate him on winning a place in the ballot. We are both delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) is present to support us in this very important debate about Bedfordshire's rates.
  It is important to consider a little of the history to understand how the 1987–88 settlement was decided. The history of the past six or seven months is so often distorted by those people who have supported the huge rate increase.
  In October 1986, the Government put forward proposals for the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement: and invited representations. The October proposals —and I stress "proposals" —caused immense concern in Bedfordshire. While others were complaining and grizzling about the position, the Conservatives in Bedfordshire were acting. By that I mean that the Conservative group leader Philip Hendry and some of my hon. Friends and myself went to see my hon. Friend the Minister who will be replying to this debate to discuss the October proposals. As a result of those discussions, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government dated 3 December 1986 in which my hon. Friend states:
  "After full consideration…we have decided to revise the earlier proposals."
  In other words, he had decided to revise the October proposals. My hon. Friend went on to say in his letter :
  "Bedfordshire County Council was one of those authorities who, under our original proposals, stood to lose a substantial amount of grant. Although…the new proposals for a tighter safety net would"
  result in Bedfordshire having—
  "an improvement of £3·1 million."
  I stress that my hon. Friend said that there would be "art improvement of £3.1 million" on the October proposals.
  Those members of the county council who study those matters knew about the letter and the improvement. Some reacted predictably by simply saying that it would make no difference and they started up their new proposals for more big spending. Some, in my view, acted with what: would call hesitant indignation. They were not sure how to play this one. They did not know how it would affect what rate they would levy. They did not expect an

  605
  improvement. Having spent from October to December, complaining and grizzling about the position, but not doing anything, when the Conservatives did something —to which I have already referred—they did not know how to play it.
  The Conservatives then got on with preparing a budget for the forthcoming year, which provided for a rate increase of 10·7 per cent. They arrived at their budget using precisely the same process as they used in 1986. They took the level of inflation and the percentage of loss of grant, and arrived at a percentage rate increase as a result. They took a 6 per cent. loss of grant and a 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. rate of inflation. When they considered the large percentage of the education budget covered by teachers' salaries and the fact that the education budget represents between 65 per cent. and 70 per cent. of Bedfordshire county council's total budget, the Conservatives at county hall thought that the proposed rate increase of 10·7 per cent. was as reasonable as possible.
  The question then follows : why are we having this argument about the loss of rate support grant? Instead of concentrating on that budget and what it would have meant for Bedfordshire, the alliance and Labour members constantly went on about the loss of grant. That point was adequately covered by my hon. Friend the Minister in answer to a question from me on 1 April. He said :
  "It is Bedfordshire county council's decision to increase expenditure by 12·0 per cent. including additional expenditure arising from the teachers' pay deal, which has resulted in the reduced grant entitlement."
  Earlier in his answer, my hon. Friend said :
  "Bedfordshire county council's grant entitlement for 1987–88 amounts to £37·2 million…This is £8·2 million less than it would have received if it spent at the settlement spending assumption."—[Official Report, 1 April 1987, Vol. 113, c. 549.]
  County councillors know how the system works. They know that if they spend above a certain level, grant will be lost. They know the consequences of their actions, but they will not face up to them. The ratepayers will have to face the consequences of the actions of the Bedfordshire county councillors who voted for this huge rate increase. They are forgetting the people whom they represent.
  My hon Friend the Member for Luton, North mentioned the effect on businesses. I can quote the rate bill for Delco Products—an extremely important firm in Dunstable and one of the largest employers in the county. In 1986–87, Delco's rate bill was £464,779 — or nearly half a million pounds. For 1987–88, it will have to pay another 21 per cent., which is bad news for such a major firm.
  But there is more to come. In the Beds and Bucks Observer of 7 April, Mr. J. M. Hudson of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Business wrote to the editor saying this :
  "I would advise you that the first casualty of this 23·4 per cent. increase has been reported to us this week. A small engineering workshop is closing at the end of the March as it is unable to finance a further rate increase of just over £500 a year. The owner, having taken a salary cut to cope with last year's increase, does not feel inclined to accept another of £10 per week this year. No doubt those Labour and Liberal councillors who forced through this totally unacceptable and unwarranted increase will be delighted that their policy is already taking effect and has put three more people on the unemployment register."
  606
  I say to the county councillors who voted for the rate increase, "Read that letter carefully and ask yourselves about your attitude to employment in Bedfordshire in 1986. Did you express immense concern as we went through all those difficulties with General Motors? Do you mean it when you say that you want more jobs in Bedfordshire, and that you are 'very worried' about the position? If you do mean it, you should pay attention to Mr. Hudson's letter, and see where the policies for which you voted are leading Bedfordshire."
  Before deciding the rate increase for 1987–88, the county councillors should have considered a number of factors. First, they should have considered the employment level in the county, especially after all the difficulties in 1986 caused by the loss of jobs in General Motors. Members of Parliament constantly receive propaganda notices from county hall saying that such and such a committee is very worried about the increase in unemployment. County councillors rush around Bedfordshire and down to London for meetings, hardly pausing for breath as they tell us how worried they are. But when they had the chance to do something, what did they do? That is what this debate is about : they made a huge increase in the rates.
  The county councillors should also have considered owner-occupiers of modest means. Many families in Bedfordshire can just manage to afford a house and to pay the mortgage, but the price tag to a house incorporates not only the mortgage and the capital cost, but the rates. The county councillors should have taken that into account.
  Thirdly, the county councillors should have considered the need to attract skilled people to the county. I include teachers in that definition, as teaching is a skilled profession. That is another grumble that we hear constantly : county councillors are very worried because it is difficult to attract teachers to such and such a school, as teachers living in other parts of the country cannot afford houses in Bedfordshire. They write letters to newspapers and talk about their concern on the radio, but when it comes to doing something to help, they do something that does not help at all.
  Finally, the county councillors should have considered, and should consider again and again, that houses in Bedfordshire are not cheap. Why make them still more expensive with a large increase in the rates?
  But the county councillors did none of those things. Instead, they drew up a shopping list of spending, made a clumsy attempt to hide the price and eventually came out with the rate increase. Before fixing the rate, they should have asked a central, guiding question : what could they reasonably ask domestic and business ratepayers to pay, bearing in mind the general economic position in Bedfordshire? People's ability to pay should be uppermost in county councillors' minds.
  I used the words "general economic position"; that means employment, and the need to bring more businesses into the county. But that issue was not considered, or, if it was, it was not put at the top of the list. People in Bedfordshire are being asked to pay an unreasonable amount. The inescapable truth is that Bedfordshire county council is living beyond its means—or, rather, beyond the domestic and commercial means of its ratepayers, for it is they who are carrying the can.

  607
  It need not have happened. There was an improvement in December, and the rate increase could have been much more reasonable. However, the planned Conservative budget for a more reasonable increase was voted down.
  My hon. Friends and I are constantly bombarded by county councillors with suggestions of what we should do to help Bedfordshire. We know that there is plenty to be done, and we are trying to do it. But the supreme thing that we are trying to do—it is why we are here today—is to ensure that the county council lives within its means, and that the cost of living for the people of Bedfordshire is reasonable. We think that what has been proposed is unreasonable and unacceptable. It will do no good for domestic or business ratepayers, and the county councillors who voted for it will have to face the consequences one day.
  12.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing this debate and on giving me the opportunity to explain the rate support grant settlement for Bedfordshire county council for 1987–88. Also I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) on telling the House so vividly of the horror story for the Bedfordshire ratepayer at present of a socialist council—comprising those who call themselves Socialists, the Labour party, and members of the alliance parties who deny that they are Socialists—that is implementing Socialist policies with a vengeance.
  I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said about the settlement in the debate on the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88. He said :
  "we have provided a generous settlement for local authorities. The aggregate Exchequer grant of £12,842 million is an increase of over £1 billion — 9 per cent. more than in the settlement for 1986–87. Provision for local authority current expenditure at £25,251 million is 13 per cent. more than last year. Those figures exclude the additional provision of £460 million, and the grant of £183 million which we have said will be made available for the teachers' pay settlement for 1987–88." — [Official Report, 25 March 1987; Vol. 113 c.440.]
  The settlement allows for non-rate-capped authorities to increase their current expenditure by 5·25 per cent. When teachers' pay is taken into account, that will allow education authorities to increase their expenditure by 7·75 per cent. Those increases are more than the rate of inflation that we expect next year, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast in the Financial Statement and Budget report to be 4·5 per cent. on the GDP deflator. Therefore, there is no reason why prudent and responsible authorities could not have chosen to set reasonable budgets and rates.
  As we have heard, Bedfordshire county council has set a precept for the current year of 232·20p in the pound, a 21·3 per cent. increase on its precept for 1986–87. This is the largest increase of any shire county and follows the 18·8 per cent. increase in its precept for 1986–87. Bedfordshire now has the fifth highest precept of all shire counties.
  It seems that the people who are now running the county council are determined to undo the fine work that was done by the Conservatives when they were running the
  608
  county council. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work of Philip Hendry and the members of the Conservative group not only when they were running the council but also now, when they are trying to expose the absurdities that are being perpetrated by those who are running Bedfordshire county council.
  Between 1978–79 and 1985–86, the level of expenditure in Bedfordshire was kept constant, in real terms. That was a real achievement by the Conservatives, because most other councils were increasing their expenditure to some extent. However, they managed to use the fat that they had inherited to ensure that good services were provided at reasonable cost. However, within the space of two years since the Conservatives lost overall control of the council, expenditure has increased by over 20 per cent., in real terms.
  The increase this year of 12 per cent. is nearly three times the expected level of inflation. As has already been pointed out, that has resulted in a reduction in its grant entitlement and to a 21 per cent. increase in the precept. If Bedfordshire had budgeted to increase its expenditure in line with inflation and to finance the teachers' pay deal, it would have received £47·3 million in grant—slightly more than for this year. In those circumstances, it would have needed to increase its precept by only 5·3 per cent. However, the county has decided to increase its expenditure by 9·5 per cent. to £230·3 million, excluding the costs of the proposed teachers' pay deal.
  We estimate that this year Bedfordshire's expenditure, including an allowance for the teachers' pay deal, will be about £235 million. At this level of expenditure, it will receive a block grant of about £37·4 million. The county's decision to increase expenditure above the level of inflation has thus cost it £9·9 million in reduced grant. This grant loss, together with its £25·2 million of increased expenditure, has led to the 21·3 per cent. increase in its precept.
  It is significant that while my hon. Friends, together with the leader of the Conservative group, lobbied hard to try to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to adjust his original proposals for the October settlement — successfully and forcefully acting as always in the interests of their ratepayers— it seems that behind their backs the alliance and Labour parties which were running the council had planned massive increases in expenditure, totally irrespective of the needs and concerns of the people of Bedfordshire. Those Members of Parliament might not have bothered to try to lobby, because I suspect that if we had not listened to their representations the increase might not have been greater than the 21·3 per cent. that was imposed because the Labour and alliance parties might have thought that a higher increase would have been too much, even for them.
  While many authorities have sought to restrain their expenditure and have managed to keep their precept increase to low single figures, Bedfordshire and a few other authorities have pursued profligate spending policies at the expense of their ratepayers. It may help if I put that in a national context, because my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North has not only served his constituents well in bringing this matter before the House today but has served the nation well, too. It is a reminder of what happens when the local electorate have short memories and forget that the Liberals and the SDP, when combining with the Labour party in local government, pursue high-spending policies.

  609
  That is reflected in other precept increases in the shire counties. The average shire county precept increase is 7·9 per cent. In Conservative-controlled counties, precepts will increase, on average, by below that amount, by 6·5 per cent. In Labour-controlled counties, they will increase by an average of 8·7 per cent. In Lib-Lab pact counties, they will rise by 9·1 per cent., and in the one Liberal-controlled county, the Isle of Wight, that figure is 10 per cent. Thus, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 26 March, there is a premium for living in a Socialist county and an additional premium for the price of alliance support. Bedfordshire illustrated well the effect of the high —spending policies of authorities that are controlled by a labour and Liberal pact. As I have already stated, its precept increase for this year is the highest of any shire county.
  We have already heard of some of the priorities of the new councillors of the alliance and Labour parties. It may be quite a surprise to many people to know that, in Bedfordshire, Liberal and SDP councillors support spending on nuclear-free zones. How absurd such expenditure is, especially when the consequences are so grave for local people.
  Examples of other areas in which substantial savings could be made are set out in the Audit Commission's profiles. I invite my hon. Friends to look at the most recent figures for 1986–87, which have just been published. They show, for example, that in primary education, non-teaching costs per pupil in Bedfordshire are £251, which compares with a family average of £230, suggesting potential savings of about £800,000. In secondary education, the non-teaching costs per pupil in Bedfordshire are £408, compared with the family average of £384 which suggests, prima facie, potential savings of £1·1 million. Similarly, there is higher expenditure on the costs per meal of school meals and of the costs per head to the social services of children in care. The cost per head for children in care in Bedfordshire is £6·79, whereas average counties with similar circumstances charge only £3·89. Therefore, there is a potential saving of about £1·5 million.
  Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend may also care to note that despite the 16,000 spare school places in Bedfordshire, the Lib-Lab-controlled council now proposes to increase the number of teaching posts. That is yet another example showing that the council has no concern for the education service and is trying to buy votes by increasing the number of posts without taking account of the spare places that exist within the system.
  Mr. Chope: That is further evidence of the horror story about the present council and of gross mismanagement. That is not the sort of behaviour that anyone in the private sector would contemplate if there was pressure on the budget. Individual householders living in the county must make real cuts in expenditure to accommodate the increased rates burden. While that sort of attitude prevails, I understand the despair of my hon. Friend for his constituents.
  610
  In 1985–86 Bedfordshire spent 0·1 per cent. above its grant-related expenditure; in 1986–87 the figure increased to 3·9 per cent.; and for 1987–88 the overspend seems likely to increase still further to about 9 per cent. above GRE. An objective assessment for grant purposes of the various needs of the counties shows how Bedfordshire's needs are nothing like sufficient to warrant the high and rocketing expenditure of the present council.
  My hon. Friends rightly drew attention to the implications of that for businesses. However, there is welcome news on the horizon. After the general election, in the first Session of the next Parliament, we shall introduce the community charge and the national non-domestic rate Bills. It will then no longer be possible for local authorities to fleece business ratepayers who do not have a vote or to impose substantial increases on them above the rate of inflation. We are pledged to limit national non-domestic rate increases each year to the rate of inflation and that will be included in the primary legislation. That means that in Bedfordshire there will be a reduction in the national non-domestic rate, if the substantial increase this year is taken into account. There will be the certainty that in future small businesses will not find themselves suddenly landed with a 20 per cent. increase in their overhead in one area. I sympathise enormously with the plight of all those people in Bedfordshire who are losing their jobs as a direct result of the council's actions.
  I understand the problem at AC Delco. Indeed, I have a Delco plant in Southampton which, similarly, has been suffering from the effects of a Labour council and a hung county council, as rates have increased much faster than they should have done.
  We recognise the problem of resource equalisation, which is a reason why my hon. Friends made representations to me. One effect of introducing the community charge will be to remove the resource equalisation problems. The community charge for a two-person household in Bedfordshire will be about equivalent to the present rate bill for a two-person household. That means that if a local authority wishes to increase its expenditure significantly above the rate of inflation the burden will fall directly on all adults in the area. We hope that that will lead to increased accountability and will concentrate the minds of electors to a greater extent than perhaps was the case two years ago.
  As my hon. Friends said, although in 1977, before the Conservatives won control, the council had a record of high spending and extravagance of which people were well aware, seven or eight years later they had forgotten about it. Now they find that they must repent at leisure because it will be two years before they can oust the present council.
  To sum up, Bedfordshire county council had a good settlement this year. If it had budgeted to increase its expenditure in line with inflation and finance the additional cost of the proposed teachers' pay deal, the precept increase could have been about 5 per cent., which is below the average county increase. Instead, the ratepayers of Bedfordshire are paying the highest increase of all the counties, and are paying for the alliance and Labour council's high-spending policies.

  Greater London Council (Abolition)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I see that the Linder-Secretary is staying in his place to answer this debate. He is certainly earning his Easter egg this year. I am sure that he will not be congratulating me on the subject that I have raised as he congratulated his hon. Friends on the subject that they raised. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the cost of the abolition of the GLC in financial and service terms.
  I remind the House that the abolition of the GLC was a prime example of political vandalism by the Government, and arose out of the Prime Minister's paranoia. The abolition of the GLC owed nothing to political rationality, local government efficiency or the needs of Londoners. From the outset, it was about the Prime Minister's malice and her particular detestation of one Labour local authority which dared to oppose her.
  Since 1983, I have faced a fair number of Department of Environment Ministers across the Floor of the House —the Department of the Environment is something of a political high risk area. No doubt all those Ministers hoped that, once the GLC had been safely abolished by the sheer weight of the Government's elected dictatorship, that would he the end of the matter. By scattering the pieces of the GLC around over 70 successor bodies, Ministers clearly hoped that they would be able to hide the impact of abolition.
  To a certain limited extent, Ministers have been successful, given the fawning, pro-Tory press that we have, especially in London. The London Evening Standard—or the London sub-standard as it has become known—has failed completely to defend the interests and services of Londoners that the GLC used to maintain. I welcome the advent of the London Daily News, which is speaking up much more forcefully for Londoners.
  As Ministers know, the embarrassing truth keeps bubbling to the surface — issues such as Hampstead heath, Thamesmead, seaside and country homes, GLC mortgages, the Woolwich ferry, London scientific services, the GLC lorry ban, the London research centre, road safety, traffic control, strategic planning, waste disposal, arts funding and the voluntary sector. In all these, there is daily evidence of the inefficiency, disruption and chaos that are becoming the reality of GLC abolition. London is muddling through, as we always knew it would, but the strains are clearly showing. I shall return to some of the issues—although I will not be able to deal with them in depth; there will be other opportunities to do so before this Parliament ends.
  I start with costs. When the Government were finally pushed into saying how much they believed abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties would save in terms of staff and money, they came out with the figures of 7,000 savings in staff and £100 million savings in costs. I believe that those figures were simply plucked out of the air; the Government refused at the time, and have consistently refused since then, to give a more detailed breakdown of the figures.
  A reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 18 December showed clearly that the 7,000 savings in staff had been reached by a rough subtraction of full-time staff in position in local
  612
  authorities in June 1986 from those in position in June 1985. A figure of 1,100 was allowed for staff transferring to other bodies on abolition.
  Will the Minister provide a breakdown of those 1,100 jobs and tell us how many were in London? Did that figure take into account staff transferring to, or recruited by, the Thames water authority, English Heritage, Government Departments, London housing units, the London strategic policy unit, the London waste regulation authority, waste disposal authorities and coroners and magistrates committees? We need that breakdown so we can test the Government's estimates.
  The figure of £100 million of savings was given in 1984 and has never been revised; nor has it been analysed by Ministers, despite frequent requests that it should be. The figure has been reduced to £40 million for the first year, because of the impact of redundancy payments. Will the Minister tell us the amount paid in redundancy in the first 12 months, how many claims are outstanding and how much is involved?
  The Association of London Authorities and the London strategic policy unit recently issued a document in which they calculated that the total cost of running services that used to be provided by the GLC is £178 million more than it was in the last year of the GLC's existence. They calculate that those services cost £1,011 million, compared with £833 million under the GLC.
  I believe that the Government are dressing up the statistics to try to give respectability to their case. It is an example of the creative accounting which the Government spend so much time condemning Labour local authorities for using. Of course, those authorities have better reasons for their action, because they are trying to defend jobs and services in areas facing Government penalties and constant attacks.
  I do not want and I am sure that no one in London wants— a sterile exchange of conflicting figures between Labour local authorities and the Government. Therefore, in the interests of London, fair debate and political objectivity, I challenge the Minister to commission an independent audit to assess the financial impact of the abolition of the GLC. I will accept any auditors that the Minister proposes—except, of course, any of those connected with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best).
  I now wish to develop some of the issues that I mentioned earlier. It is well known that the preferred option for Hampstead heath would be for the London borough of Camden to run it. For a start, 84 per cent. of the heath is within the borough's boundaries, but Camden is a Labour borough and the Government and their creature, the London residuary body, do not want to transfer the heath to a London borough unless it is prepared to pay the full cost of running it. That would be grossly unfair, because Hampstead heath belongs to London as a whole.
  I understand that the latest proposal, which surfaced last month, is for the City to administer the heath, with £1 million of City cash and £800,000 which is to be raised from a £15 million trust fund set up by the London residuary body. If that proposal goes through, London boroughs will lose £15 million of capital receipts.
  Does the Minister think that a return of £800,000 on a £15 million trust fund is value for money? If he handed the £15 million to me, I could raise more than £800,000 on it. However, the Government will accept the proposal

  613
  because they would like to see the City take over Hampstead heath, even though it would be financially and politically unacceptable to the London Labour boroughs.
  I have mentioned previously the 3,400 seaside and country homes built by the London county council and the GLC for retired Londoners. The situation is still one great mess. We had a debate on the London residuary body in December, when I asked the Minister what would happen to the seaside and country homes. He replied :
  "I hope that satisfactory arrangements will shortly be concluded for the future of those homes." — [Official Report, 19 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1523.]
  When will the transfer from the LRB be effected? What new housing associations will be involved in taking over the homes, now that the deal with the Anchor housing association has come to a halt? The Minister must tell me, and, more important, the 3,400 tenants, what will be the average rent rises for those homes.
  Will the homes still be available for Londoners after they have been split up amongst a plethora of housing associations? Will the Minister allow any of those homes to be sold off? As a large number of housing associations will be involved, what mechanism will the Department of the Environment use to make sure that those homes are still allocated to retired Londoners? When will all this be completed? That is what we need to know.
  I do not want the Minister to do as he did on 19 December, and say that I am spreading alarm and despondency among the people in those homes. The Government started the whole business with the abolition of the GLC and they are responsible for those peoples'fears and worries. It is up to them to allay those fears by making an early announcement.
  Thamesmead is another fine mess for London. It was to be transferred by the last Under-Secretary but one—or two, I do not remember exactly—who said that the transfer would be effected in a few days. Now, the Government have been forced to direct the London residuary body to dispose of Thamesmead at a price below the market rate—and, I hear, on hire purchase. I believe that the Thamesmead trust will have to sell off some 3,600 homes with vacant possession over the next 12 years to pay off the debt. That will change the whole nature of Thamesmead. Rents will rocket during the next few years and tenants will effectively be forced out of Thamesmead in order to make way for vacant possession sales.
  I come now to the London waste regulation authority. Abolition of the GLC split up London's waste disposal arrangements by creating for statutory waste disposal authorities — three voluntary groups, plus Bexley in Kent. What a mess! It is, perhaps, appropriate to leave a mess to try to clear up London's mess, but it is an awful mess and the Government know that. All the experts told Ministers at the time that the GLC operated one of the world's most efficient waste disposal systems, but, as that meant keeping a Londonwide body in existence, the Government would not wear it. Therefore, we have this terrible mixture of authorities to run waste disposal in London. The health and safety of Londoners is now being put at risk merely because of political dogma emanating from the Prime Minister and working down to junior Ministers.
  There are in London more than 1,000 known producers of special waste and the work that the London waste
  614
  regulation authority is doing prevents it from giving full inspection cover to those known waste producing concerns. I have mentioned only known producers, but up to 20,000 tonnes of waste are illegally dumped in London each year. As many as 4,000 of those tonnes are special waste.
  The situation is getting out of control. The director of the LWRA said that the authority could no longer manage the job. The failure to agree an increase in staffing at the LWRA now means that Londoners are being exposed to risks from toxic—perhaps lethal—substances, which are being illegally dumped in the Greater London area.
  I am rushing to try to get through my speech in the few minutes left to me. I shall deal quickly with the voluntary sector. If I can catch the Minister's eye, I should like to show him a copy of the book, "After Abolition", and ask him whether he has seen it. It was published in January by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the London Voluntary Service Council. I intend to seek a debate on some future occasion to raise the whole matter of the voluntary sector in London and the impact that abolition has had on it.
  The book lists 46 voluntary organisations that are known to have closed in London since abolition, a further 21 that are about to close and 120 that are facing eviction or increased rents on properties that now belong to the London residuary body. A new round of cuts has just been agreed under the London boroughs grant scheme. That was done a couple of nights ago. The cuts were imposed by the Tories with the support, on this occasion, of the Liberals. The Secretary of State has imposed a budget following the boroughs' failure to agree one after seven attempts. The position of the voluntary sector in London can only worsen as the Government steadily reduce the funds available.
  An important feature of the voluntary sector is the arts. I know that the Minister is not primarily responsible for them, but there are impacts on the arts in London that arise from the abolition of the GLC. It has been discovered by those who operate the grants scheme for the London boroughs that the greatest demands come from arts organisations in London. One of the major demands that they are making upon the scheme is for the provision of capital resources. Unfortunately, the scheme is not permitted to provide capital grants. I understand that permission has been sought from the Secretary of State and that the Government have refused to grant it. I hope that the Minister will tell us why the Government have taken that approach and whether he is reconsidering the matter.
  It is worth noting the effect on London when Liberals assume some control. Tower Hamlets has suffered badly as a result of the GLC's abolition, and it has now been decided by the Liberal council to cut the funding of arts clients from £228,400 to £7,400. That is what the Liberals do when they gain control of a London borough. This cut of 97 per cent. leaves 14 of 17 arts clients without any funding, including such well-known organisations as the Half Moon theatre, Camerawork and the East London African Arts Group. This is not directly the Government responsibility — responsibility rests with the Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets council—but the council will say with some justification that the position has arisen because of the GLC's abolition, rate capping and all the other onslaughts that the Government have been making on local authorities in the capital.

  615
  The Government have sought to hide the impact of the GLC's abolition behind a welter of uprovable statistics which they refuse to detail in any way that will make them meaningful to us. They have set up a host of quangos and joint boards — which, together with the borough councils, have responsibility for trying to clear up the mess that has followed the GLC's abolition. All the time, the Government are steadily reducing the central Government funding that has been used to lessen the financial impact of abolition. As things drift from bad to worse, the Government hide behind the various quangos and successor bodies and say, "This is nothing to do with us. This is a matter for the successor bodies."
  This will be one of the last occasions on which I shall have to raise these matters. Before long, there will be a general election and the Government will be out of office. The GLC will be brought back, and I believe that all London will rejoice.
  12.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I noted that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did not make his final remarks with much conviction. I have read in today's edition of The London Daily News—I do not hold prejudices against one newspaper like the hon. Gentleman; I read all newspapers—that the former and unlamented leader of the GLC is now in Australia. I think that there are many who hope that he will stay there. Apparently he has been promoted in Australia as the Lord Mayor of London. He has been talking to the people there about the inadequacies of post-GLC London. Even The London Daily News admits that the Australian public are somewhat mystified.
  Even more oddly, Mr. Livingstone is talking about giving a lecture to a conference on the role of local government in sustaining urban renewal. Where urban renewal in London has been practised efficiently and well, Conservative-controlled authorities have been responsible. Since the transfer of housing responsibilities from the GLC to the boroughs, the quality of life in responsible, Conservative-controlled boroughs for tenants of houses and flats has increased immeasurably.
  It is something of a seasonal ritual to have a debate on the abolition of the GLC. As memories become more cloudy and people become less concerned about the GLC, so the arguments become more jaded. The fact is that the GLC has been abolished and no one wishes to resurrect it in its old form. I understand that the Labour party has put forward a proposal for a revamped regional authority for London. The principal plank of that proposal is to allow the services that were transferred to the boroughs — to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and the Labour party objected — to stay with the boroughs. That is the wish of London boroughs, whether under Conservative control or under Labour control.
  The hon. Gentleman made much play of suggesting that the GLC's abolition has led to increased costs. The facts say otherwise. Abolition has, emphatically, led to savings. In measuring those savings, it is important to distinguish between those that arise directly as a result of abolition, such as the initial savings in posts, and those that can be realised or thrown away according to the policy decisions of individual borough councils. I have not studied the ALA report in depth. I often think of the initials "ALA" as meaning the Association of Labour
  616
  Authorities, but I am told that it means the Association of London Authorities. But, of course, they are all Labour authorities and have a particular axe to grind. The ALA was extremely reluctant to send the Department of the Environment a copy of the report. I cannot understand why.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps the Minister will accept an Easter present from me afterwards. He can have my copy.
  Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman is going to offer me his marked copy of the ALA report, I should be delighted to receive it.
  At first sight, the arguments are convoluted and based on sweeping assumptions. The report fails in any way to controvert the simple facts that more than 6,000 posts were saved immediately on abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils, with clear prospects of long-run annual savings of £100 million, and that significant financial resources have been released, notably in the form of some £431 million in cash now being distributed to successor authorities by the residuary bodies. The report attempts to compare expenditure by boroughs on services inherited from the GLC. It does not, however, reflect profligate spending by those boroughs that have chosen to pursue the GLC's spendthrift polices without a thought for possible savings.
  On the first anniversary of the transfer to Wandsworth council of services that it had inherited from the GLC, I had the privilege to be invited to Wandsworth and to her how matters have progressed in that borough. Wandsworth council has reckoned that it has saved a substantial amount of money as a result of taking over services formerly run by the GLC and running them more efficiently. Would that that had been the attitude of all authorities that have taken over those inherited services.
  Wandsworth council estimates that there was an initial reduction of £1·5 million in the running costs of the directly transferred services and that the repayment of balances from the London residuary body provided £2·7 million. The council said that those two savings equated to an 11·2p rate when Government grant entitlement on the money was added. Further savings amounting to a 2·8p rate have been generated for the current year via a reduction in the LRB and Western Riverside waste authority levies and a further 4·4p in LRB balances which have been distributed.
  To those total savings of 18·45p, or £46·12, for the average ratepayer must be added further savings in 1987–88. Major new savings which are starting are the £99,000 a year on scientific services and £104,000 a year from London Research. With other savings immediately in prospect, the leader of the council reports that he envisages total savings of almost £50 for the average Wandsworth ratepayer. That would be equivalent to 17 per cent. extra on rate bills if the GLC were still in being.
  Those are the facts that have been given by the leader of just one local authority. Those people who live in the vicinity of Battersea park can see how the park is now run much more efficiently and in accordance with the wishes of local residents. Seeing is believing.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will never accept that the GLC should have been abolished, if, indeed, he accepts that it has been abolished. Therefore, it is worth reminding everybody about the substantial savings that there have been. I shall summarise the main categories of savings that have come from abolition.

  617
  In manpower, in excess of 6,000 posts were saved immediately. We predicted 7,000 posts in the long run and I am confident that that will be achieved as residuary bodies wind down their remaining activities. A total of 7,000 posts equates to a £100 million saving to ratepayers every year and about half of that is in London.
  Secondly, there are savings in financial resources. Abolished councils had locked up vast amounts of ratepayers' money and that is now being released. In London, the London residuary body is distributing to the boroughs in its first two years £129 million in revenue balances, £141 million in capital receipts and £634 million in capital spending power. The cash distributed amounts to around £100 for every household in London. There is more to come as the residuary bodies sell off additional surplus land and property.
  Thirdly, on the matter of land and property, one of the residuary bodies' principal tasks has been to sort out the property portfolio. It is clear that the GLC and metropolitan county councils were hoarders of property on a grand scale. The Government are encouraging residuary bodies to sell as much of the surplus as they can. The proceeds of those sales will be returned to the ratepayers of the abolished councils. The estimate by the residuary bodies is that by the end of the year, they will have generated some £300 million of capital receipts, mainly from the sale of surplus property. In the first year alone, the LRB has sold property worth over £30 million. Capital receipts are being generated, to the benefit of boroughs and their ratepayers.
  The fourth major saving from abolition is the success in devolving functions. The chaos and disruption predicted by some has been conspicuous by its absence. The boroughs have absorbed their additional functions with barely a ripple. The new joint authorities, representing the boroughs, are working satisfactorily. Roads are still maintained and fire engines still turn out. That should bring benefits from leaner operation and avoidance of duplication. It is up to the successor authorities to grasp the opportunities that have been offered to them as a result of abolition.
  618
  Accountability to the electorate has also increased, because services have been brought closer to the people.
  Mr. Tony Banks: In view of this enormous success story why will the Government not submit it to independent audit?
  Mr. Chope: The figures on manpower savings, for example, are obtained from "Joint Manpower Watch", which are submissions by local authorities to the Department of the Environment. The figures for additional staff are provided by the boroughs themselves under section 56 of the Local Government Act 1985 and the figures for compensation payments are provided by the residuary bodies. Obviously, all those figures for the individual authorities are subject to the audit of those authorities. Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman would like, I am prepared to suggest that the document of the Association of London Authorities should be discussed by people to see the extent to which it represents a fair picture of post-abolition London. The hon. Gentleman's selective quotation from what has happened, fairly convinces me that it is a travesty of the truth.
  Before I gave way, I was going to refer to the fifth major area of success following abolition — the effect on services. It is emphatically for successor authorities to decide how they wish to run inherited services and at what level. Some boroughs are doing so with only a minimum of additional resources and it is clear that some boroughs have chosen to seize upon the excuse of abolition to increase their staff even more than is necessary.
  A prime example is the irrelevant London strategic policy unit, which I understand is referred to as the GLC in exile. That employs over 300 staff at a cost to the ratepayers of Camden and the other supporting boroughs of some £7 million annually. It is not a legitimate additional cost of abolition. It is a choice by those profligate authorities to increase the burden upon their ratepayers.
  If one looks at what has happened in the responsible authorities, one can see the benefits that have flowed from abolition and the benefits that will continue to flow in the coming months. I expect that there will come a time when even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will no longer lament the demise of the GLC.

  Third-world Debt
  1 pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: The timing of this debate could not be more significant, as this week the Paris Club initiative on Third-world debt is being discussed with the relevant committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
  They are discussing a plan for rescheduling the debts of the financially ruined sub-Saharan African countries. I understand that that plan has the British Government's full backing. That backing recognises that, in practical terms, the problems of the sub-Saharan African countries should no longer simply be left to the comforting words of the missionary whose vocation has often been to alleviate the suppression and depression of an often hungry people. Those people have experienced a deterioration in their standards of living while their Governments pay obeisance at the twin altars of low commodity prices—aggravated by western protectionism — and the immense burden of debt servicing, the worldwide value of which stands at over $1 trillion.
  During those discussions, I hope that full consideration will be given to the rescheduling of Government-to Government debt to over 15 to 20 years or more. I hope that consideration will be given to further grace periods for repayment and substantially reduced interest rates. In my view, those considerations are critical to tackling the problems of Third-world debt, because so many African countries face a net outflow of capital in a period of unprecedented economic crisis. If those considerations are contained in the Government's initiative and the initiative resulting from the committee meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, nothing but good can come from it. It should receive the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The subject that the Paris Club is considering has also been a matter for considerable attention and consideration by the sub-committee of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development. It has been considering Third-world debt and the management of that debt. It has been sitting for some six months and has considered a whole range of issues in great detail related to new initiatives for debt. I congratulate everyone who has been working on that committee for the report which I hope will be published on 5 May and which will, I hope, make a major contribution to this subject.
  The report concentrates, in part, on the problems of the sub-Saharan African debt which in 1985, was estimated by the World Bank to be $85·6 billion, of which $65 billion is public or publicly guaranteed. This debt burden required an outward debt service equivalent to 35 per cent. of exports. For some countries, the burden has been impossibly high. In 1984 it represented 146 per cent. of exports in the case of Somalia and 96·4 per cent. for Sudan. That figure is projected to rise to 151 per cent. in 1986–87. In the absence of economic growth, the figure of 96·4 per cent. represents a significant loss to the country. In 1985, imports were already well below the 1980 levels. Several countries similar to Sudan effectively defaulted long ago.
  The debt burden has a dramatic impact on the countries in terms of their growth and their economic and political stability. It is vital that we tackle this problem. It is a crisis that affects us all and a crisis for which we are all responsible and for which we all hold a responsibility to
  620
  find a solution. Unless we tackle the debt problem faced by these countries we cannot hope to solve the central political problems that they lace, the appalling poverty levels and the famine conditions many have experienced in recent years. Regrettably, they will be matters for the future and will be experienced on a far larger scale than we have seen to date.
  I hope that a number of important additional features will be considered by the Government regarding sub-Saharan Africa— they have already been considered by the all-party parliamentary group. Not only are official creditors dominant, but often over 50 per cent. of long term debt is owed to the IMF and the World Bank alone. The World Bank International Development Association credits are made on soft terms but they cannot, at present, be rescheduled. As a result, African debtors have less flexibility than their Latin American counterparts. I hope that that will be considered. By 1985, the African debtors were not only suffering a virtual suspension of new bank lending, but also a collapse of IMF net inflows—from more than $1 billion in 1981–83 to $118 million in 1985, with several countries in arrears.
  As a result, Governments often have to raise private bank loans at high rates of interest to pay off the IMF arrears, start new reform programmes and gain access to fresh development finance. The social consequences of such austerity are clear. First and foremost, austerity and stabilisation programmes, applied anywhere in the world, which they have to service the debt, have led to recessive characteristics in respective economies, characteristics that add to the poverty and to the problems that sub-Saharan Africa has had to face.
  However, even the Paris Club public debt reschedulings that have occurred have been far from the ideal solution. Short-term reschedulings, which have to be repeated year after year—there have been 65 by 18 countries up to 1986 — or which collapse as a result of being tied to IMF performance criteria, show a need for a new approach if fresh bunching is riot to occur in the late 1980s.
  Many African Governments, including those faced with famine in 1984–85, have responded to international pressures to embark on reforms, even in politically sensitive areas of economic management such as privatisation, the introduction of incentive schemes, devaluation and the abolition of subsidies. They have done more than simply pursue policies of budgetary restraint, although that has also been necessary.
  Exchange rates have moved to more realistic levels and producer prices to farmers have been raised to stimulate export crops and domestic food output, to the extent that many countries are now having to manage food surpluses. In return, however, Africa has not enjoyed the promised upturn in prices and world demand for the commodities on which it remains dependent for growth, nor have tighter fiscal and monetary policies ushered in the return of voluntary bank lending and foreign investment.
  That is the view of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development. I hope very much that the Minister will find agreement with that view and that the Government will continue to take new initiatives to tackle the sub-Saharan countries' debt problems, and not regard it as a matter of precedent that should be avoided on the grounds that it will have repercussive effects on Latin America. The problem should be looked at in isolation. On

  621
  a case-by-case basis, to assess how best to handle the extremely difficult problems posed by the international debt crisis.
  Government innovatory interventions are particularly necessary for the poorer countries. New funds from the commercial banks are not likely at present, so national creditworthiness is unlikely to suffer significantly from official debt write-offs. In many cases, Sudan being the most extreme, there is some frank admission that the debt outstanding can never be paid off and that continued attempts to service it are undermining recovery. Solutions to the low-income countries' problems will necessarily differ from those of stronger debtors such as Nigeria and the Ivory Coast. To that extent, it is important to endorse the case-by-case approach that I mentioned, which the main creditors have at last adopted.
  Low-income sub-Saharan countries tend to owe the buld of their debt to official creditors, so there is greater opportunity for Governments to play a part. Although some are now in serious arrears, those forms of debt have not traditionally been eligible for rescheduling. As a result, African solutions have focused on increasing concessional bilateral and multilateral aid flows, except for the handful of countries that borrowed heavily from the banks.
  I hope that due consideration will be given to the need to look at rescheduling and to extend the important work that this country has done and the initiative that it has taken through the Overseas Development Administration in appropriate write-offs on a case-by-case basis, which have been necessary and which I believe have signalled to the world community the importance of extending that initiative in the admirable way that the Government have done to date. Each country's financial problems are different, so there are bound to be different financial solutions, not just for the big Latin American debtors, but for the poorer countries, especially those in Africa the debts of which are owed not mainly to banks but to Governments and international institutions. All share responsibility for the crisis of the debt problems facing the Third World.
  The central paradox faced by many of those poorer countries is that developing countries are now paying back to their creditors more in interest on the principal than they receive in new loans. Countries that are already very poor are suffering. Imports are being curtailed and world recovery — not just that of developing countries — is being undermined. The largest debtors are in Latin America. However, the debt burden is intractable for many of the poorer African countries upon which I am concentrating in this part of my speech. Their debt is mainly owed to Governments and multilateral organisation rather than to banks, as in the case of the majority of Latin American debt. In many cases, it is a struggle for those African countries even to pay the interest.
  An innovative approach is required that will extend beyond narrow financial solutions and share the burden of adjustment between the debtor countries, banks and the creditor Governments. Debt has ceased to be purely a banking problem and now requires a political solution. With firm political will, the Government could again lead an international initiative to provide debt relief. I understand that the discussions currently being held in Washington show that that is possible. I am delighted also to learn—and I hope that we will hear more about this
  622
  from the Minister—that the British are taking a very important lead in tackling the kind of political and practical solutions to the problems of managing Third-world debt.
  I want to consider a subject that has taxed the minds of a number of hon. Members and Ministers and express gratitude to the civil servants who have spent many hours considering a specific concept upon which I think we should concentrate—debt development swaps. I do not want to lead further down the technical road on which we have already embarked in correspondence and in the House. However, I want to place on record the concept of debt development swaps, not only within the Bolivian context which I have particularly pursued, of linking the debt problems faced by Bolivia with, I hope, an imaginative solution to tackle its drug problem through the triennial narcotics programme which seeks to eliminate all cocaine from Bolivia within three years.
  I want to describe the concept of debt development swaps. A country whose commercial debt is already heavily discounted can negotiate with a donor agency to trade debt relief for an agreed development programme. The example I have used is Bolivia, whose outstanding debt of 2·5 billion—f which $800 million is owed to commercial banks — is today trading on the London secondary market at 8 per cent. of its nominal value. The banks holding that debt have already made provision for substantial losses and could be persuaded to sell the $800 million debt for around $80 million if there were a willing Government purchaser or group of Government purchasers.
  A donor Government or several donor Governments who already want to spend $80 million on an aid programme inside Bolivia could thus purchase the debt at a deep discount, while, to implement the domestic aid spending—in this case, the drug eradication programme in Bolivia—the Bolivian Government would simply have to raise $80 million-worth of local currency through taxation or other means. Commercial creditors would receive hard currency in redemption of the debts that they hold at or above the market rate. The donor Governments would have to raise no new money to fund the development programme, as, hopefully, plans will have been made in advance.
  Although that may not necessarily be completely accurate with regard to Bolivia — I urge Ministers to increase spending programmes on drug initiatives in Bolivia—the principle could be established where we are financing development programmes in advance and using the debt development swap and the purchase of secondary market debt as a financial mechanism.
  In other circumstances, part or all of a country's commercial debt could be brought back in that way and agreed development programmes could be a target for counterpart spending. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that I am keen to see the Government take an initiative on this matter. Even if there are difficulties over its implementation in a specific programme such as drug eradication in Bolivia, I hope that due consideration can be given to using the secondary market in debt to a far greater extent than we have to date as Governments for the funding of development programmes.
  There is clearly a large and growing market for secondary market debt in less developed countries. I have before me a recent document that shows debt trading in a whole range of countries. It reveals commercial debts

  623
  from Honduras at an indicated bid price of 40, while the Dominican Republic is at 45. There is an indicated bid price to Bolivia at 8 with Rumania at 88, Turkey at 97 and the Ivory Coast at 76 cents to the dollar. I am glad that the Government seem to be supporting the initiative.
  On 29 January, I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he agreed
  "that the existence of a discounted secondary market in debt offers substantial opportunities for the Government to use this financial mechanism to fund developing countries' programmes."
  I was delighted when he replied :
  "My hon. Friend is right. The debt problem is still a very serious one, which all the major countries are addressing. A number of methods such as those that he has suggested need to be brought into play." —[Official Report, 29 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 481]
  I hope that the initiative will lead to further consideration of this financial mechanism for funding development programmes, and that on 5 May serious attention will be given in the House and in the country to the new report on managing Third-world debt which will be published by the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development. I have read the report in draft, and I believe that it will make a significant contribution to the debate on overseas development not only in the House but internationally.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will study the report in depth and will respond positively and publicly. I hope that they recognise that, together, we can consider new initiatives, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did this week in Washington, and move forward to tackle the problem of Third-world debt, which is central to the future of any development programme in any developing country which suffers under the overhang of outstanding debt.
  1.16 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on obtaining another debate on this important issue. I was interested to have confirmation from him that the report from the working party on debt of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development will be published in less than a month, and I shall study carefully its comments, which he has foreshadowed today.
  As my hon. Friend said, it is especially appropriate this week, when international economic issues are being discussed in Washington, to debate this subject in the House. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has launched his new proposal for the debtor countries of sub-Saharan Africa. I am glad to have the opportunity to give the House more information about that important initiative. We have set the process in train. It will be carried forward with other creditor nations in the Paris Club and elsewhere, and I am glad to say that some have already responded sympathetically.
  Let us consider the debt problem more generally. Since the crisis of 1982, the policy has been to provide financial support to debtor countries in return for their adopting policy reforms. That was given additional impetus at Seoul in 1985 with the Baker initiative. But our strategy since 1982 has been to consolidate several achievements. So far, those achievements are that many countries have adopted reform programmes; the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have expanded their role in
  624
  supporting countries that adopt sustainable policies; and, since 1985, those two international institutions have been working much more closely together. That is a welcome development.
  The banks, for their part, have strengthened their capital base and have increased their debt provisions, which are now at a more realistic level than they were. In the meantime, the world economy has continued to grow : since 1982, growth has averaged over 3 per cent. per annum, and inflation has fallen overall by about five points.
  Although many developing countries suffered from the fall in commodity prices, including the price of oil, most have stood to benefit from faster growth of imports into OECD countries, and interest rates are now six points lower than in 1982. The United States dollar is down from the abnormally high levels of a while ago.
  There should, however, be no delusions that the debt problem does not remain acute. In particular, the British Government have become increasingly concerned over the past year at the progressive weakening of IM F conditionality. We must insist that the fund management will always require adequate adjustment measures in its programmes, including adjustment on the supply side. Creditors in the Paris Club should likewise not reschedule debt repayments without firm assurances that adequate policies are in place.
  My hon. Friend talked about debt development swaps and other related market aspects. I acknowledge the helpful role that market mechanisms can play in the debt strategy as a whole. Secondary markets in debt can allow claims to be spread more widely, and market prices can give useful indications of the progress that various debtors are making. Even where market transactions result only in the redistribution of fixed claims within the international banking system, those transactions are a useful channel through which individual banks can adjust their portfolios.
  The Government wish to encourage the market process and the greater securitisation of debt, especially where it spreads risk outside the banking system where it is now concentrated. Although they are not a panacea — the Government support the development of market mechanisms for handling debt, especially the growing number of schemes involving the transformation by various routes of fixed debt into equity so that risks and rewards are shared between creditors and debtors.
  From the debtor's point of view, debt buy-back schemes such as that envisaged for Bolivia, and debt-equity schemes, which exist in a number of countries, can reduce the amount of debt outstanding where it is repatriated or converted into equity at a discount. It is, of course, for individual banks to decide whether they wish to participate by selling their loans to developing countries. Some may not wish to do so for a variety of reasons connected with their overall banking relationships with the country or countries concerned, and that must be taken into account.
  The adjustment process that many debtors must undertake can be helped enormously by adequate flows of private direct and portfolio investment, and a stemming of the flight of capital out of debtor countries. That requires those countries to adopt sensible economic policies : positive real interest rates, realistic exchange rates and sensible tax policies. Above all, if capital flows are to be encouraged, it makes no sense for either creditors or

  625
  debtors to maintain barriers that impede them. The British Government abolished all controls on such flows in 1979, and Britain is second only to the United States in its scale of direct investment in developing countries.
  As for sub-Saharan Africa, what we are urging is essentially a reinforcement of the present strategy. First, there should be a strengthening of policy reform by debtor countries, supported by finance from creditors, the World Bank and the IMF. Secondly, industrial countries should maintain policies for sustainable growth and open markets. Thirdly, there should be support for the increasing development of market mechanisms.
  Middle income debtors ought to have sufficient resources to enable them eventually to service their debt, once appropriate reform policies are firmly in place. However, there is one group of debtors for whom all this will clearly not be enough—the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Some of these countries have so few natural or human resources that they have no hope of servicing all their debt in the foreseeable future. These countries typically have a gross domestic product per head of below $350. Many of them have less than $200. We must recognise that they have a special problem.
  My hon. Friend compared those countries with the countries of Latin America and pointed to the fact that solutions are not necessarily to be transferred from one group to the other. He was absolutely right to make that important point.
  Governments can take the lead in helping those countries in Africa that I have described, particularly because most of their debt is official, whereas most of the debt of the middle income countries is owed to commercial banks. In putting forward our initiative, we are not the first to pick out sub-Saharan Africa for special treatment. The famine of two years ago again reminded us all of Africa's particular problems. The United Nations recognised this, with its special session on Africa in May 1986, and the World Bank has had its special facility for Africa.
  Although I acknowledge the needs of those African countries, I must emphasise the need for their commitment to reform. Their problems have been caused, in part, by reliance on one or two commodities for export earnings,
  626
  by weak administrative capacity and by the legacy of mistaken policies in agriculture, industry and urban subsidy. A growing number of these countries now recognise the need to adopt adequate policies for economic adjustment and to work closely with the IMF and the world Bank. Where the poorest and most heavily indebted countries of sub-Saharan Africa are prepared to adopt appropriate policy reform, all creditor Governments should, in their turn, be prepared together to offer a reduction in their debt service burden. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making that proposal this week in Washington.
  The proposal has three elements. The first is the conversion of aid loans to grants. Britain has almost completed this process for the poorest sub-Saharan countries. The second is the rescheduling of debt by the Paris Club on more generous terms, with longer grace and repayment periods. The third is the reduction of interest rates to several percentage points below commercial rates. The British Government would be prepared to consider funding interest relief in such a way as not to affect existing aid programmes to those countries.
  A debt package along those lines would give the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa a better chance to get on the road to economic recovery. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday in the interim committee, that would provide them with some light at the end of the tunnel. There is now an urgent need for the richer countries of the world to recognise the plight of the poorest countries in Africa. Britain has already played a constructive role in converting aid loans to outright grants, an example that I hope will be more widely followed.
  Now, with this new initiative for the sub-Saharan countries, the British Government are again taking the lead by putting forward a three-point plan to tackle the problem of the accumulating debt of those countries. In the poorest African countries, the point has been reached where any proposal that does not include a measure of relief from the relentless burden of debt servicing cannot be regarded as realistic. If such a scheme is to succeed, it goes without saying that the Governments of all the other creditor countries will have to do their share. Therefore, I hope that they will be prepared to consider our proposals seriously.

  Rolls-Royce plc
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: It will be viewed with amazement, not only in Coventry but throughout the country and possibly even internationally, that a world-famous firm such as Rolls-Royce can be transferred from the public to the private sector, involving a transfer of about £1,300 million of public assets, with a mere 30 minutes of parliamentary debate.
  This "piratisation" exercise—in reality, that is what it is — owes nothing to the Government's stated aims of increasing competition — Rolls-Royce has no British competitors—or of widening share ownership, especially given the terms and conditions for the flotation which were announced this week. Not that any widening will take place because, today, Rolls-Royce is owned by 55 million people, but in four weeks' time it will be owned by only a few thousand who will hold bits of paper and claim that they own that national asset.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence asserted that I had no knowledge of, or constituency interest in, the defence of the 2,000 workers and their families at Westland, who face the dole as a result of his anouncement yesterday. I refute that because my job in this place is to try to defend, to the best of my ability, all workers facing the horror and iniquity of unemployment, through which I had to live for four years. Such a claim will not be made today because I represent directly many thousands of Rolls-Royce workers and their families who work in Coventry, and many who work for the 61 local firms in Coventry, Nuneaton and Exhall who rely on major orders from Rolls-Royce and who are suppliers for the two plants at Parkside and Anstey.
  Certainly, at Parkside, the plant within my constituency of Coventry, South-East, there is overwhelming opposition to the privatisation.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has even got the names and addresses of more than 80 per cent. of the shop floor manual workers who signed a petition opposing his allegation that most workers at Rolls-Royce relish its privatisation. Last Friday, 40,000 workers throughout the Rolls-Royce group took industrial action against this enforced sale, demonstrating with their feet their total opposition to the privatisation. That opposition runs wide and deep among the work force at Rolls-Royce.
  Early in 1971 I was an apprentice attending the Rolls-Royce technical college at Filton in Bristol. Like many others, I was called in to be told of the collapse of the company. I witnessed the way in which, in 24 hours of parliamentary time, the then Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) took Rolls-Royce into Government hands. That time scale, showing how quickly this place can operate to widen public ownership, is perhaps one lesson that I am prepared to absorb from that ex-Prime Minister.
  When Rolls-Royce was last in private hands it collapsed because it could not stand the strain of escalating research and development costs. It went bankrupt because of shortages of funds. Huge amounts of public money have been pumped into the firm during the past 16 years. The work force has been forced to make enormous sacrifices, especially in terms of the 20,000 jobs that have been lost during the past four or five years. Now that the company is again making a profit and taxpayers are just beginning
  628
  to get some of their money back, the Tory Government intend to plunge Rolls-Royce back into the doubt and uncertainty of private ownership. Such profits as there are will not now go to taxpayers who made it all possible but to the new speculators who hold the shares. There is doubt and uncertainty. The future for Rolls-Royce cannot be challenged.
  This week we have seen the difficulties with the new engine development and the Airbus project—potentially a major blow to the company's prospects. Moreover, there is in existence an "ice cream and banking" document that projects possible future plant closures. Although Ministers in the House have brushed it aside as only a draft and written by a junior member of management, the company describes it as having been superseded. If one of those projected plant closures—East Kilbride and Parkside in Coventry have been mentioned — was Coventry, Parkside, 3,000 jobs could be lost because 2,500 work there directly and 600 work in the component suppliers.
  A closure would mean the loss of £30 million worth of wages every year in the local economy. Even discounting the £10 million that finds its way to the Treasury each year, £20 million worth of purchasing power would be lost to Coventry. Therefore, a further 400 jobs could be at risk in shops and other businesses which rely on the trade of those who spend their wages from Rolls-Royce.
  The skill base of the city could deteriorate and the costs to the Treasury in dole and supplementary benefit could be huge. Even putting that aside, a company memorandum to its senior executives says that they should not worry about another 1971 crash as
  "The institutions (clearing banks, insurance companies, merchant banks etc.) provide sophisticated recovery and rescue facilities"
  which were not available in 1971. It is ominous that the company should even consider the implications of another collapse.
  Such threats hang like the sword of Damocles over the workers in Coventry and other Rolls-Royce plants and their families. They have watched past piratisation exercises and seen new shareholders take the short-term view and maximise profits as quickly as possible. They have seen job cuts at British Telecom and Associated British ports. When we talk about Coventry and privatisation in this Chamber we are often told to consider the expansion of Jaguar and, yes, in recent months employment has increased there. However, I remind the House that next door to the Rolls-Royce Parkside site is the Coventry Climax site, which was privatised in 1981. Under private ownership 80 per cent. of the original 3,000 jobs vanished and the company collapsed in the latter part of 1986. I remind the House of the haemorrhage of jobs following privatisation of Self-Changing Gears and Alvis, both of which are ex-publicly owned companies.
  Workers in Rolls-Royce and elsewhere have seen pay held back and even reduced in newly privatised companies. They have seen changes in and possibly raids on pension schemes, and worsening employment conditions. Those decisions have been taken largely by shareholders whose numbers rapidly dwindle following privatisaton as compression and concentration take place of the numbers who owned the original shares.
  Despite Government assurances, and even private assurances given to me by members of the board of Rolls-Royce in recent weeks, those fears are real for Rolls-Royce workers. The RB211 engine primarily caused the collapse

  629
  of Rolls-Royce in 1971. Today there are problems with the V2 500 and the Superfan engine developments. Pratt and Whitney has recently taken over engineering control and direction of the V2 500 project. Superfan, with its $3 billion research and development costs, seems ominously near to travelling the same path as the RB211 in the late 1960s and early years of the 1970s.
  The year 1971 was a tragedy and if the lessons of 1971 are not learned in the next three or four years of private ownership for all those who directly suffer job losses a repeat of history would be a farce.
  Above the many other industries within the British economy, the aerospace industry needs long-term planning, not just because of the scale of research and development costs but because of the immensely long lead times—up to 20 years for the development of a project. It is axiomatic within the Labour movement that one cannot plan what one does not control and one does not control what one does not own.
  It is my personal belief — I am one of a minority within the Labour party—supported by my union, TASS and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions since 1982, that that industry requires co-ordinated planning and structured decision-making and full public ownership. This is necessary to defend Rolls-Royce against privatisation as a manufacturer of engines within the aerospace industry. Further public ownership should be extended to aerospace, to avionics and back into British Airways.
  If the sale is completed, workers in the Rolls-Royce plant face a future of insecurity and uncertainty. Rolls-Royce will be a prime target for asset-stripping. There are increasing plans within the United States for protectionist measures against Japan and Europe. There are pressures within the US economy—the effects of a newly elected Democratic Congress, the decline in the value of the dollar and the pressure on the two major competitors of Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and General Electric — to bring work in-house to save the jobs of American workers or even consciously to squeeze out their only mutual major competitor, Rolls-Royce, by action leading to a possible takeover or by elimination of that competitor.
  As we move towards a new world recession in the next couple of years, it is inevitable that those pressures in the American economy will be exacerbated. The Minister is smiling, but he should consider one fact. In 1985, the 140 members of the International Air Transport Association made between them a total profit of only $100 million. That would not buy even one Boeing 747. Think what a new world recession, even in the Minister's economic terms, and the cyclical nature of the aerospace industry, would mean to the future order books of firms such as Rolls-Royce. Both of Rolls-Royce's competitors are twice its size, and both are parts of larger multinationals, with the facilities of cross-subsidisation to assist the campaign to attempt to squeeze out Rolls-Royce. General Electric's attitude to the Airbus project in the next three or four weeks will be an important pointer to that direction.
  It will not be beyond the wit and wisdom of the Boeskys and Bests of this world to intervene in the sale that takes place in a month's time. I make it clear, not only to the work force and my constituents, that my position on the sale is equally strong whether the purchasers of Rolls-Royce shares are domestic or foreign. Speculation,
  630
  because essentially that is what trading in shares is in that City casino down the road, is rarely a respecter of national boundaries. It goes in the direction of profit alone and will find ways round the Secretary of State's rules. Job security and the well-being of working people, their families and communities, both directly with the 40,000 Rolls-Royce workers and indirectly with the 160,000 workers in the major components suppliers, are of no concern to the accountants in New York, London or Tokyo.
  Some 137 Labour Members of Parliament — significantly, not a single member of the so-called alliance — have signed early-day motion 85. On dozens of occasions, in lobbies organised by workers in the past 12 or 18 months, in business questions, in questions to the Department of Trade and Industry, demands have come from many Labour Members for a debate on this issue. This 30 minutes today is the only result of those demands, and that is because I had the luck to win a place in the ballot for this one minute to midnight affair.
  Why have the Government been so afraid in recent months to use their own time to put the case for the privatisation of Rolls-Royce? Could it be because of the escalating problems with engine development, which they want to keep under wraps for the next four or five weeks so that potential purchasers of shares are not frightened off? Could it be that the Government are embarrassed at having to cancel £645 million of company debt to provide a sweetener for institutions and speculators to buy shares?
  Once again, the Government are underpricing and selling cheaply a national public asset. They have already lost £1·5 billion through underpricing the sale of British Telecom, Jaguar and British Aerospace.
  Coventry city council has borrowed money over the past 60 years to build houses, schools, and community centres and now owes over £200 million to the banks and financial institutions. All local authorities owe a total of about £30,000 million. If it is OK for this Tory Government to cancel £645 million of Rolls-Royce debt as a sweetener for privatisation, that will be a precedent when I call on the next Labour Government to cancel the debts of local authorities such as Coventry. Cancelling Coventry's debt, in the same way as the Government have cancelled the debts of Rolls-Royce and other privatised concerns., would release £25 million a year of debt interest charges which could halve all domestic rents and rates in the city and leave £10 million a year for the building of new houses and the repairs of existing houses. Coventry's housing crisis could be half-axed in the lifetime of a Parliament.
  The whole sale stinks—from the debt cancellation to the refusal of the Rolls-Royce management, including the arch-proponent of privatisation, Sir Francis Tombs—who is not unconnected with the banks that will be profiting from the mechanics of the sale—to allow trade unions to discuss privatisation in work time, although videos and so on were used by the management to promote the sale.
  The sale is a kickback by the Tories to those who support them financially at elections. It owes nothing to a genuine desire to promote the future of the industry and merely seeks to return it to the uncertainties of the anarchy of capitalism and private ownership.
  I have no doubt that the debate will not stop the sale going ahead, but it gives me an opportunity to pledge to the workers and families in my constituency and to the workers in the whole of Rolls-Royce that under a future

  631
  Labour Government, I and other Labour Members will argue not only for the return of Rolls-Royce to public ownership, but for the co-ordinated planning of the aeroindustry, with wider public ownership of firms such as Westland and Lucas.
  When workers own their industries and, through their traditional union organisation, have a majority say in the planning, development and control of those industries and when there is genuine control and management of publicly owned industries by the labour movement instead of by Sir Michael Edwardes, Sir Kenneth Keith, Sir Robert Reid and the others who have run those industries in the past, the jobs of aerospace workers will look a great deal safer than they do today—four weeks before the butchery of Rolls-Royce.
  1.48 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark)s: The title of the debate is the future of Rolls-Royce, and I welcome the positive nature of that title. As always, I greatly enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
  I would not say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was a trip down memory lane, because, alas, my memory does not stretch back that far, but I know from history books that the hon. Gentleman uses the sort of rhetoric that characterised the old, fire-eating style of Socialism in the days when there was real deprivation throughout the work force in industrial Britain. Those Socialists were responding to a real need and a situation in which there were many undesirable aspects.
  Of course, the theme to which the hon. Gentleman—beside himself — could not resist returning, again and again, was the longed-for inevitability of world recession. He is longing for a recession. Extremists such as he cannot wait for a collapse of the system. They are indoctrinated to believe that it is inevitable and they recognise that unless it happens they will become more and more obsolete as political figures. That is because they are battling against a tide of rising living standards and aspirations. They are combating the growth of materialism, to coin a phrase. It is that growth that will consume them. The poor hon. Gentleman, much as I sympathise with his passion, is becoming obsolete and his inner knowledge of his fate is what makes his rhetoric so embittered. His speech was all pessimism and gloom; but in fact, the prospect is exceedingly bright.
  Rolls-Royce has a special place in United Kingdom industry. It is a symbol of excellence, and a symbol of British excellence. The name itself has a unique place in our manufacturing tradition and is recognised the world over.
  Rolls-Royce is not merely the proud possessor of a high place in the minds of our people: it is a company with a strong presence and a future that is full of opportunity. It competes extensively in world markets. Two hundred and seventy of the world's airlines use its engines, and 110 of the world's defence forces use them, too. It employs 42,000 people throughout the world and provides work for many more through its suppliers.
  Rolls-Royce is also a profitable company. In 1984, it made pre-tax profits of £26 million, in 1985 it made £81 million and in 1986 it announced record profits of £120 million.
  I cannot, of course, say what profits Rolls-Royce might make in the future. This week the Government have
  632
  published the "pathfinder" or draft prospectus for the company's return to the private sector, and in view of that I must be careful not to say anything that might influence the potential investor, who must make up his or her mind on the basis of the prospectus. We have confidence in the management of the company and believe that Rolls-Royce is well placed for its return to the challenge of the private sector.
  The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he did not believe in privatisation and that he would do his best to bring Rolls-Royce back into what he called Government control. He was a bit muddled on that point : half the time he talked about Government control and the other half he claimed that that control would mean that the company was owned by 55 million people. It would no more be owned by 55 million people than the workers in the Tupolev or the Mikoyan factories in the Soviet Union enjoy the facilities which, in an ideal sense, the hon. Gentleman was proclaiming should be the prerogative of the Rolls-Royce workers.
  If Rolls-Royce is privatised, the Government will not continue to run it from Whitehall. When the management need to make an investment decision, they will not have to come to Whitehall for approval. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman believes that whenever the trade unions have a grievance they should he able to resolve it through a meeting with Ministers. I suppose that he is not convinced that Rolls-Royce should — or could — live in the international market place, in spite of the way in which its profits are increasing. If the company is to prosper, it must operate in international markets against international competition. It must offer competitive products at a competitive price. It must be as efficient in production as in competition. It must operate quickly and flexibly in reaction to the needs of the market.
  Mr. Nellist: Who wrote this?
  Mr. Clark: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he wishes. With which of my remarks does he disagree? Does he seriously believe that a company should always be shielded by inexhaustible recourse to taxpayers' money? It is that which causes companies to shrink. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that no company, even one with such a great tradition and as proud an achievement as Rolls-Royce, can afford to be exposed to the draught of international competition?
  Mr. Nellist: Does the tone and tenor of the past 30 seconds of the Minister's reply mean that, following privatisation, there will be no public money available to Rolls-Royce because it will then be exposed to the pressures of international competition and will have to stand on its own two feet? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Clark: Rolls-Royce is well able to stand on its own two feet, and has effectively been doing so for the past years. That is reflected in the enormous increase in its orders and the way in which its engines have spread across the world's airlines and defence forces, and in the increase in its profits over the past three years. It is for this reason that privatisation is so important. The company chairman, Sir Francis Tombs, said earlier this week,
  "The Government's timescales and objectives arc different from those of a long-term capital goods company."
  So long as the company is owned by the Government, it will have another layer of decision making which cannot be helpful to it.

  633
  The hon. Gentleman has asked why we should take the risk of privatising Rolls-Royce and has suggested that the taxpayer should be allowed the benefit of his investment in the company. The taxpayer will be getting a return on his investment through the proceeds of the sale. If an individual taxpayer wishes to continue to invest in the company, there is an excellent opportunity for him to do so through the share offer. I cannot agree that we are taking extra risks through the privatisation. We are privatising the company because we believe that it will do better in the private sector than in the public sector. It is not immune from commercial risks, but nor would it be in the public sector.
  The fact that a company is in public ownership has never been a guarantee of employment. Publicly owned concerns are not giant taxpayer-funded job-creation schemes. There have been a number of job losses in Rolls-Royce over the past few years as the company has improved its productivity. Public ownership has provided no security of job. It is only by competing effectively and increasing market share that companies can provide greater job security. I believe, therefore, that privatisation and not state ownership is in the best interests of employees. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a diametrically opposite view, but had the Jaguar company been in his constituency, would be have argued — I suspect strongly that he would —fervently and repeatedly that privatisation would harm the company and the prospects of its employees?
  Mr. Nellist: We have not seen the end result of privatisation. The Minister has mentioned the Jaguar
  634
  company, which is very much dependent on the American export market. As the falling price of the dollar works its way through the system over the next few months, there will be interesting developments in the company's future. Jaguar, like Rolls-Royce, has had huge amounts of public money pumped into it, and despite the sacrifices that have been made by the work force in bringing the company back on its feet, the rewards are to be given to the speculators.
  There is one difference between Jaguar and Rolls-Royce—I know something about the car that is made in Coventry, and I hope that when we next debate these matters the Department will find a Ministerr who knows his brief rather better than the Minister of Trade—and that is development costs. It costs only about £20 million to develop a new car while it costs about $3,000 million to develop a new aero engine.
  Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are for the company and not for Ministers and has ignored the fact that the company is no longer, as it was in 1971, based heavily on the performance of one engine. It is much more widely based now with a wide product range. It has the opportunity to develop on several fronts at once and to ride individual storms. The Government will continue to have an important and direct relationship in a number of ways with Rolls-Royce. The Ministry of Defence will undoubtedly remain a major customer and both the Ministry of Defence and my Department will maintain a key interest in the company's research and development programmes and, no doubt, will continue to be involved directly with Rolls-Royce in those programmes. The partnership which we have enjoyed in recent years will still exist after privatisation.

  Business Debts (Late Payment)
  2 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: This is possibly the last debate before the election when I shall have an opportunity to raise this subject. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have discussed this topic more than once. I am pleased that this time we are debating it at two o'clock in the afternoon rather than at 4.30 in the morning, as we did when we last had a chance to consider it.
  We recognise that this serious problem of the late payment of debt affects a large number of people from a large number of areas. We recognise especially that industry has a serious problem. It manifests itself primarily as a cash flow problem. It is obvious that, if a firm cannot be paid, its cash flow is affected. Of the 22,000 bankruptcies last year, a substantial number—I cannot be precise—were due to cash flow problems rather than simply insolvency.
  On Monday this week, Sir Charles Villiers, a former chief executive of the British Steel Corporation, said at a press conference organised by the Forum of Private Business that the two biggest problems that small firms have to encounter when considering their cash flow were taxation—primarily because of present legislation which requires quick payment—and the late payment of debts. He estimated that, of the 2,500 suppliers to British Steel during his stewardship, 500 went out of business simply because they were not able to get debts paid. He came up with a revealing statement, which is pertinent to the Government's code and guidelines on the late payment of debts. Knowing British business men as he does, he said that they will not change their attitudes to anything, let alone late payment of debts, until they are forced to do so.
  I do not wish to he critical of the Government's code, but its weakness is that it is voluntary. It is a good code and I do not believe that any business man, lawyer or anyone involved in these matters can argue with any statement in it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the code will be revised, and I look forward to reading that revision. If I have one criticism, it is that there should be a recommended period for payment, whether it is 30 days or 60 days, or 30 days net or 60 days net. It would be useful if the revision included a recommended period for payment.
  I am not convinced that a voluntary code will change the climate of opinion on late payments of debts. It is worth looking at what happened to the CBI pamphlet which was published in 1980, seven years ago, entitled "Payment of Bills—a guide to good practice". The CBI, in its recent report on the late payment of debt, had to admit that the pamphlet had little effect. I venture to suggest that it had no effect, and that the position has even deteriorated.
  I am pleased to welcome two recent converts to the debate on the late payment of debts. The first is no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury. In an interview with The Times, he said that debt was a symptom of the decline in our personal morality. He said that he thought that the reason was the high technological era in which we live, which had changed the ways in which we communicated. There is something to be said for that. Debt collection has become an impersonal business. One no longer rings up the man with whom one is doing
  636
  business and says, "How about sending me a cheque?" One often finds oneself talking to a computer or a recorded message. That is one of many factors involved in this area of debate.
  The second convert who perhaps has more influence on this topic is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my speech during the Budget debate I referred to this subject. The Chancellor said :
  "Perhaps the biggest problem faced by the small business man today is the trade customer who is late in paying his bills: so late sometimes that VAT becomes due before the bill has been paid. I can do nothing about late payment: but I can, I hope do something about the VAT problem."— [Official Report, 17 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 821.]
  One could almost imagine that the first sentence had been drafted by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. It is a welcome statement and the measures introduced to help the small businessman were most welcome and, all in all, it was a good budget for small businesses, particularly with reference to the cash accounting for VAT.
  However, it is slightly odd for the Chancellor to say that he could not do anything about late payment because that conflicts with the line coming from the Department of Employment, the guidelines of which clearly go towards the argument that one can do something about it. I do not think that it would publish guidelines if it did not believe that they would have some affect. We have to ask ourselves who is right; is it the Treasury or the Department of Employment? There is a clue to that, which will probably come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister as I have suggested it in the past. It is worth noting that the Treasury has introduced penalties for the late payment of VAT. In reply to a written question that I put to the Chancellor, he confirmed that during the period October 1986 to January 1987 the VAT receipts went up by the staggering sum of £500 million. That was in contrast to the similar periods in the two years before where there had been no increase, but a steady contribution to the Treasury.
  We understand that the backlog of VAT due to the Treasury will decline as a result of the introduction of penalties for late payment from £1 billion to £250 million. It is well on the way to collecting that backlog. Therefore, in a rather tortuous way I suggest that the Treasury supports the principle of some enforcement behind voluntary codes.
  There has been a significant development this week in that Dun and Bradstreet, the world's largest credit collection agency, has published the interim results of a survey that if has embarked upon. The results make interesting reading. It asked what sort of problems people have in the area of late payment of debt. The answer was that 18 per cent. experienced severe problems, 78 per cent. experience some problems and 4 per cent. experienced no problems. Therefore, 96 per cent of those consulted had experienced problems on late payment of debt. The survey then asked those questioned whether they had read the guideines contained in the booklet "Payment on Time". A surprisingly high number, 19 per cent,— I congratulate the Department of Employment on getting through to 19 per cent.—said they had. However, 81 per cent had not read it. More interestingly, the 19 per cent. who had read the booklet were then asked whether the booklet had made an impact, only 6 per cent. were able to answer "Yes". Therefore, 6 per cent. out of a total of 19 per cent. have been influenced by the guidelines. That is a figure of about

  637
  I per cent. That shows that 99 per cent. of businessmen in the country have not been influenced by the guidelines. One has onely to imagine onself inside a finance directors office with a pile of bills and the Government's guidelines in one hand and an unhealthy bank balance in the other and ask what would he do. Would he be influenced by the guidelines and make his bank balance worse, or postpone payment for another month. I think that any businessman, as Sir Charles Villiers said, will not do anything unless he has to.
  The fourth question put in the survey was whether those questioned supported any legislation in this area. A total of 73 per cent. said that they did and that they believed it should take the shape of interest on the late payment of debts. We have to ask ourselves whether legislation in this area is a good idea. We know that the Treasury believes that it is, for the reasons that I have already given.
  It is important to bear in mind that legislation will not conflict with the Government's guidelines. Frankly, I believe that it will give those guidelines teeth. However, many arguments have been put forward against legislation and there has been a drift away from support for guidelines. Why is the introduction of such legislation criticised?
  The first argument against such legislation is that it would be interventionist. Many of us on the Conservative Benches are against the nanny state and interventionist legislation, but I do not believe that this legislation represents intervention. It represents regulation of the market place. We have been down this avenue of discussion many times especially in this Parliament, in our discussions of the Financial Services Act 1986. It is important that the City and the general market place are properly regulated.
  The second argument put forward against legislation is that it would be more widely used by big firms than small firms and would act to the detriment of the small firms that we are trying to help. Frankly. I do not accept that. If legislation is introduced, it is available to everyone. It is not specifically aimed at the small firm. I believe that if small firms found that they were being pushed by creditors, they would turn round and lean on their debtors. We must also remember that large firms operate trading conditions and credit checks.
  Small debtors cannot be slow payers in today's modern industry. Big company suppliers insist upon three trade references and one bank reference before they start supplying goods. Lesser enforcement procedures may also be followed—for example, the utilty companies may cut off services to small firms. Small firms are especially labour-intensive, and small retailers buy for cash. I believe that the introduction of legislation will redress the balance in favour of small businesses rather than the other way.
  The Forum of Private Business, in a survey carried out in January 1987, asked its members whether they were in favour of legislation. The results showed that 86 per cent. were in favour and 14 per cent. were against. Recently, the Forum went back to the 14 per cent. to ask why they had said no. Only 11 per cent. of those asked said that they feared they could go bankrupt. Therefore, 11 per cent. of the 14 per cent.—which is 1·5 per cent.—had a fear of
  638
  bankruptcy. Therefore, I am not sure that it is a fear of bankruptcy that makes small firms so keen on this legislation.
  We must also consider the self-employed, the small, one-man operator who is at the end of the line and who has no creditors, only debtors. It is worth noting that not one survey has been published showing a majority against legislation. The CBI survey showed that 44 per cent. of those questioned would use the legislation and 84 per cent. believed that it would result in the faster payment of bills. I believe that the introduction of legislation would result in a tremendous release of energy—we always serach for that in politics — and will result in a change in the climate in such matters.
  The Government have not been unreasonable. The Minister has said that, if my colleagues and I can persuade him that industry wants a change from the guidelines and wants the introduction of some legislation to give those guidelines teeth, he will have an open mind on the topic. I thank the Minister for that positive approach.
  Time is running on, but I have a list of trade and professional associations — some 25 supporters — in favour of a change in the Government's attitude to this matter. They are primarily in support of legislation. If I may pick out one or two of those associations they include the Road Haulage Association, the National Farmers Union, the Small Business Bureau, the Federation of Master Builders and the Chartered Institute of Transport. All those organisations have a substantial number of members. Indeed, some 300,000 businesses now support the concept of legislation to deal with this problem.
  The other day, my hon. Friend the Minister said in a press release that, of the seven principal lobby groups, only one supported some change to the present law. I do not believe that that is strictly true. If we consider the seven principal looby groups, we can discern a pendulum swing of opinion on this matter.
  The Institute of Directors remains against legislation. The Association of Independent Businesses has made no comment. The Union of Independent Companies said this week that it has the situation under review and may have to support legislation unless there is considerable improvement. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce is slightly muddled in its advice. It said that, if legislation is introduced, it will support it provided that it does not result in a change in what is already the law, so I am afraid that we cannot look too much at the association's advice. However, it is worth noting that the Bristol, Plymouth and Nottinghamshire chambers now support a change.
  The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses has begun to show a shift in opinion and is now calling for interest penalties in the county courts. The CBI is in favour of a discretionary change in the law and possibly reviewing the position. As we know, the Forum of Private Business is for legislation. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister the report that it published this week.
  An early day motion has also been tabled on the topic. It is not frivolous, like many that appear on the Order Paper. It now has the support of 183 Members of Parliament, representing 15 million people. One cannot ignore such a substantial number of Members who now believe that there should be a change in our approach.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his interest in this topic during the lifetime of this Parliament. I am pretty

  639
  sure that this is the last time that we shall have the chance to discuss it before the election. I shall be interested to hear what he says about it.
  2.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): The late payment of business debts, which we are debating today, is in some respects an unusual subject. There is very wide agreement about the existence of the problem and the need to do something about it. At the same time, there is substantial disagreement about the best way of dealing with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) is convinced that further legislation is a necessary part of the solution, and I am not. I do not say, and never have said, that I am rigidly opposed to legislation, but my starting point is that we should not use legislation to dictate to firms, large and small, how they should do business with each other unless the advantages of legislation are quite clear. That point should be common ground to Conservative Members and even to many Opposition Members. As my hon. Friend supports legislation, it seems that he has satisfied himself that the advantages are clear. I must say to him, despite his closing remarks, that I do not believe that he has yet satisfied most of the principal representatives of small business in whose interest he makes his proposals.
  I have close contacts with the organisations representing small firms and I have discussed the problem of late payment with them on many occasions. The great majority of them either are opposed to legislation or have serious reservations about its desirability. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, which certainly represents very small businesses, as my hon. Friend will concede, the Association of Independent Businesses, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Chamber of Trade and, I believe, the smaller firms council of the CBI, have all told the Department or me that they do not support legislation along the lines proposed by my hon. Friend.
  For example, I should like to quote from a letter addressed to me by the chairman of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, Mr. Brian Prime, dated 6 March, in which he said :
  "The Federation has always been reluctant and very cautious over this subject. I felt it was time to confirm our policy on this subject. With this point in mind, it was raised at our February National Council Meeting and after debate Council once more confirmed the Federation's opposition to legislation being introduced that would make interest on late payments of bills mandatory. We feel this would have a more detrimental effect on small business than a beneficial one."
  Mr. Ottaway: May I refer my hon. Friend to the manifesto of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, published this week? On page 10 it says that the federation
  "supports a strengthening of the County Courts system, enabling those bodies to impose discretionary interest penalties".
  I agree that that is not exactly what I am saying, but a change in the law is needed to introduce that.
  Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that. However, in a number of debates that we have had on this issue, the point has been missed that the Administration of Justice Act 1982 is already on the statute hook. That allows discretionary payment to be
  640
  awarded by the courts. That may have been missed from the Dun and Bradstreet survey to which my hon. Friend referred. I maintain—perhaps this is a weakness— that the Government have not made the nation increasingly aware of the fact that the Administration of Justice Act 1982 exists. Perhaps the vast majority of people are unaware of that.
  I accept that the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses is asking for changes at the county courts level. No one disputes that. However, it is not prepared to follow the route down which my hon. Friend is seeking to lead it at this stage. He has referred to the Union of Independent Companies. This morning I spoke to the chairman of the Union of Independent Companies, Mr. Barry Baldwin. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the union is keeping the matter under constant review. I understand that that statement was made by the vice-chairman. He said :
  "It may have to support legislation unless the situation improves considerably."
  The chairman volunteered the information to me that it was unlikely that the union would ever take that step, but he would certainly stand by something which my hon. Friend would welcome— the fact that the union would certainly keep the position under review.
  I query this point not because I doubt anything that my hon. Friend has said, because I know that he speaks with some authority on these matters. If we refer to the case put forward by the Forum of Private Business—for which I have a great deal of time and respect; I tend to agree with the vast majority of what it says—the forum claims at the back of its booklet to have the support of the Federation of Master Builders. It does not. I have a letter from Mr. Bill Hilton dated 5 February — relatively recently—which clearly makes the point :
  "as you have previously maintained, there could be serious disadvantages arising from such legislation in the absence of certain safeguards. And when does payment become 'late'?"
  I could quote from various letters that I have received only recently.
  I am not prepared to take on the Archbishop of Canterbury; and my hon. Friend would not expect me to do that. However, if I take time out, as I am prepared to, to study what the Archbishop said—
  Mr. Ottaway: What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. Trippier: If my hon. Friend reads the case laid out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, he will discover that my right hon. Friend's case supports my position.
  My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that at least I have kept the door open. I will refer to that later in my speech. However, to paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, he said that he could do nothing about late payment. With the Administration of Justice Act 1982 and the code of practice, we have shown that we are doing all we possibly can to help. We are not prepared, however, to go as far at this stage as my hon. Friend has suggested.
  Other organisations with a strong representation among small businesses, such as the Institute of Directors, have also expressed their concern and opposition, as has the Institute of Credit Management, whose members have practical experience of the problem. I am tempted to say that there is a consensus of informed opinion against my hon. Friend's proposals, but I recognise that they find a measure of support. It would be foolish to say otherwise.

  641
  The Forum of Private Business in particular has campaigned vigorously for legislation in that area, and I accept that it is not without allies. I must congratulate the forum and my hon. Friend on their determination to bring this problem to the forefront of public attention where it belongs. At the same time, I hope that I have made it clear that their support for legislation remains in my view a minority opinion among those who have considered the problem in depth.
  I have said publicly, and repeat again now, that I attach great value to the views of the organisations representing small businesses. If they were to give their firm backing to my hon. Friend's approach, I would take their views very seriously indeed. My hon. Friend referred to hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion. I respect that, but I find it hard to believe that, where the arguments have not been explained in some detail, hon. Members would wish to support a proposal that is opposed by the small firms lobby groups which represent the vast majority of people in the small firms constituency. Perhaps it would be wise if, after the debate, I sent them copies of Hansard reports of this and other debates on the matter.
  Having stated where I disagree with my hon. Friend, I should emphasise the substantial areas of agreement. First, we agree that there is a serious problem. During my time as Minister responsible for small firms, few issues have struck me as forcibly as this. At the best of times, many small firms have cash flow problems, and late payment of bills by their customers makes a bad position worse. If the small firm is lucky enough to have a sympathetic bank manager, it may be able to borrow to help it through its difficulties, but the cost in interest charges and in the reduction of funds available for other purposes makes that a far from ideal solution. In addition to the financial strain, there is an extra burden on management time. Small business men already have enough roles to play without becoming debt collectors.
  We agree that there is a problem. We also agree that, to solve the problem, above all we need a major change in attitudes and practices. Those who advocate legislation believe that it will have a helpful effect on attitudes and practices. Those who oppose it, or are sceptical about it, doubt whether it will be helpful. Some think it will be harmful. But there is general agreement that legislation will be useful only if it encourages a change in attitudes and practices. Merely to give the victims of late payment an additional means of redress will bring only a very marginal benefit if it does not have a much wider effect in deterring bad practices and encouraging good ones.
  It is important that the problem of late payment should not be oversimplified. It is not, as is sometimes suggested, simply a matter of large firms deliberately delaying payment as a means of improving their cash flow and investment income at the expense of their smaller suppliers. Where that happens, it is, of course utterly deplorable. But there are other reasons for delay, bureaucratic inertia, cumbersome payment systems, and disputes over contract performance among them. Although I receive many complaints about late payment, relatively few of them are straightforward cases of
  642
  unwillingness to pay on time. Often there is a dispute about the quantity or quality of goods supplied. In other cases, the complaint is about the terms of contract themselves, where one party considers the payment clauses unreasonable. I am bound to be influenced by this experience in forming my views on legislation, which seems to offer a simple solution to what is often a complex problem.
  I must also emphasise that a change in attitudes and practices is needed among small firms. At least part of their problem is often due to lack of thought at the stage of contract or invoicing, or to inadequate systems of credit control. If the contract or the invoice does not make it clear when payment is required, it is not surprising if payment takes longer than the supplier would like.
  The public sector, too, has come in for some criticism. But if I refer to the fairly recent CHI survey, I gain some comfort from the knowledge that only 5 per cent. of respondents felt that central and local government bodies are the worst payers. That does not mean that there is any room for complacency. Far from it. It is important that I stress yet again in public that I am willing to take up cases of late payment involving Government Departments. I am pleased to say that my intervention has often been effective.
  So much for the nature of the problem. What can the Government do to help towards a solution? I am glad that the title for our debate refers to the Government's guidance, because we have indeed given guidance. Last year, in conjunction with the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Institute of Purchasing and Supply, my Department issued the booklet "Payment on Time". The booklet has been much in demand, with 150,000 copies distributed, and requests for more copies continue to arrive. I am not discouraged by surveys purporting to show that the booklet has had no impact. I know, for instance, that a Dun and Bradstreet survey has found that only 19 per cent. of those surveyed had read the booklet. By the standards of most Government advice booklets, I suspect that that makes it a best seller. My estimate of the size of the small business constituency is more than 4 million. One fifth of that would mean that about 800,000 copies of my code have found their way into the hands of small business men. As only 150,000 have been made available, someone else must be printing them. I only hope that it is a small firm, but I should like to know who is paying.
  I recognise that the code is not the end of the story, but my hon. Friend has been kind enough to refer to the new initiative that I announced this week, which will update the code and print some of the replies that I have received from the chairmen of the larger companies.
  Strange though it may seem, I welcome the opportunity that we have had to debate the issue again; I welcome any initiatives that keep the issue in the spotlight. The need for improvements is not in dispute. However, there is room for general disagreement about how to achieve them, and I still believe that co-operation is better than coercion.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Crown Land (Gillingham)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Ryder.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I am very pleased to have the second opportunity in four months to discuss the conservation of the environment in my constituency. I am particularly pleased to have a chance of bringing up to date my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on the matters that we discussed during my Consolidated Fund debate at 3 am on Tuesday 16 December last year. I am mindful that my hon. Friend has already had to respond to two debates today, and I hope that I shall not test him too much.
  In that Consolidated Fund debate, we discussed the proposed sale of 48 acres of redundant but undeveloped land in the tenure of the Ministry of Defence known as the Great Lines, Brompton, Gillingham. This afternoon I shall try to widen the scope of my remarks to include other redundant Crown land in Gillingham. I shall try not to repeat my earlier comments, although the Great Lines remains the most contentious area of land as yet undeveloped in the ownership of the Crown and likely to be sold by the Property Services Agency, acting as the Government's estate agent.
  Since my hon. Friend and I last discussed the Great Lines, the attitudes of both Gillingham borough council and the PSA have hardened. The council has yet to determine the PSA's over-ambitious planning application for the residential development of 14 acres of the Great Lines, because it has been awaiting a promised amended application from the PSA that has never materialised. At its meeting on 3 February this year, however, the council resolved as follows:
  "This council, recognising the Property Services Agency's apparent determination to pursue an application for development on the Great Lines, re-affirms its policy of preserving the whole area as a designated open space and supports and congratulates the Member of Parliament in securing an adjournment debate on that subject in the House of Commons."
  The full council, at its meeting on 28 April this year, will determine the PSA's application because the PSA has demanded that the council should determine the original application now. It needs no prophet or seer to predict the outcome of that determination.
  As I said a moment ago, the relationship between the council and the PSA has worsened. That is indicated by a dialogue between the PSA's district estate surveyor, Mr. J. F. Thompson and the council's new chief executive, Dr. Chilton. Dr. Chilton, keen to know the provenance of the MOD's tenure of the land, requested a sight of the original conveyances and/or the Acts of Parliament by which the land came into the Crown's ownership. Mr. Thompson's response in a letter dated 22 January this year was uncompromising and, I think unhelpful. It ran as follows:
  "I refer to your letter of 19th December and our subsequent telephone conversation and would confirm that at the present time policy constraints are such that it is almost inevitable that the subject area of land will be offered for sale on the open market, either by auction or tender and therefore a sale to your Authority should not be regarded as a real possibility.
  The documentation that has been requested is not that which we would generally circulate and will in fact only be available to a successful purchaser to enable the legal formalities to be completed. As you will fully appreciate there
  644
  is at present a planning application before the Council for residential development on part of the land and we are awaiting your response to my letter dated 12th December; however, you will, no doubt, be shortly forwarding details of the proposals for the area which are considered by your Council to be acceptable."
  After consultation with the council's sub-committee that was set up specifically to consider the matter, Dr. Chilton replied, in a letter of 19 February 1987, as follows:
  "They"—
  that is the sub-committee—
  "propose to obtain Counsel's opinion on any means of preventing the disposal for development of this part of the Great Lines. From their knowledge of the history of the area they consider that there is a possibility that there were restrictions in the original conveyances of the Great Lines, or in the Acts of Parliament authorising those conveyances to the Government, which prevent the Government from disposing of the area for development, and they want this fully investigated. It is for this purpose that I need copies of the original conveyances which I have already asked you to let me have. I reported your response to the Sub-Committee and they instructed me to request you to provide this copy documentation and a note of the Acts of Parliament under which the conveyances were authorised, within 14 days, and to inform you that if you fail to do so the Member of Parliament will be asked to raise questions in the House of Commons about the matter."
  Dr. Chilton still awaits a reply to that letter.
  The Great Lines is by far the most controversial piece of redundant Ministry of Defence land, and the council has set its face against the development of any of it. I am pleased to play my part in that fight against development. I share the council's belief that there may well be covenants in the original conveyances that favour the council's stand. I am also concerned to know whether the Ministry of Defence or the Property Services Agency, acting as estate agent, has fulfilled its obligations under the Crichel Down rules. Have the heirs to the original owners been sought?
  There is another intriguing possibility. Was any part of this land common land before its appropriation by the Crown? If that were so, the claim that the Great Lines should remain as a public open space for the benefit of the good people of Gillingham and Chatham would be irresistable. It could even be transferred to an organisation of commoners. In any case, Gillingham borough council and Rochester-on-Medway city council are likely to be urged to declare the Great Lines as public open space on the draft local plan that is now in the course of preparation. In this European Year of the Environment, it would even be appropriate to declare the Great Lines a development-free zone, to use the common parlance of the day.
  Within the last few hours, information has been given to me that gives me cause for great hope, and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to listen particularly carefully to this. Notwithstanding the obduracy and obstruction of the PSA, I have been able to turn up the original Act of Parliament of 1709 by which the lands for "better fortifying and securing the harbours and docks" at Portsmouth, Chatham and Harwich were conveyed. They include the relevant land. My source, from the House of Commons Library, is Statutes at Large, Volume IV, published in 1811, page 60. That Act of Parliament is still in force, and since it dealt with the conveyance of land there is no reason why it should ever have been repealed. Clause 4 reads as follows:
  "And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no private Building or Buildings shall be made or erected upon any of the Lands vested in Her Majesty"—

  645
  that is Queen Anne>—
  "as aforesaid; and that the whole Profits arising, or that shall hereafter arise from the same, be and are hereby appropriated and applied for and towards the Erection and Reparations of the respective Fortifications of each Place; and all and singular the Premisses shall be and are hereby enacted and declared to be unalienable from the Crown, neither shall any Part of the Premisses be demised or demisable, otherwise than during Pleasure only."
  No wonder the PSA did not want to release the papers to the council, because it seems to me that the sale of the Great Lines, and much other land besides in Portsmouth, Chatham and Harwich, for the development of private housing would be illegal on two counts.
  Clause 4 of the 1709 Act clearly places a statutory prohibition on the erection of private buildings and also prohibits disposal of the land by the Crown. The illegality of the proposed sale of the Great Lines for development will not be lost on my hon. Friend, who is himself a fine lawyer. I suggest that the Great Lines could legally be leased as open space to the council and that a rent of one peppercorn per year would be appropriate.
  I said that I would widen the scope of my remarks beyond the Great Lines. Another highly contentious planning application is currently winging its way towards my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, on appeal. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on it. One of the few substantial deciduous woods left in Gillingham or, indeed, in the Medway towns, is known as East Hoath woods and is threatened with destruction. The regional health authority, which owns the land, is seeking permission to build a facility for the mentally handicapped on part of that land. That is not opposed. However, it seeks also to develop the remainder for houses. The council refused planning permission for the housing in the hope of saving part of the woods. Unfortunately, a long out-of-date town plan, which zones the area as residential in preference to the alternative, which was then light industrial, makes an appeal difficult to resist. With a heightened awareness of the preciousness of undeveloped land, my constituents are hoping against hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not allow an appeal on that application.
  Along the banks of the Medway, and through the northern strip of my constituency, there is a sizeable area of agricultural land, much of it not very intensively farmed. The pessimists locally already see a growing pressure for residential development, because already the ownership of some of that land is what might best be called speculative. The council, a little in the mould of Canute, has bought an area alongside the Medway at Motney hill and is creating a riverside country park. However, all around the pressure, mainly from outsiders with no strong attachment to Gillingham, is for development.
  It is for these reasons that I urge my hon. Friend, with his responsibility for the PSA, to call in the whole matter of redundant MOD land in Gillingham and the Medway towns, to suspend any further progress of the planning application on the Great Lines, and to instruct his officials at the PSA to sit down with the Gillingham borough council, in the hope that by discussing "in the round", and in total, the entire likely redundant land holdings of the MOD, both parties can co-operate in achieving a felicitous
  646
  outcome, with development where that is sensible, and with conservation where natural justice and common sense demand it.
  The Government have a heavy responsibility to the local population in the disposal of their redundant Crown land. That responsibility must not be sacrificed in the interests of short-term land profit. The Medway towns have given too much, over too many years in the service of the Crown for their opinions on the development of Crown land in the towns to be ignored. They will not allow officials of the PSA to ride roughshod over them in this matter.
  I am not against all development. I am not a member of the "never a blade of grass shall be touched" tendency, far from it. I rejoice at the prospect of the great development in the former naval base, which is being undertaken by English Estates. That will be a considerable asset when it is completed. However, that great development, which offers so much in potential employment, housing and leisure must be balanced by the sensible retention of "green lungs" and woodlands nearby.
  Every acre of green land and woodland, which is sacrificed to concrete, bricks and mortar, is gone for ever. My right hon. Friend and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment shoulder a heavy burden in maintaining the balance between development and conservation. I understand the message that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered when he spoke in Cambridge this week to the delegates at the Nature Conservancy Council's first national conference to mark European Year of the Environment. However, in assessing redundant MOD land in Gillingham, it is without doubt that the Great Lines are worth conserving; whereas much of the other land in the Ministry's tenure would benefit from development. Indeed, Gillingham council has suggested its willingness to consider favourably the development of its surplus Government land in return for the conservation of the Great Lines. That was made clear by Dr. Chilton in his letter to Mr. Thompson of 19 February.
  May I conclude by asking my hon. Friend to redeem his promise of 16 December 1986 and come to Gillingham to see the Great Lines and other surplus land whether the MOD has yet declared it so or not. I feel certain that he will then see the merit of my case and the council's aspiration to avoid the loss of a priceless and well-loved recreational area in my constituency.
  2.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on deploying his arguments forcefully on behalf of his constituents. I listened with interest to the points that he raised and the eloquent way in which he read from ancient statutes. I shall ask my officials to read them so that they can advise me whether the implications of the statutes are as my hon. Friend described them.
  The Crichel Down code does not apply, and has never applied, to land purchased before 1935. My hon. Friend accepts that the great lines were acquired long before 1935 and, indeed, in the early 18th and 19th centuries. I hope he will accept that the Crichel Down issue is a red herring, even if some other matters have yet to be proved such.
  There are substantial areas of Crown land in the Gillingham area and its surroundings which are owned by

  647
  the Ministry of Defence. Some of this is undeveloped, and I am aware of my hon. Friend's view that there is a need for a strategy to be established for its future, with the MOD, the PSA and the local planning authority working together in the public interest.
  I must make one thing clear straight away. Whether or not this land owned by the MOD should be retained in its present state, developed for defence purposes or declared surplus to that Department's needs is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It would be inappropriate for me to comment during this debate on propositions that the MOD should or should not make its operational decisions in particular ways or with particular non-defence aims in mind.
  Nevertheless, when any development or redevelopment is proposed this is carefully considered by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the PSA and normally, at an appropriate stage, informal discussions take place with the local planning authority. These discussions are usually tripartite in the sense that they include MOD specialists, representing the defence interests, PSA officials, as the MOD's professional advisers, and planning officials, and in major cases the chairman and members of the planning committee representing the local planning authority. This is, given good will on all sides, conducted in a spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding of each others' interests. These informal discussions are then followed by a formal written consultation which is considered and dealt with by the relevant planning committee. I must emphasise that operational proposals are, for obvious reasons, initiated by the MOD—that is its business—while consideration of local planning issues and policy is in the first instance the business of the local planning authority.
  These formal consultations with local planning authorities are part of a non-statutory procedure which is invariably followed by all Government Departments before engaging in any activity which would require planning permission if it were to be carried out by a private sector body or individual. In the case of proposed development or a change of use by the MOD, the planning consultations are normally carried out on its behalf by the PSA.
  That, then, is the position on development proposals. When, on the other hand, the Ministry of Defence decides that land is surplus to its operational requirements it is handed to the PSA for disposal: the normal procedures then are that it is sold on the open market for the best price. That is Government policy. It is not wholly inflexible and it is always open to hon. Members, local planning authorities or individuals to seek to persuade me to vary the rules. Nevertheless, an open market sale is the usual method of disposal and sales of land by private treaty to public bodies, such as water authorities, electricity boards, and local authorities, are permitted only where the authority concerned demonstrates an overriding need to acquire the property to meet operational requirements to fulfil its proper and necessary statutory obligations. In the case of the Great Lines, my predecessor and I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we have yet to be persuaded that Gillingham borough council has such a need and, on my instructions, the PSA has been proceeding with an open market sale.
  Perhaps I should at this point explain that while where development by Government Departments is proposed, a non-statutory consultation takes place, when it is
  648
  proposed to sell Government-owned property a normal statutory planning application is now legally acceptable since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1984. This is what has been happening in respect of Great Lines, and I understand that the PSA is still awaiting a formal decision on this. My hon. Friend confirmed that, although he has said that he knows exactly what the decision will be. It is an odd state of affairs that everybody seems to know exactly what will be decided in a committee that has not yet met.
  Mr. Couchman: I do not know what that decision will be. I said that I would feel that no great foresight was needed to see what the decision was likely to be.
  Mr. Chope: I apologise if I misrepresented what my hon. Friend said. I looked at the substance of what he was saying and thought that he meant that the matter was decided already. From my point of view, and that of the PSA, we have to wait to see what the decision is and then decide what action we should take. I am told that that meeting is on 28 April, and assuming that the decision follows the council's recently stated opposition to any development on the site, this leaves me with a choice of either instructing the PSA to take the matter to appeal or instructing its marketing agents to sell on the open market.
  My hon. Friend has asked me to go to look at the Great Lines myself and I said in December that I would do so. I thought that it would be better if I waited until the outcome of the planning application has been determined. In December, I expected that that would be February, and My hon. Friend said then that that was likely. We now know that it will not be determined until the end of the month, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have asked my Office to make the necessary arrangements for a visit. We have had a discussion about this, and I hope that my visit will be able to take place within the next few weeks.
  As regards future disposals, it would always he the PSA's intention to discuss strategies with local planning authorities where such discussion seems likely to be fruitful. For example, the MOD is at present considering the release of land at Lower Lines in Gillingham and, although the extent of the land to be released is still under consideration within the MOD, the PSA has instructed agents to enter into preliminary discussions with local planning officials in the hope that constructive proposals will emerge prior to a planning application being submitted.
  Of course, each planning application — or consultation about development—must be treated on its own merits, bearing in mind any local or strategic plans which!, exist or are being formulated by the local planning authority. On these, the PSA — usually the local PSA estate surveyor and his MOD or armed service colleagues — will willingly participate in any discussions in connection with the formulation of plans, clearly reserving the right to object to proposals when draft plans are issued and to vary stated positions in the light of changed or changing operational requirements.
  Should the MOD decide to release substantial areas of land in the Gillingham area—I am not suggesting that it will, I do not know, as I say, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence — then there would be no question but that the PSA—following the precedent of the Chatham dockyard disposal —would seek to evolve a sensible and rational programme

  649
  of land release and disposal, taking fully into account the wishes and ambitions of local people and the planning authorities. The Chatham dockyard disposal was an exceptional case that required exceptional measures, and the successful implementation of its disposal was due, in no small way, to the excellent co-operation between local and central Government— ably supported by the local hon. Members—in formulating a future policy for land use which minimised the impact on the local community and which will in the long term ultimately benefit the Medway towns.
  Considerable business is now passing through the area transferred to the Medway (Chatham) Dock Company— a subsidiary of the Medway Ports Authority. I understand that English Estates is working closely with the local planning departments in formulating future plans —for example the proposal that the Tropical Research Institute, which is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, should be rehoused in the fine buildings that were formerly known as HMS Pembroke. There is also the historic dockyard where the trust jointly formed by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for the Environment is working on what promises to be a major tourist attraction.
  My hon. Friend mentioned conservation. On existing undeveloped areas of land, including woodland, the Ministry of Defence has an impressive conservation record. In saying this, I am not commenting on the planning application about some area health authority land that is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As my hon. Friend has said, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. In the Gillingham area, the local conservation group is run by the Army with expert advisers from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation, and Maidstone museum. The MOD conservation officer frequently attends and the PSA's estate surveyor participates in the discussions and helps to carry out many of the recommendations.
  The group meets four or five times a year and there are also regular field meetings. Most of the matters discussed affect the Chatham area on the Isle of Grain, a few miles north of Gillingham on the other side of the Medway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton). Recent meetings have discussed, for instance, a land management plan for the training areas, which included a forestry plan designed to improve, this and, where appropriate, replant woodland at Chattenden in accordance with a five-year plan. A site dossier is being compiled listing species of flora and fauna found on defence land locally; any rare or endangered species will, of course, be closely monitored by the group.
  650
  Other matters that have recently been the subject of discussion by the group include orchids in Chattenden wood, sites of special scientific interest on Army training areas, and liaison with other local conservation societies. In order to make known its activities, the group proposes to have a stand at the local Army open day.
  Apart from the Chattenden area, there are also undeveloped areas in and around Gillingham. We have discussed Great Lines and Lower Lines. There is also the ancient moat, at present being restored as part of the community programme—sponsored by the Army and organised by the National Council for the Rehabilitation of Offenders. That is a considerable and important task, as the moat is an important feature of the original defences of the royal naval dockyard and passes through what is now the royal school of military engineering's establishment at Brompton barracks.
  My Department and the Ministry of Defence take an interest in conservation in my hon. Friend's constituency and that is why we are particularly disappointed by the breakdown in relations with local planning department officials following the meeting on 3 December. I understand that at that meeting is was agreed in principle that some amendments would be made to the planning application, but that when PSA agents tried to discuss the matter in detail, the planning officials were not prepared to do that and attempted to divert the discussion to wider issues of land use and the release of land by the Ministry of Defence. The agents are clearly not competent to deal with those issues, for the reasons that I have set out.
  The PSA officials have tried to maintain a co-operative relationship with the borough officials and I have instructed PSA staff that they should continue to do so. However, that will not be helped if the council will not accept that the sale by private treaty at open space value is not possible.
  To sum up, there are properly established arrangements for consulting local interests about development proposals, conservation matters and disposal strategies. Those must be tailored to individual circumstances, but there is never any question of the MOD or the PSA riding roughshod over local interests. Nevertheless, I have to say again that it must be for the MOD to make decisions about the use of defence land, at Gillingham or anywhere else.
  I look forward to my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency after the Easter recess. As I have had the privilege of replying to the final Adjournment debate before Easter, I conclude by wishing you,Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Officials of the House a happy and enjoyable Recess.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock till Wednesday 22 April, pursuant to the resolution of the House [2 April].

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Project Zircon
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 8 April, what is his estimate of the additional man hours spent by the Crown Office as a result of parliamentary interest in the project Zircon case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  It is not possible to estimate the man hours involved.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) bilateral and(b) multilateral development aid his Department has provided to Kampuchea since 1979.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  British bilateral aid to Cambodia for 1979–85 was as follows:

  £'000s

  1979

  703

  1980

  480

  1981

  110

  1982

  18

  1983

  693

  1984

  18

  1985

  18

  We make contributions to a number of multilateral aid agencies, such as UNICEF and the world food programme, which have given aid to Cambodia. Figures for multilateral aid are available in an OECD Statistical publication "Geographical Distribution of Financial Flows for Developing Countries" a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Since 1979 Britain has provided, largely through international organisations, over £13 million to the international relief effort for refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian border.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. J. Leach (Correspondence)
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letters of 27 January and 17 February from the hon. Member for Dundee, East regarding his constituent Mr. J. Leach.

  Mr. Waddington
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Albany Prison (Disciplinary Charges)
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disciplinary charges were made
  418
  against inmates in Her Majesty's prison Albany between 1 January 1986 and 30 June 1986; and in how many cases was the verdict not guilty.

  Mr. Mellor
  The readily available information is given in the following table.

  Offences1 against prison discipline dealt with at Albany prison in the period 1 January to 30 June 1986; by outcome of adjudication

  Outcome of adjudication

  Number of charges2

  Charge proved

  607

  Charge dismissed

  30

  Case referred to police

  3

  Adjudication not completed

  2

  TOTAL

  642

  1 Including offences committed at other establishments; excluding offences committed at Albany but dealt with at other establishments.

  2 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate, detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Mates
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons sentenced to life imprisonment or detention during Her Majesty's pleasure are currently serving such sentences in England and Wales; and how many were serving such sentences(a) 10,(b) 20 and(c) 30 years ago.

  Mr. Mellor
  The readily available information is given in the table below:

  Population of life sentence1 prisoners in Prison Department establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1956, 1966. 1976 and 1986

  Year

  Number of prisoners2 3

  1956

  110

  1966

  470

  1976

  1,260

  1986

  2,290

  1 Including person detained during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under Section 53 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and those serving custody for life.

  2 The figures are rounded estimates based on records held centrally which are approximate, particularly for the earlier years. Detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  3 Including prisoners who had been recalled after having been released on licence.

  Mr. Mates
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of sentence served by prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the distribution of time served under sentence by life sentence prisoners received since 1965 is published in Table 4(e) of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1985", Cmnd. 9903.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new guidelines or instructions have been issued to immigration officials concerning entry clearance of persons known or suspected to be suffering from AIDS or who are HIV positive; and if he will make a statement.
  419
  Mr. Waddington
  I have nothing to add to my reply the hon. Member's question on 2 March at column 468.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 468, what information he has as to the intended purpose of the visit by the airline steward refused entry at Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Waddington
  In the case reported in the press the passenger sought entry as a tourist.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many out of the total number of persons treated as illegal entrants in 1986 who were granted temporary entrance subsequently absconded.

  Mr. Waddington
  Out of 613 illegal entrants who were given temporary admission in 1986, a total of 51 absconded.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of passengers granted temporary admission in 1986; and how many of these subsequently absconded;

  (2) what was the total number of passengers detained overnight under Immigration Act powers during 1986, by nationality;

  (3) how many people were detained overnight during 1986 in(a) Harmondsworth detention centre,(b) Queen's Building, Heathrow and(c) Beehive, Gatwick.

  Mr. Waddington
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide, for the latest convenient date, a table indicating the total number or persons detained under Immigration Act powers in prison department establishments, by category and individual prison establishment;

  (2) if he will provide, for the latest convenient date, a table indicating the period of time spent in prison department establishments by persons detained under Immigration Act powers showing the numbers detained for not more than one, two, three, four, five, six and more than six months, respectively.

  Mr. Waddington
  On 31 March 1987, 63 persons were detained in prison department establishments under the deportation powers and 30 as illegal entrants.

  The number detained in individual prison establishments was as follows:

  Prison establishment

  Under deportation powers

  As illegal entrants

  Barlinnie

  —

  1

  Bedford

  1

  —

  Belfast

  —

  1

  Birmingham

  2

  —

  Bristol

  1

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  —

  Canterbury

  1

  1

  Foston Hall

  —

  1

  Glen Parva

  1

  —

  Holloway

  1

  —

  Hull

  —

  1

  Latchmere House

  36

  18

  Leeds

  —

  1

  420

  Prison establishment

  Under deportation powers

  As illegal entrants

  Leicester

  4

  —

  Parkhurst

  1

  —

  Pentonville

  11

  2

  Perth

  —

  2

  Risley

  1

  —

  Saughton

  —

  2

  Wandsworth

  1

  —

  Winchester

  1

  —

  The information about the period of detention is as follows:

  Not more than

  Under deportation powers

  As illegal entrants

  One month

  27

  16

  Two months

  22

  6

  Three months

  8

  5

  Four months

  3

  —

  Five months

  1

  2

  Six months

  —

  1

  More than six months

  2

  —

  The information about passengers who were detained after refusal of leave to enter will take some time to assemble and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Remands
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the introduction of time limits for the length of time a prisoner may be remanded in custody referred to in paragraph 3 of the "Government Reply to the Third Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1985–86", Cm. 115.

  Mr. Mellor
  As a first step, statutory time limits on periods in custody in criminal proceedings were introduced on 1 April, in three police areas: Avon and Somerset, Kent and the west midlands.

  Prisons (Medical Services)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the working group set up by the president of the Royal College of Physicians to advise the director of prison medical services on qualifications and training for prison medical officers.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following comprise the President of the Royal College of Physicians' working group.

  Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, KBE, MD, PRCP,(Chairman)

  Dr. H. Baderman, FRCP(Honorary Secretary)

  H-J. B. Galbraith Esq. MD, FRCP

  M. R. Baker Esq. MD, MFCM

  T. H. Bewley Esq. MD, PRCPsych

  Dr. J. Higgins, FRCPsych, DPM

  Dr. J. L. Kilgour, CB, FFCM, MRCGP

  R. Lancaster Esq. SRN(Royal College of Nursing)

  Dr. E. E. J. Martin, MA, FRCGP

  Dr. K. H. Nickol, FRCP, FFOM, DIH

  Dr. Richard Smith, MB MHB

  Mrs. E. Whitaker, OBE, JP,(Board of Visitors, Wakefield Prison)

  Observers

  Dr. Pamela G. W. Mason, FRCPsych, DPM,(DHSS)

  K. R. North Esq.(Home Office)

  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made since

  421
  July 1985 in establishing a unified nursing service for prison establishments, indicating the numbers of nursing staff currently holding formal nursing qualifications and the numbers training exclusively in service.

  Mr. Mellor
  An essential first stage in the development of a unified service is the recruitment of men and women with nursing qualifications to train as prison hospital officers (uniformed staff combining custodial management and nursing skills). Since July 1985 there has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of hospital officers who hold a nursing qualification. Currently just under 300 members of the prison nursing service hold a qualification, including some 160 hospital officers. On 9 April, four qualified nurses were receiving or had been accepted for prison officer training with a view to becoming hospital officers and over 100 applications were under consideration.

  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the proposals for changes in prison service medical documentation which have been endorsed by Ministers, indicating what changes have so far been implemented.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposals centre on a system of discrete medical files for individual prisoners which transfer with them from one establishment to another under sealed cover for the attention of the medical officer. In addition to the modification of various medical documents, other proposed changes include a central storage facility for the medical files of discharged inmates. Medical officers will be further encouraged to seek previous medical histories on any new inmate, irrespective of category, whenever there is reason to think that to be clinically indicated. The Department will clarify with DHSS opportunities for conveying to general practitioners medical information arising during the currency of imprisonment.

  Managing medical officers have been asked to introduce the central proposal; most of them have done so and the remainder are working to that end.

  Metropolitan Police (Equal Opportunities Unit)
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many officers of the Metropolitan police force's equal opportunities unit, and what ranks, deal with(a) sexual and(b) racial discrimination.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the designated Equal Opportunities Officer is a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who chairs the force working parties on sexual and racial discrimination. The equal opportunities unit reports to a commander, and has one inspector and one sergeant dealing full time with sexual discrimination and one inspector dealing full time with racial discrimination.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily prison population of those detained under Immigration Act powers in 1986.
  422
  Mr. Mellor
  In 1986 the average population of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 in Prison Department establishments in England and Wales was 132.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities authorise the wearing of reinforced helmets by special constables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The equipment issued to special constables is a matter for each chief officer of police, and the information requested is not held centrally.

  Bilingual Forms
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that all coroners in Wales issue coroners' certificates in a bilingual format; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is not sufficient demand to justify this. Coroners in Wales will arrange to issue certificates in bilingual format in any particular case, if requested to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that the provisions of the Registration of Births, Still Births and Deaths (Welsh Language) Regulations 1969 and the Coroners (Welsh Forms) Rules 1970 are fully observed in Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no evidence of noncompliance with either of these permissive regulations.

  Coroners (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many of Her Majesty's coroners currently holding office in Wales, are Welsh-speaking; and how many are not Welsh speaking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not readily available and I will reply as soon as possible.

  West German State Lottery
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a publicity campaign to advice United Kingdom residents that it is contrary to the law to participate in the West German state lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. While the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 prohibits a number of activities in connection with lotteries promoted overseas, including advertising, it is not unlawful to take part in any such lottery. The Gaming Board for Great Britain draws attention to the law where there is evidence that it may have been broken.

  Maguire Case
  Mr. Heffer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Surrey as to the precise date on which police

  423
  inquiries into the matters raised in paragraph 39 of his Department's memorandum on the Maguire case were completed.

  Mr. Mellor
  The inquiries on which the sixth sentence of paragraph 39 is based were made by the Metropolitan police, who first arrested the Maguire family. At the time when the memorandum was drawn up, the Metropolitan police had reported that they had no written record of Vincent Maguire showing them a stick of chalk or any similar object. Subsequently, on 10 February, we were informed that none of the Metropolitan police officers involved in the case could verify his account of the matter (on which evidence had been offered at the trial).

  In the light of comments since made on paragraph 39 of the memorandum, we shall be consulting the chief constable of Surrey.

  Mr. Denis Wilkinson
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, about the evidence provided by Mr. Denis Wilkinson which secured the conviction of a number of defendants.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have arranged for inquiries to be made into the allegations about the evidence provided by Mr. Wilkinson. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any further recommendations from the Boundary Commission regarding minor review proposals for parliamentary constituency boundaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not received any further reports from the parliamentary boundary commissions since the English commission submitted a report on 40 constituencies on 9 February 1987. In that report the commission said that it would submit a separate report on two constituencies which had been the subject of a local inquiry in February 1987.I understand that this report will be submitted very shortly. The English commission informed us on 10 December 1986 of an interim review of 55 constituencies, including Burnley. I understand that a report on 53 of these 55 constituencies will be submitted in a few weeks. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales informed us of an interim review of 21 Welsh constituencies on 17 February 1986 and I understand that a report on this review is also expected within the next few weeks.

  Police (Helicopters)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many times during the past 12 months a Metropolitan police helicopter has been used in Newham; what incidents were involved; and what arrests resulted from information received from the helicopter crew.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 February 1987, c. 218]: I understand from the Commissioner of
  424
  Police of the Metropolis that the Metropolitan police air support unit answered 165 calls in the London borough of Newham in 1986. These calls concerned various matters, including robberies, burglaries, traffic and searches for missing persons. Forty two arrests resulted from the incidents in which the helicopters were used.

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

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 12]: Mr. Reynaldo Blanco Rojas and another Salvadorean national arrived together at Dover from Ostend on 29 March at 2.30 pm. The immigration officer examined them for the purpose of determining whether they qualified for leave to enter in accordance with the immigration rules. They at first claimed to be students and sought entry as tourists for a period of three days. The immigration officer was not at that stage satisfied that they were genuine visitors and required them to submit to further examination. At 4 pm, after further questioning and examination of their luggage and personal effects, the immigration officer decided that they could properly be admitted as visitors and granted them leave to enter the United Kingdom for a period of one month.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what, on the basis of present local authority plans for tertiary education, are the Department's estimates of the effect on the number of places taken up in traditional sixth forms;

  (2) what effect the introduction of tertiary colleges has had on the number of places taken up in conventional sixth form provision over the last seven years.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Brent (HMI Report)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the report of Her Majesty's inspectors on education in Brent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report from Her Majesty's inspectors. He hopes to do so by Easter. He will then consider in the normal way whether to publish it.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the progress of the establishment of city technology colleges and their funding.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Dixons Group plc announced on 8 April that it would provide sponsorship of £1 million for the establishment of a second city technology college to be
  425
  located in south Yorkshire. This is a further indication of the imaginative and encouraging response my right hon. Friend's proposals have received. Discussions with other prospective sponsors are well advanced and my right hon. Friend hopes soon to announce details of further city technology colleges.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Gould
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a table grouping local education authorities into those controlled on 1 January 1986 by the Conservative party, those controlled by the Labour party, those controlled by the alliance parties and those with no overall control, showing for each authority, the average for each group and the overall average(a) the average primary school class size for January 1985 and January 1986,(b) the average secondary school class size for pupils under 14 in January 1985 and January 1986 and(c) the average secondary school class size for pupils over 14 in January 1985 and January 1986.

  Mr. Dunn
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  St. Anne's Secondary School, Heaton Chapel
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions there have been between Stockport metropolitan borough, the Salford diocese and himself about the rebuilding of the fire-damaged section of St. Anne's secondary school, Heaton Chapel; and when he expects the work to be completed.

  Mr. Dunn
  Discussions are currently in progress between the Salford diocese and Stockport metropolitan borough council about the rebuilding of the school's science block, for completion by September 1988.

  School Leavers (Easter)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many persons left school on the Easter leaving date in 1983, and in 1986; and what is his best estimate of the numbers who will leave school at Easter 1987.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for the academic year 1985–86 is not yet available. There were 45,400 pupils reported as leaving English schools in the Spring term of 1985. The corresponding figure for 1983 was 47,100. No estimate is available for 1987.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many persons leaving school at Easter in 1986 registered to take O-level or other examinations during 1986.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for the academic year 1985–86 is not yet available. There were 15,300 pupils reported as leaving English schools in the Spring term of 1985 who attempted GCE O-level or CSE examinations in the summer of that year.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the annual amount paid by his Department on research into autistic problems in education for each year over the
  426
  past eight years indicating the local education authorities to which it was paid, the research projects involved and the number of teachers specially trained as teachers for autistic children.

  Mr. Dunn
  No research into the educational aspects of autism has been funded over the past eight years. There are no specific qualifications for teaching autistic children.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report those local education authorities which have(a) special schools,(b) centres or(c) special arrangements for the teaching of autistic children, indicating which provide boarding accommodation.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available. Since 1983 special schools have not been classified in accordance with the categories of the handicap of the pupils for which they cater. No central record is maintained of centres or other arrangements for teaching children with special educational needs.

WALES

  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representatives he has received concerning the training and further professional development of teachers of children with special educational needs; whether he intends making changes to established practices in this sphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  I have received one letter from a group of lecturers in Wales who are concerned about this matter, and five letters from hon. Members. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for the Supply and Education of Teachers that specialist qualifications to teach deaf children, as well as children with other disabilities, should be acquired after qualification as a teacher in the normal way and after a period of experience of teaching in an ordinary school. Under the new local education authority training grants scheme, which came into operation on 1 April 1987, over £200,000 has been allocated to authorities in Wales for the training of existing teachers to meet the special educational needs of pupils with learning difficulties. The Welsh Office will be monitoring what use the local education authorities make of these funds.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd (Opening Ceremony)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to the Welsh Office arising from the official opening ceremony of Ysbyty Gwynedd undertaken by the Prime Minister in March.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  One official responsible for health matters represented the Welsh Office at a cost of less than £200 in travel and subsistence. In addition, two Welsh Office press officers accompanied the Prime Minister throughout her official tour of north Wales. It would not be meaningful to attempt to allocate a cost to their time spent at Ysbyty Gwynedd.

PRIME MINISTER

  West German State Lottery
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the practice of the Government of West Germany of issuing letters in the English language to United Kingdom residents inviting them to participate in illegal lotteries designed solely to provide revenue for the West German Government; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. We are pursuing this matter with the appropriate authorities within the relevant states of the Federal Republic of Germany.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Newspapers (Takeovers and Mergers)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by the Director of Fair Trading in relation to newspaper takeovers and mergers in each of the years 1980 to 1986;

  (2) how many complaints have been received by his Department in each of the years 1980 to 1986 in relation to undertakings given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regarding newspaper takeovers and mergers.

  Mr. Pattie
  The Director General of Fair Trading has no statutory functions in relation to newspaper takeovers and mergers. Any assurances which may be given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regarding newspaper takeovers and mergers have no statutory underpinning. It is, however, open to the Commission to reccomend that conditions should be attached to the Secretary of State's consent to a newspaper transfer; and it is in turn open to the Secretary of State to attach to his consent such conditions as he sees fit.

  My Department does not keep records of the number of complaints which are received concerning undertakings to the Commission or the observance of conditions attached to the Secretary of State's consent. But recently my Department has received one complaint concerning an undertaking to the Commission which was reflected neither in a condition recommended by the Commission nor in a condition attached to the Secretary of State's consent and since 1985 six complaints related to conditions attached to a consent given by the Secretary of State.

  Business Improvement Scheme (West Penwith)
  Mr. Harris
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the business improvement scheme for West Penwith.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  The business improvement services scheme in the Penzance and St. Ives travel-to-work area started operating in July 1986. Since then 89 offers of assistance have been made to applicants, worth £394,412.

  I am pleased to see that the scheme has been well received locally.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the European Economic Community
  428
  code of conduct on South Africa applies to British companies with interests in South Africa which employ more than 20 black Africans; and what is his position if these employees are located at different enterprises, none of which individually employs as many as 20 black Africans.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department looks for the submission of a full report in all cases where a British company holds 50 per cent. or more of the equity of a South African company. The Government recognise that provision of detailed reports would be inappropriate where the South African company's total employment includes fewer than 20 black Africans.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the minimum wage recommended in the European Economic Community code of conduct on South Africa is calculated for a family of five; and what regard is paid to(a) sex,(b) marital status or(c) age.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The minimum wage recommendations in the EC code of conduct refer companies to the supplemented living level figures produced by the University of South Africa. UNISA's figures are based on survey data and calculated for families of varying sizes, including a family of five, which is the recommended minimum wage level in the EC code, regardless of sex, marital status or age.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Raynsford
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what evidence he based the claim, in the Government's booklet in support of locating the European Community Trade Marks Office in London, that inexpensive housing is available in plenty both in and out of London.

  Mr. Pattie
  The booklet's purpose is to demonstrate the advantages of London as the location of the proposed Community trade marks office relative to other European cities contending for this Office. Houses in London are not expensive when compared with houses of a similar type and in similar areas in other contending cities.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on the Internal Market Council held on 7 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Council continued discussion on proposals for Directives on the controls and formalities applicable to EC nationals at intra-Community borders, on a right of residence for EC nationals in other member states, and on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas for the purposes of professional qualifications.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on progress on the disposal of Rover Group truck and bus activities.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  On 19 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed the House that the Government had accepted the Rover Group's recommendation that Leyland Trucks, Freight
  429
  Rover, and the related parts operations and overseas subsidiaries of the Rover Group should combine with DAF Trucks in a new joint venture company. The agreement between Rover Group and DAF to transfer these businesses to the new merged company, Leyland DAF Ltd, was completed on 6 April.

  On 13 January I informed the House that the sale of Leyland Bus to a management-led consortium had been completed. The Government have now accepted the Rover Group's proposal to dispose of Leyland DAB, the Group's wholly-owned bus manufacturing subsidiary in Denmark, to its management, subject to final negotiations and procedures at the annual general meeting of Leyland DAB on 14 April.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held between Britain and Vietnam over the past 12 months concerning the future of Vietnamese refugees.

  Mr. Renton
  We have held no formal discussions with the Vietnamese Government on this subject.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received about the Hong Kong law about the publication of false news; and what consultations have been held with the Hong Kong Government on the subject.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on 3 April at column 643. While this is primarily a matter for the Hong Kong Government, they have kept us fully informed of developments.

  Bahrein
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British assistance to Bahrein.

  Mr. Renton
  No money has been allocated to Bahrein from the British aid programme. There are no British loan service personnel in Bahrain at present, though some have in the past undertaken training there.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the supply by British companies of security specialists or former British military personnel to the Government of Bahrein.

  Mr. Renton
  We are aware that a number of British citizens have been directly recruited by the Government of Bahrain. Their employment is a private commercial arrangement between them and the government of an independent country.

  Gaza Strip
  Mr. Murphy
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on
  430
  Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the continuing role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the Gaza strip and the status of refugees there.

  Mr. Renton
  We fully support United Nations Relief and Works Agency's vital humanitarian work on behalf of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to seek the consent of the European Economic Community to extend British summer time.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in support of the extension of British summer time.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received no such representations. The primary responsibility for British summer time rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  West German State Lottery
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the result of the representations which his Department made to the West German authorities regarding the literature sent by the West German state lottery to the hon. Member for Southend, East and to other British citizens inviting them to participate in an illegal lottery designed to provide funds for the West German Government, details of which were supplied to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Consumer Affairs in February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following representations made by the British Consulate General in Hamburg, the authorities who run the North West German lottery on behalf of the six states in the Federal Republic of Germany have instructed all agencies involved in promoting the lottery to take note of the relevant parts of the Lotteries and Amusements Act of 1976.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the European Economic Community Commission to determine whether member states are empowered to prevent the distribution of lottery tickets being issued by member states in the same way as they can take action against such materials being issued by non-European Economic Community Governments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The terms of the Lotteries and Amusements Act of 1976 apply equally to lotteries promoted in European Community member states and in other countries.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the Government of West Germany to return to the United Kingdom all payments made by United Kingdom residents in response to invitations sent by the West German state lottery to United Kingdom citizens asking for contributions to their official lottery; and if he will make a statement.
  431
  Mr. Eggar
  No. The lottery is the responsibility of states' governments rather than the Federal Government.

  Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any changes in the amount, value and disposition of gold held under the control of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold in the past three years.

  Mr. Renton
  The amount and disposition of the gold have remained unchanged. Its value has changed only in accordance with changes in world prices.

  Mr. Jeff Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list the proposed recipients of the gold held by the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold after settlement of outstanding claims and state what steps he has taken to inform the proposed recipients of the procedure being used for its distribution.

  Mr. Renton
  The allocated amounts of gold have all been delivered, except that for Albania. Once that has been delivered, the remaining gold will be distributed among the claimant countries (Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Yugoslavia) in proportion to their allocations. This final distribution will be conducted in accordance with procedures to be established by the tripartite commission.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if there have been any changes in the British commissioner to the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold in the past three years.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The current British commissioner is Mr. M. B. Collins OBE, commercial counsellor at the British embassy in Brussels.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any meetings of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold have taken place since his reply of 3 November 1986,Official Report, column 309.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Dicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff accredited with diplomatic status work in the offices of the British High Commissioner in(a) Australia,(b) India and(c) Canada.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 643]:

  Number

  (a) Australia

  26

  (b) India

  101

  (c) Canada

  22

  The figures include immigration and British Council staff. They also include subordinate posts in India but not in Australia or Canada, where staff have consular rather than diplomatic status.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list those bodies and organisations which have applied to become managing agents for the new job training scheme in each manpower services commission area; and in each case which of those listed have been selected.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Manpower Services Commission are currently negotiating and signing contracts with managing agents. As soon as the relevant information has been assembled, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  asked the Paymaster General if he will specify the precise dates on which each of the administrative changes made to the compilation of the unemployment figures since 1979 was introduced.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The following changes have been made to the compilation of the monthly instalment figures since 1979:

  Date for which unadjusted count was first affected

  11 November 1982
  Switch from count of registrants at jobcentres and careers offices to count of benefit claimants, following introduction of voluntary registration at jobcentres.

  6 March 1986
  Delay in compilation by two weeks to remove mistaken over-recording caused by late arrival of information about the status of claimants.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will provide the figures for the numbers of people who have been(a) continuously unemployed since May 1979, (b) continuously unemployed since June 1983 and(c) who have never had a job since leaving school; and if he will provide figures for each region, and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives the number of claimants in the regions of the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over four years on 8 January 1987, the latest date for which an analysis of unemployment by duration is available (information on those unemployed over eight years is not available). It also shows for those areas the numbers of unemployed claimants of all ages who had not had a job since leaving full-time education at 12 February 1987, together with those aged under 18 years.

  Full-time education leavers 12 February 1987

  Region

  Unemployed Over 4 years 8 January 1987

  All ages

  Aged under 18 years

  South East

  71,218

  51,379

  10,869

  (Including Greater London)

  (39,965)

  (33,586)

  (5,904)

  East Anglia

  7,870

  4,268

  1,236

  South West

  17,842

  10,438

  3,051

  West Midlands

  54,920

  32,766

  8,806

  East Midlands

  22,960

  4,583

  4,379

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  38,172

  30,914

  9,787

  433

  Full-time education leavers 12 February 1987

  Region

  Unemployed Over 4 years 8 January 1987

  All ages

  Aged under 18 years

  North West

  65,436

  41,663

  10,825

  North

  34,877

  20,347

  6,073

  Wales

  22,699

  15,044

  4,266

  Scotland

  45,126

  40,636

  18,751

  Northern Ireland

  23,833

  8,968

  1,893

  United Kingdom

  404,953

  271,006

  79,936

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list, for each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom(a) the number unemployed in May 1979, in June 1983 and at the last date for which figures are available, (b) the long-term unemployed on these dates and(c) the percentage increase in unemployed and in long-term unemployed from both May 1979 and June 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending the hon. Member the available information which is also in the Library. The information relates to the number of unemployed claimants in each parliamentary constituency of Great Britain in June 1983 (not available for Northern Ireland constituencies) and of the United Kingdom on 12 February 1987. It is difficult to compare these figures directly because of seasonal factors and changes in the coverage of the data.

  Statistics of unemployment for parliamentary constituencies are derived from the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983. Analyses of unemployment by duration are not available for February or June: statistics for constituencies of Great Britain at July 1983 and January 1987 are available in the Library.

  Mr. George
  asked the Paymaster General on what dates the measures taken to revise the method of computing the number of unemployed took effect; what were the measures; and how many were removed from the register.

  Mr. Trippier
  In recent years the following changes have been made to the compilation of the monthly unemployment figures:

  Date on which unadjusted count was first affected

  Approximate average effect on the unadjusted count when the change occurred

  Switch from count of registrants at jobcentres and careers offices to count of benefit claimants, following inroduction of voluntary registration at jobcentres.

  11 November 1982

  -190,000

  Delay in compilation by two weeks to remove mistaken over-recording caused by late arrival of information about the status of claimants.

  6 March 1986

  -50,000

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list the number of employees in 1981 and 1984, and
  434
  any estimate he has for 1986, and the numbers employed in(a) manufacturing,(b) construction,(c) metal manufacturing, and (d) engineering and allied industries in each Parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 240–41]: Constituency figures can be provided only for those dates when censuses of employment are taken and the most recent are for September 1981. The September 1984 small area census estimates are expected to become available shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  The currently available information from the 1981 census given in the table below relates only to numbers of people employed excluding self employed people, in constituencies in Great Britain. An industry breakdown and an estimate of the number of self-employed people is not available for each constituency.

  The figures are therefore not a measure of the number of jobs in each constituency.

  Employees in employment: Parliamentary constituencies: September 1981

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Barrow and Furness

  36,500

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  22,300

  Bishop Auckland

  33,300

  City of Durham

  38,400

  Copeland

  29,000

  Easington

  32,300

  Hexham

  20,500

  Langbaurgh

  15,300

  North Durham

  18,000

  North West Durham

  17,800

  Penrith and the Border

  25,800

  Sedgefield

  23,800

  Wansbeck

  29,800

  Westmoreland and Lonsdale

  28,000

  Workington

  23,500

  Blaydon

  27,200

  Blyth Valley

  19,900

  Carlisle

  35,500

  Darlington

  36,500

  Gateshead East

  29,200

  Hartlepool

  33,200

  Houghton and Washington

  28,500

  Jarrow

  21,300

  Middlesbrough

  47,400

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  33,300

  Newcastle upon Tyne East

  57,500

  Newcastle upon Tyne North

  18,100

  Redcar

  42,800

  South Shields

  29,100

  Stockton North

  41,700

  Stockton South

  26,400

  Sunderland North

  42,700

  Sunderland South

  24,800

  Tyne Bridge

  62,200

  Tynemouth

  28,200

  Wallsend

  37,800

  Barnsley West and Penistone

  27,400

  Beverley

  32,500

  Booth Ferry

  23,100

  Bridlington

  23,800

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  28,400

  Calder Valley

  28,500

  Colne Valley

  23,000

  Dewsbury

  29,900

  Doncaster North

  24,400

  Don Valley

  21,700

  Elmet

  20,900

  Harrogate

  34,200

  435

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Hemsworth

  20,500

  Keighley

  29,300

  Normanton

  20,000

  Pontefract and Castleford

  37,700

  Richmond (Yorks)

  29,300

  Rother Valley

  20,400

  Ryedale

  26,400

  Scarborough

  28,700

  Selby

  32,200

  Sheffield, Hallam

  23,500

  Sheffield, Hillsborough

  25,300

  Shipley

  21,900

  Skipton and Ripon

  30,600

  Wentworth

  15,700

  Barnsley Central

  27,800

  Barnsley East

  23,200

  Batley and Spen

  31,800

  Bradford North

  38,900

  Bradford South

  24,300

  Bradford West

  62,300

  Doncaster Central

  55,400

  Glanford and Scunthorpe

  34,500

  Great Grimsby

  44,900

  Halifax

  45,200

  Huddersfield

  42,500

  Kingston upon Hull East

  25,100

  Kingston upon Hull North

  22,000

  Kingston upon Hull West

  62,400

  Leeds Central

  141,200

  Leeds East

  19,600

  Leeds North East

  13,700

  Leeds North West

  21,100

  Leeds West

  23,800

  Morley and Leeds South

  29,600

  Pudsey

  26,800

  Rotherham

  42,700

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  32,800

  Sheffield, Brightside

  23,300

  Sheffield Central

  120,900

  Sheffield, Heeley

  15,600

  Wakefield

  50,100

  York

  59,100

  Amber Valley

  29,200

  Ashfield

  38,200

  Bassetlaw

  31,800

  Blaby

  27,200

  Bolsover

  20,000

  Bosworth

  33,000

  Broxtowe

  33,200

  Corby

  25,900

  Daventry

  23,200

  East Lindsey

  26,400

  Erewash

  28,500

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  22,700

  Gedling

  20,700

  Grantham

  30,700

  Harborough

  29,700

  High Peak

  28,300

  Holland with Boston

  27,100

  Kettering

  26,700

  Loughborough

  36,300

  Mansfield

  31.800

  Newark

  31,800

  North East Derbyshire

  23,100

  North West Leicestershire

  33,300

  Rushcliffe

  24,500

  Rutland and Melton

  31,000

  Sherwood

  34,300

  South Derbyshire

  19,000

  Stamford and Spalding

  26,800

  Wellingborough

  32,600

  West Derbyshire

  33,700

  Chesterfield

  45,400

  Derby North

  31,600

  Derby South

  75,600

  Leicester East

  35,300

  436

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Leicester South

  72,900

  Leicester West

  52,100

  Lincoln

  46,200

  Northampton North

  25,200

  Northampton South

  58,200

  Nottingham East

  45,900

  Nottingham North

  18,700

  Nottingham South

  96,500

  Bury St. Edmunds

  40,800

  Central Suffolk

  24,200

  Great Yarmouth

  31,100

  Huntingdon

  27,200

  Mid Norfolk

  17,700

  North East Cambridgeshire

  25,200

  North Norfolk

  21,600

  North West Norfolk

  32,000

  South East Cambridgeshire

  22,900

  South Norfolk

  20,900

  South Suffolk

  31,600

  South West Cambridgeshire

  34,100

  South West Norfolk

  26,600

  Suffolk Coastal

  29,500

  Waveney

  35,400

  Cambridge

  52,700

  Ipswich

  52,500

  Norwich North

  21,500

  Norwich South

  72,400

  Peterborough

  59,600

  Barking

  25,100

  Battersea

  31,100

  Beckenham

  22,700

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  55,200

  Bexleyheath

  14,400

  Bow and Poplar

  29,100

  Brent East

  28,700

  Brent North

  25,100

  Brent South

  54,900

  Brentford and Isleworth

  57,900

  Carshalton and Wallington

  23,500

  Chelsea

  54,100

  Chingford

  16,800

  Chipping Barnet

  26,000

  Chislehurst

  19,100

  Croydon Central

  75,800

  Croydon North East

  15,700

  Croydon North West

  32,900

  Croydon South

  19,000

  Dagenham

  45,900

  Dulwich

  17,300

  Ealing, Acton

  49,700

  Ealing North

  25,200

  Ealing, Southall

  42,200

  Edmonton

  25,300

  Eltham

  13,400

  Enfield North

  45,700

  Enfield, Southgate

  15,000

  Erith and Crayford

  22,600

  Feltham and Heston

  76,000

  Finchley

  20,200

  Fulham

  27,700

  Greenwich

  25,500

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  16,800

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  64,400

  Hammersmith

  51,400

  Hampstead and Highgate

  28,900

  Harrow East

  39,300

  Harrow West

  16,400

  Hayes and Harlington

  48,500

  Hendon North

  25,400

  Hendon South

  25,000

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  179,600

  Hornchurch

  14,900

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  34,300

  Ilford North

  17,300

  Ilford South

  31,900

  Islington North

  31,800

  437

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Maidstone

  46,700

  Medway

  53,000

  Mid Kent

  18,600

  Mid Sussex

  32,000

  Mole Valley

  31,600

  Newbury

  37,500

  New Forest

  23,500

  North Thanet

  18,900

  North West Hampshire

  27,000

  North West Surrey

  36,300

  Reading East

  67,600

  Reading West

  21,800

  Romsey and Waterside

  28,300

  Sevenoaks

  27,100

  Shoreham

  24,300

  South Thanet

  24,600

  South West Surrey

  27,500

  Tonbridge and Malling

  39,400

  Tunbridge Wells

  36,300

  Wealden

  20,500

  Winchester

  50,400

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  43,000

  Woking

  33,900

  Wokingham

  25,200

  Brighton, Kemptown

  18,400

  Brighton, Pavilion

  49,700

  Chertsey and Walton

  38,100

  Crawley

  54,400

  Eastbourne

  34,000

  Eastleigh

  43,800

  Epsom and Ewell

  26,200

  Esher

  22,100

  Gillingham

  16,300

  Gosport

  22,800

  Havant

  30,500

  Hove

  27,700

  Portsmouth, North

  42,500

  Portsmouth, South

  56,300

  Reigate

  34,900

  Slough

  59,000

  Southampton, Itchen

  67,200

  Southampton, Test

  33,100

  Spelthorne

  42,700

  Worthing

  33,200

  Bridgwater

  28,600

  Christchurch

  23,300

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  37,500

  Devizes

  36,100

  Falmouth and Camborne

  23,900

  Honiton

  20,400

  Islington South and Finsbury

  81,600

  Kensington

  28,900

  Kingston upon Thames

  43,900

  Lewisham, Deptford

  26,300

  Lewisham East

  16,900

  Lewisham West

  18,500

  Leyton

  19,800

  Mitcham and Morden

  22,700

  Newham North East

  14,200

  Newham North West

  36,000

  Newham South

  24,600

  Norwood

  19,200

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  18,400

  Orpington

  17,300

  Peckham

  25,100

  Putney

  26,300

  Ravensbourne

  24,500

  Richmond and Barnes

  24,100

  Romford

  30,300

  Ruslip-Northwood

  18,800

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  87,500

  Streatham

  21,700

  Surbiton

  18,100

  Sutton and Cheam

  26,200

  The City of London and Westminster South

  790,400

  Tooting

  23,600

  438

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Tottenham

  26,900

  Twickenham

  30,500

  Upminister

  16,700

  Uxbridge

  41,600

  Vauxhall

  90,700

  Walthamstow

  22,100

  Wanstead and Woodford

  12,000

  Westminster North

  42,500

  Wimbledon

  36,700

  Woolwich

  28,600

  Aylesbury

  40,900

  Banbury

  33,100

  Beaconsfield

  28,100

  Billericay

  25,400

  Braintree

  34,900

  Brentwood and Ongar

  26,700

  Buckingham

  26,000

  Chelmsford

  45,900

  Chesham and Amersham

  23,700

  Epping Forest

  24,600

  Harlow

  41,100

  Harwich

  24,200

  Henley

  22,900

  Hertford and Stortford

  36,500

  Northavon

  25,700

  North Cornwall

  25,200

  North Devon

  25,800

  North Dorset

  18,600

  North Wiltshire

  31,200

  St. Ives

  20,700

  Salisbury

  35,500

  Somerset and Frome

  21,500

  South Dorset

  27,700

  South East Cornwall

  15,500

  South Hams

  20,100

  Stroud

  32,900

  Taunton

  36,800

  Teignbridge

  24,600

  Tiverton

  24,000

  Torridge and West Devon

  22,500

  Truro

  34,200

  Wansdyke

  24,400

  Wells

  27,300

  Westbury

  38,400

  West Dorset

  26,700

  West Gloucestershire

  30,800

  Weston-Super-Mare

  25,700

  Woodspring

  19,900

  Yeovil

  34,000

  Bath

  39,900

  Bournemouth East

  35,300

  Bournemouth West

  24,800

  Bristol East

  58,800

  Bristol North West

  49,200

  Bristol South

  34,300

  Bristol West

  65,600

  Cheltenham

  48,300

  Exeter

  54,300

  Gloucester

  50,800

  Kingswood

  26,600

  Plymouth, Devonport

  33,800

  Plymouth, Drake

  42,800

  Plymouth, Sutton

  16,500

  Poole

  40,300

  Swindon

  52,300

  Torbay

  30,200

  Bromsgrove

  19,700

  Burton

  39,700

  Cannock and Burntwood

  25,100

  Hereford

  34,000

  Leominster

  19,200

  Ludlow

  21,100

  Meriden

  17,300

  Mid Staffordshire

  32,400

  Mid Worcestershire

  37,300

  North Shropshire

  27,800

  439

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  North Warwickshire

  30,500

  Nuneaton

  27,300

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  36,700

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  35,900

  South East Staffordshire

  19,300

  South Staffordshire

  19,500

  South Worcestershire

  31,600

  Stafford

  46,600

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  24,900

  Stratford-on-Avon

  30,700

  Warwick and Leamington

  47,500

  Wyre Forest

  31,100

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  20,800

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  43,000

  Birmingham, Erdington

  44,900

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  12,100

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  21,800

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  116,200

  Birmingham, Northfield

  37,300

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  16,400

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  34,800

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  87,100

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  42,100

  Birmingham, Yardley

  32,100

  Coventry North East

  19,000

  Coventry North West

  24,600

  Coventry South East

  74,400

  Coventry South West

  24,400

  Dudley East

  42,300

  Dudley West

  26,900

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  35,800

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  29,000

  Solihull

  43,300

  Stoke-on-Trent Central

  55,800

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  31,300

  Stoke-on-Trent South

  39,200

  Sutton Coldfield

  19,600

  The Wrekin

  36,900

  Walsall North

  30,000

  Walsall South

  53,800

  Warley East

  24,200

  Warley West

  32,100

  West Bromwich East

  34,300

  West Bromwich West

  43,400

  Wolverhampton North East

  36,000

  Wolverhampton South East

  40,100

  Wolverhampton South West

  31,000

  Worcester

  42,500

  Bolton West

  21,800

  Chorley

  26,600

  City of Chester

  41,400

  Congleton

  27,700

  Crewe and Nantwich

  39,400

  Eddisbury

  22,400

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  46,200

  Fylde

  32,000

  Halton

  39,100

  Hazel Grove

  19,800

  Heywood and Middleton

  20,500

  Knowsley North

  29,600

  Knowsley South

  33,000

  Lancaster

  28,600

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  18,200

  Macclesfield

  32,500

  Makerfield

  19,000

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  18,200

  Ribble Valley

  24,300

  South Ribble

  34,800

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  29,000

  Tatton

  33,800

  West Lancashire

  29,600

  Wirral South

  23,800

  Wirral West

  8,800

  Worsley

  19,400

  Wyre

  23,000

  Altrincham and Sale

  25,600

  440

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Ashton under Lyne

  30,000

  Birkenhead

  44,300

  Blackburn

  43,700

  Blackpool North

  36,400

  Blackpool South

  17,000

  Bolton North East

  36,300

  Bolton South East

  35,400

  Bootle

  37,200

  Burnley

  39,700

  Bury North

  30,800

  Bury South

  20,700

  Cheadle

  20,000

  Crosby

  16,200

  Davyhulme

  34,300

  Denton and Reddish

  42,400

  Eccles

  36,800

  Hyndburn

  25,400

  Leigh

  29,800

  Liverpool, Broadgreen

  33,300

  Liverpool, Garston

  23,400

  Liverpool, Mossley Hill

  24,600

  Liverpool, Riverside

  125,700

  Liverpool, Walton

  32,700

  Liverpool, West Derby

  13,800

  Manchester, Blackley

  16,400

  Manchester Central

  214,500

  Manchester, Gorton

  11,800

  Manchester, Withington

  19,900

  Manchester, Wythenshawe

  25,900

  Oldham Central and Royton

  40,300

  Oldham West

  30,900

  Pendle

  29,200

  Preston

  63,500

  Rochdale

  36,000

  Rossendale and Darwen

  30,100

  St. Helens North

  16,000

  St. Helens South

  48,700

  Salford East

  40,600

  Southport

  24,000

  Stockport

  28,700

  Stretford

  47,900

  Wallasey

  17,100

  Warrington North

  48,200

  Warrington South

  26,800

  Wigan

  38,900

  Aberavon

  28,400

  Alyn and Deeside

  24,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  21,600

  Brecon and Radnor

  18,000

  Bridgend

  30,900

  Carnarfon

  16,600

  Caerphilly

  23,700

  Carmarthen

  22,200

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  19,900

  Clwyd North West

  24,800

  Clwyd South West

  17,000

  Conwy

  25,400

  Cynon Valley

  17,700

  Delyn

  20,700

  Gower

  15,000

  Islwyn

  17,700

  Llanelli

  27,700

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  10,700

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  23,600

  Monmouth

  26,900

  Montgomery

  14,900

  Neath

  22,100

  Newport East

  16,100

  Newport West

  40,900

  Ogmore

  13,000

  Pembroke

  29,800

  Pontypridd

  36,200

  Rhondda

  16,300

  Torfaen

  27,100

  Vale of Glamorgan

  21,900

  Wrexham

  28,400

  441

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Ynys Mon

  16,700

  Cardiff Central

  68,800

  Cardiff North

  24,100

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  34,100

  Cardiff West

  18,700

  Swansea East

  24,400

  Swansea West

  49,500

  Angus East

  21,100

  Argyll and Bute

  20,500

  Ayr

  37,000

  Banff and Buchan

  25,000

  Caithness and Sutherland

  13,300

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  22.200

  Central Fife

  25,400

  Clackmannan

  18,500

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  15,600

  Clydesdale

  20,100

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  14,200

  Cunninghame North

  15,400

  Cunninghame South

  21,600

  Dumbarton

  24,100

  Dumfries

  30,200

  Dunfermline East

  23,500

  Dunfermline West

  23,900

  East Kilbride

  28,300

  East Lothian

  21,400

  Eastwood

  14,200

  Falkirk East

  25,700

  Falkirk West

  29,300

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  22,000

  Gordon

  34,300

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  42,300

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  26,900

  Kincardine and Deeside

  13,300

  Kirkcaldy

  31,400

  Linlithgow

  22,600

  Livingston

  29,000

  Midlothian

  24,200

  Moray

  24,400

  North East Fife

  17,100

  North Tayside

  22,300

  Orkney and Shetland

  17,100

  Perth and Kinross

  33,500

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  18,000

  Ross Cromarty and Skye

  18,700

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  17,200

  Stirling

  30,500

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  18,200

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  19,300

  Western Isles

  8,200

  Aberdeen North

  27,100

  Aberdeen South

  77,400

  Dundee East

  20,700

  Dundee West

  56,500

  Edinburgh Central

  113,400

  Edinburgh East

  17,800

  Edinburgh Leith

  40,500

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  18,000

  Edinburgh South

  18,700

  Edinburgh West

  21,300

  Glasgow Cathcart

  15,500

  Glasgow Central

  83,300

  Glasgow Garscadden

  12,600

  Glasgow Govan

  19,500

  Glasgow Hillhead

  120,200

  Glasgow Maryhill

  25,800

  Glasgow Pollock

  20,800

  Glasgow Provan

  9,000

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  17,300

  Glasgow Shettleston

  24,400

  Glasgow Springburn

  29,700

  Green and Port Glasgow

  33,200

  Hamilton

  27,800

  Monklands East

  17,100

  Monklands West

  19,500

  Motherwell North

  24,100

  442

  Constituency

  Number of employees

  Motherwell South

  30,600

  Paisley North

  52,100

  Paisley South

  16,000

  Restart
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Paymaster General if he will review the rule that prevents a young person being employed under a Manpower Services Commission scheme who has gained the relevant skills under the restart programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no knowledge of such a rule.

  Employment Census
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Paymaster General to what factors he attributes the delay in the availability to regional planning authorities of the county, borough and ward level data from the employment census 1984, known as ER2 data; and whether he is able to give a date on which those data will be made available to the greater Manchester district authorities.

  Mr. Lee
  The processing of the 1984 census estimates for small areas has been delayed as a result of the difficulties arising out of sampling in the census. However, it is hoped that these estimates will become available for release within about a month or so. My officials will be writing to local planning authorities later this month to advise them as to availability.

  Labour Force Survey
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General what consideration is being given to, or what consultations have taken place on, the future of the labour force survey; and if he proposes to conduct it on a more frequent basis.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My officials continually assess the quality of the Department's statistical series and seek ways to improve them. I have taken no decision to alter the present frequency of the labour force survey.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General how many men and women he estimates to be in search of part-time work.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary labour force survey results for the spring of 1986 indicate that of those unemployed according to the definition conventionally used in measuring the labour force 72,000 men and 411,000 women were looking for work as part-time employees.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General(1) what is his estimate for the United Kingdom for June 1983 and presently of(a) the number of married women or cohabitees who are out of work but not included in the benefit claimants monthly count and(b) the number of married men or cohabitees who are out of work but not included in the benefit claimants monthly count;
  443
  (2) how many persons over 60 years he estimates to be out of work but not required to register as unemployed to claim benefit for the following dates: June 1983, February 1986 and February 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General what new proposals he is considering, or what consultations are taking place, in relation to the accuracy of the monthly count of unemployed benefit claimants.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no such proposals being considered or consultations taking place.

  Advertising
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Paymaster General what proportion of his Department's budget for advertising and promotion is spent on regional and local newspaper advertising; and if he will make a statement.

  Programme

  Date

  Number

  Area

  Community Programme

  31 March 1987

  2,148

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough

  Job Release Scheme

  1 March 1987

  148

  Walsall Travel to Work Area

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  7 April 1987

  812

  Wolverhampton and Walsall Area

  YTS

  5 April 1987

  2,688

  Walsall Local Authority District

  There are currently no people on community industry, the young workers scheme or the job splitting scheme in the Walsall area.

  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.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 37]: Claimants to unemployment benefit have always been disallowed benefit by independent statutory adjudicating authorities, in accordance with long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments, where they are not available for work. There have therefore always been some interviews and some refusals of claims for as long as the national insurance system has operated since its establishment in its present form in 1947. If the hon. Member is asking for information about the position since we last modified the procedures and revised the form which has always been used to enforce the rules, the answer as at 27 February 1987 is as follows:

  Number

  Numbers of claimants who have completed the latest version of the availability questionnaire (UB 671)

  1,077,836

  Number of claimants who have been disallowed benefit.

  8,866

  Information is not readily available about the number of appeals made against disallowance of benefit or their outcome.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Paymaster General how many people have been refused full or partial unemployment
  444
  Mr. Trippier
  The proportion of the Department of Employment's advertising budget spent on regional and local newspaper advertising is 4·1 per cent.

  Job Creation Programmes
  Mr. George
  asked the Paymaster General how many people are engaged in the following special employment and training measures within the employment area covering the Walsall, South constituency.(a) community industry,(b) community programme,(c) the YTS, (d) the young workers scheme, (e) the job release scheme, (f) the job-splitting scheme and (g) the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is not possible to give a precise total figure because of the various basis on which local information is collated. The number of people participating in the following employment training and enterprise measures are:

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 37]: Ever since the national insurance system in its present form was set up in 1947, some claimants to unemployment benefit have always been disallowed benefit by independent statutory adjudicating authorities, in accordance with long standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments, where they are not available for work.

  If the hon. and learned Member is asking how many claims have been disallowed in this way since we last modified the procedures and revised the form which has always been used to enforce the rules, the answer, as at 27 February 1987, is 78 claimants in Leicester and 8,866 claimants in Great Britain.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General (1) when he expects to announce revised local unemployment rates, based on the employment figures contained in the 1984 census of employment;

  (2) if he will publish the revised national and regional unemployment rates for each month since June 1983, based on his updated employment figures contained in the 1984 census of employment.

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: Revised unemployment rates incorporating employment estimates which take account of the 1984 census of employment results will be published within the next two months. At that time revised national and regional rates will be available in the Library.

  Bradford (Job Clubs)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Paymaster General how much the Manpower Services Commission is paying the Norfolk Gardens hotel in Bradford to establish a job club; how many job clubs have been established in the Bradford district in private premises and at what cost in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Nine job clubs had been opened in the Bradford metropolitan district by 31 March as part of the Manpower Services Commission's expansion to 1,000 job clubs nationally. Two of these job clubs, run by MSC staff, are temporarily located in accommodation rented from the Norfolk Gardens hotel, pending a move to permanent premises. Negotiations for such premises are at an advanced stage.

  In addition, seven job clubs are run on the commission's behalf by external organisations.

  I regret that information about individual financial and contracting arrangements is confidential, but the average cost of job clubs in the Bradford metropolitan district is £18,600 per annum.

ENERGY

  Pollution
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if any experiments on the introduction of metallic elements into the flame areas of boilers using untreated fuel oil in power stations in order to reduce the formation of acidic gases have been conducted by the Central Electricity Generating Board or by any body for which he is responsible;

  (2) what has been the outcome of experiments at the Coal Research Establishment on the addition of antifouling additives in terms of the quantity of oxides of nitrogen produced by combustion in coal-fired boilers of the kind used in power stations;

  (3) if consideration has been given to the treatment of fuels prior to combustion in power stations as a means of inhibiting acid rain.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Central Electricity Generating Board maintains a wide ranging programme of research into methods of reducing acid emissions from power stations including the treatment of fuels prior to combustion. I understand that the evidence to date does not support the use of such techniques for emission control at the board's plant. I also understand that the introduction of metal compounds into the flame area of oil fired boilers has been found to be effective as a means of reducing acid dewpoint corrosion in the plant and the formation of acid smuts but not as a means of reducing emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides.

  British Coal informs me that the coal research establishment has not undertaken any tests on the effect of anti-fouling additives in boilers of the type used in a large modern power plant. Such tests are under way for industrial boilers but the results, in terms of the quantity of oxides of nitrogen emitted, have not been promising.

  Coal Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 April,Official Report, column 6, if he will take steps to produce details of all fatal
  446
  accidents which have occurred in the coal industry for the year 1986–87, broken down according to coalfield areas, as soon as possible;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 April,Official Report, column 7, if he will take steps to produce details of all serious accidents which have occurred in the coal industry for the full year 1986–87, broken down according to coalfield areas, as soon as possible.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall publish the information requested when it becomes available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Accommodation Agencies
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Attorney-General for each year since 1975,(a) how many accommodation agencies have had summonses issued against them under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953,(b) how many accommodation agencies have been successfully prosecuted under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953, (c) how many directors of accommodation agencies have had summonses issued against them under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 and (d) how many directors of accommodation agencies have been successfully prosecuted under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information in the form requested is not available. The information readily available to me, which may be incomplete, is given in the following table:

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for offences under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 England and Wales 1975–85: Number of defendants

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1975

  2

  2

  1976

  2

  2

  1977

  9

  9

  1978

  2

  2

  1979

  —

  —

  1980

  4

  4

  1981

  3

  1

  1982

  4

  3

  1983

  4

  3

  1984

  5

  2

  1985

  5

  2

  Licensed Conveyancers
  Mr. Harris
  asked the Attorney-General what information the Lord Chancellor has as to the number of licensed conveyancers who have so far registered with the Council for Licensed Conveyancers under the transitional arrangements and as to the number of applications for registration.

  The Attorney-General
  Two hundred and forty five notices of intention to apply for a licence have been received by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. The council cannot issue licences until the relevant statutory provisions comes into force.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Self-Employed Persons
  Ms. Clare Short
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of self-employed in each tax band in each year since 1979.

  Single people and married couples liable to tax with main source self employment income

  thousands

  Marginal rate of tax1 (per cent.)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  25

  2257

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  30

  21,120

  1,340

  1,380

  1,460

  1,590

  1,670

  40

  44

  42

  53

  54

  47

  55

  45

  38

  35

  43

  42

  46

  51

  50

  29

  31

  36

  33

  36

  35

  55

  13

  13

  18

  17

  15

  16

  60

  17

  23

  27

  26

  23

  24

  Total

  1,520

  1,490

  1,550

  1,630

  1,760

  1,850

  1 Highest rate of income tax on total income (including investment income) excluding investment income surcharge.

  2 Figures for 1979–80 are on a slightly different basis from that for later years. As a result, the total of those liable at 25 and 30 per cent. may be understated relative to later years by about 20,000. Differences for higher rates are negligible.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why investment trust companies are excluded from participating in the provision of personal equity plans.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The prime aim of the personal equity plan is to encourage direct investment in British companies. Holdings of investment trusts in personal equity plans are allowed up to £420 a year or 25 per cent. of investors' annual subscriptions, whichever is the higher. The purpose of this limit is to enable small investors to have a reasonable spread of risk, without undermining the main objective of the scheme. Though investment trusts are companies under law, they cannot provide a sufficiently close relationship between the investor and the companies in which the trust invests. Also, many investment trusts have large holdings in foreign companies and gilts.

  Reliefs and Allowances
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will show tax and national insurance in 1987–88 as a proportion of earnings, together with a breakdown of the reliefs and allowances applicable in the cases of a married man with earnings of £100,000 per annum, making an annual investment of £40,000 from his earnings under the business expansion scheme and claiming tax relief on(a) a mortgage loan of £30,000, assuming a monthly interest payment of £281·25,(b) the maximum contribution to a personal pension scheme from 4 January 1988, having no contracted-out employer's scheme prior to that date,(c) a life insurance policy taken out before 13 March 1984 and with an annual premium of £1,000 and (d) the maximum monthly tax-free investment into a personal equity plan;

  (2) if he will show tax and national insurance in 1987–88 as a proportion of earnings together with a breakdown of the reliefs and allowances applicable in the case of a married man with earnings of £30,000 per annum, and
  448
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information from the survey of personal incomes is as follows:

  making an annual investment from his earnings of £5,000 under the business expansion scheme as well as claiming tax relief on(a) a mortgage loan of £30,000, assuming a monthly interest payment of £281.25,(b) the maximum contribution to a personal pension scheme from 4 January 1988, having no contracted-out employer's scheme prior to that date,(c) a life insurance policy taken out before 13 March 1984 and with an annual premium of £200 and (d) the maximum monthly tax-free investment into a personal equity plan;

  (3) if he will show tax and national insurance in 1987–88 as a proportion of earnings together with a breakdown of the reliefs and allowances applicable in the cases of(a) a married man with earnings of £100,000 per annum,(b) a married man on the level of average male earnings assumed for 1987 and(c) a single person earning £100 per week.

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

  Leeds-Bradford Airport (Customs Clearance)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Freight Forwarders in the Leeds-Bradford area about its proposals to introduce a system of customs clearance by direct computer link covering Leeds-Bradford Airport and Leeds Containers base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received proposing the development of a customs and excise depot at the Leeds-Bradford Airport.

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  I shall let the hon. Members have replies as soon as possible.

  Pensions
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following his Budget proposals, any of the pension rights secured by additional voluntary

  449
  contributions can be commuted into a tax-free lump sum, whether any restrictions will apply only to contributions paid after 17 March 1987 regardless of when the arrangements to pay such contributions was entered into; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 March 1987, c. 108]: I regret the delay in replying. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given in my written reply on 7 April 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) at columns 164–65.

  Tax Exemption
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the rate of tax payable in the current financial year on(a) interest and(b) dividends paid to overseas holders of United Kingdom securities; and if he will provide a forecast of the yield in each case together with his estimate of the amount of tax forgone by virtue of exemption granted in the case of interest paid on certain government stocks;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the saving to the Exchequer in 1987–88 of ending the tax exemption on the interest paid on gilt-edged securities to overseas residents.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 213]: The rate at which tax is payable on interest paid to non-resident holders of United Kingdom securities will depend on the nature of the security and the terms of any double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the country of residence of the recipient. Interest on certain British Government securities is not liable to income tax. Under the imputation system of corporation tax, the shareholders' liability to basic rate income tax on dividends paid by United Kingdom companies is regarded as met by the advance corporation

  Income tax plus national insurance contributions1 Multiples of average earnings

  ½

  ⅔

  1

  5

  10

  (a)£ per week

  (b) Per cent.

  (a) £ per week

  (b) Per cent.

  (a) £ per week

  (b) Per cent.

  (a) £ per week

  (b) Per cent.

  (a) £ per week

  (b) Per cent.

  Single person

  1978–79

  10·92

  23·5

  17·03

  27·5

  29·25

  31·5

  242·17

  52·2

  625·97

  67·5

  1985–86

  25·99

  26·2

  38·89

  29·4

  64·69

  32·6

  451·12

  45·5

  1,046·62

  52·7

  1986–87

  27·52

  25·8

  41·04

  28·8

  68·07

  31·9

  487·04

  45·6

  1,127·24

  52·8

  1987–88

  28·32

  24·9

  41·96

  27·7

  62·94

  30·5

  520·05

  45·8

  1,201·95

  52·9

  Married couple with part-time working spouse

  1978–79

  7·43

  12·5

  13·54

  17·1

  29·28

  24·6

  285·80

  48·0

  726·82

  61·1

  1985–86

  18·77

  15·0

  31·68

  19·0

  62·89

  25·1

  539·41

  43·1

  1,235·19

  49·3

  1986–87

  20·16

  15·0

  33·68

  18·8

  66·62

  24·8

  579·85

  43·1

  1,328·71

  49·4

  1987–88

  21·21

  14·8

  36·82

  19·3

  68·51

  23·9

  614·06

  42·9

  1,412·89

  49·3

  Married couple plus two children2 with part-time working spouse

  1978–79

  1·13

  1·9

  7·13

  9·0

  22·87

  19·2

  277·77

  46·7

  718·49

  60·4

  1985–86

  4·97

  4·0

  17·88

  10·7

  49·09

  19·6

  525·61

  42·0

  1,221·39

  48·8

  1986–87

  6·02

  4·5

  19·54

  10·9

  52·48

  19·5

  565·71

  42·0

  1,314·57

  48·9

  1987–88

  6·71

  4·7

  22·32

  11·7

  54·01

  18·8

  599·56

  41·8

  1,398·39

  48·8

  1 Less child benefit where appropriate.

  2 Both under 11.

  Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report
  450
  tax payable by the company in respect of the distributions made by it. If, under the terms of a double taxation agreement a non-resident recipient is entitled to a tax credit, the aggregate of the dividend and the tax credit is taxed at the restricted rate specified in the agreement.

  The information required to forecast the tax yield from interest paid to overseas holders of United Kingdom securities is not available. The yield from the taxation of dividends paid to overseas holders of United Kingdom securities and their accompanying tax credits was approximately £150 million in 1985–86, the latest year for which this information is available.

  The estimated reduction in tax liabilities in 1986–87 resulting from the exemption for overseas holders of British Government securities is £350 million. A figure for 1987–88 is not available.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1987–88 the information on tax and national insurance contributions provided in his reply of 30 January to the hon. Member for Thurrock,Official Report, columns 413–16.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c.216]: The following table shows(a) income tax plus national insurance contributions less child benefit at current prices and(b) income tax plus national insurance contributions less child benefit as a percentage of gross income. The calculations assume that the taxpayer has no reliefs other than the appropriate personal allowances and that national insurance contributions are at the contracted-in rate. Average earnings are those for full time males and part-time females paid at adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence. Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are provisional.

  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.
  451
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c.76]: The estimated direct revenue costs in a full year at 1987–88 income levels for each of the main personal allowances are as follows. The calculation assumes that the increase in each allowance would reduce liability at the basic rate of tax only.

  Allowance

  Cost at 1987–88 income levels £ millions

  Single person's

  250

  Wife's earned income

  105

  Married man's

  275

  Additional personal

  12

  Widow's bereavement

  2

  Married age (taxpayers aged 65 to 79)

  22

  Married age (taxpayers aged 80 and over)

  4

  Single age (taxpayers aged 65 to 79)

  24

  Single age (taxpayers aged 80 and over)

  4

  Pension Schemes (Approvals)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the superannuation funds office has returned to employers pension schemes submitted to them for approval before Budget day.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: I assume my hon. Friend has in mind the decision of the Inland Revenue superannuation funds office not to give formal tax approval to occupational pension schemes until the Finance Bill has received Royal Assent. This is because the tax reform package for pensions announced in the Budget requires pension schemes to have rules which conform with the Budget proposals and, until the Finance Bill is enacted, the precise form of these rules cannot be known. However, schemes established before Royal Assent should generally benefit from the usual tax reliefs on a provisional basis until such time as they can finalise their rules and obtain approval.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards the eventual privatisation of all nationalised industries and public corporations.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: It is the Government's policy to privatise most of the remaining state-owned sector of industry in the rest of this Parliament and the next.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish in the Official Report the increase in constant price terms of light dues for shipping for the years 1970–71, 1974–75, 1978–79 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The table shows, for each financial year since 1970–71, the percentage difference in constant price terms between the 1987–88 light dues rates and the rates in earlier years. In calculating these differences the latest Treasury GDP deflators have been used:452

  Percentage

  1970–71

  19·9

  1971–72

  12·5

  1972–73

  21·1

  1973–74

  23·3

  1974–75

  16·6

  1975–76

  133·7

  1976–77

  24·8

  1977–78

  26·2

  1978–79

  18·3

  1979–80

  4·2

  1980–81

  8·0

  1981–82

  19·1

  1982–83

  13·0

  1983–84

  0·6

  1984–85

  5·2

  1985–86

  11·8

  1986–87

  8·8

  1987–88

  —

  1 This increase took effect on 26 September 1975 and subsumed a smaller increase effective from 1 April 1975.

  Coaches (Vehicle Excise Duty)
  Mr. Stephen Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the net yield of payments made by the express coach service sector through vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, taking into account the rebate which is claimed by operators, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Vehicle excise duty and fuel duty receipts are not collected separately for the express coach service sector.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Terlezki
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to increase the manpower available to British Transport police in the South Wales area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is a matter for the railways board and the British Transport police. I understand that they have no immediate plans to increase police manpower in South Wales, but the situation is under review.

  Trains (Vandalism)
  Mr. Terlezki
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has of the number of incidents of vandalism on late evening trains in South Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from the British Transport Police that in the first 3 months of 1987 there have been 14 reported offences involving criminal damage on late evening trains in South Wales.

  Petroleum (Cetane Value)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on proposals to reduce the cetane value in petroleum products and on the effect of this on the environment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following discussions with Government Departments and the industries concerned proposals have been made by the British Standards Institution to amend the standard for diesel fuel for road vehicles BS 2869. The proposals follow changes in the
  453
  quality of crude oil available, the mix of oil products in demand and the technical possibilities for controlling various characteristics of diesel fuel. The minimum cetane number would be reduced from 50 CN to 48 CN, a figure nearer the European average. It is expected that this would result in marginal increases in smoke and noise emission from some engines. On the other hand new density limits, a stability requirement and tighter viscosity and distillation characteristics would be introduced to act as a safeguard against diesel fuel quality declining in other respects. On balance we believe this package of changes will best secure the needs of industry and the protection of the environment.

  Railways (Consultative Committees)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to British Rail management concerning the making of representations by it about transport consultative committee appointments.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have neither issued any guidance to, nor received any representations from, British Rail on TUCC appointments. TUCC appointments are, in any case, entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Roads (Safety)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is seeking low-cost safety measures for implementation on roads taken over from the former Greater London council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. A top priority on taking over these roads was to review their safety record. Our current programme will put in remedial schemes at the rate of two a week right across the London trunk road network throughout the coming year. This is part of our expanding programme of low-cost accident prevention measures which will pay high dividends in terms of lives saved.

  Borough Traffic Orders
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the rate of clearance of borough traffic orders by his Department; and how it compares with the clearance rate by the former Greater London council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  An object of giving boroughs their own traffic management powers was to cut out wasteful delays. Boroughs have been making good use of their new freedom to get ahead speedily with local schemes to handle traffic more effectively and safely. Where orders have to come to this Department, they are cleared within a maximum of one month and generally far less. This compares favourably with the many months some GLC orders used to take.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals have been made by consultants concerning the operation of the Woolwich free ferry; what changes in hours of service are envisaged; what effects there would be on manpower; and what would be the estimated savings in one year in actual and percentage terms.
  454
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At a meeting with me yesterday afternoon, Greenwich council undertook to complete its input to the consultants final report as quickly as possible. I hope to have the consultants' proposals soon.

  Vehicle Passengers (Risks)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the relative risk of accident and injury for passengers travelling in(a) minibuses(b) motor caravans and(c) passenger service vehicles and coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Relative injury-rates for these categories are not available, because: (i) the STATS 119 accident report form does not distinguish between(a) and(b); and (ii) traffic figures giving vehicle kilometres of exposure include (b) with traffic, and(a) with either car traffic or with(c).

  In plain English: not much.

  Minibuses (Safety)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to lay down standards for the safety of minibuses equivalent to that required for the occupants of other forms of fare-paying passenger transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Each class of vehicle used for fare paying passenger transport is subject to appropriate safety standards which have regard to the particular constructional characteristics of that class. The requirements for minibuses are set out in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate any studies to monitor the effect of increased minibus passenger travel on the rate of accidents involving minibuses.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Accidents involving minibuses are monitored through the accident reporting system, and I shall watch the situation carefully.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to amend STATS 19 forms to allow a distinction to be made between minibus and motor car accidents as part of the process of monitoring the effects of bus-deregulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The existing STATS 19 form distinguishes between (i) cars, (ii) minibuses-motor-caravans, and (iii) larger buses. There is no distinction under (ii) between private motor caravans and minibuses running on public services. We hope to obtain agreement from the Association of Chief Police Officers to record seating capacity of type (ii) vehicles. This should help in the monitoring of bus-deregulation.

  Minibuses (Passenger Mileage)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what information he has about minibus passenger mileage for 1985; and what information he proposes to collect to facilitate monitoring of the effects of bus de-regulation.
  455
  Mr. David Mitchell
  No separate information is available for minibus passenger mileage for 1985. The Department has a programme for monitoring the effects of bus deregulation covering national data, area and case studies. The first report was published in January of this year and a further report is expected in the summer which will include general information on the development of minibus services in the study areas.

DEFENCE

  Scottish Universities (Contracts)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department has placed with each Scottish university in the past three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Research agreements and contracts have been placed by MOD with a wide range of Scottish universities as follows.

  Number

  1984

  10

  1985

  23

  1986

  29

  It is for the universities concerned to confirm their individual involvement.

  Project Zircon
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in preparing his forthcoming defence White Paper, he will make it his policy to identify separately expenditure on project Zircon; and if he will provide similar information for previous years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  AWACS
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to build hardened shelters for United Kingdom-based airborne warning and control system aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no intention to build hardened shelters for United Kingdom-based airborne warning and control system aircraft.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether airborne warning and control system aircraft will be able to refuel from Victor K2 tankers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. All Victor K2 tankers are fitted with an E-3 compatible refuelling system.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether airborne warning and control system aircraft will be able to refuel from VC10 K1 tankers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no VC10 K1 aircraft in service. However, the United Kingdom's VC10 K2 and VC10 K3 tanker fleet will be compatible with the United Kingdom E-3 force.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether airborne warning and control systems aircraft will be able to refuel from Tristar Q1 tankers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.
  456
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many hours airborne warning and control system aircraft will be able to remain on station with air-to-air refuelling.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to reveal details of operational capabilities.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how long the airborne warning and control system mission system avionics can be kept in operation in the air without need for maintenance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to reveal details of operational capabilities. However, most elements of the mission system are duplicated providing an automatic in-flight redundancy thereby ensuring a high degree of efficiency in the MSA.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours Royal Air Force airborne warning and control system aircraft will he able to stay on station over the Faroes/Iceland area of the North sea without air-to-air refulling.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to reveal details of operational capabilities.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the vulnerability of Royal Air Force advanced warning and control system aircraft on the ground in the event of war.

  Mr. Stanley
  I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many squadrons of tanker aircraft are currently in Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Stanley
  Three.

  Air-to-Air Refuelling
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies on air-to-air refuelling capability.

  Mr. Stanley
  Recent discussions have been held with the United States on air-to-air refuelling interoperability. This and other aspects of air-to-air refuelling have been, and will be, under discussion in various NATO fora.

  Sea Wolf
  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the delay in awarding the Sea Wolf missile contracts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A review of Sea Wolf missile stocks and future requirements is currently underway. On successful completion of this review a decision will be made on the timing of any further contract awards.

  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when orders will be placed for Sea Wolf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many individual orders have been placed under under the Sea Wolf programme since its inception in the 1970s. It is not possible to be precise about the timing of further such orders.

  Invincible Class Vessels (Refurbishment)
  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the refurbishment of ships in the Invincible class over the next three years; and what timetable exists for the undertaking of the necessary work.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Invincible is currently undergoing a refit at Devonport dockyard. For all vessels of the class, maintenance in dock will be undertaken at approximately six-monthly intervals. Refit plans are under review.

  Atomic Weapon Trials, Australia
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the history of the British atomic weapons trials in Australia, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The book "A Very Special Relationship" provides a factual account of the British atomic weapon trials in Australia based mainly on a large volume of contemporary material, and also evidence provided during the inquiries of the Australian Royal Commission. It has been written by Lorna Arnold, a research assistant under Professor Margaret Gowing at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I have placed a copy in the Library today.

  Tactical Missile System
  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about United Kingdom involvement in plans for a new tactical missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 1987 c.304]: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  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 slection 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
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c.88]: The savings in the 1986–87 budget arose on fuel Votes as a result of engergy efficiency measures previously introduced. The fuel Votes have now been reduced to reflect the lower and more efficient consumption levels.

  Energy efficiency measures are normally funded from works budgets and may at times have to give way to building projects which operationally are of greater urgency. Such building projects will increase energy efficiency on the defence estate over and above the measures for which funds have been specifically allocated, although the cost is not separately identifiable.

  Within the Government's overall energy efficiency initiative the Ministry of Defence has set a target of a 25 per cent. reduction in usage of non-operational energy over the 5 year period 1986–87 to 1990–91. The reduction in the 1987–88 budget should not prejudice achievement of this target.

  Greenham Common (Vehicle Transfer)
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to why 10 Dodge Ram support vehicles were transferred from Greenham common to Alconbury on 1 April; and to what use they will he put.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987, c.172.]: I am informed by the United States authorities that they are not aware of any transfer of USAF Dodge Ram vehicles from RAF Greenham Common to RAF Alconbury on 1 April.

  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the purpose for which United States service personnel were transferred from Greenham common to Alconbury on 1st April.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987, c. 172.]: I am informed by the United States authorities that they are not aware of any transfer of United States service personnel from RAF Greenham common to RAF Alconbury on 1 April.

  Publications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on publications for: (a) free distribution and (b) sale under £1;

  (2) what has been the total cost of producing publications on aspects of Her Majesty's Government's defence policies in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 April 1987]: In the time available it is not possible to produce figures in the precise form requested. or for a full five-year period. However, all material produced on public relations Votes is free of charge and in the last three financial years expenditure was as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  340,125

  1985–86

  269,440

  1996–87

  1408,273

  1Forecast of outturn.

  In addition the MOD produces considerable amounts of material in support of recruitment to the armed forces. Figures over the same period are, as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  1,559,000

  1985–86

  1,345,000

  1986–87

  1,302,000

  The MOD produces a wide range of material for sale both through HMSO, the Crown Publishers, and on a repayment basis through the single service forms and publications stores. The amounts spent in each of the past five years on publications for sale at less than £1, and on aspects of defence policies separately from other MOD publications, cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to ensure that the

  459
  introduction of the community charge does not deter students from outside Scotland applying to take courses at Scottish universities.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office agreed, during discussion of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc., (Scotland) Bill at Committee Stage in the House of Lords on Thursday 2 April, to consider the position of students, including students from outside Scotland, under the proposals to replace domestic rates by a system of community charges. I do not however consider that the proposals will represent a significant disincentive to students from outside Scotland undertaking university and college courses in Scotland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report how many people under the age of 25 years (a) are unemployed and (b) have been unemployed for more than six months in (i) Glasgow, Central and (ii) the whole of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested, for the latest available date, is given in the table :

  Unemployed claimants aged under 25 years as at 8 January 1987

  Unemployed over 6 months

  Total

  Glasgow Central parliamentary constituency

  1,545

  2,825

  Scotland

  64,906

  142,439

  Private Medicine (Glasgow)
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list how many general practitioners are carrying out private work in health centres in the Glasgow area; and what is the proportion of private to Health Service general practice care in the Greater Glasgow health board area.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I understand that the number of general practitioners authorised to undertake private practice in health centres in the area of the Greater Glasgow health board was 156 at the end of March 1987. Information about the proportion of private to Health Service general practice in the board's area is not available centrally.

  Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on education in each of the past 10 years in cash and constant price terms.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information is set out in the table:

  Total expenditure on education within Secretary of State for Scotland's responsibility

  £ million

  Financial year

  Cash

  Constant price1 terms

  1976–77

  754

  1,796

  1977–78

  805

  1,684

  1978–79

  901

  1,703

  460

  Financial year

  Cash

  Constant price1terms

  1979–80

  1,032

  1,669

  1980–81

  1,273

  1,735

  1981–82

  1,432

  1,778

  1982–83

  1,503

  1,740

  1983–84

  1,575

  1,745

  1984–85

  1,616

  1,717

  1985–862

  1,680

  1,680

  1Calculated by applying GDP deflator, base year 1985–86.

  2 Provisional outturn figure based on most recent information from local authorities.

  Education (Statistics)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scotland's gross domestic product was spent on education in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information, in respect of the education expenditure within my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility is set out in the table below :

  Per cent.

  1981

  7·9

  1982

  7·5

  1983

  7·2

  11984

  7·0

  11985

  6·6

  1 Figures are provisional.

  Notes:

  (1) GDP figures used are at factor cost by calendar year, expenditure figures are for financial years, ie the 1981 percentage is expenditure in 1981–82 as a percentage of GDP in 1981.

  (2) The average cash growth in GDP for the years quoted was 8·6 per cent., while the average cash growth in education spending was 4·1 per cent., hence the latter declines as a percentage of the former.

  Tourism
  Mr. Henderson asked
  the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds were made available in cash and real terms to the Scottish tourist board in the years 1978·79 and 1982·83; and how much has been provided for the year ahead.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 2 March at column 485.

  Children (Health and Development)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence from surveys his Department has about the relative standard of health and development of children of the unemployed compared with the rest of the population.

  Mr. John MacKay
  No surveys designed to determine the existence of any relationship between child health and development and parental unemployment have been carried out in Scotland.

  Cigarette Smoking
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the incidence of cigarette smoking by percentage by social class in Scotland at the latest date and 10 years previously.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information is as follows :
  461

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking by socio-economic group, Scotland 1974 and 1984

  Socio-Economic Group

  Percentage Smoking Cigarettes Both Sexes

  1974

  1984

  Professional

  34

  25

  Employers and Managers

  41

  32

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  41

  30

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  52

  45

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  55

  47

  Unskilled manual

  52

  41

  Total

  48

  39

  Source General Household Survey unpublished tables.

  Births, Stillbirths and Infant Deaths by Social Class of Father, Tayside Region, 1985 (rates per 1,000 births)

  I

  II

  III N

  III M

  IV

  V

  Stillbirths1

  2·9

  2·6

  3·9

  3·9

  8·5

  3·7

  Perinatal1

  8·8

  5·2

  7·9

  5·5

  10·3

  3·7

  Neonatal

  8·9

  2·6

  3·9

  2·4

  5·2

  —

  Postneonatal

  3·0

  1·3

  5·9

  1·6

  3·4

  —

  Infant Deaths

  11·8

  3·9

  9·9

  4·0

  8·6

  —

  1 Rate per 1.000 live and still births.

  Births, Stillbirths, and Infant Deaths by Social Class of Father, Dundee District, 1985 (Rates per 1,000 births)

  I

  II

  III N

  III M

  IV

  V

  Stillbirths1

  6·3

  7–1

  5·1

  3·4

  4–0

  5·9

  Perinatal1

  12·7

  7·1

  10·2

  3·4

  4·0

  5·9

  Neonatal

  12·7

  —

  5·1

  1·7

  —

  —

  Postneonatal

  —

  3·6

  10·3

  —

  —

  —

  Infant Deaths

  12·7

  3·6

  15·4

  1·7

  —

  —

  1 Rate per 1,000 live and still births.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the standardised mortality rates of men of working age by social class in Dundee and Tayside at the latest available date or period.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Information on standardised mortality ratios by social class for men aged 20–64 for Tayside for the period 1979–83 is as follows. The ratios are based on information front death registrations and the 1981 Census, and are subject to error because of different methods of collecting information on occupation. Information for Dundee is not available.

  Standardised mortalily ratios for men aged 20–64, by social class, Tayside Region, 1979–83

  Social Class

  Standardised Mortality Ratio

  I

  60

  II

  67

  III N

  90

  III M

  87

  IV

  96

  V

  139

  Note:

  The standardised mortality ratio for men in the total of all social classes in Great Britain is 100.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the standardised mortality rate for

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of (a) stillbirths, (b) perinatal deaths, (c) neonatal deaths, (d) postneonatal deaths and (e) infant deaths per 1,000 total births in Dundee and Tayside in the latest year, by social class of the father.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information requested is:

  death by the following category in Scotland at the latest available date or period for manual and non-manual groups : (a) all causes, (b) lung cancer, (c) coronary heart disease and (d) cerebro-vascular disease.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The latest information is contained in "Mortality Differentials in Scotland and England and Wales in Manual/Non-Manual Occupational Groups 1969–73 to 1979–83" which was published in the vital statistics return to the Registrar General for Scotland, Weeks 41–44, 1986. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the standardised mortality rate of women aged 20 to 59 years by social class in Dundee and Tayside at the latest available date or period.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Information on standardised mortality ratios by social class for women aged 20–64 for Tayside for the period 1979–83 is as follows. The ratios are based on information from death registrations and the 1981 Census, and are subject to error because of different methods of collecting information on occupation. Information for Dundee is not available.
  463

  Standardised mortality ratios for women aged 20·64, by social class, Tayside Region, 1979–83

  Social Class

  Standardised Mortality Ratio

  I

  61

  II

  71

  III N

  67

  III M

  84

  IV

  92

  V

  107

  Note The standardised mortality ratio for women in the total of all social classes in Great Britain is 100.

  Radioactive Waste (Storage)
  Mr. Home Roberston
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any sites in East Lothian have been considered for the storage of low level radio active waste material; and if any such sites are being considered for the storage of intermediate level radioactive waste material.

  Mr. Ancram
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the permanent disposal of waste. The selection of sites for geological investigation as a possible shallow burial repository for the disposal of low level waste is a matter for UK NIREX Ltd. Neither the Government nor NIREX consider that it would be appropriate to release details of all the sites considered before the four currently under investigation in England were selected.

  NIREX are currently considering possible options for the disposal of intermediate level waste, 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. A number of alternative sites will be considered by NIREX. At this stage, no area has been ruled out.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional staff his Department is making available to support the advisory committee on salmon stocks.

  Mr. John McKay
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is in the process of recruiting an additional principal scientific officer to assist in the consideration of scientific matters raised by the salmon advisory committee. Existing scientific staff will also contribute to that work. In addition, the Department provides the committee's deputy secretary from existing staff resources.

  Grant Assistance
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations whose applications for grant assistance for 1987–88 under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 have been approved; and what are the sums to be made available to those organisations.

  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

  464

  £

  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

  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

  Orkney and Shetland
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 6 March, Official Report, column 716, if he will visit Orkney and Shetland during the course of the Easter recess.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Hip and Knee Joint Operations
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the numbers waiting for (a) hip joint and (b) knee joint operations in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the average waiting time for knee and hip joint replacement operations; and what are the authorities which have the longest waiting times.

  Mr. John MacKay
  This information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table gives the mean waiting time (in days) for those who received treatment in 1985 for knee and hip joint replacement after admission from the waiting list and were discharged in that year.

  Mean Wait (days)

  Health board

  Knee replacement

  Hip replacement

  Argyll and Clyde

  200

  206

  Ayrshire and Arran

  221

  166

  Borders

  83

  114

  Dumfries and Galloway

  176

  191

  Fife

  144

  213

  Forth Valley

  189

  275

  Grampian

  158

  303

  Greater Glasgow

  135

  128

  Highland

  400

  323

  Lanarkshire

  154

  144

  Lothian

  379

  203

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  317

  283

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Scotland

  219

  202

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are waiting for kidney dialysis treatment in Scotland.
  465
  Mr. John MacKay
  All patients referred for treatment for end-stage renal failure who are considered likely to benefit from renal dialysis are receiving appropriate treatment, and there are no waiting lists.

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to lay a commencement order bringing sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 into force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  As indicated in my written reply of 10 February 1987 to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) at columns 67–8 my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to implement a number of provisions in the Act with relatively slight resource implications in the course of 1987–88 including those referred to in the question. Consultations have taken place with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities only very recently and he expects to indicate the timing he proposes immediately following the Easter recess.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the Scottish Development Agency's annual budget for all promotional purposes for each of the last five years; and what percentage of its total budget these figures represent;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report, the total value of work of all kinds put out to consultants by the Scottish

  Crimes Recorded by Police Force Area, Scotland 1986

  Crime

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Scotland Total

  Total Crimes

  20,450

  7,321

  23,828

  37,466

  79,900

  12,621

  246,610

  35,641

  463,837

  Violence against the Person

  565

  273

  607

  911

  2,843

  313

  6,497

  900

  12,909

  Burglary

  3,871

  1,171

  4,972

  6,576

  14,209

  1,727

  57,051

  7,328

  96,905

  Theft

  9,071

  3,135

  10,254

  17,374

  37,476

  5,389

  112,561

  15,379

  210,639

  Fraud and Forgery

  1605

  524

  1,566

  2,109

  8,122

  1,143

  13,112

  2,389

  30,570

  Criminal Damage

  4,180

  1,600

  4,585

  8,203

  10,581

  2,127

  40,831

  6,782

  78,889

  Notes:—The categories listed above have been derived from the categories of the Scottish crime classification as follows:

  'Violence against the Person': all non-sexual crimes of violence (Group 1 of the standard classification) apart from robbery, those crimes of indecency (Group 2) which contain a violent element, and certain crimes involving malicious and reckless conduct

  . 'Burglary': housebreaking.

  'Theft': opening lockfast places and clandestine removal in addition to theft per se.

  'Fraud and Forgery': fraud, forgery and uttering, bankruptcy and currency offences.

  'Criminal Damage': fire-raising, vandalism and other crimes of malicious and reckless conduct not involving violence against the person.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has as to how the current produce of domestic rates in Scotland and in each of the regions in Scotland might be raised through community charge or local income tax with and without resource equalisation in the cases of (a) a single person on 125 per cent. of an average male manual worker's wage, (b) a married man with earnings as in (a), whose wife's earnings are the average for women in full-time employment, (c) a married man with earnings as in (a), whose wife's earnings are the average for women in part-time
  466
  Development Agency for each of the last five years, the name of each company and the value of each contract awarded; whether the contract was awarded on the basis of tenders in each case; and if he will give the reasons in those cases where tenders were not invited.

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 8 April, what is his practice with regard to causing replies to be sent on his behalf by his Private Secretary to official letters addressed to him as Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My private secretary operates in accordance with my instructions. These ensure that I have the opportunity to see and approve the replies to correspondents which he sends on my behalf.

  Criminal Statistics
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, following the publication of the crime figures for Scotland 1986, he will list in respect of each police force area in Scotland in 1986 the total number of (a) offences notified to the police, (b) offences of violence against the person, (c) burglaries, (d) thefts, (e) offences of fraud and forgery and (f) offences of criminal damage.

  Mr. Lang
  The table sets out the requested figures on crimes recorded by the police, using the best available approximations in the Scottish crime classification to the categories listed in the question.

  employment, (d) a married man with earnings as in (a), whose wife has no income, (e) a married couple with earnings as in (b), living with a son or daughter aged over 18 years whose earnings are the average for full-time workers in the 18–24 year age group, (f) a married couple with earnings as in (b), living with a son or daughter aged 18–24 years who is unemployed, (g) a single person on 100 per cent. of an average male non-manual worker's wage and (h) a married man with earnings as in (g), whose wife's earnings are the average for women in full-time employment.

  Mr. Ancram
  The estimated average local tax bills under the community charge system and under a local
  467
  income tax system with and without resource equalisation needed to replace domestic rates in 1985–86, are as follows for the specific cases requested.

  (a) A single person on 125 per cent. of average earnings for a full-time male adult manual worker in Scotland

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income tax (£)

  Unequalised local income lax (£)

  Borders

  158

  364

  262

  Central

  187

  432

  542

  Dumfries and Galloway)

  155

  356

  330

  Fife

  210

  491

  364

  Grampian

  157

  364

  262

  Highland

  153

  356

  271

  Lothian

  225

  525

  635

  Strathclyde

  229

  533

  559

  Tayside

  194

  449

  550

  Scotland

  207

  483

  474

  (b) A married man with earnings as in (a), whose wife's earnings are the Scottish average for adult women in full-lime employment

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income tax (£)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Borders

  316

  482

  347

  Central

  374

  572

  717

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  471

  437

  Fife

  420

  650

  482

  Grampian

  314

  482

  347

  Highland

  306

  471

  359

  Lothian

  450

  695

  840

  Strathclyde

  458

  706

  740

  Tayside

  388

  594

  728

  Scotland

  414

  639

  628

  (c) A married man with earnings as in (a) whose wife's earnings are the average for adult women in part-lime employment

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income lax !£)

  Unequalised local income lax (£)

  Borders

  316

  330

  238

  Central

  374

  392

  492

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  323

  300

  Fife

  420

  445

  330

  Grampian

  314

  330

  238

  Highland

  306

  323

  246

  Lothian

  450

  476

  576

  Strathclyde

  458

  484

  507

  Tayside

  388

  407

  499

  Scotland

  414

  438

  430

  (d) A married man with earnings as in (a) whose wife has no income

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income lax (£)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Borders

  316

  310

  224

  Central

  374

  368

  462

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  303

  281

  Fife

  420

  419

  310

  Grampian

  314

  310

  224

  Highland

  306

  303

  231

  Lothian

  450

  447

  541

  Strathclyde

  458

  455

  476

  Tayside

  388

  383

  469

  468

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income tax (£)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Scotland

  414

  411

  404

  (e) A married couple with earnings as in (b) living with a son or daughter aged over 18 whose earnings are the average for full-time workers in the 18–24 year age group

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income tax (£)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Borders

  474

  647

  466

  Central

  561

  767

  963

  Dumfries and Galloway

  465

  632

  587

  Fife

  630

  873

  647

  Grampian

  471

  647

  466

  Highland

  459

  632

  482

  Lothian

  675

  933

  1,129

  Strathclyde

  687

  948

  993

  Tayside

  582

  798

  978

  Scotland

  621

  858

  843

  (f) A married couple with earnings as in (b), living with a son or daughter aged 18–24 who is unemployed

  Area

  Community charge (rebated) (£)

  Equalised local income tax (£)

  Unequalised local income lax (£)

  Borders

  429

  482

  347

  Central

  488

  572

  717

  Dumfries and Galloway

  422

  471

  437

  Fife

  543

  650

  482

  Grampian

  430

  482

  347

  Highland

  419

  471

  359

  Lothian

  574

  695

  840

  Strathclyde

  584

  706

  740

  Tayside

  507

  594

  728

  Scotland

  536

  639

  628

  (g) A single person on 100 per cent. of average earnings for a full-time male adult non-manual worker in Scotland

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income lax £)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Borders

  158

  406

  293

  Central

  187

  482

  604

  Dumfries and Galloway

  155

  397

  368

  Fife

  210

  548

  406

  Grampian

  157

  406

  293

  Highland

  153

  397

  302

  Lothian

  225

  585

  708

  Strathclyde

  229

  595

  623

  Tayside

  194

  500

  614

  Scotland

  207

  538

  529

  (h) A married man with earnings as in (g), whose wife's earnings are the average for women in full-time employment

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income lax (£)

  Unequalised local income tax (£)

  Borders

  316

  524

  378

  Central

  374

  621

  800

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  512

  475

  Fife

  420

  706

  524

  469

  Area

  Community charge (£)

  Equalised local income lax (£)

  Unequalised local income lax (£)

  Grampian

  314

  524

  378

  Highland

  306

  512

  390

  Lothian

  450

  755

  914

  Stralhclyde

  458

  767

  804

  Tayside

  388

  646

  792

  Scotland

  414

  694

  682

  Notes:

  (1) The average community charges for 1985–86 used in the tables were published in the Official Report on 20 February 1986.

  (2) The underlying local income tax rates (with resource equalisation) have been estimated on the assumption that some form of resource equalisation would make the yield of 1p in the £ the same per adult in all areas.

  (3) Published information on taxable resources in local authority areas is only available up to 1982–83. The sample size is small and the regional pattern shows considerable variation from year to year. Estimates of local income tax rates without resource equalisation are therefore subject to some uncertainty. Those in the table have been produced by applying the pattern of unequalised tax rates calculated for 1982–83 to 1985–86 average earnings.

  (4) Estimates of average gross earnings have been taken from the 1985 New Earnings Survey. The average figures for Scotland have been used in each case with the exception of average earnings for the 18–24 year age group, where only GB figures were readily available.

  (5) In applying local income tax rates to cases (a) to (h) it is assumed that earnings arc the only sources of income and that only

  Average Household Consumption by Income Group in Great Britain (oz/person/week)

  1975

  Income Group

  Al

  A2

  B

  C

  D

  El

  E2

  OAP

  Income levesl1

  £110 and over

  £82 and under £110

  £49 and under £82

  £28 and under £49

  less than £28

  £28 or more

  less than £28

  n.a.

  White bread (standard loaves)

  17·72

  21·67

  27–77

  30–68

  30·14

  22·93

  25·39

  25·40

  Brown bread (incl. wholemeal)

  4·98

  4·09

  2·89

  2·76

  2·79

  6·14

  5·38

  5·16

  Other bread

  4·80

  2·94

  3·42

  3·59

  4·91

  4·29

  3·87

  4·75

  Sugar

  6·38

  9·24

  10·55

  12·14

  12·09

  10·66

  13·23

  15·21

  Total fats

  10·49

  10·39

  10·79

  11·09

  11·94

  13·76

  11·46

  13·06

  Fresh fruit

  26·75

  22·87

  17·06

  14·45

  13·98

  30·77

  21·80

  19·61

  Fresh vegetables

  29·91

  24·81

  24·44

  23·69

  25·32

  35·35

  27·91

  31·98

  Potatoes (excl. processed)

  31·68

  40·74

  43·25

  47·67

  49·02

  40·05

  40·74

  39·56

  n.a. =Not applicable.

  1 Defined as the gross weekly income of the head of household. Income groups Al to D include households with an earner; El and E2 are income groups without an earner. OAP households are those in which at least three quarters of total income derived from National Insurance retirement or similar pensions and/or supplementary pensions or allowances paid in supplementation or instead of such pensions.

  1985

  Income Group

  A1

  A2

  B

  C

  D

  E1

  E2

  OAP

  Income levels1

  £395 and over

  £300 and under £395

  £165 and under £300

  £85 and under £165

  less than £85

  £85 or more

  less than £85

  n.a.

  White bread (standard loaves)

  10·73

  11·38

  16·17

  21·53

  27·61

  12·28

  22·96

  21·01

  Brown bread (incl. wholemeal)

  8·79

  7·97

  7·57

  6·52

  4·83

  12·44

  7·31

  9·89

  Other bread

  3·74

  4·41

  4·45

  4·39

  3·80

  4·79

  4·08

  4·04

  Sugar

  5·40

  6·06

  6·50

  8·52

  9·76

  9·64

  10·42

  14·34

  Total fats

  8·92

  8·68

  9·07

  10·13

  9·47

  12·29

  11·72

  13·51

  Fresh fruit

  29·41

  23·69

  19·63

  16·01

  11·28

  32·89

  16·50

  21·59

  Fresh vegetablcs

  32·73

  26·30

  25·43

  23·52

  20·96

  35·05

  26·59

  31·49

  Potatoes (excl. processed)

  24·90

  30·11

  36·26

  42·70

  54·66

  38·99

  47·92

  42·78

  470
  personal tax allowances apply.

  (6) In case (f) it has been assumed that the unemployed son or daughter will be in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Food Consumption
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on food consumption in Scotland by income group at the latest date and 10 years previously for the following foods: (a) white bread, (b) brown bread (including wholemeal), (c) sugar, (d) total fats, (e) fresh fruit, (f) fresh vegetables and (g) potatoes.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data are not readily available in the precise form requested by the National Food Survey provides the following information:

  Average Household Consumption in Scotland (ozs/person/week)

  1975

  1985

  White bread (standard loaves)

  30·36

  19·34

  Brown bread (incl. wholemeal)

  2·23

  6·04

  Other bread

  5·99

  6·65

  Sugar

  10·72

  8·04

  Total fats

  10·00

  9·01

  Fresh fruit

  14·85

  16·02

  Fresh vegetables

  18·38

  18·63

  Potatoes (excl. processed)

  45·7

  39·45

  471
  n.a.= Not applicable.

  1Defined as the gross weekly income of the head of household. Income groups A1 to D include households with an earner; E1 and E2 are income groups without an earner. OAP households are those in which at least three quarters of total income derived from National Insurance retirement or similar pensions and/or supplementary pensions or allowances paid in supplementation or instead of such pensions.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary schools with fewer than three teachers there are in each of Scotland's regions and island areas and if he will give a breakdown of figures to show the number in each district.

  Mr. John MacKay
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 April 1987,c.563]: The numbers of education authority primary schools in each region and island area in which less than three full-time equivalent teachers were employed in 1984 are as follows. Education statistics are not collated at district level.

  Number

  Borders

  36

  Central

  22

  Dumfries and Galloway

  47

  Fife

  23

  Grampian

  82

  Highland

  113

  Lothian

  18

  Strathclyde

  96

  Tayside

  61

  Orkney

  10

  Shetland

  19

  Western Isles

  36

  Reckless Driving (Deaths)
  Mr. Milian
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Table 1: School expenditure on text and library books—at out-turn prices

  (£'000)

  Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  Borders

  66

  94

  1,397

  130

  163

  76

  208

  242

  Central

  209

  279

  316

  365

  21,166

  21,343

  21,367

  21,572

  Dumfries and Galloway

  155

  168

  170

  166

  189

  193

  209

  222

  Fife

  319

  363

  360

  452

  403

  1,239

  509

  506

  Grampian

  394

  1,575

  1,667

  667

  716

  655

  708

  631

  Highland

  460

  203

  256

  790

  899

  21,507

  21,556

  21,325

  Lothian

  687

  703

  931

  798

  718

  739

  650

  750

  Strathclyde

  3,333

  3,304

  2,844

  3,346

  3,741

  3,151

  3,757

  3,153

  Tayside

  219

  234

  248

  277

  291

  331

  369

  423

  Orkney

  87

  78

  65

  55

  36

  39

  33

  35

  Shetland

  26

  33

  38

  53

  66

  178

  169

  54

  Western Isles

  142

  59

  76

  223

  182

  101

  65

  78

  1 Provisional.

  2 These figures include expenditure on other educational tools and equipment as well as on text and library books.

  Table 2: School expenditure on text and library books—at November 1978 prices

  (£'000)

  Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  Borders

  66

  82

  1,031

  83

  92

  36

  87

  91

  Central

  209

  242

  233

  232

  2655

  2628

  2574

  2588

  Dumfries and Galloway

  155

  146

  125

  106

  106

  90

  88

  83

  472
  Mr. Rilkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c.53]: The available information is given in the table.

  Information on persons charged is not collected centrally.

  Persons proceeded against

  Scotland

  Causing death by reckless driving

  Culpable homicide as a result of a road traffic death

  1977

  59

  n/a

  1978

  51

  n/a

  1979

  38

  n/a

  1980

  47

  n/a

  1981

  35

  2

  1982

  31

  0

  1983

  31

  0

  1984

  22

  0

  1985

  31

  0

  1986 (provisional)

  33

  0

  n/a = Not available.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by each local education authority in Scotland on the purchase of text books in each year since 1978–79 in terms of (a) current prices and (b) 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. John MacKay
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987] : The information available is given in the following tables, which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. There have been some variations in the basis of recording of expenditure under the heading of text and library books, both between authorities and from year to year. In addition to those cases specifically noted in the table, there may be other cases where the figures given also include other equipment as well as text and library books.
  473

  Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  Fife

  319

  315

  266

  288

  226

  580

  214

  189

  Grampian

  394

  1,367

  1,230

  425

  402

  306

  297

  236

  Highland

  460

  176

  189

  503

  505

  2705

  2653

  2496

  Lothian

  687

  610

  687

  508

  403

  346

  273

  281

  Strathclyde

  3,333

  2,868

  2,099

  2,131

  2,102

  1,474

  1,577

  1,180

  Tayside

  219

  203

  183

  176

  163

  155

  155

  158

  Orkney

  87

  68

  48

  35

  20

  18

  14

  13

  Shetland

  26

  29

  28

  34

  37

  83

  71

  20

  Western Isles

  142

  51

  56

  142

  102

  47

  27

  29

  1 Provisional.

  2Thcse figures include expenditure on other educational tools and equipment as well as on text and library books.

  Scottish Association of Interpreters for the Deaf
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each of the last five years the total grant paid by central Government under section 9 and section 10, respectively, of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or under any other heading to the Scottish Association of Intepreters for the Deaf.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: Grants are payable by my right hon. and learned Friend under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for training and under section 10(1) for other purposes. The association has not hitherto requested any payments of grant under section 9 of the Act. Annual payments of grant under section 10(1) during the period in question have been as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  nil

  1983–84

  nil

  1984–85

  2,604

  1985–86

  5,585

  1986–87

  8,571

  Deaf People (Interpreters)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified interpreters for the deaf there are in Scotland; and how many of these hold the Certificate in Communication with the Deaf as a result of attendance at the course run at Moray House college of education.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: Information of this kind is not held centrally, but my Department has ascertained that there are 16 interpreters on a register maintained by the Scottish Association of Interpreters for the Deaf, 10 of whom qualified through the Moray House course, and that there are 14 trainees currently working towards assessment.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Mains (Bursts)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the volume of water lost through burst mains each year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible for individual water undertakers to identify water losses resulting from mains bursts, and therefore no national estimate can be made.

  Anti-fouling Paint Regulations
  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce the date for publication of anti-fouling paint regulations; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am currently considering the comments received during the formal consultation on the draft regulations published in the London, Belfast and Edinburgh Gazettes on 13 March. I shall make a further announcement shortly.

  Government Buildings (Lift Maintenance)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons are currently employed by the Property Services Agency on lift maintenance.

  Mr. Chope
  126.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will place the contract for the maintenance of lifts in Government buildings in London with a private sector company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Lifts in most Government buildings throughout the United Kingdom, including many in London, are already maintained by contract with private sector companies.

  The policy of the Property Services Agency is to continue to use contractors for this work whilst making economic use of existing direct employees.

  Financial Detriment Compensation
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the report from the London and Metropolitan Staff Commission on financial detriment compensation for Greater London council and metropolitan council staff.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 16 March 1987 at column 404.

  "Paying for Local Government"
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consideration of the responses to the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government"; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Boyson
  My right hon. Friend announced, on 15 December, that the Government intend to introduce legislation no later than the first session of the next
  475
  Parliament to implement the main Green Paper proposals. A number of detailed issues remain to be resolved, and decisions on these will be taken in due course, in the light of the responses to the Green Paper and other representations that have been made.

  Kidbrooke Training Centre, Rochester Way
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the Kidbrooke training centre at Rochester way, S.E.3, was closed; and what use has been made of the site and building by the Property Services Agency since then;

  (2) what proposals are under consideration by the Property Services Agency for the site of the former Kidbrooke training centre at Rochester way, S.E.3.

  Mr. Chope
  The former MSC training centre on part of this Ministry of Defence site was closed in 1982. Plans were considered for meeting the requirements of both Inland Revenue and DHSS for computer centres here and on another vacant part of the site. In the event these did not proceed. With its potential development value in mind occupants of other buildings on the site have been moved elsewhere with a view to its disposal as a whole. The MOD intend to move their remaining operation from the site, and the PSA have appointed agents with a view to its early marketing and disposal.

  Royal Arsenal Gatehouse, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the restoration of the Royal Arsenal Gatehouse at Woolwich; and what reply he has given.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Brixton
  Mr. Shelton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the degree of dereliction, unemployment and poor housing in Brixton in the London borough of Lambeth, he will consider the setting up of an urban development corporation for that area.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have noted with great interest my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Planning Control
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of his consultations on regulations excluding minor forms of development from planning control.

  Mr. Tracey
  I take it my hon. Friend is referring to the consultation on a draft revised text of class I of schedule I to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order. This class defines development which is permitted within the curtilage of a dwelling house. We published the draft text on 5 January and invited commeints by 2 March. We have now placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the responses from those individuals and organisations who agreed to our doing so. We are at present considering all the responses and are not yet ready to make any announcement.

  Control of Advertisement Regulations
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to announce his conclusions on the recommendations of his Department's working party set up to review the operation of the control of advertisement regulations in general, and in respect of estate agents' boards in particular.

  Mr. Tracey
  We are considering what action we should now take in the light of the responses to the consulation paper.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics on the causes of river pollution are available to him, with particular reference to instances of oil and chemical pollution, either from static storage facilities or from road transport accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  While total numbers of reported water pollution incidents in each water authority area are published annually, no detailed analysis by type of incident is available on an industry-wide basis. Such information can only be obtained from individual water authorities.

  The Department is currently discussing with the industry how this sort of information might be made more readily available.

  Rates
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority the projected opening and closing rate fund balances which appeared in their rate estimates for 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed the information available, in the House of Commons Library.

  Courts Centre (Newcastle)
  Mr. Merchant
  asked the Secretarty of State for the Environment when he expects work on the construction of the new courts centre at Newcastle Quayside to start.

  Mr. Chope
  I have now authorised the Property Services Agency to invite tenders for the contract for the construction of a new major courts centre at Newcastle Quayside for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The building will provide 10 Crown courts, three county courts, together with associated accommodation. The construction is expected to take about three years to complete and will provide welcome employment for a substantial number of building workers in the area.

  Advertising
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of his Department's advertising and promotional budget is spent in regional and local newspapers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  During the financial year 1986–87 my department, including the Property Services Agency, spent £1,980,900 on advertising and other forms of paid publicity (other than on recruitment, tendering and statutory notices). Expenditure in regional and local newspapers amounted to £3,000.

  Housing Defects
  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the funds available to local authorities to implement the provisions of the Housing Defects Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department is currently considering bids for additional resources from authorities which consider they will have particularly high expenditure on obligations under the housing defects legislation in 1987–88, in relation to the size of their capital programme. Decisions about additional allocations will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of local authorities deliberately delaying their implementation of the provisions of the Housing Defects Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  Local authorities are responsible for implementing the scheme of assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the housing defects legislation. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on particular cases; but we do look to all authorities to implement the Act in a reasonable fashion.

  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of contractors withdrawing from work on the reinstatement of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses.

  Mr. John Patten
  The National House Building Council is making very good progress with approved repair methods for various types of designated PRC properties and repair works are now getting under way in many parts of the country. We have no evidence of contractors wishing to withdraw from this work.

  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of protracted delays experienced by private owners of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in effecting reinstatement of their homes, he will review the implementation of the Housing Defects Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  Repairs arc now progressing in many parts of the country. Under the terms of the designations owners do still have over seven years in which to seek and obtain assistance; it can he helpful for authorities and owners to reach an understanding on a likely timetable for assistance. My Department is continuing to monitor progress but we have no current plans to amend the legislation.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will prepare estimates of the likely level of the community charge without safety nets in the metropolitan borough of Kirklees;

  (2) what will be the effect of the community tax on the average householder's payment in Kirklees.

  Dr. Boyson
  Figures were placed in the Library on 1 April illustrating the possible effect of our community charge and non-domestic rate proposals on all local authorities. I have today written to the hon. Member with details of the possible effects of our proposals in Kirklees.

  Housing
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken, and intends to take in the future, to maintain and improve the existing housing stock in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Public Sector Dwellings
  Mr. Lilley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the proportion of domestic dwellings owned by public sector authorities in other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries; and what is the figure for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) by how much gross county council expenditure has risen in Derbyshire, in real terms, between (a) 1980–81 and (b) 1981–82 and the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the average gross county council expenditure rises over the same period of time;

  (2) by how much current county council expenditure has risen in Derbyshire, in real terms, between (a) 1980-–81 and (b) 1981–82 and the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the average current county council expenditure rises over the same period of time.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: The available information, based on returns received from local authorities, is as follows :

  Percentage change in real1 terms

  Net current expenditure2

  1981–82 to 1986–87

  Derbyshire County Council

  15·9

  Average for Shire County Councils

  8·1

  Gross expenditure3

  1981–82 to 1985–86

  Derbyshire County Council

  6·6

  Average for Shire County Councils

  -0·6

  1 Using GDP deflator to convert cash values to constant prices.

  2 "Net current expenditure" represents Rate Fund Revenue Account spending on services, ie excluding debt charges and other on current items, net of income such as sales fees and charges and non-relevant specific grants but gross of rate income, Rate Support Grant and Relevant Specific and Supplementary Grants.

  3"Gross expenditure" represents Rate Fund Revenue Account gross spending on employees, other running expenses, debt charges and Revenue Contributions to Capital Outlay.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Purity
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent steps taken to improve the purity of food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is already a range of legislation regulating the safety and quality of food. Regulations are kept under review so that appropriate initiatives can be taken in response to new developments.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Austin
  Mitchell asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the results of radionuclide level tests between 1980 and 1986 in Cumbria have been published by his Department; and in which publications they appear.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Results of tests carried out for radionuclide levels in the aquatic environment for all parts of the country in the years 1980 to 1985 inclusive were published in annual reports entitled "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Results for 1986 will be published later this year in the same way. An additional report was also published last year describing the results of the Department's monitoring for Chernobyl fallout in the aquatic environment in the months immediately following the Chernobyl accident.

  Results of the tests carried out in the agricultural and terrestrial environment in Cumbria were not in the past published on a regular basis. Some results are contained in a scientific paper entitled "Radioactivity in Environmental Samples Taken in the Sellafield and Ravenglass areas of West Cumbria 1977–1982 (Bradford, Curtis and Popplewell)" which was published in "Science of the Total Environment (1984) volume 35 pp 267–283.

  Results for 1986 will, however, be published later this year in the first annual report of this Department's expanded programme of testing in the agricultural and terrestrial environment in the vicinity of major nuclear sites in England and Wales which commenced on 1 January 1986. Results of testing undertaken in May to December 1986 following the Chernobyl accident were published in "Radionuclide Levels in Food, Animals and Agricultural Products: Post-Chernobyle Monitoring in England and Wales", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional staff his Department is making available to support the advisory committee on salmon stocks.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The staff of the branch which provides the secretary to the committee has been strengthened by two additional posts and we are recruiting additional scientific staff at the fisheries laboratory to assist in the examination of subjects of concern to the committee.

  Hungarian Frozen French-Fried Potatoes
  Mr. Freud
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the import of Hungarian frozen French-fried potatoes; what steps he has taken to assess the quality of such products; and if he will make a statement on future agricultural imports from Eastern bloc countries.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There were no such imports in recent years. Imports from Hungary are subject to a quantitative restriction which is under review in the context of a possible EC/Hungary agreement on trade and commercial and economic co-operation.

  Bovine Somatotropine Hormone
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning testing of the bovine somatotropine hormone on cattle in Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received representations from two organisations in Yorkshire against the use of bovine somatotropine. Current field trials are authorised under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to whether milk produced by cattle being treated with the bovine somatotropine hormone is being delivered to creameries; and what research or monitoring is being done to the side effects of the consumption of such milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Trials on cattle using this substance are being carried out under the authority of animal test certificates issued under the Medicines Act 1968. Had there been any doubts about the safety to consumers the certificates would not have been issued and the trials could not take place.

  There is no requirement that milk from cows involved in the trials should be treated differently to that from other cattle either in the United Kingdom or, so far as I can ascertain, in any of the other countries where trials are being conducted.

  Forestry
  Sir Richard Body
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state, for each country in the European Economic Community, the percentage of its land surface that is afforested.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of total land surface afforested (including unproductive woodland)

  Country

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  9

  Belgium

  20

  Luxembourg

  32

  Denmark

  11

  France

  28

  West Germany

  30

  Greece

  45

  Republic of Ireland

  6

  Italy

  27

  Netherlands

  10

  Spain

  25

  Portugal

  35

  Vineyards
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are currently available for the establishment of English vineyards and ancillary purposes in the light of his alternative land use policy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: Grants are currently available for certain works in vineyards under the agriculture improvement scheme. As my right hon. Friend announced on 9 February, he intends to introduce new grants to assist farm diversification, including on-farm processing of agricultural products. A consultative document will be issued shortly, which I shall send to my hon. Friend.
  481
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider making grants available for the establishment of English vineyards for (a) the purchase of vines, (b) their support, (c) trellising, (d) wiring and (e) windbreaks.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: The growing of grapes is among the activities for which grants are available, subject to eligibility, under the agricultural improvement scheme. The scheme makes specific provision for grants towards the cost of stakes and wireworks and for certain types of shelter screens. Grants are not, however, available for the purchase of vines.

  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that only English-produced sugar and not rectified concentrated grape must from Italy is permitted to be added to the fermentation process of English wine until such time as enrichment is necessary or permitted.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: The Community wine regulations provide for the addition of sugar, concentrated grape must or rectified concentrated grape must in the process of wine fermentation. While enrichment using sugar is the normal practice among English wine producers there is no reason why they should be prevented from using the approved alternatives and it would be contrary to Community law were the United Kingdom seek to limit their choice in the way suggested.

  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to resist any attempts to impose rectified concentrated grape must in the production of English wine until such time as enrichment is necessary and permitted.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987] : Under article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 822/87, the European Commission is committed to studying the possibilities for enriching wine with sugar, or concentrated grape must, whether or not rectified. This study and its conclusions are due to be reported to the Council in 1990, although it is possible that the Council may decide in the context of this year's price fixing proposals that the date should be brought forward. When the study is completed, I shall consider in consultation with all the interests concerned any recommendations it may make for changes to Community law, including a recommendation, should there be one, to require the use of rectified concentrated grape must for enrichment.

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his policy regarding the manifestation of phylloxera in English vineyards;

  (2) if he will abandon his policy of attempted eradication of phylloxera in English vineyards.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: We have reviewed policy in relation to phylloxera. We have decided that we should not require the compulsory grubbing-up of infested vines. Where a vineyard is infested, we shall impose statutory restrictions which will not permit vines to be moved from the premises. In addition, access to infected areas of vineyards will he restricted, although care will be taken to allow tourist
  482
  access to continue to the greatest possible extent consistent with plant health safety. When vineyard owners do grub up vines from infested vineyards, the Ministry will monitor the operation and, if the pest is found, will require the land to he kept clear of vines for 12 months, after which replanting with certified resistant grafted rootstock will be permitted. These measures are designed to cause the minimum disruption of the normal activities of vineyards consistent with minimising the risk of spread of the disease. The plant health and seeds inspectorate will continue to monitor and inspect imports of vines. Phylloxera remains a notifiable disease.

  The technical advice is that the best defence against phylloxera is the use of vines on resistant grafted rootstocks. Growers can protect themselves by using such vines when re-planting.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  AIDS
  Mr. Alexander
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what extra resources have been allocated to Trent regional health authority in 1987–88 to help to deal with AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  At the end of March 1987, the Trent region had 12 reported AIDS patients, of whom six had died. No additional funds have been allocated to the Trent regional health authority specifically for the treatment and care of patients with HIV infection and AIDS. It has however received an increase of 6·3 per cent. in its allocation of the resources available for spending on hospital and community health services in 1987–88, which is above the national average increase in regional health authority allocations; and we have provided £44,000 in 1987–88 for the haemophilia reference centre located in the Trent region which is specifically to assist in the provision of AIDS counselling facilities for haemophiliacs.

  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest figures for AIDS carriers and deaths in the United Kingdom with the causes or sources available.

  Mr. Fowler
  The first quarterly report which I have published today, together with the regular monthly update, provides the information which my hon. Friend has requested. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report does three things:
  First, it gives a breakdown of reported cases of AIDS by patient characteristics (table A) and by region from which the report is made (table B).
  Second, it provides the first of a series of quarterly breakdowns of people who are infected but who have not yet developed the disease. These are broken down by patient characteristics for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (table C) and for Scotland (table D) and by English regions, Wales and Northern Ireland (table E).
  Third, it explains how the information is collected and checked.
  I believe that it is important that we provide regular full and prompt information about AIDS so that the public know what the position really is. It is equally important that the information is as accurate as we can make it. That is why the computer records have been rigorously

  483
  rechecked and duplicate records removed. The apparent low increase in the monthly AIDS figures is explained by this. Thirty-one new cases were in fact reported in March.

  We must continue to take all possible action to prevent the spread of AIDS. The public education campaign will continue and one of the next campaigns will be directed at drug misuse and the sharing of equipment.

  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost to each health board, of the increased staff required in order to carry out testing for the AIDS virus; and if these costs are included in the Government's stated expenditure on AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on staff costs which health authorities incur on HIV testing is not available centrally and has not been included in the Government's stated expenditure on AIDS. Many of these tests are dealt with by laboratories of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). It is estimated that PHLS spent £0·75 million on work connected with HIV tests in 1986/87. Part of this will have been for staff, but I regret that we do not have a breakdown between staff and other costs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he intends to introduce further screening for the AIDS-related virus HTLV 1; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) whether his Department is monitoring the number of people in Britain with the aids-related virus HTLV 1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what figures he has for the number of people carrying the HTLV 1 virus;

  (2) what plans he has to test blood supplies for the HTLV 1 virus;

  (3) what plans he has to combat the spread of the HTLV 1 virus; what facilities he is making available to screen people for the HTLV 1 virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c.71–72]: Although the HTLV 1 virus is thought to belong to the same family as the AIDS virus, HIV, it does not cause AIDS.

  Research studies carried out to date suggest that the virus is not prevalent in this country. There are at present, therefore, no plans to introduce measures for routine screening of individuals or blood donations for this virus. However, appropriate measures would be considered should further research show that they were needed.

  NHS (Hospital and Community Services)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to answer the question on National Health Service hospital and community services from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to which he gave holding replies on 27 February, Official Report, column 449, and on 23 March, Official Report, column 82.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member today.
  484
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will provide figures for the change in real expenditure on National Health Service hospital and community health services for each year between the earliest year after 1974 and the most recent year for which comparable figures are available as measured using (a) the gross domestic product deflator and (b) the National Health Service pay and price deflator, by Greater London district health authorities in total, and by Inner London district health authorities in total;

  (2) when he will answer the question on National Health Service hospital and community services from the honourable Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to which the Minister for Health the hon. Member for Braintree, gave a holding reply on 27 February, Official Report, column 449.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his replies, 27 February 1987, c. 449 and 23 March 1987 c.827]: Since expenditure on hospital and community health services forms part of an overall health service policy which seeks also to build up family practitioner services in the community, the table shows gross expenditure in 1985–86 prices as measured by the gross domestic product deflator, for:
  hospital and community health services, family practitioner services and community health and family practitioners services in Greater London between 1978–79 and 1985–86;
  hospital and community health services and hospital and community health and family practitioner services in Inner London between 1982–83 and 1985–86;
  family practitioner services in Inner London between 1978–79 and 1985–86.

  Comparable figures for hospital and community health services in Inner London prior to the 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service are not available. Information relating to Greater London prior to 1978–79 is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  It is inappropriate to revalue district health authority expenditure by reference to centrally assessed movements in NHS pay and prices as the composition of that expenditure can differ substantially from the national average.

  It is important to set the figures in the context of a London population which has been falling (there was a decrease of some 17 per cent. between 1971 and 1985) and the policy of redistributing resources to areas which historically have been deprived of services or have high population growth. However, the process of change can present transitional difficulties in those Health Regions receiving less than average growth. For that reason we have established a special fund of £15 million in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89 to provide appropriate transitional help. The Thames Regions and London Postgraduate SHAs have been allocated £12·9 million from the £15 million available for 1987–88. This means that Inner London health authorities collectively can expect real terms growth over financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88 of the order of 2 per cent.
  485

  Gross expenditure1 in 1985–86 prices as measured by the gross domestic product deflator (£000)

  Greater London

  Inner London

  Hospital and Community Health Services2

  Family Practitioner Services

  Hospital and Community Health Services and Family Practitioner Services

  Hospital and Community Health Services2

  Family Practitioner Services4

  Hospital and Community Health Services and Family Practitioner Services5

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  1,981,618

  391,645

  2,373,263

  3n.a.

  153,109

  n.a.

  1979–80

  1,995,687

  389,693

  2,385,380

  3n.a.

  153,303

  n.a.

  1980–81

  2,178,856

  406,154

  2,585,010

  3n.a.

  159,262

  n.a.

  1981–82

  2,209,495

  425,382

  2,634,877

  3n.a.

  167,572

  n.a.

  1982–83

  2,180,987

  451,141

  2,632,129

  1,221,102

  178,199

  1.399,301

  1983–84

  2,197,472

  454,667

  2,652,138

  1,240,221

  179,661

  1.419,882

  1984–85

  2,191,632

  481,043

  2,672,676

  1,231,395

  189,493

  1.420,888

  1985–86

  2,162,075

  482,598

  2,644,673

  1,211,235

  188,752

  1.399,987

  Percentage real terms growth 1978–79 to 1985–86

  9·1

  23·2

  11·4

  n.a.

  23·3

  n.a.

  1Figures are based on total gross expenditure (revenue and capital) from the summarised income and expenditure accounts of area, district and special health authorities and family practitioner committees.

  2Greater and Inner London have been defined as comprising the following health authorities:

  (i) Inner London health authorities:

  1982–83 to 1985–86

  Hammersmith and Fulham/Victoria}(Riverside in 1985–86)

  Paddington

  Hampstead Bloomsbury

  Islington

  City and Hackney

  Newham

  Tower Hamlets

  West Lambeth

  Camberwell

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Wandsworth

  Special Health Authorities for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  ii. Greater London health authorities

  1982–83 to 1985£86

  Inner London health authorities listed at 2(i) above

  Barnet

  Harrow

  Brent

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  Ealing

  Hillingdon

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Enfield

  Haringey Redbridge Waltham Forest

  Bexley

  Greenwich Bromley

  Croydon

  Kingston and Esher

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  Sutton and Merton

  1978–79 to 1981–82

  Barnet

  486

  Brent and Harrow

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Hillingdon

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Barking and Havering

  Camden and Islington

  City and East London

  Enfield and Haringey

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Greenwich and Bexley

  Bromley

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Croydon

  Kingston and Richmond

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Boards of Governors for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  3 Details of expenditure by district is not available centrally prior to 1982–83.

  4 Inner London FPC and DHA boundaries are not coterminous. It is not possible therefore to measure FPC expenditure within Inner London as defined at 2(i) above. The definition of Inner London used in this column comprises the following FPCs:

  Kensington, Chelsea and. Westminster

  Camden and Islington

  City and East London

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5Comprises the health authorities listed at 2(i) and the family practitioner committees listed at (4) above.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage change each year since 1979 in the number of National Health Service staff as follows (a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) professional and technical, (d) works, (e) maintenance, (f) administrative, (g) clerical, (h) ancillary and (i) ambulance personnel.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures are shown in the table.
  487

  NHS directly employed staff by main staff group: year-on-year percentage changes based on whole-time equivalent staff in post at 30 September each year

  England1

  Percentage change

  Medical and Dental2

  Nursing and Midwifery3 4

  Professional and Technical5

  Works

  Maintenance

  Administrative and Clerical6

  Ancillary5

  Ambulance (including officers)

  1979–80

  + 3·0

  + 3·2

  + 2·9

  + 5·8

  + 2·3

  + 2·4

  (7)

  + 3·7

  1980–81

  + 2·1

  + 5·9

  + 5·4

  +4·1

  + 2·2

  + 3·2

  + 0·1

  + 2·5

  1981–82

  + 1·1

  + 1·4

  + 3·1

  -1·3

  + 0·1

  (7)

  -1·0

  + 0·6

  1982–83

  + 1·9

  (7)

  + 2·2

  -2·1

  -1·0

  + 1·1

  -2·5

  + 0·4

  1983–84

  + 0·2

  + 0·1

  + 5·8

  + 0·7

  -3·0

  + 0·3

  -8·4

  -1·6

  1984–85

  + 1·6

  + 0·9

  + 2·3

  + 1·2

  -2·3

  + 0·7

  -8·4

  + 0·5

  1985–868

  + 0·6

  + 0·2

  + 2·4

  -3·9

  -3·2

  + 0·3

  -10·9

  + 5·0

  Source DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Includes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities and Family Practitioner Committee Staff on health authority payrolls.

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff in hospitals and community health services, hospital practitioners and part-time medical/dental officers (clinical assistants).

  3Includes agency staff.

  4Not adjusted for reduction in nurses' working hours in 1980 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  5On 1 April 1984 approximately 2,600 (wte) Operating Department Assistants were re-classified from the Ancillary to the Professional and Technical staff group. The figures had not been adjusted for this re-classification.

  6 There is no standard break-down of staff within the Administrative and Clerical staff group into separate "Administrative" and "Clerical" categories-these staff have therefore been shown as a single group.

  7 Less than 0·05 per cent.

  8Figures for 1986 are provisional.

  Senior Registrars (Upgrading)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 20 February, if he will estimate the additional cost of upgrading 500 currently employed senior registrars at the top of their incremental scale to consultant grade, starting at the bottom of their incremental scale.

  Mr. Newton
  The bottom of the consultant salary scale is currently £23,500. The top of the senior registrar scale is £16,750 but on average senior registrars will receive an additional £5,528 as payment for units of medical time. The additional basic salary cost of upgrading a senior registrar at the top of the scale would thus be some £1,200 in the first year on average, increasing in subsequent years as the newly-appointed consultant ascends the consultant scale. Employer's contributions to superannuation and national insurance would increase this to about £1,400. The total net salary cost of upgrading 500 senior registrars would thus be some £700,000 in the first year.

  Ranking of Regions by percentage change in the number of patients on the in-patient waiting list between 1976 and 1986

  Health authority

  Numbers of patients on in-patient waiting list

  In-patient cases treated

  September 1976

  September 1986

  Change between 1976 and 1986

  Change between 1975 and 1985

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  North Western

  66,893

  61,143

  -5,750

  -8·6

  164,147

  36·2

  South Western

  44,389

  43,686

  -703

  -1·6

  94,122

  30·0

  Mersey

  30,221

  30,126

  -95

  -0·3

  63,255

  23·6

  North West Thames1

  43,421

  43,710

  289

  0·7

  36,142

  9·4

  Oxford

  31,606

  33,249

  1,643

  5·2

  64,221

  27·5

  Northern

  34,364

  36,880

  2,516

  7·3

  86,159

  24·8

  West Midlands

  72,536

  79,261

  6,725

  9·3

  165,946

  33·2

  South West Thames1

  30,295

  36,073

  5,778

  19·1

  48,077

  16·2

  Trent

  50,885

  60,842

  9,957

  19·6

  164,224

  39·7

  South East Thames

  45,797

  56,768

  10,971

  24·0

  97,004

  24·0

  East Anglian

  22,031

  27,860

  5,829

  26·5

  75,708

  43·4

  Wessex

  32,591

  42,726

  10,135

  31·1

  89,720

  33·5

  Yorkshire

  34,689

  46,597

  11,908

  34·3

  113,910

  28·2

  North East Thames1

  41,077

  74,926

  33,849

  82·4

  104,463

  23·9

  488
  There could however be wider consequential cost implications of a considerable order, but for which there is at present no basis for a precise estimate. A reduction in senior registrar numbers alone would not be sufficient to solve the underlying problems of hospital medical staffing; and as I pointed out in my earlier reply, however, the changes in the hospital staffing structure proposed in "Achieving a Balance" do not envisage converting senior registrar to consultant posts on anything like this scale.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Arnold asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, in numerical order, the 10 regional health authorities which have achieved the greatest percentage reduction in (a) general in-patient waiting lists and (b) general in-patient waiting lists over the last 10 years.
  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table.
  489

  Health authority

  Numbers of patients on in-patient waiting list

  In-patient cases treated

  September 1976

  September 1986

  Change between 1976 and 1986

  Change between 1975 and 1985

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  SHA's1

  7,469

  8,054

  585

  7·8

  10,964

  13·7

  England

  588,264

  681,901

  93,637

  15·9

  1,378,062

  27·7

  1Figures for 1976 are not strictly comparable with those for 1986 because of NHS restructuring in 1982.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons on the hospital waiting list in Merseyside have been waiting for (a) more than six months, (b) more than a year and (c) more than two years; and if he will give comparable figures for each year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he seeks. The information available centrally is given in the table.

  Number of persons on in-patient waiting list as at 30 September, Merseyside District Health Authorities1

  Number of non-urgent cases on waiting list for more than a year

  Year

  Number

  1979

  6,552

  1980

  5,916

  1981

  5,446

  1982

  6,108

  1983

  5,735

  1984

  4,269

  1985

  3,362

  1986

  3,592

  1 Liverpool DHA, St. Helens and Knowsley DHA, Southport and Formby DHA, South Sefton DHA and Wirral DHA.

  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire on 19 December 1986, Official Report, column 787, if he will now make a further statement regarding the pilot scheme operated by the West Midlands regional health authority on computerised hospital waiting lists.

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list with national ranking by percentage change—NHS hospitals

  Change September 1982 to March 1986

  District/Special health authority

  September 1982

  March 1986

  Number

  Percentage

  Milton Keynes1

  6

  2,121

  2,115

  35,250·0

  Malton

  7

  319

  312

  4,457·1

  Islington

  1,098

  2,410

  1,312

  119·5

  West Essex

  2,555

  5,012

  2,457

  96·2

  Huntington

  471

  840

  369

  78·3

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  3,127

  5,173

  2,046

  65·4

  Airedale

  1,686

  2,649

  963

  57·1

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  5,335

  8,243

  2,908

  54·5

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,916

  4,414

  1,498

  51·4

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  1,456

  2,197

  741

  50·9

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,475

  2,219

  744

  50·4

  Bloomsbury

  9,632

  14,405

  4,773

  49·6

  Ealing

  1,489

  2,219

  730

  49·0

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  4,474

  6,640

  2,166

  48·4

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  2,313

  3,325

  1,012

  43·8

  Harrogate

  1,274

  1,799

  525

  41·2

  West Berkshire

  3,256

  4,593

  1,337

  41·1

  Isle of Wight

  1,349

  1,854

  505

  37·4

  Bexley

  1,123

  1,532

  409

  36·4

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  128

  173

  45

  35·2

  South West Surrey

  2,385

  3,210

  825

  34·6

  Waltham Forest

  3,271

  4,341

  1,070

  32·7

  City and Hackney

  4,586

  6,071

  1,485

  32·4

  490
  Mr. Newton
  The project is progressing. Selected groups of general practitioners are receiving monthly bulletins on waiting times for general surgery in the Region. Their referrals will be analysed to see whether information in this form affects decisions made about where best to refer patients. Groups of patients are being identified from amongst those referred by the selected general practitioners and they will be interviewed at various stages about their waiting experiences.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the numbers waiting for (a) hip joint and (b) knee joint operations.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. Waiting list information is held centrally by consultant department and not according to intended method of treatment.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each health authority the percentage rise or fall in the total hospital waiting list between September 1982 and March 1986, ordered so that the health authority with the biggest increase is first and that with the biggest decrease is last, giving the numbers waiting in each health authority at those two points.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 1987, c. 431–32]: The information requested is given in the table.
  491

  Change September 1982 to March 1986

  District/Special health authority

  September 1982

  March 1986

  Number

  Percentage

  West Suffolk

  2,027

  2,641

  614

  30·3

  Worcester and District

  2,651

  3,449

  798

  30·1

  Rochdale

  2,342

  3,033

  691

  29·5

  North West Surrey

  2,315

  2,989

  674

  29·1

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  3,708

  4,760

  1,052

  28·4

  East Surrey

  1,257

  1,601

  344

  27·4

  Hillingdon

  6,009

  7,648

  1,639

  27·3

  North East Essex

  3,510

  4,413

  903

  25·7

  Cheltenham

  1,782

  2,189

  407

  22·8

  Kidderminster and District

  1,070

  1,298

  228

  21·3

  East Dorset

  4,361

  5,290

  929

  21·3

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  2,167

  2,617

  450

  20·8

  South Cumbria

  1,152

  1,357

  205

  17·8

  Lancaster

  1,784

  2,100

  316

  17·7

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,288

  3,868

  580

  17·6

  Chorley and South Ribble

  651

  764

  113

  17·4

  South East Staffordshire

  2,026

  2,374

  348

  17·2

  Trafford

  1,301

  1,522

  221

  17·0

  Herefordshire

  2,272

  2,656

  384

  16·9

  Brent

  1,737

  2,010

  273

  15·7

  Barnet

  3,628

  4,186

  558

  15·4

  The National Heart and Chest Hospital

  1,073

  1,231

  158

  14·7

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1,688

  1,926

  238

  14·1

  Tower Hamlets

  6,003

  6,808

  805

  13·4

  West Dorset

  2,015

  2,264

  249

  12·4

  Greenwich

  2,362

  2,632

  270

  11·4

  Wolverhampton

  3,677

  4,094

  417

  11·3

  Bristol and Weston

  7,142

  7,944

  802

  11·2

  Mid Essex

  3,246

  3,610

  364

  11·2

  Leiestershire

  7,177

  7,962

  785

  10·9

  Canterbury and Thanet

  4,136

  4,588

  452

  10·9

  Paddington and North Kensington

  2,813

  3,111

  298

  10·6

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  4,117

  4,524

  407

  9·9

  Rotherham

  3,871

  4,213

  342

  8·8

  Swindon

  2,825

  3,063

  238

  8·4

  Mid Surrey

  2,150

  2,327

  177

  8·2

  Stockport

  4,430

  4,713

  283

  6·4

  Exeter

  4,436

  4,719

  283

  6·4

  West Lambeth

  6,038

  6,405

  367

  6·1

  South Birmingham

  6,878

  7,291

  413

  6·0

  South Warwickshire

  3,194

  3,366

  172

  5·4

  Eastbourne

  2,552

  2,685

  133

  5·2

  Hampstead

  1,979

  2,073

  94

  4·7

  Southern Derbyshire

  6,322

  6,507

  185

  2·9

  Basildon and Thurrock

  5,888

  6,044

  156

  2·6

  North Staffordshire

  8,862

  9,023

  161

  1·8

  Leeds Western

  4,330

  4,397

  67

  15

  Central Manchester

  5,358

  5,436

  78

  1·5

  Winchester

  2,309

  2,341

  32

  1·4

  Brighton

  3,863

  3,915

  52

  1·3

  Hastings

  2,547

  2,530

  -17

  -0· 7

  York

  2,710

  2,689

  -21

  -0·8

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  1,458

  1,446

  -12

  -0·8

  East Suffolk

  3,097

  3,071

  -26

  -0·8

  Somerset

  4,949

  4,904

  -45

  -0·9

  Maidstone

  2,190

  2,157

  -33

  -1·5

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,986

  1,956

  -30

  -1·5

  Bromley

  1,931

  1,900

  -31

  -1·6

  Northumberland

  1,896

  1,861

  -35

  -1·8

  Kettering

  2,848

  2,790

  -58

  -2·0

  Southend

  3,248

  3,177

  -71

  -2·2

  Redbridge

  1,719

  1,673

  -46

  -2·7

  Liverpool

  8,553

  8,321

  -232

  -2·7

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  3,698

  3,589

  -109

  -2·9

  Riverside

  5,888

  5,696

  -192

  -3·3

  Bradford

  6,663

  6,411

  -252

  -3·8

  Enfield

  3,068

  2,915

  -153

  -5·0

  The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  441

  417

  -24

  -5·4

  North Warwickshire

  1,944

  1,833

  -111

  -5·7

  Salisbury

  4,770

  4,489

  -281

  -5·9

  Hull

  7,050

  6,627

  -423

  -6·0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  9,080

  8,492

  -588

  -6·5

  Wigan

  4,677

  4,355

  -322

  -6·9

  Worthing

  3,756

  3,455

  -301

  -8·0

  Leeds Eastern

  6,169

  5,663

  -506

  -8·2

  492 493

  Change September 1982 to March 1986

  District/Special health authority

  September 1982

  March 1986

  Number

  Percentage

  North Hertfordshire

  3,155

  2,895

  -260

  -8·2

  Crewe

  5,128

  4,695

  -433

  -8·4

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6,831

  6,247

  -584

  -8·5

  South Bedfordshire

  2,382

  2,177

  -205

  -8·6

  Shropshire

  8,441

  7,696

  -745

  -8·8

  Wycombe

  1,134

  1,033

  -101

  -8·9

  East Cumbria

  3,323

  3,018

  -305

  -9·2

  East Berkshire

  8,244

  7,470

  -774

  -9·4

  Plymouth

  5,897

  5,281

  -616

  -10·4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5,238

  4,689

  -549

  -10·5

  Preston

  5,287

  4,725

  -562

  -10·6

  South Lincolnshire

  4,428

  3,948

  -480

  -10·8

  Warrington

  3,037

  2,672

  -365

  -12·0

  Gloucester

  4,959

  4,346

  -613

  -12·4

  North Devon

  1,558

  1,358

  -200

  -12·8

  Chichester

  2,786

  2,420

  -366

  -13·1

  Oldham

  5,071

  4,381

  -690

  -13·6

  Solihull

  2,278

  1,967

  -311

  -13·7

  Walsall

  3,324

  2,856

  -468

  -14·1

  Peterborough

  3,770

  3,239

  -531

  -14·1

  Harrow

  1,370

  1,176

  -194

  -14·2

  Mid Downs

  2,621

  2,233

  -388

  -14·8

  Merton and Sutton

  3,639

  3,098

  -541

  -14·9

  North Bedfordshire

  2,657

  2,255

  -402

  -15·1

  Pontefract

  2,569

  2,179

  -390

  -15·2

  Calderdale

  1,166

  986

  -180

  -15·4

  Bolton

  3,348

  2,828

  -520

  -15·5

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  4,194

  3,524

  -670

  -16·0

  Southport and Formby

  1,373

  1,145

  -228

  -16·6

  North Birmingham

  2,723

  2,267

  -456

  -16·7

  Oxfordshire

  7,003

  5,792

  -1,211

  -17·3

  Wandsworth

  3,239

  2,649

  -590

  -18·2

  West Lancashire

  2,433

  1,984

  -449

  -18·5

  Huddersfield

  3,308

  2,697

  -611

  -18·5

  West Birmingham

  4,269

  3,479

  -790

  -18·5

  Sandwell

  1,721

  1,399

  -322

  -18·7

  Sheffield

  14,678

  11,903

  -2,775

  -18·9

  Kingston and Esher

  3,194

  2,576

  -618

  -19·3

  Sunderland

  4,889

  3,890

  -999

  -20·4

  Tunbridge Wells

  6,220

  4,949

  -1,271

  -20·4

  Camberwell

  3,388

  2,681

  -707

  -20·9

  East Hertfordshire

  1,847

  1,456

  -391

  -21·2

  Dudley

  5,441

  4,244

  -1,197

  -22·0

  Cambridge

  6,708

  5,196

  -1,512

  -22·5

  Salford

  5,371

  4,156

  -1,215

  -22·6

  North Lincolnshire

  4,129

  3,158

  -971

  -23·5

  Hartlepool

  1,841

  1,405

  -436

  -23·7

  Northampton

  6,793

  5,164

  -1,629

  -24·0

  Croydon

  3,093

  2,350

  -743

  -24·0

  Central Nottinghamshire

  7,154

  5,425

  -1,729

  -24·2

  Doncaster

  6,132

  4,641

  -1,491

  -24·3

  Torbay

  2,368

  1,781

  -587

  -24·8

  Bury

  979

  735

  -244

  -24·9

  North Derbyshire

  3,511

  2,633

  -878

  -25·0

  Newcastle

  11,524

  8,632

  -2,892

  -25·1

  Southmead

  2,958

  2,214

  -744

  -25·2

  Nottingham

  10,988

  8,215

  -2,773

  -25·2

  South Manchester

  8,120

  6,012

  -2,108

  -26·0

  Scarborough

  2,200

  1,611

  -589

  -26·8

  East Birmingham

  4,600

  3,367

  -1,233

  -26·8

  West Cumbria

  1,870

  1,349

  -521

  -27·9

  Haringey

  1,708

  1,225

  -483

  -28·3

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,542

  2,540

  -1,002

  -28·3

  Wakefield

  3,216

  2,269

  -947

  -29·4

  Darlington

  3,140

  2,214

  -926

  -29·5

  North Tyneside

  1,721

  1,207

  -514

  -29·9

  Central Birmingham

  7,635

  5,346

  -2,289

  -30·0

  Mid Staffordshire

  2,440

  1,706

  -734

  -30·1

  Coventry

  8,759

  6,091

  -2,668

  -30·5

  Gateshead

  1,661

  1,155

  -506

  -30·5

  North West Hertfordshire

  2,697

  1,848

  -849

  -31·5

  Bassetlaw

  1,185

  809

  -376

  31·7

  Bath

  8,079

  5,449

  -2,630

  -32·6

  South East Kent

  3,946

  2,658

  -1,288

  -32·6

  Northallerton

  623

  419

  -204

  -32·7

  494 495

  Change September 1982 to March 1986

  District/Special health authority

  September 1982

  March 1986

  Number

  Percentage

  Wirral

  4,714

  3,138

  -1,576

  -33·4

  South Tyneside

  1,047

  682

  -365

  -34·9

  Medway

  3,273

  2,105

  -1,168

  -35·7

  Norwich

  10,980

  6,915

  -4,065

  -37·0

  Barnsley

  3,934

  2,463

  -1,471

  -37·4

  South West Durham

  803

  498

  -305

  -38·0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  3,294

  2,042

  -1,252

  -38·0

  Chester

  2,940

  1,805

  -1,135

  -38·6

  Rugby

  864

  528

  -336

  -38·9

  Frenchay

  5,855

  3,506

  -2,349

  -40·1

  South Tees

  10,319

  6,149

  -4,170

  -40·4

  Aylesbury Vale1

  6,450

  3,813

  -2,637

  -40·9

  North Manchester

  4,726

  2,753

  -1,973

  -41·7

  South Sefton

  6,332

  3,657

  -2,675

  -42·2

  East Yorkshire

  1,924

  1,108

  -816

  -42·4

  Tameside and Glossop

  2,866

  1,639

  -1,227

  -42·8

  Dewsbury

  1,181

  661

  -520

  -44·0

  Durham

  1,489

  820

  -669

  -44·9

  Grimsby

  2,355

  1,245

  -1,110

  -47·1

  Macclesfield

  2.302

  1,159

  -1,143

  -49·7

  Newham

  2,222

  1,117

  -1,105

  -49·7

  North West Durham

  1,325

  664

  -661

  -49·9

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  331

  164

  -167

  -50·5

  Scunthorpe

  4,609

  2,030

  -2,579

  -56·0

  North Tees

  1,958

  810

  -1,148

  -58·6

  1The waiting list for Milton Keynes was formerly held by Aylesbury Vale Health Authority but was taken over by Milton Keynes Health Authority in 1984 following the development of Milton Keynes General Hospital. The above table shows a comparable reduction in the Aylesbury Vale figures.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of a prepayment certificate for National Health Service prescriptions in June 1979; and what were the effective dates of subsequent increases and the new cost in each case.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Prescription prepayment certificates

  6 months £

  4 months £

  Annual £

  1 April 1971

  2·00

  —

  3·50

  16 July 1979

  4·50

  —

  8·00

  1 April 1980

  —

  4·50

  12·00

  1 December 1980

  —

  5·50

  15·00

  1 April 1982

  —

  7·00

  20·00

  1 April 1983

  —

  7·50

  21·50

  1 April 1984

  —

  8·50

  24·00

  1 April 1985

  —

  11·00

  30·50

  1 April 1986

  —

  12·00

  33·50

  1 April 1987

  —

  12·50

  35·00

  Personal Social Services (Cost)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing the costs of the personal social services in the United Kingdom in 1985–86, distinguishing between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and also distinguishing between the main categories of expenditure.

  Mr. Newton
  Levels of gross current expenditure on the personal social services in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for 1985–86 are shown in the table. Although returns have not yet been received from all English authorities in relation to 1985–86, sufficient data are available to enable provisional figures to be provided.
  496

  Gross current expenditure on personal social services in the United Kingdom 1985–86 (£ million)1

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Residential (children)

  300·1

  11·8

  28·0

  4·9

  Residential (other)

  993·2

  58·9

  99·3

  25·8

  Domiciliary support

  549·8

  34·7

  77·6

  19·5

  Day services and miscellaneous

  494·0

  25·2

  59·7

  34·0

  Field work

  446·2

  22·3

  82·2

  17·1

  Research and development

  9·8

  0·4

  2

  2

  Total

  2,793·1

  153·3

  346·8

  101·0

  1All figures provisional.

  2Expenditure on research and development not separately identified.

  Hospitals (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the longest period a patient has had to wait for treatment at St. Paul's eye hospital in Liverpool.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information required. Information on length of stay on the waiting list at individual hospitals is not available centrally. The hon. Member way wish to write to the chairman of the Liverpool health authority for the information he seeks.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 19 March Offical Report, column 625, if he will list in the Official Report the voluntary organisations, including pressure groups and charities and professional associations (a) who wrote to

  497
  him and (b) with whom he had meetings in connection with his determination of the membership of the Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Among the representations made to my right hon. Friend were those from the following voluntary and professional bodies:

  Association of District Medical Officers

  Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners Institute of Environmental Health Officers

  National Association of Health Authorities

  National Consultative Committee of Health Education Officers

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Society of Family Practitioner Committees

  South East Thames Health Promotion Consortium and Group

  No meetings were held with these organisations.

  North West RHA (Finance)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he now proposes to make any additional financial resources available to the North West regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Regional health authorities were notified of their cash limits for 1978–88 in January North Western regional health authority received a revenue increase of 5·6 per cent. In addition the region was allocated £1·2 million from the £15 million special fund we established to provide transitional help to those regions receiving less than average growth, bringing North Western Regional Health Authority's initial cash increase in 1978–88 to 5·7 per cent.

  Since January further allocations totalling £2·6 million have been made. The largest of these was from the £25 million waiting list fund from which North Western received £2·3 million.

  Nurses
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received against the proposal by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing and Midwifery to do away with enrolled nurses; and what consideration he is giving to the report.

  Mr. Newton
  I am not aware of any proposal to do away with enrolled nurses. However, we have received a number of representations expressing concern at the suggestion that enrolled nurse training should cease. This is one of a number of proposals on the future of nurse education and training put to Ministers by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. We are now consulting health authorities and others on these proposals.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will answer the question on numbers of National Health Service nurses from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to which he gave a holding reply on 24 February, Official Report, column 236.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Chief Scientist
  Mrs. Renee Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the terms and conditions of appointment, including salary, of the chief scientist to his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  Professor Francis O'Grady's appointment is on a part-time advisory basis and took effect from 1 September 1986. He remains Professor of Microbiology at the University of Nottingham, which is responsible for his salary and is reimbursed for the five sessions a week that he devotes to his duties as chief scientist. The appointment is for two years initially with the possibility of an extension.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently on hospital waiting lists in the Trent regional health authority area.

  Mr. Newton
  For the latest centrally available information I refer the hon. Member 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 Trent regional health authority.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the problem of sexually abused children has been reviewed within his Department since Childline started operating; and if any new initiatives have been undertaken, or approaches to local authorities made, as a result.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 8 April at columns 240–41.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1987–88 his estimate of the number of male and female employees expected to pay contributions at the 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. rates, together with the forecast amount of the employers' and the employees' contributions at each rate; and if he will divide the figures between those contracted in and those contracted out.

  Mr. Major
  The information is as follows:

  Estimated average number of contributors 1987–88 Great Britain

  Class 1 standard rate

  per cent.

  Men thousand

  Women thousand

  Total thousand

  Contracted out

  5

  —

  100

  100

  7

  100

  200

  300

  9

  6,200

  2,500

  8,700

  Not contracted out

  5

  300

  1,300

  1,600

  7

  400

  1,300

  1,700

  9

  4,400

  1,300

  5,700

  499

  Estimated full year contributions yields payable in 1987–88 Great Britain

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Class 1 standard rate

  per cent.

  Primary £ million

  Secondary £ million

  Primary £ million

  Secondary £ million

  Primary £ million

  Secondary £ million

  Total £ million

  Contracted out

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  50

  50

  50

  50

  100

  9

  5,100

  5,500

  1,550

  1,450

  6,650

  6,950

  13,600

  Not contracted out

  5

  50

  50

  150

  150

  200

  200

  400

  7

  150

  150

  350

  350

  500

  500

  1,000

  9

  3,900

  4,900

  1,000

  1,100

  4,900

  6,000

  10,900

  Notes:

  (1) In one or two entries the apparent nil yield from contributions is caused by rounding.

  (2) The secondary contributions paid at 9 per cent. includes secondary contributions paid at 10·45 per cent.

  (3) All estimates are based on the assumptions used in the Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1986 and the Social Security (Contributions Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1986 (Cm. 24).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply dated 25 March, Official Report, column 197, concerning reduced rate national insurance contributions, if he will provide figures for the gross and net contributions taking into account the figures supplied on the same date in reply to a question asking for an update of table 40.13 of "Social Security Statistics 1985," 25 March, Official Report, column 198.

  Mr. Major
  It is estimated that the abolition of the reduced rate paid by married women and widows would increase gross national insurance contribution revenue by £250 million during 1987–88. This would be offset by £50 million contracted out rebate on employees' contributions for those who are members of contracted-out superannuation schemes. The other information requested is as follows:

  Estimated average number of contributors paying the reduced rate for Married Women, 1987–88 Great Britain.

  Thousands

  Contracted Out

  400

  Not Contracted Out

  700

  Estimated full year contributions yields payable in respect of those paying the reduced rate for Married Women. Great Britain £ million 1987–88

  Primary

  Secondary

  Contracted Out

  100

  200

  Not Contracted Out

  100

  200

  Total

  200

  400

  All estimates are based on the assumptions used in the Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No 2) Order 1986 and the Social Security (Contributions Re-rating) (No 2) Order 1986 (Cm 24).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring up to date for the year 1987–88 the information given in his answer of 10 December, Official Report, column 204, to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby concerning the distribution of incomes and national insurance contributions, adding (a) the saving on the abolition of the reduced rate contribution, and (b) the numbers contracted-in and contracted out together with their contributions.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c.195–96]: The information on the distribution of incomes is as follows:
  500

  Estimated number of total earned incomes received by persons aged less than 65 by range of income: 1987–88 (Thousands). (United Kingdom).

  Range of Total Earned Income (Lower Limit)

  Single Persons

  Married Couples with-out wife's Earned Income

  Married Couples with wife's Earned Income

  £3,000

  767

  67

  51

  £4,000

  794

  106

  51

  £5,000

  981

  165

  57

  £6,000

  841

  187

  65

  £7,000

  794

  210

  101

  £8,000

  642

  289

  137

  £9,000

  521

  301

  203

  £10,000

  746

  698

  559

  £12,000

  453

  760

  1,009

  £15,000

  251

  488

  1,358

  £20,000

  130

  315

  1,121

  Total

  6,919

  3,588

  4,711

  Note: The sum of the components does not necessarily equal the totals because of rounding.

  It is estimated that during 1987–88 £14·1 billion will be due from employers and £12·5 billion will be due from employees in respect of Class 1 National Insurance contributions, taking account of the lower contribution rates for those in contracted-out employment. If the upper earnings limit were abolished for employees' Class 1 National Insurance contributions in 1987–88, but retained for the contracted-out rebate, then the full year contributions yield would rise by £0·9 billion.

  Assuming that during 1987–88 single persons paid 5 per cent. of earnings above £2,000 and married couples paid 4 per cent. of earnings over £5,000 and that other changes to the contributions system were as described in the hon. Member's earlier questions, then the gross yield from employees' contributions would be £5·3 billion. It is not possible to estimate the effect of the contracted-out rebate in these calculations and this figure therefore compares with an estimated notional gross yield during 1987–88 for primary Class 1 contributions under the existing rates structure of £14·1 billion.

  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on 25 March 1987 at columns 197–98 for the information on the saving resulting from the abolition of the reduced rate contribution for certain married women and the numbers of contributors who are contracted in and out, and their contributions. Information on the number of married

  501
  women optants who are in contracted-out and not contracted employments, and their contributions, is presented in my other reply to him today.

  All estimates are based on the assumptions used in the Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Uprating (No. 2) Order 1986 and the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1986 (Cm 24).

  Benefits
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he had made concerning representations by CIPFA on the proposed housing benefit reorganisation.

  Mr. LyelI
  None. CIPFA has made representations on the draft housing benefit regulations and on aspects of future subsidy arrangements for the new scheme. The Secretary of State is required formally to consult only the local authority associations but we have welcomed the many comments and suggestions received informally from CIPFA and other organisations. We are considering them carefully in the context of finalising the details of the new scheme.

  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what groups within the 1979 family expenditure survey were used to calculate the average expenditure on food, referred to in clause 1736 of the "Guidelines for Supplementary Benefit Officers and Procedural Instructions — Supplementary Benefits" (S Manual) in the calculation of the extra costs of special diets.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 23 March at columns 77–78.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposed to lay regulations for the 1988 housing benefit reforms.

  Mr. Major
  I shall be writing to the local authority associations shortly.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons previously registering as unemployed and claiming unemployment or supplementary benefit have, in the last 12 months been transferred to sickness benefit claims.

  Mr. Lyell
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 April 1987]: The information is not available in the form requested. The latest year for which figures are available is the year ending 30 March 1985. There were 236,000 spells of sickness starting in that year for which sickness benefit was claimed by people who had previously been unemployed.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions have been held with voluntary organisations concerning the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  On 1 April I met members of the Steering Committee set up by the major voluntary organisations representing disabled people to monitor implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. We discussed a number of 502
  issues relating to the implementation of the Act. Members of the steering committee suggested that voluntary organisations could make a valuable contribution to further consideration of these issues, and asked that they should be given an opportunity to do so. I undertook to consider what they had said, and to write to them as soon as possible suggesting a framework for involving voluntary organisation where appropriate in future work on the implementation of the Act.

  Mrs. S. E. Parker
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will investigate the reason why the Cannock Chase district council is not carrying out calculations to ascertain whether Mrs. S. E. Parker of 56 Park View Terrace, Rugeley, Staffordshire, is entitled to housing benefit supplement to enable his Department's Cannock office to ascertain her eligibility for exceptionally cold weather benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Entitlement to housing benefit supplement is first assessed by the relevant local authority who then refer the award to the supplementary benefit office for formal authorisation. The Department's Cannock office has now received and authorised an HBS award for Mrs. Parker and is therefore able to consider her claim for an exceptionally cold weather payment.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people have (a) a powered and (b) a non-powered wheelchair on loan from the Department of Health and Social Security at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  At 31 March 1987, 461,806 non-powered wheelchairs and 19,994 powered wheelchairs, were on issue through the Department's wheelchair service. These figures do not accord exactly with the number of people who have a wheelchair on loan because some patients have more than one chair. No central figures of actual patient numbers are available.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action has been taken by the North West Thames regional health authority to speed up hip replacement operations; what was the percentage increase in total hip replacements over the period 1980 to 1984; and how this compared with the national increase.

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

  Estimated number of operations for total hip replacement or other arthroplasty of hip, NHS hospitals

  Estimated number

  Percentage change 1980–84

  1980

  1984

  N W Thames Regional Health Authority

  1,770

  2,350

  + 32·8

  England

  33,420

  37,970

  + 13·6

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority for further information on its policy for hip replacement operations.

  North West Thames RHA (Finances)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans the North West Thames regional health authority has to invest more money into expanding services for the elderly, mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the very young; what financial allocation is being made to Hillingdon for 1987–88; and what was the comparable figure for 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority for details of the regional plans for future investment in the services listed, and the allocations to Hillingdon district health authority.

  Housing (Greater London)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will tabulate in the Official Report the number of dwellings at the disposal of each district health authority in the Greater London area for use by their staffs at the end of 1982 and 1986, respectively.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Family Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the average expenditures per week on food for the following supplementary benefit claimants as recorded by the family expenditure survey of 1979 (a) an adult, (b) a person 16 to 17 years old, (c) a child of 11 to 15 years old, and (d) a child under 11 years old.

  Mr. Major
  Data in the family expenditure surveys relate to expenditure by the household as a whole and cannot be allocated to individual members, for example dependent children. In the 1979 survey, the average recorded expenditure on food of one-adult households in receipt of supplementary benefit was £8·10. Sample data in respect of 16 to 17-year-old claimants living alone are insufficient to provide a reliable estimate.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report the cost of an average medical bed and, where appropriate, an average surgical bed, per year in (a) the West Middlesex community hospital, (b) the Ashford hospital, (c) Kingston hospital, (d) the Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, (e) the Teddington Memorial hospital and (f) St. Mary's hospital, Hampton.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not collected centrally in this form. The cost returns submitted by health authorities to the Department show average costs per in-patient day for each hospital but do not distinguish between different categories of beds within hospitals.

  In 1985–86 the average cost per in-patient day for the hospitals named was:

  £

  West Middlesex Community Hospital

  86·01

  Ashford Hospital

  77·15

  Kingston Hospital

  100·31

  504

  £

  Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton

  104·47

  Teddington Memorial Hospital

  47·81

  St. Mary's Hospital, Hampton

  46·38

  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which district health authorities in the South West Thames and in the North West Thames regions pay under contractual arrangements for beds for those patients who do not need either nursing or medical care in private or voluntary residential or nursing homes; approximately how many beds are so provided by each authority; and if, in the case of each authority, he will state the average cost.

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

  Maternity Payments
  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Cunninghame, South claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The Cunninghame, South constituency is covered by the Department's local office at Irvine although its boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The number of claims for maternity grant received at the Irvine local office during the 1986 calendar year was 1,451.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Cunninghame, South received maternity allowance in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested. But in the 12 months ending April 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,113 claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department's office in Irvine which covers the constituency although the boundaries are not conterminous.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are waiting for kidney dialysis treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. The treatment of individual patients is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctors concerned.

  Health Care (Inequalities)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement of his policy towards social inequalities in health and health care provision.

  Mr. Newton
  The overall health of the nation has improved steadily amongst all social groups, and the Government have made significant increases in the resources available to the Health Service.

  Unhealthy life-styles and unhealthy diets create major risks to health. The prevention of disease and the promotion of good health have always been primary

  505
  objectives of the Government's health policy. One of the Government's main aims in setting up the new Health Education Authority was to give a greater emphasis to disease prevention and health promotion. We are determined that all social groups, particularly the less well off, should have the information they need to protect their health. The first major campaign of the new authority, in conjunction with the Government, will be directed at coronary heart disease, which particularly affects people from lower socio-economic groups.

  The Government remain committed to the principle of allocating health authority resources more fairly across the country using the resource allocation working party's approach. Substantial progress has been made in bringing regions closer to their RAWP targets, and this year no region is more than 4 per cent. below its target. The current review of the RAWP formula is looking, amongst other things, at whether the formula needs to be adjusted to make it more sensitive to the impact of social deprivation. An initial report on the review, published in December, recommended a further programme of research and analysis including further study of measures of the need for health care. This research is now under way.

  Well Women Clinics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the closure of family planning clinics and well women clinics in north Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received eight representations from hon. Members, the North Hertfordshire community health council, and members of the public about the closure of family planning clinics and well women clinics in North Hertfordshire district health authority.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many patients can be treated in the thoracic medicine ward at Harefield hospital; what part this branch of medicine plays in the cardio-thoracic services provided by the hospital; and how many patients occupying beds in the ward are, on average, resident within the borough of Hillingdon.

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of Hillingdon district health authority for information about the thoracic medicine ward at Harefield hospital.

  Laurel Lodge Clinic, Hillingdon
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consult the North West Thames regional health authority concerning the resources allocated to Hillingdon district health authority for services provided by the Laurel Lodge Clinic. Harlington Road, Hillingdon; and if he will list the services provided and the degree of priority attached by the authorities concerned to their provision in the future.

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the Chairman of Hillingdon district health authority for details of services provided at this clinic and any plans for its future.

  Convalescent Care (Leeds)
  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that facilities for convalescent patients at the Grove hospital, Leeds are maintained; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of National Health Service convalescent care within the Leeds West health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The level and extent of provision of beds for convalescence is a matter for individual health authorities. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of Leeds western health authority about convalescent care in Leeds western district health authority in general, and specifically provision at the Grove hospital, Leeds. Any proposals to change the current level of provision would require full public consultation in the usual way.

  NHS (Convalescent Care)
  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the level of Government expenditure given to the National Health Service for convalescent care; and what percentage that is of total Government expenditure on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Provision for convalescent care is not separately identified in the cash allocations to regional health authorities. The level of funding within the overall resources available is decided by health authorities in the light of national policies and local needs.

  For 1985–86, the costing returns submitted by health authorities in England showed total current expenditure on hospitals categorised as pre-convalescent and convalescent as £5·5 million. Figures for expenditure on convalescent care in other hospitals or in the community are not collected centrally.

  Blindness and Partial Sight (Certificates)
  Mr. Galley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has taken any decision on the proposals to revise and simplify the form BD8 used for certifying blindness and partial sight.

  Mr. Major
  I am now able to announce the outcome of the Department's consultation exercise on the revision of the BD8 form. We have decided that the form should be revised along the lines originally proposed by the Department, that is restricted to a simple certificate of blindness/partial sight containing no clinical information. A separate anonymised epidemiological return will be made to central Government.

  In reaching this decision we are well aware of the concern of those responsible for follow-up and rehabilitation services for visually handicapped people—particularly social services departments — that they should not be deprived of information through lack of cooperation between the agencies concerned. Detailed inquiries made by the Department in several areas of the country have suggested that co-ordination between local agencies at the critical time when someone is certified as blind or partially sighted, is often not as close as it might be.

  In order to improve this situation, and to ensure that service providers receive adequate information, we have

  507
  decided to establish a working group at national level to consider the principles of collaboration and communication to be observed between the various agencies involved in the provision of rehabilitation services to visually handicapped people. The working group will be chaired by a senior official from the Department, and representatives from health, social services, voluntary and consumer interests will shortly be invited to take part.

  While the group will not be considering the content of the BD8 itself, its work will form the basis of guidance to accompany the revised form. The objective of this will be to encourage more effective co-operation between agencies over the way visual handicap is established and follow-up/ rehabilitation services are triggered off. The group will be asked to consider what the resource implications of their recommendations might be.

  The chairman will be asked to make his report within 6–9 months of the working group being set up. The current BD8 will be discontinued as soon as the working group's guidelines have been disseminated and the recommended procedures can be brought into effect.

  The effect of those changes should be to ensure that medical confidentiality is not breached, but that social services departments and other service providers are nevertheless able to obtain the specific information they need in order to provide their respective services in the most effective way.

  Family Planning and Pregnancy Counselling Projects
  Mr. Moynihan
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury of 25 July 1986, Official Report, column 742, which district health authorities he has selected to mount the proposed family planning and pregnancy counselling projects for young people under 25 years of age.

  Mr. Newton
  We have selected projects in City and Hackney, South Sefton and Milton Keynes district health authorities to be supported by central funding until the end of the financial year 1988–89. The projects will be evaluated by Isobel Allen of the Policy Studies Institute.

  Residential Care
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the joint central and local government working party on supplementary benefit and residential care.

  Mr. Lyell
  I have been informed that the working party now expects to complete its work by the end of May.

  Pensions (Investor Protection)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now announced the investor protection arrangements for occupational and personal pensions.

  Mr. Major
  I have published today a paper setting out our proposals for the investor protection arrangements that will apply to personal pensions and contracted out money purchase occupational pension schemes under the 508
  Social Security Act 1986. Copies are available in the Library. The paper is being given a wide circulation to interested parties, and comments are invited by 11 May.

  The investor protection proposals confirm that the Government intend to rely wherever practicable on the extensive investor protection regulatory framework provided by the Financial Services Act 1986. The marketing and selling of personal pensions will be subject to rules made under the Act, though separate arrangements are proposed for those types of pension scheme that do not fall within the scope of the Act. Administrative charges for personal pensions will not be controlled, at least for the time being, in the expectation that charges will stabilise at acceptable levels as a result of competition and disclosure.

  For completeness, the paper also sets out the Government's proposals on investment controls and disclosure of information. Draft regulations on these subjects have already been published for comment.

  In preparing the investor protection framework our aim has been to strike a balance between the need to safeguard scheme members' interests on the one hand and the necessity of ensuring that effective competition between pension providers is not hampered by overregulation. We believe the balance is right, and I am glad to acknowledge the invaluable assistance we have received from members of the group convened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advise us on these matters.

  SERPS (Rights)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he is making to inform people of the build-up of their rights in the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Mr. Major
  I am pleased to say that, as promised in our White Paper "Reform of Social Security", we have launched a new service which will provide people, on request, with a personal statement of the value of their additional pension rights built up in the state earnings-related pension scheme. The statement will also include, where possible, estimates of how much additional pension the person might expect to earn by state pension age if he or she continues earning and remains in SERPS. We hope that this information will be helpful to people who may be considering taking out a personal pension. Application forms for this new service are in leaflet NP38 which can be obtained from the Department's local offices.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was (a) the overall and (b) the per capita spending on health each year since 1979 in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France and West Germany; and what percentage of each country's gross domestic product the overall spending represented.

  Mr. Newton
  The tables give the available information in respect of both total health spending, including that undertaken privately, and of public expenditure on health.
  509

  a.i Total Health Expenditure (in current United Stales $ million GDP Purchasing Power Parities)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United States

  1979

  21,517

  36,561

  40,387

  215,052

  1980

  25,034

  41,659

  46,633

  248,013

  1981

  28,472

  47,638

  52,518

  285,828

  1982

  30,344

  54,026

  54,463

  322,329

  1983

  34,346

  56,977

  n/a

  355,400

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  a.ii Public Health Expenditure (in current United Stales $ million GDP Purchasing Power Parities)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United Stales

  1979

  19,281

  26,443

  32,691

  90,860

  1980

  22,470

  29,978

  37,762

  105,843

  1981

  25,476

  34,241

  42,400

  121,667

  1982

  26,820

  38,387

  43,904

  135,844

  1983

  30,374

  40,589

  n/a

  148,783

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: OECD "Measuring Health Care 1960–1983" Tables A.1, H.7

  b.i Per Capita Spending on health (in current United States $ GDP Purchasing Power Parities)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United States

  1979

  382·7

  683·7

  658·2

  955·6

  1980

  446·6

  775·6

  757·4

  1,089·0

  1981

  505·0

  882·8

  851·4

  1,242·6

  1982

  538·6

  996·4

  883·6

  1,387·5

  1983

  609·2

  1,046·6

  n/a

  1,515·6

  1984

  658·0

  1,145·0

  1,079·0

  1,637·0

  b.ii Per Capita Spending on Public Health (in current United States $ million GDP Purchasing Power Parities)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United States

  1979

  343·0

  494·5

  532·8

  403·7

  1980

  399·1

  558·1

  618·4

  464·8

  1981

  451·9

  634·5

  687·4

  528·9

  1982

  476·1

  708·0

  712·3

  584·8

  1983

  538·8

  745·6

  n/a

  634·5

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: OECD "Measuring Health Care 1960–1983" Tables A.1, H.1, H.7. "International Health Care Spending" George J. Schieber and Jean Pierre Poullier in Health Affairs 1986(4).

  c.i Ratio of total health expenditure to GDP

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United States

  1979

  5·3

  8·3

  7·8

  9·0

  1980

  5·8

  8·5

  8·1

  9·5

  1981

  6·1

  8·9

  8·3

  9·7

  1982

  5·9

  9·3

  8·2

  10·6

  1983

  6·2

  9·3

  n/a

  10·8

  1984

  5·9

  9·1

  8·1

  10·7

  c.ii Ratio of public health expenditure to GDP

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  United States

  1979

  4·7

  6·0

  6·3

  3·8

  1980

  5·2

  6·1

  6·5

  4·1

  1981

  5·4

  6·4

  6·7

  4·1

  1982

  5·2

  6·6

  6·6

  4·5

  1983

  5·5

  6·6

  n/a

  4·5

  1984

  5·2

  6·4

  6·3

  4·4

  Source: OECD "Measuring Health Care 1960–1983" Tables A.1, H.3. G. Schieber and Jean Pierre Poullier op. cit.

  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health, health expenditure per head of population, number of practising doctors per 100,000 of the population and hospital beds per 1,000 population for the United
  510
  Kingdom; and what information is available on comparable figures in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the EEC on average, the United States of America and Sweden.
  511
  Mr. Norris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the real growth in the United Kingdom in each year between 1978 and the latest year for which information is available of (a) total health spending per head and (b) public health spending per head; and what information he has about the equivalent figures for other member states in the European Economic Community and for Sweden and the United States of America.

  Ratio of public health expenditure to GDP 1983

  Ratio of total expenditure to GDP 1983

  Public health2 expenditure per capita USS 1983

  Total health2 expenditure per capita USS 1983

  Practising3 doctors per 100,000 population 1984

  Hospital beds per 1,000 population 1983

  Real growth of public-health spending per head 1978–83

  Real growth of total health spending per head 1978–83

  United Kingdom

  5·5

  6·2

  538·8

  609·2

  222

  77·5

  19·17

  21·29

  Belgium

  6·0

  6·5

  636·4

  689·6

  275

  19·5

  14·85

  7·46

  Denmark

  56

  6·6

  646·6

  765·3

  251

  7·4

  7·26

  7·62

  France

  6·6

  9·3

  745·6

  1,046·6

  226

  11·6

  19·22

  20·19

  Germany

  16·6

  18·2

  1712·3

  1883·6

  252

  1111

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Greece

  13·4

  4·7

  203·8

  256·9

  4253

  16·2

  18·71

  16·54

  Irish Republic

  7·5

  8·2

  507·5

  551·4

  126

  89·7

  24·15

  16·64

  Italy

  6·2

  7·4

  537·1

  641·0

  5397

  7·7

  10·2

  17·67

  Luxembourg3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  174

  130

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Netherlands

  6·9

  8·8

  709·1

  899·3

  215

  120

  10·72

  9·41

  Portugal

  3·9

  15·7

  174·3

  1248·0

  1220

  15·1

  9·86

  n.a.

  Spain

  4·4

  16·3

  1302·0

  1417·0

  6301

  45·4

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Sweden

  8·8

  9·6

  1,188·6

  1,298·9

  241

  140

  12·29

  12·28

  USA

  4·5

  10·8

  634·5

  1,515·6

  4194

  45·9

  22·04

  22·65

  11982.

  2 Measured in 1983 current GDP purchasing power parity rates.

  3Source: Number of physicians and dentists in the member states of the community statistical office of the European Communities 1986. For Portugal, Sweden and USA OECD report used. Definition of practising doctors is not standard between countries.

  4 1981.

  5 Including dentists.

  61983.

  7Source: DHSS statistics.

  81980.

  Source OECD Measuring Health Care 1960–83.

  Drugs and Medicines
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the conspicuousness of warning labels on those drugs which, when taken in combination with alcohol increase the risks of driving a motor vehicle.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 26 January 1987, c.927]: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is at present carrying out a long-term research study into this complex question of causal links between medication and road accidents in collaboration with the national poisons centre at New Cross hospital. When the results are available, the Government will consider whether they should propose amendments to the Medicines (Labelling) Regulations. At present these Regulations require explicit warnings not to drive or operate machinery, and to avoid alcohol, on the labels of those anti-histamine medicines which are obtainable without a doctors' prescription; for prescription medicines the data sheets advise doctors of the particular precautions, warnings, and contraindications, with a view to appropriate advice being given to the individual. Proposals to amend the Regulations would, under Section 129(6) of the Medicines Act, require consultations with those concerned, including the health professions and the pharmaceutical industry.
  512
  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 1987, c.302]: The table shows the information requested so far as this is readily available. International comparisons of this kind are affected by different definitions of what constitutes health care and the relative costs of health care. These differences and many others mean that precise comparisons cannot be made.

  The Government will, of course, continue to stress the risk to drivers of alcohol itself.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what new funds are being allocated for occupational therapists' training to overcome the current shortage in qualified people to fill all the funded posts;

  (2) how many funded positions for occupational therapists in the National Health Service and local authorities are at present vacant due to shortage of applicants.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 February 1987 c. 211]: The results of the most recent sample survey by health authorities suggest that nationally just under 13 per cent. of funded posts for occupational therapists were unfilled after three months at 31 March 1986. For information on numbers of vacancies in social service authorities I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 2 December 1986 at column 624.

  Pensions (Benefits)
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners, and what percentage have

  513
  (i) other state benefits than retirement pensions, (ii) occupational pensions, (iii) state earning related pensions and (iv) income from savings which is in each case (a) £0 to £5 per week, (b) £5 to £10 per week, (c) £10 to £20 per week, (d) £20 to £30 per week, (e) £30 to £40 per week, (f) £40 to £50 per week, (g) £50 to £60 per week, (h) £60 to £70 per week.(i) £70 to £80 per week, (j) £80 to £90 per week, (k) £90 to £100 per week and (l) more than £100 per week.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 259]: The available information is shown in the tables. In Table 1, information on receipt of benefit other than retirement pensions, on occupational pensions and on savings is derived from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1985. It relates to numbers of pensioner tax units, which may be either single pensioners or married couples where the husband is aged 65 or over. It is not possible to include supplementary pension in those figures.Table 2 expresses the information in Table 1 as a percentage of all pensioner tax units.Table 3 shows the numbers of pensioner households in receipt of supplementary pension who are also in receipt of basic retirement pension, by level of supplementary pension received. These figures are for December 1984. They exclude households in receipt of supplementary pension who did not receive basic retirement pension (about 105,000), but include widows over 60 who have chosen to retain widows' pension. It is not possible to express these figures accurately as a percentage of all pensioners because of differences in the dates for which statistics are available.Table 4 shows the numbers and percentages of individual pensioners receiving state earnings-related pension, at those levels for which information is available for September 1986. These figures are for net additional pension; they exclude guaranteed minimum pension, but include amounts of additional pension payable as a result of uprating to recipients of guaranteed minimum pensions.

  Table I

  Number of pensioner tax units in receipt of income from various sources, 1985

  Thousands

  Benefits other than state retirement pensions and supplementary benefit

  Occupational pensions

  Savings

  All income levels

  4,090

  3,440

  4,810

  Less than £5

  1,187

  468

  2,577

  £5-£10

  624

  597

  603

  £10-£20

  1,200

  766

  617

  £20-£30

  617

  387

  325

  £30-£40

  176

  217

  210

  £40-£50

  129

  190

  81

  £50-£60

  81

  122

  68

  £60-£70

  34

  102

  68

  £70-£80

  14

  108

  47

  £80-£90

  14

  108

  34

  £90-£100

  7

  81

  20

  Over £100

  —

  285

  163

  Source Family Expenditure Survey 1985.
  514

  Table 2

  Proportion of Pensioner Tax Units in Receipt of Income from Various Sources 1985

  Per cent.

  Benefits other than state retirement pension and supplementary benefit

  Occupational pensions

  Savings

  All income levels

  60·3

  50·7

  70·9

  £

  Less than 5

  17·5

  6·9

  38·0

  5–10

  9·2

  8·8

  8·9

  10–20

  17·7

  11·3

  9·1

  20–30

  9·1

  5·7

  4·8

  30–40

  2·6

  3·2

  31

  40–50

  1·9

  2·8

  1·2

  50–60

  1·2

  1·8

  1·0

  60–70

  0·5

  15

  1·0

  70–80

  0·2

  1·6

  0·7

  80–90

  0·2

  1·6

  0·5

  90–100

  0·1

  1·2

  0·3

  Over 100

  —

  4·2

  2·4

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1985

  Table 3

  Pensioners receiving supplementary pension in addition to basic retirement pension (numbers of claimants ), December 1984

  Thousands

  All income levels

  1,578

  £

  Less than 5

  1,127

  5–10

  264

  10–20

  92

  20–30

  33

  30–40

  13

  40–50

  5

  50–60

  4

  60–70

  7

  70–80

  6

  80–90

  6

  90–100

  4

  Over 100

  17

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry, December 1984

  Table 4

  Number and proportion of pensioners in receipt of state earnings-related pension, September 1986

  Number of pensioners in receipt of state earnings-related pension (Thousands)

  Percentage of all pensioners in receipt of state earnings related pension 1

  All income levels

  1,799

  18·5

  £

  Less than 4·99

  1,543

  15·9

  5–7·99

  145

  1·5

  Over 8

  110

  15

  Source: Retirement Pension Biannual Enquiry

  1Expressed as a percentage of all pensioners, excluding those with graduated pension only.

  Medicines
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to foster competition between drug manufacturing companies in the provision of medicines; and if he will make a statement.
  515
  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c.657]: The Department encourages price competition in the supply of generic medicines to the National Health Service. For patented, branded medicines, to which normal market price competition does not generally apply, we operate a scheme to regulate the maximum level of profit which individual companies can achieve overall from supplying medicines to the National Health Service.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider whether the system of licensing and approving new improved drugs could be assisted by encouraging limited trials within the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c.657]: Most clinical trials conducted during the development of a new medicine already take place in the National Health Service. The extent of such trials must depend upon the nature of the information about the use of the medicine in patients that is required. Clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968 and European legislation and are expected to take account of guidelines issued by the United Kingdom licensing authority and the European Community. The licensing authority, advised by expert scientific committees, must consider the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicine before licensing a medicinal product.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consult with doctors on whether further opportunities exist to reduce the number of drugs available on the limited list; if he will further consider the effects of such a reduction on patient care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 657]: The advisory committee on National Health Service drugs
  516
  gives advice on the medicines which should be available for prescription under the National Health Service in the seven therapeutic categories covered by the selected list scheme, and we have no plans for consulting on their advice.

  Health Education Council
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons who worked for the Health Education Council have resigned, or given notice of resignation, since Her Majesty's Government made clear their intention to abolish the Health Education Council; what positions they held; and what percentage they represent of staff at each occupational grade.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1987 c.306]: In the four months following the announcement to reconstitute the Council, 16 members of staff resigned. The resignations represented 25 per cent. of managerial, 16 per cent. of professional and 23 per cent. of support staff. The positions held were:

  Audio copy typists (2)

  Assistant director (Professional Development) Assistant secretary

  Clerk

  Executive assistant

  Film and broadcast officer

  Liaison assistant

  Liaison officer

  Personal assistants (3)

  Publication officers (2)

  Research officers (2)

  It should however be noted that resignations from the HEC staff, which averaged about one or two per quarter until the spring of 1986, rose sharply to 7 in the April-June 1986 quarter and 5 in the June-September 1986 quarter, and appeared to be maintained at a higher average level than formerly.